Vinny: Breaking down the points per game....

[aziz]

@jammer2

I still disagree. where you see patience and all of that, I see cheapness and a wasting of talent. you think Edmonton will spend the money needed to fill out the roster once their kids are fully ready to roll, I think Edmonton should have already done that, and will begin dismantling their young core once RNH's ELC expires. they have no intention of spending the money required to build and maintain a competitive team.

re: your buffalo example, obviously I wasn't talking about paying ville leino three times what he is worth. I was talking about spending money on the pieces required to assemble a complete roster.

I think Detroit went the correct route with Zetterberg and datsyuk. those two came in and played on a team that included steve yzerman, Brendan shannahan, etc. they were allowed to develop their games without also having to carry the team on their backs. they were allowed to learn the team concept while playing on a competitive roster and enjoying success as a unit. and one day they were ready to take their places at the top of the depth chart, be the alphas. the counterpoint would be Atlanta and Columbus and florida, where extremely talented players were brought in, immediately handed the reins and asked to be the everything right out of the gate. those players were beaten down and never accomplished anything, eventually asking to get out of dodge. some pulled it together in places where they didn't have to be everything, kovalchuk as the example. others were broken and never really recovered. heatly. others have had good careers, but seem to have problems as part of a larger squad, good individual numbers but no ability to work as a unit. nash.

only time will tell. I don't believe Edmonton will ever be a force, and I expect those high draft picks to start leaving in the next year or two. if you refuse to provide prospects with a framework in which to develop and experience at least some success, you accomplish nothing. imo. we'll check back in 4 years and see where Edmonton is then.

[aziz]

Az, I'll admit I go back and forth on point production. On one hand, projecting can be worthwhile. On the other hand, there are reasons why a guy has to put up 37 points in 22 games. If a guy can't stay healthy, it's definitely fair to take that into account. I usually look at point per game production.

I get that. but an 82 game projection is just the point per game multiplied by 82. either way, you are measuring how much of an impact you can expect him to have for any particular game in which he plays.

the only real fiction is measuring by total output over an 82 game season, regardless of how many of those 82 the player was actually in. that is the one figuring that has no relevance outside of itself. nothing is awarded for points per season (unless you have the most points per season, I guess).

[brelic]

@jammer2

I still disagree. where you see patience and all of that, I see cheapness and a wasting of talent. you think Edmonton will spend the money needed to fill out the roster once their kids are fully ready to roll, I think Edmonton should have already done that, and will begin dismantling their young core once RNH's ELC expires. they have no intention of spending the money required to build and maintain a competitive team.

re: your buffalo example, obviously I wasn't talking about paying ville leino three times what he is worth. I was talking about spending money on the pieces required to assemble a complete roster.

I think Detroit went the correct route with Zetterberg and datsyuk. those two came in and played on a team that included steve yzerman, Brendan shannahan, etc. they were allowed to develop their games without also having to carry the team on their backs. they were allowed to learn the team concept while playing on a competitive roster and enjoying success as a unit. and one day they were ready to take their places at the top of the depth chart, be the alphas. the counterpoint would be Atlanta and Columbus and florida, where extremely talented players were brought in, immediately handed the reins and asked to be the everything right out of the gate. those players were beaten down and never accomplished anything, eventually asking to get out of dodge. some pulled it together in places where they didn't have to be everything, kovalchuk as the example. others were broken and never really recovered. heatly. others have had good careers, but seem to have problems as part of a larger squad, good individual numbers but no ability to work as a unit. nash.

only time will tell. I don't believe Edmonton will ever be a force, and I expect those high draft picks to start leaving in the next year or two. if you refuse to provide prospects with a framework in which to develop and experience at least some success, you accomplish nothing. imo. we'll check back in 4 years and see where Edmonton is then.

The last time they actually did invest in a big-name player - Pronger - they made it to the SCF.

Since that time? 7 straight years of missing the playoffs.

In fact, the Oilers haven't been relevant since the late 80s, much like the Islanders.

I wouldn't want us to be like them at all.

