I was hoping to avoid wasting my time doing a full breakdown of the "The Dangler Theory" but I've been left with no choice!
Quick recap of the Dangler Theory for folks who haven't been following along.
Schenn’s streaks – skewing his scoring numbers – directly correlate with a SEQUENCE of weak teams.
Schenn’s slumps – and his career, objectively, is defined by his slumps – is directly correlated with a SEQUENCE of strong teams.
To clarify "SEQUENCE" = more teams, weak or strong, in the bulk of the schedule stretch…so as an example, his most recent slump:
Lets indulge this theory for a moment. I've broken down the Flyers schedule for the last two seasons to into segments. Difficult schedule portions are highlighted in red and easy in green. Teams are designated by color as well. Red teams are the high winning percentage bracket, yellow the middle bracket, and green the bottom bracket.
I've divided the schedule into 6 sequences of interest.
Sequence 1 - Feb 8th to Jan 22nd Hard
Sequence 2 - Jan 20th to Dec 28th Easy
Sequence 3 - Dec 23rd to Dec 2nd Hard
Sequence 4 - Nov 30th to Nov 7th Easy
Sequence 5 - Apr 27th to Mar 26th Hard
Sequence 6 - March 24th to Jan 19th Easy
And I've calculated the PPG of 6 players of interest during each of those sequences.
|Player||1||2||3||4||5||6||PPG 1||PPG 2||PPG 3||PPG 4||PPG 5||PPG 6|
For an easy to view visual representation of the data...
Does Schenn perform worse against hard schedules? Yes absolutely. But what other conclusions can we draw with the Dangler method??
- Giroux only shows up for hard schedule periods and slacks off for easy ones. What a chump. Good ol' Captain Fraude.
- Hartnell, like Schenn, seems to prefer easy schedules this season. Last season he didn't like any level of competition. I guess the Hartnell haters are right. He's no good!!
- Voracek is all over the place. He doesn't seem to have a preference either way.
- As long as you ignore sequence 1, Simmonds follows Giroux's lead and only shows up for the big games. So clutch!!!
- Couturier can't decide if he wants to be like Hartnell or Giroux. Shame the kid doesn't have a consistent role model to follow on this team.
Raise your hand if you think this is a fair or consistent way to evaluate players??? Ignore the part where I divided the schedule into "sequences" in a completely arbitrary manner based on winning percentage.
Lets try another perspective and look at cumulative point totals by winning percentage bracket this season. Remember, according to the Dangler manual of player evaluation, cumulative season totals are the best way to evaluate a players talent.
Giroux - Top: 15, Middle: 20, Bottom: 22
Voracek - Top: 10, Middle: 12, Bottom: 18
Simmonds - Top: 10, Middle: 10, Bottom: 22
Hartnell - Top: 5, Middle: 12, Bottom: 20
Couturier - Top: 5, Middle: 11, Bottom: 12
Schenn - Top: 9, Middle: 6, Bottom: 17
We've figured it out!! Baby Schenn is worst against....average hockey teams???
Anyone else confused yet?
Schenn's production against various levels of competition is right in line with the rest of the team. The only place where his point totals take a slight hit relative to his teammates is against mid-level competition. Its a bit odd, but he makes up for it by being better against top level teams.
If you cut the schedule up into arbitrary sequences you can produce a pattern that indicates Schenn isn't good against better teams. But that same arbitrary method indicates that almost none of the top-6 forwards are consistent against all levels of competition. In fact, this same method would have us believe that Giroux, Coots, and Simmonds are significantly worse during easy schedules. Color me skeptical! Once again I ask you folks, has this horse been beaten to death yet!?
I apologize if my tone has seemed harsh or argumentative during this post. But I just spent the better part of the last 3 hours playing with the ellipse function in MS Paint and color coding game logs! Fun stuff.