Around the NHL 2016-2017

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't think Jack's hockey sense is bad.  I think his common sense is bad.  I believe he sees everything out there but he believes he's able to do more than he really can.  He isn't recognizing that what worked in the past doesn't work the same now.  

 

He is making fewer unforced errors, so he's learning.  This is, I believe, a byproduct of a single college year and not playing in juniors or a higher tier Swiss league like Matthews.  Jack played against medium talent overall in college whereas Matthews and McDavid were playing against med-high talent in the other leagues.  They had to adjust sooner than Eichel.

 

The NCAA is not equal in competition yet.

 

This is a significantly better assessment of what I was trying to get at. Pay attention to this guy, not me :lol:

 

 

 

Jeremy RutherfordVerified account‏@jprutherford

 Follow

More

BREAKING: #stlblues announce five-year contract extension for Berglund with a $3.85 AAV.

 

 

Uuuuhhhhhh. Why?

[pi2000]

I don't think Jack's hockey sense is bad.  I think his common sense is bad.  I believe he sees everything out there but he believes he's able to do more than he really can.  He isn't recognizing that what worked in the past doesn't work the same now.  

 

He is making fewer unforced errors, so he's learning.  This is, I believe, a byproduct of a single college year and not playing in juniors or a higher tier Swiss league like Matthews.  Jack played against medium talent overall in college whereas Matthews and McDavid were playing against med-high talent in the other leagues.  They had to adjust sooner than Eichel.

 

The NCAA is not equal in competition yet.

 

 

Avg age of NCAA players is around 22 years old.   Avg juniors age is 18-19.

 

McDavid was playing against kids, Eichel against men.     

 

If you put the top NCAA team against the top junior team, I think the NCAA team wins most of the time, just because guys are more physically developed.   

[That Aud Smell]

Avg age of NCAA players is around 22 years old.   Avg juniors age is 18-19.

 

McDavid was playing against kids, Eichel against men.     

 

If you put the top NCAA team against the top junior team, I think the NCAA team wins most of the time, just because guys are more physically developed.   

 

Right. And those point-predictor quotients bear that out. I cannot recall what they are (and never know where to find them), but they're very roughly to the effect of, say, 1.0 PPG in a major junior season predicts .45 PPG by year X in the NHL (or whatever), whereas 1.0 PPG in certain NCAA conferences would predict .65 PPG by year X in the NHL (again - those values are purely notional). 

Edited February 24, 2017 by That Aud Smell

[LTS]

I think the points-translation-ratios bear out that the NCAA presents stiffer competition than major juniors.

 

In any case, I don't think it's necessary to explain McDavid on that basis. He's just in another dimension than Eichel.

 

The Matthews situation seems apt for that take, though. He played a year in a pro league before coming to the NHL. Eichel did not.

 

I have a hard time accepting a comparison based on points.  I think there are some skilled players in NCAA to be certain but top to bottom I'd say the talent in juniors is better.

 

Avg age of NCAA players is around 22 years old.   Avg juniors age is 18-19.

 

McDavid was playing against kids, Eichel against men.     

 

If you put the top NCAA team against the top junior team, I think the NCAA team wins most of the time, just because guys are more physically developed.   

 

Just curious where your average age of NCAA comes from.  Are you saying most players are seniors (and old ones at that?) My senior of college I would have turned 22 near the end of the hockey season.

 

Regardless, playing against lesser skilled "men" doesn't change things.  If guys are too slow to keep up with Eichel they are too slow, being stronger won't help.  You might get the top NCAA team beating the top Junior team.. but how fast does that fall off?  Does #2 vs #2 yield the same results?  I think the top to bottom skill level is better in Juniors.

 

After all, does anyone believe overall USA hockey is more talented than Hockey Canada?  USA Hockey might be able to put the best 20 skaters together but skaters 21-100 might not compare at all to 21-100 in Canada.

[That Aud Smell]

I have a hard time accepting a comparison based on points.  I think there are some skilled players in NCAA to be certain but top to bottom I'd say the talent in juniors is better.

 

Not sure why you'd have a hard time with that - those point-predictions, on their face, suggest that it's just tougher sledding in the NCAA.

 

I would also agree that there's most likely better "talent" in major juniors, top to bottom. But I think it does make a difference to be skating against a fleet 17 year-old (who may be destined for a middle-6 career in the NHL), versus skating against a savvy 21 year-old (who's going to top out as an AHLer). 

 

Some of this may also owe to styles of play in the two leagues.

[Iron Crotch]

And what did the Preds give up to get him?

 

I was there last night and threw my hat when Forsberg scored his third goal... some fat guy picked it up and left the arena with it.  .

 

Marty Erat for Phil Forsberg... one of the most lopsided trades ever (although the Caps are just fine without Phil).

[Taro T]

I have a hard time accepting a comparison based on points.  I think there are some skilled players in NCAA to be certain but top to bottom I'd say the talent in juniors is better.

