It is funny I posted something as well stating that the last 2 cup winners were ranked at least top 5 in Face off wins but that comment was mysteriously removed....
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Yes, "funny" when a post gets deleted because you call someone stupid in it....

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.
- sniper11

You must be misunderstanding something here because saying Toews has eaned almost 4 wins on faceoffs alone is ridiculous. Even if faceoffs do matter more than i think, which itself is a ridiculous notion, there is no way your math is even close to correct. A player worth four wins for everything he does is a star. Toews would be worth like sixty in total if this was true. But it isn't, its just bizarre.

It also contradicts virtually every stats writer I know.

Yes, "funny" when a post gets deleted because you call someone stupid in it....
- stashu

To say nothing of the irony of doing so while in the act of passing off a random anecdote as proof.

I would sure like to hear you explain why you think that. Do you really believe that a massive, bloated, government run more and more by a massive bureaucracy with a political party that rules by executive order is more just and treats the poor and needy better than a smaller one?

Or is it that you do not have time to look over what candidates in the US are saying?
- jkumpire

Just a little suggestion; using nonsensical rhetoric generally isn't very effective when it's already established that we are outside the boxed two-party system.

I would sure like to hear you explain why you think that. Do you really believe that a massive, bloated, government run more and more by a massive bureaucracy with a political party that rules by executive order is more just and treats the poor and needy better than a smaller one?

Or is it that you do not have time to look over what candidates in the US are saying?
- jkumpire

How is a bloated government more of a problem than a guy who denies the two undebatably most important issues of our time? Thats just negligence.

I am extremely well versed on what both sides and all major candidates are offering. And its a matter of fact that Ted Cruz has blatantly lied over 100 times in public.

Plus, all of his policies are outdated 20 years ago. The guy is literally nuts.

You must be misunderstanding something here because saying Toews has eaned almost 4 wins on faceoffs alone is ridiculous. Even if faceoffs do matter more than i think, which itself is a ridiculous notion, there is no way your math is even close to correct. A player worth four wins for everything he does is a star. Toews would be worth like sixty in total if this was true. But it isn't, its just bizarre.

It also contradicts virtually every stats writer I know.
- James_Tanner

His math is fine. The confirmation bias is the problem. The numbers and symbols look nice and seem pretty 'analytical-y', but the entire premise is based off of one study which is then used to analyze one exceptional player while ignoring a number of mitigating criteria.

Bottom line: neither of you are 100% wrong...and neither of you are 100% right. Faceoffs are important and directly correlate to good posession numbers and can lead to more wins, but extrapolating faceoff data to the point where suggesting one guys FO% means 5 more wins during a year is stretching it to say the least.

OMAHA

Yes, "funny" when a post gets deleted because you call someone stupid in it....
- stashu

And the post's that don't call someone stupid?

And the post's that don't call someone stupid?
- Garnie

Don't require explanation

You must be misunderstanding something here because saying Toews has eaned almost 4 wins on faceoffs alone is ridiculous. Even if faceoffs do matter more than i think, which itself is a ridiculous notion, there is no way your math is even close to correct. A player worth four wins for everything he does is a star. Toews would be worth like sixty in total if this was true. But it isn't, its just bizarre.

It also contradicts virtually every stats writer I know.
- James_Tanner

So the University's finding are just null and void because you say they're ridiculous?

Don't require explanation
- stashu

Of course not

How is a bloated government more of a problem than a guy who denies the two undebatably most important issues of our time? Thats just negligence.

I am extremely well versed on what both sides and all major candidates are offering. And its a matter of fact that Ted Cruz has blatantly lied over 100 times in public.

Plus, all of his policies are outdated 20 years ago. The guy is literally nuts.
- James_Tanner

Every single politician has lied far more times than that. You're living in a fantasy if you believe differently. They carefully target certain demographics and say everything they feel that group wants to hear, and then say very different things to other groups while carefully trying to change up the mediums so that all the various groups don't wonder why they seem to change their message so often. Its why social media is both a blessing and a curse to politicians.

