Jordon Caron

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]Math is scary! In Response to Re: Jordon Caron :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Pssssst..........first round percentages for forwards, defenceman and goalies ? Scary wrong.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Pssssst..........first round percentages for forwards, defenceman and goalies ? Scary wrong.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Sure is Chowda, especially when someone posts a slew of stats that are 100% false.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]For those of you who are scared of numbers, don't bother reading. The thread on predicted Bruins point totals got me thinking on Jordan. This year's he's pegged to take Pouliot's spot full time. Pouliot got over 12 mins per game while last year Caron got 11:30. Sometimes they swapped spots, Pouliot saw some 4th line duty and so on. So lets say Caron becomes the full-time least-important forward on the 3rd line and gets about 13minutes per game, or an extra 10% icetime per game. He plays every game and gets 82games instead of 48. If he was to produce at the exact same rate (an assumption purely for discussion) given a large increase (88%) in total playing time he would put up 13+15=28pts. Not bad for a 9th forward, not as good as Pouliot. Based on his solid finish to the season and his increased maturity, I think it's fair to expect he'll improve on those totals. That would make him easily a 30+ point guy, and a good reason that the Bruins didn't bother to sign another established forward.
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    Too bad it doesn't work this way.  For discussion or not, it's a non-starter.  He's not a clock or a robot.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    I love you too.

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Sure is Chowda, especially when someone posts a slew of stats that are 100% false.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    pssst... no, they are right. Do you have different ones?

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Pssssst..........first round percentages for forwards, defenceman and goalies ? Scary wrong.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Instead of suggesting that he'll have the same exact output, please do your awesome math based upon Caron being six inches taller and 50lbs heavier.

    Also, add in Selanne-type speed, but the hands of Joey Kocur.

    And Jagr's old hair.  Please include Jagr's old hair.

    Now how does he project? 

    (you know, just for the sake of discussion)
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]pssst... no, they are right. Do you have different ones? In Response to Re: Jordon Caron :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    psssst.......it took two tries. Math is scary the first time around.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    It is! Very frightening.

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : psssst.......it took two tries. Math is scary the first time around.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    psst...why are you whispering?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Height has no correlation to scoring output. Weight follows a bell curve, improving scoring at first, but excessive weight ruining a promising prospect from one season to the next (see: The Bochenski File). Selanne speed is beautiful but Kocur's hands are not. I've scene them, and the whole arthritic/distorted/reconstructed knuckles thing is not pretty.  A Jagr Mullet has been scientifically proven to increase scoring productivity by 50% and puck bunny productivity 178%. Caron should definitely get one.

    You have perfected the art of inaccurate paraphrasing. I would swear you are a politician in real life. I never suggested Caron would have the exact same output. In fact, I've had a lengthy discussion with Olsonic talking about how players almost never have the exact same production year-to-year. What I said was, if he did, he would actually be fairly productive for a 3rd liner. Most of us would say he had a pretty up-and-down season last year. Truth is, even with that he was decent (from a scoring perspective) given his limited opportunity. I've wanted the Bruins to sign a good wing, but a Caron-Kelly-Peverley line will probably be among the league's best 3rd units, even without much improvement from Caron.

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]Instead of suggesting that he'll have the same exact output, please do your awesome math based upon Caron being six inches taller and 50lbs heavier. Also, add in Selanne-type speed, but the hands of Joey Kocur. And Jagr's old hair.  Please include Jagr's old hair. Now how does he project?  (you know, just for the sake of discussion)
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Quiet down! Inside voice!

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]psst...why are you whispering?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]psst...why are you whispering?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    pssst.......so no one knows just how hard math can be. Keep it a secret.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Jordon Caron : Too bad it doesn't work this way.  For discussion or not, it's a non-starter.  He's not a clock or a robot.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    I'm not so sure it doesn't.  I'd say it's a given that, with a developing player, you really are just tossing grass in the wind when you try to estimate what he'll do based on a very small sample and a limited role.  But it sure seems to me that a lot of players do produce characteristic, consistent numbers when they stay on the same team.  Over his last 4 healthy years, Bergeron has 22 goals in three of the four years and 19 the other.  Over his last four years, David Krejci has 249 points for an average of just slightly over 62 per year.  The last two years, he has had exactly 62 points.  Lucic - 61, 62 the last two years.  Chara's a weird example: he either puts up 43-44 or 50-53 points.  Never in between. Henrik Sedin, to take a non-Bruin example, has scored between 75-82 points a season every year with the exception of the two years he and his brother won major hardware.

