Olympics: Team Latvia 2022

[Eye of Ra]

Girgensons is underated. he would be ppg in khl

 

[Namejs]

Girgensons is underated. he would be ppg in khl

No, he wouldn't and, no, he's not.

I've seen about 150 games of his. He excels at killing the puck and winning puck battles along the boards and that's about it.

A good shutdown guy, but he shouldn't be anywhere near the power play even on the Latvian national team. No playmaking, no game vision and hands made out of wood.

He's a great asset to have if you're an underdog - it's hard to play against him even if you're an elite player. But scoring is neither his strong suit, nor something that should be expected of him.

To say that he would be PPG in KHL is completely ludicrous.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Feels like Jelisejevs is becoming a lock for this team. The biggest success story of the Latvian league? Not only has he played in it for 2 years it also looks like he has improved while doing it.

 

[Namejs]

Feels like Jelisejevs is becoming a lock for this team. The biggest success story of the Latvian league? Not only has he played in it for 2 years it also looks like he has improved while doing it.

He shoots with an unsustainable efficiency - it's a statistical fluke. SHG% always levels out over the long term and his goal scoring will slow down inevitably over the next months. Both of his assists are made on the PP as well.

If he wouldn't be having such a huge amount of PP minutes and if he would be stuck on the 3rd or 4th line like Dzierkals or Bukarts in some of the previous years, he would have recorded about 4 points in 16 games on average, which is quite close to his 15 games/2 pts showing last season.

So it's not that he's unusually good for a Latvian league player, it's more about the way he's been used in Dinamo Riga. No one has ever went straight from the Latvian league to the 1st line/PP1 in KHL before.

If anything, it tells you how big of a difference 1st line/PP1 time can make in terms of production rates. And he definitely shouldn't be 'a lock' for the Latvian national team.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Do you truly think the coaching staff is going to concern themselves with that and leave 1st line player and leading scorer of Dinamo at home? Yeah, I don't think so. Also, he looks like the best forward on that team. I know stat-sheet is your best friend but come on, players don't just happen to appear on the 1st line from a clear blue sky, more often than not it happens for a reason.

He is easily more deserving of a spot than Krastenbergs, Svanenbers, and all that crowd. I don't see who could push him out of that roster. Tralmaks? He is the only one who is remotely close.

 

[Dofs]

If anything, it tells you how big of a difference 1st line/PP1 time can make in terms of production rates.

Half of Dinamo team missed the memo then because Jelisejevs is far from the only one who got 1st line/PP1 time, yet he is the only one who consistently scores in the entire team. Nor did Jelisejevs even start the season in the 1st line himself, he began it in the second, likely as a sub for an injured at that time Karjalainen, then got thrown from line to line (including the fourth) and only started to play in the first relatively recently. He is now on it because he scores so much, not the other way around, even if you consider his scoring a fluke.

Though while in the beginning of the season he indeed looked very shaky (his passing was horrible and in general he looked a bit lost on the ice with the puck), he is greatly improving with every game while adjusting to his increased ice time in KHL. He is now much more confident with the puck, his skating in the later games is actually amazing and he outplays his opponents more and more consistently. In the last game it didn't feel at all that he didn't belong on the first line, imo. And he shoots in a smart way too, so it doesn't actually feel like his goals are flukes.

Of course, his rise from a Latvian league player to a leader of a KHL team is flat out ridiculous and simply unbelievable so it's tempting to think that his fairy tale will end soon but from me seeing him play, I would actually bet that he makes the team after all.

 

[Namejs]

Half of Dinamo team missed the memo then because Jelisejevs is far from the only one who got 1st line/PP1 time, yet he is the only one who consistently scores in the entire team. Nor did Jelisejevs even start the season in the 1st line himself, he began it in the second, likely as a sub for an injured at that time Karjalainen, then got thrown from line to line (including the fourth) and only started to play in the first relatively recently. He is now on it because he scores so much, not the other way around, even if you consider his scoring a fluke.

Though while in the beginning of the season he indeed looked very shaky (his passing was horrible and in general he looked a bit lost on the ice with the puck), he is greatly improving with every game while adjusting to his increased ice time in KHL. He is now much more confident with the puck, his skating in the later games is actually amazing and he outplays his opponents more and more consistently. In the last game it didn't feel at all that he didn't belong on the first line, imo. And he shoots in a smart way too, so it doesn't actually feel like his goals are flukes.

