kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 44 minutes ago, The Lock said: If that's what matters to you then great and if that's your eye test then have at it. I don't have to agree with it. No one does. Around this time last year nobody agreed with me here that Gudbranson sucked here and then about a year later we traded him for a forward who was closer to being a healthy scratch than a valuable contributor. I don't really care if the opinion is popular, I'm going to express it and I feel like I have the evidence to support it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 minute ago, kanucks25 said: Around this time last year nobody agreed with me here that Gudbranson sucked here and then about a year later we traded him for a forward who was closer to being a healthy scratch than a valuable contributor. I don't really care if the opinion is popular, I'm going to express it and I feel like I have the evidence to support it. Motte is an okay player, but (IMO) he's a placeholder for a younger guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: The idea that he's a "defensive liability" is pretty laughable, I'm not even sure where you're pulling that out of. 119 forwards in the league with 35% D-zone draws or more (minimum 300 minutes). Motte ranks: - 9th worst in CF% - 21st worst in GF% - 7th worst in SCF% - 8th worst in HDSCF% This shows that, statistically, he's near the bottom of the barrel of players that are deployed similarly to him. See my earlier post about his lack of offense. Edited March 14, 2019 by kanucks25 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 54 minutes ago, aGENT said: Because....? Roussel had not dissimilar stats around the same age, on an arguably better Stars team, in a similar role. At 24 Roussel put up 29-30 points while being excellent defensively despite being used in a defensive role. If Motte does something similar next year I'll admit I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Around this time last year nobody agreed with me here that Gudbranson sucked here and then about a year later we traded him for a forward who was closer to being a healthy scratch than a valuable contributor. I don't really care if the opinion is popular, I'm going to express it and I feel like I have the evidence to support it. Who seems to be doing just fine in PIT despite 'sucking'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: 119 forwards in the league with 35% D-zone draws or more (minimum 300 minutes). Motte ranks: - 9th worst in CF% - 21st worst in GF% - 7th worst in SCF% - 8th worst in HDSCF% This shows that, statistically, he's near the bottom of the barrel of players that are deployed similarly to him. See my earlier post about his lack of offense. What teams do the guys ahead of him play on? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 35 minutes ago, aGENT said: What teams do the guys ahead of him play on? There are about 100+ guys ahead of him in each category on average... so like all teams. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: At 24 Roussel put up 29-30 points while being excellent defensively despite being used in a defensive role. If Motte does something similar next year I'll admit I was wrong. And Roussel was (is) a complete pain in the arse to play against. Motte tries hard, but doesn't have that Roussel sandpaper to his game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 44 minutes ago, aGENT said: Who seems to be doing just fine in PIT despite 'sucking'. That's great, I wish him nothing but the best. It doesn't change the cold and hard fact that he sucked here and the trade that brought him here sucked as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 23 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: 119 forwards in the league with 35% D-zone draws or more (minimum 300 minutes). Motte ranks: - 9th worst in CF% - 21st worst in GF% - 7th worst in SCF% - 8th worst in HDSCF% This shows that, statistically, he's near the bottom of the barrel of players that are deployed similarly to him. See my earlier post about his lack of offense. funny those number charts. When you compare him to all F's with 13 minutes or less of ice time, he's 30th in scoring. Oh and look, almost all the guys ahead of him are on playoff teams. http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&filter=timeOnIcePerGame,lte,13&sort=points,goals,assists 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 2 hours ago, kanucks25 said: Not bitter, just surprised how easily a lot of people are tricked into a player is good just because he's fast. It's the same way people were tricked into thinking Gudbranson was good because he was "big and tough". Speed, size, etc. are all inputs but they don't mean anything if the output/production isn't there, and it's not there for Motte. I don't hate the guy or anything, I just find it odd how low people's expectations are these days that they think a player is "good" when he wouldn't even crack the lineup of a real team. It's not about "fast", it's about constant hustle and level of energy. You say our expectations are low but, perhaps, yours are just too high. You want to extract stats and numbers without applying the fact that he's on a team that is expected to be closer to the bottom than the top and do have young players and newcomers being inserted in/out of the lineup. Look at situations and things, like last night. SHG's (if we're playing that game), GWG's, etc. There are players who never quit and that can propel a team when it needs it most. He's one of the those players with the capability to do that - to perform above expectations when it's needed most (like last night). It's a team game and you need guys who aren't floating around out there, collecting a paycheque. He is never in that category. Numbers tell you part of the story...but I go to a lot of games and SEE what he does. How about giveaways? Takeaways? I haven't checked, but those numbers are also important in a big picture way. How he pressures other teams with the puck or can come away from battles with it? Good isn't just measured by points - sometimes members of a team contribute in ways that help OTHERS get points. Or prevent the other team from getting them. Do you even watch the games? 