Avalanche Shooting % (Mueller....?)
by Dario on May 26, 2010 2:25 PM MDT
Email
Print
Derek Zona over at From the Rink had a very interesting article on shooting percentages and how single year peaks in goals will generally flatten out based on a player's historical shooting %. Is this bad news for Meuller and great news for Stastny? Was Stewart's break out year just a fluke? Why am I asking rhetorical questions? If I've learned anything from Woody Paige it is this; Be as incoherent as possible in the first third of what you write and the reader will turn to section 25B just to see how you actually have a point. More after the jump!
Derek makes a pretty simple point in that goal scoring has a median. For example, if you're a 3rd line forward in the NHL and your goal is 15 goals on the season you have a couple of ways to reach that goal. That forward can take 125 shots on goal at a scoring clip of 12% or 100 shots on goal at 15%. It's so simple, yet so hard. He then looks at possible goal-scoring fall off by players that scored well over their career shooting percentages. Among those leaders were Mikael Samuelsson who shot at a rate 14% over his career average and a bunch of other Vancouver players. Lots of pundits threw Corsi numbers at the Avalanche and said they were playing over their heads. Perhaps Vancouver had their own brand of fools gold going in to the playoffs?
So, where does that put the Avalanche?
| Rk | Player | Pos | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | PIM | EV | PP | SH | S | S% | Career Avg S% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peter Mueller | C | 15 | 9 | 11 | 20 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 35 | 25.70 | 10.40 |
| 2 | David Jones | RW | 23 | 10 | 6 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 39 | 25.60 | 16.30 |
| 3 | Justin Mercier | LW | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20.00 | *12.9 |
| 4 | Brandon Yip | RW | 32 | 11 | 8 | 19 | 5 | 22 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 65 | 16.90 | *16.7 |
| 5 | David Koci | LW | 43 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -2 | 84 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 16.70 | 8.30 |
| 6 | Milan Hejduk | RW | 56 | 23 | 21 | 44 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 8 | 0 | 153 | 15.00 | 14.70 |
| 7 | Chris Durno | C | 41 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 47 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 14.80 | *21.7 |
| 8 | Matt Hendricks | C | 56 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 1 | 74 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 63 | 14.30 | **13.1 |
| 9 | Darcy Tucker | RW | 71 | 10 | 14 | 24 | -3 | 47 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 73 | 13.70 | 13.50 |
| 10 | Matt Duchene | C | 81 | 24 | 31 | 55 | 1 | 16 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 180 | 13.30 | n/a |
| 11 | Chris Stewart | RW | 77 | 28 | 36 | 64 | 4 | 73 | 25 | 3 | 0 | 221 | 12.70 | 12.20 |
| 12 | T.J. Galiardi | LW | 70 | 15 | 24 | 39 | 6 | 28 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 120 | 12.50 | 13.40 |
| 13 | Kevin Porter | LW | 16 | 2 | 1 | 3 | -4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 11.10 | 11.70 |
| 14 | Wojtek Wolski | LW | 62 | 17 | 30 | 47 | 15 | 21 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 156 | 10.90 | xx |
| 15 | Paul Stastny | C | 81 | 20 | 59 | 79 | 2 | 50 | 11 | 9 | 0 | 199 | 10.10 | 13.00 |
| 16 | Kyle Cumiskey | D | 61 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 0 | 20 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 74 | 9.50 | 7.80 |
| 17 | Marek Svatos | RW | 54 | 7 | 4 | 11 | -13 | 35 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 84 | 8.30 | 13.40 |
| 18 | T.J. Hensick | C | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 7.70 | 6.10 |
| 19 | Ryan Stoa | C | 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | -3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 7.70 | n/a |
| 20 | Ryan Wilson | D | 61 | 3 | 18 | 21 | 13 | 36 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 46 | 6.50 | *0 |
| 21 | John-Michael Liles | D | 59 | 6 | 25 | 31 | -2 | 30 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 96 | 6.30 | 7.70 |
| 22 | Cody McLeod | LW | 74 | 7 | 11 | 18 | -13 | 138 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 117 | 6.00 | 8.80 |
| 23 | Ryan O'Reilly | C | 81 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 4 | 18 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 135 | 5.90 | n/a |
| 24 | Ruslan Salei | D | 14 | 1 | 5 | 6 | -1 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 4.50 | 3.50 |
| 25 | Kyle Quincey | D | 79 | 6 | 23 | 29 | 9 | 76 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 139 | 4.30 | 3.60 |
| 26 | Brett Clark | D | 64 | 3 | 17 | 20 | 6 | 28 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 75 | 4.00 | 5.10 |
| 27 | Scott Hannan | D | 81 | 2 | 14 | 16 | 2 | 40 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 3.80 | 3.80 |
* Lake Erie
** Lake Erie 2008
The first thing that sticks out is that some of these names just don't belong on the top of the list. Koci takes six shots on goal and scores one. If I recall, I think that puck went off his ass in to the net when he wasn't even looking at the shot from the point. Koci just scores goals people, he's a precision shooter.... with his ass. Anyway, the big name that jumps out is Mueller with his Mike Bossy-like 25.7%. Obviously this won't hold up, but in his defense he only had 15 games and 35 shots. At that pace he would shoot 191 times in a full 82 game season. To put things in to the right perspective, Ilya Kovalchuk has a career shooting % of 14.8 (Lidstrom and Blake are just above 6% for offensively gifted defensemen). So, for Mueller the jury is still out of course. He had some rough times in Phoenix but I believe that just watching his play on the ice we know he's better than a 10% shooter. If he elevates his game to a 13-14% clip and maintains his shot totals then Ferris is good for around 25 goals in a season. There are many things that stats don't tell you, and Mueller is a better player than he showed in Phoenix but probably not as dominate as we saw in a short time in Denver. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
If the theory holds true I think we can conclude first, that this team is really young and we just don't know what %s they should be shooting. Will Yip continue at a clip of 16%? Probably not, but if he takes 180 shots at 13% he's tossing in over 20 goals! Duchene is really interesting here because that 13.3% shooting was completely snake bit. Anyone who watched the kid knows he has three names for the posts, "not" (left post), !@#%(cross-bar), "again" (right post). I expect that % to improve, he's truly on that Stamkos kind of development path. O'Reilly may not have been robbed like Duchene but he can't help but improve on that shooting.