Of course, his rise from a Latvian league player to a leader of a KHL team is flat out ridiculous and simply unbelievable so it's tempting to think that his fairy tale will end soon but from me seeing him play, I would actually bet that he makes the team after all.

Data doesn't lie. Seeing fanboys hooked on statistical outliers must be one of the most annoying things ever.

It took 5 years for everyone to get off the Gudlevskis bandwagon, I hope this isn't another one in the making.

Whatever theory you have cooked up in your brain by watching him has to pass the test of reality. And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. His goal scoring streak is a fluke by definition.

He's not going to score 7 more goals over the next 32 games. If you're willing to make that bet, do PM me.

 

[Dofs]

Seeing fanboys hooked on statistical outliers must be one of the most annoying things ever. [...] Whatever theory you have cooked up in your brain by watching him has to pass the test of reality.

Fanboys? Theory?

Sorry, are you drunk?

 

[SoundAndFury]

Data doesn't lie. Seeing fanboys hooked on statistical outliers must be one of the most annoying things ever.

It took 5 years for everyone to get off the Gudlevskis bandwagon, I hope this isn't another one in the making.

Whatever theory you have cooked up in your brain by watching him has to pass the test of reality. And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. His goal scoring streak is a fluke by definition.

He's not going to score 7 more goals over the next 32 games. If you're willing to make that bet, do PM me.

You mean like it took you a full year (if not more) to realize Karsums is done because "data" said otherwise?

Just because his Sh% is high (and even then 20% is not that insanely high) doesn't mean he objectively isn't a very productive player. Seeing someone hooked on most generic stats as the tell-all of hockey is no less annoying.

Not to mention that "data", the kind of data you use which is basically raw, "lies" all the damn time. Almost every NHL roster will have a player like Max Domi, Mika Zibanejad, or Jeff Skinner on it whose production can only be explained by factors outside of "data". Not even talking about the KHL where "outliers" happen even more often.

 

[Dofs]

Just a quick check of both NHL and KHL stats shows that the statement "And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. " is blatantly wrong. 20% is a high end of SO% but it is still something that fairly few players get every year. Especially in KHL. Heck, Shipachyov had once freaking 27% one year. People who score 30 goals a season in KHL certainly don't all shoot on goal, like, 10 times a game to get there.

It's perfectly fine to believe that Jelisejevs' scoring is going to drop, it's not fine to arrogantly belittle others and be extremely condescending based on something that is not only incorrect but also can be checked in one minute by anyone with an Internet connection.

 

[Namejs]

Just a quick check of both NHL and KHL stats shows that the statement "And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. " is blatantly wrong. 20% is a high end of SO% but it is still something that fairly few players get every year. Especially in KHL. Heck, Shipachyov had once freaking 27% one year. People who score 30 goals a season in KHL certainly don't all shoot on goal, like, 10 times a game to get there.

It's perfectly fine to believe that Jelisejevs' scoring is going to drop, it's not fine to arrogantly belittle others and be extremely condescending based on something that is not only incorrect but also can be checked in one minute by anyone with an Internet connection.

You literally have no clue.

It might be condescending, but the overwhelming majority of people really don't have a clue about statistical analysis, so it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of.

No one has a shot efficiency of 27% or 20%. If Shipachev at any point has a 27% shot efficiency, you can bet your house on it dropping.

So, if you want to put the money where your mouth is, how much are you willing to bet on my proposition?

Sorry for hurting your feelings, but you literally are fanboying on a semi-pro Olimp Riga scrub with 0.49 PPG in VHL and comparing him to Shipachev, who's shot efficiency in KHL, by the way, is 15.4%, which is very high indeed.

 

[Namejs]

You mean like it took you a full year (if not more) to realize Karsums is done because "data" said otherwise?

Just because his Sh% is high (and even then 20% is not that insanely high) doesn't mean he objectively isn't a very productive player. Seeing someone hooked on most generic stats as the tell-all of hockey is no less annoying.

