Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Potvin29

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 837
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: Yesterday at 08:19:18 AM »
If you think Marner is going to be the better player, should probably take him.

Agreed, but, if there you don't think there's going to be any real difference in terms of what the two players will contribute towards a winning team, you take Strome because he's much more likely to end up playing the more valuable position.

I disagree. I think the whole concept that centre is a more valuable position is a bit overblown. Perhaps still valid, but not an overly important decision. If their potential is basically equal, I take the better skater every time.

I think you're contradicting yourself - it's a bit overblown, but still valid, but not overly important? 

Centre has the normal offensive responsibilities but is also expected to go deep into their own zone (not patrol the half-wall and out as a winger roughly does) and help out the D.  A very good two-way C can be extremely important to a team, and the fact that their D responsibilities are so much more than wingers means their ability to impact the game at both ends is so much greater.  A winger is more or less confined to an area on D (in theory) while a C is expected to go all over the rink for his D responsibilities.


Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: 2015 NHL Entry Draft
« on: May 25, 2015, 12:58:21 PM »

Something like "Second Assists are useless and not really indicative of talent at all" is where the analytics folks lose the plot a little. I understand what they mean, of course, that there isn't a repeatable pattern of scoring that shows up in second assists and would indicate a level of talent and that year to year variation in a player's scoring totals are reflected there heavily.

But we've all seen plays where second assists are important to what happens on the play, maybe even the most crucial play in the sequence. Sometimes they're displays of great skill, a great outlet pass or a tough win of a puck battle. I'm fine with minimizing their importance and recognizing the variables inherent in them but to reject them outright as being important to an offensive player's talent level is on it's face false and one of those few areas where "watch the game" is a legitimate retort.

Isn't this something where you'd actually have to see the research yourself before you outright call it on its face false?  How is rejecting it outright without reading it any more legitimate than the person who did the research rejecting the premise that secondary assists aren't indicative of talent level.

It's very likely that the person who did the research agrees with everything you stated.  You can agree that individuals can make talented plays but also agree that obtaining secondary assists is not indicative of anything over the greater term.

Maybe the person above just interpreted a particular article differently or more extremely.  Take this (I don't know if this is the article, but it's one I found):

Most people agree that the primary assist is, on the whole, more valuable than the secondary assist.  That is not to say that secondary assists are useless, and in several cases they took more skill and made a bigger contribution to the goal than the primary assist.  For the most part however, the correlation year-to-year for primary assists is greater than that of secondary assists, according to Eric T of Broad Street Hockey.

As an aside, Jonathan Willis at the Cult Of Hockey disputes the notion that there is almost no correlation between the rate of secondary assists from one year to the next, showing far greater correlation, though still noting that primary assists had a “stronger repeatability”, and hence likely require greater skill on the part of the player.

Nothing extremely crazy there or that requires much in the way of unique thought.

Didn't really know where to put this, but the article talks about development and Marlies players a fair bit so might as well post it here.  Very interesting IMO:

I don't think he's not a playoff performer.  He averages about 3.8 shots per game in the regular season for his career, and 3.4 per game in the playoffs.  If he was really struggling I would imagine that number would be much lower, unless we're to assume he begins taking a lot of long, harmless shots.  I don't know how you explain his 12.5% career SH% in the regular season and his 4.5% career SH% in the playoffs.

If he's still getting the chances I would think he's still playing well, but it's hard to say why the shots just don't go in.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 04:39:51 PM »

Hiller was an assistant coach in Detroit this past season.  Previously won WHL Coach of the Year in 2012.

He apparently ran the Wings PP (which finished 2nd in the NHL this past season).

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Leafs hire Lindsay Hofford from London
« on: May 22, 2015, 12:56:02 PM »
Things are definitely pointing towards the Leafs taking Marner.

If we're looking strictly at numbers this past season, Strome beat him out in points (68-45-84-129), but Marner (63-44-82-126) played 5 less games.

So Marner's PPG was greater. 1.90 for Strome & 2.00 for Marner. Strome is 3" taller, Marner is the faster skater. Who plays the better two-way game? Thats going to be a factor for Babcock.

Its really a tough call. One that I trust Hunter, Dubas, Shanahan & now Babcock will have a pretty good handle on going into the draft. I certainly wouldn't base the decision on familiarity alone.

I'd probably lean Marner as well.

For those interested, there's a site that attempts to track CHL stats beyond the little that the official CHL sites provide here:

TOI is estimated, as are some other stats, but it also provides projected NHL equivalencies, and adjustments for age, etc.  Pretty interesting to look at.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 11:02:43 AM »
It's not a matter of having two players too highly paid - look at Chicago.  Toews and Kane both have cap hits higher than Malkin/Crosby, but Chicago has drafted/dealt much, much better (but they're also now paying Crawford way too much).

