The "Mr. T" Man of the Match 2018-19 Edition: Forward to the Cup

[CarltonTheBear]

Boyce?  Brent?  Caputi?  Sjostrom?  Zigomanis?  I can't even remember those guys.

Mike Zigomanis was the ideal 4C and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

 

[ZBBM]

Yeah, there isn't much to be gleaned other than fun, but that's the most important thing. Thanks ZBBM.

There were lots of games where Matthews and Reilly were bordering on awful defensively and sometimes invisible offensively, but scored a critical goal, and immediately became the MOTM. At the end of the day, that's the kind of thing one has to couch - who gave the best effort, or who made the most difference in the outcome. It's the latter that most gravitate to. For me, Marner was the best player on the roster, game in and game out.

Very true Frycer, it's all about fun.  And your bolded observation is true.  Recency bias in its purest form. 

I would say Tavares equaled Marner in consistency of effort, although less flashy.  Until watching him game in and game out I had no idea he scored almost exclusively from the tough areas.  He's amazingly effective when getting banged around in front of the net.

 

[ZBBM]

I'll go in a different direction with this then. Marner was only received votes in 39 games, Tavares 37, Matthews 30. So would you say that those players only had "very good" games in about 45% of the ones they played in? That seems probably a little off, right?

Anyway, like I said I love what this brings to our post-game discussions, and I think it's a pretty good tool as well for MVP discussions at the end of the season. I just wouldn't really be doing any "deep dives" with the data, that's all.

I was just snorkeling.  8) 8) 8) :-*

But no, I'd say that those numbers for the forwards are about right.  When you have three superstars divvying up the accolade pie (which  is a pretty small pie) it makes sense that none of them are going to get even as many as half the games in Times Voted.  And wait 'til Nylander returns to form....

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But no, I'd say that those numbers for the forwards are about right.  When you have three superstars divvying up the accolade pie (which  is a pretty small pie) it makes sense that none of them are going to get even as many as half the games in Times Voted.  And wait 'til Nylander returns to form....

For sure I'm not surprised they didn't get voted in more games, I'm saying that they had more "very good" games in terms of actual performance than just the ones that they were voted top-2 for MOTM in.

 

[ZBBM]

But no, I'd say that those numbers for the forwards are about right.  When you have three superstars divvying up the accolade pie (which  is a pretty small pie) it makes sense that none of them are going to get even as many as half the games in Times Voted.  And wait 'til Nylander returns to form....

For sure I'm not surprised they didn't get voted in more games, I'm saying that they had more "very good" games in terms of actual performance than just the ones that they were voted top-2 for MOTM in.

Sure, everyone does.

And that's a function of the scoring system.  Maybe next season we should add a second HM?  I'm not opposed to that, or other changes if people want 'em.

 

[princedpw]

THE MOST TELLING STAT OF ALL
* Until the final game of the season, when Gardiner got a couple of votes to put him at 10 Times Voted, no defenseman other than Rielly  was in double digits in Times Voted.  This means, roughly, that according to our eyeballs, none of our defenseman (except Rielly) played well enough to get an accolade in 7 out of every 8 games played.  Put another way, aside from Rielly we thought all of our defensemen didn't have very good games about 88% of the time.

Ooof, I like you ZBBM and greatly appreciate your efforts in this whole process, but remind me not to hire you for any statistical analysis jobs. Fact is, generally speaking these votes come down to who scored goals or put up points or if Freddy had a big game. It's very difficult for a defenceman to get action here, something we all acknowledged when we decided to award defencemen more points for when they do. So yeah I'm not going to say our defence was great this season but I don't think these results have anything to do with that. Even if our D were more solid, they'd still get overshadowed here by the big guns who score or by Freddy.

And I mean we can only highlight 2 players per game, but it's not like there are only 2 players who had "very good games" per night. If you look back there were a lot of times where guys like Hainsey or Zaitsev (Or Hyman or Brown) were getting additional hat tips past the 2 primary choices for their defensive efforts or work on the PK.

"Very good" by the standards (and shortcomings) of the MotM thread means one of the two best players that game as judged by a small audience.  I'm not claiming it's a statistically valid analysis in the wider world, I'm just reporting a stat from within our imperfect MotM world.  While not rigorous, it's not worthless either -- people who vote in this thread are fairly knowledgeable about the game.

Just for fun, here are Times Voted from 2014:

4 Cody Franson 9
2 Mark Fraser 0
51 Jake Gardiner 22
8 Tim Gleason 10
Petter Granberg 1
36 Carl Gunnarsson 14
26 John-Michael Liles 1
3 Dion Phaneuf 21
15 Paul Ranger 8
44 Morgan Rielly 19

And from last year:

8 Connor Carrick7
20 Frank Corrado 0
51 Jake Gardiner 20
2 Matt Hunwick 8
3 Alexey Marchenko 1
52 Martin Marincin 4
46 Roman Polak 12
44 Morgan Rielly 13
22 Nikita Zaitsev 16

What does this mean?  Nothing, from an objective stats perspective.  But it does indicate that we were less impressed with the D this year, (outside of Rielly).

It?s a zero-sum game and we have an additional all-star level forward this year. As a result, even if we were ?equally impressed with the D?, I would expect the D to garner fewer votes.

 

[hockeyfan1]

But no, I'd say that those numbers for the forwards are about right.  When you have three superstars divvying up the accolade pie (which  is a pretty small pie) it makes sense that none of them are going to get even as many as half the games in Times Voted.  And wait 'til Nylander returns to form....

For sure I'm not surprised they didn't get voted in more games, I'm saying that they had more "very good" games in terms of actual performance than just the ones that they were voted top-2 for MOTM in.

Sure, everyone does.

And that's a function of the scoring system.  Maybe next season we should add a second HM?  I'm not opposed to that, or other changes if people want 'em.

No, ZBBM,  let's not change anything.  The MotM thread is fine as it is, even with all it's flaws & faults.

I'm always looking forward to it after the game.  It was fun once again, as always.

Thanx for the effort, ZBBM.  ☺

 

[ZBBM]

But no, I'd say that those numbers for the forwards are about right.  When you have three superstars divvying up the accolade pie (which  is a pretty small pie) it makes sense that none of them are going to get even as many as half the games in Times Voted.  And wait 'til Nylander returns to form....

For sure I'm not surprised they didn't get voted in more games, I'm saying that they had more "very good" games in terms of actual performance than just the ones that they were voted top-2 for MOTM in.

Sure, everyone does.

And that's a function of the scoring system.  Maybe next season we should add a second HM?  I'm not opposed to that, or other changes if people want 'em.

No, ZBBM,  let's not change anything.  The MotM thread is fine as it is, even with all it's flaws & faults.

I'm always looking forward to it after the game.  It was fun once again, as always.

Thanx for the effort, ZBBM.  ☺

You are welcome, HF, I enjoy doing it.