Second, I think we can conclude that while players like Mueller are likely to level out there are top players on the Avs that should continue or improve their scoring going in to next season. Chris Stewart had a breakout year but his shooting % is exactly where it's always been. He's simply taking a lot of shots on goal. Do you know what a lot of successful wingers in the NHL have in common? They take a lot of shots on goal. As long as he keeps pulling the trigger I don't think we should expect anything less from Stewart and in fact based on his slow start to the season I'd expect his shooting % to improve closer to 13% or better. The player that's set up for perhaps the biggest goal production leap next year (besides Duchene) is probably Paul Stastny. He has never been a prolific goal scorer but last year he had a fall-off in shooting for sure. Hard to say why his shot-making dropped off so much but he's getting his shots (199). His reasonable career average of 13% should be easily obtainable next year. That would put Stats closer to 30 goals than 20. The top three centers for the Avalanche in all likelihood underperformed in the goal scoring department.
In conclusion, the Avs never played over their head in the shooting department last year. In fact, with more experience and a better power play I'd expect the Avalanche to have an even better year on offense. We should expect more peaks and valleys, that's just the nature of sport. Hejduk shot 20.5% in 2001 when he scored 50 goals. His rookie year was at 7.9%. So clearly Ryan O'Reilly will win the Rocket Richard award. And... scene.
MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.
118 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He had some rough times in Phoenix but I believe that just watching his play on the ice we know he’s better than a 10% shooter
I’m not sure this will be true in Denver, but not for negative reasons. The Avs seem determined to use him on the point on the PP (take advantage of his shot), his numbers will regress to Defensiveman-type numbers. I expect his shooting percentage to go down, but not for any lack of skill or anything.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 10:19 AM MDT reply actions
Radar
O’Reilly may not have been robbed like Duchene but he can’t help but improve on that shooting.
I think his numbers are deceptive. He falls into the “just put the puck on net and go for a change” school of thought.
I think Radar’s defense first game has led to a lot of “shots” that are not of the dangerous type.
AKA Stastnystooth on twitter... Yeah that's me, his tooth.
by Ben from Portland on May 26, 2010 10:37 AM MDT reply actions
I am not a fan of the “OMG his shooting percentage is too high he’s going to regress!!!!1one” argument. will these shooting % numbers regress to the mean? probably. but young players always need to learn when to shoot, be that more or less. Better analysis, like you’re doing here Dario, is in looking at quantities of shots as well, roles going forward, etc.
I expect Mueller’s shooting % to fall next year. his goal scoring numbers? not so much, because I expect him to shoot a lot more. Yip? I don’t expect him to get the quality or quantity of shots he had this year filling in on the top lines. He seems a better candidate for regression.
I am not a fan of the "OMG his shooting percentage is too high he’s going to regress!!!!1one" argument. will these shooting % numbers regress to the mean? probably. but young players always need to learn when to shoot, be that more or less. Better analysis, like you’re doing here Dario, is in looking at quantities of shots as well, roles going forward, etc.
You’re conflating two arguments: reversion to the mean in shooting percentage and total goal-scoring numbers going forward. Lots of people do it when they don’t like what they see, but I specifically talked about how those players could get back to their goal totals by creating shots. It’s also why I used 500 career shots as a cutoff. It’s impossible to tell how a young player will shoot and even 500 is probably too low to make a true judgement, but it’s closer.
Shooting percentages to tend to hover at a player’s career rate. Andrew Brunette has an 18% career shooting percentage, but has bettered 20% only once in a full season: 1999-2000. And his shooting percentage is a direct result of expected shooting percentage from the locations on the ice he’s shooting from. As Gabe has shown, Brunette doesn’t have the ability to control his shots any more than expected, he just takes shots from places where there is a better expectation of the result being a goal.
I linked to Gabe’s study in the article concerning shooting percentage by age and there are other studies there that show that players aren’t able to control shooting ability beyond the expected. (Except for Kovalchuk, Tanguay and maybe Horton). What young players can do is raise their shots ratio, but if they haven’t demonstrated an ability to do it previously, it’s unlikely that they’ll be able to do so at the NHL level. Milan Lucic got an enormous contract based on him shooting 17% – it’s not likely he can do it again, and he’s not shown an ability to drive his own shot rates at other levels, so good for him and his agent, but bad for the Bruins.
I’ve had about 15 Vancouver fans tell me in email that I’m wrong about those three Canucks, by the way, that it’s “chemisty” that they all outshot their career percentages and that they will do it again, because of the Canucks’ chemistry.
Dario, one final note:
Among those leaders were Mikael Samuelsson who shot at a rate 14% over his career average
He actually shot 95% over his career average! That accounted for 14 goals over his expectation!
