Jaime McGinn

[Destroydacre]

Mitchell, for all his many flaws, is one of the best forecheckers on the team. His speed and ability to anticipate the play in front of him make him an effective F1 on the lower lines. He doesn't get much recognition but he played a very large role in McGinn's success this year.

It's too bad they can't give him a set of hands.

 

[sjrules99]

Mitchell, for all his many flaws, is one of the best forecheckers on the team. His speed and ability to anticipate the play in front of him make him an effective F1 on the lower lines. He doesn't get much recognition but he played a very large role in McGinn's success this year.

I actually agree that mitchell is an excellent forechecker. perhaps he did contribute to mcginn, but it's hard to say...

The problem is that is the ONLY thing he does well. He is the worst on the team along the board in the defensive zone IMO. He never ever beats the opposition dman to get a puck out. It's maddening, and of course, he's on his butt when a large player skates near him from the sudden gust of wind. His PK work is obviously awful too as Cmon pointed out that the PK improved once he was removed. Basically he can forecheck, and that's it.

 

[SJVP408]

I don't think McGinn is smart enough to play a top 6 role on a good team. Kind of like Seto. McGinn is best suited with 11-12 minutes a game going full tilt with every stride. That's what I liked about watching him. I hope he does well, but if TJ is as good as some Avs fans have said, TJ will easily out contribute McGinn. From watching Shark Byte, McGinn is a real character in the lockerroom and that's is how he will mostly be missed.

 

[sjrules99]

Much more useful now would be how I would say it personally. I only used "useless" to make my point about why the way he was/is viewed has changed and to correlate to your post. It's those aspects of his game that have evolved to make him the player you don't have to defend as often.

The ironic part is that faceoffs and PK play aren't very attractive when some people evaluate a player like, oh I don't know, Moore?

Moore is fine in the FO circle but the sharks dont need that. They have pavs, jumbo, and cooch who are at least as good as moore. Its not a bad thing to have a good FO like him, but in that key defensive zone draw with 20 seconds left, the sharks wouldnt put him out there.

Also, his PK work isnt that special. Clearly, tampa bay, being ranked 25th, isnt very good, so if moore was so great on the PK, I think that number would be better.

I dont know how guys like he and mitchell get these reputations? its like they skate well and work hard and somehow people think they are actually good, but the stats just dont back it up.

 

[abaskin18]

I actually agree that mitchell is an excellent forechecker. perhaps he did contribute to mcginn, but it's hard to say...

The problem is that is the ONLY thing he does well. He is the worst on the team along the board in the defensive zone IMO. He never ever beats the opposition dman to get a puck out. It's maddening, and of course, he's on his butt when a large player skates near him from the sudden gust of wind. His PK work is obviously awful too as Cmon pointed out that the PK improved once he was removed. Basically he can forecheck, and that's it.

But it's moot because, you know, PK is all about the scheme.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Moore is fine in the FO circle but the sharks dont need that. They have pavs, jumbo, and cooch who are at least as good as moore. Its not a bad thing to have a good FO like him, but in that key defensive zone draw with 20 seconds left, the sharks wouldnt put him out there.

Also, his PK work isnt that special. Clearly, tampa bay, being ranked 25th, isnt very good, so if moore was so great on the PK, I think that number would be better.

I dont know how guys like he and mitchell get these reputations? its like they skate well and work hard and somehow people think they are actually good, but the stats just dont back it up.

Pavelski is great on the PK and look where San Jose's numbers are? Why would that logic apply to Moore and not Pavelski?

 

[sjrules99]

I don't think McGinn is smart enough to play a top 6 role on a good team. Kind of like Seto. McGinn is best suited with 11-12 minutes a game going full tilt with every stride. That's what I liked about watching him. I hope he does well, but if TJ is as good as some Avs fans have said, TJ will easily out contribute McGinn. From watching Shark Byte, McGinn is a real character in the lockerroom and that's is how he will mostly be missed.

I seem to be the only person who sees more than a 3rd liner grinder from mcginn. I look forward to seeing what he ends up being. I think coaches will eventually realize his speed, shot, and physicality are really valuable and give him legit time also on the PP.

 

[sjrules99]

Pavelski is great on the PK and look where San Jose's numbers are? Why would that logic apply to Moore and not Pavelski?

I never said pavs is great on the PK.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

I never said pavs is great on the PK.

That's the point though, he is very good on the PK. Statisticly, like Moore, Pavelski is one of the better PK players in the league yet San Jose struggled last year in that area and early this season.

