I have a room reserved already friend
- PhillySportsGuy

That escalated quickly. I feel awkward being in the thread now...

exlund, hello.
- -davies-

bump

How then do you rate individual players, specifically defenseman?
- wolfhounds

I think the best way is to watch them play, personally.

exlund, hello.
- -davies-

Not enough video.

I think the best way is to watch them play, personally.
- MJL

Yup, no doubt.

That escalated quickly. I feel awkward being in the thread now...
- wolfhounds

I close quickly

I wasn't criticizing you there. Just simply stating that the best way to determine how good a player is at something, is to watch the game. That's what really tells you the truth. Not applying team statistics to individual players.
- MJL

Almost everyone here save for you thinks AMac also doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't pass the stat test either. So either you're right and everyone else is wrong or....no, nevermind, that must be it.

No, they don't tend to erase things that. That's the fallacy of analytics. Hockey is too much of a team sport for these statistics to be applied to rating the play of individual players. They cannot eliminate the effects of teammates, opposition, game situations, scheduling, and tons of other factors that are involved. They're solid team statistics. They can tell you what happened in a game, but they can't tell you why
- MJL

Um, yes, they do. Stats will always end up trending towards the mean. A pitcher can throw a handful plus of clunkers and have a sub 3 ERA because averages win out. Same with hockey if just a bit more confusingly so. And I never said Corsi is perfect or a catch all or even a great start. It's decent. Terrible without context. Everything you just listed (teammates, opposition, situations), advanced stats exist to measure those. Combine them with other advanced stats and a picture of a player develops. A SINGLE stat doesn't tell why. A BUNCH of them combined begin to help explain.

The issue with Corsi is the same issue that it tries to correct, using shot data over goal data with +/-, and that's false data. A player can play his position perfectly, and come off the ice with a negative corsi for a shift, because his teammate screwed up. As much as 40% of corsi data is false data. That's a lot. Now if they could find a way to improve the data collection, Corsi could in theory, be a good stat for looking at individual players. It's a solid team stat, and for giving insight into what happened in a game, but unreliable in telling you why it happened. Again for that, actually best to watch the game. To be clear, that isn't in any way meant towards you as an individual.
- MJL

See above responses haha. It's your argumentative tactic to let the Corsi battle be the hill you die on when I'm drawing on a whole heck of a lot more than simply plain ol' Corsi. You tend to like to fight strawmen or redirect these type of arguments back to your talking points without addressing what's been presented. You speak that stats need to improve...well of course! And they will as time goes by like everything else. That doesn't mean they're not good or useful bc they could be finetuned.

This new poster intrigues me.

I actually don't like anime particularly much. Just Hayao Miyazaki really -- I adore his movies.

Almost everyone here save for you thinks AMac also doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't pass the stat test either. So either you're right and everyone else is wrong or....no, nevermind, that must be it.



Um, yes, they do. Stats will always end up trending towards the mean. A pitcher can throw a handful plus of clunkers and have a sub 3 ERA because averages win out. Same with hockey if just a bit more confusingly so. And I never said Corsi is perfect or a catch all or even a great start. It's decent. Terrible without context. Everything you just listed (teammates, opposition, situations), advanced stats exist to measure those. Combine them with other advanced stats and a picture of a player develops. A SINGLE stat doesn't tell why. A BUNCH of them combined begin to help explain.



See above responses haha. It's your argumentative tactic to let the Corsi battle be the hill you die on when I'm drawing on a whole heck of a lot more than simply plain ol' Corsi. You tend to like to fight strawmen or redirect these type of arguments back to your talking points without addressing what's been presented. You speak that stats need to improve...well of course! And they will as time goes by like everything else. That doesn't mean they're not good or useful bc they could be finetuned.
- Mononoke

How do you feel about swedish fish?

This new poster intrigues me.
- Tomahawk

I used to have this one over my bed back in the 70s

How do you feel about swedish fish?
- mayorofangrytown

How do you feel about full frontal male nudity?

Andrew MacDonald, in brief, this season past:

Second easiest Relative QoC on the Flyers among d men, ahead of only Luke Schenn.

Second highest o zone starts behind Streit.

Third worst Corsi Relative on team ahead of Schultz and Grossmann. Most people would agree they're the worst puck movers on the team. Schultz realistically is a third pairing guy who did yeoman's work to take on minutes above his head bc we had no one to take them, even if he didn't do well in them. Grossmann is Grossmann. Being lumped with those two isn't great.

All signs point to A Mac being one of the most sheltered d men on team. And in those sheltered minutes he came up short. Smart people like jsaquella say he's a "decent" 4-5. I agree. Yada yada yada repeat what everyone here has heard before about AMac.

But rule of thumb, MJL: you have to post more than limp generalizations and unspecific, unbacked up descriptors of what a player is or could be. Show what is; show what could be. Vagueness is fine (this is just a fun forum after all!), except when it comes in response to and in denial of specifics. Ok, my friend?

I like swedish fish. I think it was jmatchett who said before they have the consistency of shoe leather but I still like them haha. I'm equal opportunity between artificial fruity leather and chocolate.

