Got ya, and I think we're on the same page. But as to the bolded, this is where the "dispute" (discussion more like) started. I don't think the Hawks were lucky, they didn't maintain a high PDO like the Avs or Ducks have. They had a pretty league average one. I strongly disagree that the Hawks had a lucky trend that extended throughout last year. There were plenty of teams that had both higher SH% and SV%, the Hawks simply beat everyone because they were better than everyone. Consistently winning, a streak, doesn't imply luck on its own. Dominant possession teams don't need to rely on luck like average one's do.
Plenty of people have gone broke following trends that had to regress at some point as well
- rollpards19

SH% and SV% don't take into account when goals are scored or given up. The Hawks scored lots of last minute, goaltender pulled, type goals last year. That's the luck I was referring to. Pull the goalie, tie it late, win in OT. That pattern seemed to occur with regularity last year. Not all 3-2 wins are the same from a luck standpoint.

I should get a pass. I had it pretty from much one post on a hockey forum.
- Elbows15

A+

Blues lose

A+
- Ogilthorpe2

Good stuff on the deicing Ogi....and Buck the Flues said the Sens in the s/o.

Got ya, and I think we're on the same page. But as to the bolded, this is where the "dispute" (discussion more like) started. I don't think the Hawks were lucky, they didn't maintain a high PDO like the Avs or Ducks have. They had a pretty league average one. I strongly disagree that the Hawks had a lucky trend that extended throughout last year. There were plenty of teams that had both higher SH% and SV%, the Hawks simply beat everyone because they were better than everyone. Consistently winning, a streak, doesn't imply luck on its own. Dominant possession teams don't need to rely on luck like average one's do.
Plenty of people have gone broke following trends that had to regress at some point as well
- rollpards19

Semantics more or less and luck may not be the best term... but no team came out of the blocks and maintained dominance throughout like the Hawks in a heck of a long time...Those that waited for them to revert back to a normal course were waiting all the way through the summer.

My disgust isn't with you but the way many use randomness like a straw man...

Also have argued on Twitter about how using a higher shot total to determine a winner is often wrong.

The paperback analysts argue with me....More shots more goals etc....Okay true in theory but many times the loser has more shots on goal than the winning team...

This year so much so it is almost dead even 51%-49%...According to a report on NHL Radio recently.

Often a team that trails by 2 or 3 goals throughout will outshoot an opponent and still lose.

But people will argue so much it is almost like you don't need to watch the game just look at the shot total at the end.


The Kings pound away, but the Blackhawks pounded but don't wilt, and win 5-3.On The Blackhawks: Fox Chicago:
http://bit.ly/MWRC2p

SH% and SV% don't take into account when goals are scored or given up. The Hawks scored lots of last minute, goaltender pulled, type goals last year. That's the luck I was referring to. Pull the goalie, tie it late, win in OT. That pattern seemed to occur with regularity last year. Not all 3-2 wins are the same from a luck standpoint.
- Ogilthorpe2

I wouldn't consider it luckier to score in the last two minutes than the first two minutes. In fact, I'd be willing to bet there are more goals scored at the end of one goal games than most other times in a game given the all out desperation a team can play with, the advantage of having an extra attacker. Also, if we are to accept the idea that the Hawks scored a ton of late "lucky" goals, and their luck statistics were average, then we could assume they'd be getting unlucky earlier in the game. If you want to talk about OT records, that stuff is just flukey to me. Having to play 4v4 isn't real hockey.

Semantics more or less and luck may not be the best term... but no team came out of the blocks and maintained dominance throughout like the Hawks in a heck of a long time...Those that waited for them to revert back to a normal course were waiting all the way through the summer.

My disgust isn't with you but the way many use randomness like a straw man...

Also have argued on Twitter about how using a higher shot total to determine a winner is often wrong.

The paperback analysts argue with me....More shots more goals etc....Okay true in theory but many times the loser has more shots on goal than the winning team...

This year so much so it is almost dead even 51%-49%...According to a report on NHL Radio recently.

Often a team that trails by 2 or 3 goals throughout will outshoot an opponent and still lose.