 

[abaskin18]

Moore is fine in the FO circle but the sharks dont need that. They have pavs, jumbo, and cooch who are at least as good as moore. Its not a bad thing to have a good FO like him, but in that key defensive zone draw with 20 seconds left, the sharks wouldnt put him out there.

Underlined for the impressive understatement. Having a guy like him when a 3rd or 4th line ices the puck in a tight game and the Sharks don't have a timeout is more than "not bad." Having him to take a defensive zone draw on the PK in a tight game is more than "not bad." You're just trying to justify calling him a total zero.

Also, his PK work isnt that special. Clearly, tampa bay, being ranked 25th, isnt very good, so if moore was so great on the PK, I think that number would be better.

This illustrates how a stat can improperly applied to a theory as evidence. Quantifying Moore's PK ability to the TB ranking? Really? Shall we quantify Pavs the same way?

I dont know how guys like he and mitchell get these reputations? its like they skate well and work hard and somehow people think they are actually good, but the stats just dont back it up.

Bold sure does say it, alright. Gooooo stats.

 

[sjrules99]

That's the point though, he is very good on the PK. Statisticly, like Moore, Pavelski is one of the better PK players in the league yet San Jose struggled last year in that area and early this season.

Pavs is OK on the PK. He's not that great. I really believe that PK is more coaching than players, so anyone can be a good PKer as long as they work hard and have a good system.

When you are down a man, all 4 guys have to be in sync and the system is most important because other than the goalie, no individual can kill a penalty. That is quite different from a PP which relies on individual player skills like a Dman with a great shot, or a holmstrom style pest in front. There is some coaching there too, especially with the schemes to enter into the zone (dump in, delay, etc) but the individual players are more important.

I really dont think much of the value of a good PK forward. Zues is the perfect example of how much the system matters more than the players.

 

[sjrules99]

Underlined for the impressive understatement. Having a guy like him when a 3rd or 4th line ices the puck in a tight game and the Sharks don't have a timeout is more than "not bad." Having him to take a defensive zone draw on the PK in a tight game is more than "not bad." You're just trying to justify calling him a total zero.



This illustrates how a stat can improperly applied to a theory as evidence. Quantifying Moore's PK ability to the TB ranking? Really? Shall we quantify Pavs the same way?



Bold sure does say it, alright. Gooooo stats.

While hockey isnt baseball, stats DO matter. Guys who are on the ice for a lot of goals against and not goals for are bad. yes, there are variables like who they are matched up against or paired with and the like, but at the end of the day stats do matter, especially if you can control for those other variables.

In baseball, moneyball was 100% about stats and that won the A's all the games they did and eventually the red sox their first championship in 100 years. Baseball scouts used 'feelings' to misconstrue who players are. Hell, sabean still fails to look at OBP when evaluating players and low and behold his free swingers are the worst offensive team in the league. In hockey, a good GM knows how to analyze stats appropriately to find value in a player. 'feelings' arent sufficient most of the time.

 

[abaskin18]

While hockey isnt baseball, stats DO matter. Guys who are on the ice for a lot of goals against and not goals for are bad. yes, there are variables like who they are matched up against or paired with and the like, but at the end of the day stats do matter, especially if you can control for those other variables.

In baseball, moneyball was 100% about stats and that won the A's all the games they did and eventually the red sox their first championship in 100 years. Baseball scouts used 'feelings' to misconstrue who players are. Hell, sabean still fails to look at OBP when evaluating players and low and behold his free swingers are the worst offensive team in the league. In hockey, a good GM knows how to analyze stats appropriately to find value in a player. 'feelings' arent sufficient most of the time.

Your misuse of stats is what's at issue, for me anyway. In your Moneyball analogy your use of stats generally equates to what Peter Brandt called: An imperfect understanding of where runs come from.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Pavs is OK on the PK. He's not that great. I really believe that PK is more coaching than players, so anyone can be a good PKer as long as they work hard and have a good system.

When you are down a man, all 4 guys have to be in sync and the system is most important because other than the goalie, no individual can kill a penalty. That is quite different from a PP which relies on individual player skills like a Dman with a great shot, or a holmstrom style pest in front. There is some coaching there too, especially with the schemes to enter into the zone (dump in, delay, etc) but the individual players are more important.

I really dont think much of the value of a good PK forward. Zues is the perfect example of how much the system matters more than the players.