[jammer2]

@aziz " I think Detroit went the correct route with Zetterberg and datsyuk. those two came in and played on a team that included steve yzerman, Brendan shannahan, etc. they were allowed to develop their games without also having to carry the team on their backs."

Well, that's nice and all, but Detroit was the exception to the rule. Edmonton didn't have the luxury of having a solid core of Yzerman and Shanny to fall back on, really...what team does? Sure Zetts and Datsuyk were eased into things, with Stevie Y, Shanny, a young Lindstrom to carry the load, that's a perfect scenario, but not realistic in regards to Edmonton's situation. I still conted the Oilers care very much about winning. You are griping about a team that is on the cusp. They will make some noise in the playoffs next year, just you watch. I supplied a list of 3 vets who were added to support the youngsters at a low cap hit, Smyth, Belanger and Hordnichuck....stars, no...but all 3 are famous for giving every ounce of energy in their bodies to win. Those are the guys to show the kids the way. What you want is high priced talent to take the lead for this team, only problem is, they cost more than cap hit...they cost term length, and can hamstring the future cap. Let the kids play, let them figure it out, help them along with hard working vets who don't cost much. Figure out when your window starts to open and go from there.

The very first thing on the agenda is for the kids to make the playoffs, and see which members of the core show up big in the playoffs, who really wants to win the cup, who will leave it all on the ice. Figure that out, and THEN make your big moves. Edmonton is doing this the right way....and no, the kids will not go anywhere. Mark my words.

[jammer2]

I didn't multiply his projected totals to start the thread out for a reason. I wanted him to stand on exactly what he had done, not "if the stars align properly, and he stays injury free he could do this".

Posters sticking up for the Vinny signing need to take a few things into account. First, he started playing less games when he was 30, concidence...maybe....but that just happens to be the age when players start breaking down....after 12 full years of crashing and banging. So, the projections thing.....I'd rather not go there, because I believe he will get injured next season, just like he has for the previous 3. His body has taken tons of abuse, esp when he was the primary target, before Stamkos got there.

Another thing to add, we are getting a pansy who refuses to go and dig in the corners (in general), does not use his size to his advantage, he's not physical, does not take hits to maintain possession etc. I will add in fairness he's quite good at protecting the puck with his body, but other than that, he does not add much to the cycle. He's a Jeff Carter type, does just enough to look like he is interested, but in reality, only cares about offense. He's a detriment to the team in thier own end....and it will only get worse.

Metzler himself stated he "takes entire games off mentally". Is that a guy we want to show the kids the way? I think not.

Another thing, when projecting totals for this guy, he will slowly regress. What does the Flyers second line have to offer that Tampa Bay's potent offense could not supply? Are the Flyers guys better than Teddy Purcell and co that he played with? I'm thinking they are equal, so expect the same decline we saw in Tampa being transferred to Philly.

[aziz]

<br />I supplied a list of 3 vets who were added to support the youngsters at a low cap hit, Smyth, Belanger and Hordnichuck....stars, no...but all 3 are famous for giving every ounce of energy in their bodies to win. Those are the guys to show the kids the way. What you want is high priced talent to take the lead for this team, only problem is, they cost more than cap hit...they cost term length, and can hamstring the future cap.<br />

you supplied three broken down flea market pick ups. i'm not talking about guys who could yell attaboys from the end of the bench, i'm talking about guys who could say, "here, follow me, i'll take the lead, you watch and learn, let opponents and the fans/media focus on me, you work on details." carter and Richards had it with Forsberg. Giroux had it in Richards and jagr. Giroux still needs it.

as for costing term and future cap, what does Edmonton care about future cap? they are less than a million over the cap floor at this point. they have over $16mil in cap space this season. they could easily add two or three effective veterans, give the kids some cover and flesh out the roster enough to not go through yet another losing season. they aren't going to do that. they refuse the spend the money. they are riding their kids hard and exclusively not because it is the smart way to develop talent (it isn't), but because they are cheap bastards and extreme talent on ELC's is the very cheapest way to sell some tickets right now. as those ELC's expire, as the salary-to-skill ratio begins to even out, those kids become less attractive and they'll be gone. Edmonton will suck some more, collect another bunch of high picks, ride them hard, and ship them out.

what is it that you see different in Edmonton than what has happened in florida/Atlanta/Columbus/phoenix/NYI/every other cap floor hugging team that refuses to reinforce its roster with veteran talent?

