Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 10:06 PM

#2628295 Roster Moves by the Wings

Posted by Buppy on 04 October 2015 - 08:12 PM

I think they should let Larkin get a taste, whether it's at wing or centering the 3rd line. 

(Richards - Sheahan - Larkin - Glendening)

It's not going to ruin his development if he gets a handful of games. 


EDIT:  I think he'd lose waiver exemption way before the number of games to keep him out of contention for the Calder next year.  He certainly should not be kept up long enough that he would lose his waiver eligibility.

He can't lose his waiver exemption, 160 games for that. But if he plays 11 or more, his exemptions would lower from 5 years to 3. Though I think if he's good enough for 11+ games this year, the odds of him spending more than 3 years in GR is pretty slim. The slide rule would be more likely to keep Larkin under 11 games, but I don't know that the Wings would be too concerned about that either.

#2627935 Who Do You Think Will Lead the Wings In Scoring

Posted by Buppy on 01 October 2015 - 09:59 PM

A couple things. What exactly are you doing to normalize this data? Because the basis of your argument is how you're adjusting the data for your case but you haven't actually explained the method you use, so I have no way to distinguish whether you are actually putting forth a valid point, or if you're just saying "normalize" then following it up with numbers friendly to your argument.
But more to my point: I'm not discrediting that first season because it goes against my argument. I'm discrediting that first season because the attention Nyquist will see from opposing teams for the rest of his career likely won't be as lax as it was that year. He's a known threat and there's tape on him now, so if he is going to have any amount of success, it's going to be by overcoming this new obstacle that wasn't present a couple years ago, but will be present for the remainder of his career. That means what worked in year 1 may not work in years 2 through X, and based on how last season went, it would appear that Nyquist is still learning to adapt to the tighter coverage. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include that variable in my assessment.
Finally, you're right that 13 even strength goals isn't all that bad, but it's disproportionally low for someone who had 14 on the power play, and it supports the idea that Nyquist, who did so well the year before yet suddenly hit a wall, but still seemed to thrive on the power play where he would still see the time and space that he had the previous season.

Didn't exactly do anything. I meant normalize in the general sense, meaning try to adjust the numbers to account for whatever you think is skewing them rather than just throwing them out altogether.


For example, you say the attention paid to him last year was lax, (though you don't have any evidence of that, other than that it sorta seems like it would be a thing...) but I'm sure you're not suggesting that no one played any kind of defense at all against him. So how much do you think his numbers were inflated that year? 20%, 40%, 50%? It's already a small data set, no need to make it smaller by ignoring a big part of it.


What you're doing is confirmation bias. Trying to interpret the data in a way that supports your conclusion. 


The actual data is this:

Year 1: 57gp, 22evg, 6ppg, 78% at ES

Year 2: 82gp, 13evg, 14ppg, 48% at ES


First year was far more effective at ES than the second, but also much less effective on the PP. The most likely explanation is simple year to year variance that we see all the time, with the truth somewhere around the middle. That middle suggests that he's pretty normal in terms of scoring distribution. Likely to stay close to normal even if you adjust the 1st year numbers. 

#2627924 Who Do You Think Will Lead the Wings In Scoring

Posted by Buppy on 01 October 2015 - 07:24 PM

That one season is about half his entire NHL career. It's also the most recent half. Statistically that's a pretty big chunk. Also, cmon don't bring up what he did in college, or AHL, or peewee. I know you know those numbers mean absolutely nothing in the NHL. Kirk Matlby was a 50 goal scorer in juniors. Not surprisingly, that trend didn't continue.

Don't get me wrong, scoring on the power play is perfectly fine. But ideally, you also want to see him have more success at even strength. Ovechkin, Stamkos, Zetterberg, etc have all proven throughout their NHL careers to be able to reliably score at even strength and on the power play. Nyquist has not. At least not yet.

Statistically, it's still one season.


Didn't really struggle all that much either. He had 13 EVG. The 56 players in the league who scored between 23-31 goals averaged right around 18 EVG. If you take his first year into account, and try to normalize the numbers instead of just ignoring them because they don't support your theory, he'd be pretty close to those numbers. That he had a couple super hot streaks that year is balanced in large part by the fact that he only played 2/3rds of the season. Normalize his numbers and it puts him around 17-24 EVG that year. 


