Chris Pronger fails to get Norris nomination
by Travis Hughes on Apr 23, 2010 12:13 PM EDT
in Philadelphia Flyers Commentary
Email
Print
Chris Pronger was snubbed of a Norris Trophy nomination today. The three finalists for the award:
Was Pronger deserving over any of those three nominees? Keep in mind, of course, that the Norris is awarded to the defenseman who demonstrates the best "all-around" play at the position. Vote in the poll.
471 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Look, Pronger’s had a fantastic season and is unquestionably the Flyers’ MVP in my mind. But he hasn’t been better than Keith, Green, or Doughty, and thats the crux of the question. I can see him getting a nomination, but not this year.
Pronger’s part of that ‘2nd tier’ of Norris candidates with Lidstrom and Weber, in my mind.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
I agree re: Keith and Doughty.
Green? Not so much.
The job of a defenseman is to play defense. If your team is protecting a 1-goal lead late in the game, who would you rather have out there – Green or Pronger?
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
The difference here is I don’t think Mike Green is a liability on defense. In fact, he’s an asset. Green’s faster than Pronger and a better puck handler. In an important situation, for me, its a toss up.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that’s an oversimplification. The job of every player on the team is to do what they can to help the team outscore the opponent, and the award’s for all-around play.
Right, all-around play. Chris Pronger is leagues above Green defensively and still put up 50+ points this season.
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Apr 23, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s an award for all around best defenseman. Green has a ridiculous plus/minus, he’s obviously not coughing pucks into his own net. There’s no way Pronger is that much better on D to make up for how much better Green is offensively.
And Green frequently does play the final minute of a one goal game for the Caps. Feel free to check their record. He’s pretty good.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Yeah, much weaker than blocked shots. I’m actually not pinning it on plus/minus. I’m pinning it on him being better than the rest of the league in every offensive stat and an above average defender.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I’m pinning it on him being better than the rest of the league in every offensive stat
Except for you just keep bringing up +/-
and an above average defender.
Shockingly, no statistical support for this assertion. Wonder why?
Oh, you mean his Goals against on ice per 60 doesn’t support that? He’s less than half a goal worse than Pronger, and much better offensively. But this isn’t the thread for me to explain advanced statistical metrics to you.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
57% OZone start.
QualComp .005
QualTeam .323
Please, don’t explain statistical analysis to me, I want to actually know it correctly.
I saw Geoff try. You have no hope.
Keep throwing the flawed QComp and QTeam stats. You don’t like my plus/minus use but both of those stats are completely based on plus/minus. Any concern you have with plus/minus goes for QComp and QTeam and those stats fail to consider role players or line matching.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
GVT:
Mike Green: 22.0 in 75 games
Chris Pronger: 18.5 in 82 games
Pshh, clearly Green is better, just like Jones is better than Scuderi.
Seriously, I want to rip my hair out. Is it your eyes that tell you Pronger is better than Green but the stats that tell you Jones is better than Scuderi? Your arguments never transfer from one to the other, I get lost sometimes.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope and assume this was meant for Huck, not me.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
It was.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Mike Green?
It’s a joke. Norris means best defensemen, not best player at the blue line on PP.
Duncan Keith is clearly the winner this year.
Yeah, which is ridiculous. Just like Cy Young nominees who lead the league in Wins, ERA, and strikeouts. Except worse.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Green is getting the Richard Trophy?
It makes sense. I don’t feel like Pronger was robbed. But very simply, Pronger had a better season as defenseman than Mike Green.
Green is getting the Richard Trophy?
Limiting it to defense (given the nature of the award), but in hindsight, yeah, should have been clearer.
I knew where you were going with that, I was just poking fun.
I guess I would lump Green in the second tier with Pronger, Weber, and (to a lesser extent) Lidstrom. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised or outraged that any of those four are nominated rather than the other three. Keith and Doughty were clearly the class, and someone has to come in third.
I’ll save my indignation for when Weber and Doughty split the vote, and Green skates to the Norris by default. THAT will be a travesty.
Keith and Doughty were clearly the class, and someone has to come in third.
I think that certainly played a role. Wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a lot of guys went “Well, I know I have to include Keith and Doughty, and, uh, well Green beat everyone offensively, and wow his plus-minus went up too!”
I really thought Green was going to take it last year. Hitting 30 goals is something special for a defenseman and I would have thought it’d swayed more people.
So if Green is the same tier as Pronger then why would it be a snub for Pronger? Especially considering this is Green’s third straight year leading the league in D scoring.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
He wasn’t. That’s why I said:
I don’t feel like Pronger was robbed
Norris shouldn’t factor in the past three years (even though of course it will). But since I’m not arguing the merit of the selection, there’s no reason to bring it up.
I agree it shouldn’t factor in the last three years, but if you’re looking at a group of guys that are basically even maybe it’s a tie breaker (but then Lidstrom would get a nomination again).
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Not to be a homer, but the stats tell you Chris Pronger was the best defenseman at 5-on-5 this year, hands down. Whether he wins the award is one thing – Doughty and Keith are very deserving – but putting Mike Green in there reeks of “he was snubbed by Canada this year, snubbed in the Norris last year, and disrespected throughout the league.”
Guaranteed, Green comes in third.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 12:19 PM EDT reply actions
Guaranteed, Green comes in third.
Which would be a shame. He’s the best player on Washington’s blueline by a mile, and the drop off to Jeff Schultz is a lot greater than the drop to Brent Seabrook or Kimmo Timonen. You don’t lead the league in that many categories without being world class.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
5-on-5 stats:
Green:
GFON/60 – 4.48
GAON/60 – 2.36
Pronger:
GFON/60 – 2.59
GAON/60 – 1.96
Green can score, we’re all well aware of that. He’s the best offensive-defenseman there is. His defensive liabilities are largely overplayed, but there’s only one person with a qualcomp of .100 or higher and a lower GAON/60 than Pronger, and that’s Marc Staal. Pronger was a beast this year.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I think what’s unfortunate for Pronger (and by extension, Flyers fans) is that I think the impact on the team as a whole kind of gets discounted in the Norris (as opposed to the Hart where the “most valuable to his team” aspect is taken very literally) and that’s where Pronger probably helped the team the most.
So the Caps score almost two more goals per 60 when Green is on the ice and let up less than half a goal more when he’s on, and yet that’s a problem? Looks like the Caps are ~1.5 goals better per 60 with Green than PHI is with Pronger.
And all the Caps players get hurt with QComp because BB doesn’t match lines and other teams frequently send checkers out against their top players. Not his fault.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
And all the Caps players get hurt with QComp because BB doesn’t match lines and other teams frequently send checkers out against their top players.
Which relies on the absurd notion that a checking player isn’t very good.
Exactly!
But since QComp is rated by plus/minus you often get the checking line players rated as lower QComp but they are really harder to play against for the tough scorers. Would you rather play against Jason Spezza (high QComp) or the OTT checking line? Obviously it’s easier to own Spezza in his own end than a competent checker. Thanks for helping to clarify, Huck.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
In your little example, Jason Spezza’s alleged inability to play defense would result in him allowing lots of goals against, and thus not having a very good / On/Off.
No, QComp and QTeam are based heavily on plus/minus. Therefore, a guy with a great plus/minus, like Spezza, will have a higher QComp rating than the guys on his team that play checking roles, despite being less difficult to play against.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You could twist all the numbers around your unsupported assumption…
Or, you know, Spezza could actually play good D and faced good competition with mediocre teammates.
Hahaha. Spezza could play good D. This might be the most ignorant comment you’ve ever written. Kudos for that, you have a tough body of work to compete with. Seriously, have you ever watched the guy?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Sometimes it’s just that easy with you. I know OTT/PIT was up against you guys on the schedule, but Spezza has been called out on air for his terrible D in every single game. You clearly have no idea what Spezza is all about or how he plays. I don’t even need to bother going further.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Spezza has been called out on air for his terrible D in every single game.
Even more brilliant analysis.
Yeah, but then why are you nominating Mike Green? Look at Jeff Schultz
GFON/60: 4.23
GAON/60: 1.61
The Caps are .6 goals better with Schultz on the ice than Green, and Schultz played against tougher competition.
The better rationale is that Green and Schultz played on a ridiculously high scoring team where 5 players had GFON/60 of 4.00 or higher, and 9 with 3.50 or higher. The Caps averaged 3.5 GFON/60 at 5-on-5, whereas the Flyers averaged 2.4.
Put that in context, and the Flyers were ~.55 goals better with Pronger on the ice; the Caps were ~.8. It gets a lot closer there, then when you factor in PP and PK time, I’d imagine it gets a lot closer.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
But that ignores the fact that Green is a huge reason the Caps had a ridiculously high scoring team. This is the exact same argument Canes Country put together to argue that Backstrom isn’t really that good. “Well he has Ovechkin and the team scores a ton.” Well a big part of that is because of Backstrom and Green. Don’t knock their production just because they are on a great team.
Schultz is better defensively than Green, but Green is so much better offensively that it’s not really a close call who our best D is. When evaluating “all around play” you have to consider both. Green is hands down the best offensive D in the league, and he’s well above average in his own end. All around, that makes him a stud.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
The Norris is the award for best defense men if its hard to tell who the best on your team is then neither can be considered a Norris candidate.
It’s not hard to tell. It’s harder for the Flyers to tell than for the Caps, that’s for sure.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Same as the Caps. But the Flyers at least have Timonen who could possibly be in the discussion. The Caps literally have nobody other than Green that is an elite-level D.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
No, Timmonen is not in the discussion. Timmonen is a very good dman, but there’s no issue for even a philosophical exercise of discussing whether he’s better than Pronger.
You’re missing step 1. Identify the elite D on the team. PHI has 2. WAS has 1. That’s my point. No, Timonen is not as good as Pronger, but he’s damn good. Before Pronger got to PHI you guys used Timonen against AO all the time and I’ve said that Timonen plays AO better than any other D in the east. Many times. Even with Pronger the Flyers have matched Timonen against AO.