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I wasn’t attempting to rebut your article, as you seem to think. I didn’t even read it. Sorry.
First, as for conflating the 2 arguments, most people equate goal scoring and point totals with production in general. My point is merely that pure shot percentage arguments over pretty small sample sets don’t really hold much weight for me, especially with young players still developing. There’s no conflation there, just acknowledgement that there’s many factors contributing to traditional player metrics, especially young ones like Dario spoke of. How is there conflation here — the factors are undeniably linked…?
Having read your article now, regression to the mean as an absolute predictor is pretty dangerous ground for analysis, especially on these pretty small and noisy sample sets. Saying things like “in order to maintain these increased offensive numbers, he (Latendresse) must again increase his shot rates” is a little scary.
That’s like saying, “well, the last 5 coin flips came up heads, so this next flip must be tails!” or “the next 5 flips won’t be all heads because the last 5 were!” — worse actually, because the expected value of the “event,” i.e. the player’s average shooting percentage, may not even be well known for a young guy like Latendresse. Is it unlikely he has another 18% shooting year? Sure. Is it guaranteed he won’t after last year? Hell no, he’s probably even more likely now than it was last year, with his new confidence.
Again, I agree with what you’re saying in general — Latendresse is likely to regress to the mean in terms of shooting percentage. Careful with the absolute predictions.
Having studied forecasting, this is spot on.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 27, 2010 8:59 AM MDT up reply actions
This is the first time I’ve seen this kind of breakdown actually analyzing the “regression” argument. Thanks Dario. I can’t wait to hear what arguments the other side will throw against it…and that’s honestly because I want to hear their point of view, not because I’m being snarky. Well, maybe a tiny bit snarky. It’s in my nature and I can’t escape it.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 26, 2010 11:01 AM MDT reply actions
Shooting %
Behind the net has done an analysis on shooting percentage recently (and this was with no attention at all towards the Avs) and his conclusion is that it’s pretty rare for any player to be able to control his shooting percentage very much*
*Good players can control where they take shots, affecting their expected shooting percentage.
The three forwards I’m worried about most are Jones, Yip and Mueller. The goal for them should be to get more shots, because even a skeptic of this regression can look at their %‘s and say "There’s no way these guys can shoot at that clip".
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 11:19 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m not suggesting it can be controlled and that’s all BTN ever talks about. It analyzes information and over and over again uses that info to say “It’s all luck.” I don’t care about that bullshit anymore. I’m simply talking about how often the puck is shot at the net and how often it goes in. And I am interested in that info for our Avs players only. I want to compare that info from this past year to previous years so I can see if it’s reasonable to expect last year’s numbers to continue in the upcoming season. Or should I be totally prepared for a melt down.
If they’re going to come on here and start talking about how none of our players are good enough to control where the puck goes, then I’m not interested in hearing the argument because I don’t care about that. I’m conceding it’s a numbers game and can we please move on from that bullshit now?
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 26, 2010 11:33 AM MDT up reply actions
all this makes my head hurt…
stop the stats madness
AKA Stastnystooth on twitter... Yeah that's me, his tooth.
by Ben from Portland on May 26, 2010 12:10 PM MDT up reply actions
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but quite frankly, this entire rant doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The article doesn’t say it’s all luck, on the contrary. It says there’s some luck, some shooter skill, but the main factor in having a high shooting percentage is putting yourself in a position where shots are more likely to go in. I wouldn’t think there’s a whole lot of argument in that.
And how in the world are you ever going to know whether there’s a melt down this season if you only compare Avs players to years past? That just makes no sense to me at all.
I’m just not sure what you’re trying to get at here, other than raging against the machine. sorry.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions
Honestly, I didn’t read the article. I am harking back to a conversation Hawerchuck and I had about the “ability to control the puck” issue. He basically said this to me (and I am admittedly paraphrasing) : the only players currently in the league that had any talent at all in regards to being able to shoot the puck on net are Tanguay and Kovie. Period. His justification is that only those two could ever duplicate the shot. Everyone else? The puck makes it in because of luck. To be honest, if what you describe is what the article says (that it’s a combination of all of those things) it flies in the face of EVERYTHING else I’ve read on that site. Not to be a jerk myself, but that’s why I find that site so ridiculous in the first place. I have never read anything that says SKILL leads to a goal. All I’ve ever read is that luck does.
So what I am saying is what I wanted to know is exactly what Dario put up in this post.
And yeah, I’m raging…not against the machine. Against that site. I find them fucking annoying pieces of shit because no matter what I’ve ever said – even if it’s to say, “I agree with you” – they’ve never done anything but insult me.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 26, 2010 3:40 PM MDT up reply actions
Everything that I read between you guys (and I admit, after a while it got tiring) and I don’t think he’s contradicting himself at all. In fact I thought Hawerchuck was fine with you. It probably didn’t help that RO kept chiming in, and he can be a huge asshole which made conversations a lot more hostile than they needed to be.
He still says that Kovi and Tanguay are the only two that show an ability to control their shots, but obviously all players control them. It’s just those two have the ability to stand above the St. Deviation.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 3:56 PM MDT up reply actions
Think what you want Jibs. He was incredibly rude to me (RO not even involved in those conversations) and dismissed every single thing I said. I’m not getting into this any further, tho, because I don’t feel well.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 26, 2010 4:10 PM MDT up reply actions
Imo, that Hawerchuk clown
Lost a ton of credibility with liberal use of the terms “lucky” and “terrible” when evaluating the Avs as a team in his articles. Lucky and terrible teams don’t show the sort of improvement that our young guns did this season. imo.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 26, 2010 5:15 PM MDT up reply actions
Quantify “improvement”. A testable theory. Evidence. I’m open to anything, and I’ll surely hunt the data down for you.
