Any concern with malkin playing all 82 games?

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:58 pm

burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:Some guy thought he was so clever in saying Geno went scoreless in twenty games and averaged 22 minutes per.

It wasn't clever, it was simply a mathematical calculation. Since you were looking at 8 games and 14 games, I decided to look at 20; lo and behold, in those 20, his worst scoring 20 games, he averaged exactly what you want him to average. Seems to be a counterpoint to your constant blathering.

crzymike wrote:That doesnt negate the 14 games I sighted as him putting up the most points. He also neglected to mention the games where he scored a point or had a two point game.

I didn't neglect anything. YOU started with the selective data analysis. I just showed you how silly and stupid it is by "drawing a conclusion" from Geno's 20 worst games. My "analysis" was a parody. Only a fool would look at those 20 games, calculate a minutes per game average and try to make a declaration of opinion and try to pass it off as fact.

crzymike wrote:I dealt with the issue of him playing too many minutes. furthermore in the eight games he played his most minutes he averaged .75 points per game and went scoreless 50% of those games.

In the eight games he played the most minutes, if he STOPPED playing at 22 minutes, he would have averaged even less than .75 points per game. But apparently, that would have been optimal.

crzymike wrote:In the 74 other games including 16 of the 20 he sighted as Geno going scoreless, he averaged 1.35 points per game. He only went scoreless in 22% of those games where he wasnt at around 25 minutes or higher. Big drop off in his overall production when he was forced to play elevated minutes.

Or maybe the team was going scoreless and Geno was forced to play more minutes to try to score goals late? That would be a much more reasonable conclusion, but you don't really deal well with logic.

crzymike wrote:I know the stats and he thought he was so smart at sighting those twenty games geno didnt score. His numbers were off, mine werent. :wink:

The corn in my stool knows more about stats than me. I love to argue stats and numbers with people like you, because you make me look so terribly stupid and misinformed. It's hilarious. Even funnier is that you're STILL clinging to this notion that my "numbers were off"... they were DEAD ON, even checked by another poster.

Errrr, ummm, uhhhh.... yeah, I'm so wrong.
I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:03 pm

crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:06 pm

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
An as I said if you read my last response to you, 21.19 in an of itself is fine.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:10 pm

crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
An as I said if you read my last response to you, 21.19 in an of itself is fine.


So you're upset because occasionally Malkin goes above or below his average ice time? Again, will something catastrophic happen at 22:01 of ice time?
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:13 pm

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
An as I said if you read my last response to you, 21.19 in an of itself is fine.


So you're upset because occasionally Malkin goes above or below his average ice time? Again, will something catastrophic happen at 22:01 of ice time?
My concern was that he played elevated minutes in a short period of time towards the latter part of the season and was hopin he'd get some rest.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby burghsportsguys on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:17 pm

crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, you know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. You don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little you understand statistics.

You are really showing your ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
burghsportsguys
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:01 pm

Postby burghsportsguys on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:20 pm

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
An as I said if you read my last response to you, 21.19 in an of itself is fine.


So you're upset because occasionally Malkin goes above or below his average ice time? Again, will something catastrophic happen at 22:01 of ice time?

Yes, at that point, his stats retroactively change and become worse.

We could be in REAL trouble if we go to OT in the playoffs, because once Malkin hits that 25 minute mark, we will need to keep him off the ice, because he is a liability at that point.
burghsportsguys
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:01 pm

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:33 pm

burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, I know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. I don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little I understand statistics.

i aM really showing my ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
First off, You miscalculated your statistics. Maybe use a calculator.

22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D

The bottom line here is you missed the point altogethor in the beginning. Just because he plays large amounts of minutes doesnt necessarily mean he cant have a big game, you must have missed that. Just like if Geno played 15 minutes doesnt mean he can't have a huge game either. By enlarge however, he's most successful when he has his minutes in the low twentys. Its very common in most players of his talents and him in particular.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:43 pm

crzymike wrote:
burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, I know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. I don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little I understand statistics.

i aM really showing my ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
First off, You miscalculated your statistics. Maybe use a calculator.

22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D

The bottom line here is you missed the point altogethor in the beginning. Just because he plays large amounts of minutes doesnt necessarily mean he cant have a big game, you must have missed that. Just like if Geno played 15 minutes doesnt mean he can't have a huge game either. By enlarge however, he's most successful when he has his minutes in the low twentys. Its very common in most players of his talents and him in particular.