At worst you might conclude that he's a little below average at ES for a scorer of his level. Seems more likely that he's pretty normal, with his first year a little better than you'd expect and last year a little worse. If anything I would say his success on the PP last year is further from the norm than his struggles at ES.

#2626950 9/22 Exhibition GDT : @ Chicago Blackhawks 5, Red Wings 4 (OT)

Posted by Buppy on 23 September 2015 - 09:39 PM

Nice revisionist history. You've proven time and time again you're the best at it.


The debate is that you said you've had him on your roster all summer long. That's simply not true. And all your kicking and screaming won't change it.

Hmm...two posts in the lines thread that include a roster, and both include Jensen. The one roster that didn't (which was included in the second post) was clearly stated what he thought it would be, barring trades, and not what he would want it to be. Plus several other posts over the summer including Jensen...


And you guys are making fun of him? Shameful.

#2626046 Predict The Red Wings' 20+ goal scorers for '15-'16

Posted by Buppy on 19 September 2015 - 07:19 PM

Tatar, Nyquist, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Abdelkader, Pulkkinen, Green, Jurco. 20+ goals each.

It's '15-16, not '85-86


Nyquist - 33

Tatar - 26

Sheahan - 21

Franzen - 21

Teemu - 76

#2625664 Voynov pleads "No Contest" to Domestic Violence Charge

Posted by Buppy on 16 September 2015 - 07:06 PM

Yeah, maybe they can buy some integrity.

#2621675 Holtby Asking for $8M

Posted by Buppy on 28 July 2015 - 01:15 AM


Only girls use wifi... back when hockey didn't suck we used hi-fi

Real hockey was played on icebergs by Vikings with axe blades strapped to their feet who just skated around trying to kill each other with the axe handles. Real radio was a wandering minstrel who sang stirring anthems and ribald ballads for a leg of roast mutton.

#2621598 Holtby Asking for $8M

Posted by Buppy on 25 July 2015 - 10:58 PM

Silly debate. Stats are information. A tool. Scouts would use them as much or more than anyone. They've been around for decades. Over the years, more have been added/tracked. Even analytics aren't entirely new. Just a natural progression. More information is always better, provided you can understand the information. The advanced metrics still need a lot of work before we really understand them enough to make good use of them, but once teams start understanding them they will be a valuable resource, and that's why teams are hiring "stat guys". Stats aren't a replacement for scouting, they are a part of it. 

#2621389 Remaing RFAs to be signed - Jurco, Pulkkinen, Aubry

Posted by Buppy on 24 July 2015 - 02:11 AM

Def not a waste of roster spot based on the salary and his potential for scoring. We're merely discussing (in other thread moreso) whether or not he will be able to bloom in the NHL level. Additionally I have bias towards 2-way players in the current NHL and have held a point that he should try and get better at his defensive game so he isn't a liability if he wants to push for top 6 eventually. That's just my personal opinion though.


Others here are arguing that he won't be able to take the slap shots like he does in the AHL because he can't create space or is weak on the puck against NHL D-man (as witnessed in the first 34 NHL games he played).


Unfortunately a lot of Pulk fan boys are taking these statements as some sort of anti-Pulk movement. It's as though it's blasphemous to NOT be a Pulk fan boy. Somehow it's that black and white. Apparently it's a sin to be skeptical and/or analytical.  


But the reality is that the whole 1 dimensional excuse more often than not doesnt work in todays NHL. That's all I'm arguing. I'm arguing against the excuses being made for him.


People should face the reality that Pulk has weaknesses instead of making excuses. I'm sure Pulk himself knows the issues and I guarantee you he plans on working on them. .... 

 The two sides of this debate probably aren't as far apart as the arguing might look. It's just easier to argue against an exaggerated version of the opposing opinion. Like you're doing here. Histrionics are fun.


