100% I think stats like possession (CF%) and expected goals for (xGF) are good when evaluating a line or a 5 man unit, but not an individual player. If you were watching the game yesterday and didn't see one stat, who would you say where the best players on the Ducks? Gauthier's name should not even be in your top 10. To me the players that consistently were noticable in that game were Terry, MacTavish, Vatrano and Zellweger, who is pretty much a clone of Drysdale.
- jd250

You're completely wrong. If what you stated is true, then all players on the same line would have similar numbers. They don't.

It's interesting that you make the claim that Gauthier is being carried by his linemates. When we look at Gauthier's numbers over the full season to this point. We see that Gauthier is 5th on the team in CF% with 48.75%. 2nd overall on the team with a GF% of 54.84% and 2nd on the team with a xGF% of 47.84%

Now let's look at some individual data. He is first on the team in Individual CF/60% with 18.43. 2nd on the team with individual SCF/% at 7.9. He is 2nd on the team in shots /60. All of these numbers indicate that your claim that he is passenger on the team, carried by linemates is false. He is one of the players that is driving shot attempts, shots and scoring chances for the team. All of his underlying numbers are extremely encouraging

Where he needs to improve on, which is quite normal for a young rookie player is finishing. Scoring goals at a higher rate. All of the underlying numbers tell us that it's just a matter of playing time and experience until that clicks.
If you're a Ducks fan, you should be very encouraged

All of this points to your extreme bias and lack of ability to accurately assess a player. Regardless of what method is used. I was able to accurately critique his play and see the positives on the ice that he brings. Even though I wasn't sitting next to an NHL scout.

You're completely wrong. If what you stated is true, then all players on the same line would have similar numbers. They don't.

It's interesting that you make the claim that Gauthier is being carried by his linemates. When we look at Gauthier's numbers over the full season to this point. We see that Gauthier is 5th on the team in CF% with 48.75%. 2nd overall on the team with a GF% of 54.84% and 2nd on the team with a xGF% of 47.84%

Now let's look at some individual data. He is first on the team in Individual CF/60% with 18.43. 2nd on the team with individual SCF/% at 7.9. He is 2nd on the team in shots /60. All of these numbers indicate that your claim that he is passenger on the team, carried by linemates is false. He is one of the players that is driving shot attempts, shots and scoring chances for the team. All of his underlying numbers are extremely encouraging

Where he needs to improve on, which is quite normal for a young rookie player is finishing. Scoring goals at a higher rate. All of the underlying numbers tell us that it's just a matter of playing time and experience until that clicks.
If you're a Ducks fan, you should be very encouraged

All of this points to your extreme bias and lack of ability to accurately assess a player. Regardless of what method is used. I was able to accurately critique his play and see the positives on the ice that he brings. Even though I wasn't sitting next to an NHL scout.
- MJL

I think the key point is just that analytics aren't the only evaluative tool to use at once. They are useful as complementary pieces to help evaluate and compare players, matchups, and indicate areas of excellent or lackluster performance but ultimately they cannot and should not be used as the sole driving decision making force. That is more how they should be viewed. Not as a replacement but as a complement to the traditional evaluative methods (the eye-test, for example).

Hockey is too free flowing, random, and dependent on the actions of too many people on the ice at any given time to use individual players' advanced stats analysis as a singular way to evaluate them. But, looking at these stats over time (to allow for a large enough sample size to let the typical trends in a players game show) and comparing them with visual evaluation, traditional stats, etc. is the way analytics excel.

You're completely wrong. If what you stated is true, then all players on the same line would have similar numbers. They don't.