 

 

 

Just curious where your average age of NCAA comes from.  Are you saying most players are seniors (and old ones at that?) My senior of college I would have turned 22 near the end of the hockey season.

 

Regardless, playing against lesser skilled "men" doesn't change things.  If guys are too slow to keep up with Eichel they are too slow, being stronger won't help.  You might get the top NCAA team beating the top Junior team.. but how fast does that fall off?  Does #2 vs #2 yield the same results?  I think the top to bottom skill level is better in Juniors.

 

After all, does anyone believe overall USA hockey is more talented than Hockey Canada?  USA Hockey might be able to put the best 20 skaters together but skaters 21-100 might not compare at all to 21-100 in Canada.

I'd expect that NCAA team beating junior team holds pretty well across the board. Though adjusting for age the junior team would almost always be better than the NCAA team; at that particular date in time the comparison is made, the NCAA team would be better. Those college kids playing varsity are primarily in their 20's & 20 is where the kids cap out at in junior.

 

Though more of the junior kids will make it to the NHL, they aren't as far into their development as the college players.

 

The comparison is essentially that of a HS all county (to all state for the top end juniors) baseball team going against UT, Miami, or LSU. Could the kids win a game out of a long series; possibly but wouldn't want to have money on it.

[PromoTheRobot]

Is this anything?

 

https://twitter.com/SavageDad65/status/835218411001098242/photo/1

[WildCard]

No way Lehner is being traded. Goalies don't move at the deadline and he's been phenomenal

 

The only team I could possibly see wanting him is St.Louis

[Brawndo]

Bigger contract, bigger house?

[Scottysabres]

Bigger contract, bigger house?

The color......I'd sell it to on that alone lol

[pi2000]

I have a hard time accepting a comparison based on points.  I think there are some skilled players in NCAA to be certain but top to bottom I'd say the talent in juniors is better.

 

 

Just curious where your average age of NCAA comes from.  Are you saying most players are seniors (and old ones at that?) My senior of college I would have turned 22 near the end of the hockey season.

 

Regardless, playing against lesser skilled "men" doesn't change things.  If guys are too slow to keep up with Eichel they are too slow, being stronger won't help.  You might get the top NCAA team beating the top Junior team.. but how fast does that fall off?  Does #2 vs #2 yield the same results?  I think the top to bottom skill level is better in Juniors.

 

After all, does anyone believe overall USA hockey is more talented than Hockey Canada?  USA Hockey might be able to put the best 20 skaters together but skaters 21-100 might not compare at all to 21-100 in Canada.

 

 

There comes a time when top bantam age players must decide if they're going to play major junior in Canada, or NCAA.   If they choose to play major junior they lose eligibility to play NCAA.

 

Let's say they choose major junior.  They'll jump right into the program at 16 years old and once there, they're committed until they age out or turn pro.    If they decided to maintain college eligibitly and go the NCAA route,  they'll go play junior A, most likely USHL, for a few years or more until the college program offers them a full-time spot on their roster.  It's very very rare for a true freshman age kid to play a significant role on a college team.    College's prefer to let their commits grow and mature in the USHL (or NAHL in some cases) before bringing them in full time as a 20-21 year old freshman.       

Edited February 24, 2017 by pi2000

[Brawndo]

The Canucks got the mumps.

 

Expecting an announcement from VAN & local health officials shortly, but it appears 5 Canuck players are battling the mumps. Won't face SJ.

[Scottysabres]

The Canucks got the mumps.

Expecting an announcement from VAN & local health officials shortly, but it appears 5 Canuck players are battling the mumps. Won't face SJ.

Oh will the jokes be flying now.....

[Randall Flagg]

I had the same thought. These charts always leave me with more questions, though, like, how many of Jacks carries did he lose possession of, how many of ROR's dumps did he regain possession of, how many of all the dumps and carries did we maintain possession of, etc. The answer to those questions might tell use why each player does what they do (or why DD sucks).

 

I'm ready to go. 

 

The way I have it outlined, if a player dumps/chips it in, I will place a number under one of three categories, which are unfortunately up to my interpretation, but this is my freaking chart and I'm not calling it hard science! They are 

 

1.) dumping and chipping by choice, with support or other options available

2.) because of no other option (being pressed in the neutral zone, other linemates nowhere to be found)

3.) the team needs to change.

 

If a player carries it in, I place the "tally" (again, the number that represents which Sabre zone entry it is, the third of the game, the fourth, whatever) in one of three carry categories:

 

1.) the player who carries makes a play to maintain possession. A successful pass, whatever. If the puck is lost by the player who receives the pass, that is still a successful zone entry via carry.

2.) the player loses the puck. Example, a Jack toe-drag that goes wrong.

3.) the player takes an immediate shot attempt (this column is for Kane).

 

Then I have a category for those zone entries that involve a controlled pass into space to enter the zone. Those ones I will only divide by which line is on the ice and does it, and whether or not the entry is successful, which is defined by when the puck is lost. If the puck is lost on the pass during the entry, it's a failure. If the puck is corralled and the team is in the zone, and then stuff happens (a bad decision or pass, whatever) then it's still a successful entry. 

