Desharnais?
- Garnie

Max Pac and especially Gallagher, Subban and Gally.

Is it predicting if you're only right 90% of the time?
- Arctic_AARDVARK

Have they been? No.

See this whole advanced stat discussion is where we need UG. Wish I knew where he got the on the ice graphic showing high scoring areas. Would love to see where the Leafs rank in terms of shots from those high scoring areas.

Have they been? No.
- djamon

have you been? Is it right more often than you?

Is it predicting if you're only right 90% of the time?
- Arctic_AARDVARK

If they come up with stats that hit 90%, I am on my way to Vegas.

That sucks
- Garnie

have to shut it off for the CBC games, should have checked NHL network for a different feed. but i didn't think of it till just now

If they come up with stats that hit 90%, I am on my way to Vegas.
- Aetherial

screw vegas.. im going to the casino around the corner

have you been? Is it right more often than you?
- Arctic_AARDVARK

I'm not trying to be. They are. Nor am I making predictions and shoving them down everyone's throat.

I do enjoy that we have stats that when compiled almost show us what the standings look like. Cause you know, we can't just look at the standings or anything.

To anyone trying to have a serious convo about this I apologize. Truly

I'm not trying to be. They are. Nor am I making predictions and shoving them down everyone's throat.
- djamon

If they come up with stats that hit 90%, I am on my way to Vegas.
- Aetherial

the problem though, you don't get the stats till after the game is played

Max Pac and especially Gallagher, Subban and Gally.
- mykokes

I was just joking - also Eller will keep getting better - lots there for sure -

They're not the mighty leafs but hey......

you think the Canadiens have that strong of a line up
- bobbyisno1

I think he's pointing to overall organization. The Canadiens are in a very strong position with ther under-25 core and their prospects. They're not built to win right now, like the Leafs. They're built with 3-5 years down the line in mind.

Fellas the analogy with the 90% is simple. If a child gets 90% on his exam, it can be argued that his knowledge of the subject matter isn't perfect. It can also be argued that his knowledge of the subject matter is pretty (frank)ing good. Same thing with advanced stats. They aren't perfect but they have been proven to be quite accurate in deciphering good teams from bad. That cannot be argued because it is supported by data that cannot be debated. It doesn't mean that a team cannot be good by sucking in these areas. It just means that more often than not, being good in these areas means you'll have on ice success. You can argue that theory till you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. If you're given 2 sample tes and one team has great fenwick/corsi and the other team has poop fenwick/corsi, which would you assume had the better record?
- scotch_tape

The problem is, they aren't even covering 90% of the game if they preclude goalies and special teams, in addition to not being right 90% of the time. You can argue this theory until you're red in the face, but it doesn't change anything. If I looked at one teams goals for and teams goals againsn't, and one was far superior which would you take? I were given two samples and one team has a good goalie and what team has a poop goalie, which would you take? You can use that example and go through every stat in hockey.

Have they been? No.
- djamon

Well if yu look at the corsi/fenwick ratings in relation to the standings it's pretty damn accurate.

And for the record,I'm not trying to denigrate the Leafs. I really do believe the Leafs are a true anomaly and the advanced stats do not paint an accurate picture of their team strength. In just saying that I think the stats have merit.

Fellas the analogy with the 90% is simple. If a child gets 90% on his exam, it can be argued that his knowledge of the subject matter isn't perfect. It can also be argued that his knowledge of the subject matter is pretty (frank)ing good. Same thing with advanced stats. They aren't perfect but they have been proven to be quite accurate in deciphering good teams from bad. That cannot be argued because it is supported by data that cannot be debated. It doesn't mean that a team cannot be good by sucking in these areas. It just means that more often than not, being good in these areas means you'll have on ice success. You can argue that theory till you're blue in the face but it doesn't change anything. If you're given 2 sample tes and one team has great fenwick/corsi and the other team has poop fenwick/corsi, which would you assume had the better record?
- scotch_tape

I do enjoy that we have stats that when compiled almost show us what the standings look like. Cause you know, we can't just look at the standings or anything.

To anyone trying to have a serious convo about this I apologize. Truly
- daeth

The problem is, they aren't even covering 90% of the game if they preclude goalies and special teams, in addition to not being right 90% of the time. You can argue this theory until you're red in the face, but it doesn't change anything. If I looked at one teams goals for and teams goals againsn't, and one was far superior which would you take? I were given two samples and one team has a good goalie and what team has a poop goalie, which would you take? You can use that example and go through every stat in hockey.
- Gunslinger

Absolutely. Exactly!

But those stats you mentioned? They're taken seriously.

I think he's pointing to overall organization. The Canadiens are in a very strong position with ther under-25 core and their prospects. They're not built to win right now, like the Leafs. They're built with 3-5 years down the line in mind.
- scotch_tape

I think the Leafs actually are built to win now, more than they are 5 years down the road. The roster is so young, they probably could do both.

Absolutely. Exactly!

But those stats you mentioned? They're taken seriously.
- scotch_tape

But the point is, those stats I mentioned are ones that impact a game and can actually win/lose you games. The amount of shots in game, not so much. Goals are one thing, shots are completely different, and the goalie facing those shots plays a role in whether they go in or not. Which Corsi/Fenway don't take....I'd like to say seriously, but they dont factor them at all. Which is why I can't take them seriously.

Corsi/Fenway stats are as relevant, and as subjective, as special team stats in a way. Yet once again, those factors are removed from the equation.

- burn

Burn in all honesty what is your problem? Why is it impossible to have a dialogue with you? Everyone else is engaging in a. Interesting discussion even of we disagree.

anything that says shooting the puck and missing the net is a positive needs to be re-evaluated.

Well if yu look at the corsi/fenwick ratings in relation to the standings it's pretty damn accurate.

And for the record,I'm not trying to denigrate the Leafs. I really do believe the Leafs are a true anomaly and the advanced stats do not paint an accurate picture of their team strength. In just saying that I think the stats have merit.
- scotch_tape

I won't speak for anyone else, but I think stats have analytical merit, not predictive.

I think the Leafs actually are built to win now, more than they are 5 years down the road. The roster is so young, they probably could do both.
- Gunslinger

Well I do t think they're built to win now the way the Sundin Leafs were but they have a lot of key cogs in or entering their prime. Gt to take advantage of that. But they're set up nicely moving forward too especially with Bernier in the fold.

Burn in all honesty what is your problem? Why is it impossible to have a dialogue with you? Everyone else is engaging in a. Interesting discussion even of we disagree.
- scotch_tape

when people talk in absolutes are they really trying to have a discussion??

I've been part of this discussion this afternoon since the beginning and have had no issues. What's your problem.