???????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????

Clearly another commenter that's never seen an oilers game.

Yak played with Belanger and Jones for half the year. He played with Hall for like the remaning 10 games and scored 11 goals. I can't imagine the damage Yak'll do when he's not 19 playing on the 5th line.
- TheNugeIsHuge

Just an interesting observation. I'm not so sure I believe you when you say Yakupov played half the year with Belanger and Jones. He didn't score a single goal in January or February that wasn't assisted on by Gagner or Hall. Not one of his assists in that timeframe was on a goal that was not either scored or assisted by Gagner and/or Hemsky. Eberle on a few of them as well. I think your perception is a little off. He CLEARLY played a LOT with Gagner, Hemsky, and Hall, for the first half of the season, and we all know he got plenty of prime ice in the second half.

You'll find things are much different for Huberdeau. Hell, 3 of his goals were totally unassisted. How many totally solo efforts for Yakupov? 0.

I think you're vastly underestimating how alone Huberdeau was, especially in comparison to Yakupov.

Just an interesting observation. I'm not so sure I believe you when you say Yakupov played half the year with Belanger and Jones. He didn't score a single goal in January or February that wasn't assisted on by Gagner or Hall. Not one of his assists in that timeframe was on a goal that was not either scored or assisted by Gagner and/or Hemsky. Eberle on a few of them as well. I think your perception is a little off. He CLEARLY played a LOT with Gagner, Hemsky, and Hall, for the first half of the season, and we all know he got plenty of prime ice in the second half.

You'll find things are much different for Huberdeau. Hell, 3 of his goals were totally unassisted. How many totally solo efforts for Yakupov? 0.

I think you're vastly underestimating how alone Huberdeau was, especially in comparison to Yakupov.
- Dirte

The 1st half of the season he did not play with HALL- actually it wasnt until like the last 6 or 7 games he played with Hall that is a fact...

I can agree with this. On the Oilers, all considered, he likely did. But.....he was not as solid all around as someone like Gallagher or Saad (or even Galchenyuk.)

Yaks will be a good player for years to come but he just is not a Calder candidate no matter how you present it.
- MadManPaddy

GO SENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just an interesting observation. I'm not so sure I believe you when you say Yakupov played half the year with Belanger and Jones. He didn't score a single goal in January or February that wasn't assisted on by Gagner or Hall. Not one of his assists in that timeframe was on a goal that was not either scored or assisted by Gagner and/or Hemsky. Eberle on a few of them as well. I think your perception is a little off. He CLEARLY played a LOT with Gagner, Hemsky, and Hall, for the first half of the season, and we all know he got plenty of prime ice in the second half.

You'll find things are much different for Huberdeau. Hell, 3 of his goals were totally unassisted. How many totally solo efforts for Yakupov? 0.

I think you're vastly underestimating how alone Huberdeau was, especially in comparison to Yakupov.
- Dirte

GO BRUINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Dirte

Jonathan Huberdeau 48GP 14G 17A 31P -15

Fleischmann was their leading scorer with 35 points and he was -10.

Huberdeau got "gimme" points because no one else was scoring.

Huberdeau for the Calder...

Jonathan Huberdeau 48GP 14G 17A 31P -15

Fleischmann was their leading scorer with 35 points and he was -10.

Huberdeau got "gimme" points because no one else was scoring.

Huberdeau for the Calder...
- MadManPaddy

GO SENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO SENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Al Hacker

I can agree with this. On the Oilers, all considered, he likely did. But.....he was not as solid all around as someone like Gallagher or Saad (or even Galchenyuk.)

Yaks will be a good player for years to come but he just is not a Calder candidate no matter how you present it.
- MadManPaddy

First off, I don't see how Galchenyuk is any more deserving of a Calder nomination than Yakupov.

Now, as for a reasonable argument that puts Yakupov in as a definite Calder nom, there isn't one. Everyone was incredibly close and Yakupov could easily have been in there or not.

However, I did collect some advanced statistics that hopefully shed light on this idea that Yakupov is a liability while Gallagher and Galchenyuk are more "well-rounded"

Relative Corsi (how much a team outshoots or gets outshot while a player is on the ice relative to how they do when he's not on the ice*):
Yakupov: -5.1
Galchenyuk: -5.4
Gallagher: 16.1

You see here that Gallagher is easily ahead of the other two, who are almost identical. Remember of course that in Corsi, any attempted shot, not simply shots on goal, count towards the data. Evidently Gallagher's line isn't generating 16 shots on goal per 60 minutes! But his big lead in this category will make sense when you see that Gallagher has an insanely high offensive zone start.