After Mike Green the Caps go to… who? Schultz? Poti? Corvo? Carlson? Not quite the same.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Exactly.
Timmonen is very good and yet there’s still no shred of a doubt Pronger is better than him.
No one else on Washington is even a #1 dman, and there’s a reputable argument that Green isn’t the best dman on his team.
There is no reputable argument that Green isn’t the best D on his team. You seem to be ignoring this point. I’d say it’s a mistake by I know better.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nope. That’s a stat. An argument would take into consideration the things that Schultz doesn’t do as well as Green. This is actually cherrypicking, not a reputable argument.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Schultz has a higher +/- On/Off/60. Schultz plays against better competition. Schultz is clearly the better defensive player. Green’s offensive numbers are skewed by his 56.7% Ozone starts while Schultz has only 53% Ozone starts.
Therefore, Schultz is the better player at that position.
Rafalski has lower GAON/60 than Lidstrom. Who is the best D on that team. Stop cherrypicking.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
You picked one half of one of the five statistics I posted, and then accused me of cherry-picking.
Let me introduce you to the kettle…
Nah, just a taste of your own medicine. Your argument has reached joke proportions, this is when I stop taking you seriously and start laughing.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
MarioD is very good, you won’t win this argument
TAKE THE FALL, ACT HURT, GET INDIGNANT
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Apr 23, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
And even if you do, it will suddenly become a different argument which you will lose. And repeat.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Both benefit from each other. But no question Schultz’s +/-, for example, is heavily due to Green’s presence as his partner.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Again, if Green isn’t even the best defensive defenseman on his team, when the next best dman on his team is not even one of the top 30 in the league, then he’s not a Norris winner.
No, he’s not a Norris winner and probably won’t be this year either. But he’s still better than Pronger.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
No, I certainly agree. I wasn’t posting those to show you’re wrong, just that you have to account for team performance. Green still comes out on top, just not by as much as some suggested.
Anyway, all of this gets back to what we said on the radio show last week: There needs to be a Selke for defenseman – Best Offensive Defenseman, to which Green will win every year.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, someone needs to make the Langway Award. I hope Mirtle gets enough momentum to make that happen.
The problem is defensive play is among the hardest to measure in the game. I’m afraid it would just be another “lifetime achievement award” like some of the others have become.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
To which we can then have Mirtle lead the push to have Blair Betts win the Selke. If he can make the Langway Award happen, he can make Blair Betts an award winner.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Good luck with that.
And while we’re on it, despite how good Betts is at D, he goes in the BtN stats as a low QComp because of his middling plus/minus. Obviously, he’s much more difficult to play against than that would suggest.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Yeah, his QComp isn’t that bad, but Zajac and Carcillo have higher QComp’s with lower GAON/60.
But yeah, it’s a problem.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
well, now that the conversation has reached a semi-level headed debate, it’s easy to also understand why Green is nominated and to a lesser extent the other two as well. They are all “sexier” picks and have more sizzle than a nomination of Pronger and Lidstrom (as puck daddy asserts should have also been in the running).
If you take off the bias colored glasses, you can’t ignore that the NHL awards is also based in a PR campaign as well.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know why you think repeatedly telling me I’m a homer or have bias colored glasses is going to make me more receptive. It’s not like you’re not wearing the Flyers glasses in all of this.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I’m not. If Mike Green was a better defenseman than Chris Pronger, I’d be the first one to tell you that.
1) The stats bear out the fact that this isn’t the case.
2) how BB uses Green shows this isn’t the case
3) the perception in general of the unbiased hockey world tells you that
4) if you asked a die hard hockey fan to pick a franchise defenseman and he had to pick between Pronger and Green, I’d bet most of them would take Pronger
yes, #4 is another pure hypothetical example, but it doesn’t change the fact, that it’s true. Normally, on most things I agree with you 100%, but in this case, your team bias clouds the reality of the situation. I can say this, because on almost everything you have said here and over at Japer’s I agree with, so when I don’t agree with you, i have to either conclude that a) your judgement is clouded by your team bias or b) i’m wrong. It’s not b).
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
1) The stats bear out the fact that this isn’t the case.
Depending on which stats you want to look at.
3) the perception in general of the unbiased hockey world tells you that
Would that include the writers that vote on the award?
4) if you asked a die hard hockey fan to pick a franchise defenseman and he had to pick between Pronger and Green, I’d bet most of them would take Pronger
Well that sure is conclusive. I assume you have something to back this up.
How about c) it’s a subjective issue on which reasonable people can disagree. I don’t think it’s a landslide or necessarily an easy call, but I also don’t think I’m being a homer when I say Green deserves to be in the final 3 for the Norris and Pronger doesn’t.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Depending on which stats you want to look at.
Thats true. +/- totally proves Green is a better player.
As does goals, assists, points, and goals against versus goals for differential when on/off the ice.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Don’t forget GVT!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
fair enough, but I think any reasonable person that looks at all 4 factors would conclude that Pronger is better than Green this season. As I have stated from the onset, I think Green is a very good defenseman, he’s a premier “offensive” defenseman, but his defensive game is lacking. This is supported by statistics, talking to reasonable hockey fans around the league and by actually, you know watching Caps games (yes, I watch a fair number of Caps games).
So it comes down to what the definition of Norris Candidate is. To me, it’s the best all around defenseman. That means every facet of his game should be elite, and I just can’t agree that it is in Green’s case. Whereas, with Pronger, you get the total package and using any measure of stats, conversations with others etc. forms this conclusion.
Will Green be better than Pronger in a couple years, absolutely, is he better than him now. Nope, sorry. But the NHL and their PR machine, has a close call and they choose the younger, “flashier” guy. I can accept that. I don’t have to agree with it.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
but I think any reasonable person that looks at all 4 factors would conclude that Pronger is better than Green this season.
So the entire hockey writers’ association is unreasonable? Each of the last two years?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
But the NHL and their PR machine, has a close call and they choose the younger, "flashier" guy.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
If there was a year for that to happen it would have been last year. But instead Chara gets the old grizzled veteran award in what is probably the most undeserved Norris since the mid-90s (just to head it off, I had Lidstrom winning; he was judged against his previous years and punished but was still the best). I can see the narrative, I just don’t think that’s what’s happening.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
perhaps, but I think that’s exactly what it is. We’re discussing an “award”. I think the history of award’s shows, the list of undeserving candidates/winners is long. When you make the “award” subjective, the list grows longer.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
How many undeserving winners are there?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
did i miss something? Did you just post this?
Chara gets the old grizzled veteran award in what is probably the most undeserved Norris since the mid-90s
I’m sure in a few years that Lidstrom won it, there were other viable/better candidates. I can’t support this of course, but I’m sure there are arguments that could be made for other’s or else, there would have been no need to name 2 other guys.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I think Lidstrom deserved all those, and maybe Niedermayer’s and definitely Chara’s. But before Chara, I have to go to at least Rob Blake to find a guy that might not have deserved it, and I’m not even sure that’s the case.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
across the spectrum of NHL awards (not just the Norris specifically), there is a long list of undeserving candidates (which is why i didn’t say the list of undeserving NORRIS candidates is long) I said undeserving awards candidates.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I would simply argue no one from the piss poor South-East Division should get nominated for any defensive awards. Strength of Schedule the Capitals played one of the easiest schedules in the league and not other team from that division made the playoffs.
Oh, and Green coming in third to Doughty or Keith would not be a shame at all. Him coming in third isn’t something I’m up in arms about, but I think he should come in fourth. I’m glad he got a nomination, but no way does he deserve to be above Doughty or Keith.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Ya, I guess in the end it hardly matters. Either Doughty or Keith are going to win. Even if Pronger had of been nominated, there was no way he was going to get it either. Mike Green doesn’t deserve it and fortunately won’t get it.
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Apr 23, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
How the hell does Mike Green get a nomination? He doesn’t even play defense. He is basically a winger merely listed as a defensemen.
@Mitchman88 on Twitter
by Mitchell Green on Apr 23, 2010 12:22 PM EDT reply actions
Head asplode.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
(all stats amongst dmen, where applicable it is per 60 mins amongst dmen averaging 10min per game and having played a minimum of 40 games)
Mike Green was 26th in the league amongst DMen at Defensive GVT.
Mike Green was 84th in the league in blocked shots.
Mike Green’s zone start was in the O-zone 57.6% of the time. Most on his team and 14th in the entire league.
Mike Green’s QualComp was .005 and his QualTeam was the 4th highest in the league at .323
What a joke.
Fair, but his +/-ON/60 was second (and ahead of the other Norris finalists) and his total GVT was second to Keith.
Fair, but his +/-ON/60 was second (and ahead of the other Norris finalists)
1) How about even the tiniest shred of context for that stat? EVERY SINGLE PLAYER who was on the team the whole season finished with a positive +/-ON/60.
2)
Mike Green’s QualComp was .005 and his QualTeam was the 4th highest in the league at .323
3) Jeff Schultz actually had a higher +/-ON/60, blocks more shots, and plays against tougher competition
Randy Jones was roooooooooobbed!
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
I even rec’d it.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
1st in goals
1st in points
2nd in plus-minus
1st in ES goal differential (off the top of my head—miles better than Duncan Keith, at one point Green 40 to Keith 4, as JP tweeted)
1st in power-play points
Over a point-per-game
What a joke.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Translation: Don’t pay attention to Mike Green’s pathetic defensive stats. Look at all these shiny goals!
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 23, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Mike Green’s pathetic defensive stats.
Simply isn’t true. Fact checking is awesome, try it!
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Actually, it is true.
As I posted above, he’s in the bottom half of the league in shot blocking, starts in the O zone, and plays against mediocre competition.
