Puck Prospectus Quarterly Report

Swell. Things like “brutal start by Richard Park” make me wonder about the value of turning individual hockey players into value stat widgets — when does it push the bounds of reason? When does it stop telling us anything? (I know statheads will admit that for hockey it’s in its infancy … but in that case, language of certainty probably shouldn’t accompany it.)

I’m not praising Park as some god, but if a number-cruncher thinks his start has been brutal and is a real factor in the Isles not being better, then they don’t fully understand what role(s) he plays. This is where game-by-game assignments get lost in the aggregate numbers.

But here’s what really makes me scratch my head: He’s boiled everyone down to a GVT and uses that to assess where every team is and where they’re headed, then he says:

The excellent chemistry of the Rangers bodes well for a return trip to the playoffs.

The hell? Chemistry?! I must have missed that column. But if we’re going there, how do the Rangers have better chemistry than, well, anyone else?

Honestly, aside from the Rangers “chemistry” bit, I’m not bothered by the last part, the wrap-up. It’s fair to say Phi/Pit/Was/NJ should be the class of the East. And that the Islanders are probably just an outside shot to make the playoffs (like any bubble team, really).

I think the issue is, rather than roll these numbers out as they are and saying “here they are,” there’s some expectation to write an authoritative essay on what they all mean. And that’s where it all gets muddled because the numbers don’t necessarily mean what is written about them.

Example: “Jeff Tambellini (3.0 GVT) may be playing over his head.” Well, yes and no: For Tambellini’s small sample, he’s outplayed his history. But even with that, his 3.0 doesn’t mean a lick for the team right now because he’s not even playing, period. So it’s not only a question of whether he can keep up his pace, it’s also a question of how often he’ll even get the opportunity to try.

By the way, I should mention that if anyone is really into doing stats or poring through some of the Behind the Net stuff in general, don’t hesitate to post stuff here.

I enjoy reading that stuff — and I know a lot of people really eat it up — I’m just never on top of it enough to post it regularly (to say nothing of my weak table/html skills).

They can’t admit mistakes?

First off, we’re only a quarter of the way through the season — far too early to call any full-season projection a mistake.

Second, they plainly said this: “they’re clearly better than the 30th ranked team, but shouldn’t be expected to have more than an outside shot at a playoff bid unless other Eastern Conference teams falter.” Seems like an admission that the dead last projection is unlikely to be accurate.

Finally, you realize that in all substantial likelihood the Islanders are going to finish last in the division, right?

GVT is a developing statistic. It’s nowhere near as accurate or predictive as its baseball counterparts yet, but it’s far better than almost anything else out there.

Also: Richard Park kind of sucks.

Richard Park is a player that Garth will probably get half a dozen calls on. As Dom has pointed out, his worth cannot be measured in stats, but a good GM will know it.