Jordon Caron

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

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to 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.
    Posted by OatesCam


    100% correct. The problem is some use stats as the "ultimate decider" in deciding the outcome of a discussion involving players who they think is better.

    e.g. Player A's points per minute is better then player B's. 

    Why not just bring out the scoring list and rank them accordingly ? How they play other aspects of the game means little to them. 

    It's all about the points.

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

    Re: Jordon Caron

    There is a difference between a lie and an error. I fixed the error. Your math was terrible.  I fixed your as well. If only I could fix your obnoxious personality and primitive arguing technique.

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : 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.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Any argument that excludes metrics or stats is not objective.  Why eliminate any tool in determining the potential of a player.   Yet, I think watching the game as a scout or team management person is of the most important.  Those people noting play beyond watching the puck, a difficult thing to do if one is watching just TV games*. I would like to think the stats or metrics are used to back up a live view of the potential of a player.  If the other way around then I think the stats are not useful in evaluation.   With regards to Caron, he is young and physically growing into a man.  Using logic, a young man matures physically at differing stages if ones considers genes or family history.  Caron just might be the next Holmgren, or he just might be a useful 4th liner in other words.  So it is difficult to analyze.  

    * My experience is one of watching games on TV and I am guilty like many of watching the camera following the puck.  When I watch live hockey I note the differences.  I saw Lucic as a rookie, the first thing I noticed is he created space.  His game is not on metrics, or stats, but on the fact he intimidates opposing players.  That is a difficult stat to apply to any quantitative analysis. The only time a player can be correctly evaluated is if a team of evaluators are used to evaluate a player using a similar evaluative  tool.  I shall not go into the next subject of a correct evaluative tool.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    Even as impressive as TT's stats were, I don't think the do justice to the performance he gave. How could the save he made against Tampa even begin to express the relevance of that as another "shot on goal"...or the way he continually attacked the shooter and defied anyone to beat him. Those are the kind of examples of stats only providing limited info on a given players effectiveness.

    The Bruins have many players where stats will never tell the whole story of a players impact on the game. And, it works both ways...Chris kelly makes so many plays that there are no stats for, as does Seidenberg and Marchand. Seguin is a player who' stats are great, but He makes plays that make actually make me cringe sometimes, and those things never can be seen on a stat sheet. I'm happy his numbers are impressive, and I believe in his talent, but I've seen him take the wrong route to the puck on purpose too many times , or getting the puck off his stick in just in order to avoid contact. Those nuances of the game are so revealing, and are one of the best things about really watching and following a hockey game. I would never dismiss stats totally, but for some players there impact on the ice needs to be viewed way beyond stats alone. (see Adam Mcquaid)

    Michael Ryder had more goals than Seguin -
    Blake Wheeler had the same amount of points as Bergeron -

    Means less than nothing

     
  6. 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:
    Any argument that excludes metrics or stats is not objective.  Why eliminate any tool in determining the potential of a player.  
    Posted by islamorada


    I agree that refusing stats is incorrect.  What I refuse is the new funk stats like Corsi, or the GVT.

    Never heard of Goals Versus Threshold?  It's some ridiculous made up statistic that Money Ball fools are trying to make work in hockey.  Get this:

    A player's GVT value is the sum of three things: his Offensive Goals Versus Average (OGVT), his Defensive Goals Versus Threshold (DGVT), and his Goaltending Goals Versus Threshold (GGVT). In recent years, with the introduction of the shootout in the NHL, a fourth component, Shootout Goals Versus Threshold (SGVT), has been added. Each of these factors is calculated independently. However, before calculating any GVT values, we must first estimate ice time.

    How can anyone tell me that this will give you a better idea on a player's abilities than watching the player play?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    Any argument that excludes metrics or stats is not objective.  Why eliminate any tool in determining the potential of a player.   Yet, I think watching the game as a scout or team management person is of the most important.  Those people noting play beyond watching the puck, a difficult thing to do if one is watching just TV games*. I would like to think the stats or metrics are used to back up a live view of the potential of a player.  If the other way around then I think the stats are not useful in evaluation.   With regards to Caron, he is young and physically growing into a man.  Using logic, a young man matures physically at differing stages if ones considers genes or family history.  Caron just might be the next Holmgren, or he just might be a useful 4th liner in other words.  So it is difficult to analyze.   * My experience is one of watching games on TV and I am guilty like many of watching the camera following the puck.  When I watch live hockey I note the differences.  I saw Lucic as a rookie, the first thing I noticed is he created space.  His game is not on metrics, or stats, but on the fact he intimidates opposing players.  That is a difficult stat to apply to any quantitative analysis. The only time a player can be correctly evaluated is if a team of evaluators are used to evaluate a player using a similar evaluative  tool.  I shall not go into the next subject of a correct evaluative tool.  
    Posted by islamorada


    Isla, I agree that you don't get 100% of the player when watching on the tube. But the camera follows the puck and if the player is involved in the play he will be in the picture. Most of the things that are outside of the picture are inconsequential to the play around the puck. 

    For me, the sample size is big enough in what is shown on tv to get an idea of one's play.
     
  8. 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:
    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Isla, I agree that you don't get 100% of the player when watching on the tube. But the camera follows the puck and if the player is involved in the play he will be in the picture. Most of the things that are outside of the picture are inconsequential to the play around the puck.  For me, the sample size is big enough in what is shown on tv to get an idea of one's play.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    It's also helpful to have the power of replay.  I watch most goals a few times in slow-mo from 30 seconds out to see what really happened.  I also usually watch each game twice to give myself a different focus.

    But, you know, if the Corsi and GVT say the guy is bad, well, then he's bad.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Isla, I agree that you don't get 100% of the player when watching on the tube. But the camera follows the puck and if the player is involved in the play he will be in the picture. Most of the things that are outside of the picture are inconsequential to the play around the puck.  For me, the sample size is big enough in what is shown on tv to get an idea of one's play.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    Hence my love of going to the games live. Maybe one day the networks can have interactive camera's (too much of a gimmick?) covering the game so we can choose different views.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron:
    In Response to Re: Jordon Caron : Hence my love of going to the games live. Maybe one day the networks can have interactive camera's (too much of a gimmick?) covering the game so we can choose different views.
    Posted by BsLegion


    You know, I wonder how hard that would be.  If I think of the way they capture the images, and of the way digital imagery works, they could probably stream 50%-60% more visual area than your display screen can show.  That would allow you to use the right kind of control box to move the centre of your screen or follow a particular player the way you can on replay mode in video games - in a limited fashion anyway.  You could focus on everything that happens one yard either side of a blue line for a whole period.  You'd see which wingers are adept at getting the puck out past pinching D, which D are adept at keeping the puck in, which wingers are consitently making dangerously soft back passes to the point etc.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Jordon Caron

    BB sounds like you're describing Corvo in that last statement, certainly won't miss those give aways.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share