    They aren't robots, but hockey players, maybe even more than most human beings, are creatures of habit.  This can be both their meal ticket and their Achilles' heel.  Look at Joe Thornton.  It used to drive me nuts to watch him walk the puck to the half-boards when he had an uncontested lane to the net, then force a pass through two or three sticks to a covered player.  But that was his default setting, and he was good at it, so he went to the well.

    This is why I think the numbers have some merit in validating what you see no matter how much you see of a player. Not only do players repeat patterns of play in similar situations - often by design and in response to previous successes - but when there are a million variables affecting their performance, you'll often find that the least influential ones will cancel out over time, and the most influential ones don't vary their impact much unless there's an obvious change like splitting up superstars.

    A lot of players have their game, and it works to X level of production, and that level doesn't vary much unless you change their game.  Going to a different team, or playing for a new coach with a different gameplan will do that.

    After all that - I took OC's point slightly differently.  If Caron puts up 28-32 points, is that an acceptable season from your 9th forward?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    You got my point because you read what i wrote. Nas gets upset and confused when I use numbers.

    I took OC's point slightly differently.  If Caron puts up 28-32 points, is that an acceptable season from your 9th forward?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    "This is why I think the numbers have some merit in validating what you see no matter how much you see of a player."

    That has always been the point but for some saying that numbers and math have no merit whatsoever somehow fits their argument. Than they feel like they won the debate "oh i watch the games that has to be enough" which is dumb.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Using the metrics used here to gauge potential production is fine. Books points are valid and given the same or very similar situations with increased ice time it's reasonable to expect the math to work. The problem is there are a ton of other variables that can influence, skew, derail, etc. the results so just as often as not the results aren't there.

    My opinion on Caron remains as always. He's a work in progress and I'm hoping for the best and a solid upward trajectory in production. He'll get his ice time to start the season and hopefully makes good use of it. Not sure who would replace him if he falters. Bourque? Knight? Spooner? Camp should be interesting! 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Hey, don't get me wrong - I do trust that some people are very clear headed about what they see when they watch hockey.  Some (most) are not.  In every city I've lived in - five with NHL franchises and thriving junior A (it would take too long to discuss the Major Junior situations) - I've heard some of the most ridiculous things and met the fiercest resistance to observations that went against popular opinion from people who watch an incredible amount of hockey.  Maybe this is the key - watching hockey is one thing; thinking about what you're watching is another.  Chowdah and NAS?  You can tell they think about what they're seeing.  NAS occasionally notes the difference between really watching the game and not just the puck.  What's going on away from the play?  Who should have had a wide-open guy after a switch that was clearly communicated?  Who's coloring by number and racing to a set spot because that's his responsibility and who's able to take care of his responsibility and also read the play to know when there's an opportunity to disrupt a play or create space?  Who's lazy and who is a master of economy of motion?

    In my experience, telling these people you see different things doesn't make them think.  Pointing to numbers can sometimes get through to them.