It's interesting that you make the claim that Gauthier is being carried by his linemates. When we look at Gauthier's numbers over the full season to this point. We see that Gauthier is 5th on the team in CF% with 48.75%. 2nd overall on the team with a GF% of 54.84% and 2nd on the team with a xGF% of 47.84%

Now let's look at some individual data. He is first on the team in Individual CF/60% with 18.43. 2nd on the team with individual SCF/% at 7.9. He is 2nd on the team in shots /60. All of these numbers indicate that your claim that he is passenger on the team, carried by linemates is false. He is one of the players that is driving shot attempts, shots and scoring chances for the team. All of his underlying numbers are extremely encouraging

Where he needs to improve on, which is quite normal for a young rookie player is finishing. Scoring goals at a higher rate. All of the underlying numbers tell us that it's just a matter of playing time and experience until that clicks.
If you're a Ducks fan, you should be very encouraged

All of this points to your extreme bias and lack of ability to accurately assess a player. Regardless of what method is used. I was able to accurately critique his play and see the positives on the ice that he brings. Even though I wasn't sitting next to an NHL scout.
- MJL

So cutter is a bright turd on a poopty team. Good for him.

I think the key point is just that analytics aren't the only evaluative tool to use at once. They are useful as complementary pieces to help evaluate and compare players, matchups, and indicate areas of excellent or lackluster performance but ultimately they cannot and should not be used as the sole driving decision making force. That is more how they should be viewed. Not as a replacement but as a complement to the traditional evaluative methods (the eye-test, for example).

Hockey is too free flowing, random, and dependent on the actions of too many people on the ice at any given time to use individual players' advanced stats analysis as a singular way to evaluate them. But, looking at these stats over time (to allow for a large enough sample size to let the typical trends in a players game show) and comparing them with visual evaluation, traditional stats, etc. is the way analytics excel.
- gritty_committee

Some what true and mostly false. What those numbers do for fans is show how their confirmation biases and naked eye are wrong. They show that both you and jd250, are wrong. Maybe if you have an expert eye on a professional level, what you say is more true but not on the regular fan level. It's interesting that NHL teams use analytics and especially proprietary analytics to gain an edge.

What they are especially useful for on our level, is providing facts to support a conclusion or disprove a conclusion. Particularly on disputes on players. You can have whatever opinion you want but here are the indisputable facts. You can blow them off by saying that they aren't the only evaluation method but that's just a weak argument in the face of facts.

So cutter is a bright turd on a poopty team. Good for him.
- WhiskeyMan

Normally the case on a rebuilding team, is it not?

Some what true and mostly false. What those numbers do for fans is show how their confirmation biases and naked eye are wrong. They show that both you and jd250, are wrong. Maybe if you have an expert eye on a professional level, what you say is more true but not on the regular fan level. It's interesting that NHL teams use analytics and especially proprietary analytics to gain an edge.

What they are especially useful for on our level, is providing facts to support a conclusion or disprove a conclusion. Particularly on disputes on players. You can have whatever opinion you want but here are the indisputable facts. You can blow them off by saying that they aren't the only evaluation method but that's just a weak argument in the face of facts.
- MJL

couldn't the same be said for your take? His advanced stats in a single game (a sample size in which advanced stats are actually less useful) can just be used to confirm your bias?

it's a two way street. you can look at those stats all day but if it doesn't translate on the ice (not just score sheet, but individual scenarios) then they are just sort of window dressing. Context is important and they should be used in conjunction with one another.

saying "you don't know what you're looking at" isn't really an argument.

couldn't the same be said for your take? His advanced stats in a single game (a sample size in which advanced stats are actually less useful) can just be used to confirm your bias?

it's a two way street. you can look at those stats all day but if it doesn't translate on the ice (not just score sheet, but individual scenarios) then they are just sort of window dressing. Context is important and they should be used in conjunction with one another.

saying "you don't know what you're looking at" isn't really an argument.
- gritty_committee

Analytics and factual data can be shown to disprove anyone's bias. I'm not the one arguing that the numbers are wrong. You're not making sense. How doesn't it translate on the ice? It is the data from the ice!

You're completely correct when you post "you don't know what you're looking at" isn't really an argument. However posting "you don't know what you're looking at and here is why and then supporting that with factual data is a valid argument.

Some what true and mostly false. What those numbers do for fans is show how their confirmation biases and naked eye are wrong. They show that both you and jd250, are wrong. Maybe if you have an expert eye on a professional level, what you say is more true but not on the regular fan level. It's interesting that NHL teams use analytics and especially proprietary analytics to gain an edge.