Why such a focus on shot blocking? It’s not even strongly correlated to winning. It’s just cherrypicking less meaningful stats so you can knock the guy because you don’t like how he plays.
Ask every coach in the league, would you rather have a player go out and score a goal this shift or block a shot? Ten out of ten want the goal. Green is the best there is at creating goals from the blueline.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
shot blocking, starts in the O zone, and plays against mediocre competition.
I’m not following how this equates to ‘pathetic defensive stats’. You cited three stats. I’m also assuming that you meant defensive zone starts. His quality of competition is low because Boudreau doesn’t match lines and he ends up against every team’s checking line.
Also, what the hell does shot blocking have to do with the Norris? LAPERIERRE FOR HART!!!!1
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, what the hell does shot blocking have to do with the Norris
He’s a defenseman who doesn’t block shots and you don’t see why that’s important? I don’t even know what to say about that… it’s a defenseman’s fucking job to block shots.
I’m also assuming that you meant defensive zone starts.
I meant offensive zone starts, since thats what he has so many of and that’s what the statistic is.
it’s a defenseman’s fucking job to block shots.
Apparently we’re having job definition disagreements. I always thought they were supposed to keep the puck out of the net. Silly me!
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
And I guess its a pitcher’s job to not allow runs, but it isn’t his job to throw strikes?
Your argument is so fundamentally dumb that there’s no response simplistic enough to disprove it.
No, your argument is so dumb it’s almost not worth addressing. Pitchers and D are so fundamentally different that it’s worthless.
And really, if there was a pitcher that never threw a strike but got guys to swing at balls, wouldn’t he be doing his job?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Pitchers do frequently throw outside the strike zone on purpose to try and get groundouts, fwiw.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Hot damn, baseball in a hockey argument!
Let me see if Imma trackin’.
Blocked shots=strikes? What?
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
The baseball to hockey one is for sure.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
+1
For demonstrating how ridiculous you are. You can’t tell the difference between baseball and hockey? Well done, Huck.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Any analogy that involves comparing blocking a shot to throwing a strike is certainly unsound.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
What was it you kept using on Fehr and Balanced? Oh, yes:
World class deflecting.
Instead of proving to me why it IS logically sound, you call me a name.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because analogies are logically sound.
I don’t need to prove why analogies are logically sound. If you don’t think an anology is a logically sound argument, you must be incapable of comprehending how analogies work. And, therefore, a simpleton.
Not to mention that baseball analogies are classically used in all fields, as well as the fact that baseball is where statistical analysis in sports was born and therefore a discussion of statistical analysis which analogizes to baseball is perfectly relevant.
But, if you can’t inherently understand those basic tenants of discourse, there’s only one logical conclusion…
You’re a helluva lawyer, dude. I’ll give you that. There’s bullshit flying everywhere, but it looks pretty.
If you don’t think an anology is a logically sound argument, you must be incapable of comprehending how analogies work.
Some analogies are sound, they just have to have legitimate terms. Relating a blocked shot to a strike thrown are not legitimately analogous.
Not to mention that baseball analogies are classically used in all fields, as well as the fact that baseball is where statistical analysis in sports was born and therefore a discussion of statistical analysis which analogizes to baseball is perfectly relevant.
Lemme see. Advanced statistics were born in baseball; so that means I can compare them to a totally different sport with different metrics?
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Baseball is capable of being broken down into discreet incidents, and thus easier to statistically analyze than hockey. That should not be controversial at all.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Are you agreeing; then; that its a reach the size of Crosby’s ass to compare the two?
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
it’s a defenseman’s fucking job to block shots.
No, it’s a D’s job to help out-score the other team. Some guys do that by blocking shots. Some guys do it other ways. Lidstrom never blocked a ton of shots, are his Norris Trophies void? It’s just a different style of playing. If all you want is blocked shots why aren’t you bitching that Volchenkov got robbed?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
this is the comment i was waiting for marioD to address. guess it never happened. # of blocked shots is completely meaningless in determining the success of a defenseman at doing his job. it only shows how he went about doing his job. sure, volchenkov and pronger are very good at defense. but so are lidstrom, chara, niedermayer, doughty….all of whom have fewer blocked shots than mike green. seriously WTF, doughty has 76 blocked shots to green’s 105. the very definition of cherry picking stats to suit your preconceived notions about a player (that…or just completely misunderstanding the sport of hockey).
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Here’s guessing Mario doesn’t hold the lack of blocked shots over Lidstrom or Niedermayer’s heads.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Andy Sutton and Dennis Seidenberg must be AMAZING.
Funny, that argument was lacking in the whole Jones/Scuderi debate.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
ARE YOU AN EXPERT???
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Seidenberg’s Uncertainty Principle!
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
by mikefive on Apr 23, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because no one argued Jones was a better defender. He’s a better all-around player.
Here, the argument is that Green is a better offensive player, but the issue is all-around.
Because no one argued Jones was a better defender. He’s a better all-around player.
Holy fuck have you not been paying attention, Huck? That’s precisely the same point with Green. He’s not as good defensively as other guys, but is a better all-around player.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
haha, that analogy isn’t logically sound!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Except he isn’t a better all around player.
You’re arguing that his offensive greatness outweighs his defensive deficiencies.
And what exactly are you arguing about Randy Jones?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
That his offensive greatness outweighs his defensive deficiencies.
Oh, and Jones had bad teammates! Wahhhhhhh!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
No, his offensive prowess outweighs Scuderi’s defensive prowess.
But thanks for confirming that you are still two steps behind in that discussion. Good to know thats why you locked the thread.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Jones’ offensive prowess against 3rd line opposition outweighs Scuderi’s defensive prowess against first line opposition.
Keep crying
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course, the qualcomp facts just don’t bear that assertion out…
Scuderi’s Qualcomp is .033. Hardly first line quality.
At some point you should actually, you know, watch some hockey. It’s not an excel spreadsheet, it’s a game. I know you don’t bother watching other teams, but Scuderi is matched against top line opponents for LAK (and was for PIT).
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Which is, you know, 1st on the Kings.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
So really, you could watch the Kings, or look at the stats, and either way you’d realize Scuderi is their top line D.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Or, you know, use your eyes and say Jones is better…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Using the same words doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
“Top Line Competition” refers to the other team.
“Top Line D” refers to his own team.
Proving the latter is irrelevant to the former.
You are unfuckingbelievable. So he plays on his team’s top D pair and plays against the other team’s top line and you still bitch about it.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
yet again, you confuse top dman with top oppositional line.
Thats not what the stats actually demonstrate.
Top oppositional line is the Sedins.
Top D pair is the pair that plays the Sedins.
Scuderi is the guy they throw against the Sedins.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
You’re using your eyes! GAH!
Scuderi’s Qualcomp is the highest on his team, which means he plays against the best competition out of anybody on the Kings, which means he goes against the opposition’s top lines.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Scuderi’s Qualcomp is the highest on his team
true
which means he plays against the best competition out of anybody on the Kings
true
which means he goes against the opposition’s top lines.
factually incorrect assumption.
The majority of his time is still not against the other team’s top line in this playoff series.
And his relatively low qualcomp suggests this is true for the entire season. He and Doughty spend more time than any other pairing against the top lines, but its not even the majority of their ice time.
That’s great. It’s still not even half of the time he’s on the ice, as I stated.
Game 1: 21:19 TOI, 6.9 against the Sedins
Game 2: 21:21 TOI, 8.9 against the Sedins
Game 3: 21:19 TOI, 13.9 against the Sedins
Game 4: 20:10 TOI, 10.2 against the Sedins
84:09 total TOI, 39:54 against the Sedins
You do realize those 6.9, 8.9, 13.9 etc. numbers don’t equal 6.9 minutes, 8.9 minutes, and 13.9 minutes, don’t you?
No, clearly you don’t.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Wait, I thought you were saying they don’t mean “6:09”.
Are you saying they are percentages of the ice time against that player?
There’s no legend on that page…
I have no idea what they are, but they’re definitely not minutes.
That’s why I never reference what the numbers stand for, just say what three players are most frequent.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Pronger Game 4: 27:58 TOI
Add up his Head-to-Head numbers and you get:
69.5. Add in Marty Brodeur, and you get 83.4
So you’re wrong.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I just tested Lappy’s Game 4 numbers. It shows him at 6.6 for Brodeur. Lappy had 6:38 of ESTOI, or 6.633333 minutes
So Game 4, Scuderi played 16:48 ESTOI or 16.8. 10.2 of which against the Sedins – according to your numbers. 60.7% of the time Scuderi was out against the Sedins
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
So the x.x is a measure of even strength minutes.
So he matched up even strength with the Sedins for 39:54.
And ES TOI was:
Game 1: 17:13
Game 2: 18:35
Game 3: 17:32
Game 4: 16:48
So he had 70:08 of ES TOI.
56% of his ESTOI was against the Sedins.
But you’re not finishing the “Sedin-line” since they have a third winger. Add that up, and they you’ll see what percent of his ESTOI was against 1st line competition.
Oh, and QualComp counts all 5 skaters on the ice, not just 3. So you’d have to add the two defenseman to that calculation as well.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
But you’re not finishing the "Sedin-line" since they have a third winger. Add that up, and they you’ll see what percent of his ESTOI was against 1st line competition.
That makes no sense. Its the percent of time played against those players. The numbers I posted were for whichever Sedin has a lower jersey number.
If you want, you can both Sedins and their winger, then divide by 3.
But adding them up makes no sense.
Oh, and QualComp counts all 5 skaters on the ice, not just 3. So you’d have to add the two defenseman to that calculation as well.
So you’re arguing that Scuderi is matched up against the other team’s best Dmen, too?
I don’t even understand the point of this statement.
The question I was resolving was, while he has the highest qualcomp, how much of his ice time does Scuderi actually spend against the other team’s top line.
