YoungGuns1340

Of course it doesn't. Its not a perfect model. But this is based on statistics and hypotheticals, and the points rendered here. Hmm, lets see, that Hudler would produce less with more has been proved statistically null, and similarly in terms of his continual PPM drop-off. The fact that statistics suggest that Hudler WOULD produce more supports my argument - which is merely opinion as much as yours. But because the statistics support my opinion, and not yours, I'm not supposed to use them? The only reason you're deducing what I'm saying to irrational levels and presumptions is because they go against what you are saying. One of the first things you learn in a science or research methods class is that you work to prove a hypothesis wrong, not right. What I just did was use all the statistical evidence that we have of Hudler, and it did not prove my point wrong. Did it prove your point wrong either? No. But theres a reason why half of the popular research articles you read on the internet start with phrases such as "research shows..." or "The statistics suggest..." Going by all the evidence you half, you make solid theories based on them. Which exactly what I've done. This is just a sensitive subject for the people who want to assume that Hudler is destined to be an obsolete NHLer, yet have no statistical evidence to back it up, and must rely on biases to carry them.

And the differntial of the scoring rate when minutes added = exactly that. To illustrate, Hudler's PPM decreases by 1.02 but the differential between that and 1 more minute is a mere .40. If you continue the differential pattern (roughly 2/3rds), then the scoring differential plateaus at almost exactly 17:00 minutes exactly (and, naturally, Hudler's PPM plateaus as well) having decreased by a negligible 2.1 per minute until 17 minutes, where the decrease becomes too small to measure, or basically stagnant. So, given our only sample of 7 games at 15, and 9 games at 16, Hudler's scoring rate at 17 minutes per game would be 18.6. Or, 75 points @ 17 minutes per game. 79.3 points @ 18 minutes, 83.7 points @ 19 minutes, and 88.1 minutes @ 20 minutes per game. Call me crazy, but regardless of Hudler's PPM decreasing after 13.5 minutes, 75 points with 17 minutes per game is still a great scoring rate for a guy you consider to be a third liner. And on top of that 20 minutes = 1st line minutes, and 88 points = 1st line production. So, essentially, from our known sample, Hudler's increase in role is paralleled to his increase in production. I.E, if Hudler were on the 2nd line, he would put up 2nd line minutes according to our model. If Hudler were on the 1st line, he would put up 1st line points according to our model. To reiterate: That rate of production for Hudler is 17 minutes. At any rate, the irony of this situation is that you were demeaning Hudler scoring 73 points in 16 minutes in the 1st place. Thats a great top 6 player on any team in the league. Finally, your "comparison model" with Filppula doesn't equate. Hudler's increase in time does not coincide with an increase in linemate quality. Hudler sees more more time with Samuelsson and Leino. Filppula sees more time, and it comes centering Marian Hossa. So essentially, if we wanted to compare, then we'd have to look only at stats where Hudler and Filppula both play 16+ minutes a game on Hossa's line. Which we don't have. And, before I run out of breath, no, Filppula is not "close" to Hudler in offensive talent. I'm confused by this point. Are you saying that if Hudler gets 2.5 more minutes a game - on top of 13.5 for a total of 16 - and he only puts up 6 more than what he would put at 13.5 for a total of 73 points and then comparing that to if Filppula were to get an increase of 2.5 minutes per game - on top of 16 minutes for a total of 18.5 - that he would put the same extra 6 points, for a total of 47 points? Is that what you're saying?