Off Zone Start (how often a player started their shift in the offensive zone)
Gallagher: 66%
Galchenyuk: 58.5%
Yakupov: 51.1%

None of these players have tough assignments in this regard: they've all been sheltered. That being said, Gallagher starts his shifts in a prime scoring position decidedly more often than the other two. It's more easy to keep puck out of your net during a shift when the other team has to transition from their own zone all the way down the ice. Now let's see how often that happens?

Off Zone finish (how often a player finished their shift in the offensive zone)
Gallagher: 53%
Galchenyuk: 50.4%
Yakupov: 51.0%

Very similar amongst all of them, but when paired with the offensive zone start stat they start to tell a different tale. Gallagher starts many more shifts in the offensive zone than he finishes shifts there. With Galchenyuk, the difference is not that great, and with Yakupov, the difference is non-existent. Yakupov seems at least effective in making good on the easy ice time, if not good at keeping the puck out of his own zone. Gallagher, the most highly-touted defensive player of the three actually has the hardest time keeping the puck out of his own zone over the course of the shift.

Quality of Competition (Average Relative Plus-Minus of opposing players, weighted by head-to-head ice time. )
Gallagher: -0.080
Galchenyuk: -0.135
Yakupov: -0.020

Essentially average assignments for all. Galchenyuk tails here, rarely punching above his weight. Gallagher never faced top competition but wasn't as spoonfed as the Galchenyuk. Yakupov faced the toughest competition, but still not inordinately tough. How does this rank vis a vis their teammates (min 20GP). Galchenyuk had the second easiest assignment in terms of Qualcomp on the team (only Ryan White behind him). Gallagher was 13th (9th among forwards). Yakupov had the 9th hardest assignment on the Oilers (7th among forwards)

Quality of Teammates (Average Relative Plus-Minus of Teammates, weighted by ice time together. )
Gallagher: 0.215 (4th highest on team)
Galchenyuk: 0.259 (2nd on team)
Yakupov: 0.034 (10th on team)

This is the most drastic stat amongst the bunch. Yakupov had a far lower quality of teammates, suggesting that statistics have found an answer in the "better teammates vs. more ice time" debate. Put together with quality of competition, you can see how Yakupov's highest quality of competition and lowest quality of teammates correlates quite naturally with the impression people get of him.

Take from these stats what you will. I just thought I'd give you a bigger picture of what to look for when you're determining how well-rounded a player is.

The 1st half of the season he did not play with HALL- actually it wasnt until like the last 6 or 7 games he played with Hall that is a fact...
- saskoil21

What I stated above is 100% fact. All but a handful of his points were with Hemsky and Gagner. It would appear he played nearly exclusively with them.

Yakupov only filled a gap in the Oiler offensive scheme. He lacked solid commitment to his defensive game, hence his -4. By contrast, guys like Gallagher and Galchenyuk put up similar point totals (with stiffer competition in their lineup) as Yakupov however clearly showed more defensive responsibility as shown by their +10 and +14, respectively. Even look at Saad in Chicago and his well rounded game and differential of +17!

That's why.

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!
- MadManPaddy

U think both galchenyuk and gallagher ahead of huberdeau??!
And u coincedentally are a habs fans?
And plus minus is your defining stat on whos deserving??

Move along...

Voting was done before the playoffs. They already know who won.
- Lahey

Yep

And it was suter then too...

First off, I don't see how Galchenyuk is any more deserving of a Calder nomination than Yakupov.

Now, as for a reasonable argument that puts Yakupov in as a definite Calder nom, there isn't one. Everyone was incredibly close and Yakupov could easily have been in there or not.

However, I did collect some advanced statistics that hopefully shed light on this idea that Yakupov is a liability while Gallagher and Galchenyuk are more "well-rounded"

Relative Corsi (how much a team outshoots or gets outshot while a player is on the ice relative to how they do when he's not on the ice*):
Yakupov: -5.1
Galchenyuk: -5.4
Gallagher: 16.1

You see here that Gallagher is easily ahead of the other two, who are almost identical. Remember of course that in Corsi, any attempted shot, not simply shots on goal, count towards the data. Evidently Gallagher's line isn't generating 16 shots on goal per 60 minutes! But his big lead in this category will make sense when you see that Gallagher has an insanely high offensive zone start.

Off Zone Start (how often a player started their shift in the offensive zone)
Gallagher: 66%
Galchenyuk: 58.5%
Yakupov: 51.1%

None of these players have tough assignments in this regard: they've all been sheltered. That being said, Gallagher starts his shifts in a prime scoring position decidedly more often than the other two. It's more easy to keep puck out of your net during a shift when the other team has to transition from their own zone all the way down the ice. Now let's see how often that happens?

