|
Post by seventeen on Oct 23, 2014 12:18:06 GMT -5
Poor Tom seems to get no respect. In his defence, I have included a link from a story in HAbs Eye on the Prize which was taken from a Florida stats analysis a year before about Gilbert. Florida signed both he and Ryan Whitney to $900,000 contracts a day apart. Gilbert joined Brian Campbell on Florida's #1 pairing, while Whitney was quickly waived and was gone. The article presents some information on the two and on Gilbert's stats from when he was on the ice, to when he was off. It's a better measure than +/-, for sure and might help us appreciate Tom Gilbert a little more. As you may be aware, I'm a possession paranoid. I hate letting the other team have the puck easily. They should have to work their butts off to take it away from me. I even like taking chances to keep possession. If they have the puck, you're chasing, you're blocking shots and you're spending time in your own end...all things with no upside and lots of downside. My attitude also explains why I dislike Bourque's game so much. Anyway, I present, on Tom Gilbert's behalf, Exhibit A. www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-corsi-predicted-gilberts-breakout/
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Oct 23, 2014 12:39:17 GMT -5
He has good puck possession analytics. If you have puck possession more often than not, then your defensemen don't need to be laying the big hit to separate player and puck, and the D don't need to be blocking shots if they have the puck. He may want to turn the puck over less, but he is part of what I hope sees the Habs spend less time hemmed in their own end this season. Faster puck retrieval, faster transition. Booboo and Murray were terrible at this, Gorges too. So they hit a lot and blocked a lot of shots out of necessity.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Oct 23, 2014 13:34:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 23, 2014 14:30:49 GMT -5
Gilbert is one of those guys who has great stats, but often fails in the eye-test. I think the biggest problem the analytics crowd has is Benoit Pouliot. Pouliot has great advanced stats, but... he's Benoit Pouliot. Gilbert suffers from the same problem, albeit to a lesser extent than Pouliot. Maybe they should create a trophy for the worst player with the best stats. Call it "The Brisebois" or something.
Having said that, I haven't been all that disappointed in Gilbert. He comes as advertised; a good passer who occasionally blunders in a highly visible way. For the most part he gets the puck out, and that isn't a bad thing. But he'll always be one of those guys you think you can improve on.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 23, 2014 15:44:26 GMT -5
I've praised him a few times already this season ... there have been a few times where he looks like one of the bigger guys on the ice ... I guess he's doing better than Beaulieu, anyway ... no disrespect intended Nathan ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 23, 2014 15:46:35 GMT -5
Pouliot had good stats? But did they have a measure for "stupid penalty at the wrong time"? Or "Looks great coming off the bus". I also think he failed the "A guy with those wheels, shot and talent should score more than 30 points a year" test.
Seriously, where did you see that Bennie had great advanced stats?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 23, 2014 16:29:01 GMT -5
The irony, of course, is that the Corsi and Fenwick are not "possession stats". They are misnomers. When you shoot, you are giving up possession, more often than not. But you have to shoot to score. Oh, the conundrum. I'd label them, scoring opportunity stats.
I've highlighted this before. And I've noticed that Sportsnet360 has caught on to my line of thinking and have started talking about points per 60 minutes of play (ohhhh the memories of the Ryder debates), and tracking time of possession, for what it really is, when the team has has the puck. If a team has control for the entire 2 minutes of a PP, and does not get a shot on net, but totally controls the play, the Corsi is ZERO .... so how can it ever be called s possession stat. Your time of possession is 2 minutes, but the possession stat is ZERO??
