gsp393 Posted September 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Well by the sounds of it hedjuk hung it up as far as the c goes. so really he put a gun to there head to make the decision now, and you dont give it to stastny ej or duchene all the while planning to strip it in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Well by the sounds of it hedjuk hung it up as far as the c goes. so really he put a gun to there head to make the decision now, and you dont give it to stastny ej or duchene all the while planning to strip it in a few years. CBS had a good article on the Hejduk subject here... http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/20064390/milan-hejduk-explains-why-he-stepped-down-as-captain- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 the half year is nothing statistically. I could just as easily argue that the half year decline over the past decade is due to the rule changes. But in reality, there are too many variables at play here, and that amount of change is simply statistical noise. Also, that half year completely ignores the fact that the prior 10 years increased a year and a half - maybe it was just a mean reversion. It also ignores the fact that it is unchanged for 40 years (exactly) The 'players can stay in better shape' argument doesn't hold water either - there were just as many Howe's Keon's, Richard's etc in past eras as there are now. Also, with a pool of 750 players, a few old guys doesn't have any significant impact. The numbers are what they are, but people will try to look for a trend that isn't there anyway, so have at 'er. The game has been getting younger since the lockout... Turning point: removal of the redline (and other rule changes) turning the focus towards speed. That's been widely discussed - that is no secret. I'll just leave you with this - http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_AverageAge.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 CBS had a good article on the Hejduk subject here... http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/blog/eye-on-hockey/20064390/milan-hejduk-explains-why-he-stepped-down-as-captain- To me it sounds like Hejduk expects to be traded. A good captain needn't be a top 6. Kris King was a dang good captain for the Jets version 1. It's not the guy with the most points or biggest paycheck that is a leader. A 3rd/4th liner that the rest of the team will play their nuts off for to win games is the real leader regardless of if he has the letter or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 The game has been getting younger since the lockout... Turning point: removal of the redline (and other rule changes) turning the focus towards speed. That's been widely discussed - that is no secret. I'll just leave you with this - http://www.quanthock..._AverageAge.php It is no secret that it has been discussed but that doesn't make it true. It is human nature to see trends and to want to see trends, even when there aren't any. (There are several good books on the subject now). In order for a trend to exist, there needs to be an external influence, or force, in place. I would argue that, since the 1920s, there have been two meaningful influences, WWII and massive epansion in the 70s. Everything else is noise. And if you look again at the data, other than those two events pulling the avg age down, the numbers have remained around 27 (between 26 and 28) for pretty much the rest of the last 100 years. By the way, the stats I quoted were from that site - do you think sending me a link back to my own data is going to somehow serve as a demonstration of evidence to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 It is no secret that it has been discussed but that doesn't make it true. It is human nature to see trends and to want to see trends, even when there aren't any. (There are several good books on the subject now). In order for a trend to exist, there needs to be an external influence, or force, in place. I would argue that, since the 1920s, there have been two meaningful influences, WWII and massive epansion in the 70s. Everything else is noise. And if you look again at the data, other than those two events pulling the avg age down, the numbers have remained around 27 (between 26 and 28) for pretty much the rest of the last 100 years. By the way, the stats I quoted were from that site - do you think sending me a link back to my own data is going to somehow serve as a demonstration of evidence to me? And I would suggest the rule changes post lockout have prompted the the latest trend to occur. I thew you back to the site because I thought depicted it pretty obviously. Since you seem to be a stats guy... Can you tell me if there is any flaws to stating a stat in 10 yr intervals and trying to draw conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 And I would suggest the rule changes post lockout have prompted the the latest trend to occur. I thew you back to the site because I thought depicted it pretty obviously. Since you seem to be a stats guy... Can you tell me if there is any flaws to stating a stat in 10 yr intervals and trying to draw conclusions. Several Start with the fact that those changes are no where near statistically significant. (The avg in 03-04 - prior to the lockout - was 27.30 and the avg since is 27.27) But a far more interesting topic is the human condition to want to see trends. As an opener, I would recommend Future Babble by Dan Gardner. It discusses this topic in an informal, non-science-text, kind of way that is both informative and enjoyable to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_worthy Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 And I would suggest the rule changes post lockout have prompted the the latest trend to occur. I thew you back to the site because I thought depicted it pretty obviously. Since you seem to be a stats guy... Can you tell me if there is any flaws to stating a stat in 10 yr intervals and trying to draw conclusions. let me propose another theory about the lockout... In 04-05 there was no hockey, so rosters remained essentially unchanged for a year - thus the average age climbed up. Sure, there were a few players that never came back from the lockout, but the primary result of it was that rosters remained mostly the same and thus the average age spiked upwards for one year. (this is a theory that I am more inclined to consider, simply because it was a single event that had a single, one-year result (fairly easy to isolate). So then, over the course of the next 2 or 3 years, the anomoly was reversed and the average age drifted back down to where it was. Now, if you consider that theory, and then re-evaluate what the last 15 years or so looks like on the graph, I think you will see that there is in fact, no downward trend at all. Essentially you have the numbers remaining very flat in the low 27s, with that spike upwards in 05-06. By 07-08, the avg was exactly where it was in 03-04 at 27.3 (Note: there is also a spike up in 00-01. I have no theory or explanation for that one and I have simply ignored it. But, like the spike in 05, it is the spikes that are the anomoly and otherwise the numbers are remarkably consistent and stable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
403Loyalty Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well by the sounds of it hedjuk hung it up as far as the c goes. so really he put a gun to there head to make the decision now, and you dont give it to stastny ej or duchene all the while planning to strip it in a few years. Landeskog was the obvious choice ( probably not the year they wanted to put the C on him tho ) But really he is a born leader and in his draft year with RNH I said for picks 1 and 2 its either you get a really gifted playmaker or a future captain. I think its silly for anyone to think EJ or Dutch was a nod before Landeskog even after age and experience. Obviously im pretty hung up on kog and think he will be captain for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (Note: there is also a spike up in 00-01. I have no theory or explanation for that one and I have simply ignored it. But, like the spike in 05, it is the spikes that are the anomoly and otherwise the numbers are remarkably consistent and stable) That was the year the NHL added the Wild & the BJs. Both teams would want some vets out of the rummage sale.Some of those might have retired/been sent to the AHL otherwise. Just a possible reason for the spike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ifiwaschucknorris Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 It's possible that Landeskog will be a good captain once he gets over his nervousness. He definitely has experience in the role. I'm more interested in how this will affect Duchene. He had a subpar sophomore season and has to think that this decision negatively affects him going forward as he was widely thought to be captaincy material. Will this spur him to better performance or does this mean a greater likelihood of him being available in a trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 That was the year the NHL added the Wild & the BJs. Both teams would want some vets out of the rummage sale.Some of those might have retired/been sent to the AHL otherwise. Just a possible reason for the spike. also the 99 draft was infamously weak and produced very few high end NHL quality players. Maybe there was void of significant players debuting or getting gms like other more normal yrs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyerfan52 Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 also the 99 draft was infamously weak and produced very few high end NHL quality players. Maybe there was void of significant players debuting or getting gms like other more normal yrs.. Quite true. Looking back @ the selections there are few that became impact players. Other then the Sedins, Havlat & Boynton the 1st round reads like a list of failed potential. There were a few late gems like Miller & Zetterberg but it was a good year to have traded your high picks away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.