Not to mention that "data", the kind of data you use which is basically raw, "lies" all the damn time. Almost every NHL roster will have a player like Max Domi, Mika Zibanejad, or Jeff Skinner on it whose production can only be explained by factors outside of "data". Not even talking about the KHL where "outliers" happen even more often.

Yes, I always make my judgements based on data and facts. One of the downsides of that is not being able to gauge someone's abilities dropping off, say, after an injury in an instant. It takes time. That is why hockey analysts work together with seasoned hockey pros in order to offset the shortcomings and blind spots.

Long-term shot efficiency is not a blind spot, it's a very basic, underlying stat, and you can't argue your way around it no matter how deep your knowledge of hockey is otherwise.

20% is unsustainably high.

 

[Dofs]

You literally have no clue.

It might be condescending, but the overwhelming majority of people really don't have a clue about statistical analysis, so it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of.

No one has a shot efficiency of 27% or 20%. If Shipachev at any point has a 27% shot efficiency, you can bet your house on it dropping.

So, if you want to put the money where your mouth is, how much are you willing to bet on my proposition?

Sorry for hurting your feelings, but you literally are fanboying on a semi-pro Olimp Riga scrub with 0.49 PPG in VHL and comparing him to Shipachev, who's shot efficiency in KHL, by the way, is 15.4%, which is very high indeed.

It's perfectly fine to say "I don't believe that his very high almost 20% of shooting percentage is going to hold over the course of the season". That's just makes you sceptical which is absolutely fair, especially when we are talking about a player from a Latvian league. But saying "And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. " just makes you stupid.

What also makes you stupid is taking a realistic career average SO% and saying that it also applicable to a time period of few months which is just nonsensical. People can have multiple years of 20% of shooting percentage, Shipachyov had once 27% for an entire year. Loads of people have close to 20% years in KHL. Saying that a player can't have it in a context of what was it, 3 months?, is utterly wrong. This has nothing to do with Jelisejevs at all but with hockey in general, your arguments are simply blatantly incorrect, no matter what your points are.

And I definitely am not going to get involved in a betting competition with someone who not only was writing nonsense from post to post, but did it in such a tone that made that person undeserving of respect of spending any time doing it.

 

[Namejs]

If you want to look for some hidden gems in the steaming pile of trash that is Dinamo Riga's development system, take a look at what Zabusovs is doing with Zemgale/HK Riga. 19 points in 7 games and 5 points in 2 games respectively. At least he actually has some upside and he can become a national team regular in the future. Put him on the 1st line.

 

[Dofs]

Well, you starting to deflect is a sign that you at least acknowledge that what you wrote was stupid, even if you are too prideful to actually write that.

 

[Namejs]

It's perfectly fine to say "I don't believe that his very high almost 20% of shooting percentage is going to hold over the course of the season". That's just makes you sceptical which is absolutely fair, especially when we are talking about a player from a Latvian league. But saying "And the reality is that no one shoots at a rate of 20%. " just makes you stupid.

What also makes you stupid is taking a realistic career average SO% and saying that it also applicable to a time period of few months which is just nonsensical. People can have multiple years of 20% of shooting percentage, Shipachyov had once 27% for an entire year. Loads of people have close to 20% years in KHL. Saying that a player can't have it in a context of what was it, 3 months?, is utterly wrong. This has nothing to do with Jelisejevs at all but with hockey in general, your arguments are simply blatantly incorrect, no matter what your points are.

And I definitely am not going to get involved in a betting competition with someone who not only was writing nonsense from post to post, but did it in such a tone that made that person undeserving of respect of spending any time doing it.

All of your statements are flat out wrong and at this point it's becoming a little weird.

No one shoots at a rate of 20% over the long term. That is the one undeniable fact, and you're going at great lengths to save your face by trying to cherry pick some short-term stats to prove the opposite, but that only underlines my original point - every statistical outlier returns back to normal due to decreased variation with more data points available.

Jelisejevs is scoring at an unsustainable rate, his goal scoring will drop off substantially over the long term. You haven't provided a single valid counter-argument for this point and you refuse to put the money where your mouth is, rendering your opinion not only worthless, but showing you actually realize that you're wrong yourself.

You should just stop now.