There's a gaping flaw in your logic that everyone else seems to have picked up on but you haven't noticed.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:47 pm

burghsportsguys wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better. I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats. Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .


What's he averaging this year?

What's the issue again?
An as I said if you read my last response to you, 21.19 in an of itself is fine.


So you're upset because occasionally Malkin goes above or below his average ice time? Again, will something catastrophic happen at 22:01 of ice time?

Yes, at that point, his stats retroactively change and become worse.

We could be in REAL trouble if we go to OT in the playoffs, because once Malkin hits that 25 minute mark, we will need to keep him off the ice, because he is a liability at that point.
If you really believe I BELIEVE that to be the case, you are mentally challenged and again missed the point altogethor. You see I think there will be games in the playoffs and OT games in particular, where he might actually reach over 25 minutes! :shock: Yes it could happen.

The thing I was wanting and what common sense would dictate, is that in the regular seaon, its better to mildly conserve his minutes so that he's likely to have a high level of performance consistently and still have a lot left in the tank come playoff time. He was worn out last year and while this year is different, there is a reason for concern. He took on a lot more responsibility and performed admirably in Sids absence, yes? That bein the case, it would have been wise to limit some of his ice time.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:49 pm

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, I know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. I don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little I understand statistics.

i aM really showing my ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
First off, You miscalculated your statistics. Maybe use a calculator.

22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D

The bottom line here is you missed the point altogethor in the beginning. Just because he plays large amounts of minutes doesnt necessarily mean he cant have a big game, you must have missed that. Just like if Geno played 15 minutes doesnt mean he can't have a huge game either. By enlarge however, he's most successful when he has his minutes in the low twentys. Its very common in most players of his talents and him in particular.


There's a gaping flaw in your logic that everyone else seems to have picked up on but you haven't noticed.
An yet you offer no evidence to support that. 22 minutes, learn it, love it because its the best thing goin today!!!!! Aww helll yeah!!!!!!!
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:52 pm

crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, I know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. I don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little I understand statistics.

i aM really showing my ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
First off, You miscalculated your statistics. Maybe use a calculator.

22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D

The bottom line here is you missed the point altogethor in the beginning. Just because he plays large amounts of minutes doesnt necessarily mean he cant have a big game, you must have missed that. Just like if Geno played 15 minutes doesnt mean he can't have a huge game either. By enlarge however, he's most successful when he has his minutes in the low twentys. Its very common in most players of his talents and him in particular.


There's a gaping flaw in your logic that everyone else seems to have picked up on but you haven't noticed.
An yet you offer no evidence to support that.


Let's say Malkin plays over 25 minutes and goes pointless. Are you saying that Malkin went pointless because he played 25 minutes? Or are you just complaining about Malkin's icetime, when it turns out he's averaging close to what you think he should be averaging and is coming off a monster season?
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:55 pm

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
burghsportsguys wrote:
crzymike wrote:I suggest you research your precious stats again there sparky. You have proved nothing other then bein ignorant and disrespectful. If you continue in that vain believe me, I can give it just as you can, even better.

How many minutes and seconds did Malkin average in his 20 worst games, if you're SO SURE that I'm wrong. I gave you the figure, I did the math, the number was right. If you're claiming it's wrong, please enlighten me with the right number.

I want you to show me where it's wrong, since you won't shut up about it.

crzymike wrote:I deal with logic far more then a simplistic blathering ham n egger like you, who is subjective in his approach to stats.

Pfft, I know nothing about statistical analysis and you've proven that conclusively in this thread. I don't even understand the most basic concepts of correlation.

crzymike wrote:Grow up junior and learn what the experts think as it pertains to ideal minutes regarding a superstar like Geno! Ask anyone in the ''know'' and see what they say. Or better yet pay attention and LEARN the game. 22 minutes is absolutely perfect .

22 minutes may be the perfect average. I haven't been arguing that one way or another - I'm just pointing out how little I understand statistics.

i aM really showing my ass in this thread. It's pretty amusing.
First off, You miscalculated your statistics. Maybe use a calculator.

22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D

The bottom line here is you missed the point altogethor in the beginning. Just because he plays large amounts of minutes doesnt necessarily mean he cant have a big game, you must have missed that. Just like if Geno played 15 minutes doesnt mean he can't have a huge game either. By enlarge however, he's most successful when he has his minutes in the low twentys. Its very common in most players of his talents and him in particular.


There's a gaping flaw in your logic that everyone else seems to have picked up on but you haven't noticed.
An yet you offer no evidence to support that.


Let's say Malkin plays over 25 minutes and goes pointless. Are you saying that Malkin went pointless because he played 25 minutes? Or are you just complaining about Malkin's icetime, when it turns out he's averaging close to what you think he should be averaging and is coming off a monster season?
Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:01 am

crzymike wrote:Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.


So how exactly does Malkin playing in 22:01 or more minutes of ice time during the game impact what Malkin did during the initial 00:01-22:00 of ice time in a game?
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:15 am

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.


So how exactly does Malkin playing in 22:01 or more minutes of ice time during the game impact what Malkin did during the initial 00:01-22:00 of ice time in a game?
Lets say he gets overextended on a few shifts and plays 25 minutes, he may have had to take a few shifts off to achieve those elevated minutes which would make him less effective at the end of the game or possibly cause him to make a bad mistake due to bein physically drained. After one of the games he played a lot of minutes Geno himself said he was dead tired.

Geno was asked in a russian paper this offseason about his ice time. He suggested 22 minutes a game and would like to get sometime on the PK. That was because he didnt think he got ample ice time in 06-07. Dave King, his coach said on an interview with tim benz a year or so ago that he needed to be in the flow of the game and should receive optimally about 22 minutes a game. Farber,Allen,Engblom ect stated that star players (and they were referring to Malkin in particular) should receive 21 or 22 minutes a game, and that would suit him well. So Geno thinks it, his coach thought it, respected journalist believe it, why are you arguing a very obvious point?
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby joopen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:17 am

Mike,

How long have you been going at this? :shock:

That is dedication!
joopen
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,731
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: right behind you

Postby crzymike on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:20 am

joopen wrote:Mike,

How long have you been going at this? :shock:

That is dedication!
Sorry man, I just think im bein unfairly maligned here. I didnt think people would actually doubt that playin a guy 22 minutes a game is a bad idea. Or that playin him 25 minutes a game was a good idea. I have tried to be respectful but people wanted to jump on me and I acted in the same manner. I apologize to the majority here who are kind and responsible posters.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby Rocco on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:23 am

crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.


So how exactly does Malkin playing in 22:01 or more minutes of ice time during the game impact what Malkin did during the initial 00:01-22:00 of ice time in a game?
Lets say he gets overextended on a few shifts and plays 25 minutes, he may have had to take a few shifts off to achieve those elevated minutes which would make him less effective at the end of the game or possibly cause him to make a bad mistake due to bein physically drained. After one of the games he played a lot of minutes Geno himself said he was dead tired.


Did Malkin know that he would be playing more than 22 minutes, therefore requiring him to conserve energy? If the answer is "no" or "I'm not sure", then you have no point. That's what you're missing here- the games in which he played 25+ minutes weren't poor games for Malkin because he played that many minutes. If Therrien had benched him at the 22 minute mark, Malkin would still have had a poor statistical game. There's no concrete link between Malkin pulling heavy minutes and Malkin not producing- all you have at the moment is a coincidence and a speculative scenario.


Geno was asked in a russian paper this offseason about his ice time. He suggested 22 minutes a game and would like to get sometime on the PK. That was because he didnt think he got ample ice time in 06-07. Dave King, his coach said on an interview with tim benz a year or so ago that he needed to be in the flow of the game and should receive optimally about 22 minutes a game. Farber,Allen,Engblom ect stated that star players (and they were referring to Malkin in particular) should receive 21 or 22 minutes a game, and that would suit him well. So Geno thinks it, his coach thought it, respected journalist believe it, why are you arguing a very obvious point?


What's Malkin averaging again? Where have I said that he should be averaging more or less?

No one is arguing what he should or shouldn't be averaging. The argument is what happens when he goes over the average and the great cataclysm that follows.
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

Postby crzymike on Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:33 am

Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.


So how exactly does Malkin playing in 22:01 or more minutes of ice time during the game impact what Malkin did during the initial 00:01-22:00 of ice time in a game?
Lets say he gets overextended on a few shifts and plays 25 minutes, he may have had to take a few shifts off to achieve those elevated minutes which would make him less effective at the end of the game or possibly cause him to make a bad mistake due to bein physically drained. After one of the games he played a lot of minutes Geno himself said he was dead tired.