Off Zone finish (how often a player finished their shift in the offensive zone)
Gallagher: 53%
Galchenyuk: 50.4%
Yakupov: 51.0%

Very similar amongst all of them, but when paired with the offensive zone start stat they start to tell a different tale. Gallagher starts many more shifts in the offensive zone than he finishes shifts there. With Galchenyuk, the difference is not that great, and with Yakupov, the difference is non-existent. Yakupov seems at least effective in making good on the easy ice time, if not good at keeping the puck out of his own zone. Gallagher, the most highly-touted defensive player of the three actually has the hardest time keeping the puck out of his own zone over the course of the shift.

Quality of Competition (Average Relative Plus-Minus of opposing players, weighted by head-to-head ice time. )
Gallagher: -0.080
Galchenyuk: -0.135
Yakupov: -0.020

Essentially average assignments for all. Galchenyuk tails here, rarely punching above his weight. Gallagher never faced top competition but wasn't as spoonfed as the Galchenyuk. Yakupov faced the toughest competition, but still not inordinately tough. How does this rank vis a vis their teammates (min 20GP). Galchenyuk had the second easiest assignment in terms of Qualcomp on the team (only Ryan White behind him). Gallagher was 13th (9th among forwards). Yakupov had the 9th hardest assignment on the Oilers (7th among forwards)

Quality of Teammates (Average Relative Plus-Minus of Teammates, weighted by ice time together. )
Gallagher: 0.215 (4th highest on team)
Galchenyuk: 0.259 (2nd on team)
Yakupov: 0.034 (10th on team)

This is the most drastic stat amongst the bunch. Yakupov had a far lower quality of teammates, suggesting that statistics have found an answer in the "better teammates vs. more ice time" debate. Put together with quality of competition, you can see how Yakupov's highest quality of competition and lowest quality of teammates correlates quite naturally with the impression people get of him.

Take from these stats what you will. I just thought I'd give you a bigger picture of what to look for when you're determining how well-rounded a player is.
- Morris

But...but...but...this doesnt work with my contentions that werent based on any real facts. I was trying to pass off galchen and gallagher as far superior 2 way players to yakupov.

I didnt need actual facts to back my argument up. General consensus was that yaks was just a goal scorer with no other redeeming qualities. I was very comfortable with that line of thought.

Kindly erase your post as its doing nothing but confusing things.

Just an interesting observation. I'm not so sure I believe you when you say Yakupov played half the year with Belanger and Jones. He didn't score a single goal in January or February that wasn't assisted on by Gagner or Hall. Not one of his assists in that timeframe was on a goal that was not either scored or assisted by Gagner and/or Hemsky. Eberle on a few of them as well. I think your perception is a little off. He CLEARLY played a LOT with Gagner, Hemsky, and Hall, for the first half of the season, and we all know he got plenty of prime ice in the second half.

You'll find things are much different for Huberdeau. Hell, 3 of his goals were totally unassisted. How many totally solo efforts for Yakupov? 0.

I think you're vastly underestimating how alone Huberdeau was, especially in comparison to Yakupov.
- Dirte

It's easier to think of the year in thirds. I'd say the most common lines were the Yakupov-Gagner-Hemsky or Paajarvi-Gagner-Yakupov lines from the beginning of the year, the 3rd and 4th line pairings from the middle of the year and the Hall-Horcoff-Yakupov line at the end. Important to remember that he had PP time all throughout and no one is denying that, or its impact on his production.

Here's everyone who got a point on each of Yakupov's ES points during the year:
1. Hall and Schultz
2. Fistric and Gagner
3. Hemsky and gagner
4. Hemksy and Gagner
5. Hemsky and Gagner
6. Eberle and Gagner
7. Whitney and Smyth
8. Gagner and Paajarvi
9. Gagner and Hall
10. Horcoff and Jones
11. Jones and Schultz
12. Jones and Whitney
13. Smyth
14. N. Schultz and Gagner
15. Smyth and Horcoff
16. Hall and Schultz
17. Paajarvi and Petry
18. Fistric and Horcoff
19. Hall
20. Hall and Smid
21. Paajarvi
22. Fistric and Paajarvi

I feel like you can kind of see the three phases of his year from this.

It's easier to think of the year in thirds. I'd say the most common lines were the Yakupov-Gagner-Hemsky or Paajarvi-Gagner-Yakupov lines from the beginning of the year, the 3rd and 4th line pairings from the middle of the year and the Hall-Horcoff-Yakupov line at the end. Important to remember that he had PP time all throughout and no one is denying that, or its impact on his production.

