Points leaders (STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE)

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:35 pm

I thought it would be interesting to determine the leading scorer in the state, with the exception of strength of schedule.

Alot of AA girls are great players, as are A, but A stats are somewhat skewed because of the lack of competition. I think when people look just at stats they are missing the big picture because the best players in the state dont lead in scoring because of the difficult schedules that they play.

what do you think? is there a way to determine this?

winnings not 4 everyone · Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:58 pm

I think this thread just needs to die. All you will be doing is "guessing" who is the best points leader in the state. Not only is their a strength difference between A and AA, there are huge differences in strenth between A sections. There are also differences in coaches letting a player run up stats for personal interests and coaches getting ALL players involved in a blowout game. Some of the best players get buried on a line with weaker linemates to try to balance a roster. Not a topic worthy of discussion.

Drop the "points" leader and spend your time on indentifying "leaders". Those players who leave everything on the ice. Those players who know when to ice the puck when the going gets tough. Those players who practice with 100% effort. Those players who know "how" to play the game and spend their time learning the game by supporting the younger teams and watching others play. That is the player with a bright future and can be recognized by their personal growth in the game.

Maybe what your looking for should be thread entitled "girls who want to see their name on the internet". These posts are full of those players already.

hockeyrube7 · Post by **hockeyrube7** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:32 pm

winnings not 4 everyone wrote:Maybe what your looking for should be thread entitled "girls who want to see their name on the internet". These posts are full of those players already.

Winning: is 100% right! Nothing good comes from comparing this kid to that, except a negative result.

Winning: Couldn't agree more with your last comment here!

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:50 pm

I have no personal interest in any girl that plays this game, just a fan of the game. I agree with your statement that we should look at teams, look at these posts on this website, both boys and girls, the majority is individual.

I was simply stating a FACT THAT THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE STATE ARE NOT THE ONES WHO TOP THE POINT LISTS, as i feel Points by a player do not tell the whole story, so before this "thread dies" why dont you understand the point i was trying to make and i apologize if it wasnt made clear.

winnings not 4 everyone · Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:55 pm

eastsidehockey wrote: I was simply stating a FACT THAT THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE STATE ARE NOT THE ONES WHO TOP THE POINT LISTS, as i feel Points by a player do not tell the whole story, .

That may not be true either. There are certainly some girls on the top who ARE some of the best players in the state. I'm just saying that it's a subjective measure (defining great players) and using a list to be objective about it, doesn't work.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:57 pm

well you seem to have something to say about in the section 8 A best player thread

good thing your not a politician

winnings not 4 everyone · Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:03 pm

Eastsideguy- You certainly don't interpret what you read. Maybe it should be in comic book form for you. My statement in section 8 validates my whole point of just throwing out names. Let me know if you need an interpreter. You seem a little miffed about all this. Throw a few down and relax!!

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:15 pm

that is probably the reason why i am miffed. I wasnt comparing abilities like sec 8 A thread, just making a statement that points are skewed and should not be a viable way to judge talent in this state.

If this is an issue and this thread must die off, than half the topics on this board need to follow suit.

Also, i take it you write the papers, online websites that provide point leaders? as all this thread was intended to do. All i was simply asking was do they make adjustments for SOS, so if you need help interpreting i know someone who is fluent in sign language

To sit here and say that i want to list girls names is silly, i can look it up online. Maybe i should have delivered my question differently, which TEAM has the toughest SOS.

I agree with your statement about this being a place for parents to "drop names" but this wasnt the point of this thread.

I appreciate the dialogue with you

brookyone · Post by **brookyone** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:41 pm

eastsidehockey wrote:I wasnt comparing abilities like sec 8 A thread, just making a statement that points are skewed and should not be a viable way to judge talent in this state.

I thought the point made about points / stats being a pretty true, accurate indicator of above average...sometimes well above average talent, in some cases, is valid. Sometimes regardless of an absence of SOS. I don't see why that "shouldn't" occur. There are some outstanding players currently in the WCHA...from 1A HS programs, who were indeed at the top of the scoring stats that prove this true. My guess would be that will remain true in the future for some players from small schools, that play weaker conference opponents.

