I often see people refer to young players on sub par teams and how many points they could rack up if they were on a team loaded with offensive weapons.
This is not necessarily the case in my opinion. I'll use a couple of examples of younger players that seem to get mentioned alot on this site that have played on struggling clubs- Anze Kopitar and Alexander Semin. Put them on one of last year's best offensive clubs, I think Ottawa and Buffalo were the highest scoring teams last year. So, would they have had more points with one of these teams? Last year, Kopitar had 61 pts (29 on the PP) and Semin had 73 pts (38 on the PP).
I personally think not. Firstly, they would not be getting the PP time that they did with their current teams. Secondly, they would not be getting the ice time that they did. Consider that Kopitar averaged over 20 and a half minutes of ice time per game and Jason Spezza averaged just over 19 minutes per game. Just an observation. Better team=better stats???
2007-09-20 13:43:04 · 9 answers · asked by Bob Loblaw 7 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Swooosshh- right over your head.
2007-09-20 13:56:43 · update #1
Better team=better stats-not necessarily.
2007-09-20 14:03:16 · update #2
Like I'm Telling You- Well said-GREAT example with Teemu and Kariya since it was a situation where they weren't even young guys.
I also think you hit the Rodulov sitution DEAD ON. He is in for big numbers because he is going to be a go-to guy. On more talent laden teams, he would not be.
I think this really applies to the Fantasy Hockey world. People want to load up on Rangers and what-not but like you say, the games are still 60 minutes.
Jordan Staal might be a good example of someone who might have had a bunch more points on a lesser team last year since he had almost no PP time. He had 42 points (6 on the PP). Meanwhile he had 7 goals and 2 assists for 9 points SH. It's just I'll hear alot of people say that yes, he had 29 goals and 42 points but he was on an offensive powerhouse but stick him on LA last year and he would have had more. Pet peeve of mine.
2007-09-20 14:28:51 · update #3
Jude-yeah, kind of missing my point a little. Kopitar is a 3rd or 4th line guy in Ottawa. Yet, in LA, he is a go-to guy, thus better stats.
2007-09-20 14:31:30 · update #4
Zam-the irony LOL
2007-09-20 16:51:40 · update #5
It is a common misconception. It is so easy for the average fan to sit back and look at numbers and say this or that. In the real world, it doesn't work that way.
Using your Kopitar example. Kopitar is an excellent young talent, but he's not a world beater. If you replaced Spezza with Kopitar, I think Ottawa doesn't do as well. One, I think Spezza is one of the best players in the NHL and his PPG in each of the last two years (2nd in 2006, 4th in 2007) prove that. Two, I don't think Kopitar meshes as well with Heatley and Alfredsson as well as Spezza.
A perfect example would be the 2003-2004 season. Kariya and Selanne both signed for less money then they could have made elsewhere to play together for the Colorado Avalanche. Problem was that Colorado already had Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Milan Hejduk, and Alexandre Tanguay. Where were Paul and Teemu going to get minutes? Everybody I knew assured me that they would get ice time. Well, they didn't.
I see the same situation happening in New York. I hear people looking at the Gomez and Drury signings and already I've heard Shanahan is getting 100 points, Jagr is getting 100 points, etc.
The game is still 60 minutes longs, some p[layers will play more than others. The more stars you have on your team....the more disappointed you will be because some of your stars WILL underperform.
I will use a final example.....Alexander Radulov. I expect Radulov to have a great year because he is a great player, and Barry Trotz says that with Sullivan, Kariya, and Forsberg gone.....Radulov will be THE guy this year. But as great as Radulov is.............he would still be a third liner in Colorado, Anaheim, Rangers...etc.
But he's in Nashville.............and in my pool, he'll be my sleeper pick!
Baypae, the NBA is an excellent example, as are the Toronto Raptors. The Raptors have had people over the years (Keon Clark comes to mind) who were starters here in Toronto but were bench warmers at their previous teams.
2007-09-20 14:09:03 · answer #1 · answered by Like I'm Telling You Who I A 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
You hit the nail on the head. I recall the 1976-77 Philadelphia 76ers. They just acquired Julius Erving for a team that had Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones, George McGinnis, and Lloyd (World) Free, and people wondered if there would be enough basketballs to go around.
Similarly - as you pointed out - there is so much playing time in a game. If there were 18 Wayne Gretzky clones on a team, some would still score more than the others. A good young player with promise has to earn his spot to be in a position to get more goals.
Baypae: I honestly did not mean to use the NBA as an example. I didn't read answers before I answered.
2007-09-20 22:50:57 · answer #2 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree - best example is the Olympics or World Cup. Guys who are top line players on their respective teams find themselves dropped to 10th or 12th on the depth list. Sometimes they end up as checkers. Hard to produce at the high level when you get on the ice one in every six shifts. (Take into account at 12th on the depth chart you will see no pp time and little pk time) Moving to a better team does not automatically compute into better production. Playing with better players might however. The example of Nicholls with Gretzky fits there but there's no way the Kings were a better club than the Oilers and it was Gretzky who moved not Nicholls.
2007-09-20 23:04:11 · answer #3 · answered by PuckDat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Better talent around a player equals more points. See Bernie Nichols and some guy named Great One for proof. Although they do average over 21 minutes I would love to see a break down of how much of that time is in the offensive zone. If there are a bunch of talented guys(when I say talented I mean above the other teams level) they will rack up points. The two assists on most goals will allow for it. On the deeper teams you get better talent going against third line guys that would be equipment boys on the other teams. When Joey Jeaneau was on the Ice with Adam Oates and Cam Neely he racked up decent if not better than decent Stats when he left those two he was not nearly as successful at racking up points.
Better Talent on the Ice = Better Stats If you put the person on checking line(4th) or 3rd line then they are not going to score points though.
2007-09-20 21:23:04 · answer #4 · answered by RaceNut17 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I know exactly what you mean, this is a common situation in the NBA, we call it "good stats in a bad team". Those players have good stats but their team never wins then they get tired of losing and sign a contract elsewhere and they struggles right away.
examples are Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley, Damon Stoudamire, Antoine Walker, Vince Carter, Larry Hughes, Stephen Jackson, Zach Randolph, the entire NY Knicks team and the entire Atlanta Hawks team.
sorry about using NBA reference to answer this hockey question
2007-09-20 22:01:50 · answer #5 · answered by baypae 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
where it is true that the more ice time you have the more likely you are to be in a scoring situation. But Semin for instance is an absolutely amazing player his skating and puck handling rival Ovechkin's and regardless of what team he was playing for i can't see him sitting out on the PP.
2007-09-20 21:03:35 · answer #6 · answered by DC FURY 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I just wanted to remind you who has Kopitar, Semin, and Radulov in our league Bob.....
And I agree 110% with your point.
2007-09-20 23:23:37 · answer #7 · answered by Zam 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you! TOTALLY! Better team= Better Stats!
2007-09-20 20:50:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
im so tired that i read the first few words and then got tired, so whatever the rant is about i belive your right! :D
2007-09-20 23:35:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