rafikz Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 1. Nick Lidstrom 2. Duncan Keith 3. Roman Polak 4. Barret Jackman 5. JOSH GORGES 30. Hal Gill http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs...rticle1448148/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I call bullshit + link doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYHabsFan Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikz Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 I like Gorges One of the few good trades Gainey has made (#52 / 2 = #26; same logic applies to their repsective ages) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Meanwhile... who in the world is Roman Polak @ #3? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Which just proves that numbers can be made to show anything? 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Gorges is good. He's not THAT good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I think this is a good lesson for those that take stats as the be all end all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Meanwhile... who in the world is Roman Polak @ #3? lol 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.