Quote:
Originally Posted by FAN
I think this is better than using PIM, but how is this different from simply looking at hits and blocked shots, which don't tell the story themselves?
Throwing hits and blocking shots may show grittiness and support one's viewing of a player, but hits stats can be unreliable indicators of grittiness and blocked shot figures are so dependent on penalty killing time and system. You also don't need to be gritty to take away the puck. it seems your index would favor defensemen and forwards who forecheck, kill penalties, and don't handle the puck. Just out of curiosity, how does Patrick Kane's numbers look like for 2011-2012. It would seem like Patrick Kane played a whole lot grittier last season than this past season based on the fact he had slightly more hits, slightly more blocked shots, and a much higher takeaway to giveaway ratio.
And then you have guys like Ryan Smyth, who even in his prime barely threw a hit, didn't block many shots, and had more giveaways than takeaways. Guys like him who are known for their willingness to take punishment in front of the net would be classified as a soft player under your index. An enforcer who is not an adept hitter will also have an average index score.
|
You make some great points.
Gritty by nature players that are put in a position to block shots on the PK are much the same as softer skilled players who get put on the PP and have inflated point scoring. Iginla does not block shots.... therefore he doesn't kill penalties..... feeds to a lower ARGI score. Point scoring is very very important.......
So is physically controlling the game.....
Pittsburgh had far better scoring stats and Boston was far grittier. Boston 4 Pittsburgh 0. The Leafs are not nearly as talented as Pittsburgh but forced Boston to resort to a miracle on ice finish. Why? The ARGI might provide some insight as to why Toronto was better than Pittsburgh in the playoffs.