I don't think anyone is making excuses, just disagreeing with your assessment of him and/or what is required to be a successful player.Even those saying 'who cares if he's one dimensional" I'm sure only mean that it'd be fine if all he's ever good at is scoring goals. Not that lacking a complete two-way game is not a weakness nor that he shouldn't work to be as good as he can in other areas. There are plenty of effective players in the NHL who aren't that good defensively. The Wings are fortunate in that almost all of our forwards are pretty solid (or better) defensively, but that just means that we can afford a few who are less so. Would he be a star, team-leader, next-Datsyuk? Not very likely, but he could be a valuable and effective secondary scorer.


And some of us disagree with how one-dimensional he is anyway. He'd probably be a liability against top competition right now, but given a bit of time I don't think so. No more so that Tatar or Nyquist are now at any rate. And his offensive game is much more well-rounded than those saying he is just a slapshot contend. In the AHL he is a dynamic offensive producer. He creates his own opportunuties, not wholly unlike Tatar, Nyquist, Zetterberg, etc. He's not just a product of defensive ineptitude, weak goaltending, and teammates feeding him one-timers. If that was true, every decent player would light up the AHL. Can he figure out how to do it in the NHL? Let's see. Let's see, before we conclude that he can't.


And for all this talk that he can't create space or get open or get his shot off...and it's true he does need to improve in that respect, and should as he gets used to the competition level...but even now he shoots at a higher rate than anyone on our team, higher than most of the league in fact. 

#2621373 Jim Devellano on Mantha's play: "Very disappointing"

Posted by Buppy on 23 July 2015 - 05:46 PM

I think even expecting him to hold down a top spot in the AHL is a pretty lofty expectation.  Going from the Q and being "a man amongst boys" to the AHL where he's "a boy amongst men" is a big change.  Serious huge step up from the Q to the AHL.

Hilarious. He absolutely should have been expected to be a top line player in GR. Even considering the injury he should have at least reached that level by the end of the year.


The people critical of him now are not for the most part the same people who had such unreasonable expectations. Those people are mostly the people defending him. Like LW. Last summer Mantha was better than Franzen and should be on the top line in Detroit, now it was too much to expect top line in GR. BS.


20th overall pick, 20-yo, great size, excellent skating, exceptional offensive skills, goal-per-game in the Q...we absolutely had a right to expect something better than 60th overall pick, undersized, 18-yo, first year in NA, Tomas-Tatar-level production.


He was disappointing. Not just relative to the more ridiculous expectations, but even to the reasonable ones. I didn't even expect him to be dominant in the AHL. But top-liner? 25-ish goals? 50-ish points? Maybe some consideration for AHL ROTY? Without a doubt. The injury was a setback, but he should have been coming around late in the year at least. Instead he got even worse.


He was disappointing. He knows, the coaches know it, management knows it, fans know it. Some just want to deny it because they think saying anything critical about a player they like is the end of the world or something. It isn't. He was disappointing. And that's OK. Doesn't make him a bust. Doesn't even mean he won't eventually be as good as thought prior to last season. It's just one season. 

#2621248 Pulkkinen re-signs.... 1 year deal

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2015 - 08:32 PM

I'm rooting for him obviously, but I just don't see it translating for Pulkkinen. I personally thought the Wings should have sold high on him while he was tearing up the AHL. I think he's very one dimensional and that one dimension can be taken away by bigger, stronger and faster competition in the NHL. 

I don't think tearing up the AHL carries the kind of trade clout that the people who want to trade him seem to think.


Every negative and every question mark you see in his game, NHL GMs also see. He really isn't any more one-dimensional than Nyquist or Tatar, or dozens of other NHL players, but regardless he is an undersized skill winger, not a great skater, not great defensively, not very physical, excellent offensive upside but not guaranteed, won't stick in the NHL if he can't be at least a decent scorer, and he needs to be on an NHL roster next year, regardless of whether he's capable or not (since pretty much any team would take a chance on him if they could get him for free off waivers). 


None of that spells high trade value. Modest value. Considerably below Mantha, even given his lackluster year. We're not going to get a Buffy-level player for him, despite what some people think. (And before anyone says "package", which is just LGW slang for "s*** we don't want anyway"; if Pulkkinen is the biggest piece we still wouldn't get anything all that great.)


Sure, if he completely sucks he could lose what value he does have, but if he's even modestly successful (like 12-15g) his value will go up.


Yup, I hate a player that wears the uniform of my favorite team. That was clearly what I was getting at in my post. God forbid anyone has a dissenting opinion about a player on a discussion board.