Not at all. What you are suggesting is that the top forward unit is going to yield the top opposition. Fact is, that isn't the case when you have to manage shifts and have home-ice advantage vs without, but I'll ignore those complexities for now, despite the fact that they bolster my argument. In particular, the key assumption is that the coach wants his top DEFENSEMAN out on the ice against a top offensive unit more than anything - if he can get his best checking line out there, thats great, but that takes more efficiency that many coaches don't have for the majority of the game. Regardless, the point remains that there are 3 forwards, and 2 defenseman. And the defenseman are going to focus on the two best forwards. That leaves out 1 - in this case Holmstrom. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but Holmstrom isn't staked out in front of the net at even strength. He does his fair share of skating and cycling. But further from that, why is it that Hudler is going to have particular difficulty with top pairing units? Because of his size and strength? Yes, that makes sense. Because all top pairing defenseman are typically big and physical. Wait for it, wait for it... The overwhelming assumption on this board is that somehow, Hudler is easy to defend against. Which is not even close to the case. His creativity and passing skills make him defy tight coverage. I suppose Datsyuk was easy to defend against as a small, meek, little rookie? Now, if the assumption is that hes going to suffer when being paired up with the stronger, more physical defenseman, then the chance that hes going to see those kind of defenseman on the top unit is less likely than where is now. Typically, strong, physical defenseman are en masse on the bottom pairings around the NHL while the offensive, positionally sound defenders fill out the upper ranks. Would Hudler somehow have a tougher time facing Rafalski or Lilja? Oh, and by the way. Hudler's scoring rate decreases from when given 15 minutes up from 13.5, but it increases on the 15 minute rate when bumped up to 16 minutes. Essentially, Hudler scores at the highest rate at 13.5, the lowest at 15, and somewhere in the middle at 16. In short, if you were to average the rates at which Hudler scores at 15 and at 16, he would be on pace to score 82 points in 19.5 minutes per game. Thats down from the incredible 99 points he would statistically score if given 19.5 minutes a game on average, but its also 5 points more than Henrik Zetterberg is on pace to score in about 20 minutes per game. So basically, even though Hudler's rate decreases, hes still showing that the statistics are on his side.

If hes going up against better opposition, then he has better linemates, and those better linemates are going to see the brunt of the defense. Do top-pairing units target Homer like they do Datsyuk and Zetterberg? No. At any rate, Hudler has never been given the chance to play in that position. Unless you want to count the "1 and 1/2 game" sample, as "playing against better opposition." Laughable. Hudler is going to be held back by "facing the top opposition" just like his skating and stature has kept him from ever being effective at the NHL level. Again, He adapts better than anyone on this Wings team has in years.

His increase in ice time doesn't equate to better linemates, either. In the games where hes getting more minutes, hes playing more, but with the same "third line" linemates. If hes going to get 16 minutes a game on average, hes going to have better linemates. And if you're going to drop Hank's time and increase Datsyuk's time, that creates a 4 minute difference. Essentially, you're going to be taking Hank off of his line and giving Datsyuk double shifts. Thats why no one is advocating that issue.

If we end up having to score 4-5 goals, then I hope Datsyuk picks up at least 3 points. I want him to catch Crosby, that little *****.

True, but the NHLPA reinstated the CBA again already, so at least since its implementation, the players have approved.

And by the same token, cheap goaltending hasn't produced at least four cups in 11 years.

Its still on NHL.com. Go to stats, individual, and then on the right hand side theres a drop-down menu that says "summary". Choose the one that says "HITS-players" and it lists hits, takeaways, giveaways, blocked shots, missed shots, etc.

I posted this in another thread. With Hudler's current ice time (13:28/g), he's scoring at a rate that would put him at 67 points over an 82 game season. In games where Hudler has played 15+ minutes (9 games), he scores at a rate of 70 points over an 82 game season. In games where Hudler has played 16+ minutes this season (7 games), he scores at a rate of 73 points over an 82 game season. So yes. Judging from this season, the correlation is that the more ice time Hudler gets, the better his scoring rate is.

