Sam Reinhart is a center

[pi2000]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Buffalo doesn't win last night without Ullmark in net. 

Buffalo doesn't win last night without Casey Mittelstadt. 

we could go on and on. 

So you agree that faceoffs matter?

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

So you agree that faceoffs matter?

No, because 1 faceoffs out of 1k mattered doesn't mean all faceoffs matter. You use some of the most outdated and useless metrics to value players, it's pretty amazing. You should work in the Sabres front office, you can tell them hits matter.

[SwampD]

59 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, because 1 faceoffs out of 1k mattered doesn't mean all faceoffs matter. You use some of the most outdated and useless metrics to value players, it's pretty amazing. You should work in the Sabres front office, you can tell them hits matter.

Faceoffs matter when they matter. It's really annoying that numbers folk can't admit that.

Sure, when you lump certain situations in with every situation, the numbers say they don't matter, but with 7.2 seconds left down by one, there is probably a direct correlation of FW to your ability to tie it up.

I just find it interesting how much possession get's stressed in analytics, yet a play that directly leads to possession is of no importance.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Faceoffs matter when they matter. It's really annoying that numbers folk can't admit that.

Sure, when you lump certain situations in with every situation, the numbers say they don't matter, but with 7.2 seconds left down by one, there is probably a direct correlation of FW to your ability to tie it up.

I just find it interesting how much possession get's stressed in analytics, yet a play that directly leads to possession is of no importance.

Shooting from center ice matters when it matters. I mean if 1 out of 1k goals happen when someone shoots from center ice, we should focus on doing it more. This is equivalent of what you are saying. 

To the bolded, and Pi ignored this already once. Winning a faceoff does not mean you won possession. 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Shooting from center ice matters when it matters. I mean if 1 out of 1k goals happen when someone shoots from center ice, we should focus on doing it more. This is equivalent of what you are saying. 

To the bolded, and Pi ignored this already once. Winning a faceoff does not mean you won possession. 

I wouldn't consider that winning a faceoff, then. Also, I always thought winning a faceoff was a five man task.

And goals like that happen more than 1 in 1K.

Edited April 12, 2021 by SwampD

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

I wouldn't consider that winning a faceoff, then. Also, I always thought winning a faceoff was a five man task.

And goals like that happen more than 1 in 1K.

Faceoffs are not always won cleanly but they still give the win to one of the two players. 

So goals from center happen more than 1 in 1k... so we should focus on it then. We should track which players score from center ice and collect those players because they are really awesome. What an insane hill to die on. 

[Randall Flagg]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Shooting from center ice matters when it matters. I mean if 1 out of 1k goals happen when someone shoots from center ice, we should focus on doing it more. This is equivalent of what you are saying. 

To the bolded, and Pi ignored this already once. Winning a faceoff does not mean you won possession. 

Genuinely important faceoffs happen a couple times per game. Center ice goals only happen when PK Subban scores them, which happens once every few years over thousands of games 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Genuinely important faceoffs happen a couple times per game. Center ice goals only happen when PK Subban scores them, which happens once every few years over thousands of games 

Important faceoffs do, but how they are won does not. You might get 1 clean shot off of a clean faceoff win a game. 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Faceoffs are not always won cleanly but they still give the win to one of the two players. 

So goals from center happen more than 1 in 1k... so we should focus on it then. We should track which players score from center ice and collect those players because they are really awesome. What an insane hill to die on. 

What a shock, you've taken something to it's extreme.

I like Reinhart. I'll just leave it at that.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, SwampD said:

What a shock, you've taken something to it's extreme.

I like Reinhart. I'll just leave it at that.

What a shock, you don't understand why I did that. Faceoff wins are not the important part, that's the point. 

You know what is extreme? Claiming Reinhart isn't good or can't be a center because his faceoff percentage isn't about 50. 

[SwampD]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

What a shock, you don't understand why I did that. Faceoff wins are not the important part, that's the point. 

Except when they are. That's my point.

If you read my post, you would have understood that I understood your point.

They are not mutually exclusive.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Except when they are. That's my point.

If you read my post, you would have understood that I understood your point.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Which is why I used shots from center ice. They aren't important, until they are. 

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which is why I used shots from center ice. They aren't important, until they are. 

Yeah, but those are like, 1 in 7K.

[PerreaultForever]

49 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Important faceoffs do, but how they are won does not. You might get 1 clean shot off of a clean faceoff win a game. 

But you'll give long analytical arguments looking at something like offensive zone puck possession.................which starts with winning the draw. But whatever. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

But you'll give long analytical arguments looking at something like offensive zone puck possession.................which starts with winning the draw. But whatever. 