He is one of the haters. He was welcoming you, not mocking.

#2621217 Remaing RFAs to be signed - Jurco, Pulkkinen, Aubry

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2015 - 03:02 PM

Stats don't tell the whole story. Tatar and Nyquist can drive the play. Pulkkinen doesn't.

Typical vague nonsense that people like to resort to when the stats are against them. How am I supposed to debate that? Yes he does? As riveting as a good "can to/can not" exchange would be, I think I'll pass. I suspect "drive the play" just means whatever you think you can describe that Pulkkinen doesn't do well, but Nyquist and Tatar do.


The thing with un-quantifiable metrics is that they don't mean anything until they're translated to something you can quantify. Tatar and Nyquist can drive the s*** out of a play like no one ever has, does, or ever will again, and if it doesn't result in anything measurable than it's worthless. But even that didn't happen. We weren't all sitting around watching Nyquist score 3g and 6p in 22 games, saying, "Damn, did you see him drive that play? That was some play driving right there! That play got it's ass drove off!".


They didn't step into the NHL and play like 30g scorers from day one, but get really unlucky with the puck just not going in. They played, looked good at times, poor at times, but mostly unnoticeable except in that people who were excited to see them payed them special attention. Not at all unlike Pulkkinen. Then with more time and experience they improved. Made better decisions, quicker decisions, adjusted to the competition...the way most young players do. 


Will Pulkkinen be able to adjust and improve? That's always the question. Could ask the same of any our prospects. But is it possible he could? Absolutely.

#2621201 Remaing RFAs to be signed - Jurco, Pulkkinen, Aubry

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2015 - 11:38 AM

Nyquist and Tatar both showed a lot more than Pulkkinen did in the NHL. Both are far superior skaters and worked to get open more than Pulkkinen did.
In the AHL. In the NHL he was slow and didn't look like he had any clue about how to find open ice. The AHL players are slower and give guys more room, and the goalies leave more of the net open. Lots of guys score a ton in the minors but can't hack it in the NHL.

You can make that "in the AHL" argument about the vast majority of players. Doesn't really mean a whole lot.


I don't share your opinion on how he looked, or that Tatar or Nyquist looked any better. But regardless of eye test opinions, neither was any more effective. Maybe they did get open more, I don't know, and neither do you. The NHL doesn't track getting open as a stat. But if they did, it didn't translate to getting shots on net or scoring any significant amount more.


But both have improved significantly since then. It remains to be seen if Pulkkinen will follow suit. But I see no reason to think he can't or isn't likely to. Sure, they have speed that he lacks, but he has a shot that they lack. He'll probably have to play a little differently in the NHL, but not so dramatically different that it should be a problem.

#2621150 Remaing RFAs to be signed - Jurco, Pulkkinen, Aubry

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2015 - 01:52 AM

It's not turning on him, it's looking at a player without rose colored glasses. He doesn't have good speed, couldn't get open, and looked completely one dimensional.

And neither Nyquist nor Tatar looked very good, nor produced more, in their initial call-up seasons. Neither were as good in the AHL. Yet neither had the same kind of doubt that people seem to have for Pulk.


I think speed is a part of it. Speed is a very noticeable trait, and tends to make players look better than they really are. But there are a lot of good players in the NHL who don't have great speed.


I also think his slapshot works against him, oddly enough. Like it's so good and so effective in the AHL, people don't see anything else. But there is a lot more to his game. He plays well with and without the puck, he's persistent, drives the net, excellent wrister, half-slap, anticipates well, skates hard (even though not blazingly fast), decent stickhandling. He even backchecks and forechecks hard.


Will it all translate to success in the NHL? You hardly ever know with any prospect. But I can't remember any prospect who's been this good at this stage with this much negativity.

#2621149 Pulkkinen re-signs.... 1 year deal

Posted by Buppy on 22 July 2015 - 12:48 AM


Because you implied that Nyquist benefited from playing with Zberg, while Pulks toiled on the 4th line. And no, not 12:08 maybe, 11:68 is his average TOI/PG for his first 40 games.

I believe what he was saying is that 11:68 is 12:08, as there are only 60 seconds in a minute.