Summer 2014 Prospect Ranking Poll Rd13

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

What the hell is RGI?

It is a simple way to quantify a player's grittiness.

(Hits + blocked shots + take aways - give aways) / games played

If this ends up being 1.2 or less you basically have a soft player.

Soft players are okay and intuitively if a player is able to play in the NHL without hitting and blocking shots he probably is exceptionally skilled and usually offensively gifted.

It is pretty simple to see that successful teams... playoff teams / final 4 teams only have 3 or maybe 4 guys with a low RGI.

Teams that don't make the playoffs on a regular basis (Edmonton/ Calgary ) have had more than 4 players that would rather not have to make a hit or block a shot. You can't make up for the 4 softies by having McGratton or even a Yelle / Prust on the team.

This theory, which the Flames management (Burke/Treliving) seems to be following as though it was totally creditable when Feaster and Lowe thought that a team with a swarm of under-sized skilled guys would somehow dazzle the opposition into submission....

When I did the numbers for the GRIT index the soft players on the Flames were:

Stempniak, Cammalleri, Hudler, Tanguay, Cervenka, Baertschi, Derek Smith

of the 7 soft players as shown by my Grit index 6 have moved on.


The RGI really bugged the advanced stats guys as it was more applicable to a hockey teams success than anything they could come up with.

link to the thread

These real time statistics are not of the highest quality and there are some exceptions to the rule : Butler has a high RGI and Logan Couture has a low one..... but scoring stats don't tell the whole story either.... some guys have a higher point total than their skill provides because they get lucky 2nd assists and some guys are better than their scoring stats show because play with line-mates that don't bury the chances they are setup with.

When the Flame put out a lineup that includes Hudler, Gaudreau, Raymond, Baertschi, Granlund and Reinhart it will be a clear indication that they are tanking and going for the high draft choice..... They might have some lop-sided wins and pad the individual stats but they will not consistently win against teams that take them serious.

That is the Oiler model.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

What the hell is RGI?

The Ricardodw Grit Index. It's a fantasy statistic dreamed up by a poster who believes he knows more than anyone else, and has the statistics to prove it!

BTW, if you want to know how flawed (full of crap) the RGI is just take into consideration that according to stats from last season there were 19,390 giveaways and only 16,147 takeaways. There needs to bad balance in the math, and with a 3,243 discrepancy in giveaways versus takeaways, the balance cannot exist.

[MissTeeks]

Gretchen, stop trying to make RGI happen, it's not going to happen.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm going to really miss your boots on the ground in Abbotsford for the Flames prospects

You really make me think on prospects and I appreciate that. So valuable to have that right there vantage point.

Kickstarter to move Pierre to Adirondack?

[#-3]

Interesting, to see how little change there has been if you look at the top 5 from each round.

1. Gaudreau
2. Bennett Bennett
3. Baertschi Baertschi Baertschi
4. Poirier Poirier Poirier Poirier
5. Granlund Granlund Granlund Granlund Granlund
6. NA Wootherspoon Wootherspoon Klimchuk Klimchuk
7. Reinhart Klimchuk Wootherspoon Wootherspoon Wootherspoon
8. Reinhart Reinhart Gillies Gillies Reinhart
9. Gillies Reinhart Reinhart Gillies Ortio
10. Ortio Ortio Ortio Gillies
11. Jankowski Jankowski Jankowski Jankowski
12. Sieloff Sieloff Sieloff Sieloff
13. Arnold Arnold Arnold Arnold
14. Knight Kulak Ferland
15. Kulak Ferland Kulak
16. Agostino Knight
17. Kanzig

At risk of confusing everyone I added a bunch of notes. But this was the best way to see the trend.

* Looking at the top 5 from each round, and ranking where they would end up. example Beside the 7.
the first name is 5th place in round 3,
second name is 4th place in round 4,
third name is 3rd place in round 5,
fourth name is 2nd place in round 6,
fifth name is 1st place in round 7.

** First 4 have less names, because there were not enough preceding votes to show 5 results.

*** Because we skipped round 10, #'s 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 will only show 4 names.

*** Rounds 14, 15, 16, and 17 only show round that have already happened

Nobody yet has been more than +/-1 of where they went within 5 rounds before. Except the Ortio, Gillies tie thing, And Kinght will be.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The RGI really bugged the advanced stats guys as it was more applicable to a hockey teams success than anything they could come up with.

Is that what you thought?

[handgroen]

nm

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by New Era

The Ricardodw Grit Index. It's a fantasy statistic dreamed up by a poster who believes he knows more than anyone else, and has the statistics to prove it!

BTW, if you want to know how flawed (full of crap) the RGI is just take into consideration that according to stats from last season there were 19,390 giveaways and only 16,147 takeaways. There needs to bad balance in the math, and with a 3,243 discrepancy in giveaways versus takeaways, the balance cannot exist.

If that's the only problem then you can just multiply the total by (total league giveaways/total league takeaways). But that's still a pretty flawed method because it assumes that the discrepancy spreads evenly.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by New Era

The Ricardodw Grit Index. It's a fantasy statistic dreamed up by a poster who believes he knows more than anyone else, and has the statistics to prove it!

BTW, if you want to know how flawed (full of crap) the RGI is just take into consideration that according to stats from last season there were 19,390 giveaways and only 16,147 takeaways. There needs to bad balance in the math, and with a 3,243 discrepancy in giveaways versus takeaways, the balance cannot exist.

The interweb can be your friend if you use it properly (get a clue). How can you present a cogent argument or participate in worthwhile discussions when you lack the most basic understanding of the terms and metrics..

Giveaway

A form of turnover in which the player makes an
unforced error that results in giving the puck up to
the opposition. They can be unreliable as a statistic
since the definition is subjective and individual rink
scorers show significant differences in the way they
record them.

Takeaway

A form of turnover in which the player takes the
puck from the opposition, rather than gaining possession
through opposition error. It can be unreliable as
a statistic since the definition is subjective and individual
rink scorers show significant differences in the
way they record them.


Separate events. there does not have to be an equal number of brain farts (giveaways) to aggressively taking the puck away Takeaway. The NHL does not record the victim of a takeaway.


The statistics are all unreliable as are the shots on goal / attempts and shot blocks which are basis of CORSI and Fenwick.

If someone can show me how CORSI or Fenwick results can be used to make a team more successful I am waiting.

Perhaps the simplicity of the RGI offends you and it's KISS application of individual statistics to overall team success offends you. Often answers to complex problems are simple.

[The Fonz]

Recardo... ever stop to wonder why some of the best players in the league (you mentioned Couture) have low "RGI"s?

Because when they're on the ice, they have possession. When your team has possession of the puck, there is nobody for you to hit (unless you want to hit your own teammate)... and no shots for you to block (unless you want to block your own scoring chances)... which equals... low "RGI".

If you wanted it to be accurate, you'd measure:

Blocked Shots + Hits +/- Turnover Diff / Time Without Possession

Your equation you're running right now penalizes players that control the game.

[rollie619]

Knight until he's gone, but Arnold was close.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by codynw

What is RGI?

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

What the hell is RGI?

You're responsible for this

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Perhaps the simplicity of the RGI offends you and it's KISS application of individual statistics to overall team success offends you. Often answers to complex problems are simple.

Sorry buddy, you can't just duct-tape numbers together and pretend you're doing statistics.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Recardo... ever stop to wonder why some of the best players in the league (you mentioned Couture) have low "RGI"s?

Because when they're on the ice, they have possession. When your team has possession of the puck, there is nobody for you to hit (unless you want to hit your own teammate)... and no shots for you to block (unless you want to block your own scoring chances)... which equals... low "RGI".

If you wanted it to be accurate, you'd measure:

Blocked Shots + Hits +/- Turnover Diff / Time Without Possession

Your equation you're running right now penalizes players that control the game.

And they are great players.... They show up at the top of their teams and league scoring. It is obvious that a team needs several talented offensive players.... Maybe they have grit or maybe they don't need to have it.


However if you put up a team of 6 Patrick Kanes/ Eric Karlsons they lose the the LA kings in a playoff series 4 games straight.

On the 2013 Chicago Hawks they had Kane with a .7 RGI and Leddy with a 1.5 as their 2 softer players..... Maybe not as brutally big and hard to play against as the LA kings but nobody shying away.

The Kings had 3 softer players Carter, Williams and Scuderi.

I truly want Gaudreau to light up the league.... love the way Hudler (and Cammalleri and Tanguay) plays and see the value of Mason Raymond.


You put them on a line and expect the same degree of success that the Oilers are having with Eberle, RNH and Hall.

Once you have more than 3 they end up playing on the same line and become targets for getting run over.

Burke calls it Beef.... Players don't have to be that big... Andrew Shaw .. they just have to play big.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

However if you put up a team of 6 Patrick Kanes/ Eric Karlsons they lose the the LA kings in a playoff series 4 games straight

Good God man... I can't believe I'm replying to this...

1 x Kane was the best player on Chicago, that took the Kings to OT of Game 7.

You are a moron if you believe for 1 nano-second, that having MORE Pat Kanes would have hurt the Hawks. I can't bring myself to argue with you any more.

[Monahan23]

Soooooo Arnold wins, next poll?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

...The RGI really bugged the advanced stats guys as it was more applicable to a hockey teams success than anything they could come up with.

link to the thread
...