How do you feel about full frontal male nudity?
- PhillySportsGuy

I'm comfortable with it. I'm not touching anything though if that's what you're getting at.

Almost everyone here save for you thinks AMac also doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't pass the stat test either. So either you're right and everyone else is wrong or....no, nevermind, that must be it.


- Mononoke

Fans are hardly a reliable source on a player, because fan bases never scapegoat good players. Here's what I know. A professional Hockey team, with professional pro talent scouts, and professional talent evaluators, scouted the player, traded assets for him, and signed him to a long term contract. Ron Hextall was part of that staff. Now of course, even those individuals aren't infallible, but I think they're a better barometer on a player, than fans on a message board.
As far as last season is concerned for MacDonald, I think he can play better than he did, especially on the offensive side of the puck. I think there's a number of reasons why that is. A player can be a good player, and have an off year.

Um, yes, they do. Stats will always end up trending towards the mean. A pitcher can throw a handful plus of clunkers and have a sub 3 ERA because averages win out. Same with hockey if just a bit more confusingly so. And I never said Corsi is perfect or a catch all or even a great start. It's decent. Terrible without context. Everything you just listed (teammates, opposition, situations), advanced stats exist to measure those. Combine them with other advanced stats and a picture of a player develops. A SINGLE stat doesn't tell why. A BUNCH of them combined begin to help explain.


- Mononoke

It is impossible for those stats to isolate any one player. It's not math, it's hockey. Too much false data. Baseball is not the same as Hockey. Baseball is far more of an individual sport. Advanced stats attempt to isolate one player, but they don't come close to actually doing it, because it's simply not possible in hockey. They can only tell you what happened. They cannot tell you why.

See above responses haha. It's your argumentative tactic to let the Corsi battle be the hill you die on when I'm drawing on a whole heck of a lot more than simply plain ol' Corsi. You tend to like to fight strawmen or redirect these type of arguments back to your talking points without addressing what's been presented. You speak that stats need to improve...well of course! And they will as time goes by like everything else. That doesn't mean they're not good or useful bc they could be finetuned.
- Mononoke

There's no strawman involved, other than what you just offered above. I can address any individual stat that is corsi based, that you want to talk about. They all have their issues.
You've got the wrong impression here. I think they are useful. I look at the advanced stats after every hockey game. I think from a team perspective they're very useful, and paint a picture of what happened in a game. From a team perspective, the issue of false data is removed.


Like I said, if you want to discuss the stats, and how they're applied, I'll be happy to continue. If the conversation escalates further in the direction of the last paragraph, which was more about me than the stats, not interested.

Andrew MacDonald, in brief, this season past:

Second easiest Relative QoC on the Flyers among d men, ahead of only Luke Schenn.

Second highest o zone starts behind Streit.

Third worst Corsi Relative on team ahead of Schultz and Grossmann. Most people would agree they're the worst puck movers on the team. Schultz realistically is a third pairing guy who did yeoman's work to take on minutes above his head bc we had no one to take them, even if he didn't do well in them. Grossmann is Grossmann. Being lumped with those two isn't great.

All signs point to A Mac being one of the most sheltered d men on team. And in those sheltered minutes he came up short. Smart people like jsaquella say he's a "decent" 4-5. I agree. Yada yada yada repeat what everyone here has heard before about AMac.

But rule of thumb, MJL: you have to post more than limp generalizations and unspecific, unbacked up descriptors of what a player is or could be. Show what is; show what could be. Vagueness is fine (this is just a fun forum after all!), except when it comes in response to and in denial of specifics. Ok, my friend?
- Mononoke

no other numbers matter except for his TOI for poopty islander and flyer teams

Andrew MacDonald, in brief, this season past:

Second easiest Relative QoC on the Flyers among d men, ahead of only Luke Schenn.

Second highest o zone starts behind Streit.

Third worst Corsi Relative on team ahead of Schultz and Grossmann. Most people would agree they're the worst puck movers on the team. Schultz realistically is a third pairing guy who did yeoman's work to take on minutes above his head bc we had no one to take them, even if he didn't do well in them. Grossmann is Grossmann. Being lumped with those two isn't great.

All signs point to A Mac being one of the most sheltered d men on team. And in those sheltered minutes he came up short. Smart people like jsaquella say he's a "decent" 4-5. I agree. Yada yada yada repeat what everyone here has heard before about AMac.

But rule of thumb, MJL: you have to post more than limp generalizations and unspecific, unbacked up descriptors of what a player is or could be. Show what is; show what could be. Vagueness is fine (this is just a fun forum after all!), except when it comes in response to and in denial of specifics. Ok, my friend?
- Mononoke

Why are you leaving out Colaiacovo? And why are you acting like the difference in relative Corsi and offensive Zone start % between MacDonald and MDZ and LSchenn was large? Because it wasn't. You're also ignoring the fact that MacDonald was stuck playing with Grossmann far more than either MDZ or LSchenn were. And that MacDonald was used as a top pairing shutdown defenseman in the first month of the season when Coburn was out, which meant his CF% was around 46 when he got hurt.