Jordan eberle has suffered through a team record of 76-107-29 in his career. if you don't think that losing 65% of your games over three years starts to screw with a player's head, that he won't be forced to find some way to keep his ego up after 36 months of leaving the ice a loser way more often than not..."hey, at least I had 76 points this season, so I did good anyway."

again, we'll see. revisit this conversation in two years.

Edited July 5, 2013 by aziz

[Dynamo 47]

How many pts Vinnie averages as a Flyer will totally depend on his line slot and linemates. He has had a good solid career, but not HOF like some have said.

I actually think he thrives in Philly and here's why. I think his wings will be Simmonds and Schenn. Both guys are skilled, strong along the wall and in the corners and will generate a lot of shots and rebound opportunities.

Perhaps the biggest reason which few seem to mention is that the Tampa system helped to keep his numbers down. They played a defense first system and often sat in the neutral zone and waited for play to come to them (remeber Pronger holding the puck and waiting for them to forecheck). With the Flyers he will be in an aggressive forechecking system. With big, strong wingers like Schenn and Simmonds forechecking and knocking guys off the puck I think he will get a lot more scoring chances with the Flyers.

[jammer2]

@Dynamo 47 I think his numbers will be close to what he has done in the past.....then years 3, 4, 5....you start to sweat. He's not very fast right now, so speed will be a factor after a few years.

Edited July 5, 2013 by jammer2

[fanaticV3.0]

so, let me get this straight. you refuse to use projected totals that account for missed games, but will live and die by totals that don't account for anything at all. Crosby only scored 37 points in 11-12, and you think it most useful to judge his performance based on that naked fact, rather than account for the reality that he did so in only 22 games. is that correct?

me, I look at that and say, "damn, that projects to 137 points had he played a full season. that was monstrous production." you look at that and say, "damn, he wasn't even a 40 point scorer. what's all the hype about?" are you for real?

you know what is really fun here? Crosby himself hasn't broken 70 points since 09-10, the same season lecavalier last hit that mark. both continued to produce at a 68+ point pace, but both missed time and so haven't actually hit that overall production level. so...neither is a 70 point scorer anymore?

if you break a player's production down to a points per game basis, you can actually use it to figure what kind of impact he had in the games he played, and what kind of impact he is likely to have in future games. lecavalier has produced at a .80 points per game rate over the last three years. .84 points per game for his career. whether you want to project that over an 82 game season or not is your call. the bottom line, the most relevant fact (because that is what wins games and championship, as you say) is that he is still producing at that rate. any given game, .80 points. 4 points per 5 games.

I don't know you at all bro, so don't take this the wrong way.

1. Projected numbers have no place in sports other than evaluating future talent and maybe discussing a player's career after he retired. Discussing what a guy "would have done" from year-to-year while he's still playing and using that as some sort of justification for pumping up his stats or paying him more money is complete bull****. At the end of that day, what matters most is what happened, not what could, would, or should have.

2. If you want to form your opinion based on what could, would, or should have happened that's *****g great, but don't give me this "you refuse to use projected totals" nonsense.

Edited July 16, 2013 by hf101
removed content

[doom88]

Easy now. Both collections are relevant, real and projected. The latter especially to compare with real in injury or similar less games played situations. There is no replacement for real stats, granted, but projections based on scaling are appropriate. Now, projections towards the future make too many assumptions for my taste, so I usually hold those in the lowest regard, but the more information the better.

Play nice please, aziz is a solid member, and this whole place was founded because the prior forum sunk into oblivion with personal attacks and trolls.

Enjoy and Go Flyers!

