Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: News And Other Updates Leading Up To Pats-Giants

Your Monthly Flyers GVT Update, Before and After Stevens

Now that Tom Awad's GVT is available on Gabriel Desjardins' BehindtheNet.ca, the novelty of these posts has worn off some.  However, I'll continue trying to put some sort of interesting spin on them.

Rather than simply updating you - you can check them daily - this installment will be the first picture of Peter Laviolette's impact on the numbers. 

Since GVT is cumulative, the total number doesn't exactly tell you much.  But when you look at the stat on a per game basis, trends become easier to spot.  I used this method the last time, when I looked at last year, this year, and the VUKOTA projections.

This time, I will be looking at how each player performed in the eyes of GVT on a per game basis under John Stevens and contrasting that with how they have performed for the entire year.

A bit of a disclaimer:  This is not an indictment of Stevens or Laviolette, nor is it an endorsement of either.  Rather, since the team has played roughly the same number of games under each coach this year, now seemed as good a time as any to compare.  In addition, this is but one look at the differences between the team under each coach:  A lot of context is necessary to get the full picture, of which I don't claim to be offering - yet.  Instead, this is a look at the players and their GVT contributions, split roughly in half. 

With that, jump for tables.

Star-divide

NAME GP GVT/G GP GVT/G Diff.
Ray Emery 27.1 0.081 20.1 0.000 0.081
Danny Syvret 21 0.052 13 -0.008 0.060
Jeff Carter 53 0.191 26 0.135 0.056
Kimmo Timonen 53 0.143 26 0.096 0.047
Ian Laperriere 53 0.019 26 -0.023 0.042
Simon Gagne 29 0.097 9 0.056 0.041
Danny Briere 46 0.126 19 0.090 0.037
Blair Betts 34 0.071 13 0.039 0.032
Dan Carcillo 49 0.045 26 0.019 0.026
Arron Asham 46 0.043 19 0.021 0.022
Chris Pronger 53 0.232 26 0.215 0.017
Mike Richards 53 0.168 26 0.165 0.003
Ole-Kristian Tollefsen 18 0.022 9 0.022 0.000
Jared Ross 3 -0.067 3 -0.067 0.000
Riley Cote 12 -0.025 8 -0.025 0.000
Darroll Powe 37 0.035 19 0.037 -0.002
Andreas Nodl 10 -0.040 6 -0.033 -0.007
Ryan Parent 28 -0.011 18 0.006 -0.016
David Laliberte 11 0.045 8 0.063 -0.017
Mika Pyorala 36 -0.017 26 0.015 -0.032
Braydon Coburn 52 0.046 26 0.081 -0.035
Claude Giroux 53 0.119 26 0.154 -0.035
Scott Hartnell 52 0.081 26 0.119 -0.038
Matt Carle 53 0.132 26 0.173 -0.041
Jonathon Kalinski 10 -0.020 3 0.033 -0.053
Oskars Bartulis 39 -0.021 12 0.033 -0.054
James van Riemsdyk 50 0.130 23 0.191 -0.061
Brian Boucher 15.1 -0.152 5.9 0.203 -0.356
Michael Leighton 10.9 0.477

The table is sorted by difference in GVT/G.  Michael Leighton isn't listed because his "Stevens" sample was when he played in Carolina.  Needless to say, his numbers weren't impressive.

Having Ray Emery, Danny Syvret, and Jeff Carter at the top of this list shouldn't exactly surprise anybody.  Emery got off to a hot start, got hurt but kept playing, and has been inconsistent since his return.  However, this shows just how much that injury set him back.  Syvret had also bounced back nicely until he got hurt against Dallas.  Carter has obviously been the only top-6 forward contributing anything lately, showing just how big of a slump he was in to start the year.

Forwards

Carter is still his off his projected 0.21 per game rate and 0.25 rate from last season, but 0.19 per game is much more in line with where he should be.  Danny Briere and Simon Gagne also find themselves improving, although neither can be thrilled with their output so far - especially Gagne, who is plugging along at 50% of his expected rate.  Ian Laperriere has also improved his play drastically, nearly doubling his per game numbes since the regime change.  It should come as no surprise then that his linemates have also greatly improved their score, with Blair Betts coming close to doubling his output and Dan Carcillo more than doubling his own.  The same is true of Arron Asham.