Btw, Colorado did not win one of its last 13 regular season games in regulation. Is that typical of good or bad teams?
As far as basic team stats go – 26 more points, 11 more wins, 45 more goals scored, and 24 fewer goals allowed – certainly much of it can be attributed to improved goaltending, but I don’t think improvement can be questioned here whether you think this year’s team is good or awful, considering the extremely low standards from 08-09 that we had to compare them to.
Regarding the post-Olympics meltdown, I was wondering – it’s mentioned pretty often that young players, especially rookies, tend to hit a wall at some point late in the season due to their bodies being unaccustomed to the high level of play. With the number of them on the Avs last year, coupled with having the 2nd-most man games lost to injury, that seems a likely explanation. Do the numbers back this up?
I tried to stay out of these talks but you are abusing the numbers now.
3 of the losses in those 13 games were post playoff clinch and had several notable scratches for each meaningless game. (Good teams clinch before the season ends, eh?)
Are we really going to pretend that no other teams benefited from OT wins?
If OT wins count for less than OT losses would mean less as well – further weakening your argument.
This whole idea that an OT win is less valuable is preposterous. It’s hockey, regulation ties are not only part of the game but a regular occurrence.
Your arbitrary selection of 13 games just ‘happens’ to start after a 3 game winning streak. Classic. These are the kinds of streaks sports broadcasters make up to sound smart.
Finally, this injury depleted Avs team won 100% more games against SJ than the Red Wing juggernaut.
I haven’t read your other works that get everyone fired up around here. I do know that this swipe was lazily thought out.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 27, 2010 8:05 AM MDT up reply actions
Before we go one
(this is in no way directed at Lowayne, yours is just most recent in the string that I fear could easily deteriorate.)
Could everyone please, before they respond in this thread, take a deep breath, count to ten, re-read what was written and then respond with no emotion before this discussion spirals out of control… again.
That said, I think Lowayne is right… to a certain extent. I think a better question/comparison would be to look at what teams have had 13 game non regulation winning streaks throughout the last few seasons, and conversely which teams have had 10-1-2 stretches the last few seasons as well.
Using the last 13 games of the season is a bit of cherry-picking, it would be better to see how the Avs worst stretches compare to other good teams and bad teams, and also how their good stretches compare as well.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 27, 2010 8:33 AM MDT up reply actions
Excellent idea!
Sandie
"We called him Clark Kent because away from the rink, he was just a nerd. Then he'd go into the Colorado dressing room and put on his Avs jersey, and all of a sudden he was Super Joe"- Theo Fleury
by Sandie Gauthier on May 27, 2010 8:40 AM MDT up reply actions
(No offense jibbles, my post was strictly addressed at the logic gaps I saw in that post)
Honestly, the whole idea of how the wins are clumped together is a valid comparison seems silly to me. If your team is good enough to get lots of points the distribution shouldn’t matter.
That said, a hot streak leading into the playoffs doesn’t hurt.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 27, 2010 8:46 AM MDT up reply actions
(I meant, no offense taken)
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 27, 2010 8:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Btw, Colorado did not win one of its last 13 regular season games in regulation. Is that typical of good or bad teams?
Cherry pick stats much? Why 13? Why not 15? Or 25? Or 82? Why limit it to regulation? Seriously, man…that’s absolutely fucking random.
"We left (the combine) saying, 'Boy, that's pretty unique, what he has and his passion for this game and for winning.' He's been a winner, and you could see why." Josh McDaniels on Tim Tebow.
by Dan Winkler on May 27, 2010 10:56 PM MDT up reply actions
When Tangs was with the Avs his lowest S% 14.4 his highest % 23.2.
I remember a HNIC were Kelly Hrudey said that there was only one player he played with that had “hockey vision” that was as good as Tanguay- and that was Wayne Gretzky. Mighty big comparison.
I don’t really know what happened with him. His game doesn’t seem suited to the East Coast. As much as I hate to say it, I think Tangs would do well on the Wild. Especially beside Bruno.
Sandie
"We called him Clark Kent because away from the rink, he was just a nerd. Then he'd go into the Colorado dressing room and put on his Avs jersey, and all of a sudden he was Super Joe"- Theo Fleury
by Sandie Gauthier on May 27, 2010 8:13 AM MDT up reply actions
Wow. “Fucking annoying pieces of shit.” That’s a pretty harsh assessment. I still don’t understand why you took it personally that I was analyzing the Avs, as though I had some vendetta against them. I just wanted to understand why the Avs were winning and whether it was repeatable.
Anyways, you’ve misinterpreted everything I’ve had to say on this subject. There are truly repeatable skills where we see consistent standout performance from some players. For example, getting shots off: Ovechkin, Staal, Kovalchuk, Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Iginla, Hossa, and frighteningly, Jason Blake. You know these guys are going to drive your offense, even compared to other top 6 forwards.
And some guys have the ability to consistently put themselves in a position to score high-percentage goals. Brunette. Holmstrom.
But in terms of being better than other top 6 forwards at putting the puck in the net from a given spot on the ice? There isn’t a lot of obvious talent there.
Do you think Ovechkin has better corner-picking ability than other top forwards? His career shooting percentage is exactly average for a forward, which says probably not. Ovechkin gets open, makes fancy moves, takes a ton of shots and scores a ton of goals…But I can’t find any evidence that he is better at putting the puck in from the same spot on the ice than 100 other guys.