I agree that Hudler would be better to retain than Franzen, simply because Hudler is going to have the friendlier contract. As I've said elsewhere, Hudler can make the Wings an offer they can't refuse. If I'm Hudler, I force the Wings to retain me by taking a 2 year deal for around 2.3-2.8 per year. Why would Hudler do that? 1) He gets to remain on a competitive team; 2) He knows if he makes the Wings an offer they can't refuse, then it'll be someone else being traded/let go, which means a bigger role for Hudler and more ice time 3) More ice time = more opportunities to bolster his stats 4) If Hossa is staying, then Hudler knows he's going to be playing with at least one of Hossa, Zetterberg, or Datsyuk 5) By the time his contract expires with the Wings, hes a young, 27 year old unrestricted free agent whose likely to have posted 3 consecutive seasons of 65-85 points (hes on pace for 67 points as it is this year). Essentially, he hits the market as a young player with great stats and he doesn't have to worry about never experiencing Stanley Cup glory, so I doubt he'd have reservations about signing something like a $5M, 6 year deal with a desperate bottom-feeder. If Hudler signs a cheap, 2 year contract with the Wings now, he's essentially Daniel Briere ca. July of 2007. And we all know how that turned out for Dan. The crazy thing about that is, if the Wings did some creative manuevering, they could retain all of Franzen, Hudler, and Hossa. But it would take some Zetterberg-esque creativity from Holland. What are people's opinions about Franzen taking this kind of contract? I honestly can't decide whether he'll go for more money, short term, or go for the long-term security in an uncertain economy as a 29/30 year old whos in the midst of his prime: Johan Franzen @ 9 years, 25.5M = 2.83 per year 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 1.5, 1.5, 1.5 = 9 years, 2.83. That puts him up to 37/38 years old. I guess it depends on how long Franzen thinks he can keep up his goal scoring.

The next 3-5 years concern me, considering how much the salary cap will drop. Ron Maclean suggested its going to drop into the 40s on CBC a few weeks ago after next year. But you're right. 12 years from now, the salary cap will at least be in the 60s, and thats disregarding inflation, just a mere recovery from the recession. Just for reference, about 12 years ago, during the 95-96 season, the average team payroll was a whopping 19.8M, and the Wings had a steep payroll that year. Don't know how Illitch managed to keep his house by spending 28.5M on the team that year. Even better, in 92-93, the average NHL team payroll was $10M.

Ken Holland: "Yes, we'll be looking to add a goalie at the deadline." I'm sure that sort of statement would do worlds of good for Chris Osgood's confidence, and really position Holland's hardball trade stance 2 and a half weeks before the deadline. If March rolls around, and our goaltending remains stagnant, he'll be singing a different tune.

So now you're a misogynist, too? Thats not cool, dude.

Grossly understating his value is not saying that hes a 6/7th forward right now. Thats entirely feasible. And the only reason people are "understating" his value is because we have hardcore cap issues, and we need to get the most out of the least. Filppula costing us 3M and only putting up 29 points in 57 games despite playing over 16 minutes a game isn't low cost/high value. If Franzen didn't have 16 more goals than Filppula, and if Hudler didn't have 18 more points than Filppula, and we didn't have a plethora of two-way forwards, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. If Filppula were the RFA/UFA at hand, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If Franzen wasn't showing his 27 goal season was not a fluke, and if Hudler wasn't developing and improving at a ridiculous rate, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Theres no reasoning with me, yes, because you have no reason to use. The two players you unflappably defend are Osgood and Filppula. Those are the two players I won't defend. And that makes me a hater? How do you support the way I laud the play of Hudler, Lilja, Datsyuk, etc? What about the way I commend the performance of Samuelsson, Conklin, Meech, Helm, and Leino, particularly in relation to how much they get paid versus how they produce? I do this crazy thing where I give credit where credit is due. Hence my evaluation of Filppula as a borderline 2nd liner/really good 3rd liner. Shockingly, his performance coincides like that.

I haven't looked through the other pages of this thread, but the Wings can't re-sign both Hossa and Franzen if they make a combined 9.4M - otherwise, we're over the cap for next year, and the tagging rule would force us to cut/move salary otherwise. So, essentially, if the Wings are looking at Hossa for 6 and Franzen for 3.5, they will make a trade by the deadline - they'd have to if they want them signed before the playoffs.