Both Pavelski and Moore are top 12 in the league in pp goals against per average SH ice time. (Pavs #8, Moore #12).

Not anyone can be a good PKer. If that was true there wouldn't be so much emphsis by GM's to aquire players to fill those roles. There is quite a strong mix of both player abilites and coaching that go into having a good PK. The PK relies on individual players talents just as much, if not more so, than the PP does. Shot blocking, gap control, being able to read and react to the play, strong board play, faceoffs, body position, stick position, all of those are individual skills that improve the effectiveness of a PK and I'm not even including goalie atributes.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

While hockey isnt baseball, stats DO matter. Guys who are on the ice for a lot of goals against and not goals for are bad. yes, there are variables like who they are matched up against or paired with and the like, but at the end of the day stats do matter, especially if you can control for those other variables.

In baseball, moneyball was 100% about stats and that won the A's all the games they did and eventually the red sox their first championship in 100 years. Baseball scouts used 'feelings' to misconstrue who players are. Hell, sabean still fails to look at OBP when evaluating players and low and behold his free swingers are the worst offensive team in the league. In hockey, a good GM knows how to analyze stats appropriately to find value in a player. 'feelings' arent sufficient most of the time.

Stats like that don't equate to hockey. It works for baseball because in that game there is a senerio pitting one individual against another, Batter vs. Pitcher, in which the stat can be soley attributed to a single players ability level. In hockey there are 6 teammates on the ice who all have a significant effect on eachothers stats. There are way too many variables to boil down basic stats as an accurate picture of ones ability level.

 

[abaskin18]

Stats like that don't equate to hockey. It works for baseball because in that game there is a senerio pitting one individual against another, Batter vs. Pitcher, in which the stat can be soley attributed to a single players ability level. In hockey there are 6 teammates on the ice who all have a significant effect on eachothers stats. There are way too many variables to boil down basic stats as an accurate picture of ones ability level.

Cmon, you sound like one of those old guys who are looking for Fabio.

 

[Cmon_WTF]

Cmon, you sound like one of those old guys who are looking for Fabio.

He's a shortstop, right?

 

[filosofy29]

While hockey isnt baseball, stats DO matter. Guys who are on the ice for a lot of goals against and not goals for are bad. yes, there are variables like who they are matched up against or paired with and the like, but at the end of the day stats do matter, especially if you can control for those other variables.

In baseball, moneyball was 100% about stats and that won the A's all the games they did and eventually the red sox their first championship in 100 years. Baseball scouts used 'feelings' to misconstrue who players are. Hell, sabean still fails to look at OBP when evaluating players and low and behold his free swingers are the worst offensive team in the league. In hockey, a good GM knows how to analyze stats appropriately to find value in a player. 'feelings' arent sufficient most of the time.

I think the best GM's use a hybrid of both eye test (or gut feel) and statistics. Moneyball wasn't based on stats to build a championship team. It was to take advantage of undervalued statistics and build a team that can contend with the larger spenders. Allowing you to acquire assets via draft and trade to keep up. Billy Beane hasn't won shit and never will with the Athletics budget. The Red Sox won more on being able to outspend 97% of the other teams (save the Yankees) just as much as anything to do with Sabermetrics. If the Pirates win the championship solely based on Sabermetrics, than you're on to something.

BTW, Sabean also won a WS Championship in 2010 with a below average offensive lineup. This championship was mostly due to great pitching and a cohesive clubhouse that played for each other (well above the individual abilities), not individually. They won on awesome pitching and a synergistic clubhouse/lineup. Almost the antithesis of stats from an offensive point of view.

Do stats matter? Hell yes. Does the eye test and the ability to evaluate talent and process what you're saying matter just as much? In my opinion, yes. Stats basically allow us to check our internal inherent biases.

If you don't think it still happens in hockey, the 2006 Oilers are a great example of what heart, desperation and a little luck can do for you.

EDIT: Also Rules, one of the smartest baseball guys I know is gp956 on the Giants board. He has a great understanding of Sabermetrics and also has a good "eye" for baseball talent. You should frequent the board more over there and ask questions on the pros and cons of advanced stats guru's vs. "old school" evaluators. It's pretty damn enlightening.

 

[naes666]

It's too bad they can't give him a set of hands.

perhaps he should go ask the Wizard of Oz for some help, I heard the Scarecrow and Tin Man did alright!

 

[Cbrower91]

scored again, oh no doug wilson traded away brett hull