• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
grimace1970

Yep, that's what I thought (NHL Team "luck")

Rate this topic

22 posts in this topic

http://www.hockeyabstract.com/luck

Who got the "luck" last season? Not Detroit - looks like "if it weren't for bad luck, we'd have no luck at all". At least we weren't Florida.

Nope - it was Pittsburgh (and Toronto, to be fair). "Luck"... yea, that was it.

Seriously though, interesting little simulation to play around with.

SaCkaveli20 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we would have been weighted more heavily into the 'un-lucky' side of things had they counted man games lost due to injury, instead of just combined salary cap hit of injured players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every categoey except injuries has nothing to do with luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sabermetrics, for hockey. I think it's probably best to attempt to understand it, before you summarily disregard it.

There was a time in baseball where looking deeper into the numbers was disregarded as well. Not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sabermetrics, for hockey. I think it's probably best to attempt to understand it, before you summarily disregard it.

There was a time in baseball where looking deeper into the numbers was disregarded as well. Not anymore.

Baseball is not comparable to hockey in terms of numbers analysis.

Not saying it should be disregarded. But it's definitely not on the same scale.

stillwater likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sabermetrics, for hockey. I think it's probably best to attempt to understand it, before you summarily disregard it.

There was a time in baseball where looking deeper into the numbers was disregarded as well. Not anymore.

Youre agreeing with me. One goal games USUALLY go to the better teams. Teams with higher shooting percentages USUALLY have better shooters = better players. This isnt sabermetrics at all. Thats about looking for value in statistics that arent usually measured. This is just another way of arranging statistics. If I start a stat called "A/G %" in which assists over goals is measured, its going to surprise no one when the list features a lot of defensemen and playmakers at the top. Oh gee, Kronwall was high on our team in A/G%. Never would have thought that. Im all for looking at statistics in different ways and trying to measure a player's worth accordingly, but this is nothing at all like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every categoey except injuries has nothing to do with luck.

Are you talking about this statistical analysis in particular, or hockey in general?

I think "luck" is the wrong word to use anyway, "chance" or some variation thereof may be better. Fact is, hockey IS a game of percentages - the more you do right things, the more you'll win. BUT, you can do everything right, and still lose.

eg If there's a 10% chance you score on a 90mph slap shot from the blue line with traffic in front, when that 1 time in 10 occurs is down to chance. It could be when you're up 5-1 in a game, or in the last minute when you're down 2-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is if it wasn't for injuries we wouldve done worse. The young guys stepping up was better than trotting out old useless Pos's like Sammy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is if it wasn't for injuries we wouldve done worse. The young guys stepping up was better than trotting out old useless Pos's like Sammy.

Sorry, but we did NOT benefit from losing DeKeyser in the playoffs. I think with his defensive presence on the ice more often a couple of those mental lapse goals scored against us during the Hawks series don't happen and we advance to the third round. It's a lot of the kids that made those damaging mistakes, no disrespect to rookies playing like rookies but that's how it went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but we did NOT benefit from losing DeKeyser in the playoffs. I think with his defensive presence on the ice more often a couple of those mental lapse goals scored against us during the Hawks series don't happen and we advance to the third round. It's a lot of the kids that made those damaging mistakes, no disrespect to rookies playing like rookies but that's how it went.

True he was a loss. But losing Sammy Bert and cola were blessings in disguise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True he was a loss. But losing Sammy Bert and cola were blessings in disguise.

Eh, OK. There's really no way you can tangibly know that. On the contrary, based on stats from previous years, a healthy Sammy would have been more productive then say Emmerton, Abby, Cleary, Anderson, Miller, Eaves, and perhaps Fil. A healthy Bert would have given us a real prop in the shootout's let alone being able to play on Dat's line instead of Abby. Cola impressed me when he played, more so than Quincey and Lashoff.... sooooo.... let's not get carried away with hard on's for the 'youth movement'.

Edited by RedWingsDad
DickieDunn likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True he was a loss. But losing Sammy Bert and cola were blessings in disguise.

Eh, OK. There's really no way you can tangibly know that. On the contrary, based on stats from previous years, a healthy Sammy would have been more productive then say Emmerton, Abby, Cleary, Anderson, Miller, Eaves, and perhaps Fil. A healthy Bert would have given us a real prop in the shootout's let alone being able to play on Dat's line instead of Abby. Cola impressed me when he played, more so than Quincey and Lashoff.... sooooo.... let's not get carried away with hard on's for the 'youth movement'.

I really don't understand how anyone can say a kid who scored 11 points in 36 games is better than a guy coming off the seasons Samuelsson had the last 3 years before coming back to Detroit. He had 50 points twice and was on pace for another 50 point season in Florida if he hadn't gotten hurt. If the Wings had signed a different guy with identical size and stats, I don't think you'd see all the complaints, but because he was a "retread" it was a bad signing. True, it didn't work out this year, but there's no way anyone can legitimately say he wouldn't have scored more than Nyquist, Tatar, and Anderson combined if he had need healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how anyone can say a kid who scored 11 points in 36 games is better than a guy coming off the seasons Samuelsson had the last 3 years before coming back to Detroit. He had 50 points twice and was on pace for another 50 point season in Florida if he hadn't gotten hurt. If the Wings had signed a different guy with identical size and stats, I don't think you'd see all the complaints, but because he was a "retread" it was a bad signing. True, it didn't work out this year, but there's no way anyone can legitimately say he wouldn't have scored more than Nyquist, Tatar, and Anderson combined if he had need healthy.

And their is no way you can legitimately say that he would have, because, well.... He didn't. Simple as that. You may think he would have but that doesn't mean he would have.

