Mcnofool6110
Re-defining Rock Bottom since '07
Did you also happen to hear about a certain Sath Zmith coming to Edmonton?
(No it didn't actually happen yet)
Rumor: Trade Rumors and Proposals Thread XXV: Season over. Still waiting to begin...
- Thread starter s7ark
- Start date
- Status
Did you also happen to hear about a certain Sath Zmith coming to Edmonton?
(No it didn't actually happen yet)
nhlisajoke
Registered User
Paralyzer
Oilers Win Cup in 2025
In NHL 13 this guy get's a 90 in all shots power and accuracy. As good as Ovechkin. DONE DEAL BRO!
Captain Catatomic
SuprstitionCondition
If you go back and watch the oilchange episodes, Lowe says he wants grinders with "oomph" for the bottom 6. I dont see Bolland as one of those guys.
Plus, we all know how cheap the Oilers are with Salary.. they wouldnt pay Glenx and Smytty what like 500k each, lol so what makes anyone think they will pay Bolland 3.4 for only one season, especially considering what the Hawks would be asking for. Does anyone know?
Did anyone see him when he hoisted the cup? he looked like an emotionless zombie skating around in circles, not even a smile or a cheer. The kids are all vocal and excited about the team, hes not a good fit IMO.
I would pass on Bolland, especially since he has never played more than 1 full season, never scored more than 20 goals, and only broke 40 points once.We already have a player like him, his name's Belanger.
Plus, we all know how cheap the Oilers are with Salary.. they wouldnt pay Glenx and Smytty what like 500k each, lol so what makes anyone think they will pay Bolland 3.4 for only one season, especially considering what the Hawks would be asking for. Does anyone know?
Did anyone see him when he hoisted the cup? he looked like an emotionless zombie skating around in circles, not even a smile or a cheer. The kids are all vocal and excited about the team, hes not a good fit IMO.
I would pass on Bolland, especially since he has never played more than 1 full season, never scored more than 20 goals, and only broke 40 points once.We already have a player like him, his name's Belanger.
nexttothemoon
and again...
It's too simplistic to say faceoffs mean A LOT... or VERY LITTLE.
You have to put it into context with everything else on the team, size and physicality of the team in general, speed, defensive awareness of the forwards, passing and breakout ability of the dmen.. plus many other factors.
Does faceoff ability have some effect on possession and shot stats? Yes... but obviously many other factors can easily make up for sub .50 faceoff abilities and they can also detract from +.50 faceoff abilities as well.
As always... looking at any stat (individual or team) in a vacuum can paint a false picture.
Just like there are players with great faceoff abilities and little else... there are also players with crappy faceoff skills but are tremendous in other areas.
Would you trade RNH for Steckel? Extreme example... but it illustrates how there are many factors that make up how a player has many abilities and teams are just a collection of players so it stands to reason that some teams are going to be better in some areas than others yet their overall performance is not going to be highly correlated to any one individual factor taken out of context.
You have to put it into context with everything else on the team, size and physicality of the team in general, speed, defensive awareness of the forwards, passing and breakout ability of the dmen.. plus many other factors.
Does faceoff ability have some effect on possession and shot stats? Yes... but obviously many other factors can easily make up for sub .50 faceoff abilities and they can also detract from +.50 faceoff abilities as well.
As always... looking at any stat (individual or team) in a vacuum can paint a false picture.
Just like there are players with great faceoff abilities and little else... there are also players with crappy faceoff skills but are tremendous in other areas.
Would you trade RNH for Steckel? Extreme example... but it illustrates how there are many factors that make up how a player has many abilities and teams are just a collection of players so it stands to reason that some teams are going to be better in some areas than others yet their overall performance is not going to be highly correlated to any one individual factor taken out of context.
Last edited:
Mentallydull
Registered User
PumpkinBombX
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2009
- 961
- 52
Hmm, fair enough and very well said
You're correct in what you say about faceoffs. Winning them is important.
It's a useless stat because the best team and the worst team in the league are virtually identical.
In other words faceoff wins best vs worst are not statistically significant.
