|
Post by the_jaf on Mar 24, 2013 0:40:04 GMT -6
I think Pavelec is going to play forward next game.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Mar 24, 2013 1:27:11 GMT -6
Buff has never had a history of plus hockey. His minus numbers makes him a detriment. It's not only the minus numbers but thats a good indicator over a number of years - let him have a history of a Housley or Babych before you even put him in their category despite their plus minus. I simply made a point about players who hope to get beyond a merely offensive aspect to develop into more. So for example,Babych played with some poor Jets teams and in fact their inaugural season none of the players were in the pluses. Let him play 22 years or so though before you try a comparison with Babych or or even Housley.
Back to Karlsson again. Giveaways and takeaways the difference was 6 with a minus 8 rating. Karlsson wins a trophy with a plus 16 and a 35 point improvement from the previous year.So how did that stat help your cause? If you think plus/minus is a crock your giveaway takeaway stat is a complete crock. Here again your Shea Weber is deceiving and stupid. Weber has a history plus 50 with one team and 8 years at doing it. Has Buff come close to his sound plus 20 season? Not by a country mile.
Lets use Letang. One team 7 seasons plus 37. How about Chara. Plus 162 over a number of years. I laugh at your giveaway takeaway and take Letang or Chara any day over Buff.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Mar 24, 2013 1:31:15 GMT -6
For a guy who said he didn't want to argue anymore you're sure digging bigger holes for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Mar 24, 2013 1:52:00 GMT -6
You also referenced Hamerlk. This is a guy, despite his lifetime minus he had 12 plus seasons and two 20 plus seasons over numerous years. But there's always hope for Buff.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Mar 24, 2013 2:09:16 GMT -6
More on giveaways and takeaways, lol!:(i.e., better find a better statistic to bolster Buff) The problem with these numbers is that they lie and that they really mean the exact opposite of what you’d think they mean. In the real world, a “giveaway” is actually preferable to a “takeaway”. In the real world, “blocked shots” correlate so highly with losing you may as well just be counting goals against. In the real world, the importance of “hits” is imaginary.....Less fascinating because the correlations are very small, but also hilarious, is that teams that give the puck away more are slightly better off than teams that lead in “takeaways”. Again, look at what Keefe said above—if hits are indicative of a team not having the puck, so are takeaways. Giveaways are an indication that a team has had the puck at some point....Giveaways and takeaways are defined so differently from building-to-building that it’s hardly even worth comparing the two.blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/02/25/breaking-news-puck-possession-is-important-and-nobody-told-the-cbc/
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 24, 2013 2:47:33 GMT -6
More on giveaways and takeaways, lol!:(i.e., better find a better statistic to bolster Buff) The problem with these numbers is that they lie and that they really mean the exact opposite of what you’d think they mean. In the real world, a “giveaway” is actually preferable to a “takeaway”. In the real world, “blocked shots” correlate so highly with losing you may as well just be counting goals against. In the real world, the importance of “hits” is imaginary.....Less fascinating because the correlations are very small, but also hilarious, is that teams that give the puck away more are slightly better off than teams that lead in “takeaways”. Again, look at what Keefe said above—if hits are indicative of a team not having the puck, so are takeaways. Giveaways are an indication that a team has had the puck at some point....Giveaways and takeaways are defined so differently from building-to-building that it’s hardly even worth comparing the two.blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/02/25/breaking-news-puck-possession-is-important-and-nobody-told-the-cbc/So then why are the players wil the most takeaways usually the best players. Of course Letang and Chara are going to have high plus minuses, they play on teams that score way more goals than the jets do, and I never said that Buff was as good defensivly as they were, but Buff is not crap like you are saying he is. Phil Housley had 13 seasons where he was a -, 7 of them he was more than -10 and several of his - years came on playoff teams. The fact is Offensive Dmen are not always going to be +20 every year of thier careers. And you attacked buff for being a career minus, all I did was give you a nice long list of HOF players who were career minuses. My point wasnt that buff was as good as those players, it was that +/- means jack crap. You dismiss other guys bad +/- numbers becasue they played on bad teams, but in case you missed it the Jets finished in 20th last season and 22nd the season before. Not once did I say Buff was as good as Weber, Chara or Letang defensivly, but my whole point all along is that Buff is a decent defender while being a top 5-10 offensive dman in the league.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Mar 24, 2013 3:02:43 GMT -6
Also, even if Takeaways are somehow less important than Giveaways, Buff is usually near the top of the league in both for dmen so you cant dimiss takeways and giveaways at the same time.
You also cant deny that the top players almost always have more takeaways than the crappy players, but the top players dont always have the highest +/-.
I am really done debating this now, because your wrong and the simple fact that Buff is playing D and not forward proves it. If the team wanted Buff to play forward they would force him to, there isnt anything he could do to stop it. They havent forced him, which means they want him playing D.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Mar 24, 2013 3:06:38 GMT -6
He's a poor defender and his plus minus is a good indicator of that. Not the only indicator but one nonetheless. I can also eyeball as many on this thread have his deficiencies. I did say he has improved though because the guy better learn something from a guy who was plus 241 lifetime (Charlie Huddy). Yeah no stats are perfect but there are plenty of people who can see his defensive liabilities. I would easily trade him off for a couple of power forwards and develop Trouba and others through the draft.
The differential is misleading (the statistic itself has been on numerous occasions badly applied particularly as it relates to the home team were takeaways are exaggerated for the home squad). I'd much prefer plus statistics any day than the dubious differential for the reasons stated in the article.
You're making my point when you point to Housley because he had his troubles defensively throughout his career which is telling and is why he played for 8 different teams. But he also had 6 plus seasons and a plus 17 season so when Buff gets something resembling that then he might get some consideration.
|
|
|
Post by lovethejets on Mar 24, 2013 6:47:42 GMT -6
love the timing of these posts... 3 and 4 a.m.!....this is passion....
but the arguments lean towards lenny as +/- is more reliable and the correlation of +/- and giveaway/takeaway is low...they tell a different story and giveaway/takeaway is not consistently recorded...
i think Buff is a decent defender one on one...he is tough to beat...however, he does give the puck away a lot at key times and the pace of it has picked up recently...as a team we are better at covering up when he roams but he is a liability as a d man when he does it too often...
we cannot afford to not have his offensive talent being used though so play him at forward and keep the steady d men back there to do their job...he can also play the point like Jokinen on the pp if needed but then have him Kane and another on a line...wow that would be something to see...
that would cure the fact that the Jets don't score a lot and help everyone's +/-!
|
|