Anyway I digress. Back to the thread.....Gilbert ain't all that bad. He is better than Drewiski, Bouillon and I'd go so far to say Weaver too
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Oct 23, 2014 16:39:30 GMT -5
Pouliot had good stats? But did they have a measure for "stupid penalty at the wrong time"? Or "Looks great coming off the bus". I also think he failed the "A guy with those wheels, shot and talent should score more than 30 points a year" test. Seriously, where did you see that Bennie had great advanced stats? I remember hearing, during last year's Finals, that Pouliot led the playoffs in offensive zone penalties. He has a real knack for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. There's a reason that he could not get more than one year deals until Edmonton came along. Maybe those advanced stats fooled the Oilers into giving him that multi year deal.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Oct 23, 2014 17:39:49 GMT -5
I have no issues with Gilberts play....he is what he is.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 23, 2014 19:35:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 23, 2014 20:17:51 GMT -5
Rodney Dangerfield wasn't even Rodney Dangerfield…twice over. J acob Rodney Cohen took to the stage at the age of 20 in 1941, under the name of Jack Roy, which continued to be his legal name. He struggled for 9 years, then quit showbiz. In the early 1960s…he got back on the horse. From WikipediaHe came to realize that what he lacked was an "image"—a well-defined on-stage persona that audiences could relate to and that would distinguish him from similar comics. Returning to the East Coast, after being shunned by the premier comedy venues, he began to develop a character for whom nothing goes right.
He took the name Rodney Dangerfield, which had been used as the comical name of a faux cowboy star by Jack Benny on his radio program at least as early as the December 21, 1941, broadcast and later as a pseudonym by Ricky Nelson on the TV program The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. The Benny character, who also received little or no respect from the outside world, served as a great inspiration to Dangerfield while he was developing his own comedy character.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 23, 2014 23:09:05 GMT -5
The irony, of course, is that the Corsi and Fenwick are not "possession stats". They are misnomers. When you shoot, you are giving up possession, more often than not. But you have to shoot to score. Oh, the conundrum. I'd label them, scoring opportunity stats. I've highlighted this before. And I've noticed that Sportsnet360 has caught on to my line of thinking and have started talking about points per 60 minutes of play (ohhhh the memories of the Ryder debates), and tracking time of possession, for what it really is, when the team has has the puck. If a team has control for the entire 2 minutes of a PP, and does not get a shot on net, but totally controls the play, the Corsi is ZERO .... so how can it ever be called s possession stat. Your time of possession is 2 minutes, but the possession stat is ZERO?? yeah, but I'd rather have the puck than not. My chances of scoring are much, much better with the puck than without it.... It's not a perfect correlation no, but there has to be some correlation. I actually have seen a few goals scored without the puck (Eller vs the Canucks last year), but it happens so rarely that's its almost zero.
|
|
|
Post by christrpn on Oct 25, 2014 6:05:42 GMT -5
The irony, of course, is that the Corsi and Fenwick are not "possession stats". They are misnomers. When you shoot, you are giving up possession, more often than not. But you have to shoot to score. Oh, the conundrum. I'd label them, scoring opportunity stats. I've highlighted this before. And I've noticed that Sportsnet360 has caught on to my line of thinking and have started talking about points per 60 minutes of play (ohhhh the memories of the Ryder debates), and tracking time of possession, for what it really is, when the team has has the puck. If a team has control for the entire 2 minutes of a PP, and does not get a shot on net, but totally controls the play, the Corsi is ZERO .... so how can it ever be called s possession stat. Your time of possession is 2 minutes, but the possession stat is ZERO?? yeah, but I'd rather have the puck than not. My chances of scoring are much, much better with the puck than without it.... It's not a perfect correlation no, but there has to be some correlation. I actually have seen a few goals scored without the puck (Eller vs the Canucks last year), but it happens so rarely that's its almost zero. You have a greater chance of losing the puck after a shot than if you were to just skate around with it You have a greater chance of scoring if you shoot than if you don't In essence, Corsi and Fenwick are stats that measure scoring chances than possession. If Gilberts corsi is positive, doesn't mean Habs have better possession, they have better scoring chances.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 25, 2014 8:42:54 GMT -5
yeah, but I'd rather have the puck than not. My chances of scoring are much, much better with the puck than without it.... It's not a perfect correlation no, but there has to be some correlation. I actually have seen a few goals scored without the puck (Eller vs the Canucks last year), but it happens so rarely that's its almost zero. You have a greater chance of losing the puck after a shot than if you were to just skate around with it You have a greater chance of scoring if you shoot than if you don't In essence, Corsi and Fenwick are stats that measure scoring chances than possession. If Gilberts corsi is positive, doesn't mean Habs have better possession, they have better scoring chances. Actually, all it means, is the Habs get more shots for than shots against. Those stats do not measure the quality of the shots. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but I guess that's where the Gilbert criticism may come from ... He gets beat badly and Price makes an excellent save, doesn't make up for a dump in on net, and wrister from the point that hits the goalie's crest, and a shot towards to net that gets blocked. The above shows a scenario (a shift) where the Corsi is positive , the Fenwick is positive, but obviously the scoring chances are in the oppositions favour.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 25, 2014 11:19:15 GMT -5
Thats true, Skilly, but it's an outlier. Most of the time, if you have possession (however you measure it), your chances of winning are better. There's always an exception or three, but the odds are better.
