Player Discussion Neal Pionk: Part II
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
SA16
Sixstring
Sorry but if your response is going to be "ice time" and posting a highlight videos of two different plays I am not going to bother wasting my time writing a response to it.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
He looks good. Can't really explain why he does and yet the results are what they are.
Despite clearly displaying some talent, his team is severely outshot, outchanced, and outscored when he's on the ice. It's not like this is just corsi. He's literally outscored nearly 2:1 5v5, no exaggeration.
SA16
Sixstring
Additionally if you have read my previous comments about him a couple of weeks ago you will know that I said that I think he has talent and is skilled and that a lot of his 5v5 issues can be solved by coaching. But it is inarguable to say that he has been awful at 5v5 play so far. He's not scoring there at all and the team is getting killed with him on the ice. Hopefully the coaches are able to pinpoint things he is doing wrong and correct them.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
He goes around the boards right into traffic way too much.
A kid who can handle the puck and skate at a high level shouldn't be playing like Brooks Orpik.
It’s funny, when Shatty had the — exact — same play and result early last season on the PP it was not fluke, he had an awesome start. But Shatty got sheltered minutes 5 on 5, that is the difference.
Wait usage don’t matter says a math professor from Vancouver with a stat site. The problem is that this guy is pretty unintelligent. In a hockey game quality of one team matters the exact same amount as the quality of the other team. So if quality of you and your team mate is X, it matters the exact same amount as the quality of the opponents, let’s say Y. It’s the same as two race cars racing, even if hockey is more complex it’s the same. The speed of both cars is equally important. The ability of both teams are equally important. Right?
The stats however say otherwise. Quality of teammates matter more than quality of opponents when you compile a seasons worth of numbers. And the stats of course never lies.
So what does that mean? It — must — be a zero sum game, we have already established that. It’s very simple logics that just cannot he disputed. So what is the explanation for the difference? Here comes the funny part that no one in the confirmation biased analytics community points out — despite it being extremely obvious — quality of opponents must of course matter much less for some and for others much more. Right? And why is that? It’s simple. If Sidney Crosby is on the ice for 50 seconds he is often only impacting the game even the slightest for maybe 20-30 seconds. He has zero impact when skating on and off the ice for a shift. Every game all players on the opposing teams — not matched against Crosby — will get clocked for 5 seconds here and 5 seconds there against Sid when he is skating on and off the ice for shifts, for shifts when Sid is caught on the ice after a long shift ends with Pittsburgh icing the puck, etc etc etc. And all those meaningless time more often goes to players he is not matched against and obviously de facto over compensates so much that it alone accounts for the entire difference between impact of quality of opponents vs quality of teammates (the ice time with your teammates is of course more consistent than against the opponents).
So for some players quality of opponents actually has a much larger impact than what this math professor in Vancouver thinks. All he has done is prove the opposite of what he think he has proven.
Wait usage don’t matter says a math professor from Vancouver with a stat site. The problem is that this guy is pretty unintelligent. In a hockey game quality of one team matters the exact same amount as the quality of the other team. So if quality of you and your team mate is X, it matters the exact same amount as the quality of the opponents, let’s say Y. It’s the same as two race cars racing, even if hockey is more complex it’s the same. The speed of both cars is equally important. The ability of both teams are equally important. Right?
The stats however say otherwise. Quality of teammates matter more than quality of opponents when you compile a seasons worth of numbers. And the stats of course never lies.
So what does that mean? It — must — be a zero sum game, we have already established that. It’s very simple logics that just cannot he disputed. So what is the explanation for the difference? Here comes the funny part that no one in the confirmation biased analytics community points out — despite it being extremely obvious — quality of opponents must of course matter much less for some and for others much more. Right? And why is that? It’s simple. If Sidney Crosby is on the ice for 50 seconds he is often only impacting the game even the slightest for maybe 20-30 seconds. He has zero impact when skating on and off the ice for a shift. Every game all players on the opposing teams — not matched against Crosby — will get clocked for 5 seconds here and 5 seconds there against Sid when he is skating on and off the ice for shifts, for shifts when Sid is caught on the ice after a long shift ends with Pittsburgh icing the puck, etc etc etc. And all those meaningless time more often goes to players he is not matched against and obviously de facto over compensates so much that it alone accounts for the entire difference between impact of quality of opponents vs quality of teammates (the ice time with your teammates is of course more consistent than against the opponents).
So for some players quality of opponents actually has a much larger impact than what this math professor in Vancouver thinks. All he has done is prove the opposite of what he think he has proven.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
It's not a fluke when Shattenkirk does it because Shattenkirk has a history of putting up way more PP p/60 than any other defenseman over the last 10 years.