I like it, provided we know we're trading for Peverly, Vermette or similar (no Weiss or Bozak for our second line please)? Also think this is another (fairly) easy to play against Dman. need to add sandpaper back there!
Mentallydull
Registered User
Yeah, I think I was probably comprehending it differently than you were intending to portray it.
I believe this is the reason why it's an overrated stat - no team is spending "the whole game" trying to get the puck back. If you're losing the faceoff battle 45-55 (a pretty bad team stat over the long run) you're trying to get the puck back slightly more often than the other team. It has an impact, but it is overblown precisely because people look at a bad faceoff team and think that means they're always losing possession. They're not, they are losing possession 55% of the time, just slightly more often than an average faceoff team.
Mentallydull
Registered User
50% vs. 55% is a pretty big jump when you consider how many faceoffs are taken.
Captain Catatomic
SuprstitionCondition
How many goals are scored right off the faceoff? a fair amount, does anyone know the stat?
SDig14
Registered User
For me personally, the LH shot Coburn fits better since we have Schultz and Petry, but I think Boychuk is the better player.
I would go with Boychuk and hope one of them can play the left side.
Mentallydull
Registered User
AVE MAN
Registered User
It's better to win 'em than lose 'em.
I'll admit that I don't know much about advanced stats but I think we're looking into things a little too deeply if we're trying to convince ourselves that losing draws doesn't matter.
I thought Boston's game was totally different in games they won a large % of faceoffs, vs games they won < 50%. I think faceoffs is huge, but not to the point where you have to keep a guy like Belanger JUST to win the draw.
McGoMcD
Registered User
draws are such a tough one even for so called "advanced stats", the biggest reason is that fairly often the player will try to lose the draw, given some set play. There is no doubt that a player who can do what they want to do on the draw is more valuable than a player who can't. calculating it is pretty much impossible though. You are right though, clearly you want a guy good on the draws, however, FO% is not even a great stat for who actually is good on draws.
enthropi
Registered User
PK FOs are probably the most significant part of those stats, because on top of probably opening up a good point shot, it is very hard to retrieve the puck and very easy for the other team to consolidate full control.
Honestly, I agree that FO% is overrated, you have to know how to control the damage when you lose, that's what's really important. With inexperienced wingers in our top-6 and defencemen who are either young or can't move the puck for ****, we are struggling regardless of FO%, heck we very often lost puck possession even when we did win the FO this season.
This is also why guys like Konopka and Steckel get bounced around a lot. They can't PK effectively. So basically, half the time you are stuck with a liability on the ice, the other times you need to get them off the ice as quickly as possible, which means usually, painfully slowly for those guys... Doesn't take long for the coach to say to the GM that the team is better off with a different player.
Not really.
I'd take someone who can force turnovers and strip other players of the puck with average faceoff ability(like bolland), over someone who can win 60% of their faceoffs and barely keep up in the defensive zone(like say, Belanger - extreme example, I know).
Mentallydull
Registered User
Hmm, I don't know how I feel about that comparison.
Bolland is great and average in defensive play and faceoffs respectively.
Belanger is great and poor in defensive play and faceoffs respectively.
What if you had somebody more like... bah, **** if I know, too hard to think at this point of the day
Bolland is great and average
Schmo is average and great
I think I'd probably lean more towards Schmo than Bolland - you get the puck and, to an extent, get to dictate what's going on and you force the other team to try and get the puck.
Bolland is great at defense but the time spent trying to get the puck is time spent without possession and time the opposition doesn't have to worry about the puck going in its net.
Edit: I did see that you said Belanger was an extreme example so I was just trying to even up the playing field with a player who I couldn't think of off the top of my head
Boychuk, especially when you take into account what it would take to acquire each player. I think Boychuk could be had for less.
Draiskull
Registered User
- Oct 26, 2005
- 23,388
- 2,246
well we have Smid\N.Schultz\Belov\Klefbom\Marincin\Musil\Gernat all LDs
Throw in Peckham and Fistric too if you want ...
- Status
