Muffy & Biff.
- madcow251

The atmosphere at hockey games has changed IMMENSELY since the aud days. Funny thing is, I think my first couple of Sabres games were because a friends dad or a neighbor got tickets through work. The price of hockey has been artificially inflated and people are buying in to it. I live on the west coast now and go to one game a year IF the Sabres play the sharks. Personally, I'd rather watch the rest of the games on my couch with the bathroom around the corner and a fridge full of beer. Center ice for the entire year costs me as much as a ticket for my wife and i and a couple of beers. I don't think it's even worth the price to go to games any more.

The catch-22 is...without the Corporate types, there is no team. You can't financially sustain a product with that crowd.
- buffalofan19

They used to in the 70's and 80's just fine. That's kind of what I mean by the idea of "artificial inflation." the NHL leaned on teams to build bigger, better arenas with luxury boxes and then fill them. At the same time, player contracts started spinning out of control and the owners couldn't keep themselves from spending money and poaching each others players. It's amazing to look at how much a player made 20 years ago vs. now. I'd love to see some kind of graphic on how revenues climbed, ticket prices climbed and even concessions climbed vs. the economy/cost of living. I guess if people keep paying to go, it's a good business model for the owners and the NHL!

Ummm, you've got it backwards.....

Objective = 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Subjective = 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).
- theblueandgold

I'm going to gracefully agree. Further more, after I had a chance to crunch the #'s, you may have a point in backing Miller over Vanek (based on sheer #'s, facts..).

In 2010/2011 the avg Sv % for the top 30 goalies (that played the most games) was .914. Millers was .916. In 2011/2012 it was .915. Millers was .916. In 2012/2013 it is .914, Millers is .914.

GAA for same periods was 2.50 and Millers was 2.59. In 2011/2012 it was 2.49, Millers was 2.43. This year it is 2.47 and Millers is 2.78.

Average goalie salary is approx. $3.72M while Millers is $6.25M.

Point being, while Millers #'s are pretty much in line with the average goalies his salary is almost double. An average goalie gives you a much bigger 'Bang for your Buck' so-to-speak.

With skater's; the top average points for the 30 skaters in 2010/2011 was 77.5 points. Van had 73. In 2011/2012 it was 76.9 compared to Van's 61. This year it is 38.9 compared to Van's 33. Average salary is about $5.08M compared to Van's $7.?..

The point here is that while the average top 30 skaters score more and make less than Van the discrepancy between them is less.

I guess dollar for dollar Van's production is more in line with his salary compared to his peers than Millers. However, as usual, there are a million and one different factors that can go in to the equation (injuries, quality of Defense, # of back to back games, quality of team in general, etc. etc..).

Our opinions differ. I think Van is more valuable than Miller. I also think he'd bring back more in a trade. Value is in the eye of the beholder..

Vanek may not be injured to the point to where he misses games as much as say Tim Connolly did but he will go on incredible streaks and then come to find out in the off season that he was nursing some crap (last nights game for instance)

Serious much?
- jmatchett383

Say serious much, much?

I'm going to gracefully agree. Further more, after I had a chance to crunch the #'s, you may have a point in backing Miller over Vanek (based on sheer #'s, facts..).

In 2010/2011 the avg Sv % for the top 30 goalies (that played the most games) was .914. Millers was .916. In 2011/2012 it was .915. Millers was .916. In 2012/2013 it is .914, Millers is .914.

GAA for same periods was 2.50 and Millers was 2.59. In 2011/2012 it was 2.49, Millers was 2.43. This year it is 2.47 and Millers is 2.78.

Average goalie salary is approx. $3.72M while Millers is $6.25M.

Point being, while Millers #'s are pretty much in line with the average goalies his salary is almost double. An average goalie gives you a much bigger 'Bang for your Buck' so-to-speak.

With skater's; the top average points for the 30 skaters in 2010/2011 was 77.5 points. Van had 73. In 2011/2012 it was 76.9 compared to Van's 61. This year it is 38.9 compared to Van's 33. Average salary is about $5.08M compared to Van's $7.?..

