Traded the NHL's Leading Scorer, Mistake?

[2014olympicgold]

I'm prepared to see another point of view, but only with more than a hunch behind it or an offhand comparison to another player. The reality is Voracek's productive ice time is way up (and still has room to improve), his Shots per game are way up (and again, with room to improve), and his luck metrics are all very reasonable, with the exception of slightly elevated 5x5 IPP and Offensive Zone Starting %. When factoring in everything, he should be able to continue at his current pace.

Show me some hard data that explains how you're right and I'm not about this. And I get that history shows that many breakouts prove to be aberrations, but having written Cage Match for 18+ months I can say that when that happens it's almost invariably easy to tell from the data, trends, and luck. And I'm not seeing that at all here.

Yet you’re ignoring what I’ve posted.

[rataylor22]

Oh also. I don't think his zone starts are unreasonably high. 60% for a top offensive player isn't ludicrous. However, his IPP on the powerplay is also too high. 62% is a lot. Consider Crosby's for example, is 58%. So say his 5v4 IPP is a high by 2-4%, and that adds another point or two to that total of 13

[SergeP]

Anyone want to take a bet on Voracek's point total this year? Let's set the over/under at 84.5 and I'll take the under.

[RizzeeDizzee]

It's not really being a stickler, it's being accurate. 46 points in 48 games is, by definition, not a point per game.

Also just saying, the argument you make for Voracek's seem....flimsy and hollow. First off, you're banking on approximately 90 seconds more ice time per game based on what Giroux plays. Did you research why Giroux get's an extra 90 seconds? Is that penalty kill time? Is it late game defensive zone draws? I wouldn't call either of those situations for productive ice time, nor do I think you can bank on Voracek magically playing in those situations next year. You also state that he COULD shoot more, even though he's already shooting at the highest rate of his career, he's known more as a pass first than shoot first player, and by not being in the top 20, he's in the top 35, so now who's being a stickler. # shots per game is a really good rate and I don't really think it's reasonable to expect that to increase much.

Now the fun part. Your argument is these two factors, which again, are pretty flimsy, will offset the fact that he has a ridiculously high IPP. 90%? NINETY PERCENT!? That is massize and definitely not sustainable. Which you acknowledge. What you don't acknowledge is how many points that is. Say he drops to his previous career high of 78.8%. A drop of 11.2%. Do you comprehend how many points that is. The Flyers have scored 119 goals this season. That is 13 (!!!) extra points Voracek has gotten from his stupidly high IPP. Which would put him below a PPG. You really think an extra 90 seconds of ice time and MAYBE shooting more can offset the loss of 13 points over 43 games?

I read the cage match article. It just makes a lot of assumptions and flimsy arguments as to why Voracek should be valued as an 85-90 point player. 75-82 would be a more reasonable projection.

Frankly, I couldn't disagree more with pretty much everything you wrote. At no point am I banking on him getting more ice time. I said that was likely to occur and if it does, it would be able to offset whatever small bump he might be getting in luck factors. I also acknowledged that Giroux gets less offensive zone time (it's right there in the article), but even if some of Voracek's added ice time comes in the form of less deisrable zone starting it's still additional ice time, which can't help but be beneficial.

As for his shots per game rate, it's trended upward for three straight years. Sure - there's a ceiling, but there's no reason to believe he's hit it until that actually happens. After all, he's not even in the top 30, so it's realistic to see him gaining 1 extra shot every 3 to 4 games, which means at minimum 2-3 more goals per season,plus who knows how many assists from rebounds and the like.

As for IPP, that could and should drop somewhat, although for what it's worth Hall had 93% or more two straight years and other elite scorers have posted 80%+ several times. And you might want to check your math, as the 90% IPP is 5x5, and the Flyers have only scored 75 5x5 goals, so the drop would be a whole lot less. Thanks for putting your most incorrect point in bold for us to see.

I think you feel one way about Voracek and want to justify that, which is fine. But the numbers are the numbers, and from my experience in dozens of cage matches this is for real.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Yet you’re ignoring what I’ve posted.

You mean the ten game snippets? Not sure how that's persuasive.