On to the negatives:  James van Riemsdyk, Scott Hartnell, and Claude Giroux have all seen their production fall drastically in the per game category.  Having two of your top-6 decrease production is never good, but at least Giroux and van Riemsdyk are still at 0.12 and 0.13 per game respectively.  Hartnell, however, has slipped to 0.08 per game, just slightly more than Blair Betts.  Some perspective:  JVR is contributing at the rate Hartnell was projected to.  And Hartnell is at the rate Ray Emery has achieved since returning from injury.  Who has looked better doing it?

Defense

As mentioned in the beginning, Danny Syvret has been the most improved skater since the Stevens firing.  How improved?  His per game rate for the entire season is now higher than Braydon Coburn's.  (Obviously, this is where more context would be necessary, so I'm warning you twice.)  Not bad for a guy who played himself off the team earlier this year.  Another big improvement came from Kimmo Timonen who is now beating his projection for the year.  Lastly, while Chris Pronger is right in the middle of the pack, it's important to note that his torrid pace to start the year (even earning him Norris Trophy consideration) has actually gone up since then.  Marginal improvement, yes, but a ridiculously good rate nonetheless.

On to the negatives:  Oskars Bartulis hit quite a rough patch and GVT sees him as contributing less per game than Ole-Kristian Tollefsen.  [Insert criticism of system here]  Matt Carle has fallen back to Earth much the same as JVR has, even though Carle is still well above his projected output.  Lastly, Braydon Coburn has really regressed this year, now finding himself less than half of his projected per game rate.  No matter what other reasons there are, I'm not sure if many of them justify a GVT/G lower than Danny Syvret's.  This is just a really bad season for Coburn.

Goalies

It's safe to say Michael Leighton had quite a run while he was starting.  Aside from that, Emery bounced back nicely as previously stated and Brian Boucher fell off pretty steeply.  A lot of Boucher's fall can be attributed to the team not playing in front of him, so there really isn't much to say about the goalies.  We already knew what this tells us.

Conclusion

There have been some important pieces of the team that aren't producing as much as they were through the first 26 games, but there have also been those who stepped up.  When James van Riemsdyk dropped off in production, Jeff Carter picked his up.  When Oskars Bartulis dropped, Danny Syvret picked up.  The same can be said with Giroux and Betts, Hartnell and Briere, Carle and Timonen, and Boucher and Leighton.  The problem is that it isn't enough.

In order to be better than average, this team needs to get everyone on the same page.  Is there anything this team can do consistently?  The answer so far appears to be no...

Comment 54 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Laperierre’s and Carcillo’s improved production in the second segment I think can be attributed to the fact that they were both pretty much without a role when Betts was injured. I’m not saying Betts made them better than Powe did, I’m saying that line has chemistry and when any one piece was missing, the other two couldn’t figure out how to adjust. Betts played just 13 games in the first segment (which I assume includes the game he left in the 1st period with his second injury) compared to 34 games in the more recent segment.

The other comment I have is on Coburn. He’s getting hammered for regressing, but defensively, since mid-November, I think he’s been pretty much as good as expected. (For the season, he’s on pace for a 3.47 DGVT and Vukota predicted 3.8 DGVT). Geoff, if you still have those spread sheets, can you look at whether his DGVT rate has improved since the quarter-pole?

Just about all of his lack of production comes from the offensive side. In my opinion, thats not nearly as important. A lot of it is also beyond the control of a dman. If a dman fires a puck from the point, he’s looking for the deflection or the rebound. The Flyers all season have been shitty at getting rebounds, which reflects back on the dmen, but isn’t in their control.

For $1.3m, Braydon Coburn is still a good physical defenseman who skates very well. He’s got 70 hits this season, only three fewer hits than Chris Pronger, second amongst dmen (3rd is a long way back to Kimmo’s 49).

Thats not to say he’s living up to expectations, but young dmen have bad years, or are never live up to expectations of their offensive ceiling. (e.g.: Boumeister and Phaneuf.)

But I think too many people are mistaking “not living up to expectations” for “playing poorly”. And he is not doing the latter.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 1:25 PM EST reply actions  

Like my story on Coburn showed though is that he’s performing below what he did last year. By a lot. Look at his hits per game rather than just hits. Look at his blocked shots per game and turnover ratio.

As I said in that story, it’s not that he’s terrible or that he’s failing to meet expectations, it’s that he’s regressed to a level of play below last year. If the expectations were a repeat of last year, then fine. He isn’t living up to expectations. But I thought expectations were an improvement on last year, and instead he’s playing worse than last year.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions  

It is that he’s failing to meet expectations.