But people will argue so much it is almost like you don't need to watch the game just look at the shot total at the end.


The Kings pound away, but the Blackhawks pounded but don't wilt, and win 5-3.On The Blackhawks: Fox Chicago:
http://bit.ly/MWRC2p
- Al

There are plenty of score effect stats out there, its just that, like with anything, there's the people who know what they're talking about, and the people who hear a stat and regurgitate it without understanding it. The score effect thing is why people use Fenwick Close (one goal either way) as the best indicator for future success. Dealing with the masses is like watching Fox News or MSNBC and assuming that's how all liberals and conservatives think. People who understand things are almost always the most moderate in my experience

Semantics more or less and luck may not be the best term... but no team came out of the blocks and maintained dominance throughout like the Hawks in a heck of a long time...Those that waited for them to revert back to a normal course were waiting all the way through the summer.

My disgust isn't with you but the way many use randomness like a straw man...

Also have argued on Twitter about how using a higher shot total to determine a winner is often wrong.

The paperback analysts argue with me....More shots more goals etc....Okay true in theory but many times the loser has more shots on goal than the winning team...

This year so much so it is almost dead even 51%-49%...According to a report on NHL Radio recently.

Often a team that trails by 2 or 3 goals throughout will outshoot an opponent and still lose.

But people will argue so much it is almost like you don't need to watch the game just look at the shot total at the end.


The Kings pound away, but the Blackhawks pounded but don't wilt, and win 5-3.On The Blackhawks: Fox Chicago:
http://bit.ly/MWRC2p
- Al

NHL stats - how does anybody put much credence in any of them?

They are kept by hometown amateurs mostly and things like SOG and Hits are frequently slanted to that hometown team, making them quite irrelevant.

The Kings probably outhit the Hawks on the official game sheet by 3-1 last night. But there is no official stat to show how much faster the Hawks are than the Kings which is the main reason why they beat them most of the time.

Got to watch the games. The boxscore can be interesting but doesn't tell the story most of the time.

NHL stats - how does anybody put much credence in any of them?

They are kept by hometown amateurs mostly and things like SOG and Hits are frequently slanted to that hometown team, making them quite irrelevant.

The Kings probably outhit the Hawks on the official game sheet by 3-1 last night. But there is no official stat to show how much faster the Hawks are than the Kings which is the main reason why they beat them most of the time.

Got to watch the games. The boxscore can be interesting but doesn't tell the story most of the time.
- RickJ

Watching the game and using stats aren't mutually exclusive. I'm guessing you watch pretty much every Hawks game, meaning you undoubtedly can't watch a lot of other teams, does that mean you're not qualified to speak on any of them?

Watching the game and using stats aren't mutually exclusive. I'm guessing you watch pretty much every Hawks game, meaning you undoubtedly can't watch a lot of other teams, does that mean you're not qualified to speak on any of them?
- rollpards19

You conveniently skipped over my main point - stats kept at the rink are frequently (but not always) inaccurate or are credited on the basis of a hometown bias.

Shots on goal are one of them. I've often seen a goaltender make 2 or 3 rapid fire saves and be credited with one. And then a shot at the other end going wide or having no chance of being a goal being credited as a save.

NHL faceoff %'s - very accurate, sort of accurate?

Summary - I just don't think the stats kept by the NHL are accurate from rink to rink on a nightly basis because the standards applied vary too much.

Watching the game and using stats aren't mutually exclusive. I'm guessing you watch pretty much every Hawks game, meaning you undoubtedly can't watch a lot of other teams, does that mean you're not qualified to speak on any of them?
- rollpards19

Ahhh...But how people speak about what they don't see and form a conclusion by using numbers only can be problematic.

Many times we go from one extreme to another. You may be able to balance opinions between numbers and personal observation, but many can't.

I will conclude by saying stats and analytics are a tool but often aren't solely the reason for a conclusion....Especially with the NHL.

You conveniently skipped over my main point - stats kept at the rink are frequently (but not always) inaccurate or are credited on the basis of a hometown bias.

Shots on goal are one of them. I've often seen a goaltender make 2 or 3 rapid fire saves and be credited with one. And then a shot at the other end going wide or having no chance of being a goal being credited as a save.

NHL faceoff %'s - very accurate, sort of accurate?

Summary - I just don't think the stats kept by the NHL are accurate from rink to rink on a nightly basis because the standards applied vary too much.
- RickJ

Good thing every team plays just as many on the road as they do at home eh?

Good stuff on the deicing Ogi....and Buck the Flues said the Sens in the s/o.

- philco28

John Jaeckel: 2-0-2 On Roadie/My Olympic Medal Picks
- John Jaeckel

Rather than force-fitting erstwhile stars and top 6 players into supporting roles, Sweden went out, and with the selection of Marcus Kruger for example, picked guys who can excel in lower line/utility roles.

Canada tried the "top 6 players in supporting roles" method in 2010 and the "guys who can excel in lower line/utility roles" method in 2006.

http://cheertheanthem.com...er-the-podcast-episode-7/

Did people know cheer the anthem reads our board and posts pictures of comments and stuff? Skip to 23:15 if you want to hear something about our resident CC hater.

You conveniently skipped over my main point - stats kept at the rink are frequently (but not always) inaccurate or are credited on the basis of a hometown bias.

Shots on goal are one of them. I've often seen a goaltender make 2 or 3 rapid fire saves and be credited with one. And then a shot at the other end going wide or having no chance of being a goal being credited as a save.

NHL faceoff %'s - very accurate, sort of accurate?

Summary - I just don't think the stats kept by the NHL are accurate from rink to rink on a nightly basis because the standards applied vary too much.
- RickJ

My buddy from XM Paul Shaheen always charts the faceoffs himself..

Interesting as trying to decide the winner is not so clear cut many times.

Last night I brought up Toews getting smoked at the Dot through 2 periods....He had lost 15 of 17.

Kitchen mentioned between the 2nd and 3rd period the coaches had a talk with the linesmen....They felt the Kings were cheating and not caught...I'm sure they were as the Hawks video man watches that stuff.

But the stats were what they were and even if Toews didn't actually lose 15 of 17 he was much worse than usual.

The Kings pound away, but the Blackhawks pounded but don't wilt, and win 5-3.On The Blackhawks: Fox Chicago:
http://bit.ly/MWRC2p

Ahhh...But how people speak about what they don't see and form a conclusion by using numbers only can be problematic.

Many times we go from one extreme to another. You may be able to balance opinions between numbers and personal observation, but many can't.

I will conclude by saying stats and analytics are a tool but often aren't solely the reason for a conclusion....Especially with the NHL.
- Al

The idiocy of people using numbers doesn't imply the stats are invalid.

http://cheertheanthem.com/2014/02/02/cheer-the-podcast-episode-7/

Did people know cheer the anthem reads our board and posts pictures of comments and stuff? Skip to 23:15 if you want to hear something about our resident CC hater.
- rollpards19

Isn't there more than 1 Crawford hater on here??

Isn't there more than 1 Crawford hater on here??
- Al

No one hates like fvinze hates Al. Nobody

The idiocy of people using numbers doesn't imply the stats are invalid.
- rollpards19

No but with the NHL the data is flawed and compiled subjectively as well.

But that doesn't mean all analytics are useless.

No one hates like fvinze hates Al. Nobody
- rollpards19

http://cheertheanthem.com/2014/02/02/cheer-the-podcast-episode-7/

Did people know cheer the anthem reads our board and posts pictures of comments and stuff? Skip to 23:15 if you want to hear something about our resident CC hater.
- rollpards19

Yes. I know they read the board.

Yes. I know they read the board.
- Elbows15

Does anyone care? The better question is do they know people from this board listen to their podcast?

Does anyone care? The better question is do they know people from this board listen to their podcast?
- Ogilthorpe2

They know. And I care.

They know. And I care.
- Elbows15

Sounds like maybe you have some inside info, you're not secretly one of them are you?

Well I've put some gems out there for them lately

It was a rough week...but I'm feeling much better now.