 

[Namejs]

Well, you starting to deflect is a sign that you at least acknowledge that what you wrote was stupid, even if you are too prideful to actually write that.

Deflecting what?

I'm trying to enlighten you that there's a seven years younger prospect playing lights out in YOUR team's system, while you're drooling over some mediocre dude who scored a few flukey goals for the worst team in the league. It's more of a reflection on how irrational and biased fanboys can get rather a deflection.

 

[Dofs]

All of your statements are flat out wrong and at this point it's becoming a little weird.

No one shoots at a rate of 20% over the long term. That is the one undeniable fact, and you're going at great lengths to save your face by trying to cherry pick some short-term stats to prove the opposite, but that only underlines my original point - every statistical outlier returns back to normal due to decreased variation with more data points available.

Jelisejevs is scoring at an unsustainable rate, his goal scoring will drop off substantially over the long term. You haven't provided a single valid counter-argument for this point and you refuse to put the money where your mouth is, rendering your opinion not only worthless, but showing you actually realize that you're wrong yourself.

You should just stop now.

Hmm, let's see. A player after a month and a half has an almost 20% of shooting percentage. You are claiming that 20% of shooting percentage is impossible and hence in, like, 2 months his scoring is going to massively drop. I am showing that a player can hold this SO% for a year, that many have done so, some players had multiple years of close to 20%, one player had a year with a freaking 27%. And hence your statement that a player can't have a 20% of shooting percentage for a few months, that it's impossible, is blatantly false. You then start to speak about a career average shooting percentages, implying that if a player can't have a certain SO% during his entire career, he definitely can't have it after 3 months which is just a blatant nonsense.

Yes, I am talking about short-term, but I am only talking about a term that you yourself has starting to talk about. It's you who began to talk about few months. You were claiming that a player is going to stop scoring at his pace after 3 months since the start of the season because keeping such a SO% is impossible. I've shown you that it's not only possible, but also a perfectly normal thing to happen. So it's about time for you to stop embarrassing yourself and deflecting from the original point you were trying to make.

Deflecting what?

I'm trying to enlighten you that there's a seven years younger prospect playing lights out in YOUR team's system, while you're drooling over some mediocre dude who scored a few flukey goals for the worst team in the league. It's more of a reflection on how irrational and biased fanboys can get rather a deflection.

Deflecting because we are arguing about shooting percentages, I don't care about whatever prospects play in whatever systems in this conversation, it's not even about Jelisejevs anymore, it's about general hockey understanding and you being obtuse.

 

[Namejs]

Hmm, let's see. A player after a month and a half has an almost 20% of shooting percentage. You are claiming that 20% of shooting percentage is impossible and hence in, like, 2 months his scoring is going to massively drop. I am showing that a player can hold this SO% for a year, that many have done so, some players had multiple years of close to 20%, one player had a year with a freaking 27%. And hence your statement that a player can't have a 20% of shooting percentage for a few months, that it's impossible, is blatantly false. You then start to speak about a career average shooting percentages, implying that if a player can't have a certain SO% during his entire career, he definitely can't have it after 3 months which is just a blatant nonsense.

Yes, I am talking about short-term, but I am only talking about a term that you yourself has starting to talk about. It's you who began to talk about few months. You were claiming that a player is going to stop scoring at his pace after 3 months since the start of the season because keeping such a SO% is impossible. I've shown you that it's not only possible, but also a perfectly normal thing to happen. So it's about time for you to stop embarrassing yourself and deflecting from the original point you were trying to make.



Deflecting because we are arguing about shooting percentages, I don't care about whatever prospects play in whatever systems in this conversation, it's not even about Jelisejevs anymore, it's about general hockey understanding and you being obtuse.

*sigh*
Seriously, this is basic probability theory.

The likelihood of anyone, Jelisejevs, McDavid or Jesus himself, shooting at an unsustainably high rate for an extended period of time is becoming less likely with every game played and every shot made.

20% is unsustainably high. That is the entire point. Jelisejevs showing is a statistical fluke and judgments on his abilities should be based on a larger data set, because a sample size of 16 games is meaningless. Anyone saying that he should be a lock for the national olympic team simply doesn't understand statistics and hockey analysis, which includes you.