Did Malkin know that he would be playing more than 22 minutes, therefore requiring him to conserve energy? If the answer is "no" or "I'm not sure", then you have no point. That's what you're missing here- the games in which he played 25+ minutes weren't poor games for Malkin because he played that many minutes. If Therrien had benched him at the 22 minute mark, Malkin would still have had a poor statistical game. There's no concrete link between Malkin pulling heavy minutes and Malkin not producing- all you have at the moment is a coincidence and a speculative scenario.


Geno was asked in a russian paper this offseason about his ice time. He suggested 22 minutes a game and would like to get sometime on the PK. That was because he didnt think he got ample ice time in 06-07. Dave King, his coach said on an interview with tim benz a year or so ago that he needed to be in the flow of the game and should receive optimally about 22 minutes a game. Farber,Allen,Engblom ect stated that star players (and they were referring to Malkin in particular) should receive 21 or 22 minutes a game, and that would suit him well. So Geno thinks it, his coach thought it, respected journalist believe it, why are you arguing a very obvious point?


What's Malkin averaging again? Where have I said that he should be averaging more or less?

No one is arguing what he should or shouldn't be averaging. The argument is what happens when he goes over the average and the great cataclysm that follows.
Rocco, if he ends up at 25 minutes a game. That would mean throughout the game he'd have an extra shift here and one there and then maybe another one or two to get up to that mark. Those extra shift's could eventually deteriorate the quality of his play if he's not properly rested. It could have an accumulative effect at the end of the game and even throughout it. Conversely, There were times he was underutilized and wasn't in the flow of the game (last year for instance when he didn' kill penalties) and it was hard for him to maintain an edge or have the same hop. Thats why in his case its important to give him a balance if possible regarding ice time. He himself recognized both extremes and suggested this. Kirk and I discussed this matter and his former coach suggested it also.
crzymike
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 12,912
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: monroeville

Postby bakeman81 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:09 am

CrzyMike, you started off by saying you were concerned with how Malkin played too much in certain situations, and then said you think he should be playing 22 minutes a night. He averaged 21:19 a night, one shift under 22 per night. You kept talking about how he needed to AVERAGE that amount, and that's what he did. What exactly is wrong with the way Therien is developing him? They weren't going to heap the PK on him last year after the whole fleeing Russia thing and playing in the longest season of his life. Therien is clearly developing Malkin just fine, almost exactly at the number of minutes all of your experts want superstars to play at. What is the issue?
bakeman81
 

Postby ulf on Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:12 am

I'm reading this and trying to figure out the problem here...his avg is ~21 min per game...some times he will play over 21 per game, and sometimes less, that's why it's an average. I'm not a hockey coach, but I think it would be nearly impossible to play him exactly 22 min per game, sometimes the situation dictates he plays less, and sometimes he can take a long shift, or see extra power play duty, no biggie, imo.
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,466
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Postby joopen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:14 am

this is my suggestion...

Image
joopen
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,731
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:17 pm
Location: right behind you

Postby bh on Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:48 am

crzymike wrote:22 minutes is ideal. Maybe we agree there. I have given accurate stats to prove my arguement. If you would like to continue this round and round, we can take it to PM. :D
Mike I will try one more approach here. This is what people are getting on you for. Yes we all agree 22 minutes would be ideal. The problem that everyone has is you stating that the stats you pulled PROVE your point. The fact is that they don't even support your point because you cannot correlate ice time to success and expect any meaningful data. Let me ask you this. Have you ever taken a statistics course? If you did, you must not have paid attention because this is simple basic stats. I'm not trying to insult you or confront you, I just want to explain to you why people are jumping on you. Yes 22 minutes averaged is ideal and that's about what he's averaging but you cannot say that the stats "prove" playing more than 22 affects his performance. There are so many variables that to choose only 1 "i.e. icetime" is foolish and this is the reason that everybody but you can see that you don't know anything about statistics. Statistics is a hard subject. I had to take 2 stat courses in college and they were by far my least favorite subject. Nobody is arguing that 22 minutes is ideal, they are arguing that your stats don't prove anything, and frankly they don't.

One more point to try and make you understand.

Games where the pens are behind, who ends up getting more ice time toward the end of the game? Could it be the better players?
If the Pens are behind, are they probably playing well? Probably not.
If the Penguins are not playing well does Malkin have a better or worse chance of having a good game? Probably a better chance of a worse game.
Is the icetime responsible for him having a bad game, or is the poor play of the team resonsible for him having to play more minutes?
Think about it, please.
bh
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 4,483
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:48 am

Postby SoupOrSam on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:13 am

I'll donate a jellybean if someone wants to do some stats:

Find the total# of words in this thread:
Percentage being Mike's words:
Percentage being the words 'stats' or 'statistics':
Compare the total # of words in this thread to the overall # of words in a previous GDT:

We can then decide if this statement is true: LGP is at it's OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE when stats are involved or when Mike is involved even though the GDT gain more pages but less words.
SoupOrSam
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,767
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:46 pm
Location: Wanna fight? Why don't you stick your head up my butt and fight for air.

Postby Rocco on Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:21 am

crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:
Rocco wrote:
crzymike wrote:Absolutely NOT! I am saying in MOST cases if he plays around 22 minutes his overall on ice performance is likely to be better on AVERAGE. Like I said, he could have huge performances playing 25 minutes or 15 minutes but I think those would be the exceptions to the rule.


So how exactly does Malkin playing in 22:01 or more minutes of ice time during the game impact what Malkin did during the initial 00:01-22:00 of ice time in a game?
Lets say he gets overextended on a few shifts and plays 25 minutes, he may have had to take a few shifts off to achieve those elevated minutes which would make him less effective at the end of the game or possibly cause him to make a bad mistake due to bein physically drained. After one of the games he played a lot of minutes Geno himself said he was dead tired.


Did Malkin know that he would be playing more than 22 minutes, therefore requiring him to conserve energy? If the answer is "no" or "I'm not sure", then you have no point. That's what you're missing here- the games in which he played 25+ minutes weren't poor games for Malkin because he played that many minutes. If Therrien had benched him at the 22 minute mark, Malkin would still have had a poor statistical game. There's no concrete link between Malkin pulling heavy minutes and Malkin not producing- all you have at the moment is a coincidence and a speculative scenario.


Geno was asked in a russian paper this offseason about his ice time. He suggested 22 minutes a game and would like to get sometime on the PK. That was because he didnt think he got ample ice time in 06-07. Dave King, his coach said on an interview with tim benz a year or so ago that he needed to be in the flow of the game and should receive optimally about 22 minutes a game. Farber,Allen,Engblom ect stated that star players (and they were referring to Malkin in particular) should receive 21 or 22 minutes a game, and that would suit him well. So Geno thinks it, his coach thought it, respected journalist believe it, why are you arguing a very obvious point?


What's Malkin averaging again? Where have I said that he should be averaging more or less?

No one is arguing what he should or shouldn't be averaging. The argument is what happens when he goes over the average and the great cataclysm that follows.
Rocco, if he ends up at 25 minutes a game. That would mean throughout the game he'd have an extra shift here and one there and then maybe another one or two to get up to that mark. Those extra shift's could eventually deteriorate the quality of his play if he's not properly rested. It could have an accumulative effect at the end of the game and even throughout it. Conversely, There were times he was underutilized and wasn't in the flow of the game (last year for instance when he didn' kill penalties) and it was hard for him to maintain an edge or have the same hop. Thats why in his case its important to give him a balance if possible regarding ice time. He himself recognized both extremes and suggested this. Kirk and I discussed this matter and his former coach suggested it also.


First, I noticed you changed from saying he's conserving energy (which is impossible to prove) to a completely different hypothetical.

It "could" affect performance. Or it could not. We don't know, and unless someone goes back through the games and/or talks to Malkin we won't know for sure. It also could be that Malkin's minutes were normal through two periods and spiked in the third with the team trailing, in which case your theory wouldn't hold water (in case it does already). Here's the ultimate problem that you can't get around- why should I believe it's anything other than a statistical coincidence and logical conclusion that Malkin has lower point totals in his high ice-time games? (The reason it's logical- if Malkin isn't scoring, the Pens are probably trailing, and Therrien is likely to play his star more to try and get points. If Malkin is scoring, the Pens are winning, and Therrien is using his bench.)
Rocco
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 34,908
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Manor Farm

PreviousNext

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FLPensFan, ivand87, SubtropicalPenguin, the riddler and 37 guests

e-mail