[aziz]

@fanaticV3.0

wow, aren't you quite the diplomat.

the point to discussing lecavalier's production was to put into context what we can expect from him as a flyer next season. you're right, he hasn't scored 70 points in several seasons, but he has scored at a .80 points per game pace. which, if he plays 82 games, works out to about 66 points. close enough to 70 to make the point.

are you more comfortable with points per game than you are points per 82 games? is it the multiplying by 82 that really gets under your skin?

1. Projected numbers have no place in sports other than evaluating future talent and maybe discussing a player's career after he retired. Discussing what a guy "would have done" from year-to-year while he's still playing and using that as some sort of justification for pumping up his stats or paying him more money is complete bull****. At the end of that day, what matters most is what happened, not what could, would, or should have.

no. what matters most is what he will do next season. which is a very good reason for using projected numbers. i don't care to pump up his stats from seasons past, i do care to understand what we can expect from lecavalier the flyer. the points he produced in a season where he missed 18 games are only directly useful if he misses 18 games again. the points he produced in a 48 game season are only directly useful if there is another 48 game season. if we want to take those totals and use them to estimate future production, some kind of projection HAS to be done. you do see that, right?

2. If you want to form your opinion based on what could, would, or should have happened that's *****g great, but don't give me this "you refuse to use projected totals" nonsense like I'm the one with two heads for only using facts.

well, you are. i mean, seriously, being so opposed to using production rates to make an educated guess as to what a player will do in an 82 game schedule, opposed to the point of cursing someone out....something isn't working right inside there, you know? like i said in that post before, crosby has not scored more than 66 points in three years...your point of view would say that he is not a 70 point player any more, and get bent out of shape like whoa when someone says he shouldn't be put in the same catagory as max pacioretty or pa parenteau, that despite his actual totals, he is way more of a point scorer than either of them. you are insisting that the only thing that matters is what has actually happened, and projecting him going forward can only be based on hard facts. those hard, uninterpreted facts say crosby will score somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 points next season. which is obviously completely brain dead, assuming he plays anything resembling a full season.

refusing to apply any context to past production is the useless thing here. statistics mean nothing if you do not put them in real world perspective. points scored during a season where a quarter of the games were missed are useless if you do not note that a quarter of the games were missed. points scored during a 48 game schedule are useless if you do not note that it was a 48 game schedule. if you pretend that the points scored during that 48 game schedule should be directly comparable to any other season, with no adjustment or compensation or context allowed, well.... seriously, claude giroux only scored 48 points last season. only the facts, only what actually happened, does that mean that giroux's point scoring ability dropped in half from the previous season? 93 points one season, 48 the next, did he suddenly suck? or might you say, "well, ok, but it was a short season, he played in 29 fewer games"? would that statement be "complete bull****"? i mean, "At the end of that day, what matters most is what happened, not what could, would, or should have."

Edited July 16, 2013 by hf101
removed content

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

wow, aren't you quite the diplomat.

Sorry, but when you say stupid sh!t AND look at me like I'm the a-hole, that's what you get.

[Mad Dog]

Sorry, but when you say stupid sh!t AND look at me like I'm the a-hole, that's what you get.

Why is this a "stupid ****"??

What is one supposed to do to project the player's production for a full season if only half of games were played of what would typically be played? The last season was an abbreviated season. What is so crazy about looking at how many points a player scored in 48 games and projecting what this equates to 82 games?

[radoran]

Why is this a "stupid ****"??

What is one supposed to do to project the player's production for a full season if only half of games were played of what would typically be played? The last season was an abbreviated season. What is so crazy about looking at how many points a player scored in 48 games and projecting what this equates to 82 games?

I understand to an extent - that there are players who have hot starts, hot streaks, etc. and that you need to be able to take that into consideration in an 82-game season as opposed to projecting from what might have been the "hot" part.

I also understand the concept of "what did you actually do" as opposed to "what could you have done".

Projected stats shouldn't be overstated and actual stats shouldn't be overvalued. As with most things, there's a happy medium and breaking things down to "points per game" is one of the ways to balance out the two.