What they are especially useful for on our level, is providing facts to support a conclusion or disprove a conclusion. Particularly on disputes on players. You can have whatever opinion you want but here are the indisputable facts. You can blow them off by saying that they aren't the only evaluation method but that's just a weak argument in the face of facts.
- MJL

Kind of takes the fun out of being a fan if you can’t irrationally hate/love certain players on your team.

Kind of takes the fun out of being a fan if you can’t irrationally hate/love certain players on your team.
- Dkos

Or other teams, I get it.

Analytics and factual data can be shown to disprove anyone's bias. I'm not the one arguing that the numbers are wrong. You're not making sense. How doesn't it translate on the ice? It is the data from the ice!

You're completely correct when you post "you don't know what you're looking at" isn't really an argument. However posting "you don't know what you're looking at and here is why and then supporting that with factual data is a valid argument.
- MJL

and that data, in a sample size of one game, is misleading. None of those stats had any effect on the game. he was a non-factor. just like mcdavid or kane can have a game with poor advanced stats and still look like superstars. just doesn't tell an accurate story when relying solely on those numbers.

the guy had 20 shifts. 13+ min of ice time. 2 shots. +1. you can use advanced stats to pretty that up a bit but you're doing the same thing you accuse others of but in reverse.

Normally the case on a rebuilding team, is it not?
- MJL

Or can be a shiny turd on a bad team.

and that data, in a sample size of one game, is misleading. None of those stats had any effect on the game. he was a non-factor. just like mcdavid or kane can have a game with poor advanced stats and still look like superstars. just doesn't tell an accurate story when relying solely on those numbers.
- gritty_committee

Prove that it is misleading. Prove that it doesn't tell an accurate story. It's just ignorance to say it didn't have any effect on the game. Of course it did. It was basically a one goal game where a bottom feeder team the Ducks, played a fairly even game against a better opponent. How did they do that? Again, some fans are just fixated on the highlights and fancy plays while not being able to see the actual game.

Here is what you don't seem to understand. Analytics are about process and projecting future success. For example, last night, Morgan Frost scored the game winning goal. A lucky deflection on a play from behind the goal line. It made an impact on the game. However when we look at his underlying numbers, other than that one low event play. He didn't play very well. If that level of play continues, he is not likely to be an effective player in the future. However when we look at Gauthier's underlying numbers. Even though he didn't score, he still played well and contributed to his teams play and he certainly is not a non factor. If he or his line had played more poorly, would it have been a closer game? Samples of data give us the answers. His underlying numbers show that with his talent, he is likely going to be an effective player. Yes, a player can play poorly and impact the game. A player can also impact the game without scoring.

Prove that it is misleading. Prove that it doesn't tell an accurate story. It's just ignorance to say it didn't have any effect on the game. Of course it did. It was basically a one goal game where a bottom feeder team the Ducks, played a fairly even game against a better opponent. How did they do that? Again, some fans are just fixated on the highlights and fancy plays while not being able to see the actual game.

Here is what you don't seem to understand. Analytics are about process and projecting future success. For example, last night, Morgan Frost scored the game winning goal. A lucky deflection on a play from behind the goal line. It made an impact on the game. However when we look at his underlying numbers, other than that one low event play. He didn't play very well. If that level of play continues, he is not likely to be an effective player in the future. However when we look at Gauthier's underlying numbers. Even though he didn't score, he still played well and contributed to his teams play and he certainly is not a non factor. If he or his line had played more poorly, would it have been a closer game? Samples of data give us the answers. His underlying numbers show that with his talent, he is likely going to be an effective player. Yes, a player can play poorly and impact the game. A player can also impact the game without scoring.
- MJL

Can you prove analytics project future success? What is future success?

typical cowboys

And this is what he did at BC and the WJCs, he shoots all the time. It's very predictable and why a lot of his shots never make it to the net. You can get away with that in college, but not the NHL. Like I said, the Flyers will consider themselves lucky to have moved on from him.
- jd250

Will the men who advocated for drafting Gauthier face any accountability?