None of them care about you. They merely want that office, and will say anything to get it, be it campaigning on 18 trillion dollars worth of free stuff and promising to essentially punish all rich people, or thanking an invisible sky wizard all the time and suddenly having evengelical leanings and wanting to build walls all around the border.

Thieves crooks and liars. And people are still buying it.

Maybe you ought to read about Mr. Cruz before you reveal your ignorance of US Politics. I support him and if he does not win I will likely support the person that beats him in the primary.

Sorry if that offends you.
- jkumpire

He was born in Calgary. According to Tanner anything to do with Calgary is a mortal sin.

Oh come on. I think Tanner and the other guy would have both laughed.

He was born in Calgary. According to Tanner anything to do with Calgary is a mortal sin.

- itwasin

I think being born in Calgary is pretty far down the list of things wrong with him. As in it means nothing. Actually that is a fairly ridiculous statement.

Between Cruz being Cruz and Trump claiming that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese, I have never been more pro democrat than I am right now...
- lumlums

That's a shame. See Oboma/Clinton.

How is a bloated government more of a problem than a guy who denies the two undebatably most important issues of our time? Thats just negligence.

I am extremely well versed on what both sides and all major candidates are offering. And its a matter of fact that Ted Cruz has blatantly lied over 100 times in public.

Plus, all of his policies are outdated 20 years ago. The guy is literally nuts.
- James_Tanner

How many times has Hillary lied?

How many times has Hillary lied?
- Yikes726

I am not so pro left that id support any candidate they offer. I am not a fan of Hillary.

You're wrong. This is only for 5v5 neutral zone faceoffs. In a research paper published by St. Lawrence University in 2012, along with Statistical Sports Consulting, LLC, they reported results from two analyses. In the first of these they found that, in terms of goal differential, not all faceoffs are equal. Tanner is going to say he did not read this. Faceoff wins in the offensive and defensive zone as well as those won on special teams yield a goal differential more quickly.

From the second analysis they conclude that faceoff win percent is a metric that does not currently need adjusting since raw faceoff win percentage is very highly correlated with adjusted faceoff win.

Their results suggest that there are strategic advantages to be gained by having the best faceoff players take faceoffs outside the neutral zone and on special teams. He really is going to say he did not read this. For players that win 60% of their faceoffs, taking 20% more outside of the neutal zone can add an additional 5-7 goals or 2-3 wins per season.

There are ~13,000 off/def zone, pp/pk faceoffs per season. 35 wins yields a goal differential, not 35 more than you lose, just 35 wins. For instance, Toews has already taken over 1000 faceoffs for his team, he will easily eclipse 1500. He has a FOW% of 58.2 this season. He has won 239 faceoffs in the OZ this year and 152 in the DZ, which means he has generated, solely by winning faceoffs, a +11.04 goal differential. Previous works by many others have concluded that a goal differential is worth 1/3 standings points. That means that Jonathan Toews, single-handedly, has earned 3.68 wins, or 7 standings points, for the Blackhawks just by winning faceoffs in the offensive/defensive zone and he will earn at least 2 more before the season is over.

Without telling me to "go find it myself," show me a study with sources, as I have done, that proves you are not a charlatan and making stuff up although "exact numbers evade you."

Tanner loses again.
- sniper11

Interesting, and nice try...but if you look at table 2 of that study you referenced, in 2010-2011 Toews took 1653 face-offs, won 56.6%, and netted a goals gained of 3.81, which translates to about 1 win over an entire season. Also, they are looking at goals scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off, which seems like a long time. That's enough time for someone to win an O-zone face-off, turn over the puck at the blue line, regain possession in the neutral zone, re-enter the O-zone, and score. It would be really hard to convince people that the goal in this situation was helped even modestly by the face-off win.