We know that players have the ability to get into positions where they can score. So on an individual shot, putting the puck in the net ends up about 40% skill and 60% random variation. That’s just shooting percentage – the total number of goals a player scores in a season is skill-driven and ends up being maybe 20% luck. The only thing I’ve ever said was luck is a high shooting percentage.
Now, individual teams have not shown the ability to consistently put themselves into better positions, on average, than any other team, nor have they shown the ability, as teams, to have a significantly higher shooting percentage than the average team in the league. So team shooting percentage is very luck-driven. Team goal-scoring is not – controlling the puck and getting shots on goal is very much a skill.
Never took it personally that you were analyzing the Avs. Took it personally that you never seemed to hear what I was saying. I’m not going to argue this issue further as there is no point.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 9:18 AM MDT up reply actions
I am harking back to a conversation Hawerchuck and I had about the "ability to control the puck" issue
The English teacher in you might even say you’re “hearkening” back.
"We left (the combine) saying, 'Boy, that's pretty unique, what he has and his passion for this game and for winning.' He's been a winner, and you could see why." Josh McDaniels on Tim Tebow.
by Dan Winkler on May 27, 2010 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions
The person with strep throat might even tell you she doesn’t give a shit whether it’s harking or hearkening and that her general restraint for being a grammar nazi affords her the right to be wrong once in a while without having it pointed out.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 7:24 PM MDT up reply actions
I’ve seen you correct other people before, and you probably weren’t aware whether or not they had strep or anything else goin on in their lives. If you criticize, you should expect to be criticized.
And harking/hearkening isn’t a grammar mistake.
"We left (the combine) saying, 'Boy, that's pretty unique, what he has and his passion for this game and for winning.' He's been a winner, and you could see why." Josh McDaniels on Tim Tebow.
by Dan Winkler on May 27, 2010 10:49 PM MDT up reply actions
If I have to pull this car over.....
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
Ugh.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 28, 2010 8:44 AM MDT up reply actions
Great link Jibble, I hadn’t seen it before.
I think what he’s actually saying is that players don’t have control over 50% of their shots and that’s likely very true depending on the kind of player you are.
However, you and I know there’s a huge shot making ability difference between a Hejduk and other players like Wolski for example. Then you got guys like Tangauy who only shoot the puck when passing options 2,3 and 4 are exhausted. That’s why his shooting percentage is so outstanding. He’s not an elite sniper. The number of shots taken is a huge part of this and a guy like Peter Forsberg is a perfect example. His shooting percentage was always very high. His brilliance was his playmaking, not his shot. The only time he ever broke 30 goals was when he took 217 shots in ’98 with a shooting % of 13.8%. But for most of his injury plagued career his shot totals were relatively low.
Watching hockey is a hell of a lot different than watching statistics as you well know. We see Duchene and know he’s a better sniper than Tucker. We see special shot makers like Hejduk and Sakic and we know they have a special talent at shooting the puck.
I think that generally speaking the statistics aren’t all that helpfull for individual players that are so young in their careers especially if they only control 50% of the shots they take. But, I think the stats as a whole for the team and where they finished up are relavent. I don’t believe the offense played over it’s head and in fact, the offense as a whole probably underperformed. I’m less concerned about Mueller of the three you mention because I think he’ll get his shot totals via the power play and playing with either Stastny or Duchene as his centerman. I think Mueller will have decent production next year if he skates like he did after the trade. Now, on the other hand I think Yip and Jones will have a real battle depending on the line they play on. One of those guys is on the top two lines with a offensive center. One of them will be on a likely 3rd line and in a more defensive/checking role. I’d predict that’s probably going to be Yip because of the way he can play defense and bang in the corners. Contrarily I think Yip will be good for O’Reilly’s numbers.
Agree with you on Tanguay, and Forsberg as well.
Watching hockey is a hell of a lot different than watching statistics as you well know. We see Duchene and know he’s a better sniper than Tucker.
Is he though? Is his shot really that much better than Tuckers? I’m not so sure it is. Tucker’s shot has always been fine. Where Duchene is obviously better than Tucker is in his ability to create shots and get himself into a position where his shots are more likely to go in. I’m not sure, from a pure shot standpoint, Duchene’s all that much better than Tucker. It’s just he’s super skilled everywhere else.
I think that generally speaking the statistics aren’t all that helpfull for individual players that are so young in their careers especially if they only control 50% of the shots they take
I completely agree with this. Yips 65 shots really don’t tell us anything about where he’s headed. The best we can do is compare him to other players and kind of guess where he might be. His possession numbers weren’t very good though, so I have a feeling he’s in for a bit of a dropoff in production. But he’s also young. He’s improving, and that’s an x factor that no one can really account for.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 3:00 PM MDT reply actions
Damnit
jibble’d. first time in a long time.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 3:00 PM MDT up reply actions
We’re here for you man.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 26, 2010 4:52 PM MDT up reply actions
Well if you don't do it anymore we'll have to rename it!
Go Rockies! First and only member of the Manuel Corpas fanclub right here! :/
Everyone's favorite Buffalo Rumblings Anti-Tebow blowhard!
THIS IS BUFFALO NATION GODZILLA HAS AWAKEN - abayarde
by UZ on May 26, 2010 5:27 PM MDT up reply actions
We’ve got to disagree on Tucker vs Duchene then. Duchene does do just about everything better than Tucker and I think his shot is better too. He’s got a harder shot and I think he can score from more places than just right in front of the net. But the shooting % doesn’t support that. shrug
Yes, but...
