fanaticV3.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 Points per game is not a projection, it is what actually happened. And allows us to appropriately weigh things like shortened seasons.Going strictly by points scored better supports your argument by effectively turning an outstanding almost point-per-game short season into a poor sub-50 point effort. All of a sudden, a very strong partial season becomes a remarkably weak normal one, and you've succesfully co-opted reality.I understand why you would want to use totals, instead of per-game figures. Don't let what the numbers actually mean influence what your want them to say and all of that. It's totally fine. Except when one uses it to call somebody a 60 point player during the season in which they didn't score 60 points, you are absolutely correct. Jake averaged almost a point a game that year.. He did not, however, score 60 points and saying that he would have or even might have is…projecting. Save your lectures phony outrage for a time when you aren't actually lying to prove your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Knut Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Have we won since Cooter got injured? This seemed to be the thing that shook everything up. Even now that he's been playing they're still not on board. Just to recap, they were 1-5-1 without him and 2-1 with him back in the lineup. 5-3-1 with him on the season by my quick math. Pretty indicative of the guy's value as far as I'm concerned. Scoring or not, if they're winning with him and losing without him, I don't want him traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Pretty indicative of the guy's value as far as I'm concerned. Well, it's one measure. The debate seems to be closing on Sean as far as his upside. Looking more and more like a third line shut-down guy. But I think he's the kind of player that can make others around him better. Not all players, even good ones, make others better. Sean can be that kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Well, it's one measure. The debate seems to be closing on Sean as far as his upside. Looking more and more like a third line shut-down guy. But I think he's the kind of player that can make others around him better. Not all players, even good ones, make others better. Sean can be that kind of guy. Of all the problems this team and roster has, Couturier at $4.3M is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Save your lectures phony outrage for a time when you aren't actually lying to prove your point. lol. not lying. i suggested an alternate measure, points per game, because there was a season in the middle that only had 48 games. seems to me some kind of adjustment should be made for that, if the point is to get an idea of and discuss the player's accomplishments and worth. if you would like to talk about the level of voracek's play over the last several seasons, including the shortened one, then you have to allow for the shortened one. if, on the other hand, you couldn't care less about the level of voracek's play over the last several seasons, including the shortened one, and the entire point here is some kind of lame rhetorical victory...then by all means, refuse to use the things that allow you to accurately measure how he has played. insist on applying an 82 game standard to a 48 game season. for example: steven stamkos has only scored more than 60 points ONCE in the last THREE seasons. guy is terrible, right? no need to mention the 48 game lockout season or the injury-reduced 37 game season. he's only cleared 60 points once, and we should judge him with no additional context. right? stamkos is a 50-60 point player, right? used to be better than that, but hey, everyone falls off eventually. and only passed 60 points the one time recently. right? or are you ready to admit how inane it is to stand on that point? i have no outrage. just incredulous amusement, and maybe a bit of exasperation that you could be this...dumb. the point is obviously made, the fact that a threshold based on an 82 game season was not reached in a 48 game season has no importance whatsoever, but you are clinging to it like the sophomoric statistical game you are playing isn't obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ..i have no outrage... And that's your problem right there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 @Podein25 REPORTED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 lol. not lying. i suggested an alternate measure, points per game, because there was a season in the middle that only had 48 games. seems to me some kind of adjustment should be made for that, if the point is to get an idea of and discuss the player's accomplishments and worth. if you would like to talk about the level of voracek's play over the last several seasons, including the shortened one, then you have to allow for the shortened one. if, on the other hand, you couldn't care less about the level of voracek's play over the last several seasons, including the shortened one, and the entire point here is some kind of lame rhetorical victory...then by all means, refuse to use the things that allow you to accurately measure how he has played. insist on applying an 82 game standard to a 48 game season. for example: steven stamkos has only scored more than 60 points ONCE in the last THREE seasons. guy is terrible, right? no need to mention the 48 game lockout season or the injury-reduced 37 game season. he's only cleared 60 points once, and we should judge him with no additional context. right? stamkos is a 50-60 point player, right? used to be better than that, but hey, everyone falls off eventually. and only passed 60 points the one time recently. right? or are you ready to admit how inane it is to stand on that point? i have no outrage. just incredulous amusement, and maybe a bit of exasperation that you could be this...dumb. the point is obviously made, the fact that a threshold based on an 82 game season was not reached in a 48 game season has no importance whatsoever, but you are clinging to it like the sophomoric statistical game you are playing isn't obvious. No see, what I am doing is measuring how he has (as in past tense/established fact) played.You are measuring how he might have (never happened/not a fact) played in a full season. Points per game, as like every other stat, is a measure of what did happen, not what would have happened. You cannot say he would have or even might have scored 60 points that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 No see, what I am doing is measuring how he has (as in past tense/established fact) played.You are measuring how he might have (never happened/not a fact) played in a full season. Points per game, as like every other stat, is a measure of what did happen, not what would have happened. You cannot say he would have or even might have scored 60 points that year. stamkos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yeah, really.If you're that mentally soft, how physically hard can you be? Shouldn't these personal questions be kept to private messenger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Author Share Posted November 16, 2015 stamkos. Facts. You know, like Jake scored 60 or more points two of the last four years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Facts. You know, like Jake scored 60 or more points two of the last four years. exactly. same with stamkos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackhole Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 No see, what I am doing is measuring how he has (as in past tense/established fact) played.You are measuring how he might have (never happened/not a fact) played in a full season. Points per game, as like every other stat, is a measure of what did happen, not what would have happened. You cannot say he would have or even might have scored 60 points that year.Dude.