It may...probably will become a little more challenging to accumulate the big numbers due to increased parity. Already is to some extent.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:00 pm

i totally agree A players will be just as good players as AA in the next level, i feel if you take the same player who plays a "soft" schedule and have them play a "hard" schedule they are not going to get the same amount of points, it is a fact. does not mean they are less of a player, or can not adjust to tougher competition, just that if people look at only stats and say so and so is a better player because he/she has more points is wrong.

MNHockeyplayer19 · Post by **MNHockeyplayer19** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:11 pm

eastsidehockey wrote:i totally agree A players will be just as good players as AA in the next level, i feel if you take the same player who plays a "soft" schedule and have them play a "hard" schedule they are not going to get the same amount of points, it is a fact. does not mean they are less of a player, or can not adjust to tougher competition, just that if people look at only stats and say so and so is a better player because he/she has more points is wrong.

I understand where you are coming form that make alot of sence. It is fact that they do not get as many point as other teams do because of there schedule.

keepitreal · Post by **keepitreal** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:15 pm

It's a fair point, but there's a bunch of other factors that are largely immeasurable as well, such as playing time (2 lines vs 3, special teams, etc.) and the all-important "supporting cast". You might even have to look at the strength of the goaltenders faced as much as the strength of the teams, and situations where players might be allowed to pad their stats. It's a death spiral of conjecture.

I'm wandering a bit, but this brings to mind one of my favorite quotes, often attributed to sportscaster Vin Scully (but really from a Scottish writer named Andrew Lang) that goes something like this:

"Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts—for support rather than illumination."

winnings not 4 everyone · Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:16 pm

Hey #19, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You say your from Blaine. How could you go watch the game? By the way, there is no #19 on Blaine. You may want to just read for a while, from what I see, you can't spell. Good luck at your game tonight. There is no game for Blaine tonight.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:20 pm

"Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts—for support rather than illumination."

that is a good one

you make great points keepitreal, which you sure are, about the other goaltenders, how many lines a coach plays, ect.

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:34 pm

A good example of what's being talked about here is the New Ulm vs. Waseca game last night. New Ulm won 17-0. Rest assured there were probably several New Ulm players that put up great stats in just this one game. But how many would they have scored if they had been playing Stillwater or Edina? Maybe 1 or 2, but more likely none. That doesn't make them any better or worse, it's just a function of not being able to score when the puck is in your end the whole game.

Trying to pick out the best players, including those who you don't see at the top of the scoring leaders, is the job of college coaches and their scouts. In contrast to just about everyone posting here, including myself, their jobs depend to a large degree on being able to pick and recruit the best players, regardless of how many points they have.

hockeyheaven · Post by **hockeyheaven** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:10 pm

Today’s game between WBL and Forest Lake may or (may not) add insight to the strength of schedule debate. WBL is 2-5-1, (un-ranked) their top 3 scorers have a combined 12 goals. The teams they have played are Blaine, Hill #17, Rapids #6, Hibbing #9 A, Cretin #12, MV, Roseville #8, and Stillwater #1. Forest Lake on the other hand is 7-1-0 (ranked #16). Their top scorers have 19 goals. The Teams they have played are Proc/Herm #19, Cambridge, Chisago Lake, St. Francis, Woodbury, Park, MV and Hastings.

eastsidehockey · Post by **eastsidehockey** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:57 pm

WBL will only benefit from playing a hard schedule come playoffs. Forest lake hopefully has some tougher competition to get them playoff ready. Because that is what it is all about, getting to the big dance.

tigerpower · Post by **tigerpower** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:35 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:A good example of what's being talked about here is the New Ulm vs. Waseca game last night. New Ulm won 17-0. Rest assured there were probably several New Ulm players that put up great stats in just this one game. But how many would they have scored if they had been playing Stillwater or Edina? Maybe 1 or 2, but more likely none. That doesn't make them any better or worse, it's just a function of not being able to score when the puck is in your end the whole game.

When playing even a decent team New Ulm gets beat handily, so why do they keep running up scores like this? Bad coaching? Or selfish players?