• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leafs' Prospect/Marlies Discussion Thread!

BeLeafer said:
Rielly played 877 minutes 5v5 this past season. That amounts to a season total of 21 more minutes against stiff comp than the lowest among the top four. The impact of those 21 minutes simply cannot move the needle on other metrics. If you want to include stiff and weak, it's 54 minutes. Same conclusion.
Click to expand...

I dont know why you keep translating useful percentages into less useful numbers.
 
I mean you know percentage is the number to use. just like you knew ignoring time against grit was silly. just like you know you could do a simple calculation of the impact of changing those extra elite minutes to extra grit minutes. I
 
Great debate that magnifies the issue with nerd shit for me. You're both making fantastic points. In many ways these "objective" stats can be twisted and spun enough to suddenly become "subjective" in the end. Hockey has a long way to go on the nerd front.
 
just a couple things to clarify:

1. I have always said that there is actually no QOC metric that I believe measures the impact that we see over and over again as players' qoc changes.

2. I've said repeatedly here that PuckIQ's number here i don't love, but works generally to give a snapshot, and that it's the only one left. It's definitely not a precision number that we can translate directly to everything else.

3. Even if we DO use it literally (which I've never said to do before), we could still see a clear impact by doing a simple normalization for all of them - just average out their possession numbers against each of the three types of competition, putting them all in an equal situation:

"Difficult Fenwick %": Actual ---> Normalized

Holl 53.8% (+2.8rel) -----> 54.1% (+3.1rel)
Rielly 52.3% (+0.7rel) ----> 53.5% (+2.1rel)
Muzzin 52.2% (+1.3rel) --> 52.4% (+1.4rel)
Dermott 52.6% (+0.7rel) -> 52.9% (+0.7rel)
Ceci 51.1% (-1.2rel) ------> 51.6% (-0.6rel)
Barrie 51.0% (-1.3rel) ----> 50.6% (-1.9rel)

so we see the impact even that "small" difference can make. Rielly sees a big bump up, Ceci sees a moderate bump up, Barrie a moderate bump down, and the other 3 stay about the same.

but again, I don't think that this measures qoc too precisely anyways - at least as a completely independant variable.
 
Last edited:
LeafOfFaith said:
May I just posit here that advanced stats are mostly poop?
Click to expand...
This thread is a clear example of the flaws of these stats. The nice part about stats is that they are objective but I find hockey nerds twist and spin their way into subjectifying them. Which, at times, makes them not much better than the eye test. Right now it's a collection of data that no one really knows how to interpret properly.
 
Debates/discussions are great for learning. I've now got a much clearer idea know about xgf/a/60 stat usage and the impact of qoc. Conclusions are tentative, as more data needs to be analyzed.

For qoc, as it pertains to defensemen at least, the key thing is top four/bottom pair. The rest of it is probably insignificant or of minor consequence. Thinking there may be a top six/bottom six effect for forwards but dunno yet.

For xgf/60 and xga/60, the key thing is the team effects. These stats should be used in the context of relative play among teammates, unless someone develops an adjustment for it like score and venue effects.
 
BeLeafer said:
Debates/discussions are great for learning. I've now got a much clearer idea know about xgf/a/60 stat usage and the impact of qoc. Conclusions are tentative, as more data needs to be analyzed.

For qoc, as it pertains to defensemen at least, the key thing is top four/bottom pair. The rest of it is probably insignificant or of minor consequence. Thinking there may be a top six/bottom six effect for forwards but dunno yet.

For xgf/60 and xga/60, the key thing is the team effects. These stats should be used in the context of relative play among teammates, unless someone develops an adjustment for it like score and venue effects.
Click to expand...

literally just showed you that even a simple normalization shows a big effect on rielly and next to no effect on the 2nd pair guys.
 
Your method is flawed, imo. You are working backwards from the epiphenomenal and inferring that it's qoc.

The toi% show minor variance among top four blueliners on qoc. It just cannot have the kind of impact you think you're seeing (at least across the Leafs top four).
 
So, Rielly is an excellent offensive defensemen who struggles defensively. The xga/60 consistently shows this and cannot be excused by usage. This is not to say he's a bad player or that he should be traded. I've never said anything like that.

I think he's a top pairing guy who is probably one of the best transition blueliners in the game (he's also excellent on the pp). He just needs a partner that complements him defensively and allows him to maximize his vast talent. Or, maybe, he becomes stronger defensively over time. He wouldn't be the first to do so post 25 years of age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top