Interesting, and nice try...but if you look at table 2 of that study you referenced, in 2010-2011 Toews took 1653 face-offs, won 56.6%, and netted a goals gained of 3.81, which translates to about 1 win over an entire season. Also, they are looking at goals scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off, which seems like a long time. That's enough time for someone to win an O-zone face-off, turn over the puck at the blue line, regain possession in the neutral zone, re-enter the O-zone, and score. It would be really hard to convince people that the goal in this situation was helped even modestly by the face-off win.
- khessel

There's so much going on in a game. But possession of the puck is a big factor among lots of other things that the the analytics guys ignore. Of course faceoffs have an effect...everything that happens has an effect. Of course over a 10 yr career they might be able to math up the game of hockey. Saying player X is better than player Y when they play different style games ( coaches using them in different situations ) and different amounts of ice time over a 40 or 50 game data collection etc etc etc is premature IMO

Interesting, and nice try...but if you look at table 2 of that study you referenced, in 2010-2011 Toews took 1653 face-offs, won 56.6%, and netted a goals gained of 3.81, which translates to about 1 win over an entire season. Also, they are looking at goals scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off, which seems like a long time. That's enough time for someone to win an O-zone face-off, turn over the puck at the blue line, regain possession in the neutral zone, re-enter the O-zone, and score. It would be really hard to convince people that the goal in this situation was helped even modestly by the face-off win.
- khessel

Congratulations, someone that figured out that stats can be skewed to make any point right or wrong. Now if only Tanner could figure that out and no use every stat he finds as scripture there might actually be some intelligent debates in his articles instead of just skewed information to make his point seem right and anyone that contradicts him wrong

How is a bloated government more of a problem than a guy who denies the two undebatably most important issues of our time? Thats just negligence.

I am extremely well versed on what both sides and all major candidates are offering. And its a matter of fact that Ted Cruz has blatantly lied over 100 times in public.

Plus, all of his policies are outdated 20 years ago. The guy is literally nuts.
- James_Tanner

Name a candidate on either side that isn't? Hell name a political figure any where thats not at least partly certifiable. You need to be to get into politics...

Nice of you to show up after the losses.
- TheTaoOfSemenko

Sorry my schedule didn't line up to you expectations.

Should I reserve an appointment for my next comment?

Interesting, and nice try...but if you look at table 2 of that study you referenced, in 2010-2011 Toews took 1653 face-offs, won 56.6%, and netted a goals gained of 3.81, which translates to about 1 win over an entire season. Also, they are looking at goals scored in the 20 seconds after a face-off, which seems like a long time. That's enough time for someone to win an O-zone face-off, turn over the puck at the blue line, regain possession in the neutral zone, re-enter the O-zone, and score. It would be really hard to convince people that the goal in this situation was helped even modestly by the face-off win.
- khessel

You're looking at faceoffs in all situations, not just OZ and DZ. Also the research includes goals saved rather than just goals gained. So the differential is still created by winning the faceoff whether his team scores 20 seconds after or 3 seconds after, or even if no goal is scored at all. The whole point here is that faceoffs in the OZ and DZ matter a great deal and the research shows this, especially when a faceoffs specialist is utilized.

You're looking at faceoffs in all situations, not just OZ and DZ. Also the research includes goals saved rather than just goals gained. So the differential is still created by winning the faceoff whether his team scores 20 seconds after or 3 seconds after, or even if no goal is scored at all. The whole point here is that faceoffs in the OZ and DZ matter a great deal and the research shows this, especially when a faceoffs specialist is utilized.
- sniper11

In the NHL, where even the worst centre still wins 45% of his faceoffs, faceoffs do not matter. End of discussion!

What is next? Y'all want to make a case that Plus/Minus actually is a good stat after all?

In the NHL, where even the worst centre still wins 45% of his faceoffs, faceoffs do not matter. End of discussion!

What is next? Y'all want to make a case that Plus/Minus actually is a good stat after all?
- James_Tanner

Well if a player is on the ice for more goals for than against it's very important I think. How can you argue this?