Yes, thats it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Lilja is in his prime, and is having a career year, while Lidstrom will be in his 40s next year, and is having a "non-Lidstromesque" year already. If anyone recalls, the difference in 2 years from Chelios being nominated for the Norris to 2 years later was a world of difference. And Lilja has been an elite PKer this season. Thats not to say anything of the rest of his play.

So its only trolling when you use facts and statistics? If I said Filppula was a useless player, that would be something against him. If I said Filppula was the 4th best forward, that would be having an infatuation with him. If I were to say he was neither - which he is - and maintain, like I have throughout nearly his entire tenure with the Wings, thats he one of those two-way forwards who falls within the grey area of the 2nd and 3rd line, then I would be making a logical assessment that jibes well with his performance this season.

No. Lilja is our 2nd best PKer. And with the way Lidstrom has fallen off, if he continues to next year, he'll be our best PKer.

Um, do you need tissues because somebody's critiquing your golden boy? When was the last time you supported your "arguments" with me using anything other than emoticons and jpgs?

The fact that you think Filppula is the 4th best forward on this team suggests that you don't watch the game. And you should cool it with the condescension, especially when you're going to make radical posts that aren't supported by neither the performance or the stats. How many times does Filppula screw up a shot? How many time does he make the wrong decision with the puck? He many times does he pass when he should shoot, or shoot when he should pass? How many times is he making a perfect saucer pass, or busting through the offense to score a goal? Just because hes a good two-way guy - and no one would argue that - doesn't mean hes a great forward. His offensive skills have been lacking since day one. And the fact that hes one of our fastest skaters suggests he should have an advantage over guys like Cleary, Franzen, and especially Homer and Hudler, who he skates better than.

And these are the kind of posts that get pulled back up when we don't. Owl is right about Hossa. I said it earlier in the season. Next year, we are a weaker team on paper. If we don't go far in the playoffs, we aren't going to have a whole lot of room to fix what went wrong.

Ahhh, yes. Valtteri Filppula. The great 29 point scorer. The guy who is a month shy of turning a mere 22...er, 25...years old. The guy who scores at a rate that puts him 7th among all forwards at even strength. The guy who needs more even strength ice time than anyone else not considered a top 10 scorer to remain relevant offensively. The guy whose powerplay time climbs every game, yet his lone powerplay point remains single. The guy whose 6 goals puts him in a class with the great Brett Lebda and Kirk Maltby. The guy whose shooting percentage of 7.3% couldn't quite beat out the Shinpad Assasin himself, Mikael Samuelsson. The guy who is so talented offensively that hes been used in the shootout twice in 3 years, and made neither count. The guy who, until paired with Mr. Do-It-Myself Marian Hossa, was on pace for a breakthrough season of...36 points, despite his 3rd line teammates continuing to produce without a 100 point man on their line. Yes, oh yes, Valtteri Filppula. How you wow us with your scoring prowess, with your ability to elevate your teammates, and with your skill that is double that of any of our other top 9 forwards, simply because you have double the consonants in both of your names. Yes, Valterri Filppula. As a member of Babcock's coveted favorites, you join the ranks of other known greats, Mikael Samuelsson and Jason Williams. And for that, I salute you.

Um, if we keep Hossa and Franzen, Filppula is gone too. Leino - .975k at best Filppula - 3 Hank - 6.08 Datsyuk - 6.7 Homer - 2.25 Helm - .6 Maltby - .88 Draper - 1.58 Kopecky - he stays if Hossa stays - .7 Cleary - 2.85 Osgood - 1.4 Howard - .71 Lidstrom - 7.45 Raffi - 6 Kronwall - 3 Stuart - 3.75 Lilja - 1.2 Ericsson - .9 Meech - .65 Total = 50.675 without Hossa, Franzen, or a 13th forward Please tell me how we are going to get Hossa and Franzen to take a combined 6M to play on this team. And before you post the ridiculous suggestions, Cleary, Stuart, Rafalski, and Draper cannot be moved.