    Does anyone doubt that Stanley watches a lot of hockey?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]Hey, don't get me wrong - I do trust that some people are very clear headed about what they see when they watch hockey.  Some (most) are not.  In every city I've lived in - five with NHL franchises and thriving junior A (it would take too long to discuss the Major Junior situations) - I've heard some of the most ridiculous things and met the fiercest resistance to observations that went against popular opinion from people who watch an incredible amount of hockey.  Maybe this is the key - watching hockey is one thing; thinking about what you're watching is another.  Chowdah and NAS?  You can tell they think about what they're seeing.  NAS occasionally notes the difference between really watching the game and not just the puck.  What's going on away from the play?  Who should have had a wide-open guy after a switch that was clearly communicated?  Who's coloring by number and racing to a set spot because that's his responsibility and who's able to take care of his responsibility and also read the play to know when there's an opportunity to disrupt a play or create space?  Who's lazy and who is a master of economy of motion? In my experience, telling these people you see different things doesn't make them think.  Pointing to numbers can sometimes get through to them. Does anyone doubt that Stanley watches a lot of hockey?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]
    That is a terrific example Book. Kudos!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]Hey, don't get me wrong - I do trust that some people are very clear headed about what they see when they watch hockey.  Some (most) are not.  In every city I've lived in - five with NHL franchises and thriving junior A (it would take too long to discuss the Major Junior situations) - I've heard some of the most ridiculous things and met the fiercest resistance to observations that went against popular opinion from people who watch an incredible amount of hockey.  Maybe this is the key - watching hockey is one thing; thinking about what you're watching is another.  Chowdah and NAS?  You can tell they think about what they're seeing.  NAS occasionally notes the difference between really watching the game and not just the puck.  What's going on away from the play?  Who should have had a wide-open guy after a switch that was clearly communicated?  Who's coloring by number and racing to a set spot because that's his responsibility and who's able to take care of his responsibility and also read the play to know when there's an opportunity to disrupt a play or create space?  Who's lazy and who is a master of economy of motion? In my experience, telling these people you see different things doesn't make them think.  Pointing to numbers can sometimes get through to them. Does anyone doubt that Stanley watches a lot of hockey?
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Maybe some homework for some board members during the season should be to watch an entire game and only watch what a particular player. It forces you to think about the game. Or it should, anyway. Easier to do while actually at the game than on TV. For example, I watched Bergeron for every second of every shift duing a game last season regardless of where the puck was. Hard to do when something exciting is happening and your brother is elbowing you and saying "did ya see that?".
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Understanding stats doesn't mean you can't watch a game and observe and vice versa. Some people seem to think it needs to be one or the other.  Also, one or both does not mean you actually understand the game, and even if you do it doesn't mean your opinion is right when it comes to what's right, what works and the value of players. If there was some perfect method of evaluating, there would be a perfect GM somewhere making lots of money for winning 10 consecutive Stanley Cups.

    Specifically to Caron, Book seems to get that I wasn't so much predicting what he will do this season as much as showing what he did last year wasn't too bad given his limited role. I tended to think of him as a bit of a disappointment last year as I watched him play, but when I looked at how low his playing time was, the amount of time he was not in the lineup, and how much he still managed to score, he actually wasn't half bad for a second year pro. Since most players begin to establish themselves in their third year at age 21-22, there is every reason to think he's going to be a real strength on the B's third line this coming season. I can see why the Bruins didn't sign another forward.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    I've done this with Crosby live. It's easier, because he is always where the action is, so you don't miss anything anyway. It's mind-blowing how well he does everything. Bergeron is also brilliant. Another great one to watch away from the puck is Marchand. He's not as complete in his game as Patrice, but his puck anticipation is second to none. If you're a forward who wants to learn how to go where the puck is going to be in order to get scoring chances, Marchand is amazing at it. He cherry-picks at just the right time so as to not be a defensive liability.

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Maybe some homework for some board members during the season should be to watch an entire game and only watch what a particular player. It forces you to think about the game. Or it should, anyway. Easier to do while actually at the game than on TV. For example, I watched Bergeron for every second of every shift duing a game last season regardless of where the puck was. Hard to do when something exciting is happening and your brother is elbowing you and saying "did ya see that?".
    Posted by WalkTheLine[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : That is a terrific example Book. Kudos!
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    There goes my "I watch a lot of hockey and go by what I see" argument.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]I've done this with Crosby live. It's easier, because he is always where the action is, so you don't miss anything anyway. It's mind-blowing how well he does everything. Bergeron is also brilliant. Another great one to watch away from the puck is Marchand. He's not as complete in his game as Patrice, but his puck anticipation is second to none. If you're a forward who wants to learn how to go where the puck is going to be in order to get scoring chances, Marchand is amazing at it. He cherry-picks at just the right time so as to not be a defensive liability. In Response to Re: Jordon Caron :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    I tend to watch what players do when they are away from the puck as well, and I always like to watch what a defenseman does while not near the puck when it's in his own zone.
    As for the forwards, remember Gretzky always refers to what his dad told him. "don't go where the puck is, go to where it's going to be"..probably not the exact quote but you get my drift.

    A couple of players I always liek to watch without the puck are Alfredsson and Ovechkin.

    For me, Alfredssons overall game is underrated, and he is terrific at adjusting his speed to create a passing lane when he doesnt have the puck.

    Ovechkin is brilliant at cheating. He used to be more reckless and get caught leaving the zone early but now he times it well and generates a lot of odd-man rushes. I love watching him when a teammate gets possesion of the puck in their zone and he looks to break.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    [QUOTE]You got my point because you read what i wrote. Nas gets upset and confused when I use numbers.
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    It's most confusing when you present bold face lies as numbers and only adjust them (not to the benefit of your argument) when your glaring error is exposed.




     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share