[blayze]

The main reason I'm not ready to buy in to Voracek as a PPG player yet is because he's been in the league for 7 years now and has yet to break PPG even once. He has shown flashes of brilliance for sure, but never over the course of a full 82 game season.

If we're talking about a young 18 or 19 year old kid who's still on the front end of the development curve, then it's a different story, but this guy has an established history. Even after his "breakthrough" shortened season, he regressed last year, despite playing alongside Giroux (the hottest player in the 2nd half last year) the entire season, so I'm not buying the "he's a PPG player with Giroux" angle yet.

Very rarely will a player who's proven himself to be a 45-60 point guy his whole career suddenly evolve into a sustainable 80+ point guy. In fact, I can't even think of a single example of that as I'm writing this. Not saying it's impossible, but I've gotta see a longer history of success before I'm ready to put him in that grouping.

Also, based on his current season stats, I do believe he's had the benefit of luck. His shooting % is quite a bit higher than his long-term average, and his PPP production is through the roof right now (he's currently at 18 vs. 23 all of last season). How sustainable is that?

[Big Ev]

I have no idea what y'all are talking about in terms of IPP and such so I will bow out. RizzeeDizzee, I didn't say you were wrong. I just feel there are more factors than stats and trends (playing for his next contract, Flyers aren't a good team so will have to make adjustments next season, he's never been a PPG player, etc.).

[RizzeeDizzee]

Oh also. I don't think his zone starts are unreasonably high. 60% for a top offensive player isn't ludicrous. However, his IPP on the powerplay is also too high. 62% is a lot. Consider Crosby's for example, is 58%. So say his 5v4 IPP is a high by 2-4%, and that adds another point or two to that total of 13

Voracek's IPP at 5x4 currently ranks him 90th in the NHL among forwards who've played 50+ minutes at 5x4, behind the likes of Reilly Smith, Alex Burrows, and Antoine Vermette.

[RizzeeDizzee]

I have no idea what y'all are talking about in terms of IPP and such so I will bow out. RizzeeDizzee, I didn't say you were wrong. I just feel there are more factors than stats and trends (playing for his next contract, Flyers aren't a good team so will have to make adjustments next season, he's never been a PPG player, etc.).

IPP refers to in-percentage points, and measures what percentage of time a player receives a point when a goal is scored while they're on the ice.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Also, based on his current season stats, I do believe he's had the benefit of luck. His shooting % is quite a bit higher than his long-term average, and his PPP production is through the roof right now (he's currently at 18 vs. 23 all of last season). How sustainable is that?

see my recent post on his 5x4 IPP - he's not producing on the PP at an unsustainable rate. And his shooting % is within 10% of what he posted in his time as a Flyer.

[rataylor22]

Frankly, I couldn't disagree more with pretty much everything you wrote. At no point am I banking on him getting more ice time. I said that was likely to occur and, when it does, it would be able to offset whatever small bump he might be getting in luck factors. I also acknowledged that Giroux gets less offensive zone time (it's right there in the article), but even if some of Voracek's added ice time comes in the form of less deisrable zone starting it's still additional ice time, which can't help but be beneficial.

As for his shots per game rate, it's trended upward for three straight years. Sure - there's a ceiling, but there's no reason to believe he's hit it until that actually happens. After all, he's not even in the top 30, so it's realistic to see him gaining 1 extra shot every 3 to 4 games, which means at minimum 2-3 more goals per season,plus who knows how many assists from rebounds and the like.

As for IPP, that could and should drop somewhat, although for what it's worth Hall had 93% or more two straight years and other elite scorers have posted 80%+ several times. And you might want to check your math, as the 90% IPP is 5x5, and the Flyers have only scored 75 5x5 goals, so the drop would be a whole lot less.

I think you feel one way about Voracek and want to justify that, which is fine. But the numbers are the numbers, and from my experience in dozens of cage matches this is for real.

Ok bud.

"I'm willing to accept another point of view, but bring facts, not a hunch"

You're right, my math is wrong, I didn't split their goals by even strength and special teams. So he loses 8 point on 75 even strength goals, not 13 on 119. But he also loses 2 points because of his 5v4 IPP, so that's 10 points. Which would put him at 42 points in 43 games.