|
|
|
Post by stoat on Oct 30, 2014 15:04:19 GMT -5
Doesn't Rodney get any credit for saving the Habs 2 full points? Without his inelegant shot PAP wouldn't have taken his turn on the firing line and the Habs would be 7-3 and they would have no goals in the 2 games. Why didn't the bigshots put a puck in the net? I wasn't aware of any enervating virus making the rounds.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 30, 2014 16:02:31 GMT -5
Doesn't Rodney get any credit for saving the Habs 2 full points? Without his inelegant shot PAP wouldn't have taken his turn on the firing line and the Habs would be 7-3 and they would have no goals in the 2 games. Why didn't the bigshots put a puck in the net? I wasn't aware of any enervating virus making the rounds. I think Gilbert's playing just fine. I would rather that was his first name and Perreault was his last name, though.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 1, 2014 11:44:12 GMT -5
Rodney Dangerfield wasn't even Rodney Dangerfield…twice over. J acob Rodney Cohen took to the stage at the age of 20 in 1941, under the name of Jack Roy, which continued to be his legal name. He struggled for 9 years, then quit showbiz. In the early 1960s…he got back on the horse. From WikipediaHe came to realize that what he lacked was an "image"—a well-defined on-stage persona that audiences could relate to and that would distinguish him from similar comics. Returning to the East Coast, after being shunned by the premier comedy venues, he began to develop a character for whom nothing goes right.
He took the name Rodney Dangerfield, which had been used as the comical name of a faux cowboy star by Jack Benny on his radio program at least as early as the December 21, 1941, broadcast and later as a pseudonym by Ricky Nelson on the TV program The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. The Benny character, who also received little or no respect from the outside world, served as a great inspiration to Dangerfield while he was developing his own comedy character. Had a 40 minute drive yesterday so I put in the "No Respect" album. Had not heard it for a while so it was fresh & it had me laughing all the way. uess.Somewhat politically incorrect in parts but those were the times I g
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 1, 2014 11:58:00 GMT -5
forgot all about this one . . .
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Nov 1, 2014 12:10:57 GMT -5
Doesn't Rodney get any credit for saving the Habs 2 full points? Without his inelegant shot PAP wouldn't have taken his turn on the firing line and the Habs would be 7-3 and they would have no goals in the 2 games. Why didn't the bigshots put a puck in the net? I wasn't aware of any enervating virus making the rounds. I think Gilbert's playing just fine. I would rather that was his first name and Perreault was his last name, though. Or his first name was Rod and he dropped one of the 7s from his jersey! We could dump Bourque in a flash. He sure looked like the humbled, embarrassed, do no right guy when they showed him in the box after the Canucks scored in OT.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 1, 2014 12:24:10 GMT -5
Rodney's act changed little once he found that sad sack character….set-up, punch...set-up, punch. The material got raunchier in his night club appearances….but he remained very vaudevillian in style. The "nervous" mannerisms added to it. A consummate comic. On a talk show, he'd continue his act once he got to the couch/chair. Carson was the master at letting him go, adding a perfectly-timed "oh yeah….sure….uh-huh…" [/derail]
|
|