And this is what he did at BC and the WJCs, he shoots all the time. It's very predictable and why a lot of his shots never make it to the net. You can get away with that in college, but not the NHL. Like I said, the Flyers will consider themselves lucky to have moved on from him.
- jd250

My non-Flyers friend just said this to me that getting Drysdale for Quitter was a steal for us

Prove that it is misleading. Prove that it doesn't tell an accurate story. It's just ignorance to say it didn't have any effect on the game. Of course it did. It was basically a one goal game where a bottom feeder team the Ducks, played a fairly even game against a better opponent. How did they do that? Again, some fans are just fixated on the highlights and fancy plays while not being able to see the actual game.

Here is what you don't seem to understand. Analytics are about process and projecting future success. For example, last night, Morgan Frost scored the game winning goal. A lucky deflection on a play from behind the goal line. It made an impact on the game. However when we look at his underlying numbers, other than that one low event play. He didn't play very well. If that level of play continues, he is not likely to be an effective player in the future. However when we look at Gauthier's underlying numbers. Even though he didn't score, he still played well and contributed to his teams play and he certainly is not a non factor. If he or his line had played more poorly, would it have been a closer game? Samples of data give us the answers. His underlying numbers show that with his talent, he is likely going to be an effective player. Yes, a player can play poorly and impact the game. A player can also impact the game without scoring.
- MJL

cutter did neither

cutter did neither
- gritty_committee

You're back to making an opinion unsupported by the facts.

Will the men who advocated for drafting Gauthier face any accountability?
- flyer_nutter

Drafting Gauthier was not the problem

You're back to making an opinion unsupported by the facts.
- MJL

the fact is the single-game underlying metrics prop up a guy who had 2 shots on net and nothing else to show for it. if you want to live and die by that, be my guest. did he have a bad game? no. he was simply there.

Drafting Gauthier was not the problem
- MJL

I don’t know.

If he’s this terrible one dimensional player, with a crappy attitude, and a guy the Flyers should be happy to be rid of…

One would think the initial scouting would have seen something to not like

the fact is the single-game underlying metrics prop up a guy who had 2 shots on net and nothing else to show for it. if you want to live and die by that, be my guest. did he have a bad game? no. he was simply there.
- gritty_committee

You're wrong again and just reinforcing that you don't understand the numbers. The underlying numbers in the game show not just shots on nets but who controlled the puck more and who had more scoring chances as well as the quality of the chances. All of that was given to you. Now you're just ignoring it or just don't know enough about it. It's a factor in the game in giving a team a chance in the game that was basically a one goal game. If you want to live and die by your ignorance, be my guest.

I don’t know.

If he’s this terrible one dimensional player, with a crappy attitude, and a guy the Flyers should be happy to be rid of…

One would think the initial scouting would have seen something to not like
- flyer_nutter

Where are you getting that he is a one dimensional player with a crappy attitude from? I don't think that is the case.

You're wrong again and just reinforcing that you don't understand the numbers. The underlying numbers in the game show not just shots on nets but who controlled the puck more and who had more scoring chances as well as the quality of the chances. All of that was given to you. Now you're just ignoring it or just don't know enough about it. It's a factor in the game in giving a team a chance in the game that was basically a one goal game. If you want to live and die by your ignorance, be my guest.
- MJL

again, advanced stats aren't here to tell the whole story. they are complimentary pieces of information that is more useful over a much larger sample size than 1 game. there is not 1 team in the NHL making decisions solely on the advanced stats. it is used in conjunction with what they are seeing on the ice over a larger sample size.

what exactly did you see cutter do out there that was so promising?

again, advanced stats aren't here to tell the whole story. they are complimentary pieces of information that is more useful over a much larger sample size than 1 game. there is not 1 team in the NHL making decisions solely on the advanced stats. it is used in conjunction with what they are seeing on the ice over a larger sample size.
- gritty_committee

Still a weak argument. You want to say he was a non factor and was just there when the data says differently. You're making a bad argument here because nobody has said that anyone is making a decision solely based on one game. That is your invention.