I understand your point. Though I think for accuracy’s sake the only comparisons of hits can be to other players on the same team in the same year

On the subject of blocked shots, first lets acknowledge that the Laviolette style, in theory, should reduce the opportunity for blocked shots.

Now, I was looking to see if his offensive performance could be attributed to a reduced role on the power play (it’s not, the PPTOI/60 has been basically the same for three years). BUT, his PK TOI/60:
2008-09: 3:50
2009-10: 2:35
His total TOI is also reduced two minutes since last season.

He’s still blocking shots at the same rate as he did last season:
This season: 75 blocked shots / 1175 minutes = .064 BS/minute
Last season: 129 / 1970 minutes = .065 BS/minute

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Good point on the BS/minute. I hadn’t thought of that.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Whew, sorry Geoff I tried but this is all greek to me. I fell asleep twice trying to get through that stat-fest. I only know one Vukota and that was Abe, he killed as Fish on Barney Miller.

by MJDII on Feb 2, 2010 1:38 PM EST reply actions  

No problem, completely understand

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 1:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Brain Pain

When I see this much talk of stats outside of baseball it make my head hurt.

Statistics and Dick Clark are the Devil!!!

by boknows71 on Feb 3, 2010 9:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Coburn:

10 games, DGVT 0.5, per game 0.05
16 games, DGVT 0.4, per game 0.025
26 games, DGVT 1.0, per game 0.038
36 games, DGVT 1.7, per game 0.047
53 games, DGVT 2.2, per game 0.042

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 1:45 PM EST reply actions  

So outside that awful spell from roughly games 10-20 (late october to late november I believe that would be) he’s on his Vukota pace defensively.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions  

And doubling his DGVT from last year

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Oh, but actually, it’s important to note that his first 26 games (under Stevens) saw him at 0.081 GVT/G, but over the course of the entire season (26 games under Laviolette and 26 under Stevens), he’s at 0.046 GVT/G. In those 26 games under Laviolette, he’s amassed a grand total of 0.3 GVT (0.8 on defense, -0.5 on offense). So, I’d say his awful spell is more than just games 10-20.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m talking purely defensive play.

I’m writing off his offensive play entirely.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Still, I think it’s important to at least notice that he had total GVT scores of 2.1 under Stevens and 0.3 under Lavy.

Further, speaking purely in defensive terms, his “Stevens” GVT was 1.0. In the same number of games, his “Lavy” GVT was 0.8.

So… yeah.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

What conclusion are you drawing?

I see two, but don’t feel I can determine which one is the right conclusion.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m not even drawing a conclusion, actually. I’m not sure what the correct one is, really.

Coburn the player (as opposed to Coburn the stay-at-home defenseman, or Coburn in a defensive vacuum) is barely above replacement level under Lavy. Barely.

And then the second sentence is more to the fact that, in a defensive vacuum, Coburn is still not playing as well as he did under Stevens. This may have a lot to do with all the external factors and since the difference is so small, it’s completely conceivable that he is actually better defensively. I guess I’d say this is “within the margin of error” to use political polling speak, but I think it’s still worth at least mentioning.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

I think the question is whether he doesn’t fit the new style or doesn’t understand the new style.

.8/26 * 82 = 2.52

Thats above replacement level.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

It’s actually:

0.3/26 * 82 = 0.946

That’s above replacement level. Barely. 0.8 was DGVT only, 0.3 was his Total GVT under Lavy.

Either way, your question is still accurate.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Thats one of my criticisms of GVT. The main reason is because I refuse to acknowledge players on their shootout ability.

But I mean, for a defenseman, I am more than willing to accept a negative OGVT if he has a decent DGVT.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m assuming your answer will be “sample size”, but Danny Syvret’s DGVT:

0.8/21 * 82 = 3.12

That’s above his VUKOTA projection of 2.7 DGVT/82 games (Vukota projected a 1.3 score in 28 games; Syvret has a 1.1 in 21 games)

Above replacement level?

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Beyond sample size, we also leared that Danny Syvret played against the weakest competition of anyone in the NHL.

But unless I’m mistaken, replacement level in GVT is defined at 0.0, isn’t it? Thats what I was basing on.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 7:51 PM EST up reply actions  

But not in Corsi Qualcomp.

Either way, I was just curious.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Wait, I could be wrong. I’m honestly confused now. Isn’t GVT = VORP and 0.0 is replacement level in both ??

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions  

It is.

