1. Nick Lidstrom
2. Duncan Keith
3. Roman Polak
4. Barret Jackman
5. JOSH GORGES

30. Hal Gill

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs...rticle1448148/

I call bullshit + link doesn't work.

I posted a link to it in a different thread today. Anyways, it basically is a formula taking each player's individual GAA when they're on the ice, at even strength and shorthanded, and working in the quality of competition they face. Gorges had like a 1.88 GAA even strength and under 4.00 GAA shorthanded (which is very good, if you consider being shorthanded for sixty minutes and allowing only 4 goals against).

Gorges quality of competition isn't terribly strong (4th on the team, WAY behind Markov), but he's been very good against who he's faced. Gill plays very weak competition which is why he hasn't been burned too badly, plus he's a very good PKer.

That is the funniest thing i have ever read. He is not in the top 20 if you ask me. Whoever or whatever is calculating these results she be gien a urine test.

Being on the ice for ridiculously few goals against isn't something numbers can fake. Mirtle is one of the best at these kinds of analyses.

That being said, he's been insulated quite a bit. Basically what this is saying he's been the best #4 d-man in the NHL defensively, and his impact on the ice against second tier opponents (2nd and 3rd liners) has been nearly as good as the top defenders against first tier opponents have (1st liners).

I like Gorges

One of the few good trades Gainey has made

(#52 / 2 = #26; same logic applies to their repsective ages)

Which just proves that numbers can be made to show anything?

Meanwhile... who in the world is Roman Polak @ #3? lol

The numbers show that very few goals are scored (per minute) while Gorges is on the ice even when you account for the fact that he doesn't play against the other team's top line. Somehow, you think that this is some statistical magic and he is in fact horrible?

Gorges is good. He's not THAT good.

I think this is a good lesson for those that take stats as the be all end all.

I think this is a good lesson for those that take stats as the be all end all.


I tend to agree with you. We seem to have come to a baseball mentality, where everything is put into a great bowl of redundant statistics and some guru want-to-be vomits up the meaning. However it is hard to dismiss wins and loses, and winning percentage because they are statistically accurate and not open to interpretation.

But they are...if you had of looked at Luongos stats on Florida vs. Osgoods stats on the red wings...who would have had more wins and winning percentage? Would you really take Osgood over Luongo?

Half of St. Louis' top shutdown pair with Barrett Jackman. If the Blues could only score goals, perhaps people would notice their quality play a bit more.