1. No they do not come right out and say QOC must be considered, but talk about quality of player in question and where each type of player will likely start a faceoff. Since the other team is playing against this player and poor players spend more time in their end(poor possession) give up more shots against and vice versa for good players, (which should be no surprise) and he feels this needs to be accounted for and adjust for this.
Yes, for second face-offs. But even after the adjustment, the author ultimately concludes that zone-starts aren't nearly as meaningful as believed.
It doesn't take a big leap to the tougher the competition you play, the more likely you will play in your end and give up more shots. The weaker the competition, the more time you spend with the puck in their end.
If all teams ever did was play their best players against the best competition, and their weak players against the worst competition, then yes, this would be a valid argument, and would disprove the notion that QoC is negligible in a large sample set.
They don't, though, and the articles I linked on the last page use shot metrics (the same thing you claim disproves it) to prove it. If that doesn't doesn't convince you, you can always look at the difference between Phaneuf's and Gardiner's competition (a point you conveniently ignored).
He is talking about quality of players making a difference. I know you will say small sample yes, but over a year it has little significance. Coaches deploy different styles of play, strategies etc which also affect these outcomes.
Of course quality of competition make a difference in the short-term, and of course sample size makes a difference. The fact of the matter is that, over the course of a year, QoC minimally impacts a players performance.
Nevermind when a team has a decent lead they are more likely to roll 4 lines more evenly to keep players fresh and are not as worried about line matches at this point, which will skew the results as well.
Yet, when we implore one to look at the aggregate numbers (every situation taken into consideration), quality of competition is not an important factor in analysis. Situational performance may be influenced by QoC, but the ultimate result is not.
2. My argument falls apart?...even the author says he is not sure how accurate his formula really is.
And...?
Your argument relies on the author's credibility, and for said author to be making an argument he's not making.
3.What does what you do and what they did in the second article have to do with what I was saying? Gardiner's usage is also very low, and why you bring him up I don't know, because I didn't.
The point wasn't solely directed at you. I was merely saying that if a player must be good at clearing the zone and the net when playing protecting a lead (I don't agree with that assessment just stating what you wrote), then Gardiner is either very good at those things, or they're not that important.
Also, Gardiner's usage is not 'very low'. It's very close to average, and over the past two seasons he's lead the Leafs in 'defending a lead' (5on5, Leading).
I brought up Gardiner because this is a Gardiner thread, and the original dialogue began with disputes about the effectiveness of Gardiner.
4. Yes Weber is put out to score as well. What does that have to do with me saying he is used more well defending and in tougher defending situations? I have no idea why you deflect to that.
I didn't deflect it. You claim that Weber's shot metrics suffer because he is defending the lead so much, but he spends more time trying to obtain it, so your argument is completely illogical.
5. And Schenn only spent 918 leading and Krug 849...200-300 less minutes than Weber, which was the point, not even accounting for game situations I was referring to. So what is it I need to try again on?
You claimed that Weber is 'out there more to defend'; he's not. He spends more time chasing the lead than defending it.
If you were attempting to claim that Weber spends more time than Schenn and Krug defending, then your argument was (a) poorly worded and (b) frivolous, since the graph made us all well aware of that fact. Also, and I'll ask you this for a second time, you do know that usage and traditional QoC are not the same thing, right?
6. We are talking small sample here though for QOC... I was referring to only while holding a lead and I also said situational like last minute of periods and games. So going back to over the course of a season is just another deflection away from situational play to try and prove QOC has little effect on results.
IT DOES HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON RESULTS!
You're using situational data to try and disprove the notion that QoC is negligible over the course of a season, but when you use the
entire data set for a season, QoC
is negligible. Even in defined score situations, where the gap between a player 'who plays tough competition' and a player 'who doesn't' is larger, the difference between a player who plays extremely difficult competition and the player who doesn't isn't
that large, and considering the entire data set
inherently takes these situations into consideration, you're argument is meaningless in the grand scheme.
7. Why even bring up Karlsson? He has nothing to do with Weber/Suter to Schenn/Krug.
Because he helps refute the notion that one must batter and bludgeon to be effective defensively.
8. What a shocker huh. Try and tell the Flyers, who would love to move Schenn he is being missed used and deserves more minutes, especially to hold a lead against top QOC. I wonder why they haven't listened to their own stats guys on this?
I'm not saying Schenn is good, or that he would succeed by playing more minutes in those situations, I'm simply saying that he deserves the opportunity, because he
has played well in the limited minutes he's been given (in those situations). I have no idea how well he'll perform with increased responsibility, nor do I care to guess.