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: funny those number charts. When you compare him to all F's with 13 minutes or less of ice time, he's 30th in scoring. Oh and look, almost all the guys ahead of him are on playoff teams. http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&filter=timeOnIcePerGame,lte,13&sort=points,goals,assists I used 5-on-5 P/60 because: 1. He doesn't play PP time 2. It's not fair to include his SH time 3. Majority of the game and his ice-time is 5-on-5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 minute ago, kanucks25 said: I used 5-on-5 P/60 because: 1. He doesn't play PP time 2. It's not fair to include his SH time 3. Majority of the game and his ice-time is 5-on-5 sure. It just shows that theres a lot of context in player numbers. You know, the thing a lot of people try to gloss over when presenting numbers. I don't know how anyone can't be encouraged by Motte's progress this year. He's gone from waiver fodder to a guy thats developing into a legit bottom 6 player with some scoring upside. Does he need work, of course, but there's definite progress there and if can continue the trajectory even a little bit he's a great pickup. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 37 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: It's not about "fast", it's about constant hustle and level of energy. You say our expectations are low but, perhaps, yours are just too high. You want to extract stats and numbers without applying the fact that he's on a team that is expected to be closer to the bottom than the top and do have young players and newcomers being inserted in/out of the lineup. Look at situations and things, like last night. SHG's (if we're playing that game), GWG's, etc. There are players who never quit and that can propel a team when it needs it most. He's one of the those players with the capability to do that - to perform above expectations when it's needed most (like last night). It's a team game and you need guys who aren't floating around out there, collecting a paycheque. He is never in that category. Numbers tell you part of the story...but I go to a lot of games and SEE what he does. How about giveaways? Takeaways? I haven't checked, but those numbers are also important in a big picture way. How he pressures other teams with the puck or can come away from battles with it? Good isn't just measured by points - sometimes members of a team contribute in ways that help OTHERS get points. Or prevent the other team from getting them. Do you even watch the games? Yes, I watch the games. In fact, I haven't missed 1 second of the season because of a project that I'm working on. The games I actually went to Rogers to see, I had to go back and watch a 2nd time on my PVR I understand the value of the eye-test, I'm using it in my evaluation of him. The key here is that eye-tests are subjective. However, in the case of Motte, the numbers clearly support one side of the argument. And yes, I also understand the value of intangibles. See my Roussel post in his thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: sure. It just shows that theres a lot of context in player numbers. You know, the thing a lot of people try to gloss over when presenting numbers. Yes, and that's why I used proper context to get the numbers I posted, which aren't exactly favorable for Motte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Around this time last year nobody agreed with me here that Gudbranson sucked here and then about a year later we traded him for a forward who was closer to being a healthy scratch than a valuable contributor. I don't really care if the opinion is popular, I'm going to express it and I feel like I have the evidence to support it. Honestly, the "evidence" you've provided strikes me as no different than everyone else flaunting their opinion around here. It's just a different opinion than everyone else. That's my opinion and I don't care if it's not popular either. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Just now, kanucks25 said: Yes, and that's why I used proper context to get the numbers I posted, which aren't exactly favorable for Motte. and the ones I posted are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 37 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: and the ones I posted are. You used total points and total ice-time. You're the one who posted about "context" yet you did your best to exclude it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Yes, I watch the games. In fact, I haven't missed 1 second of the season because of a project that I'm working on. The games I actually went to Rogers to see, I had to go back and watch a 2nd time on my PVR I understand the value of the eye-test, I'm using it in my evaluation of him. The key here is that eye-tests are subjective. However, in the case of Motte, the numbers clearly support one side of the argument. And yes, I also understand the value of intangibles. See my Roussel post in his thread. Well, if you are looking for bad things in players you will find them in almost any player. My question to you then is how are you evaluating them in your eye test? What are you looking for? Are you looking for future potential or just the here and now? Also, are you looking at statistics, coming up with an opinion first, and THEN doing the eye test to "confirm" it because, if you are, that's a huge bias and you might as well just throw your knowledge out the window at that point. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 minute ago, kanucks25 said: There are about 100+ guys ahead of him in each category on average... so like all teams. Well sorry, but these things matter (and given we're a bottom 10 team, it's not surprising 20+ other teams have forwards in similar roles with 'better' stats.... is it?). Also things like zone starts (Motte's at 71.3 dZS and 28.7 oZS with -0.6 G/60 BTW) matter. Let's look at the 4RW on the two teams directly ahead of us/behind us in the standings. Ty Rattie has a more favourable looking +0.8 G/60... but he also gets 60.9 oZS...so not really a fair comparable is it? Carter Rowney on the other hand has an abysmal -3.5 G/60 despite getting comparatively far cushier 43.5% oZS. I'd say he compares pretty favourably given those two obvious contemporaries. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now