Which, by constraints of statistics, evolved to “how much even strength time has Scuderi spent against the Sedins this series”
But the whole premise is how much time does Scuderi play against top line opponents. Showing that he spends 56% of the time against the Sedins only shows how much time he spends against two-fifths of a top line.
Yes, it answers how much even strength time Scuderi spent against the Sedins, but it doesn’t answer how much time does he spend against first line opponents.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
only shows how much time he spends against two-fifths of a top line.
First off, the top line is 3 players, not 5. Unless you’re arguing that Terry Murray matches Scuderi up against the other team’s dmen.
Second, Are you saying the Sedins are not the top line?
Whatever you’re trying to say isn’t making any sense.
Qualcomp accounts for all 5 opponent skaters on the ice. Therefore, saying Scuderi doesn’t play top-line competition – based on qualcom – includes those 5 skaters.
Only counting 2 of the 5 players that factor into a qualcomp is inaccurate. If Scuderi spent 56% of his time against the Sedins, he also spent ~25% of his time against their linemate. All of a sudden, Scuderi is at ~80% of his ice time against 1st line competition.
And BAM! Proof that Scuderi faces 1st line competition.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
If Scuderi spent 56% of his time against the Sedins, he also spent ~25% of his time against their linemate. All of a sudden, Scuderi is at ~80% of his ice time against 1st line competition.
No. That’s just mathematically wrong..
That’s stupefyingly wrong.
Its so inherently screwed up that I don’t even know how to fix it.
All I can explain is how it fails:
The numbers showed he spent 56% of ES TOI against whichever Sedin had a lower jersey number.
If the Sedins and their other wing all were on and off the ice at exactly the same moment for the entire series, your analysis proved that 168% of Rob Scuderi’s ES TOI was against the top line.
The numbers showed he spent 56% of ES TOI against whichever Sedin had a lower jersey number.
What does that even mean? You only looked at how often Scuderi played against ONE guy?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. I’ve posted this several times now.
The question was how many minutes he played against the Sedins.
I added up the first Sedin since they are linemates.
We don’t know the exact numbers for when they were both on the ice, and the numbers on the shift page are rounded off by 6 seconds at a time (because its in 1/10 of a minute).
So I just took the rough numbers of the first Sedin on the list.
And you’re using this to show that he doesn’t play against first-line opposition?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
it only shows how he went about doing his job.
And it shows that green went about doing his job by only playing in the offensive zone.
Just like Randy Jones…
And yet you don’t see the analogy here
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yet again, factually inaccurate, unsupported assertion.
Jones’ zone starts were 54% Offensive, which was 3rd/4th on his team and 41st in the league amongst dmen.
Green’s were 57%, 1st on his team, 14th in the league.
Oh, but of course, Green’s 2:09 of PK time don’t count, but Jones’ 0:41 of PK time support…
And I thought you only argued GVT and qualcomp, qualteam?
GVT says Green is better than Pronger, and yet your eyes tell you differently.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, but of course, Green’s 2:09 of PK time don’t count, but Jones’ 0:41 of PK time support…
Two different arguments merged into one does not a logical response make…
GVT says Green is better than Pronger, and yet your eyes tell you differently.
Nope, I’ve never said a single fucking thing about what my eyes show. Every post I made was supported by statistical analysis.
Stop whining in every fucking thread because I kicked your ass in one conversation.
It’s not whining, it’s mocking.
And he’s not upset that you “kicked his ass”, he’s just frustrated that you’re a fucking hypocrite that changes criteria and analysis to support whatever you want the conclusion to be. Great for a lawyer, frustrating for anyone that wants to have reasoned debate on the merits.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Two different arguments merged into one does not a logical response make…
But I thought blocked shots equal strikes, and that was logical?
You kicked my ass? GVT says Jones was better than Scuderi – which the creator of the stat says is inaccurate – and you agree. GVT says Green was better than Pronger, and you disagree.
Please, oh please, twist your way out of that hypocrisy.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Is it that hard to see how strikes are to pitching as shot blocking is to defending?
Both are very important skills to the position. Granted they are not the determining factor in overall effectiveness, but still very important. In my mind (and maybe just there) Norris candidates should block some shots.
You can be an awesome D without blocking shots. See Doughty, Lidstrom, etc. You cannot be an awesome pitcher without throwing strikes. Throwing strikes is an indispensable skill to a pitcher; not so with shot blocking.
It would be more accurate to look at shot blocking like throwing 98 MPH. Sure, you can do it that way, with brute force. Or you can be like Greg Maddox and throw with intelligence, control, and precision. Both ways get the job done, it’s just a matter of how.
MarioD wants to make it look like blocking shots is analogous to throwing strikes; that both skills are necessary to success. That’s simply not the case.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
theoretically you could be an amazing groundball pitcher. but you’d have to be seriously incredible to get by without accumulating strikes.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
But as someone above said, if they swing it’s a strike, by definition.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
semantics maybe, but if the guy hits the ball fair then it’s not a strike. sorry this isn’t helping either side of the argument, i realize.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Just curious about zone starts % thing. Would this be skewed by a situation in which a team gets more of it’s total draws in the O zone? Which is probably the case for the Caps. Granted the point is totally made by the fact that Green is #1 relative to his teammates, regardless of the actual numbers.
Absolutely a valid consideration.
In which case, obviously, you need to look at the data within the player’s own team, because thats the largest sample which is equally effected by that issue.
For Washington, you get:
Green – 57.6%
Schultz – 53.4%
Morrisson – 52%
Erskine – 48.3%
Poti – 46.9%
And that then confirms the original though, because even when you adjust for a possible discrepancy in the overall number of O zone starts vs D zone starts, Green is getting a dramatically large proportion of them.
You also completely ignore that Tom Poti is the worst offender of ridiculously icing the puck and Mike Green is great at actually passing it to a teammate. But you know, that’s nuance and doesn’t support your position so it doesn’t count.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
You might call that “nuance” but what it actually is is “anecdotal” until you support it with something other than what your eyes see.
It’s also another reason hockey isn’t a collection of numbers like baseball.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
True but when you look at those numbers (first 5 grouped within 6.5 , then Green more than 4 more than the 5th) it’s got to be more than Poti stupidly icing the puck.
Well, on that list Green is the only guy that can do anything with the puck in the offensive zone. Poti has completely lost his offensive game and none of those other guys ever had one. Would you blame BB for putting Green out in situations that take advantage of his offensive skill?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Not at all, obviously the Caps are hugely successful on the offensive side of the game, and Green is a big part of that. I’d do the same thing if I was BB. It’s just a question of the ‘defensive’ numbers supporting a Norris nomination. I get the ‘all around’ arguement, I just don’t think he’s strong enough on the D end to deserve it…
perhaps the argument would better set up to be
Green’s offensive ability + defensive ability > Pronger’s offensive ability + defensive ability.
Assume we assign a scale of 1-10 for offensive ability and give Green a 10 for that side. Then we say he gets a 7 for defense for a total rating of 17.
Then we assign a 7 for Pronger’s offensive ability and a 9 for defensive ability and assign him a 16 and therefore make a case of Green being better?
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I suppose, but I don’t know where you’re getting those numbers. If I was setting up the equation I’d put a higher weighting on defensive ability being that it’s a defensman’s award.
well, i’m a numbers guy so I was just trying to assign a value to something hypothetically. Personally, I agree, it’s a defenseman award, so it should give more weight to you know, actually being a defenseman, but that’s clearly not what the award has meant lately.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Aside from the current debate, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the award against defensively capable players. Last year Chara won solely on being mean and tough and being good in his own end. His offense was nothing special. Lidstrom earned all of his in both ends, no doubt. Pronger and Niedermayer were both good in their own end. You have to go back a ways to find a guy that won it on offense. The refusal to make it an “offensive award” is why Green lost last year and will lose this year.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
but why should he even get nominated? It’s for “all around” play. As as been suggested before, if they want to make an award for best offensive defenseman, Green wins it hands down. No debate from me. But the award is for “all-around” defenseman. You guys have already admitted that his game is mostly offense and his coach uses him that way and in those situations.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Ugh. Why should he get nominated? Seriously? You are vastly underrating his D. That’s fine, it comes with having great offense. He’s the best offensively, and above average defensively, so by virtue of that he is going to be one of the best all around.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Thats definitely not what the award is, though.
It should be balanced.
The thing is, Pronger is more like a 10 defensively and an 8 offensively. Pronger was 5th amongst all Dmen in points and may be the best defensive dman in the game this year.
that’s precisely the argument I’m trying to make, but Fehr seems to just like to continue to assert that on a scale of 1-10, Green is an 12 offensively and even though his defense is a 7, he has a total score of 19, which beats Pronger’s score of 18.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what I’m asserting, so don’t be an ass. First off, your scale is BS and made up. As a simple conceptual tool, yeah, what I’m saying is that Green O + Green D > Pronger O + Pronger D. But the way you characterize my position is just ridiculous. You call me a homer but you’re not even willing to concede that Mike Green is a legitimate potential candidate.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
so lidstrom only played in the offensive zone? chara? are you the guy that goes to games and yells “HIT SOMEBODY! BLOCK A FRIGGIN’ SHOT!” all game long? there are different ways to keep a team from scoring goals. being positionally sound, keeping control of the puck, transitioning the puck from zone to zone, snuffing out the opposing team’s transitions…these are the skills of a great defenseman, and if you can excel at them you can prevent the other team from scoring (the defenseman’s job) without being a top shotblocker.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
And these would be very simply represented by looking at Corsi numbers, which would show fewer attempted shots against when Green was on the ice.
SA/ON/60
Corvo – 26
Schultz – 27.7
Morrison – 27.7
Poti – 27.7
Green 27.9
Mike Green is fifth on his team in preventing shots from reaching the net (despite starting in the O zone the most on the team).
Maybe there’s just a ton of shots fired when he’s on the ice (though that would contradict your argument of transitional defense and puck possession) and he forces a ton of them to miss the net?
