He finished 8 in the voting for it last year I think. It's not a nomination but it's not bad.
- RAGSareDANGERus

I actually like McD (for being a smelly Ranger and all), and think that defensively he is better. But if you want offense, its Tanger all the way. All depends on what your needs are.

As for the whole talk of the Rangers having the better D, Im of the belief that the Pens have the better total defensemen while the Rangers have far and away the better goalie. The two go hand in hand, but in the case of Henrik, he elevates that team.

Try to think of it this way....how would the Rangers look with Fleury in net and the Penguins with Lundqvist, both D's staying the same.

If Tanger hadnt been injured so much, he would have a Norris by now. He was nominated one year. How many years has McD been nominated for it?

We all know that only the best DEFENSEmen win the Norris
- thickman1178

The Norris trophy is a joke.

I actually like McD (for being a smelly Ranger and all), and think that defensively he is better. But if you want offense, its Tanger all the way. All depends on what your needs are.

As for the whole talk of the Rangers having the better D, Im of the belief that the Pens have the better total defensemen while the Rangers have far and away the better goalie. The two go hand in hand, but in the case of Henrik, he elevates that team.

Try to think of it this way....how would the Rangers look with Fleury in net and the Penguins with Lundqvist, both D's staying the same.
- thickman1178

This exactly.

The Norris trophy is a joke.
- j.boyd919

It awards the best D man in the game. Im not sure what you mean?

I actually like McD (for being a smelly Ranger and all), and think that defensively he is better. But if you want offense, its Tanger all the way. All depends on what your needs are.

As for the whole talk of the Rangers having the better D, Im of the belief that the Pens have the better total defensemen while the Rangers have far and away the better goalie. The two go hand in hand, but in the case of Henrik, he elevates that team.

Try to think of it this way....how would the Rangers look with Fleury in net and the Penguins with Lundqvist, both D's staying the same.
- thickman1178

I think the Rangers have a stronger top-3, but the Penguins (when healthy, including Maata) have an equal top-6. Henrik Lundqvist just makes them incredibly hard to score against. I think the Penguins have the flashier, better puck-moving attack group. but the Rangers have a better defensive group.

It awards the best D man in the game. Im not sure what you mean?
- thickman1178

Erik Karlsson and Paul Coffey have both won one.

Advanced stats are to hockey fans, are what thick black rimmed glasses and beards are to hipsters.


Someday we will all laugh about them both.

Advanced statisticians are the hipsters of hockey


F The Flyers
- nbartley9

Like I've said before, advanced stats are nothing more than just numbers. They should not be used in any sport. Advanced stats do not measure intangibles. You either have skill and play or you dont.

Would anyone take a shot on Kassian? Has the size we lack. He's young maybe a change of scenery could help him.
- dbell646

Yes. But not trying to catch lightning in a bottle where he turns into some Lucic-like top 6 power forward. As I noted before, I'd be fine adding a bottom 6 forward with some toughness. He doesn't need a super high hockey IQ to be better than our current forwards on the 4th line.

Cost to acquire, however, is likely much to high. Harrington would probably be overpayment and still not enough. Teams dont like giving up high draft picks.

Like I've said before, advanced stats are nothing more than just numbers. They should not be used in any sport. Advanced stats do not measure intangibles. You either have skill and play or you dont.
- joescullz

Advanced stats have their place but they're only a piece of the overall picture. To watch a player play and see him suck it up on a shift by shift basis over the course of half a season with him only getting older, slower, and declining overall more and more and then turn around and disregard all that because his delta corsi at 5v5 in close situations when adjusted for zone starts over the course of an 8 year period says he's decent is retarded. What you see is the actual game. It's actually hockey. It's what decides who wins or loses. What the numbers say are just numbers and not 100% accurate and as so many advanced stats advocates claim when they say that people who don't like stats are too stupid to understand them and that they symbolize probability...past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes.

Advanced stats have their place but they're only a piece of the overall picture. To watch a player play and see him suck it up on a shift by shift basis over the course of half a season with him only getting older, slower, and declining overall more and more and then turn around and disregard all that because his delta corsi at 5v5 in close situations when adjusted for zone starts over the course of an 8 year period says he's decent is retarded. What you see is the actual game. It's actually hockey. It's what decides who wins or loses. What the numbers say are just numbers and not 100% accurate and as so many advanced stats advocates claim when they say that people who don't like stats are too stupid to understand them and that they symbolize probability...past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes.
- RAGSareDANGERus

This has to be one of the most intelligent replies I have ever read on here. Way to go.

Advanced stats have their place but they're only a piece of the overall picture. To watch a player play and see him suck it up on a shift by shift basis over the course of half a season with him only getting older, slower, and declining overall more and more and then turn around and disregard all that because his delta corsi at 5v5 in close situations when adjusted for zone starts over the course of an 8 year period says he's decent is retarded. What you see is the actual game. It's actually hockey. It's what decides who wins or loses. What the numbers say are just numbers and not 100% accurate and as so many advanced stats advocates claim when they say that people who don't like stats are too stupid to understand them and that they symbolize probability...past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes.
- RAGSareDANGERus

I agree with this completely...almost.

While the last part is true, when you take it over a short span (ranging from weeks to months or even 1 season), you can make some assumptions from it.

For instance: I could argue that, just because Rick Nash has 28 goals this year, there's no guarantee that he will score another goal for the rest of his career. This is a ludicrous statement, because his recent past indicates that he will continue to score at a superior pace compared to most players for the immediate future. However, if we're using stats solely as a reflection of the past, it can be argued.

I agree with this completely...almost.

While the last part is true, when you take it over a short span (ranging from weeks to months or even 1 season), you can make some assumptions from it.

For instance: I could argue that, just because Rick Nash has 28 goals this year, there's no guarantee that he will score another goal for the rest of his career. This is a ludicrous statement, because his recent past indicates that he will continue to score at a superior pace compared to most players for the immediate future. However, if we're using stats solely as a reflection of the past, it can be argued.
- jmatchett383

I agree. Think about this: do you really think great players like Mario, Gretzky or Yzerman are constructing their teams that they are looking at metric systems???. I guarantee you they dont. They know talent when they see it. They could care less about corsi ratings and all the other bs categories.

I agree with this completely...almost.

While the last part is true, when you take it over a short span (ranging from weeks to months or even 1 season), you can make some assumptions from it.

For instance: I could argue that, just because Rick Nash has 28 goals this year, there's no guarantee that he will score another goal for the rest of his career. This is a ludicrous statement, because his recent past indicates that he will continue to score at a superior pace compared to most players for the immediate future. However, if we're using stats solely as a reflection of the past, it can be argued.
- jmatchett383

Yea I'll give you that. At the end of the day though just because a player had terrible corsi for a couple years doesn't mean he's destined to have terrible corsi the rest of his career. A lot of factors come into play like how the team is doing, line mates, injury, etc.

What I don't like is that people jump from one advanced stat to another to support their claim. Oh I don't like sutter so I'm gonna use his bad corsi to prove my point. And then oh I like goc and even though his corsi is as bad as sutters I'm gonna pull out this delta corsi specially adjusted in certain ways to make him look good and disregard his regular corsi.

Yea I'll give you that. At the end of the day though just because a player had terrible corsi for a couple years doesn't mean he's destined to have terrible corsi the rest of his career. A lot of factors come into play like how the team is doing, line mates, injury, etc.

What I don't like is that people jump from one advanced stat to another to support their claim. Oh I don't like sutter so I'm gonna use his bad corsi to prove my point. And then oh I like goc and even though his corsi is as bad as sutters I'm gonna pull out this delta corsi specially adjusted in certain ways to make him look good and disregard his regular corsi.
- RAGSareDANGERus

You did it, im changing my Hockey Teams name to the Delta Corsi Hipsters.


And will prepare to be punched repeatedly in the face for doing so.

F The Flyers

It awards the best D man in the game. Im not sure what you mean?
- thickman1178

I don't think that an award voted on by writers proves merit to it's title. Who is to say that a west coast writer, who covers the Yotes and Yandle is going to spend time watching Chara on the east coast. I think that a best D man in the game award should be voted on by their peers, the players and/or coaches... the guys who play against each other, watch all of the game type on each other, and devise gameplans on how to attack/stop one another.

so in conclusion, we've made the breakthrough discoveries that the numbers are symptoms of the hockey played, and that they have predictive value, though predictions are not guaranteed

The worldwide scientific community is about to have their minds BLOWN

I don't think that an award voted on by writers proves merit to it's title. Who is to say that a west coast writer, who covers the Yotes and Yandle is going to spend time watching Chara on the east coast. I think that a best D man in the game award should be voted on by their peers, the players and/or coaches... the guys who play against each other, watch all of the game type on each other, and devise gameplans on how to attack/stop one another.
- j.boyd919

Every individual award should be, but sadly never will be.

so in conclusion, we've made the breakthrough discoveries that the numbers are symptoms of the hockey played, and that they have predictive value, though predictions are not guaranteed

The worldwide scientific community is about to have their minds BLOWN
- BulliesPhan87

At my job, we (rarely) run a test once, and if it passes, we call it verified. If it fails, we rework it until it passes, and call if verified.

#Legit

Every individual award should be, but sadly never will be.
- nbartley9

Yeah definitely, I agree with that. I was just referring to the Norris because that was the topic of conversation.

At my job, we (rarely) run a test once, and if it passes, we call it verified. If it fails, we rework it until it passes, and call if verified.

#Legit
- jmatchett383

What other stunning revelations will we witness here? That winning the most regular games does not guarantee a Stanley Cup? That a team that scores first usually wins, but not always? At this rate, we're going to have the unified field theory nailed down by happy hour!

What other stunning revelations will we witness here? That winning the most regular games does not guarantee a Stanley Cup? That a team that scores first usually wins, but not always? At this rate, we're going to have the unified field theory nailed down by happy hour!
- BulliesPhan87

Allowing more shots means that you will allow more goals, except when you don't.

Good blog. One thing to keep in mind is personal skill-level; Sutter is just able to do a bit more with his hands than Goc ever will.

I agree. Think about this: do you really think great players like Mario, Gretzky or Yzerman are constructing their teams that they are looking at metric systems???. I guarantee you they dont. They know talent when they see it. They could care less about corsi ratings and all the other bs categories.
- joescullz

The first two teams to implement metrics into their scouting; The Blackhawks, the Kings.

I believe they have 4 Cups since these metrics have been around.

The first two teams to implement metrics into their scouting; The Blackhawks, the Kings.

I believe they have 4 Cups since these metrics have been around.
- Blackstrom2

Metrics =/= corsi

Metrics =/= corsi
- RAGSareDANGERus

Well, of course. They have more resources and will be better able to account for things we as fans cannot, like very importantly, quantifying the individual shot. They still fall into the same category.