SA16
Sixstring
Shattenkirk had 4 consecutive years of being an elite PP producer and 9 years of being a good one...why would it be a fluke that he got off to a good start on the PP? It's what he always does. Think before you post.
"And all those meaningless time de facto over compensates so much that it alone accounts for the entire difference between impact of quality of opponents vs quality of teammates (the ice time with your teammates is of course more consistent than against the opponents)."
Prove it. Let's see the data and math.
"And all those meaningless time de facto over compensates so much that it alone accounts for the entire difference between impact of quality of opponents vs quality of teammates (the ice time with your teammates is of course more consistent than against the opponents)."
Prove it. Let's see the data and math.
So Quinn de facto has no clue and is unaware of every single analytic out there? Same for AV? Same for Blashill?
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
It's also worth noting that Pionk isn't off to a "good" start on the PP. He's doing things on the PP that perhaps nobody has ever done over ~20 games. If that's sustainable, then he can suck defensively all he wants because he's Bobby Orr. I don't think it is.
I just did, and I know you didn’t read it and obviously it’s a bit too complicated for you to be honest.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
SA16
Sixstring
You posted no data, no math, and proved nothing. Go run some numbers and show that the first/last 5 seconds of each shift skew the data. To do this you will have to parse the PBP/shift data of every game. You will need to write a script that can do this. Then you will need to output data showing something like what a players CF% is with Crosby - excluding the first/last 5 seconds - versus how players do on shifts without him - again without the first/last 5 seconds. Good luck.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
I think the best way to describe it, is that Pionk plays very opportunistic and most of the time it results in giveaways but it works often enough that his production looks great and some people are willing to let his bad play in the own zone, slide.
Machinehead- Come on, cut the BS. Who ever said that Pionks scoring is sustainable? Chytils scoring the last 5 games aren’t sustainable either, you want to see me post a bunch of numbers taken out of context to prove that too?
His scoring is of course not sustainable. This team is flying high and he has been lucky to get the numbers he did. Hockey is a streaky sport.
I de facto rembember seing you post a ton of IDENTICAL numbers proving how Shatty was great early last season. Right? I just think that line of argument is plain dishonest.
His scoring is of course not sustainable. This team is flying high and he has been lucky to get the numbers he did. Hockey is a streaky sport.
I de facto rembember seing you post a ton of IDENTICAL numbers proving how Shatty was great early last season. Right? I just think that line of argument is plain dishonest.
Yeah I did but obviously it’s too complicated for you.
Please break out any part of my post and point out something that is NOT proven?
Does the quality of one of two teams in a hockey game matter more to the result? Of course not. If you get numbers showing something else — its also a fact that there MUST be an un even measurement. Like in the race cars example. The acceleration has a bigger impact early than top speed that comes later. If you only measure early in the race you might get the impression that the average speed of both cars matters differently.
SA16
Sixstring
Uh the part where your logic is "It's proven because I say it is so" and not "It's proven because I ran all the numbers and saw that on shifts with Crosby excluding the first/last 5 seconds players exhibited a 70 CF%. On shifts with Crosby in general players had a 65CF%. On shifts without him excluding the first/last 5 seconds these same players had a 60CF%. Clearly the first/last 5 seconds is therefore skewing the QoT data since his impact is not felt in that time period (or whatever...it's a random example).
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
It comes back to the same old points it always did with Girardi.
Some people see usage as context. Others see the results as context and usage as the result.
Personally, I'll take a player who dominates soft usage over a player who gets ripped apart by hard usage 11 times out of 10.
To get absolutely obliterated in tough minutes doesn't help your team at all. A monkey with a stick could do that.
Some people see usage as context. Others see the results as context and usage as the result.
Personally, I'll take a player who dominates soft usage over a player who gets ripped apart by hard usage 11 times out of 10.
To get absolutely obliterated in tough minutes doesn't help your team at all. A monkey with a stick could do that.
SA16 no this is obviously what is too complicated for you. I did never say something was the case because I said so. Never.
Two hockey teams play a game against each other. Can we agree on one fact: When the result is established the quality of both teams is equally important? Can we agree on this, not because I said so but because it’s simple logics. Or? Let me know if you think otherwise.
That is Fact 1.
Let’s move on to Fact 2.
When measuring the impact of quality on team A against quality on team B in a certain way (all 5 on 5 ice time during a season), the result is that on average quality of team A matters more for the players on team A than the quality of team B on the players that are on the ice at the same time as they. This is a fact — right? What everyone is saying and what is taken into account in many adjusted metrics.
So obviously here we got two things that don’t add up. And in this world we are living — there are no such thing as things don’t adding up.