Darcy has better hair…
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
It’s probably better, but I don’t think it’s much better. Shooting is one thing that probably doesn’t degrade with age too much.
I would still say of all the things Duchene does better than Tucker that makes him a better player, shooting is low on the list.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 26, 2010 8:29 PM MDT up reply actions
Shooting is one thing that probably doesn’t degrade with age too much.
I’m almost 100 percent certain that shooting absolutely degrades with age. Compare Sakic’s last 4 or 5 seasons to his 15 previous. His shot was nowhere near as good, he wasn’t taking as many of them and he wasn’t shooting from all over the ice like he used to.
I’m pretty sure Sakic said the power in his shot came from his legs, and I don’t know of any pro athletes in their mid 30s who don’t lose some physical ability, especially in their legs.
Maybe it depends on the type of player, though. Maybe a Brunette or Dave Andreychuk didn’t lose as much in his shot when he got older as Sakic did. But I’m pretty sure that age affects a player’s shot.
"We left (the combine) saying, 'Boy, that's pretty unique, what he has and his passion for this game and for winning.' He's been a winner, and you could see why." Josh McDaniels on Tim Tebow.
by Dan Winkler on May 27, 2010 11:02 PM MDT up reply actions
Shooting is one thing that probably doesn’t degrade with age too much.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Shooting percentage degrades with age. There are so many factors going into that stat that I have difficulty tagging the variable as the actual shooting.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 28, 2010 7:20 AM MDT up reply actions
I would agree with this.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 28, 2010 10:22 AM MDT up reply actions
Interesting stuff Dario. The thing that impressed me the most about Mueller during his all too brief (fuck you Rob Blake) run with the Avs was his ability to both create his own and capitalize on great scoring chances. It was almost like he knew exactly where he needed to be, and once he got the puck on his stick, he didn’t feel compelled to Wolksi around with it until he lost it.
One interesting thing these stats may point to, although I’m not sure how the Avs compare to other teams …. do the low numbers for the defensemen further show our glaring need on the PP point? I can understand why D-men shooting percentages would naturally be lower, but by that much?
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
Well, it’s a combination of that and I don’t think the defense shot enough or when they did they didn’t get it on net.
San Jose defensemen had 687 shots on goal last year, the Avs D had 539. Blake had 182 and Boyle had 180 just between the two of them. San Jose had the best PP in the NHL. I think the picture starts to come together pretty fast and I think we can both agree that Mueller’s point shot changed the entire dynamic of the power play. Blake’s shooting % this year was only 3.8% but he still shot the puck a ton. So the shooting % for D is probably not as important as how many shots they are taking. I mean, when defensemen take shots from the point it’s doing all kinds of things besides creating a goal opportunity. It keeps the forwards higher in their D zone giving more room down low. It creates tips for said forwards and rebounds too. I think a guy like Liles was getting in those situations, seeing some sort of traffic in front and getting gun shy on shooting the puck.
I think Mueller’s high numbers could have been partially due to surprise on the part of opposing teams. they just weren’t used to a guy that would do what he did. (at least not on the Avs) Similar to a good rookie getting more coverage in subsequent years, this could take a toll on mueller and a few of our other players as well.
MHH- A drinking site with a hockey problem
Detroit Sucks
I tried to send an email to !@#% but it didn’t take
Go Rockies! First and only member of the Manuel Corpas fanclub right here! :/
Everyone's favorite Buffalo Rumblings Anti-Tebow blowhard!
THIS IS BUFFALO NATION GODZILLA HAS AWAKEN - abayarde
Bahaha! I was wondering if anyone would comment on that.
Forever grateful that Joe Sakic isn't a douche bag like Brett Favre.
by Rather Dashing on May 26, 2010 6:41 PM MDT up reply actions
Stoa
Stoa’s S% in Lake Erie was 18.3%, 23 goals on 126 shots. Stoa finished the season tied for the rookie goal scoring lead in the AHL, playing in 54 games.
Stats...
Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything…
I’m always a little afraid of statistics talk, mainly because I’m too lazy and confused to figure out what they mean… then of course different people will use them to prove conflicting arguments and then someone will add a different stat about Elephants to prove that Todd Bertuzzi was once a nice guy… Its shite, he wasn’t….
Anyways, where was I going with this?
Yeah, the only stat worth worrying about is our position at the end of the season, and we did good! Lets be happy and look forward to pissing on the Canucks from a great height next year!
Cant we all just get along!!
As the plane lands in Glasgow airport, passengers are reminded to set their watch back, 25 years.
by ScottishScubaSteve on May 27, 2010 8:27 AM MDT reply actions
then of course different people will use them to prove conflicting arguments
My thesis for my Masters degree ended up being about this. I used the same stats in three different ways to prove three opposing theories. I didn’t intend for it to be. I had my hypothesis but when I gathered the data and analyzed it, I found that the results changed depending on how I approached it. It was fascinating. And actually proved the joke that “80% of all stats are made up.”
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 9:25 AM MDT up reply actions
AHHHH!!!!!
Its was 67.001%… Get it right Mike!!!
Yeah… so did you see that sky today, talk about blue…..
As the plane lands in Glasgow airport, passengers are reminded to set their watch back, 25 years.
by ScottishScubaSteve on May 27, 2010 9:48 AM MDT up reply actions
Azure, actually. With periwinkle overtones.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
Hahaha, I have no response to that.
Well played sir
As the plane lands in Glasgow airport, passengers are reminded to set their watch back, 25 years.
by ScottishScubaSteve on May 27, 2010 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions
LISTEN UP PEOPLE!!!!