At the very least, what you should do is read your own words before contradicting them. Here is a direct quote from your "Cage Match" article that you've been "doing for 18 months":

Meanwhile, Voracek’s productive Ice Time should go higher, as Giroux’s has, and could see his Shots per game continue to climb as well. Therefore, even if Voracek’s 2014-15 points total is being somewhat influenced by unsustainable good luck (i.e., 5x5 IPP and offensive zone starting %), added productive Ice Time and Shots per game in future seasons should help keep his scoring output at or near his current level.

That exact sentence, in no uncertain terms, says that his increased ice team and likely increase in shots per game will offset his unsustainable good luck. Which is a direct contradiction to your bolded statement above. You are in fact, banking on both increased ice time and an increased shot rate to offset 10 points that he has received from increased luck.

As for "after all he's not in the top 30". He is literally 31st in shot's taken. Actually no. He is tied for 29th. And 1 singular more shot would put him in a tie for 24th. So yea. He's pretty up there for shooting (your argument is for shots/game, mine is bulk number of shots, I'd argue the difference is pretty negligible.

You're not at all willing to accept another point of view. Don't act like you are, because you're not. Here's facts. Here's stats. You don't accept them because you are unwilling to see a different point of view. 2014OG has also provided backed up arguments. Again, you're unwilling to accept another point of view, because that would go against the cage match article you just wrote and can't stop relentlessly pumping.

[rataylor22]

see my recent post on his 5x4 IPP - he's not producing on the PP at an unsustainable rate. And his shooting % is within 10% of what he posted in his time as a Flyer.

His shooting % is within 10%? That's an acceptable threshold for a shooting percentage to be sustainable? Shit. On Voracek's 129 shots, that's a difference of 13 goals. How is 10% a reasoanble threshold?

[notch4077]

IPP refers to in-percentage points, and measures what percentage of time a player receives a point when a goal is scored while they're on the ice.

Thanks, but I still don't get it. No joke. Still don't know what Corsi or Fenwick do/are and really don't care. Come to think of it, I'm actually disappointed that I even know those two terms.

[SergeP]

Thanks, but I still don't get it. No joke. Still don't know what Corsi or Fenwick do/are and really don't care. Come to think of it, I'm actually disappointed that I even know those two terms.

Corsi and Fenwick are two up-and-coming prospects from the Italian Hockey League and British Proper Hockey League, respectively. Look out for them in the 2016 entry draft.

You're welcome.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Ok bud.

"I'm willing to accept another point of view, but bring facts, not a hunch"

You're right, my math is wrong, I didn't split their goals by even strength and special teams. So he loses 8 point on 75 even strength goals, not 13 on 119. But he also loses 2 points because of his 5v4 IPP, so that's 10 points. Which would put him at 42 points in 43 games.

At the very least, what you should do is read your own words before contradicting them. Here is a direct quote from your "Cage Match" article that you've been "doing for 18 months":



That exact sentence, in no uncertain terms, says that his increased ice team and likely increase in shots per game will offset his unsustainable good luck. Which is a direct contradiction to your bolded statement above. You are in fact, banking on both increased ice time and an increased shot rate to offset 10 points that he has received from increased luck.

As for "after all he's not in the top 30". He is literally 31st in shot's taken. Actually no. He is tied for 29th. And 1 singular more shot would put him in a tie for 24th. So yea. He's pretty up there for shooting (your argument is for shots/game, mine is bulk number of shots, I'd argue the difference is pretty negligible.

You're not at all willing to accept another point of view. Don't act like you are, because you're not. Here's facts. Here's stats. You don't accept them because you are unwilling to see a different point of view. 2014OG has also provided backed up arguments. Again, you're unwilling to accept another point of view, because that would go against the cage match article you just wrote and can't stop relentlessly pumping.

You took my quoted sentence out of context, as you'll see I qualified it several times throughout the piece. And how exactly does his 5x4 IPP cost him points?

You seem set in your arguments, as do I. We can agree to disagree; however, at the risk of being accused of "last wording" I still think the overall data swings in my favor.