Addition by Subtraction

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Even in their limited roles against limited competition, Lafferty and Gilbert were two of our worst statistical players. Clifton was less sheltered but was still our worst defensemen next to Bryson.

The guys we got to replace them are pretty decent in similar roles.

Who is Gilbert's replacement? Gilbert was a 7/8 D man, but also the guy who stood up after the Tage fiasco. 

I could care less about Lafferty, but my expectation of him was never high to begin with. Arguing about our 4th line guys is of little consequence. We will see how it shakes out this time. It was supposed to be better last year and wasn't. 

[Thorny]

Next up on the tee: Lafferty Daniel…and Gilmore, Happy

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JP51 said:

Yeah, I think Muel based on his minutes is a major anchor... Gilbert was just an 8th d who was a C minus fighter that was willing... just an Adams failed nod to you need someone to respond.... here lets throw this cannon fodder out there to get beat... cause I know he will jump in when no one else will... 

Cozens I agree.. as unpopular as this may be I think we see Cozens mature over the years and will become a player that people will want... right now he is just too much of a spaz and head case to be an effective player and leader night in and night out...  but in the right situation I think he develops into a guy that will score 25-30 for 50-60 points... and can play two way minutes...  and no, I didnt say now... (especially the 2 way minute part) but if he settles down and develops I believe he can be a taller version of a poor mans Mike Peca or a higher scoring Gaustad 

 

I don't see Cozens going the Peca or Gaustad route but if I was Ottawa (and I said a few years ago this was needed here) I'd have him in the weight room constantly. Beef up and get stronger. He's a big guy but really lanky and thin not strong. (Quinn needs the same treatment).

I have no idea what Cozens will or won't be but we definitely overpaid him early and had too much faith in him.

[Pimlach]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Next up on the tee: Lafferty Daniel…and Gilmore, Happy

[dudacek]

I fully understand the limitations of +\- but I disagree it should be ignored.

The object of the game is to score more than the other guy.

It doesn’t show if a player is good or bad, but it shows how successful a player was in the manner he was deployed.

[LGR4GM]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I fully understand the limitations of +\- but I disagree it should be ignored.

The object of the game is to score more than the other guy.

It doesn’t show if a player is good or bad, but it shows how successful a player was in the manner he was deployed.

I don't agree. +/- only tells us that players even strength goal differential. I think within a team it can tell you some things but I don't think he tells us how successful a player was. If I take Zach Benson and deploy him with Bryson and Samuelsson and he gets UPL being a sieve every night, his +/- is going to be ***** regardless of what he does. 

In the end, I think ppl will use the stats they like and I can't really argue with that. I use xgf% because it helps be contextualize both offense and defense. 

[DarthEbriate]

I love +/- specifically for this thread title because it combines both mathematical symbols in sequence. It's the perfect stat.

[mjd1001]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No xgf wouldn't be the same. You wanna know why? Good shooters get to the good shooting spots. And xgf% is also looking at the defensive side of things. 

You're suggesting actual goals, which are rarer than shots, measure individual players contributing to winning more but stats says they don't. Sure that noise might even out over a career for actual goals but the funny part to me is so would the xgf. The good shooters get to the good spots to shoot, that's the key. 

Good shooters get to the good spots?  Good shooters also are more ACCURATE from the good spots.  Every point you make, there is an equal counterpoint to.  And doesn't GF% take into consideration where the shots are taken from, regardless of whether the shooter is good or not? I think so.

Xgf takes into account the defensive side of things...as does GF%.

I'm not arguing that xgf is a terrible stat. I'm just saying it is just one peice of the puzzle, just like gf%.  I tend to SLIGHTLY like gf% over xgf% when looked at over the course of a few seasons.  

But again, I'm not going to evaluate a player on gf% alone, xgf% alone....I think you need to look at them with context to each other...AND the other stats, and over a course of time WITH looking at their teammates comparison.

The only major problem I have with xGF% is when people just throw it out there and use it as the best stat to judge a player. When someone says "They are good because they have a better xGF% than the next guy", I tend to think that only tells 10% of the story, or less.  In the past we have had some posts were people supported their opinion of whether someone was good, or not good, based on xgf% and little else.

Edited 36 minutes ago by mjd1001