I also have no idea how well Gardiner will perform in the future, just that he's performed well in the past.
9.Significantly more time with game tied huh. Weber 1311, Schenn 893, Krug 780. I will let you compare to leading and trailing minutes. Can you show me how tied is significantly more please.
The average team spent roughly 3828 minutes tied at even-strength over the last three seasons. In that same span of time, Pittsburgh, which led the league in 5on5, Leading TOI, spent 3905 minutes leading, and Boston (2nd in that category), spent 3863 minutes leading; those are the only two teams above the average for 5on5, Tied. Florida, Buffalo, Edmonton and Carolina are the only teams for 5on5, Trailing that are above the aforementioned average.
10. Can't prove a point where one doesn't exist? You mean like you saying they spend significantly more time playing tied?
No, more like claiming that QoC in a large data sample is meaningful.
11. Projection...is when someone says certain players deserve more time
Projecting would be claiming, statistically, how well that player will do in that situation. If I said that Schenn and Krug would perform
better than Suter or Weber given identical minutes/situations,
then I would be projecting.
Schenn and Krug have performed well in their limited time, and deserve the
opportunity to play more; that's all I'm saying. I have no idea how well they will perform.
in certain situations or are projected as certain quality because stats suggest they should or are. Should they play those minutes and excel, then fine, stats have proven to be right. But some use what they say stat will project as fact, like the second article or some on here.
No one is projecting anything in here. The statistics being presented are what
has happened, not what may or may not
eventually happen.
12. Statisticians are wrong on the outcomes often. Running every day was supposed to be good for you, now you will die earlier than the guy who doesn't exercise. Too much salt was bad, now we should eat more than before thought. All conclusions made by statistical research. The point is that even in hockey. all statisticians do not agree on best way to evaluate all stats. Like the first article where he says traditional way is not accurate, but also says not sure if his way is truly accurate. Stats can contradict often, so hard to use them as solid fact without discrepancy.
I already acknowledged that singular facts aren't necessarily an indication of a player's capabilities. That's why no one in this thread who has argued for Gardiner is using a single statistic in their analysis.
13 I was not talking about what they show as much as what peope will project from them. Like saying this guy would do just as well if given the opportunity, we cannot possibly know this. I am not sure why that point of view is so hard to understand.
It's not hard to understand, but it is a straw man.
14. My point was that stats contradict which you agree, You say you use many to determine a players value, but it is you who decides which ones to use which is my point that people use what they decide is pertinent to prove a point. I am sure you discard the ones you do not feel has as much value and draw your conclusions from what you feel is the right usage. For example, you believe the article you showed as the best way to analyze FO starts...someone else may disagree causing the two of you to have different opinions.
No, I use every available statistic. Sometimes I won't present them all in one post, but eventually I will. I've presented every metric I'm aware of at some point.
I also don't necessarily believe that is the best article on zone-starts, but it's hard to argue with the presence of 'on-the-fly' changes, since anyone who has played/watched hockey accepts their existence.
15. Because we choose which statistical data to use, is why I said it is subjective and so is an eye test which makes them similar in that way.
In that way, yes; I acknowledged that point. They're not similar in many other ways, however.
You try so hard to disprove anyone who says stats aren't the be all end all
I don't even think they're the be-all-end-all, and I certainly don't believe they're perfect. I do believe, however, they are currently the best option for plebeians like you and me.
because they cannot possibly account for everything in a team game that is coached differently by each team, played with different quality of players and moves extremely fast.
As I said, publicly available statistics don't do a great job (currently) of measuring the minutiae of the game. What they're very good at doing, however, is measuring the end result.
I don't know exactly
how Gardiner goes about preventing shots, scoring chances and goals (I could guess based on what I've seen, but I imagine I would be incorrect), but I know that he
does prevent these things.
I am not discounting stats, but they are hardly conclusive when every minute someone is coming out with a new way to evaluate the same thing.
They're building on past models, not discounting them (which is a good thing). There's also plenty of new data being made available.
Passing metrics were released this summer, and SportLogIQ is starting to gain traction: it's not all a regurgitation of past study.
You spend a lot of time on them and that is your right to believe all you read.
I don't believe all I read; I believe a very small fraction of what I read.
I just happen to read a lot.
It is mine to take it with a grain of salt and draw my own conclusions.
Sure it is, but that doesn't mean your conclusion will be right.