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Dude....Post of the week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 Dude.... Voracek scored more than 60 points in a season twice in the last four years. Tell me that's wrong. Go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Voracek scored more than 60 points in a season twice in the last four years. Tell me that's wrong. Go ahead.So did Stamkos. Go ahead and use the same logic there and tell me he isn't a reliable 60 point player.And, actually, Crosby, too. Has only broken 60 points twice in the last 4 seasons. So, yeah, apply your logic to them, too, and claim they are no longer consistent 60 point guys. Go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakanekimiwa Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Shouldn't these personal questions be kept to private messenger? REPORTED!!! Don't think you slipped that one through unnoticed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 REPORTED!!! Don't think you slipped that one through unnoticed! Thank you for that. I've been wondering if this microphone is even on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Voracek scored more than 60 points in a season twice in the last four years. Tell me that's wrong. Go ahead. I count 2. I agree that 46 points in 48 games is pretty impressive. I also agree that that projects to 70+ points. But it guarantees nothing. Who's to say he doesn't suddenly go cold? Maybe he goes on his 5 points in 50 games routine. Maybe he steps on a roller skate on his stairs. Whatever. I know the way he was playing that year that it's likely that he continues, but on the other hand, 82 games is a lot longer than 82 games and maybe exhaustion sets in or he trains differently for a marathon than he does for a sprint, or maybe he doesn't and that affects outcome. So, he has only scored more than 60 points twice in the last for years. I do think comparing PPG from one season to another (with a 20 or 30 game base line. NO comparing 5 games vs. 70+) is a fair apples-to-apples comparison, so long as that is what we're doing. Calling 46 points 60 points based on this is understandable, but it's not definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I agree that 46 points in 48 games is pretty impressive. I also agree that that projects to 70+ points. But it guarantees nothing. Who's to say he doesn't suddenly go cold? Maybe he goes on his 5 points in 50 games routine. as ineffective as he has been so far this season, his current 7 points in 17 games would have been a good enough pace to have gotten him to 60 that year. he finished 14 points shy of 60, and in 34 games less than normal 82. that isn't the point, though. as stuck as fanatic wants to be on 60 points, you don't win any prizes for that. the seasonal point totals aren't important in of themselves (especially when one of the seasons was half the length of a normal one); the effectiveness of the player during the time span is the actual point. voracek was very effective that season. and the one that followed that, and the one that followed that. three really good seasons in a row. fanatic is claiming voracek can only be said to have had two good seasons over the last four, specifically because he only hit 60 points twice. that is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 as ineffective as he has been so far this season, his current 7 points in 17 games would have been a good enough pace to have gotten him to 60 that year. he finished 14 points shy of 60, and in 34 games less than normal 82. that isn't the point, though. as stuck as fanatic wants to be on 60 points, you don't win any prizes for that. the seasonal point totals aren't important in of themselves (especially when one of the seasons was half the length of a normal one); the effectiveness of the player during the time span is the actual point. voracek was very effective that season. and the one that followed that, and the one that followed that. three really good seasons in a row. fanatic is claiming voracek can only be said to have had two good seasons over the last four, specifically because he only hit 60 points twice. that is stupid. I missed that part. I only saw the discussion of whether he scored 60 (I'm really not arguing whether he did or didn't, just saying I missed that). Yeah, I'm with you on the rest. I think you have to count 46 points in 48 games as a good season. If that 48 games was because he was hurt and only played 48 games out of 82 I *might* entertain the idea it wasn't a "great" season. Although, I would at least state "he was great in the portion of the season he played" or "if not for injury..." But the fact is he played in all 48 actually scheduled games and was nearly a PPG player (is it close enough we can just drop the "nearly?"). That's top 20 in points and top 8 in goals. That counts as pretty damn good for me. All I'm saying is that "prejection" to "if it were 82 games" is probably not a bad way to do it, but as a theoretical discussion it doesn't necessarily make it so. Again, though, I think PPG does provide a decent way of comparing year to year or period to period so long as the sample sizes are close enough. Is 48 enough vs. 82? For me, yes, but it's certainly arguable. It's certainly a good measure vs. other players that played that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 that is stupid.Yes well this must be your 1st encounter with him if you're just now coming to this conclusion... ...save yourself sometime he knows everthing...he knows how to coach better than Chip Kelly and Hakstol...in fact they call him for advice on how to fix their problems he tells them how, they just won't listen.We're lucky to just have him here to advise us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes well this must be your 1st encounter with him if you're just now coming to this conclusion... ...save yourself sometime he knows everthing... he knows how to coach better than Chip Kelly and Hakstol...in fact they call him for advice on how to fix their problems he tells them how, they just won't listen.We're lucky to just have him here to advise us all.Who doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Who doesn't?Well let's hire him to replace Chip then he has all the answers...let's stop wasting time...while he's at it just fire Hak and let him coach the Flyers too we're not getting any younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 All I'm saying is that "prejection" to "if it were 82 games" is probably not a bad way to do it, but as a theoretical discussion it doesn't necessarily make it so. And the other part of this is the actual value to the team. Would you value a 1.0 PPG player who often gets injured and does not play full seasons over a 0.7 PPG game player who has a better constitution and is always in the lineup? This is where theory vs actual performance breaks down, for me, if I were a GM. "Dude is amazing but can't stay healthy and is unreliable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.