Crap. Was really looking forward to seeing him against the Pens. TSN says his arm is in a sling.
- madmike71

I'm guessing it is a separated shoulder.

Staal "I'm entitled to my ice"...reality "Ref not looking, I spear junk".

https://pbs.twimg.com/twe...video/CS7VLPwWcAACcDs.mp4

Staal "I'm entitled to my ice"...reality "Ref not looking, I spear junk".

https://pbs.twimg.com/twe...video/CS7VLPwWcAACcDs.mp4
- Sell My Monkey

Marc is kinda a scum bag. Ironic cause Jordan was a really clean player for PIT.

More shots = more goals seems intuitive enough (Probability). I used the same data-set as previously referenced and included a simple model w/ GF (Goals For), FF (Fenwick), S% (Shooting %), Team, and an indicator for playoffs (PO). For the PO*Team interaction: 1 (Red) =made playoffs/ 0 (Blue) = missed post season.

Generally speaking, there appears to be positive correlation between average FF, S% and Goals For. Here's main effects plot (S%, FF, Team, PO, and GF) from a quick Poisson regression model. The Teams are hard to read, but are ascending order from ANA to WPG. The dashed-line = 224 average GF.



The inverse is true as well. On average, PO teams have better save % and lower FF against. So during the course of the 14/15 season, the shot generation/ suppression rhetoric + PDO seemed to matter.

I'm guessing it is a separated shoulder.
- jfkst1

If thats all it ends up being, #97 is pretty fortunate. I'm guessing we'll miss the #87 vs. #97 saga..

I'm guessing it is a separated shoulder.
- jfkst1

I've read broken collarbone in some places that aren't just EK's gossip train.

Had to sort the table in this link because their average shots was wrong by a landslide (said 2633 for me, average is 2459).

http://www.hockey-referen...com/leagues/NHL_2015.html

So, based on last year's data, 14 teams had more then the avearge number of shots, but I'll use 15 teams since Ana was 1 shot short.

Now... average goals was 224... Where do these 15 teams line up in goals that were above the average in shots?

Chicago - 229 - above
NYI - 252 - above
Nashville - 232 - above
Penguins - 221 - below
San Jose - 228 - above
Rangers - 252 - above
Dallas - 261 - above
Boston - 213 - below
Ottawa - 238 - above
LA - 220 - below
St Louis - 248 - above
Carolina - 188 - below
Minnesota - 231 - above
Florida - 206 - below
Anaheim - 236 - above

So... 10 had more goals with above average shots, 5 had less.

Seems to be leaning a bit towards more shots means more goals...
- Guile

B

Oh Guile,


So did you actually have a look at the information you linked? You are taking averages - averages it appears are analytical certainties!

So in your belief of more shots = more goals, or at least what appears to be your truth!

The higher the shots the more goals? Is that a fair interpretation of your information?

So the most goals should have pretty much the most shot totals? Least goals least shots? Is that what you are saying?

Top shots - 2777 = 16th goals
2nd shots - 2771 = 4th goals
3rd shots - 2614 = 13th goals
4th shots - 2582 = 3rd goals
5th shots - 2558 = 2nd goals
6th shots - 2546 = 23rd goals

Notable exceptions that have higher shots totals than the highest goal scorer:
2524 shots = 27th in goals
2516 shots = 25th in goals

Wow! Most shot total were the Hawks & they weren't even top 10 goal scorers they were 16th!!! 33 goals behind first but 349 shots more??

I could go on but........

I won't even go into a game by game evaluation or even a goal per shot summary in a game.

It must be pointed out they are totals & don't separate goals per shot totals! Some games may have 4 goals with 25 shots others 1 goal with 45 shots. It appears you don't consider each game is it's own sample size either - what happens today has no effect next week in reality although it is counted in the totals we are talking about! A games stats today has what actual effect in a SCF game?

More shots = more goals (you just proved my point ).

Maybe most shots for & least against wins you Stanley?

If thats all it ends up being, #97 is pretty fortunate. I'm guessing we'll miss the #87 vs. #97 saga..
- out_of_market

That maybe what's wrong with Sid - there's a new kid in town?

That maybe what's wrong with Sid - there's a new kid in town?
- Aussiepenguin

Aussie what time is it there In Australia? 5:14am here. I just can't sleep. Damn it.