The point here is that while the average top 30 skaters score more and make less than Van the discrepancy between them is less.

I guess dollar for dollar Van's production is more in line with his salary compared to his peers than Millers. However, as usual, there are a million and one different factors that can go in to the equation (injuries, quality of Defense, # of back to back games, quality of team in general, etc. etc..).

Our opinions differ. I think Van is more valuable than Miller. I also think he'd bring back more in a trade. Value is in the eye of the beholder..
- Pairo11

Its not a very fair comparison to just take the top 30 goalies and top 30 skaters, and then average their salaries and stats, then compare it to the player to give you a value. For example, you are taking 30 of the 80 goalies who have registered stats this season. Thats 37.5% of players at that position. You would have to take 37.5% of the 532 forwards that have registered stats this season for the comparison to be fair.

The more appropriate approach would be to take a +/- # on their cap hit, and compare them with players being paid the same way to judge their value. For example, +/- 1.5M, all players in that range, compare the averages. Miller is a lot closer to the averages through the life of his contract than Vanek is.

The more appropriate approach would be to take a +/- # on their cap hit, and compare them with players being paid the same way to judge their value. For example, +/- 1.5M, all players in that range, compare the averages. Miller is a lot closer to the averages through the life of his contract than Vanek is.
- theblueandgold

I would agree to that

well said

Its not a very fair comparison to just take the top 30 goalies and top 30 skaters, and then average their salaries and stats, then compare it to the player to give you a value. For example, you are taking 30 of the 80 goalies who have registered stats this season. Thats 37.5% of players at that position. You would have to take 37.5% of the 532 forwards that have registered stats this season for the comparison to be fair.

The more appropriate approach would be to take a +/- # on their cap hit, and compare them with players being paid the same way to judge their value. For example, +/- 1.5M, all players in that range, compare the averages. Miller is a lot closer to the averages through the life of his contract than Vanek is.
- theblueandgold

Like I said, there are a lot of things that can skew stats. So many ways to skin a cat. I just used the population/sample of top 30 since I think both players could be considered to be included in this group.

They used to in the 70's and 80's just fine. That's kind of what I mean by the idea of "artificial inflation." the NHL leaned on teams to build bigger, better arenas with luxury boxes and then fill them. At the same time, player contracts started spinning out of control and the owners couldn't keep themselves from spending money and poaching each others players. It's amazing to look at how much a player made 20 years ago vs. now. I'd love to see some kind of graphic on how revenues climbed, ticket prices climbed and even concessions climbed vs. the economy/cost of living. I guess if people keep paying to go, it's a good business model for the owners and the NHL!
- seedy

The economic landscape is much different than in the 70's and 80's. The cost of doing business is much higher. The opportunities for revenue are much higher. The NHL is just following the trends of its peers (NFL, NBA, and MLB). The reason these players are paid more than 20 years ago is because they make those teams a lot more money than they did 20 years ago (at least in terms of revenue, not necessarily profit). If teams didn't, they wouldn't be getting these contracts.

Like I said, there are a lot of things that can skew stats. So many ways to skin a cat. I just used the population/sample of top 30 since I think both players could be considered to be included in this group.
- Pairo11

I think too many people get caught up in offensive goals and total pts, but fail to take into account the intangibles. So while Vanek may have a couple 40 goal seasons and is no doubt a natural goal scorer, does he make the guys around him better and accountable--especially if you're also talking about giving him the 'C'??

40 goal guys don't necessarily win the CUP. Do we want to put all our eggs in like New Jersey has to Kovalchuk---I would hope not. Sure he's a great talent, but when you give a player too much power, the rest of the team usually suffers. And Kovalchuk is now sorely missed as his team's 8 game recent slide dictates, but I'm sure they regret that big contract already. If not now, surely in a few year. The team is cap-strapped and has to try to get guys to contribute offensively that aren't normally used to in order to succeed.