Technically....
Mar 23rd, 2010 12:02 PM

...it was more than half of their teams games played. Yacey has dominated in net and I felt that 12 games was sufficient evidence that he has dominated. Any goalie that lets up less than 3 goals a game in a Men's League is stopping a ton of rubber.

Bayley playing in 14 of his teams 21 games seemed like enough proof as well. We also have to realize that if Bayley doesn't have an Ammel, Marrazzo or Meyer to play with, not to mention a full line of top tier players. Throw Bayley on a line with any two of the MMA line, and you would see his point production sky rocket.

But, technically...
Mar 23rd, 2010 01:38 PM

IN RESPONSE TO:


MVP stands for "Most VALUABLE Player." That doesn't necessarily translate to the the BEST player. I believe that to be the most VALUABLE, you need to provide valuable contribution to your team's success week-in and week-out throughout the season. To do this, you not only need to dominate on the ice, but you're contribution should reflect in the overall success of the team. When one team in the league is 19-1-2, it only makes sense that the player most valuable to a team's success played on this team.

I'm not arguing that Bayley and Yacey wouldn't start for a UVHL All Star team, I'm just making the point that they would have been much more valuable to their teams had they made more games, thus making their team's more successful. In Yacey's case: the team is 9-3 in games he's appeared, but it's 3-6-1 in games he didn't; technically, 3-3-1 in games the team PLAYED (didn't forfeit). To pull a baseball statistic, his VORP (value over replacement player) is obviously very high, but, overall, he detracted from his team's value by costing them 3.5 points* in played games he missed.

I do agree with the argument, however, that it's hard to determine the separate values of Meyer and/or Marrazzo when they play on a line with each other and Ammel. But, again, each have appeared in all 22 games for their team so that instantly increases their VALUE to the team's success on the season.

*If you're wondering how I came to the conclusion that Yacey's absences cost the team 3.5 points, here you go:

With Yacey, the team went 9-3 (75%, 1.5 pts/game)

Without him, it went 3-3-1 (50%, 1 pt/game)

It forfeited 3 other games, but we'll throw that out

That means that, each game he missed the team suffered an average loss of 0.5 points (1.5-1)

Over the course of seven games missed, that's 3.5 points (0.5x7)

Clearly you can't get a half of a point, but based on the assumption that Tuck is more likely to win than lose with Yacey in net, round the 3.5 to 4. Those four points are the difference between leading the Nords by 2 points and trailing them by 2 for an important second-place bye.

funny
Mar 23rd, 2010 02:43 PM

IN RESPONSE TO:


Kind of funny that I never mentioned MVP anywhere, the poll simply states "Who is the BEST player in the UVHL this season?"

You needs to be readin' more better.

KP

Touche
Mar 23rd, 2010 03:21 PM

IN RESPONSE TO:


Haha, a victim of my own argument. You at least have to give me some credit for the argument though, I mean, aside from the Tuckies themselves, I don't think there's anyone else that would have had the mathematical patience to calculate the points per game that Yacey's absences cost the team.

Thanks
Jul 21st, 2010 01:12 PM

IN RESPONSE TO:


I'm just picking this up now, trying to kill a little time, and I get to read that Yacey's value to our team suffered only because his VORP was so high.

As the 'RP' for most of this equation, I'd like to say, in all seriousness, thanks a lot. Look to get crushed by the Tuck steamroller next year, both in net, and otherwise.