All I know is that about 3/4 into last season i saw a podcast showing advanced stats and suzuki was top 5 forward in quality of opposition. I really doubt that a center playing on a second line is close to that.Cherry picker or not he has the knack to find stats from websites while I struggle.
If you can provide accurate "quality of competition" and other defensive and miscellaneous stats please go ahead, I honestly want to know what they are. I'm not trying to "win".
NHL.com ranks top 20 centers
- Thread starter Deadly Dogma
- Start date
sadly everything is locked behind subscriptions these days
the only other way is to do the most evil thing in the world.
Math
Hischier played 40.1% of his ice time against elite competition, per PuckIQ
Suzuki played 42.6% of his ice time against elite competition, per PuckIQ.
Nick Suzuki definitely plays tough minutes, but pretending there is a meaningful difference in usage is delusional.
Nico Hischier is 100% better than Bedard right now.
Will Bedard surpass him as he develops? Almost certainly.
Was he better than Nico last year? f*** no
ZDH
Registered User
- Mar 6, 2008
- 9,180
- 4,363
overall rate scoring this year:
EV rate scoring this year
God nico is such a f***ing weapon EV. 12th in the league in EV scoring rate.
Nico scored at a better rate EV than Nick Suzuki did total including his 300 minutes on the power play
Let's take a look at the numbers since then:
Nico better individual production overall in 500 fewer minutes
Rate production isn't close
Even more lopsided Even strength
In terms of winning minutes it gets even more lopsided.
Nico much better at helping his team win the penalty battle, and much better in the dot.
I swear I've read this about 100 different guys right before their shooting% falls back to normal.
Moneypuck has a couple cool metrics called "shooting talent adjusted expected goals" and the associated "goals above shooting talent".
It uses a players career shooting metrics, and expected goals results, to see which players may be having a career year shooting wise, and who would be projected to fall off the next year.
Nick Suzuki had 9 goals above shooting talent, 12th highest in the league. This is a pretty strong indicator his shooting % will likely drop off pretty significantly next year.
I've made a post about this previously and how the 22-23 players who had very high goals above expectation numbers performed the following year. I will look to find it (edit: copied below)
Top 10 in Goals scored above shooting talent (moneypuck) from last year and their shooting% changes
McCann (19%--> 16.1%)
Kuzmenko (27.3%-->15.3%)
McDavid (18.2%-->11.7%)
Keller (16.6%--> 14.4%)
E Karlsson (12%--> 4.8%)
Cozens (14.7%--> 8.9%)
Stutzle (17.1%--> 9.7%)
Tage (15.9% --> 9.9%)
Kempe (16.4%-->10.3%
Tuch (16.5%-->11.7%)
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
A 23 years career shooting percentage is going to be below his perceived shooting talent.
This type of analysis is exactly why data should not be interpreted by non-scientists. It is a complicated thing to apply a rigorous method to statistics and, of course, it is not on a hockey forum that you will find the best people to interpret them. Data science is not for the faint of heart and people need to stop acting like they understand it, you clearly don't. Or if you do, you are dishonest with your applications.
I am very confident Nick suzuki will shoot less than 17.8% next year
(if you notice, Tage, Stutzle, Cozens, Keller were all young guys as well and still their shooting % dropped).
Are trying to tell me you think Nick Suzuki is a Leon Draisaitl/Auston Matthews/Brayden Point level shooter?
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
This is not how shooting percentage works.
Tage Thompson ran into injury troubles.
Clayton Keller dropped 2 points which is still way above his career average.
Stuzle was clearly due for a regression after a 40% increase on his previous career high.
And ditto for Cozens.
Suzuki had an increase of 30% overt his career average.
Suzuki's career average was 12.6% prior to this year.
An increase to 17.8% is a 40% increase. He was 5.2% above his career average.
If it makes you feel better as a fan then you go ahead and convince yourself this is sustainable. Just make sure you also agree that Cole Caufield shooting 5.2% below his previous career average is also sustainable and to be expected for next year.
(Hint: they'll both likely average out around 13.5ish%)
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Why do you see Suzuki regressing from his career average ? Have you taken a look at the amount of shots he takes ? You understand how percentages work, right?
Also 40% increase on your career average and 40% increase on your previous career high are two very different things.
Stutzle had a career average of 11.8%, then shot 17.1% that year. It was a 44.9% net increase on his previous career average (and in terms of raw totals 5.3%)
Suzuki had a career average of 12.6% then shot 17.8% that year. It was a 41.2% net increase on his previous career average (and in terms of raw totals 5.2%)
If telling yourself these are vastly different makes you feel better, go ahead.
Yes, I expect Suzuki to shoot below his career average (also it's 0.3% and I simply picked a nice multiple of 0.5). I also expect cole caufield to shoot above his career average (11.7%), but I noticed you didn't have a comment on that? I believe both of those averages are skewed by outlier seasons, Suzuki an inflated season, and Caufield a very low season.
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Caufield isn't that good, and is a volume shooter, his current season is as explainable as is Suzukis current season.
Do you genuinely think Suzuki will be a consistent near 18% shooter throughout his career?
Mrb1p
PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
- Apr 27, 2005
- 34,764
- 32,594
Hischier shot about 20% above his prior career average, which isn't a huge amount of variance. But yeah, you wouldn't expect him to shoot 14.8% next season.
Silky Johnson
I wish you all the bad things in life.
Stützle is a terrible example. He had a wrist injury and could barely shoot most of last year.
Ohhhh look at the guy cherry picking stats without looking at context. Of course its easier to be more productive when your quality of opposition is lesser. Advanced stats are cool but you need to put them into context for them to be meaningful.
Here is a little context for you. Montreal had 1x #1 line and 3x #4 line last year. So basically, Suzuki was playing all the tough minutes. Hisher doesnt have to do that because Hughes is doing it.
Having 2 solid lines makes all the difference in the world when it comes to productivity.
Maybe his shooting % got up because he finally got to play with a good line that synergize well?
Last year, just look at his shooting % early in the season when Anderson was on his line versus at the end of the season when Slaf figured out the game. Solid passes leads to higher shooting %. Anderson can't pass the puck. He just can't.
Last edited:
Stop if with those stats out of context. Of f***ing course its easier to produce when another line is eating all the tough minutes. If you're so good at statistics why don't you come up with one comparing the strength of opposition like your friend Xirik asked (who seems much more based than you)?
- Apr 27, 2005
- 34,764
- 32,594
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
New England Patriots @ New York JetsWagers: 3Staked: $800.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated:
-
Preliminary Final Port Adelaide Power vs Sydney Swans - SCG, SydneyWagers: 1Staked: $500.00Event closes - 2 days from now- Updated:
-
Preliminary Final Brisbane Lions vs Geelong Cats - MCG, MelbourneEvent closes - 3 days from now
- Updated: