Quote:
Originally Posted by expo2428
Honestly my first impression of reading that article was the writer was looking to show off some very research he might of done that really meant nothing. Now Im not saying hes a bad writer in any way so please don't take it that way, I just thought this article screamed "Look at the useless information I just researched" thats all.
|
I actually like Kent's articles. I like how he uses advanced stats. However, it doesn't seem he was using any advanced stats really. Just seems like someone doing their scouting with points only, and looking to see who was on the board. He also didn't include the fact that Kanzig isn't a 'goon' as we all originally thought as well - he is an intelligent player, a leader, and someone who apparently vastly improved his defence and plays against the top lines every night.
As for Monahan having more points on the PP - while true in some cases (like Shremp), using this 'blind' data without doing in-depth analysis is just wrong (imo). Monahan is BY FAR the best player on his team, and he has little else to play with. Monahan had one of the highest QoC apparently - meaning teams were relentless in sending out their best against him, and he would be an 'easier target' as there wasn't anyone else to make room for him.
I would bet that Shremp's case was not the same (without even looking - which is also wrong). I think you can't pick and choose stats as you wish - you have to look at the over-all analysis, and use it in conjunction with scouting. Usually Kent is bang-on (imo) with his analysis in the NHL.