Here's everyone who got a point on each of Yakupov's ES points during the year:
1. Hall and Schultz
2. Fistric and Gagner
3. Hemsky and gagner
4. Hemksy and Gagner
5. Hemsky and Gagner
6. Eberle and Gagner
7. Whitney and Smyth
8. Gagner and Paajarvi
9. Gagner and Hall
10. Horcoff and Jones
11. Jones and Schultz
12. Jones and Whitney
13. Smyth
14. N. Schultz and Gagner
15. Smyth and Horcoff
16. Hall and Schultz
17. Paajarvi and Petry
18. Fistric and Horcoff
19. Hall
20. Hall and Smid
21. Paajarvi
22. Fistric and Paajarvi

I feel like you can kind of see the three phases of his year from this.
- Morris

I think that pretty clearly shows the claim that he played with Horcoff and Belanger is a bunch of crap.

I think that pretty clearly shows the claim that he played with Horcoff and Belanger is a bunch of crap.
- Dirte

Not really. All it shows is where he got his points. You can go to behindthenet.ca to find out his teammates though. I can't as work has it blocked.

Although clouts has made it seem like all oiler posters are homers and completely out of touch; this isnt actually the case.

Imo yaks deserved the 3rd nomination behind gallagher and huberdeau and I do find it Abit puzzling that the points and goals leader didnt get the nod.
But either way its close, and i do think saad was a little more consistent from start to finish. Which should absolutely be considered.

Some of the yaks apologists point to yaks being demoted to playing with jones/horcs etc. but he deserved those minutes at the time. He was clearly confused and struggling to understand the pro game on many nights. Completely invisible. He wasnt helping the oilers win at that point and needed to be sheltered.

And when he did start turning it around and u could see his play change towards the end, i believe alot of the voters minds had already been made up.
I think a month ago, it was the 3 nominees without a doubt and i think that carried through even though yaks was far more dominant than saad (or any of em really)down the stretch.

Either way, eff the calder. Yakupov is gonna be a great player

Not really. All it shows is where he got his points. You can go to behindthenet.ca to find out his teammates though. I can't as work has it blocked.
- Lahey

I'm pretty limited as to what I can do here too.

Yakupov only filled a gap in the Oiler offensive scheme. He lacked solid commitment to his defensive game, hence his -4. By contrast, guys like Gallagher and Galchenyuk put up similar point totals (with stiffer competition in their lineup) as Yakupov however clearly showed more defensive responsibility as shown by their +10 and +14, respectively. Even look at Saad in Chicago and his well rounded game and differential of +17!

That's why.

The fact that a guy like Huberdeau was placed before Galchenyuk is crazy nuts as well!
- MadManPaddy

female dog please. Look at the goal differentials of their respective teams. This argument holds about as much water as a strainer.

female dog please. Look at the goal differentials of their respective teams. This argument holds about as much water as a strainer.
- sanfordnson

Yeah, that is the perfect example of a post that I was speaking of earlier. One of those people who misuse and abuse the +/- stat so badly they make a case for getting rid of it altogether.

female dog please. Look at the goal differentials of their respective teams. This argument holds about as much water as a strainer.
- sanfordnson

My nigga

Yeah, that is the perfect example of a post that I was speaking of earlier. One of those people who misuse and abuse the +/- stat so badly they make a case for getting rid of it altogether.
- Dirte

Where it gets further destroyed is here: Oilers as a team scored 82 ES goals. Yakupov had 11 of them. Also had more hits than Huberdeau and Saad, only 3 less than Gallagher.

Personally I honestly think it should have been Brodin's award but to say Yakupov didn't earn a nomination is just silly. Only OV scored more goals in April. No one that any other rookie had for linemates could possibly be as offensively void as Belanger and Horcoff.

Yeah, that is the perfect example of a post that I was speaking of earlier. One of those people who misuse and abuse the +/- stat so badly they make a case for getting rid of it altogether.
- Dirte

I never suggested that +/- was the critical part of their stats. I simply point out that it is a reflection of their defensive abilities, which is part of the consideration for this award.

[quote=Morris]First off, I don't see how Galchenyuk is any more deserving of a Calder nomination than Yakupov.



Wow, you have far too much time on your hands.

All of your "stats" do nothing for me and I doubt that they are part of the decision process for who wins anyhow.

Argue all you want, Yakupov was not considered a finalist for the award and there is a reason for that.

My nigga
- hugefemale dog77

Where it gets further destroyed is here: Oilers as a team scored 82 ES goals. Yakupov had 11 of them. Also had more hits than Huberdeau and Saad, only 3 less than Gallagher.

Personally I honestly think it should have been Brodin's award but to say Yakupov didn't earn a nomination is just silly. Only OV scored more goals in April. No one that any other rookie had for linemates could possibly be as offensively void as Belanger and Horcoff.
- sanfordnson

How is it silly? He did not earn a consideration, did he? He was not chosen as a finalist for a reason. Argue all you want but he clearly was not considered good enough to make the top 3.