Aussie what time is it there In Australia? 5:14am here. I just can't sleep. Damn it.
- Barnaby36

19:50 Wednesday evening. What are you doing up that early??

Flower for Canada? Big wraps being given by different sites, obviously a back-up role to Price but still??

That maybe what's wrong with Sid - there's a new kid in town?
- Aussiepenguin

I hope sid feels some kind of responsibility for the kid and lights out the league now. Also the karma for the oilers fans saying mcdavid is better cuz no injury history
though I feel for the kid

hand it to the flyers to hurt stars though...

I hope sid feels some kind of responsibility for the kid and lights out the league now. Also the karma for the oilers fans saying mcdavid is better cuz no injury history
though I feel for the kid

hand it to the flyers to hurt stars though...
- martox[/quote]

Them there's fightin words fella!

Get ready for the Matchett to defend their honour!

Keep it down because I'll be asleep!!

[quote=martox]I hope sid feels some kind of responsibility for the kid and lights out the league now. Also the karma for the oilers fans saying mcdavid is better cuz no injury history
though I feel for the kid

hand it to the flyers to hurt stars though...
- Aussiepenguin[/quote]

Them there's fightin words fella!

Get ready for the Matchett to defend their honour!

Keep it down because I'll be asleep!!

aw shet

B

Oh Guile,


So did you actually have a look at the information you linked? You are taking averages - averages it appears are analytical certainties!

So in your belief of more shots = more goals, or at least what appears to be your truth!

The higher the shots the more goals? Is that a fair interpretation of your information?

So the most goals should have pretty much the most shot totals? Least goals least shots? Is that what you are saying?

Top shots - 2777 = 16th goals
2nd shots - 2771 = 4th goals
3rd shots - 2614 = 13th goals
4th shots - 2582 = 3rd goals
5th shots - 2558 = 2nd goals
6th shots - 2546 = 23rd goals

Notable exceptions that have higher shots totals than the highest goal scorer:
2524 shots = 27th in goals
2516 shots = 25th in goals

Wow! Most shot total were the Hawks & they weren't even top 10 goal scorers they were 16th!!! 33 goals behind first but 349 shots more??

I could go on but........

I won't even go into a game by game evaluation or even a goal per shot summary in a game.

It must be pointed out they are totals & don't separate goals per shot totals! Some games may have 4 goals with 25 shots others 1 goal with 45 shots. It appears you don't consider each game is it's own sample size either - what happens today has no effect next week in reality although it is counted in the totals we are talking about! A games stats today has what actual effect in a SCF game?

More shots = more goals (you just proved my point ).

Maybe most shots for & least against wins you Stanley?
- Aussiepenguin

There's a correlation between bulk of shots and goals that's intuitive which also shows up on paper. You keep discounting shots as an indicator of goals because it's not concrete and the numbers don't align perfectly 1st in shots: 1st in goals, 2nd in shots: 2nd in goals, 3rd in shots: 3rd in goals, and so on, but that will never happen. Hockey is not a science and no one is trying to make it a science, people are just looking for any possible edge they can when building a roster in a game that's largely dictated by a poop ton of nuanced factors that GMs can't prepare for such as goalie hot streaks, strange puck bounces, player injuries, and so on.

I understand your aversion to Corsi. You don't like a stat where you get kudos for something you may have had nothing to do with. That's a fine argument. I don't agree with it, but I get you in that sense. But now you are arguing against SOG correlates with goal scoring, which is something that just doesn't make sense intuitively or on paper. Look back at the data you think you just picked apart. The 2nd-4th top goal scoring teams were top 6 in shots. The 3rd in goal scoring was still in the top half of shots and the first in goal scoring was just one off the half way marker. The only real outlier is the 23rd in shots making the top 6 list, but the data is just accurate enough to be useable.

Winning is the only thing that matters. And at the end of the day goals cause winning. But how can you put yourself in a position to win games when constructing a team? You can't discount looking at shots. If you only look at the last year's goal production you may end up signing a guy like Jiri Tlusty or Matt Belesky that broke out for an impressive number of goals for big money when really their goal scoring pace was unsustainable according to their shot:goal ratio. That's the best way to get a bad contract and it has happened countless times.

Flower for Canada? Big wraps being given by different sites, obviously a back-up role to Price but still??
- Aussiepenguin

If fleury keeps playing at this level I could see him on the team.