Toews and Kane's big cap hits don't take into effect until next season though, so Chicago really hasn't felt the damage those might do. And with the cap not sky-rocketing like they probably thought it would it looks like it will do some pretty big damage. It's expected that Oduya won't be back and Sharp will have to be traded. They can probably take the Sharp hit, but losing Oduya from a defence corps that's already pretty top-heavy is going to be tough.

Ah they don't?  Well then.  I thought those were signed awhile back.

Ignore my ravings then.

I get that his skating was pretty bad, but I always thought it was very weird that Allison retired at the age of 31.

Well he was invited to Leafs camp by Burke in 2009 and Burke said this at the time: "He had some personal issues and some major physical issues at that time. He has solved all of those. In my mind, he is a guy who might give us a lift and he deserves that opportunity."

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 10:53:50 AM »
Yeah Pittsburgh should really not be paying Fleury a cap hit of $5.75 M to put up pretty middle of the road numbers.  Could probably find comparable stats for much cheaper and be able to improve in other areas.

It's not a matter of having two players too highly paid - look at Chicago.  Toews and Kane both have cap hits higher than Malkin/Crosby, but Chicago has drafted/dealt much, much better (but they're also now paying Crawford way too much).

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 22, 2015, 10:07:37 AM »
I think it's fantastic that he's here and committed to the total overhaul.  I would just point out the Burke sounded every bit as confident, knowledgeable, and directed when he came on, and hopes were just as high. 

I think there's an important distinction though. Hiring Burke was seen as a drastic shift in direction for the franchise, where not only would his hiring result in a markedly different roster than the one JFJ could build but a markedly different one than any of the other talented candidates might produce. As soon as Burke started talking about "retooling" and how the team really needed to get tougher, red flags were legitimately raised there.

Babcock isn't the same way. I think he's a good coach, maybe even one of the best, but I don't think that the team in two or three years, just in terms of personnel, is going to look drastically different than it would if the Leafs had ended up with Bylsma or Blashill.

If you'll forgive a bit of a tortured analogy, if the building of a team can be compared to starting a company then hiring a GM and that GM having a strategy can be likened to actually deciding on a product or service. You're deciding what the company will actually sell. Hiring a great coach is like hiring a great salesperson. He's not going to decide the success of the venture, lousy products are lousy products, but it can only ever be a good thing.

Yeah it's different because Burke was selling a change in philosophy whereas Babcock is buying into the vision that upper management has already sold the board on.  While we might not know the specifics of it, we know enough from what we've been told and especially from the press conference that it's not going to be a Burke-style "I don't want a 5-year rebuild" situation.  If it takes awhile, it takes awhile.  Babcock stressed in a number of interviews yesterday that he made sure that Shanahan/the board have his back when the team is losing and people are calling for heads.

So I don't think Babcock signals any grand change - other than maybe in legitimacy to people around the league, he's a wanted commodity, I'm sure people want to be associated with him - but the changes to building, etc were already in place before this.

Scouting report on Spezza.  The reason I bring it up is I find the early scouting reports between him and Strome to be similar:

"Spezza scouting report: Highly skilled player with a great shot. Has been compared to Bernie Nicholls or Jason Allison. Not a dynamic skater. But he has an engaging personality. Three years ago scouts thought he might be another Mario Lemieux. He has the potential to be a 100-point scorer. Some scout dropped him in their rankings after a poor playoff, but the consensus is that he will be an impact player. He might play next season. "

The Jason Allison comparison made me laugh, and then scared me.  I've heard that some scouts have compared Strome to Allison as well.  I've seen some Strome replays...surely he is a better skater than Allison?

Spezza being compared to Allison would have been a compliment.  He was a 95 point player in 2001.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 21, 2015, 08:30:18 PM »
Buffalo beat reporters are salty.

"He negotiated with more than just Buffalo and didn't choose Buffalo - what a joke!" basically.

Don't cozy up too much to the team there Buffalo media...

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 21, 2015, 06:18:04 PM »
Missed it earlier, but gotta say I like that how initially Babcock said he wasn't interested at all - but that it was Shanahan's insistence and the plan the management have that really got his attention.  He said he knew the first time they met that the money was there, so it was really the plan that Shanahan and co. have that really made it happen.

I've got to say that's encouraging to me.

Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Mike Babcock is the Leafs new Coach!
« on: May 21, 2015, 04:15:34 PM »
Might be of interest: Unique Team Traits: The Red Wings use a dangerous part of the ice to avoid getting hemmed in

That article discusses some things maybe we can expect to see from Babcock as coach.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 837