Jay Beagle | #83 | C

[oldnews]

On 6/29/2021 at 2:49 PM, Provost said:

I really wish people would stop using the zone starts stat as some sort of proxy for how much someone is leaned on defensively.  It just doesn't tell you that.

It is literally corrected for minutes and usage by standardizing it as a ratio and not pure counting numbers.  It is how people make mistakes overestimating bottom of the roster players.

It also just doesn't measure much anyways.  75-80% of shifts are on the fly depending on the player, so the ration ignores those entirely.  The difference between a 40% oZone start number and a 60% oZone start could literally be an extra shift in one particular zone every few games.  Even the guys with a % on one extreme or the other really only have about 1 extra shift every 3-4 games in one zone over the other one.  That doesn't tell you how much they are leaned on or how effective they are in those situations.

Interestingly a presentation was made in a big hockey stats conference showing that zone starts had effectively no impact on Corsi... so the oft used statement XX player was good because they had 55% dzone starts but still managed a 49% Corsi in those tough minutes.. just doesn't bear any actual scrutiny.

"a presentation"

"in a big stats conference"

 

Classic Provost logical fallacy.

Appeal to an anonymous "authority" - unnamed, unreferenced - no data - no analysis - nothing - as if it qualifies for "actual scrutiny".

So....

 

 

Right up there with your attempts to speak for/represent "all the experts in the hockey world"....smh.

 

If anyone should stop anything - you should stop confusing yourself, by mistaking/misrepresenting shift starts for (a fraction of the larger metric)  zone starts.

This is what leads you to making absurd claims to the effect that a player like Beagle 'only gets 1 more defensive zone start per X amount of games....' = that has been proven to be patently false numerous times.

But, like your cohorts in here....carry on.

 

 

 

 

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, Petey_BOI said:

your stats you use are just like your name Old news.

 

your sad because you try to tear me down, by making silly jokes about me. go get a hobby.

 

im very comfortable with my intelligence. if you believe in my Bi-polar diagnosis? google High intelligence and Bi-polar

actually - what is happening in this thread is you trying to tear Jay Beagle down - basing it on flakey misreprentations - which is what I have responded to.

think about it. and then ask yourself if you need a hobby.

[Devron]

Imagine being upset hearing a player/human was going to be healthy for training camp

[Bad_BOI_pete]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

actually - what is happening in this thread is you trying to tear Jay Beagle down - basing it on flakey misreprentations - which is what I have responded to.

think about it. and then ask yourself if you need a hobby.

again you try to focus on me again. calling me flaky.  beagle is bad at preventing the puck from going in the net, more than he puts it in. 3m dollar players are not supposed to be one dimensional, thank god for motte or that line would never score a goal

 

anyone that understands nhl stats know's your stats are old as old as the internet. why not get with the times and use stats that are useful.

[oldnews]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

interesting. So by that definition, the QoC idea is extremely broad. Thats where it loses me then, there's just too much nuance in the game for something that broad to be all that useful, imo anyway. 

exactly.

QofC imo is probably the most pretentious, while extremely convoluted - of all the so-called "advanced stats" - or at the very least should be renamed to accurately indicate what it actually represents (ie how much of it is simply the 'possession' metrics of opponents - and some people refuse to take even those in context - ie zone starts allegedly have no bearing on possession...which is truly as anti-analytical as 'analytics' gets).

if there is a single metric that is borderline 'meaningless' - it is 'qoc'.

the "quality" of all a player's opponents neatly reduced into a single metric/number/representation.

most people have a hard enough time assessing the quality of a single player (and extremely contested beyond individual opinions), let alone the cumulative of all their opponents.

in fact the 'quality' of an NHL player alone is an extremely complicated reality.

this metric is hopelessly oversimplified - it can't begin to hope to recognize all the factors and context that would need to be integrated into that kind of metric.

 

[Gurn]

read last 3 pages and I've got a few variations on one question.

 

Do some posters need more medication or less?

Also will I need medication if I continue reading some of these posts?

I mean thought I'd done what I can, I already have 22 posters on the ignore function, but perhaps I'll have to add a few more.

 

Deep sigh.

 

 

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Imagine being upset hearing a player/human was going to be healthy for training camp

yeah - the one that - as much as anyone - is out there throwing himself in the line of fire shift in, shift out, day in day out, year after year....

 

I would pee my hockey pants if it was my job to be throwing my body in front of Shea Weber blasts from the point on the powerplay...or battling some of the forwards Beagle does every game, down low, behind his net, in the hard areas - whenever necessary.

 

People that believe, for example, that getting 25ish% ozone starts is meaningless - have literally no idea what they are talking about (are far too adept at outsmarting themselves).  A prerequisite if you're going to disrespect players that play the kind of role that Beagle does, the way he approaches it.

 

I have nothing but respect for him as a player - and additionally he seems like an extremely positive, humble, likeable person.

I'd love to hear the frank thoughts of his team-mates in response to the corsi-gazer takes you get in places like this.

 

 

 

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, oldnews said:

exactly.

QofC imo is probably the most pretentious, while extremely convoluted - of all the so-called "advanced stats" - or at the very least should be renamed to accurately indicate what it actually represents (ie how much of it is simply the 'possession' metrics of opponents - and some people refuse to take even those in context - ie zone starts allegedly have no bearing on possession...which is truly as anti-analytical as 'analytics' gets).

if there is a single metric that is borderline 'meaningless' - it is 'qoc'.

the "quality" of all a player's opponents neatly reduced into a single metric/number/representation.

most people have a hard enough time assessing the quality of a single player (and extremely contested beyond individual opinions), let alone the cumulative of all their opponents.

in fact the 'quality' of an NHL player alone is an extremely complicated reality.

this metric is hopelessly oversimplified - it can't begin to hope to recognize all the factors and context that would need to be integrated into that kind of metric.