I'm comfortable with it. I'm not touching anything though if that's what you're getting at.

- mayorofangrytown

Calm down old man

Fans are hardly a reliable source on a player, because fan bases never scapegoat good players. As far as last season is concerned for MacDonald, I think he can play better than he did, especially on the offensive side of the puck. I think there's a number of reasons why that is. A player can be a good player, and have an off year.
- MJL

Fans are hardly reliable. Just you apparently. Dig into AMac in season's past before, and there is nothing to believe he can really change his game. He's turning 29. Sometimes player flaws are so ingrained they just can't change much. Since he's a Flyer for forever, I really hope he can develop his game even with sheltered minutes. But sometimes a player is what he is. All I can think of as I'm typing this is....DOM BROWN DOM BROWN DOM BROWN.

It is impossible for those stats to isolate any one player. It's not math, it's hockey. Too much false data. Baseball is not the same as Hockey. Baseball is far more of an individual sport. Advanced stats attempt to isolate one player, but they don't come close to actually doing it, because it's simply not possible in hockey. They can only tell you what happened. They cannot tell you why.
- MJL

Agreed. Partly. The baseball example I mulled over putting in. You just admitted they tell you what happened. Agreed. Yet, what is a "why" but a synthesis of a lot of different "what's"? The "what's" are how we come to determine the why, as best as we can determine it.

I look at the advanced stats after every hockey game.
- MJL

Sure

And asking you to provide something concrete is an attack and makes you not want to continue? Jeez.....if that's the way to tucker you out, lol I will TAKE it.

Calm down old man
- PhillySportsGuy

I'm looking up Cheryl Ladd posters from my youth and you're contemplating full frontal male nudity.

I think you bled the excitement out of me.

Andrew MacDonald, in brief, this season past:

Second easiest Relative QoC on the Flyers among d men, ahead of only Luke Schenn.


- Mononoke

Not a reliable stat in my opinion. There's really no such thing as poor competition in the NHL, especially for a defenseman.

Second highest o zone starts behind Streit.


- Mononoke

What's better is giving the percentage of O Zone starts. Schultz, Coburn and Grossmann were used most in D zone starts. That's one of the problem with some in the advanced stats community. They look at the same stat in different context depending on the player. A high percentage of O zone starts for Streit is a good thing, because he's an offensive player. If MacDonald has a high percentage of O zone starts, well that's because the coach doesn't trust him in the D zone. Players on teams have roles. Coached try to put players in the best situations for the team. Doesn't mean a player is a good player or a bad player.

Third worst Corsi Relative on team ahead of Schultz and Grossmann. Most people would agree they're the worst puck movers on the team. Schultz realistically is a third pairing guy who did yeoman's work to take on minutes above his head bc we had no one to take them, even if he didn't do well in them. Grossmann is Grossmann. Being lumped with those two isn't great.


- Mononoke

Corsi Relative %
Streit 1.34
L. Schenn .42
Del Zotto -0.38
Coburn -0.62
MacDonald -0.90
Schultz -3.63
Grossmann -4.07

MacDonald is right there with Del Zotto, Coburn, and L. Schenn. Difference is negligible. It is misleading to just look at rank on the team, rather than giving the percentage. Still a team stat, and not an individual stat.

All signs point to A Mac being one of the most sheltered d men on team. And in those sheltered minutes he came up short. Smart people like jsaquella say he's a "decent" 4-5. I agree. Yada yada yada repeat what everyone here has heard before about AMac.


- Mononoke

No such thing as a defenseman being sheltered in the NHL. All minutes for defenseman are tough minutes in the NHL. There is not a single metric that definitively point to MacDonald as a 3rd pair defenseman.

But rule of thumb, MJL: you have to post more than limp generalizations and unspecific, unbacked up descriptors of what a player is or could be. Show what is; show what could be. Vagueness is fine (this is just a fun forum after all!), except when it comes in response to and in denial of specifics. Ok, my friend?
- Mononoke

The deeper we get, the more the agenda comes out. I have a few words in response. Context and confirmation bias.
I can provide reference materials that back up all of my views on analytics.

well this is fun

Other than the 9.1 million being spent on players who provide less than replacement level production, everything is hunky dory, peachy keen!

And as Bill pointed out in his blog, they likely wouldn't be able to move MacDonald either due to the term of his contract.

If my math is correct, almost 20 % of the cap is being eaten up by players who are either below average, or average. Plain and simple, bad business.

That being said, Hextall has only made one real mistake during his tenure as GM. And that is Umberger. He rectified the Rinaldo error, by amazingly recouping an asset for a worthless player.

The overall direction of the team seems much improved, and it appears an actual plan has been put in place. Instead of the usual reactionary type transactions previous regimes made.
- PLindbergh31

bump

Thanks haha. I'm much more laid back usually and I don't feel like writing novel length stat posts every post (ugh), but I've come armed to the teeth for this debate. I'm well aware of his, shall we say, style of posting?
- Mononoke