MA/On/60
Schultz – 12.4
Corvo – 12.3
Green – 11.9
Hmmm…
So he’s 72nd in the league in missed shots against, 118th in shots against…
Seems he doesn’t do any of the things you listed above, either.
All you have are those antiquated stats?
GVT is all encompassing and it shows Green is better than Pronger, end of argument.
BAM, I just kicked your ass. Right? Right? Bueller?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, since:
A) You didn’t look at QualComp or QualTeam
and
B) We aren’t asking “who contributed most to the team” (that’s the Hart Trophy), we’re asking "who’s the best all-around defenseman in the league
No, all you did was once again post unrelated bullshit as a means of making unrelated petty little argument.
GVT is unrelated? IT’S ALL ENCOMPASSING.
You’re using antiquated stats.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i’m repeatedly impressed by your spot-on marioD impressions. you’ve been reading this guy for too long.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
haha, yeah, it’s rather sad.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
uncontextualized GVT is unrelated.
You mean like, small-sample size, inflated offensive numbers, and 78% of a player’s GVT score being accumulated in 50% of his games?
That uncontextualized?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But not small-sample size, inflated offensive numbers, and a hot streak?
Right. Because GVT incorporates Corsi, right (It doesn’t)?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Half a season is not a small sample size.
Offensive numbers consistent with other years in his career are not inflated.
A hot streak is a hot streak. But as was pointed out (and promptly ignored by you) even the non-hot streak portion of his season was on the same pace as Scuderi, who no doubt had a hot streak of his own at some point in the year.
The email from the inventor of the stat (which was promptly ignored by you) agreed that 48 games was a small sample size.
The same email said that offensive numbers are easier to quantify than defensive in GVT, and therefore Jones defensive contributions were too high while Scuderi’s were too low.
And, Jones “got lucky” since 78% of his GVT came in 50% of his games. That 1.1 in 23 games isn’t on the same pace as Scuderi, and even if it was, we go back to OGVT being overvalued and DGVT being undervalued.
But no, the inventor of the system is wrong and you know better what it says.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
The email from the inventor of the stat (which was promptly ignored by you) agreed that 48 games was a small sample size.
And I disagree. And, generally, half a season is an acceptable statistical sample.
The same email said that offensive numbers are easier to quantify than defensive in GVT, and therefore Jones defensive contributions were too high while Scuderi’s were too low.
A statement with no logical support for it. If they are difficult to quantify, then its just as likely Jones’ were too low and Scuderi’s were too high.
And, Jones "got lucky" since 78% of his GVT came in 50% of his games. That 1.1 in 23 games isn’t on the same pace as Scuderi, and even if it was, we go back to OGVT being overvalued and DGVT being undervalued.
A) Or, Randy Jones performed up to his ability until he got injured and missed a month of the season (an equally likely scenario).
B) Scuderi had .059 GVT/G, Jones slump was .044 a game.
C) Referring back to an argument with no substantial basis for its conclusion.
Inventing the metric does not make him infallible. His statements are contrary to the rules of statistics.
Here’s Mirtle suggesting 40% of the season was a large enough sample size to compare the strength of the West vs. East conferences.
“not dealing with too small of a sample size”
Which, as I’m sure you know, admits that it is A small sample size, just not “too small” of one.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Thats a terribly contrived sentence construction, if not downright incorrect.
“This steak is not too small to satiate my hunger.”
That means I don’t need more food to solve for hunger.
“This sample size is not too small to produce sound data.”
That means I don’t need more sample to solve for data.
"This sample size is not too small to produce sound data."
But that’s not what he said. He said, “we’re not dealing with too small of a sample size.”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Its the same thing.
“We’re not dealing with too small of a steak to satiate my hunger.”
That means I don’t need more food.
But it’s still a small amount of food.
“We’re not dealing with too small of a sample size” does not equal “we’re not dealing with a small sample size”. One admits that it is small, but not too small, the other says it isn’t small.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
41 games is an acceptable sample size
60 games is better
82 games is even better
4,100,400,111 games is better still.
4,100,400,112 games is better than that.
So what?
The point of contention is when the sample size is large enough to produce an acceptable amount of statistical deviation.
The point of contention is when the sample size is large enough to produce an acceptable amount of statistical deviation.
And you’ve found one person who says 48 games is, and I’ve found one person who says 48 games isn’t.
So what?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
From my research, a sample size is statistically acceptable if it has a 50% regression point.
I’m going to block quote because I can’t say it any better:
That is why we like to give the "50% regression point" for a measurement. It tells us that variability, at least as compared to some other measurement. So if OPS needs 500 PA to be regressed 50% toward the mean (that means that after 500 PA, a player’s OPS averaged with a league average OPS (more accurately, the mean OPS for that "kind" of player), gives us our best estimate of that player’s true OPS, or what we expect him to do going forward, not counting aging, injury, etc.), and another measurement needs 3000 PA for a 50% regression (like maybe a RHB platoon differential), then there is more variability in OPS skill in the population than there is in platoon differential for RHB’s, and we need a much larger number of PA for a player’s sample (what he DID) platoon differential to be close to our estimate of his true platoon differential (what we expect going forward), than with his OPS.
Oh, and I forgot to add my Mario-ism: And I give a fuck what he thinks, why?
Here’s Gabe Desjardins suggesting you need four years of data to say how good a goaltender is.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
And that would be to determine how good a player is over his career.
However, we were talking about a fair evaluation of performance in one season.
Or, do you think we need four years of data to decide who should win the Norris Trophy this year?
And 40% wouldn’t be “too small of a sample size” to determine which conference is better.
However, we’re talking about a fair evaluation of performance in one season.
Do you think we need 40% of a season to decide who should win the Norris Trophy this year?
Neither Desjardins nor Mirtle has any bearing on this whatsoever.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
40% of a season is a reasonable time period to begin talking about Norris candidates.
Mind you, the 48 games Jones played actually represent 58% of the season.
But I believe half a season is enough data to make reasonably indicative determinations.
Mirtle believed, statistically, 40% was enough to make reasonably indicative determinations.
There is an actual formula for acceptable sample sizes, but I don’t understand it and I can’t find anyone who applied it to hockey.
Also, GVT is entirely unrelated to figuring out what exactly it is that Mike Green does defensively.
GVT is entirely unrelated to figuring out what exactly it is that Mike Green does defensively.
So now GVT is unrelated to establishing a player’s defensive value? Well, gee, you’d think GVT would then be worthless for defensemen.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
HA!
Busted on the oldest trick in the book! Mike Green is actually a winger! We just dress him in defenseman clothing so nobody will know!
GVT is still good for real defensemen, like Randy Jones, but not for feaux-D, like Mike Green.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Seriously, REAL defensemen give up more goals than they score. That’s how they have more value to their team.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
If Green scores 1000 goals he’ll have a great GVT… which actually does say nothing about what he does in the defensive end.
Does anyone here read Alan Ryder? Has anyone looked at his work? It’s not helpful in terms of this season because he does one annual review, but please, go look at the review from last season, think about what you think you know about Green’s D value, and come back to me.
Player Contribution is incredibly superior to GVT and a better indication of a player’s value.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
How does “that Mike Green does defensively” in any language of the world mean the same thing as “player’s defensive value” ??
It doesn’t.
The conversation was analyzing what it is that Mike Green does to achieve his defensive value.
The conversation was analyzing what it is that Mike Green does to achieve his defensive value.
Which is shown through GVT. Wait, that’s only when talking about Randy Jones…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, no its not.
And you’re clearly not understanding so let me block quote the conversation for you:
there are different ways to keep a team from scoring goals. being positionally sound, keeping control of the puck, transitioning the puck from zone to zone, snuffing out the opposing team’s transitions…these are the skills of a great defenseman, and if you can excel at them you can prevent the other team from scoring (the defenseman’s job) without being a top shotblocker.
None of this, in even the remotest fashion, has anything to do with GVT.
“The conversation”… was you talking about Corsi immediately afterwards. And since you think Corsi is incorporated into GVT, it clearly has something to do with it.
But if this is you finally admitting that Corsi isn’t factored into GVT, then by all means.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
GVT involves shots against.
Corsi involves shots against.
Please explain how they are separate statistics.
GVT takes team shots against and distributes them evenly according to ice time. It doesn’t take into account the fact that Randy Jones has a -6.7 Corsi rel, it gives him credit for a 0.0 Corsi rel, just like every other defenseman on the team.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
so if have this right, green doesn’t block shots, he’s not positionally sound, he’s not good at keeping control of the puck, he’s not good at transitioning the puck from zone to zone, and he’s not good at snuffing out the opposing team’s transitions……
so if we can take this back to step 1, can you please explain to me how his total GVT and +/-/60 are so stellar? cause it appears he has no strengths to his game whatsoever. oh, it’s because of his inferior QualComp, i almost forgot. or maybe the goalies tried harder when he was on the ice?
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
His /- 60 (and I assume you really mean (/- 60/On)) is explained here:
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2010/4/23/1439306/chris-pronger-fails-to-get-norris#35663584
That puts it into the proper context given the team he played on. Its still good, but not astronomically good. Also, qualcomp and qual team explains that as well.
He gives up a ton of shots against, he doesn’t block shots, he doesn’t force the other team to miss the net… there’s really no basis for arguing he’s a good defensive player.
No you guys do match lines and put Ovie and Green against the 3rd and 4th lines whenever you can. You don’t match Green against Crosby or green against other top scoring lines. He is part of a 5 man scoring line that scores a ton of goals. He is good at his job but his job is not defense.
No, we don’t match. You don’t know what you’re talking about on this one. BB notoriously refuses to match and if AO is against a 3rd line it’s because the other team wants their checkers against him.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Isn’t matching lines one of the main tools a coach has to work with. I think they do match, and if they don’t it’s bad coaching.