 

it is very hard to do, if it wasn't and one team had it all figured out from QoC we'd have seen a money puck dynasty by now. 

 

I do think the value of Beagle comes through in the playoffs where more experience and ability to play in tighter checking games is key, and also taking critical draws. I just don't buy into the stats guru thing that d zone face-offs or starts aren't important, that just makes no sense to me. I do think the value of a player good in these areas can get obscured by overall zone information from the regular season, but that doesn't mean Beagle isn't a guy you want in those situations. 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[oldnews]

21 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

again you try to focus on me again. calling me flaky.  beagle is bad at preventing the puck from going in the net, more than he puts it in. 3m dollar players are not supposed to be one dimensional, thank god for motte or that line would never score a goal

 

anyone that understands nhl stats know's your stats are old as old as the internet. why not get with the times and use stats that are useful.

flaky is an adjective -  describing you misrepresentations - not 'name calling' as you are attempting to finesse - and btw - if you're so concerned about name calling, have a read over your own posts in this thread.

my guesstimate is that you lead this thread in name calling.

if you want to be treated with more respect..... perhaps start with showing some for the vetearn hard minutes forward you are belittling in this thread.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

flaky is an adjective -  describing you misrepresentations - not 'name calling' as you are attempting to finesse - and btw - if you're so concerned about name calling, have a read over your own posts in this thread.

my guesstimate is that you lead this thread in name calling.

if you want to be treated with more respect..... perhaps start with showing some for the vetearn hard minutes forward you are belittling in this thread.

lets get it straight, its called rightful representation, not belittling.

[oldnews]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it is very hard to do, if it wasn't and one team had it all figured out from QoC we'd have seen a money puck dynasty by now. 

 

I do think the value of Beagle comes through in the playoffs where more experience and ability to play in tighter checking games is key, and also taking critical draws. I just don't buy into the stats guru thing that d zone face-offs or starts aren't important, that just makes no sense to me. I do think the value of a player good in these areas can get obscured by overall zone information from the regular season, but that doesn't mean Beagle isn't a guy you want in those situations. 

 

Look at Danault these playoffs.

 

If a person were to do what people in here are doing....

 

1 goal, 3 assists, -1, in 21 games.

 

If they then also dismissed the fact of his team low 26.1% offensive zone starts - or how solid / outstanding he has been in the faceoff circle, taking dzone starts, penalty killing, etc ...

 

They'd get an entirely uniformed idea about how important he has been.

He may be the Habs best forward these playoffs.

 

Look what has happened -  ie to Suzuki - when he's trapped in dzone starts and opponents have managed to tee up on the Habs - burning them repeatedly after clean faceoff losses that wind up behind Carey Price. 

Suzuki otherwise has been very good - my point here is not to devalue him or underplay his 16 pts in 21 games (he's a young center and the Habs have a pair of them, not the easiest thing/exposure to manage in a Cup run) - but also extremely important for what he otherwise brings - however, the role that the Danault line has played would run under the radar of most people that don't really understand the game (and if it weren't spelled out for them by the broadcasts).

And inb4 someone bites into an irrelevent attempt to pretend this is a 'comparison' of Beagle to Danault - I am not making an 'equivalency' of these two players (Danault's role would be as comparable to Horvat's, or Sutter's) - the point here is that if you dismiss his zone starts, his hard minutes, his penalty killing, his faceoffs and look only at production (or corsi gaze him), you have entirely whiffed on one of the most important contributors in the Habs playoff run.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by oldnews

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

lets get it straight, its called rightful representation, not belittling.

right....

 

13 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

I can wait till he plays 55 games and gets 0g and 3 assists and is a -15.

 

 

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

right....

 

 

exaclty.... rightful representation. every year beagles offensive stats has dropped for the last 5 years

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

exaclty.... rightful representation. every year beagles offensive stats has dropped for the last 5 years

Wait.....Every year Beagle's ozone statistics drop for 5 years? Wha?

[PhillipBlunt]

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

exaclty.... rightful representation. every year beagles offensive stats has dropped for the last 5 years

have a nice day Petey_Boi. 

 

 

the last thing I'll mention - might want to look again at NHL "4th" lines - they're not what you seem to imagine - there is a lot of depth on many NHL "4th" lines (particularly good teams) - not exactly "bums" - you say you're not running down Beagle - running down his opponents in the end has a similar implication.

 

11 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

bums mostly, 4th line players.

Edited July 6, 2021 by oldnews

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Wait.....Every year Beagle's ozone statistics drop for 5 years? Wha?

yup it seems he only knows how to offer the opposotion the puck back.

 

to the tune that he has some of the worst 5v5 stats in the nhl

[The Lock]

10 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

lets get it straight, its called rightful representation, not belittling.

What exactly is "rightful representation"?

 

Sounds like something a politician with an agenda would say.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

im sorry lock, these aren't big words.

 

if you cant put two and 2 together i cant help u.

[PhillipBlunt]

6 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

yup it seems he only knows how to offer the opposotion the puck back.

 

to the tune that he has some of the worst 5v5 stats in the nhl

So he takes a five year dip every year? How's that?