I was saying that while Syvret played against the weakest qualcomp of any d-man in the NHL with at least 15 games, his corsi qualcomp was in the middle third of the same group.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 8:22 PM EST up reply actions  

So then lets combine that Blocked Shots knowledge, and the GVT analysis, and ask a question:

If you’re a fan of, say, the Colorado Avalanche. So you know very little about this second pair dman for an Eastern Conference team. And the Avs GM trades a 2010 first round pick and introduces to you a pending RFA who is big, physical, has very good speed, his defensive play has improved every season, and for two years has been used to shutdown Ovechkin whenever the two teams met, with very good results, wouldn’t you be ecstatic?

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 2:17 PM EST reply actions  

Dunno how great we have really been at shutting down Ovechkin. He’s been pretty good against us this year.

by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 2, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions  

He scores exclusively on turnovers and the PP. Nothing off the rush, which is what the dmen can control.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Good point, I was thinking amount sheer numbers, but yeah he always seems to get a breakaway on a TO or rip a slapper/wrister past us on the PP. Semin absolutely undressed him this year though.

by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 2, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Just throwing this out there

But from what I recall (and my own stupid reasoning), how much of the decline in these numbers are due to Coburn being used differently this season because of the arrival of Pronger.

I mean, refresh my memory. Last year weren’t Coburn/ Timmonen the top defensive pairing?

Maybe a guy like Coburn thrives better on big tough minutes vs. a second-third line shutdown role. If he’s playing on the first pairing, he’s playing with the better offensive players which would automatically indicate that he should reflect better offensive numbers. (or maybe I’m an idiot and that’s what all this GVT/CORSI/Need a math degree to figure out hockey stats means)

Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com

by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 2, 2010 3:17 PM EST reply actions  

Well, Coburn started out playing with Timmonen this year and it was a disaster. He had Kimmo at like -9 or something a dozen games into the season, and most of that was Braydon’s fault.

by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 2, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions  

He had Kimmo at like -9 or something a dozen games into the season, and most of that was Braydon’s fault.

Thats just not true.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

That Kimmo didn’t start the year as a big – or that a lot of it was Braydon’s fault?

by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 2, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Kimmo was playing bad hockey, not being drug down by Coburn. Kimmo even said this himself in december.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions  

It was both, Kimmo has not be as good this year, although he is a +16 on the season since the first 10 games. They both made a few dreadful plays, but early on Coburn was just bad. Since then I don’t think he has been getting a fair shake, although I would like to see Coburn rip off a few more shots from the point. He has a laser and in 2007-2008 he was on his way to being a stud, man oh man if that puck had never clocked him.

by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Feb 2, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed. I mispoke. Kimmo was by no means dragging Coburn down. They both were playing bad which made the other look even worse.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions  

That’s not my question. Playing with Timmonen on the first pairing is different from playing with Timmonen on the second pairing. You are going to see different competition and play with different teammates up front. Qualcomm? Is that the metric I’m looking for?

Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com

by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 2, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Qualcomm is the level of opponents
Qualteam is the level of the other guys on the ice wearing your jersey

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions  

well, I’d like to see Coburn’s metric for each compared for both years. Theoretically, his qualcomm should have gone done (he would face worse level of opponents) but so would his qualteam (because he’s playing with the 2nd/3rd lines more)

Then compare this to GVT, divide it by his CORSI and throw in some brownies and you’d have a damn nice snack.

Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com

by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 2, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Coburn

2009-10: QC .056 QT (-.017)
2008-09: QC .013 QT .114
2007-08: QC .032 QT (-.057)

This year he’s playing against improved opposition with significantly worse teammates.

by MarioD on Feb 2, 2010 4:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Shit, didn’t see you already put this up.

Like I said below, I wish they had Corsi qualcomp for last year, because by that metric, Coburn is facing (-0.183) competition, 4th highest on the team – as expected – with the third highest Corsi qualteam (2.866).

The difference between qualteam and Corsi qualteam is that they use shots instead of goals, on the assumption that goals are more influenced by luck than shots are.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Gabe just put up the Corsi QualComp numbers last night (it’s almost like he knew I wanted them). Coburn:

2009-2010: CQC (-0.183) CQT 2.866
2008-2009: CQC (-0.018) CQT (-4.754)
2007-2008: CQC 0.832 CQT (-7.599)

So, based on shots and not goals, Coburn is facing worse competition with better teammates this year than last year. It’s up to you if you think shots or goals are a better metric of a player, but until they can make “quality shots” a somewhat reliable stat, I think you’ll have to look at both and do a “balancing test”.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 10:14 AM EST up reply actions  

The thing is, Laviolette is allowing shots. I don’t see how you can hold Coburn responsible for a shot on net because he was pinching in the zone and JVR is back playing defense.

by MarioD on Feb 3, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions  

Well, that’s just factually incorrect. When Stevens was fired, the team was giving up 28.6 SA/G. Now, the team is giving up 28.3 (for the year). So, under Laviolette, the team has reduced the amount of shots they’ve been giving up.