Edited by mackel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you eliminate the effects of all factors except CHIP, the one some of you argue is most due to chance, only Ottawa, Florida, and Philly are lower. The Injuries (CHIP) statistic is based on the combined cap hit of all injured players. I presume a negative CHIP is built on the assumption that either a) a few of your best players (read best paid) are injured, or b) you have many injuries, thus proportionally more of your team is rookies. Either way that is going to eat into your number of wins. Detroit's CHIP value is -.879, which makes me wonder what the units of that number is. It can't be a proportion (87.9% of our cap hit was injured)...

Detroit lost to injury this regular season (d*mn inconsistent stats):

Helm 48

Bert 46?

Sammy 44?

Flip ?

Dekeyser 6?

Mule ?

Brunner ?

Zetts ?

Eaves significant?

Quincy ?

White ?

Gustavsson ?

Howard ?

Dats ?

Smith ?

Cola ?

Ericsson ?

Mursak

Kindl ?

JMac significant?

By comparison, Philly lost (with # of games):

Pronger 48

Meszaros 37

Shelley 36

Grossmann 18

Hartnell 16

Rinaldo 16

Coburn 15

Briere 14

Talbot 13

Leighton 10

Gervais 8

Read 6

McGinn 6

Sesitito 6

Huskins 6

Simmonds 3

Timonen 3

Couturier 2

L. Schenn 1

Gustafsson ?

Walker ?

We have at least 3 missing nearly the whole season, and a total of 19; Philly had the obvious one, two others for most of the season, and a total of 21 guys. Helm (1.8 mil), Bert (2 mil) & Sammy (3 mil) aren't making that much compared to Pronger ($5 mil), Meszaros ($5 mil), and Shelley (1 mil). Just wonder how they're calculating that number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how anyone can say a kid who scored 11 points in 36 games is better than a guy coming off the seasons Samuelsson had the last 3 years before coming back to Detroit. He had 50 points twice and was on pace for another 50 point season in Florida if he hadn't gotten hurt. If the Wings had signed a different guy with identical size and stats, I don't think you'd see all the complaints, but because he was a "retread" it was a bad signing. True, it didn't work out this year, but there's no way anyone can legitimately say he wouldn't have scored more than Nyquist, Tatar, and Anderson combined if he had need healthy.

And their is no way you can legitimately say that he would have, because, well.... He didn't. Simple as that. You may think he would have but that doesn't mean he would have.

The best gauge of what he likely would have done over a 48 game season is what he did in 48 games he was healthy for in Florida in 11-12 when he had 28 points. Even a 20% drop off would be more than the rookies had together. Arguing that a healthy Samuelsson wouldn't outscore the rookies is like when my 6 year old is arguing with her brother and just saying "nuh uh" so she won't have to admit she's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best gauge of what he likely would have done over a 48 game season is what he did in 48 games he was healthy for in Florida in 11-12 when he had 28 points. Even a 20% drop off would be more than the rookies had together. Arguing that a healthy Samuelsson wouldn't outscore the rookies is like when my 6 year old is arguing with her brother and just saying "nuh uh" so she won't have to admit she's wrong.

You're missing the point. Finding out what our young guys can do at the NHL level instead of the Dahl level is huge. It was suppose to be a transtion year. Well we found out now what we will get out of Nyquist Tatar Anderson lashoff. Otherwise we word go into this year with as many questions marks as last year.

This year we have less question marks because of it. The youth movement provided more value than just a goal or two from some old and beaten down guys.

Also I'm a Bert fan but I'd rather have Abby on the top line than him at this point in their careers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best gauge of what he likely would have done over a 48 game season is what he did in 48 games he was healthy for in Florida in 11-12 when he had 28 points. Even a 20% drop off would be more than the rookies had together. Arguing that a healthy Samuelsson wouldn't outscore the rookies is like when my 6 year old is arguing with her brother and just saying "nuh uh" so she won't have to admit she's wrong.

My point was that you have no point. You're proposing a guy who missed a ton of time while injured would have out scored players that weren't hurt. The only place he did that was in your imagination.

Fact is, Sammy is old and broken down, to the point where he could barely play this season... Let alone outplay anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that you have no point. You're proposing a guy who missed a ton of time while injured would have out scored players that weren't hurt. The only place he did that was in your imagination.

Fact is, Sammy is old and broken down, to the point where he could barely play this season... Let alone outplay anyone.

But but but 37 years ago he had 19straight seasons of 60 points. Even though he is in a wheel chair now that means he can get a least 40!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that you have no point. You're proposing a guy who missed a ton of time while injured would have out scored players that weren't hurt. The only place he did that was in your imagination.

Fact is, Sammy is old and broken down, to the point where he could barely play this season... Let alone outplay anyone.

But but but 37 years ago he had 19straight seasons of 60 points. Even though he is in a wheel chair now that means he can get a least 40!

You guys should have told Holland (that idiot!) these things before he signed him. I mean that dummy Holland must have been looking at outdated stats or something and your expert generalizations and sarcasm could have stopped us from signing a busted old dude who can't outplay rookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling that 90% of the people who say they should have handed the spots to rookies rather than sign Samuelsson and Bertuzzi would be screaming about how badly Holland miscalculated by handing roster spots to kids who only produced that much if that had been the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling that 90% of the people who say they should have handed the spots to rookies rather than sign Samuelsson and Bertuzzi would be screaming about how badly Holland miscalculated by handing roster spots to kids who only produced that much if that had been the plan?

Because some of us are consistent with what we believe rather its wrong or right. And when you're in a transition period a youth movement is good. Now typically did we have too many rookies playing? I'd say yes maybe 1 or two too many. But because of the transition period it worked out great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0