I’m going to do this here and not an actual post, but the message better damn well get through:
If you (as a SBN community member) are unable to have rational conversations regarding topics that you don’t enjoy, please don’t comment on the story. I for one am getting sick and god-damn tired of having the same fucking conversation over and over again regarding statistics and their interpretations especially relative to the Avalanche. That’s why I don’t got to Hawerchuk’s site any longer. Nothing I say about my opinions or observations will do anything to sway his opinion (of me or my opinions), nor will he have anything to say to me that will change my mind unless I’m willing to listen, so force-feeding opinions, name-calling, and chest-thumping solves nothing.
If you’re a MHH member and you wanna go to Behind the Net or From the Rink or Copper and Blue and get into it with those site’s hosts or members regarding your personal opinions regarding the statistical analysis of hockey, then by all means, do so. Those sites will handle any behavior that THEY deem inappropriate in what I’m sure will be an effective manner. It is their prerogative and their “jurisdiction,” just like anything that myself or the other over-lords at MHH deem to be problematic will be dealt with. We ask that you represent our community to the best of your ability and if the best of your ability is to remain silent, then please do so.
Similarly, anybody who is a sometimes poster here who may or may not have a SBN site of their own, please understand that this is an AVALANCHE community. Coming off the mountain like a modern-day Moses to ed-u-ma-cate the ‘tards here will not make you any friends especially when there is already bad blood existing. You know who you are. You are more than welcome here and you have several fans and appreciative members here among our community and our writing staff, but please watch the tone of you posts when responding to other’s opinions so as not to ignite problems. Rabble-rousing and trolling will not be tolerated regardless of affiliation or inclination. It’s high fucking time somebody was the bigger person in some of these conversations and I’m tired of monitoring the butt-hurt and self-righteousness that seems to be creeping into these conversations at the drop of a old lady’s hat. If that means that me or another staff member need to start swinging banhammers to give people time to CHILL. THE. FUCK. OUT., it will happen in a fruit-flies heartbeat.
MHH staff and members will continue to link to the good work at these sites unless directed otherwise by the originators, so if you as a MHH member don’t agree with it, you are under no obligation to read it. We welcome all views but we don’t need a summer full of this crap.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
by Mike @ MHH on May 27, 2010 8:49 AM MDT reply actions 2 recs
Well said :)
Sandie
"We called him Clark Kent because away from the rink, he was just a nerd. Then he'd go into the Colorado dressing room and put on his Avs jersey, and all of a sudden he was Super Joe"- Theo Fleury
by Sandie Gauthier on May 27, 2010 9:00 AM MDT up reply actions
but we don’t need a summer full of this crap.
Good point. This is, after all, supposed to be the summer of Kovie.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 9:22 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m going to add this to my list of ban-worthy offenses if you keep it up.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Kovie is in the air.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 9:25 AM MDT up reply actions
As I’m the only that’s getting pissed in this thread, I will take this as directed at me. Sorry. He gets under my skin and I was not feeling well yesterday.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 9:33 AM MDT up reply actions
My only problem, in this thread, was the way in which you kind of dismissed my thoughts because they were based on Gabe’s work. I realize you and him don’t get along, but I respect his work and it influences my thoughts (especially since I am a stats guy) although I don’t always agree with his conclusions.
I hope you have enough respect for my opinions not to get mad at me for letting the work he does influence the way I think about things.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 27, 2010 9:51 AM MDT up reply actions
With respect to Mike and his request, I’m not going to go into detail about how I never dismissed your thoughts. I was all about Behind the Net and Hawerchuk specifically. I’m sorry you took it any other way.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 10:09 AM MDT up reply actions
Jibbles, their work is though provoking indeed. At the end of the day that very valuable, especially for prompting discussions we wouldn’t have otherwise. However, there are lots of holes in their statistical methodology so don’t get to hung up on their results. Forecasting and predictive modeling is something I have studied and enjoy, so I am not just throwing this out because they don’t speak ‘fondly’ of the Avs.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on May 27, 2010 10:18 AM MDT up reply actions
I hope the Avs miss the playoffs next year
So we can spend all of our time statistically proving that the teams to make it suck.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 10:40 AM MDT up reply actions
What's that?
Ah yes, the stench of Calgary….
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
Joy Division: Kovie will tear us apart.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
jibbled kovie
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 9:28 AM MDT up reply actions
Do I count a Jibble’d kovie joke? I don’t know. Judges?
No. Judges say no due to the stretch in humor required for the Joy Division joke. That and you and Dan are the only ones who would get that joke.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
I say count it just because it’s hilarious that he’s pushing your buttons. I thought I was the only one that could do it this well, but he’s doing a great job!
Bob refuses to lock the door when he leaves the house too? What an ass.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
LOL
We have a very similar problem at our house,
Except, since we don’t normally lock our door anyway, the real problem is that I often fail to pull the door closed all the way.
One of these days I’m gonna come home and there will be a bear or something rifling through the fridge.
Oh, Wait, maybe thats why Rich gets so pissed about this!
"That F******* sandwich had it coming!" -Mike@MHH
One of these days I’m gonna come home and there will be a bear or something rifling through the fridge.
Just make sure you don’t have any Arby’s sandwiches in there and I think you’ll be fine.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 4:54 PM MDT up reply actions
Whew
I think we’re safe, closest Arby’s is about 100 miles away.
"That F******* sandwich had it coming!" -Mike@MHH
Good news!
There’s one in Silverthorne. Only about 70 miles. That’s not to far to drive to punch a sammy!