Good lord, NO. In the first place, the "RGI" bugged everyone—not just the "advanced stats guys." In the second place—and more importantly—it bugged everyone because it is an impressionistic assessment tool based on variables that are interpreted anecdotally. It bugged everyone because it was demonstrated quite clearly to be nothing other than an apologetic designed precisely to reinforce your own intuitions about "grit." It's propaganda.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The interweb can be your friend if you use it properly (get a clue). How can you present a cogent argument or participate in worthwhile discussions when you lack the most basic understanding of the terms and metrics..

Giveaway

A form of turnover in which the player makes an
unforced error that results in giving the puck up to
the opposition. They can be unreliable as a statistic
since the definition is subjective and individual rink
scorers show significant differences in the way they
record them.

Takeaway

A form of turnover in which the player takes the
puck from the opposition, rather than gaining possession
through opposition error. It can be unreliable as
a statistic since the definition is subjective and individual
rink scorers show significant differences in the
way they record them.


Separate events. there does not have to be an equal number of brain farts (giveaways) to aggressively taking the puck away Takeaway. The NHL does not record the victim of a takeaway.


The statistics are all unreliable as are the shots on goal / attempts and shot blocks which are basis of CORSI and Fenwick.

If someone can show me how CORSI or Fenwick results can be used to make a team more successful I am waiting.

Perhaps the simplicity of the RGI offends you and it's KISS application of individual statistics to overall team success offends you. Often answers to complex problems are simple.

Bolded for truth. Also, the definitions of the events are irrelevant. It's how you construct the logic of the relationship of the events that is problematic. Look at your magic formula.

(Hits + blocked shots + take aways - give aways) / games played

You are presenting this as there is a relationship between takeaways and giveaways, like there is in football, and the imbalance is an indicator of something positive or negative. The problem is there is no relationship between takeaways and giveaways in hockey, so to include these stats doesn't make sense.

Another major problem is a takeaway is not a measure of being gritty because there are many different ways to force a takeaway. If you actually look at the takeaway leaders in the NHL you'll see the list is not very gritty and instead relies more of better stick/puck skills. The top 20 includes Ryan O'Reilly, Eric Staal, Joe Thornton, Taylor Hall, Marian Hossa, Jamie Benn, Andrej Sekera, Dustin Byfuglien, Erik Karlsson, Tyler Seguin, Jaden Schwartz, Martin St. Louis, Gabriel Landeskog, Michael Backlund, Ryan Nugent Hopkins, T.J. Oshie, Jordon Eberle, Pavel Datsyuk, Cody Eakin, and Joe Pavelski. The majority of those players are not what you would consider "gritty players". They end up taking pucks away because of their superior skill more than their bruising style of play. Takeaways are also skewed towards forwards, because they are in a natural position to take the puck away.

In that same vein giveaways are no also an indication of lack of grit, or even lack of skill. Many times the players who lead the league in giveaways are players who are counted on to possess the puck the most and generate offense. A look at the top 20 includes Erik Karlsson, Taylor Hall, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Joe Thorton, Jeff Petry, Alex Goligoski, Phil Kessel, Jacob Trouba, P.K. Subban, Andrei Markov, Drew Doughty, Ryan Getzlaf, Slava Voynov, Justin Williams, Dustin Byfuglein, Jordon Eberle, Milan Lucic, Morgan Reilly, Duncan Keith, and Jason Demers. The distribution of giveaways is going to be slanted heavily toward players who are expected to possess the puck to make plays versus guys who engage in puck possession battles, where the real gritty work occurs. As with takeaways, giveaways are slanted toward defensemen as they are required to lead the transition game after recovering a loose puck or a dump in and making the first pass out of the zone, where most giveaways or takeaways happen. These are usually not a result of gritty play but of a brain fart.

The only statistic that you reference with any real relationship to grit is hits. That is when one player engages another and displays some grit by initiating some physical contact. The takeways/giveaways are not gritty plays. The same can be said for blocked shots, which are grossly slanted toward defensemen. You are using only one measure which requires true grit.

So in your little formula you slap together a bunch of subjective statistics that you have made the determination are indicative of gritty play and defined a causal relationship on, well nothing. This is referred to as non-causa pro causa. I think that is Latin for BS.

[MarkGio]

Roy, Arnold, Knight, Culkin, Kulak and Agostino are close in my eyes.



The next tier is Ferland, Hanowski, etc.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Roy, Arnold, Knight, Culkin, Kulak and Agostino are close in my eyes.



The next tier is Ferland, Hanowski, etc.

Ferland and Hanowski should not be listed in the same sentence. Also what's so special about Roy? They might have to move him to forward as he's such a disaster in his own end. I doubt the flames even sign him.