Yea, because I can also start offensive zone puck possession by losing a draw. I can also enter the zone with no draw involved. I can also win the draw, lose the puck, retrieve it, all without leaving the zone. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

But you'll give long analytical arguments looking at something like offensive zone puck possession.................which starts with winning the draw. But whatever. 

this goes for the thread - think relatively

It's not that face offs don't matter - it's that: hockey is an exceptionally fluid game

there are a multitude of "face offs", for all intents and purposes, every shift - 50/50 puck possession battles. 

All the stats indicate when looking at the macro is that, because of how many battles are taking place on any given shift, winning faceoffs doesn't statistically bear itself as very relevant relative to a multitude of other factors that are more prevalent 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

this goes for the thread - think relatively

It's not that face offs don't matter - it's that: hockey is an exceptionally fluid game

there are a multitude of "face offs", for all intents and purposes, every shift - 50/50 puck possession battles. 

All the stats indicate when looking at the macro is that, because of how many battles are taking place on any given shift, winning faceoffs doesn't statistically bear itself as very relevant relative to a multitude of other factors that are more prevalent 

boom

[PerreaultForever]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yea, because I can also start offensive zone puck possession by losing a draw. I can also enter the zone with no draw involved. I can also win the draw, lose the puck, retrieve it, all without leaving the zone. 

Sure you can, but it'd be easier to do the latter if Tage would finish a check once in a while.      Since he doesn't, it's easier by winning the draw 🙂

[pi2000]

As per the NHL, a faceoff win is determined by the team that ends up controlling possession of the puck after the faceoff has taken place.  

Therefore, the center is more likely to "win" a faceoff if he can pull the puck directly back to his defensemen.

So anybody who proclaims that puck possession matters therefore must also proclaim that faceoffs matter.

Checkmate anti-faceoffites.

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

As per the NHL, a faceoff win is determined by the team that ends up controlling possession of the puck after the faceoff has taken place.  

Therefore, the center is more likely to "win" a faceoff if he can pull the puck directly back to his defensemen.

So anybody who proclaims that puck possession matters therefore must also proclaim that faceoffs matter.

Checkmate anti-faceoffites.

Lol you're grasping at straws now. 

You're not even sure what you're arguing anymore. 

[LGR4GM]

I'm not doing it because I've did a couple years ago for you, but take a teams faceoffs wins and plot them against actual wins. Your graph will be scattered all to hell with no correlation present, but by all means Pi, scream into the aether that we should dump Reinhart because he's not good at faceoffs. 

[pi2000]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Lol you're grasping at straws now. 

You're not even sure what you're arguing anymore. 

Nice deflection... JoJo like reflexes, impressive 🙂

 Being able to at least break close to even at the faceoff dot is a pre-requisite for playing center in the best league in the world.    His 38% is nowhere near breaking even...  he's taken 842 faceoffs in his career and Buffalo has gained possession on only 36% of them.... he sucks at it. 

Let me put this way, there are 248 players who have taken at least 800 faceoffs since Reinharts rookie season.... of those 248, Samson ranks 247th in win percentage.    The only player worse than him is Jack Hughes.    3rd worst is a full 2 percentage points better than both them.

So, should he stick at center?   I think he's a better winger, and not just because of face-offs, but it is part of the equation. 

[pi2000]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm not doing it because I've did a couple years ago for you, but take a teams faceoffs wins and plot them against actual wins. Your graph will be scattered all to hell with no correlation present, but by all means Pi, scream into the aether that we should dump Reinhart because he's not good at faceoffs. 

Please, I'm begging you, show me where I said we should dump him because he's not good at face-offs.   

Stop putting words in my mouth and making stuff up to fit your weak narrative. 

[pi2000]

https://www.the-rink.com/despite-what-some-experts-say-faceoffs-matter/

"if you want to be a possession team—ie, fuel the ongoing Corsi frenzy of so many would-be analytics gurus—and direct more shots at your opponent’s net than they direct at yours—you have to first possess the puck."

[Curt]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Faceoffs matter when they matter. It's really annoying that numbers folk can't admit that.

Sure, when you lump certain situations in with every situation, the numbers say they don't matter, but with 7.2 seconds left down by one, there is probably a direct correlation of FW to your ability to tie it up.

I just find it interesting how much possession get's stressed in analytics, yet a play that directly leads to possession is of no importance.

Yup, they matter situationally, and it’s really nice when at least one of your top C’s is very good at FOs, but just because a guy has a FO win% of 44% instead of 53%, I’m not going to say he isn’t good at C.  There are a lot of more important things.