What you're arguing for is that there are other people shooting at an unsustainably high rate for the entirety of a hockey season. That is not an argument in favor of Jelisejevs being good, that is an argument in favor of even bigger flukes being theoretically possible if we include thousands of other players in this experiment, which makes sense, because that's how probabilities work.

What I'm saying is that no one can flip a coin in the same way 50+x% of the time. You're showing me people who have flipped tails 15 times in a row and trying to prove that I'm wrong. That's not how any of this works.

It doesn't in any way, shape or form imply that tails are the better option or that heads are a less likely outcome, it only points out that variance exists even over 50 or 100 games played.

Since reality is based on stochastic events, it is within the realm of possibility that Jelisejevs will score 50 more goals this season, but the likelihood of him scoring 50 goals or 7 goals during the next 32 games is close to 0 and low respectively.

Hence my original proposition of betting on whether he will score 7 more goals during the next 32 games. I am proposing the bet, because the probability of that happening is much lower than you think. If you think it's >50%, you simply don't understand statistics and probabilities.

No one shoots at a rate of 20%. Just like no one flips tails at a rate of 90%.

 

[Dofs]

Got it, if McDavid and Jelisejevs shoot at the net the same amount of times, the difference in goals between the two is going to depend on chance, not on skill. Makes perfect sense. Jelisejevs to NHL.

 

[Namejs]

Got it, if McDavid and Jelisejevs shoot at the net the same amount of times, the difference in goals between the two is going to depend on chance, not on skill. Makes perfect sense. Jelisejevs to NHL.

I almost had a sigh of relief this time until I read that last sentence. I thought you actually finally got it.

YES, scoring goals depends on chance, skill is only a variable in the equation. This is hard to understand for most people. Hockey to large degree is a game of chance.

Extremely skilled players in relatively weaker leagues can score at ridiculous rates because of a large skill difference between them and the rest of the field. This would be the Shipachev case and his 15% scoring rate. McDavid even manages to score at a 15% rate in NHL. It's an extremely high scoring efficiency.

Unskilled players in good leagues can't score at ridiculous rates, they score at lower rates, because they are weaker than the rest of the field. This would be the Jelisejevs case. He will never play in the NHL. Him scoring at a 20% rate is a much bigger fluke than Shipachev scoring at the same rate and this is precisely why the likelihood of that rate dropping off sooner rather than later is much higher than in Shipachev's case.

Oh, and just for this to sink in a little better: the average shooting efficiency is inversely tied to goalie SVS%. To say that 20% is normal is to say that goalies averaging 80 SVS% is a thing that exists.

The average scoring efficiency is below 10%.

 

[Dofs]

Scoring is based on skill, sorry but McDavid is a better scorer than Meija. They both can shoot at the net each 100 times and McDavid will always score more simply because Meija sucks at scoring big time. It's simply not a matter of chance and probability, period (though of course it plays its part).

Scoring at 20% over a period of one month is as much of a fluke as scoring at 100% over a period of 1 game. That is, it's not a fluke at all, it's a perfectly normal phenomenon. Go look at the Top 30 snipers in KHL right now, half of the are going to have over 20% of shooting percentage, Jelisejevs' number are actually mild in comparison. Of course I am now convinced that this will come as a surprise to you as it's blatantly obvious that you don't even look at the stats before starting to teach others about them.

This percentage will mostly go down as the season goes along, most people will not be able to keep such pace, some will or close to will and will end up in the top of the season's goal scorers. This is how it happens every season. All the top scorers at the moment are just not going to just stop scoring in 2 months and drop out of the sniper race because Namejs says they have to. You just take career average numbers assuming players play exactly the same every season and come to some pretty ridiculous conclusions of what can players do and can't do over a course of a couple months. This especially:

"Oh, and just for this to sink in a little better: the average shooting efficiency is inversely tied to goalie SVS%. To say that 20% is normal is to say that goalies averaging 80 SVS% is a thing that exists.

The average scoring efficiency is below 10%."

This is such a ridiculous statement that I am not going to reply to you any longer as it's just not worth it. I am not sure you are checking the stats you are talking about, or read my posts properly that you reply to, or even watch that much of hockey. So, goodbye.