Depends. It’s a philosophy thing. BB plays his lines the way he wants because matching lets the other team dictate how you use your guys. He doesn’t want to use our 4th line as a matchup line because then they play 20 minutes a night and we are sitting waiting for AO to get a chance. So he just puts AO out against anyone and lets the other coach figure out how to handle it.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I actually live in Arlington so I watch quite a few Caps games. The numbers bear out that Green plays against lesser opponents than some of his teammates. If the coach didn’t match, all the D would have roughly the same quality of opponent stat.
BB doesn’t hide Green. You want hiding guys? Watch how he uses Tyler Sloan.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
57% of face offs in the O zone could be hiding, or it could be taking advantage of Green’s O skills. I don’t think we’ll agree on that… probably both right.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that a Norris candidate should be good enough in his own zone that you’d want to use him there, too.
Right… I think he’s (BB) hiding Green at times… real Norris Candidates don’t get hidden in the D zone. I think we’re on the same page.
You guys are on the same page, you’re just both wrong that you think Green gets hidden.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
So you don’t think O zone face off % is a measure of a coach’s confidence in a player’s defensive ability? Or is it something else?
It is also a measure of a coach’s confidence in a player’s offensive ability.
Jeff Carter had a 53.3% O zone start this year, Kimmo had 52.8%, Zajac, Sopel, Parise all had starts 56.9 or higher.
It goes both ways.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions
True, it’s just whether you think that kind of imbalance embodies what you want in a Norris candidate. It’s fine if you do, but it doesn’t work for me.
No, you’re right. But it’s important to remember that Zone start isn’t clear cut “He’s hidden from the defensive zone.”
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Except, as we know, Carter and Kimmo both had very very serviceable teammates on other lines for the defensive zone.
The other 5 defensemen in Washington are not very good. Therefore, if Green is even above average as a defender, he’s basically the only good option.
Therefore, if Green is even above average as a defender, he’s basically the only good option.
Except you cited yourself stats where Schultz was better than Green.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the point I’m supporting!
Green wasn’t even the best defender on his team. Schultz was.
The block quote you took of my words is the proof of the logical fallacy that Green was the best defender on his team.
What about the part right before it?
The other 5 defensemen in Washington are not very good
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Now THAT’s great logical thinking.
5 guys aren’t very good, therefore the 6 MUST not be very good.
Flawless.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
STOP STEALING MY THUNDER DAMMIT
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
No.
5 guys aren’t very good, and they still get PK time ahead of the 6th.
Therefore, the sixth must not be good at the PK.
Zone start doesn’t equal “D time”. For proof, look at Randy Jones. 54% offensive zone start, and yet he gives up 26.4 shots per 60 minutes, second worst on the team.
His zone start suggests he has a lot of offensive ice time, but his shots suggest he can never get out of his own end.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Take a look at the big picture compared to your post:
Randy Jones
OZone start: 54% (3rd most on team)
SA/60: 26.4 (2nd worst on team)
Mike Green
OZone start: 57% (most on team)
SA/60: 27.9 (worst on team)
You just argued that Randy Jones is a better defensive player than Mike Green.
The big picture is GVT! You’re using antiquated stats!
And no, the big picture would be Corsi, where Jones is a -7.4 Coris relative to his team and Green is a 6.5 Corsi relative. In team rank, Jones is dead last and Green is second best.
Context, Watson. Context.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
No, that would be a different conversation entirely.
You wanted to talk about Zone Starts and shots against, except didn’t bother to look at the big picture of how Green matched up to what you thought was the extreme example of Randy Jones, when in fact it proved Randy was a better defensive player than Green.
THE conversation was “D Time”. Jones spent way more time in the defensive zone despite a lower Ozone start than Green did.
That’s not an entirely different conversation, it’s saying that Corsi shows territorial possession. And Green’s is higher, but Jones is lower.
ERGO, despite a higher OZone start, Green spends less time in the defensive zone than Jones. Exactly what I was saying.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
ERGO, despite a higher OZone start, Green spends less time in the defensive zone than Jones. Exactly what I was saying.
Oh, if only this weren’t a self-contradictory statement, you’d possibly be right!
But starting in the OZone more often would be a logical cause of spending less time in the Dzone.
As would many many other things, most notably QualTeam.
But starting in the OZone more often would be a logical cause of spending less time in the Dzone.
Just like having a positive Corsi would.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
And we’re looking at effects. We’re looking at how much time they spent in the D zone. It doesn’t matter what the cause is, just the effect.
So shots are where we’re looking.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, Green is 5th in PKTOI/G, a mere 10 seconds per game away from being 3rd in PKTOI/G.
So it’s those 10 seconds per game that make him not very good?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s my point about the 4% change in O-zone faceoff. A real small change makes a comparatively large difference in ranking. The guys in between are basically the same and being 5th or 3rd isn’t qualitatively very different.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
And they are on the same pair most of the time so their zone starts and all that are going to be almost always the same.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Back in the fact based realm, Schultz actually starts in the Ozone 4% less often.
Which, contextually, is the difference between 14th in the league (Green) and 51st in the league (Schultz)
Meaning it’s a tightly grouped pack where the difference between 14 and 51 is not a whole lot.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
No, meaning that even though, statistically, there is a range of 100 points, the actual range of results is much much tighter.
And a 4% difference should, in that context, be viewed as a percent change of 12%.
ie: a very large difference.
Translation: Don’t pay attention to Mike Green’s awesome offensive stats. Look at that poor play defensively that’s not really supported by common defensive metrics!
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
It really says a lot about how much confidence the Washington coaching staff has in Green’s defensive abilities that he’s just 5th on his own team — just looking at defenseman — in shorthanded time on ice per game.
We do the same thing in Philadelphia with Matt Carle. It’s called “hiding your defensive liabilities during times that require good defense.”
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 23, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Why waste Green on the PK when you have better PKers? Its not that he can’t, its just overusing him. Shea Weber and Ryan Suter aren’t played against the toughest comp on the team not because they can’t, but because Trotz needs their top efforts on offense.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Why waste Green on the PK when you have better PKers
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
You cannot win the Norris for “all around defenseman” if you are not even one of the three best defensive defensemen on your team.
Read the whole comment. Its a waste of his talents. He can if necessary, Boudreau would just rather him be on the power play.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Not true. You are ignoring the “all around” part. All around means you include offensive contributions the same as defensive contributions. And Green is most certainly top 3 defensive D on his team.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
straw man argument at best.
Please spare me.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Can you detail how that’s a straw man? Not following.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
How is that a straw man? What part?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
yeah, the reason why Green doesn’t play on the PK is that the man is so tired out from all the PP time he gets.
Despite the fact that you already admited that Boudreau has better PK options.
If Mike Green was the best all-around defenseman on the team, I’m certain he would be playing both. But you know, keep running out the “we can’t utilize him for BOTH” arguments.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
BB has one better PK option, Jeff Schultz. He uses Poti a ton because he’s good at ES and doesn’t take PP time.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
agreed, there aren’t 2 better PK options than green. if green could play unlimited minutes, he’d be on the first pairing with schultz.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if that’s all true about his ability,
The fact is Pronger does play those minutes and Green doesn’t, therefore Pronger is the better asset.
Scuderi does play those minutes and Jones doesn’t, therefore Scuderi is the better asset.
Wait, I’m missing something… Oh yeah, Hypocrisy!
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, you’re inventing hypocrisy.
You’re missing actual truth.
Rob Scuderi
PP TOI/G: 4 seconds
SH TOI/G: 2:33
Randy Jones
PP TOI/G: 2:04
SH TOI/G: :41
Jones actually plays more special teams than Scuderi, and both units.
You mean like Mike Green plays both units?
PP TOI/G: 5:03
SH TOI/G: 2:09
Oh, wait. “Green doesn’t” play those minutes…
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Rec’d like Heatley’s car.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mike Green doesn’t play the minutes Pronger plays.
If you could make one fucking post in this thread that didn’t take things out of context, that would be great.
If you could stay consistent, that’d be great.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
But Scuderi is a better player on the PK and ES. Jones is not a huge factor on the LAK PP. In fact, while LAK’s PP was hot this series, Jones was scratched for most of the games!
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
That’s cause Terry Murray is an idiot, duh.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
But Scuderi is a better player on the PK and ES.
Completely unsupported assertion.
Jones was scratched for most of the games!
Factually incorrect.
Did you just accuse F & B of not supporting something but then not provide the games Jones wasn’t scratched in?
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Scuderi at 5-on-5: +0.53 goals
Jones at 5-on-5: -0.26 goals
There’s your support.
BUT QUALTEAM, WAAAAAH.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Because you only want to look at 4 of the 9.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Green played over 25 minutes a night and basically never comes off on the PP. The “you can’t utilize him for BOTH” argument is actually valid here given the lack of other PP point options and the amount of ES time he skates (where he dominates).
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Apr 24, 2010 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Using Green on the PP and at ES especially is more beneficial than the benefit of playing him on the PK. Same deal with Ovechkin. With Backstrom. With Semin. And so on.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Which is an indictment of each and every one of those players.
…defensive skills. But an indictment regardless.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 23, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Is it? No one is saying Backstrom and Semin are bad—in fact, both are very, very good defensively. But their skills are more valuable on O (bigger benefit over replacement) than on D.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Or it’s because BB likes to use him for the full 2 minutes on the PP because we don’t have anyone else that can bring what he brings, and loves to play him a ton at Even Strength because he’s a beast there as well. The guy has to sit sometimes. Plus, Green has gotten more PK time this year than years past, especially since the Olympic break when he really took his D game to another level.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
The guy has to sit sometimes.
Game. Set. Match.
Chris Pronger is on the #1 PP unit. The #1 PK unit. And logs the most ES time.
A great dman doesn’t have to sit sometime.
Pronger plays less than half the game, as do all great D.
Great D do have to sit.
Green plays the number 1 PP, the number 2 PP, the number 2 PK, and the most ES. It’s just a different allocation of resources.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Im sorry, that wasn’t clear.
