oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Provost said: For those interested, this is a good write up about why offensive zone starts is not a good metric, especially when looking at it in isolation. It is really only measuring 10-15% of shifts. It ignores special teams, it ignores shifts starting on the fly, it ignores neutral zone starts. It is just taking the 5 on 5 shifts that start with a face off in either the offensive or defensive zone, which is a tiny fraction of the total shifts a player has. That means you are eliminating 85-90% of all a player’s deployment in the calculation. Extrapolating that very limited number to say a player has mostly hard or easy minutes... or that they are a mainly a shutdown player is just not accurate. That means the difference between a 40% and 60% oZone start is only a shift or two a game. https://www.nhlnumbers.com/2016/11/03/beware-of-what-zone-starts-are-telling-you-part-i-coaches-deployment That is comical - based on something you've pulled out of your posterior. First of all - it's not a metric that measure "shifts" - it measures starts after stoppages. And I'm not sure you actually read that article wadr. But let's take last game for example. Pettersson/Boeser with 9 ozone starts, 1 dzone - would therefore presumably have had 100-150 shifts in that game by your bizarre miscalculation - if we take your estimation at all seriously. 10 (or even up to 20) offensive and/or defensive zone starts a game is nowhere near a 'tiny fraction' of the 'total shifts' a player has. You clearly don't really pay much attention to these metrics. Btw - any given shift can have more than one ozone/neutral/or dzone start - players don't necessarily change at every stoppage, so you're conflating shifts and zone starts, further obscuring your bent. I think you're overcompensating here for whatever reason - as 'analyticz' pretenders tend to when they sandbag shutdown players, as if there's little difference in deployment, role and the context they perform in. The reality is that the difference between 20 or 30 and 60 or 70 % ozone starts is more significant than you suggest - and moreover it indicates fairly clearly a coaches' intention overall in how they utilize players. When a shutdown line is consistently sent out to take dzone draws against an opponent's top line - that is significantly different than the tendency to send a scoring line ie the Sedins or Pettersson's line - out to take an ozone start after having trapped an oppostion's tired line after an icing call. In the end it's not only a significant material difference, but the numbers also tell you about a coaches' use and deployment of players - which is why their corsi ('possession') and production should be kept in the context of reasonably expected possession and production within that deployment. Likewise, a player like Beagle will typically see a few ozone starts a game and 6 or 8 dzone starts as a baseline. We can attempt to minimize the impact of those starts - as if meaningless - but they certainly are not. If you want to be real on any level, the reality is that there is a far more significant gap in zone starts between offensive players - like Pettersson, Boeser, etc - and shutdown guys like Sutter, Beagle etc - and it sure as hell isn't reducible to "only a shift or two a night" - which again - is not even what zone starts measure - 'shifts' are not what the metric measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, oldnews said: I will slow it down for you so you understand the math. Excluding special teams, excluding shift starts on the fly, excluding shift starts in the neutral zone (your favourite stat excludes all of those)... it leaves around 10 oZone or dZone starts per game for a forward... give or take depending on their line, but is a close median and makes the math easy for you to follow. 10 starts measured and if you start 4 of the 10 in the oZone that is 40% oZone starts. If you start 6 of the 10 in the oZone, thst is 60% oZone starts. The difference is literally two starts (just like I said) and they could both be on one single shift. As as you said, there can be multiple starts per shift, and using 20-25 total shifts per game as an average for a forward. times that multiplier of number of starts per shift, the percent of those starts that is measured in that single oZone starts stat is a fraction of their total deployment. Just using a conservative 2.5 starts per shift gives you 50-62.5 total starts, of which your favourite particular stat only measures 15-20%, and excludes the rest. No sane person relies on a small fraction of the deployment to rate a player. Especially the way you use it to call out other people posting as being stupid. It is a very limited measurement and you use it like it is the bible to thump over people. The link I posted literally talked about why it is important to consider SHIFT starts rather than just ones that happen to start with a face off in the oZone or dZone. It is a poor metric that excludes far too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, Provost said: I will slow it down for you so you understand the math. If there's one thing you're capable of, it's 'slowing it down'. Every metric has it's limits - which is why their utility is in context - as simple as this one is, you clearly don't understand it's relevence - and being slippery with the numbers doesn't exactly give you a one up on it. Didn't really expect intellectual honesty from you though Professor - so no loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 11 minutes ago, oldnews said: If there's one thing you're capable of, it's 'slowing it down'. Every metric has it's limits - which is why their utility is in context - as simple as this one is, you clearly don't understand it's relevence - and being slippery with the numbers doesn't exactly give you a one up on it. Didn't really expect intellectual honesty from you though Professor - so no loss. Gudbranson in the Flyers game had 3 oZone starts and 1 dZone start for a whopping 75% oZone start ratio! Dude is obviously one of our offensive juggernauts that the coach trots out when we need to score! Wow, your stat tells the whole story! No wonder you love the guy so much! Wait, he had 21 total shifts... so easily 40+ total shift starts. I wonder how he was deployed all those other times not captured by your favourite stat? If if you used the stats for the very limited purpose they were intended, it would be fine. You inappropriately extrapolate way past what the limited data tells you. You don’t present them as in context and considering their limitations. You then regularly wield them like a baseball bat to disagree and call out other posters for being stupid. That is the objection people have to you. Cherry picking little data points to bash folks. I literally just broke down the exact way I calculated my numbers for the previous post... numbers you said I pulled out of my posterior. Pointing out the actual numbers isn’t being “slippery with numbers”. It is freaking math, and it literally proves my points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, Provost said: Gudbranson in the Flyers game had 3 oZone starts and 1 dZone start for a whopping 75% oZone start ratio! Dude is obviously one of our offensive juggernauts that the coach trots out when we need to score! Wow, your stat tells the whole story! No wonder you love the guy so much! Wait, he had 21 total shifts... so easily 40+ total shift starts. I wonder how he was deployed all those other times not captured by your favourite stat? If if you used the stats for the very limited purpose they were intended, it would be fine. You inappropriately extrapolate way past what the limited data tells you. You don’t present them as in context and considering their limitations. You then regularly wield them like a baseball bat to disagree and call out other posters for being stupid. That is the objection people have to you. Cherry picking little data points to bash folks. you're getting carried away - emotional - unable to maintain a rational conversation ironically cherry picking an outlier example - and using it to target one of your favoured whipping boyz - predictably, like Sutter, one of the team's defensive guys - doesn't help make your case for utilizing statistics for the purpose they're intended. Let's face it - Sutter, Tanev, Gudbranson, Beagle etc - all throwbacks from the pre-analyticz era. Let's just build a team full of ozone starterz! Manny Malhotra be damned lol. Anyhow, cheers - I'm sure we both learned a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 hours ago, canuck73_3 said: You're not GM and Sutter has value on this team no matter how much you and his detractors stick your heads in the sand. He may be expendable next season or the season after. But for now he's still a valueable piece of this team. I agree he has value. He is a proven NHL player . My thoughts are though that at this point in his career , i would rather gain a younger player with more upside.... than a proven shut down centre. We can bring up a younger Gaunce to take Sutters spot without losing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I agree he has value. He is a proven NHL player . My thoughts are though that at this point in his career , i would rather gain a younger player with more upside.... than a proven shut down centre. We can bring up a younger Gaunce to take Sutters spot without losing anything. ... or Gaudette. Most teams, at least the good ones, have three lines that can contribute offensively. The old 3rd line with largely a checking role has diminished greatly. In our specific circimstsnce, we have a shut down centre in Beagle who can handle those assignments and more minutes than most “4th line” centres can. Horvat is also good on both ends of the ice so can go head to head with other top players and still produce points rather than just hoping to minimize the damage they do. Sutter is redundant to us, and assets we can can back for him would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RRypien37 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, oldnews said: If there's one thing you're capable of, it's 'slowing it down'. Every metric has it's limits - which is why their utility is in context - as simple as this one is, you clearly don't understand it's relevence - and being slippery with the numbers doesn't exactly give you a one up on it. Didn't really expect intellectual honesty from you though Professor - so no loss. And the award for the biggest stick up their ass goes to.... I have you on my ignore list why are you able to see my posts and reply to mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, RRypien37 said: And the award for the biggest stick up their ass goes to.... I have you on my ignore list why are you able to see my posts and reply to mine? Me? Please tell me it is me!!! Does the award come with a cash prize or just a cool trophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 