@fanaticV3.0

wow, aren't you quite the diplomat.

Haven't you two met before?

[aziz]

As with most things, there's a happy medium and breaking things down to "points per game" is one of the ways to balance out the two.

a projected 82 game season is just points per game multiplied by 82. i get what you are saying about projections over emphasizing streaks, but exact same problem exists with a p/g game figuring.

Haven't you two met before?

guy's first post came with the guns on the "bullsht" thing, and continued from there. while being essentially braindead, with the lecavalier (32 points in 39 games) is just a cheaper briere (16 points in 34 games). when you aggressively say something dumb.....

[radoran]

a projected 82 game season is just points per game multiplied by 82. i get what you are saying about projections over emphasizing streaks, but exact same problem exists with a p/g game figuring.

True. It's not so much the stats as what's done with them. More important in a 48/82 "full season" context to be sure, but there is the concern of the guy coming in and putting up really good numbers for seven games and having people "project" that a full season would be that way, for example.

()

Or, you know, looking at a guy who had a really hot playoffs and offering him six years at $4.5M.

[aziz]

@radoran

i agree. and the truth is, lecavalier had 16 points in his first 15 games last season, but didn't even kind of keep that up. numbers skewed right there. there's a real strong argument that last season does not project accurately. fanatic guy here can't articulate that, though, so here i am making his point for him...

[jammer2]

Get the popcorn ready, this is gonna be a bumpy ride!!

[Mad Dog]

I understand to an extent - that there are players who have hot starts, hot streaks, etc. and that you need to be able to take that into consideration in an 82-game season as opposed to projecting from what might have been the "hot" part.

I also understand the concept of "what did you actually do" as opposed to "what could you have done".

Understood. But I would still think 48 games is a good "base" to use for projecting. It's not like trying to look at 10 games and using that production to try to prognasticate what this would equate to 82 games. It was still a season. Short, but a season.

[doom88]

It was a short, compressed, farce. Not a legit season whatsoever.

[radoran]

Understood. But I would still think 48 games is a good "base" to use for projecting. It's not like trying to look at 10 games and using that production to try to prognasticate what this would equate to 82 games. It was still a season. Short, but a season.

Just taking that for granted for the time being ( ), Lecavalier had 32 points in 39 games. Since he only played 81% of the games, it would make sense to take that into account. He hasn't played 82 games for four years.

And, as @aziz pointed out, he had 16 points in the first 15 games. Then 16 in the next 24 - including just four of his ten goals.

Again, I expect Lecavalier to be a productive member of the team and be more than worth the $4.5M - certainly a heluvalot more than, say, Ville Leino.

[Mad Dog]

It was a short, compressed, farce. Not a legit season whatsoever.

I don't disagree as far as the season is concerned. But it wasn't a training camp or all-star type games, either. These were NHL games, competatively played, with no difference to a full season as far as the players were concerned. In fact, if anything, the teams were - should have been - more motivated to play since each game meant more in terms of a position in standings and such.

[doom88]

The players didn't get a preseason or appreciable training camp to build chemistry, hone skills, or learn a new system where applicable. No time to ramp up to game shape, exacerbated by the aforementioned condensed schedule. It was a far cry from normal.

[fanaticV3.0]

Why is this a "stupid ****"??

What is one supposed to do to project the player's production for a full season if only half of games were played of what would typically be played? The last season was an abbreviated season. What is so crazy about looking at how many points a player scored in 48 games and projecting what this equates to 82 games?

I have this wild and crazy idea. One might even call it revolutionary thinking. Look at his career. There are plenty of other seasons to get a sampling from The guy's been around for a while, it's not too hard to tell what he's capable of. No need to use tarrot cards, crystal balls, or whatever else it is this aziz fella subscribes to.

[aziz]

@fanaticV3.0

His career, huh? Well, I see 78 points, 108 points, 92 points....but you didn't really mean that, did you? You really meant the last three seasons where he missed time due to injury or the season was chopped in half due to a lockout.

Let me ask this: what do you expect out of lecavalier next season?