Pronger LEADS HIS TEAM in PP TOI/G, PK TOI/G, and ES TOI/G.
I’m not talking about units, I’m talking about being on the ice.
The Washington pk is 3rd to last in the conference only Toronto and the NYI are worse. You can not tell me if Mike Green was a dominate pk he wouldn’t play on it. But his isn’t, he might not be bad…but certainly not dominate.
The WAS PK is a huge mess, but there’s no point in me really bothering to explain it all. The bottom line is the biggest problem with our PK is the forwards and Tom Poti’s inability to clear the puck. It’s not fair to put it on Green.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
No. Because it’s a system thing and mostly lies on the forwards. As I said. You may want to learn to read.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Of course, if he was a Norris worthy defenseman, Green would overcome that and make a difference.
Instead, he’s not even worth putting on the ice in those situations.
Sure thing Huck. Your lack of knowledge and understanding of the Caps’ PK and Mike Green’s defensive game surely makes you the authority on this point. How many Caps games do you watch per year? How often do you leave Flyers’ sites to try to educate yourself about other teams?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Explain why a bad PK is mostly the fault of the forwards? You mean on the Caps specifically or that forwards have more to do with PK effectiveness than D-men?
Basically our forwards are too passive and let the other team set up at the top of the zone. We give skilled players too much time and space around the top of the circles and high slot and get burned for it. Check this out if you’re genuinely interested (but beware, it takes you away from BSH!).
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I understand the argument that the play of the forwards influences the overall quality of the Caps penalty kill, and therefore you can’t just fault the defensemen — in this case Green — for the PK unit’s poor results.
But couldn’t a similar argument be used to say that the overall good talent of the Capitals forwards has led to the defensemen — again, Green being the primary example in this case — having inflated offensive stats?
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 23, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d say it’s a better argument for the other D than Green. Green is amazing at getting the puck out of our zone and getting it up ice to the forwards. Without him they simply don’t get the same chances.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Even I’ll disagree that Matt Carle is a defensive liability. He’s not. It’s just that Prongs, Kimmo, Coburn, and Parent are better at the PK.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll agree with this insofar as it bolsters my argument for Green, and disagree with it insofar as it makes Carle look like he’s not a liability in his own end.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
haha, it’s ok. I’m often the only person defending Matt Carle’s defensive abilities. I’m okay on this island, just like I was when I said Brian Boucher was amazing.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
of course, I agree with you it’s mildly hilarious that Green even is a consideration, never mind a nominee.
So I suppose best “all around” play doesn’t include elevating his defensive partner to be a top tier defenseman, making a borderline AHL goalie a #1 netminder and generally being a huge pain in the ass to play against.
Also, Steve Yzerman and Team Canada do not seem to agree with this assessment either.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, Steve Yzerman and Team Canada do not seem to agree with this assessment either.
…because everyone knows that a competition completely outside of and not in any way related to the National Hockey League has bearing on how a player performed in the regular season of a professional league. Huzzah!
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Steve Yzerman also left Steve Stamkos off the team. You know, the guy that tied for the Richard Trophy. Maybe his picks weren’t absolutely perfect. Seabrook got benched (so much for chemistry), Boyle was a mess, Staal was invisible. That team is irrelevant.
And so now Pronger gets credit for elevating his teammates, but Green doesn’t? That’s some weak sauce, HO. Schultz, Green’s partner, led the league in plus/minus. I’m sure that doesn’t count as Green elevating his play.
I hope you enjoyed this year from Pronger, because he’s getting worse every season and he’s on an albatross contract.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
4 million dollars a year is an albatross? Don’t think so for a top flight D-man.
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Apr 23, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m reading 6.25 on an over 35 contract for a guy that is rapidly losing speed.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Re-learn? That sounds awfully close to you giving me credit for being able to read in the first place. Thanks!
And yeah, I mis-read. I know you’ve done it too. Sometimes it’s OK to admit you made a mistake. Again, you should try it sometime. People would hate you less.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
And if you believe that I’ve got some beach front property in Wyoming for you. Shoot me an email.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I didn’t say he was a better player just that he statistically has gotten better. Using the same stats that you use to nominate Green for the Norris, Goals, Assists, plus/minus…
That’s not what it looks like according to HockeyDB. His numbers went up this year but his best years were back in the STL/EDM/ANA three year span.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
ana 2007-2008 72gm 43pts minus 1
ana 2008-2009 82gm 48pts even
Phi 2009-2010 82gm 55pts plus 22
Not as good as his first year with Ana or Edm but I said 3 years.
It’s not really an important point. No one gives a damn about salary when talking Norris.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
well, the comment was made more in sarchasm than as basis for any type of argument, but seriously, despite you being a WSH homer, we all know that Pronger is a much better defenseman than Mike Green and the stats support that.
Look Mike Green is a great player, I’m not debating that, but he isn’t the best “all around” defenseman in the league. He’s the best offensive defenseman with respectable defensive ability, but he is by no means the BEST all around player.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Pronger used to be a much better all around D than Green. I don’t think that’s true anymore. He’s obviously a first ballot HoFer, but he’s slower than ever (and he never really had a step to lose). I don’t think he’s that much better in his own end to compensate for how much more Green does offensively. I could explain why Green is so underrated defensively, but it’s not worth the effort. People that buy into the “Green can’t play D” argument are just going to hold onto that.
He may not be the BEST all around player, but he’s better than Pronger.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
honestly, let’s just take the first round of the playoffs as an evaluator. Put Mike Green on the Flyers and put Pronger on the Capitals.
My guess is the Capitals would be already hanging out at home, waiting for the next opponent and the Flyers would be in a dogfight for the series.
Pronger is having one of the best years of his career and while I’m sure Green will soon be better than Pronger, he’s not there yet, he’s close, but this year wasn’t that year.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
How do I even address this?
Let’s just play fantasy roster and predict what happens? Uh… the Caps are up 3-1. Same as PHI was. Let’s wait and see how tonight goes before we talk about the Caps already hanging out at home. If the schedules were swapped the Caps might already be hanging out at home and the Flyers would be getting ready for a game. I don’t see how this is relevant.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
because Pronger would have shut down Montreal from scoring 3+ goals a game and Montreal wouldn’t have even been in this series. With exception of maybe Game 4, WSH hasn’t dominated this series, despite you being biased. There have certainly been some bad defensive play all around, including MR. Norris Mike Green.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
So in game 1 the Habs scored one goal with Green on the ice. It was a bad play all around, including Green. Game 2 was his worst game by far, I’m sure Pronger has never had a bad game. Game 3 they scored one goal on the P and game 4 they scored 2 even strength goals, one with Green on ice. Aside from game 2 he’s been pretty damn good in his own end.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
And 3+ is a strawman if you want to go there. They got 3 in OT in game 1 on a bad Corvo turnover. They got 5 in game 2 with our worst defensive performance. Then scored 1 in game 3 and scored the third in garbage time of game 4. Not really defensively porous.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I didn’t want to feel left out of making meaningless arguments to prove my point.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Feel free to explain any time. I still haven’t seen you clarify the whole “straw man” claim. I’m not sure you understand what it really means.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
“were these two players to switch teams, the results would favor our guy” is both a straw man argument AND irrefutable since it’s based only in HO’s fantasy world.
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
he’s slower than ever
Pronger makes up for his lack of speed with excellent positioning and ability to read the play. The Flyers’ broadcast team focused on this last night. He brings the game to his level and does not waste a lot of energy. He is extremely economical. And that is why he can play 30 minutes a night and not be worn out.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
I agree, he’s one of the smartest I’ve ever seen at that. But he still has lost a step and isn’t the same as he was even just a few years ago. He’s at that age where skills start to erode pretty rapidly. He’s more vulnerable to speed now than he has been in a long time.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
We saw that at the start of the Olympics, but as the tournament went on he adjusted quite nicely.
And hey, Nick Lidstrom is still going along nicely at 39. If he can do it, Pronger can too.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Right, but Lidstrom isn’t what he was either. He’s still good, nobody is arguing that, he’s just not the same guy that earned the first ballot HoF induction. Both guys can still play, but their Norris years are behind them.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
As long as Pronger can be “still good” for a number of years, I’ll take it – provided the Flyers structure the defensive corps around him appropriately.
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Oh, and you may have been sarcastic, but others aren’t.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
If you had the best offensive defenseman in the league, bar-none, hands-down, would you want to start him in the offensive zone as often as you possibly could?
Only YOU can prevent idiots from commenting!
by Knee high to a duck on Apr 24, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I love how because of Mike Green, we have to now emphasize the “all-around” part of the definition of the Norris.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
by Grp_Cpt_Lionel_Mandrake on Apr 23, 2010 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
If Pronger played with Ovechkin, Semin, Backstrom and the rest of that ridiculous offense he’d probably put up stupid offensive numbers as well. Green’s +/-(which is an insanely misleading stat anyways) is largely the result of the fact that the Caps scored a million goals this year.
by You don't have to be sweet, to be good on Apr 23, 2010 12:47 PM EDT reply actions
Perhaps Green was an integral part to them scoring that many goals.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Getz beat me to the punch.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Because why? Because the team is much better with him than without him?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
You don’t understand advanced metrics, so what would be the point?
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
by Rob Parker on Apr 23, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
And Pronger wasn’t playing with ridiculous offensive talent? Of all the teams in the league, the Flyers are probably the worst situated to make that argument. PHI and CHI are the only two teams that could match the Caps’ offensive depth.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
(Vancouver)
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s a joke. Maybe their top two lines compete but we can put two 20 goal scorers on our third line. I think we have three 10 goal scorers on our fourth. VAN won’t even play their 4th and their 3rd has no offensive threat.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
Eh, agree to disagree. Doesn’t matter much in this forum. Your point still stands.