How I know this, by the way, is that I copied stats from NHL.com the day Stevens was fired so I could write something after the season.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions  

What are you talking about? Thats a difference of 25 shots over the course of an entire season.

Meanwhile, the entire league has tightened up defensively in comparison to the first two months, probably more than the Flyers have.

by MarioD on Feb 3, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions  

The Flyers are now allowing the 5th fewest shots against per game in the league, up from 8th place under Stevens. So, no, the league hasn’t tightened up defensively more than the Flyers.

No matter how small the difference is, and no matter how much it disagrees with conventional wisdom, the Flyers are giving up less shots under Laviolette than they were under Stevens. Dismiss it if you want, but those are the facts.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

I’m just going to point to the Corsi and agree that Coburn has regressed.

Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com

by HockeyOutsiders on Feb 3, 2010 12:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Instead of taking blind guesses, I actually did the math. Its super easy because ESPN’s team schedule pages show SF-SA for each game. I’m in the midst of running the entire east in an excel spreadsheet, but for the Flyers, average shots against per game by month:

October: 29.45
November: 27.92
December: 27.93
January: 28.79

There is a clear pattern of many shots being taken in October. Every team except Buffalo so far allowed the most or second most shots in that month.

by MarioD on Feb 3, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions  

.xml is complete, I don’t know how to post it here, though.

I uploaded it here. Go to the bottom left and select “book view”.

by MarioD on Feb 3, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

So only the Rangers, Islanders, and Devils have a smaller SA/G than the Flyers in the month of January. That means for the entire season, the Flyers are third best in the East, and during the month of January, the Flyers are 4th best in the East.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 3, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Will comment later. Too many numbers in my head from compiling in order to really analyze it now.

by MarioD on Feb 3, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

I think we can say this is all a wash, no? It doesn’t really demonstrate much in terms of the Flyers. The fluctuations by month (terribly arbitrary except that it happens to be perfect because Stevens coached only the first December game) are all within a shot and a half a game.

Now, some of the other teams really portray a portrait of their season.

by MarioD on Feb 4, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Believe it or not, he’s facing stiffer competition this year. 0.014 qualcomp last year to 0.056 this year.

I wish they had Corsi qualcomp for last year, but they just put that up this year.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions  

I’m also trying to wrap my head around these stats… I know some of them take into account the skill of a player’s teammates but I don’t know how well they can take into account the confidence that a young D-man gets from playing with a Timonen as opposed to a Bartulis.

I think Coburn’s past success has more to do with being paired with Timonen than anything else. Why this pairing failed to work as well early this year is a good question, but I don’t think you can totally fault Coburn. Kimmo made some really ugly plays during that stretch.

by Doug609 on Feb 2, 2010 3:25 PM EST reply actions  

Oh, certainly. That’s why I really tried to stress that there are plenty of outside factors involved.

You can assume the confidence gained reflects in the numbers rather easily, the problem is that the confidence lost also reflects in the numbers rather easily. Except there’s no way of separating that out.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Feb 2, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

All the Philadelphia Flyers news and commentary that's fit to print.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Claude_doop_small
Max Talbot: Quietly Defying Your Expectations
Img_5355_2_2_small
Helping the Rangers fans: Final Planning Thread
Ugly_small
Newton, Nietzsche, and Narratives

Recent FanPosts

Claude_doop_small
Goalies and Back-to-Backs
Clarke-tee_small
I NEED ANOTHER OPEN ICE! NOW!
Small
Bobby Ryan to NY
Small
Should the Flyers think about trading for P.K.Subban?
Small
Suter vs. Carle
100_1036_small
Don't want a 2012 lockout
Ugly_small
Giroux's Goal Scoring Drought: What are the Odds?
Small
Relative Deployment Z-Score

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor

Screen_shot_2012-01-09_at_12 Travis Hughes

Associate Editors

67865_878600804923_14200876_46395212_2220_n_small Geoff Detweiler

Headshot2_film_grain_small Ben Rothenberg

Soccer_face_small Eric T.

Contributors

163830_478172269164_824914164_5517468_4313370_n_small ToddtheFox

Clarke-tee_small KreiderDesigns

D150_small Teemu H