A Crosby trade...unlikely...but would it really be so bad?

I'm guessing trading him would net a sizeable return that would make the Penguins a better team by creating better overall play and depth.

The real question...and I asked it a week or so ago...will Crosby ever return to the 'best player' form he once had.

He is not the best player in the world right now...he's not even the best player on his team at this moment (and no one one his team is the best player in the world either).

I don't go strictly by offensive production...but two guys in Dallas have 20 points in 13 games and a host of other players are point per game (or better) players...not including Malkin who has 10 in 11 games.

Sid plays most nights like a second line forward...and not the guy who leads the team. Just my observation.

A Crosby trade...unlikely...but would it really be so bad?

I'm guessing trading him would net a sizeable return that would make the Penguins a better team by creating better overall play and depth.

The real question...and I asked it a week or so ago...will Crosby ever return to the 'best player' form he once had.

He is not the best player in the world right now...he's not even the best player on his team at this moment (and no one one his team is the best player in the world either).

I don't go strictly by offensive production...but two guys in Dallas have 20 points in 13 games and a host of other players are point per game (or better) players...not including Malkin who has 10 in 11 games.

Sid plays most nights like a second line forward...and not the guy who leads the team. Just my observation.
- icedog97

he has looked bad ye. but so does giroux and vorachek. as do getzlaf and perry. alot of people look bad this early. tyler sequin and benn are on the same line and they are both super stars with SHARP being the 3rd wheel and they have chemistry so ofc they are dominating since they are also on fire. we know sid can play good. he just needs to become selfish and let the assists come from the garbage being cleaned up by horny from crosby's rebounds

I don't think anyone here is advocating for a Crosby trade, or actually thinks one is going to happen, it's just interesting conversation.... Oh sorry, forgot where I was... SCUDERI SUCKS, PDO, ANALYTICS, CHARTS AND GRAPHS, FREE BARTLEY.... That's better.
- Willaged

Its interesting to argue with people on the internet over completely hypothetical/fantasy situations? We have very different ideas of interesting.

I find all the talk about the NHL being a skilled game a complete oxymoron. As the author notes, coaches expect low-risk play, especially through responsible puck management. The game is played north/south -- get the puck deep -- and make the opponent go 200 ft. for a scoring chance. Furthermore, 5v5 minutes, and the style of play, take away the time and space needed for creative, skilled plays.

The NHL product is all about parity + revenue growth. I'm sure, during the course of Bettman's tenure, the owners are very pleased w/ the results of the on-ice product. If not, the commish would have long been replaced. Leveling in-game winning probabilities (closer to 50/50) allows fans to believe their team of choice has a legit chance of winning. Believing means more butts in seats. Parity/ competition also assists w/ TV ratings.

End of story.
- out_of_market

This post wins.

Cole has had some shaky games recently. Maybe it's not fair to judge him as a first pairing player (cause I don't believe he is one), but I'd like to see Maatta released from the burden that is Rob Scuderi and finally get a chance with Letang.
- madmike71

I agree. Cole hasnt looked like a #1 guy at all. I think hes best slotted as a 2nd pairing D man.

It must suck being Crosby. When he dominates the league, fans from every other team hate him. When he has a 10 game scoring slump, the majority of his own fans do.

He is 3rd on the team in scoring and they are 7-4 in their first 11 games. Fans should see this as a good sign that they are becoming a more complete team, not that they should trade Crosby.

On another note, really glad to see Fleury playing at such a high level. Hoping he gets a chance to represent Canada at the World Cup.

he has looked bad ye. but so does giroux and vorachek. as do getzlaf and perry. alot of people look bad this early. tyler sequin and benn are on the same line and they are both super stars with SHARP being the 3rd wheel and they have chemistry so ofc they are dominating since they are also on fire. we know sid can play good. he just needs to become selfish and let the assists come from the garbage being cleaned up by horny from crosby's rebounds
- martox

Yeah...I understand that.

My question goes back to last year though.

Crosby is not the Crosby we knew.

Since last year some time in the second half of the season he has simply not been the same player.

Yeah...I understand that.

My question goes back to last year though.

Crosby is not the Crosby we knew.

Since last year some time in the second half of the season he has simply not been the same player.
- icedog97

I can admit to that even though he played with scrubs back then

So Matt Niskanen?
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Exactly what I thought when I read that post!