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
So is that a problem with the Flyers’ D not doing enough to help the Flyers forwards? The argument doesn’t hold.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s because I wasn’t arguing with you. I was just hating on Scott Hartnell.
And, generally, no. The defense has had nothing to do Hartnell terrible passing. Unless Kimmo banged his wife.
by Snevik on Apr 23, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry, I do comprehension fails a lot.
Kimmo isn’t half bad looking.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
“Not half bad looking” is about the best you can say for anyone on this team, and even that is pushing it for a lot of them.
Seriously, somehow I missed that.
Boucher is a lot better than “not half bad”. He’s down right gorgeous.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the fact Green was “snubbed” from the Canadian Olympic team helped secure his his Norris nomination
It is right to factor that in? Not at all
Yet I hear Millirs success in the playoffs cited as sound reasoning for why he deserves the Vezina
And Crosbys Olympic winning goal used to support why he deserves the Hart
Dont get me wrong,
Green is one of the top defenseman in the League.
I just think all the press coverage about his Olympic snub put him over the top and got him nominated
It shouldn’t be sound reasoning—these are NHL awards, not NHL+Olympics. Voters are human though and will see what happened. Not as if Miller would have lost the Vezina anyway, and I don’t think Crosby can get the Hart anyways.
I just think all the press coverage about his Olympic snub put him over the top and got him nominated
Has there ever been a season in which the league’s top scoring defenseman (by a wide margin) does not get a nomination? He’s more than competent in his own end, and while he can’t play shutdown against Crosby, he can hold his own. And then there’s the O.
Cидни Kросби: Александр Oвечкин, он твой папа теперь
Capitals Coming: for Capitals fans who can bear reading something less intelligent than a story at Japers' Rink
by red army line on Apr 23, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree it should not be sound reasoning
However it is the e Professional Hockey Writers’ Association who votes.
They write the stories, they take pride in their opinions, and always perpetuate a big story
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont want to detract Greens accomplishments
He deserves to be one of the top.
He was there last year as well
It is when you get to the top, that you have start to splitting hairs to create distinction amounts the best.
The ongoing story of the Flyers regular season woes hurt Pronger
The ongoing story of Greens Snubbs Helped him
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It is when you get to the top, that you have start to splitting hairs to create distinction amounts the best.
Definitely agree with this. You see the same thing every year with the top prospects at the draft.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
I just think all the press coverage about his Olympic snub put him over the top and got him nominated.
i see your point, but i’m more inclined to think it hurts green than helps him. if crosby’s success at the olympics helps him and miller’s success at the olympics helps him…why would green’s snub (and lack of success at the olympics) help him? aren’t voters more likely to be buoyed in their negative opinions, or dissuaded from their positive opinions?
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’d think Doughty’s performance would help him the most of the candidates/potential-candidates. He was insanely good. And so was Weber but nobody is talking about him being snubbed.
I hate listening to people's dreams. It is like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them and nobody is having sex, I just don't care.
CUZ WEBER DUSN"T PLAY WITH AO!!! AND PAD HIS STATS!!!1
On the Forecheck/Twitter/CLS
"What do you think this is? Major League Baseball?"- Shea Weber
by Chris Burton on Apr 23, 2010 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Any news is good news when you one of the best.
Good press or bad press, it all helps distinguish you and make you unique amongst the other top players
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
The writers have already have written a lot of articles about his Greens snubb over the past 13 months.
Each time they write one, the follow up stories multiply.
Each and every article seems to be a magnet for editorial debates, and well……. passionate blog posts
Doughty, and Webber do not have that the ability to bring out peoples passionate views whenever they are mentioned Therefore less articles are written about then, and thus the higher probability of becoming overlooked.
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
okay, i buy it. a little. i’d guess the proportion of negative press to positive press is pretty unfavorable. but the hope in caps land is definitely that green is competitive on the back of a ton of #2 votes, since many writers are thinking “well anyone but green, but i should really acknowledge him.”
by Natty Bumppo on Apr 23, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Looks like its all Mike Greens huh. Doughty was great, but not Pronger great. And Dunkin Keith is the most over-rated f**k s**t to ever grace the ice, he is no ere near the to 20 defenseman, let alone top 3.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
and yes, I refer to him as Dunkin, because when hes on defense, he might as well be on a coffee break.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
and since were living in fantasy world
Kyle Kendrick Is a cy young finalist too, and maybe Willie Green should be defensive player of the year, or Quentin Demps should win MVP.
"Sugah n' rainbows"
"We will steal the show, jolly Rogers go, we are wolves of the sea."
After reading all of those articles on Lappy, I’ve come to a conclusion. We need to win the cup for Lappy. I don’t know if he already has one, and I don’t care. He deserves hockey’s highest honor this year. I didn’t know, before reading these articles, he played every game for us this season, that’s ridiculous when you consider what kind of player he is. He’s really inspiring to watch and his contribution to our team is incalculable.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
The fans over on the Coloroado blog feel the same way.
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Comment fail, meant for this to be on the fly-by. Moving it now.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
This series is gonna be fun.
The Daily Forehand -- SB Nation's Tennis Destination.
Broad Street Hockey.
haha, I concur.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I just ate half a bag of popcorn while reading these comments. Seriously fun.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 23, 2010 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I lost track of the arguments about 2 hours ago. I seriously can’t follow the “nesting” system they use here for the comments. haha.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Apr 23, 2010 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Made my day interesting at least. 400 comments already. That’s crazy.
Btw i just fan posted what Anthony San had to say about it…he uhh, he wasn’t that happy.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
To Clarify:
Fun Quotient = Popcorn Consumed ⁄ Blog Comments
In this case:
FQ = ½BP⁄412
FQ = ½BP⁄1 × 412
FQ = ½ x 412
FQ = 206
A Fun Quotient of 206? Yep, definitely going to be a fun series.
Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead.
I didn’t follow. Can you explain that to me like I’m Shaun and hate stats?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Hall of fame deflecting.
I don’t hate stats, Geoff! I enjoy looking at stats, but I just meant that during the playoffs I just don’t care to look at them because there are intangibles that create variables that shouldn’t and cannot be quantified. None of Boosh’s numbers would tell you that he was going to steal you game one and deserve to win game two.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions
haha, I’m not even going to respond because: a) It was a joke; and b) I don’t need numbers to tell me Boosh is going to pitch a shutout in game one and have a .930 save percentage in game two. I ALREADY know that. haha
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry, you know what? Because last week I believe you knew that the Devils would win the series? Isn’t that what you said? Hmm? Yeah…I…I think you said we were going to lose. Hmm..interesting. Who’s back on the Boosh bandwagon now? Might have to take away a certain line in my tag.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I said the team would lose, but that Boosh would give up 5 goals in 4 losses. I was never off the Boosh bandwagon mister.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah I’m just fooling with you and rubbing it in that you were dead effing wrong. However, I feel like a ManCrush as big as yours (and admittedly mine) would be big enough to produce blind faith…which mine has…you not so much. All I’m saying is that Boosh saw me holding a sign with his name on it (well 1/11th of a sign with his name on it) and then cocked his head all perplexed and went “Where’s Geoff?” then looked a little pouty. Just saying.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t fear! I was wearing his name on my back all day on Tuesday, on the train, in class, in front of my TV. He felt me. Oh, you better believe he felt me.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
……Yeah…..I’m not touchin’ that one.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Man, that was a complete bump, set… left hanging.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkohV2XHglY
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 23, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s what Boosh said.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Not if your comparing inferior popcorn to a superior Blog Comment
bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!
by Prometheus74 on Apr 23, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
The Fun Quotient is a completely valid statistic which was unknowingly spurred on by Ben Rothenberg on Apr 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM PDT; unwittingly conceived by Travis Hughes on April 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM PDT, and proven absolutely valid by me on Apr 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM PDT.
Ben said:
This series is gonna be fun.
Also sprach Travis, as if to prove Ben’s point:
I just ate half a bag of popcorn while reading these comments. Seriously fun.
To me, this means that Fun can be measured by the consumption of popcorn relative to a particular variable; in this case, said variable = comments on this thread.
Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead.
by mikefive on Apr 23, 2010 5:46 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I think the number needs to be higher. The fun quotient is definitely above 206.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, it gets higher with every passing comment. The more comments on this thread, the more fun the series will be.
Notice the ridiculous number of comments on the game threads during round 1? No wonder that series was so much fun!
Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead.
I have a third of the bag left now, so alter the The Quotient accordingly.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 23, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Your not taking into account the amount of people that are frustrated by all the fighting and the inside baseball way in which you’re talking about these numbers.
Mancrushin' on Geoff since April 20
"Good night. Good hockey."
by KreiderDesigns on Apr 23, 2010 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Lost in all of this is Travis’ great choice of a picture to go along with this thread.
Kudos!
Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead.
haha, thank you.
Broad Street Hockey - SBN's Philadelphia Flyers blog. Got goaltending? Searching since 1987.
by Travis Hughes on Apr 23, 2010 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions
haha, seriously. I meant to say that about 2 hours ago.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Apr 23, 2010 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Kings vs. Coyotes Game 5; Pierre McGuire on Tortorella/DeBoer argument (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Behold, the incredible playoff beards of Radko Gudas and AHL’s Norfolk Admirals
- Coyotes vs. the road warriors: Can Phoenix end LA Kings’ road domination?
- Coyotes, Kings Game 5 preview; Claude Giroux has fun; PK Subban on the ladies (Puck Headlines)
- Stanley Cup Final schedule released; Game 1 on May 30, Game 7 would be June 13
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Tokarski, Admirals blank IceCaps 4-0; Norfolk wins AHL's Eastern Conference
- Norfolk advances to Calder Cup Finals
- Oilers president Lowe says vacant coaching job not discussed with Sutter
- Eastern Conference champ to host Game 1 of Stanley Cup final on May 30
- Rangers, Devils brush away rhetoric, prepare for crucial Game 5 in East finals