And in a situation like this where you measure a period that indicates that it matters more how good team A is than team B (which is does, again the numbers does NOT lie) — there MUST be another period during which the quality of team B matters more than the quality of team A. There MUST be such a period SA, not because I say so but because it’s simple logic. If we also can agree on these tremendously simple facts we are making real progress.
The comes the third and final step, during which I take much more speculative conclusions, but due to the nature of them only can be concluded as very likely. We already know that of 60 minutes of ice time, quality of team A matters more than quality of team B at certain times, and at other times quality of team B matters more than quality of team A. Why on earth can this be? Let me know if you think otherwise, but come on, the fact that units in hockey change as a group but spread out over 5-10 seconds of course has a major impact. You hop onto the ice during a 5-10 second shift, plays together for 30, and hop off during a 5-10 second period. When a shift don’t start or end with a FO 10-20 seconds are ineffective and 30 seconds is quality ice time. The players that are matched against the top opponents will of course to a much larger degree face those opponents during the relevant 30 second period that matters the most, while a large part of the overlapping ice time ends up on the books of someone just hoping onto the ice at the same time the Crosby is skating off the ice etc etc etc.
It’s simple logics that in most areas just can’t be disputed and in some other areas can be discussed for sure. But it’s not even remotely me saying one thing motivating it with because I said so.
Two hockey teams play a game against each other. Can we agree on one fact: When the result is established the quality of both teams is equally important? Can we agree on this, not because I said so but because it’s simple logics. Or? Let me know if you think otherwise.
That is Fact 1.
Let’s move on to Fact 2.
When measuring the impact of quality on team A against quality on team B in a certain way (all 5 on 5 ice time during a season), the result is that on average quality of team A matters more for the players on team A than the quality of team B on the players that are on the ice at the same time as they. This is a fact — right? What everyone is saying and what is taken into account in many adjusted metrics.
So obviously here we got two things that don’t add up. And in this world we are living — there are no such thing as things don’t adding up.
And in a situation like this where you measure a period that indicates that it matters more how good team A is than team B (which is does, again the numbers does NOT lie) — there MUST be another period during which the quality of team B matters more than the quality of team A. There MUST be such a period SA, not because I say so but because it’s simple logic. If we also can agree on these tremendously simple facts we are making real progress.
The comes the third and final step, during which I take much more speculative conclusions, but due to the nature of them only can be concluded as very likely. We already know that of 60 minutes of ice time, quality of team A matters more than quality of team B at certain times, and at other times quality of team B matters more than quality of team A. Why on earth can this be? Let me know if you think otherwise, but come on, the fact that units in hockey change as a group but spread out over 5-10 seconds of course has a major impact. You hop onto the ice during a 5-10 second shift, plays together for 30, and hop off during a 5-10 second period. When a shift don’t start or end with a FO 10-20 seconds are ineffective and 30 seconds is quality ice time. The players that are matched against the top opponents will of course to a much larger degree face those opponents during the relevant 30 second period that matters the most, while a large part of the overlapping ice time ends up on the books of someone just hoping onto the ice at the same time the Crosby is skating off the ice etc etc etc.
It’s simple logics that in most areas just can’t be disputed and in some other areas can be discussed for sure. But it’s not even remotely me saying one thing motivating it with because I said so.
Last edited:
But you can speak to the effect that he is completely and utterly clueless — right? Because he by far playing Pionk the most 5 on 5, while Pionk according to you is record levels bad 5 on 5. Or? Let me know if I misunderstand but that is how I interpret it.
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
SA16
Sixstring
You don't get it. I am asking for you to prove your statement with objective data and not a wall of text.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
Pionk has been a revelation. Period.
He eats minutes, plays in all situations and is the darling of the coahing staff.
He’s game and he’s been pretty much bullet proof they the first 20 games.
He is NOT a top pair guy but he is right now on this team void of a true top pair.
He’s been very good overall even if his metrics 5v5 are weak.
He’s gonna break is tho. Soon he’s gonna break with all the minutes. He’s not a big guy and he’s gonna come up broken soon.
Quinn needs to be careful
He eats minutes, plays in all situations and is the darling of the coahing staff.
He’s game and he’s been pretty much bullet proof they the first 20 games.
He is NOT a top pair guy but he is right now on this team void of a true top pair.
He’s been very good overall even if his metrics 5v5 are weak.
He’s gonna break is tho. Soon he’s gonna break with all the minutes. He’s not a big guy and he’s gonna come up broken soon.
Quinn needs to be careful
Latest posts
-
GDT: Game 61: New York Rangers vs the other New York Team, 7pm ET, MSG- Latest: Megustaelhockey
-
GDT: 2024-25 season game 59 LA Kings vs Chicago Blackhawks @5:30pm 3/3/25- Latest: KingsHockey24
-
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 11Staked: $20,983.00Event closes - 6 days from now- Updated: