My guess is Cole. If Maatta and Letang are a disaster together I think you have to go

Cole-Letang
Maatta-Lovejoy
Pouliot/Dumoulin-Clendening

I hate that defense... But if Clendening can play midpairing in our system and Dumoulin or Pouliot can play the right side I love it.
- Victoro311

I like Cole but I dont think he should be on the top pair. Not saying there is a better choice, but it could be a disaster.

TIOPS just posted an article about Franson. Says we tried to trade Despres for Franson and then kicked the tires on him around the draft, and then again a little later. Could be TIOPS B.S. but noteworthy.

Ummm more shots will overall = more goals absolutely. You can argue shot quality all you want, but rebounds and crashing the net score just as much as the perfect play being set up. You make more shots, you get more dirty goals.
- Guile

Ok if you are so certain how many shots do you need before you score a goal?

Ever seen a game where 3 sog = 1 goal & another with 30 sog = 0 goals?

In general terms it does. Just like studying generally leads to better grades.
- jfkst1

Ahh that word again - general! It seems that word is used a lot when discussing Analytics??

So if a school has 5 classes of 14 year olds with the smartest in class 1 to the not so smart in class 5. You say that a student in class 5 will get better marks if he studies than a student in class 1 that doesn't study? Smarter students 'generally' get better grades than not so smart, similar to better teams score more than poopty teams no matter the shot numbers or %. That's why poop teams don't win Stanley!

High PDO I hear you say? Teams with high PDO 'generally' have talented players on their rosters. Talented players 'generally' = goals, but not necessarily good possession stats. Intelligent kids that don't study usually get good results due to their natural ability to absorb information in class that will be tested on. Intelligent kids don't always make the best students.

I thought the giant guppy was the big news over there?
- Dcoms

Please explain?

Is everyone sold on the top pairing of Maata and Letang? I remember them not being so great together.
For discussions sake who should be second in line to play with Letang?
- stackthepads

After the playoffs last season you would think Cole? I'd like to see what Dumo is capable of after a month in the bigs, whether he can be something better quicker.

Cole put in some big minutes through the playoffs & I don't remember him being torn apart on here (that was left for Lovejob ).

Easy there sport
- pensfan024

OK champ. Big guy. Pal.

Easy there sport
- pensfan024

OK champ. Big guy. Pal.
- ChrisMS

I like Cole but I dont think he should be on the top pair. Not saying there is a better choice, but it could be a disaster.

TIOPS just posted an article about Franson. Says we tried to trade Despres for Franson and then kicked the tires on him around the draft, and then again a little later. Could be TIOPS B.S. but noteworthy.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

Several places said we were pursuing Franson at the deadline I think. Didn't know Despres was the chip. I think it's safe to say Rutherford kicked the tires on Franson plenty and if he could have made it happen he would of. Unfortunately Scuderi is just flat out unmoveable. Only hope is a training camp injury probably specifically to the Avalanche. That's highly unlikely and Franson will be signed by then. He's waited on us long enough, if he was even waiting on us in the first place.

Several places said we were pursuing Franson at the deadline I think. Didn't know Despres was the chip. I think it's safe to say Rutherford kicked the tires on Franson plenty and if he could have made it happen he would of. Unfortunately Scuderi is just flat out unmoveable. Only hope is a training camp injury probably specifically to the Avalanche. That's highly unlikely and Franson will be signed by then. He's waited on us long enough, if he was even waiting on us in the first place.
- Victoro311

Was Lovejob plan B? JR afraid to lose out on his 2nd choice so accepted the loss in the trade??

Several places said we were pursuing Franson at the deadline I think. Didn't know Despres was the chip. I think it's safe to say Rutherford kicked the tires on Franson plenty and if he could have made it happen he would of. Unfortunately Scuderi is just flat out unmoveable. Only hope is a training camp injury probably specifically to the Avalanche. That's highly unlikely and Franson will be signed by then. He's waited on us long enough, if he was even waiting on us in the first place.
- Victoro311

I don't think his salary would have worked unless another player was included. Didn't Ruth say one of the factors was Despres/Lovejoy salaries were pretty close to a wash?

Ahh that word again - general! It seems that word is used a lot when discussing Analytics??

So if a school has 5 classes of 14 year olds with the smartest in class 1 to the not so smart in class 5. You say that a student in class 5 will get better marks if he studies than a student in class 1 that doesn't study? Smarter students 'generally' get better grades than not so smart, similar to better teams score more than poopty teams no matter the shot numbers or %. That's why poop teams don't win Stanley!

High PDO I hear you say? Teams with high PDO 'generally' have talented players on their rosters. Talented players 'generally' = goals, but not necessarily good possession stats. Intelligent kids that don't study usually get good results due to their natural ability to absorb information in class that will be tested on. Intelligent kids don't always make the best students.
- Aussiepenguin

You're dealing with probabilities. Studying is more sustainable than getting by on natural intelligence.

You're dealing with probabilities. Studying is more sustainable than getting by on natural intelligence.
- jfkst1

Is that fact or opinion?

What's up female doges? Hockey and football right around the corner Buccos trying to track down the Cards and fall ball starts next week. It's nice to have something to get me over the fact Summer is ending.

What's up female doges? Hockey and football right around the corner Buccos trying to track down the Cards and fall ball starts next week. It's nice to have something to get me over the fact Summer is ending.
- dbell646

Ditto. Really can't wait for hockey considering all of the additions to the roster. Unless something crazy happens, Bucs can't track down the cards.

Steelers D = Yikes. Could ruin the season.

Ditto. Really can't wait for hockey considering all of the additions to the roster. Unless something crazy happens, Bucs can't track down the cards.

Steelers D = Yikes. Could ruin the season.
- madmike71

I know we are all used to seeing our D dominate but it will be fun watching a track meet every week. I lost a lot of interest in the NFL over the past few years but I always watch them. Oh and the Bucs are tracking down the cards!!!

You're dealing with probabilities. Studying is more sustainable than getting by on natural intelligence.
- jfkst1

Sample size? Every school in the world! Intelligence is undeniable. Talent is undeniable - ask John McEnroe !

I know we are all used to seeing our D dominate but it will be fun watching a track meet every week. I lost a lot of interest in the NFL over the past few years but I always watch them. Oh and the Bucs are tracking down the cards!!!
- dbell646

Favorite time of the year!

Just heard this on The Fan. Bucs have to go 22 - 11 and the Cards have to simply play .500 for a tie at the end of the season. I can see the Pirates doing their part. I don't see the Cards only playing 500 down the stretch.

My guess is Cole. If Maatta and Letang are a disaster together I think you have to go

Cole-Letang
Maatta-Lovejoy
Pouliot/Dumoulin-Clendening

I hate that defense... But if Clendening can play midpairing in our system and Dumoulin or Pouliot can play the right side I love it.
- Victoro311

I expect starting the season you will see Maata and Letang together. Both are guys who can handle +25 minutes per game. Have the bottom two pairs split time evenly as pairing 2a and 2b until some of their bottom pairing guys seperate themselves from the pack. Hoping this is how it looks:

Maata-Letang
Pouliot-Cole
Dumolin-Lovejoy/Clendening

Favorite time of the year!

Just heard this on The Fan. Bucs have to go 22 - 11 and the Cards have to simply play .500 for a tie at the end of the season. I can see the Pirates doing their part. I don't see the Cards only playing 500 down the stretch.
- madmike71

Man that stat sucks. You're right can't see the cards playing .500 ball to finish so you just ruined my day. Sick of these 1 game playoffs. Escpecially facing Arrieta or Baumgarner. Tough draw.

Sample size? Every school in the world! Intelligence is undeniable. Talent is undeniable - ask John McEnroe !
- Aussiepenguin

Aussie come on man. This argument is ludicrous. Doesn't matter how smart you are. Studying increases your chance of passing a test, but you can be dumb as nails and go into a test without studying and guess on everything and still come out with a perfect score, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Take two guys of equal intelligence. One studied for three hours and one studied for fifteen minutes. Who do you think has the greater chance of doing well on a multiple choice test? The one that studies. However, the one that studied less can still pull of a better grade by getting incredibly lucky with guessing.