 

In the Dump/Chip category, I obviously haven't described a system by which to determine the success. Using the same type of possession arguments after a dump or chip, I will underline the number in green if a recovery is made and possession is gained, and I will underline it in red if we don't get the puck. 

 

If a goal is scored after a zone entry, I will highlight that number. 

 

Oh, and entries in the first period are written in blue, entries in the second are written in orange, and entries in the third are written in black.

 

The colors are so after the game I can organize the data and present it to Sabrespace in ways that I find helpful.

 

I'm aware that there is some subjectivity in this, but I only aim to give a general idea of what we do and how successful it is. And i'm obviously not going to be able to do this every game all the time, but I'm going to try my best. It won't be as bad as it seems, because even in a high-flying game, you're talking at least 5-10 seconds between zone entries for either team, and I'm just writing a number down, occasionally underlining it. I'm going to try and track what the opponents do too, but not by player, just as a team

[Thorny]

^

 

[dudacek]

Keep this up Flagg and Tim Murray will give you a job.

(For the record, he post here sometimes under the name of Bobis)

[That Aud Smell]

Flagg. Keep at it. Engage with others like you in the 'sphere (blogs, Twitter). That sort of stuff has real value.

[SwampD]

Keep this up Flagg and Tim Murray will give you a job.

(For the record, he post here sometimes under the name of Bobis)

:lol:

 

I'm ready to go. 

 

The way I have it outlined, if a player dumps/chips it in, I will place a number under one of three categories, which are unfortunately up to my interpretation, but this is my freaking chart and I'm not calling it hard science! They are 

 

1.) dumping and chipping by choice, with support or other options available

2.) because of no other option (being pressed in the neutral zone, other linemates nowhere to be found)

3.) the team needs to change.

 

If a player carries it in, I place the "tally" (again, the number that represents which Sabre zone entry it is, the third of the game, the fourth, whatever) in one of three carry categories:

 

1.) the player who carries makes a play to maintain possession. A successful pass, whatever. If the puck is lost by the player who receives the pass, that is still a successful zone entry via carry.

2.) the player loses the puck. Example, a Jack toe-drag that goes wrong.

3.) the player takes an immediate shot attempt (this column is for Kane).

 

Then I have a category for those zone entries that involve a controlled pass into space to enter the zone. Those ones I will only divide by which line is on the ice and does it, and whether or not the entry is successful, which is defined by when the puck is lost. If the puck is lost on the pass during the entry, it's a failure. If the puck is corralled and the team is in the zone, and then stuff happens (a bad decision or pass, whatever) then it's still a successful entry. 

 

In the Dump/Chip category, I obviously haven't described a system by which to determine the success. Using the same type of possession arguments after a dump or chip, I will underline the number in green if a recovery is made and possession is gained, and I will underline it in red if we don't get the puck. 

 

If a goal is scored after a zone entry, I will highlight that number. 

 

Oh, and entries in the first period are written in blue, entries in the second are written in orange, and entries in the third are written in black.

 

The colors are so after the game I can organize the data and present it to Sabrespace in ways that I find helpful.

 

I'm aware that there is some subjectivity in this, but I only aim to give a general idea of what we do and how successful it is. And i'm obviously not going to be able to do this every game all the time, but I'm going to try my best. It won't be as bad as it seems, because even in a high-flying game, you're talking at least 5-10 seconds between zone entries for either team, and I'm just writing a number down, occasionally underlining it. I'm going to try and track what the opponents do too, but not by player, just as a team

That's pretty ambitious,… and kick ass.

 

I'm just going to watch monkey dance, skate fast, shoot puck, make goal, me happy.

[That Aud Smell]

(For the record, he post here sometimes under the name of Bobis)

Surely you can't be serious.

Edited February 25, 2017 by That Aud Smell

[Randall Flagg]

Flagg. Keep at it. Engage with others like you in the 'sphere (blogs, Twitter). That sort of stuff has real value.

I don't know how.

[Sabel79]

Surely you can't be serious.

He is serious, and don't call him Shirley. 

The Canucks got the mumps.

 

Expecting an announcement from VAN & local health officials shortly, but it appears 5 Canuck players are battling the mumps. Won't face SJ.

Oh, and while we're at it: That's enough, hippies, vaccinate your children. 

[bunomatic]

Needless to say no one will be trading for guys with the mumps lest they bring it into their locker room. Much like a NTC or no trade clause its called a GMC or got mumps clause. :blink: Looks like Benning will have a hard time finding dance partners at the deadline. 

[pi2000]

I applaud the idea Flagg.

 

Before we get out our pitchforks we need an extended sample size of say 20 games or so, and then compare the data to the top teams in the league. IMO all teams will have very similar dump vs carry ratios.

[North Buffalo]

Ottawa and Florida lost last night... good things.  Carolina beat Ottawa but they are still 4 points back...  without those 3 forwards it is going to be tough for them to score... Canes were all over them and it could have been much worse.