15 minutes ago, RRypien37 said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 38 minutes ago, oldnews said: you're getting carried away - emotional - unable to maintain a rational conversation. Haha, dude posts that I am getting emotional for using math on him... and then immediately angrily goes back to a a bunch of earlier posts in this thread to put on a “confused” reaction to get back at me. I got a bunch of notifications for it all at the same time He is on full tilt. This thread goes well with a good 16 year old single malt scotch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 10 minutes ago, Provost said: Haha...I am..... ....getting emotional on a “confused” reaction ....a 16 year old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RakuRaku Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 This is getting Frk'ing hilarious!! Why the Frk are we even spending time to discuss this Frk'ing guy!! Just tell him to Frk off already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Virtanen#18 said: This is getting Frk'ing hilarious!! Why the Frk are we even spending time to discuss this Frk'ing guy!! Just tell him to Frk off already! I think we should save the roster spot for when Jog On gets waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 8 hours ago, Provost said: I didn’t say we should pick him up. I said that twice already including the post you quoted. I also said I don’t know where he would fit on our roster. I said “some” team might. Going back to my OP, to fit on our team, we would have to have another long term injury. With Sutter and Baertschi out, we already have Mcewan and Gaudette up. Say if Virtanen or Erickson went out, then that is a position where we would want to look at guys like Frk as a temporary alternative to putting Schaller back in the lineup or pulling another guy from the farm who is farther down the depth chart. The other alternative would be calling Gagner back up... and he might be better off in the minors as it is remotely possible someone takes him off our hands st the deadline as playoff insurance... and him already waived and in the minors is more valuable to a team close to the cap than him in the NHL. Everyone can blame me for putting out a Virtanen injury into the universe. He hadn’t come back to the bench for the 2nd period and it looked like a collarbone or shoulder injury. Maybe just a stinger and needs some freezing to make it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 Virtanen is back... I am off the hook! (unless he wakes up to find he is stiff and out for a while). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Provost said: Virtanen is back... I am off the hook! (unless he wakes up to find he is stiff and out for a while). better wake him up early and find out - before Frk clears waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: better wake him up early and find out - before Frk clears waivers. If we actually did know he had a long term injury, putting in a claim would actually be a decent idea. He seemed pretty fine the rest of the game. As it stands now, another injury to a winger likely means Gagner coming back up.... unless of course a Frk level player is available on waivers at the time... which is eminently possible. As much as I like bringing kids up from the farm, there aren’t a lot more forwards left there who can provide much offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Provost said: If we actually did know he had a long term injury, putting in a claim would actually be a decent idea. He seemed pretty fine the rest of the game. As it stands now, another injury to a winger likely means Gagner coming back up.... unless of course a Frk level player is available on waivers at the time... which is eminently possible. As much as I like bringing kids up from the farm, there aren’t a lot more forwards left there who can provide much offence. I don't necessarily disagree - if Virtanen were out, that's a second right handed shot and two fewer options on the powerplay. It would have been pretty funny - in a sad way - if Virtanen had been injured and the team made a midnight claim on Frk. But another injury doesn't necessarily mean Gagner or a waiver claim - they have a couple ppgish players in Utica (Boucher 48 pt in 39 g) - and Kero (44 in 49), both who have also had recalls this year- and they could simply reinsert Goldobin back in the lineup/ suspect that's what they'd do. They elected to sit Goldobin and play MacEwen and Gaudette - ie had a couple healthy options in the press box. My point was never that Frk has no talent - it's that the Canucks own roster players are constantly sandbagged around here. Forget the roster guys like Granlund, Motte, Sutter, etc - Martin Frk is older than Boucher but hasn't produced at the level of Boucher...Even Kero, likewise. has comparable production to Frk. What has Frk done to earn a spot above these guys in this system? I think if the Canucks were going to make claims like this this year they may have done so when they were even more depleted (in November, in the midst of a long slide, with a number of comparable if not better wingers on the waiver wire). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Cariboo Canuck Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Why is it that every player put on waivers... no matter who it is, someone always comes on here and thinks we should pick up other teams crap?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.