 

[Hanji]

What's the defensive depth chart look like? Would Jaks be considered the #1 with his recent play, or is it Balinskis?

??
1 Balinskis
2 Jaks
3 Cibulskis
4 Zile
5 Freibergs
6 Rubins
7 Sotnieks
8 Kulda
???

 

[SoundAndFury]

Yes, I always make my judgements based on data and facts. One of the downsides of that is not being able to gauge someone's abilities dropping off, say, after an injury in an instant. It takes time. That is why hockey analysts work together with seasoned hockey pros in order to offset the shortcomings and blind spots.

Long-term shot efficiency is not a blind spot, it's a very basic, underlying stat, and you can't argue your way around it no matter how deep your knowledge of hockey is otherwise.

20% is unsustainably high.

No kidding. So that's what's called an eye test which we do have here, no? You can say you don't trust it but stop banging the stupid stat drum which you should have just as many reasons not to trust as well when it comes to the decision which is sort of time-sensitive.

And, once again, we aren't discussing if he's going to score 30 goals or not. We are discussing should he be on the team or not. Maybe he will slow down, maybe his production will switch more to the assist side (very likely), at the end of the day he is a very productive player by KHL standards, you can cry about him being semi-pro and whatnot but it's not like that is unusual for Latvian NT. I ask you, once again, who is out there better than him? To me, he is at the level of Ro. Bukarts at this point, 50/50 between them. So that makes him 7/8th winger on the depth chart.

What's the defensive depth chart look like? Would Jaks be considered the #1 with his recent play, or is it Balinskis?

??
1 Balinskis
2 Jaks
3 Cibulskis
4 Zile
5 Freibergs
6 Rubins
7 Sotnieks
8 Kulda
???

Based on this season, seems about right. I'd say it's still Balinskis. Zile should probably be above Cibulskis (I don't have quite the same infatuation with him Zubov does) and Rubins is probably higher too, even way higher, arguably. Loads of equally bad defensemen past the top-3, truly a heap to choose from. One guy who deserves to take a look at is Siksna. He is a rightie and probably not worse than Freibergs or Sotnieks in most situations.

 

[Namejs]

Scoring is based on skill, sorry but McDavid is a better scorer than Meija. They both can shoot at the net each 100 times and McDavid will always score more simply because Meija sucks at scoring big time. It's simply not a matter of chance and probability, period (though of course it plays its part).

Scoring at 20% over a period of one month is as much of a fluke as scoring at 100% over a period of 1 game. That is, it's not a fluke at all, it's a perfectly normal phenomenon. Go look at the Top 30 snipers in KHL right now, half of the are going to have over 20% of shooting percentage, Jelisejevs' number are actually mild in comparison. Of course I am now convinced that this will come as a surprise to you as it's blatantly obvious that you don't even look at the stats before starting to teach others about them.

This percentage will mostly go down as the season goes along, most people will not be able to keep such pace, some will or close to will and will end up in the top of the season's goal scorers. This is how it happens every season. All the top scorers at the moment are just not going to just stop scoring in 2 months and drop out of the sniper race because Namejs says they have to. You just take career average numbers assuming players play exactly the same every season and come to some pretty ridiculous conclusions of what can players do and can't do over a course of a couple months. This especially:

"Oh, and just for this to sink in a little better: the average shooting efficiency is inversely tied to goalie SVS%. To say that 20% is normal is to say that goalies averaging 80 SVS% is a thing that exists.

The average scoring efficiency is below 10%."

This is such a ridiculous statement that I am not going to reply to you any longer as it's just not worth it. I am not sure you are checking the stats you are talking about, or read my posts properly that you reply to, or even watch that much of hockey. So, goodbye.

I guess they don't teach variance and probability theory in our schools anymore.

Variance (20% shot efficiency is variance and an outlier/fluke) is "a normal phenomenon", just like regression to the mean (<10% shot efficiency).

Variance and regression to the mean are not mutually exclusive.

You haven't been arguing against me, but against basic statistics principles for the last couple of posts. Please, stop making a fool out of yourself.

And, no, McDavid will not always score more penalty shots than Meija within a small sample size. You don't seem to be able to grasp the very basic notion of probability and chance.