To put it in hockey terms, the amount of time studying is shots generated (possession) and the guessing is shooting percentage. In order for someone who generates less shots to score more goals than someone that generates more shots they need to have an astronomical shooting percentage which comes down to a lot of puck luck.

So in some, a team that benefits from a high shooting percentage (doesn't study) can win a game or more games down a certain stretch than a team that generates more scoring opportunities, but it is largely unsustainable. The Leafs from a few years ago are a wonderful example as well as the recent Montreal teams. That's the point of Corsi. Not determining single games, but determining sustainability in order to better build your team.

Is that fact or opinion?
- dbell646

Both are facts.
http://www.forbes.com/sit...u-really-need-to-succeed/
http://psychcentral.com/n...ability-not-iq/49534.html

Aussie come on man. This argument is ludicrous. Doesn't matter how smart you are. Studying increases your chance of passing a test, but you can be dumb as nails and go into a test without studying and guess on everything and still come out with a perfect score, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Take two guys of equal intelligence. One studied for three hours and one studied for fifteen minutes. Who do you think has the greater chance of doing well on a multiple choice test? The one that studies. However, the one that studied less can still pull of a better grade by getting incredibly lucky with guessing.

To put it in hockey terms, the amount of time studying is shots generated (possession) and the guessing is shooting percentage. In order for someone who generates less shots to score more goals than someone that generates more shots they need to have an astronomical shooting percentage which comes down to a lot of puck luck.

So in some, a team that benefits from a high shooting percentage (doesn't study) can win a game or more games down a certain stretch than a team that generates more scoring opportunities, but it is largely unsustainable. The Leafs from a few years ago are a wonderful example as well as the recent Montreal teams. That's the point of Corsi. Not determining single games, but determining sustainability in order to better build your team.
- Victoro311

The issue I have is with the idea that shot quality evens out over a large sample size. For example, using James Tanner's logic, the Rangers and Oilers are equal in terms of defense because they each gave up a similar amount of shots against and shot quality evens out. On the contrary, I believe that in this case, over a large sample size the difference in shot quality that the Rangers give up vs the Oilers gets larger and larger over the course of 82 games rather than evening out.

I remember more than a handful of games that the Rangers absolutely suffocated their opponents defensively and gave up maybe 2 or 3 shots that had a good chance of going into the back of the net. The Oilers likely didn't have a game like that at all.

If the Oilers give up just 3 more quality shots per game, rather than evening out over 82 games, they actually give up 246 more quality shots over the course of the season.

Ok if you are so certain how many shots do you need before you score a goal?

Ever seen a game where 3 sog = 1 goal & another with 30 sog = 0 goals?
- Aussiepenguin

Wow, you're freaking miserable when wrong. Everyone but you is aware its not an exact science, its a higher probability over the course of a season. Can someone score a goal in one of the first few shots while another team has over ten in the first period with nothing? Yes. Does that make your bitter point correct? No.

The issue I have is with the idea that shot quality evens out over a large sample size. For example, using James Tanner's logic, the Rangers and Oilers are equal in terms of defense because they each gave up a similar amount of shots against and shot quality evens out. On the contrary, I believe that in this case, over a large sample size the difference in shot quality that the Rangers give up vs the Oilers gets larger and larger over the course of 82 games rather than evening out.

I remember more than a handful of games that the Rangers absolutely suffocated their opponents defensively and gave up maybe 2 or 3 shots that had a good chance of going into the back of the net. The Oilers likely didn't have a game like that at all.

If the Oilers give up just 3 more quality shots per game, rather than evening out over 82 games, they actually give up 246 more quality shots over the course of the season.
- rangerdanger94

That's an oxymoron. I don't dislike James Tanner as much as many do, but he is wildly inconsistent in how he applies analytics.