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
Oh Yeah,
Forgot about the one in Silverthorne.
I’ll be down there for a 4 day class right before we leave for Vegas, maybe I’ll get a sandwich to punch for FF luck :)
"That F******* sandwich had it coming!" -Mike@MHH
There’s an Arby’s about a mile from the MGM if you want to punch a sandwich in Vegas.
MHH: The Burgundy Army is on the March!
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on May 27, 2010 10:13 PM MDT up reply actions
Dan wouldn't get it
He is more of a Doors fan.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 9:45 AM MDT up reply actions
did I miss something?
Assistant *to* the Managing Editor, Mile High Hockey
by David Driscoll-Carignan on May 27, 2010 9:44 AM MDT reply actions
Just more sandwich punching rage.
Quitter's People United Member #33
"I am a business major in college after all." - One MHR commenter's rationale for knowing more about the Denver Broncos than I do. LOL.
by Bob in Boulder on May 27, 2010 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Dude, I’ve read these comments very carefully and I still don’t know what’s going on.
I’ve gleamed from them that statistics are boring, and Joe has a special ring-tone for Mike when he calls. My guesses are:
1. Secret Lover by Atlantic Starr
2. The Joker by Steve Miller Band. (specifically the loving his peaches and shaking his tree lyric)
3. Somebody Told Me by The Killers
to replace Wolski?
Assistant *to* the Managing Editor, Mile High Hockey
by David Driscoll-Carignan on May 27, 2010 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
rec’d.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 27, 2010 11:11 AM MDT up reply actions
careful
Bubblegum will throw a sandwich at you for that statement.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 27, 2010 11:44 AM MDT up reply actions
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
Flippin idiots.
You've been down too long in the midnight sea...
by Pinchy The Lobster on May 27, 2010 10:19 PM MDT reply actions
I thought Shawn Bradley would be an NBA star
So that admission of complete, 100 percent fail is the preface to this comment: I am fairly worried that we’ve just witnessed Chris Stewart’s career year.
There’s streakiness, and there’s inconsistency. I understand streakiness, but inconsistency makes me crazy and I worry that it has less to do with what we usually call a “slump,” and more to do with other things. Things like a player’s general disinterest, lack of focus, lack of shape, personal problems, or something else.
I have no more personal knowledge about Chris Stewart than most of you do – 1 older brother who was in the NHL but isn’t any more but is still playing, a bunch of younger sisters, high draft pick, high expectations, built like a power forward, has made a couple of trips to the minors then seemed to put the pieces together this year after an early demotion.
The way he played down the stretch seemed to be more than a slump. Don’t know exactly what it was, but it seemed like he didn’t have the same energy as earlier in the season. Injured? Tired? Not in great shape? Other? Don’t know. But he’s my early candidate for Most Unpleasant Surprise of the 10-11 season.
"We left (the combine) saying, 'Boy, that's pretty unique, what he has and his passion for this game and for winning.' He's been a winner, and you could see why." Josh McDaniels on Tim Tebow.
by Dan Winkler on May 27, 2010 11:15 PM MDT reply actions
But he’s my early candidate for Most Unpleasant Surprise of the 10-11 season.
I don’t think this will happen. Stewart had to choose between hockey and football. He chose hockey. That meant he has had to rework his body composition to fit hockey. First, his commitment to that showed perseverance. Second, he’s still in the process of doing that. I think next year we’ll see more rewards from that process, both mentally and physically. He may not be quite the star he was this year, but I don’t think he’ll fall off that far from it.
The Philadelphia Flyers: Let's do it for Lappy, man. We'll do it for Lappy!
by Cheryl Bradley on May 28, 2010 8:53 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree.
Another variable at play here is the fact that Stewart’s mom died suddenly at some point here in the last 2 years. That would have a strong tendency to screw with the mind of a kid his age.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Much more gooderer than last year!
That would have a strong tendency to screw with the mind of a kid his age.
I don’t think age really matters. Losing a parent suddenly (and even not suddenly) can screw with the mind of a person. IMO
Sandie
"We called him Clark Kent because away from the rink, he was just a nerd. Then he'd go into the Colorado dressing room and put on his Avs jersey, and all of a sudden he was Super Joe"- Theo Fleury
by Sandie Gauthier on May 28, 2010 12:06 PM MDT up reply actions
I think you’ll find that almost all players are inconsistent. If you look at any player to hard, you’ll be baffled by their inconsistency.
MY early candidate is Brandon Yip
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on May 28, 2010 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m going with Meuller. I don’t know why… I just have a feeling.
You've been down too long in the midnight sea...
by Pinchy The Lobster on May 28, 2010 10:34 AM MDT up reply actions
Maybe I did not get the stats’ arguments very clearly (“english being not my native language” is always a perfect excuse to hide that you’re dumb ;) ) butr it seems to me that there i9s a missing factor judging players ways to plays between a season and the next one and this is: the summer.
I, maybe, am making assumptions, but to me a guy like Duchesne will work this summer to improve where he has been more or less deficient the last season. Good rookies tend to do that. So, for me, the stats may work for players who have played for three years or more and won’t work up in the summer to improve.
Well, I could be wrong, of course, but I am quite sure we will see some Avs rookies have improved over the summer.
.
What do you do when you are ready for the 2010-2011 season and it is 4 months away? Sleep the summer away?
I assume you mean Duchene, not Duchesne.
I do agree that some of those players will improve, and it’s likely given their age. I’m not sure that improvement will show up on the stats sheet since their point totals this season were inflated compared to how well they played.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Jun 8, 2010 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
