It wasn't with buddies, it was in countless conversations online about the subject of analytics, with people I've never met. You've assumed that incorrectly. You're such an expert on analytics that you have to now resort to not even talking about the subject, but rather to talking about me. My feelings or pride were not hurt, I laughed about it. It's simply about the following. You claimed I was uninformed. You're entitled to that opinion, but I'm going to force you to back up that opinion. For someone that claims to be an expert, your responses to show that I was uninformed were weak. I've given you ample opportunity to back up your opinion. The conversation is now degrading away from the topic, to the point where it's not productive.
- MJL

I have backed it up...I walked you through the data modeling process that Fortune 500 companies, and sports teams alike, are building, and explained why it's a bedrock for now and the future. I have given you a book to read. I have cited my credentials in terms of company, role and degree. Without giving you the name of my firstborn, I don't know what more you could want. You have given me "I talk to people in blogs" and I say uninformed because of the way you discuss the topic. You have shown an inability to understand how/why analytics work and until you do, that will be my opinion of this discussion. I tried to be less combative, and just explain how modeling works, but you literally said "I don't have to read anything"...you don't want to learn. I have been contemplating that you are tanner himself trolling your own blog for more comments from me in my eyes the convo has been that silly. If you would like to talk substantially about analytics, I will respond, but if it's more "I tak on blogs so I know everything" then I will wish you a good day

I have backed it up...I walked you through the data modeling process that Fortune 500 companies, and sports teams alike, are building, and explained why it's a bedrock for now and the future. I have given you a book to read. I have cited my credentials in terms of company, role and degree. Without giving you the name of my firstborn, I don't know what more you could want. You have given me "I talk to people in blogs" and I say uninformed because of the way you discuss the topic. You have shown an inability to understand how/why analytics work and until you do, that will be my opinion of this discussion. I tried to be less combative, and just explain how modeling works, but you literally said "I don't have to read anything"...you don't want to learn. I have been contemplating that you are tanner himself trolling your own blog for more comments from me in my eyes the convo has been that silly. If you would like to talk substantially about analytics, I will respond, but if it's more "I tak on blogs so I know everything" then I will wish you a good day
- Dahlmanyotes

We haven't even discussed how analytics work, other than cursory comments you've made! LOL My point, which you have absolutely not proven to be incorrect, nor have you proven that I'm uninformed about, is that analytics are not the bedrock and the main tool for player development and team building for NHL teams, currently. That's pretty much fact. Ron Hextall, the GM of the team I root for, says analytics make up about 20% of the information they use to evaluate player and personnel decisions. What will happen in the future, is up for debate. It's a simple topic that you either didn't understand, or just wanted to move to a different topic to try and show your authority.
Again, making false assumptions about me. I've spent literally hours reading information in analytics and their application in the NHL. I've never once stated to be an expert, or to know everything. Not once. You however are claiming to be an expert, but are unwilling to admit to the level of input and role analytics play in the NHL, at this point in time.

We haven't even discussed how analytics work, other than cursory comments you've made! LOL My point, which you have absolutely not proven to be incorrect, nor have you proven that I'm uninformed about, is that analytics are not the bedrock and the main tool for player development and team building for NHL teams, currently. That's pretty much fact. Ron Hextall, the GM of the team I root for, says analytics make up about 20% of the information they use to evaluate player and personnel decisions. What will happen in the future, is up for debate. It's a simple topic that you either didn't understand, or just wanted to move to a different topic to try and show your authority.
Again, making false assumptions about me. I've spent literally hours reading information in analytics and their application in the NHL. I've never once stated to be an expert, or to know everything. Not once. You however are claiming to be an expert, but are unwilling to admit to the level of input and role analytics play in the NHL, at this point in time.

- MJL

Ok you have (hopefully) given us something good to discuss. You mention Hextall uses analytics as "20% of the information they use"...which is to say they place a weight on that information. And place weights on other information. Do you agree with this. this is actually a model in and of itself that some teams in the league follow very rigorously. Analytics is model building to make decisions that more and more accurately predict the future. It is not corsi or the few limited metrics that often get associated to "hockey analytics." By your own admission teams have far more advanced data collection than what we see. Is it also fair to say that some teams have BETTER data or self created metrics than others, giving them an edge? Is it fair to say that if Hextalls analytics department had another teams "better" metric, then maybe they would place a larger weight...say 30%...on their analytics department? If you can agree with these statements, which based on your prior posts I assume you do, then why is it hard to take the next step which is that a team would want to continually optimize that model to increase it from 20% to 30% to 40%? Is that fair? My point from the very beginning is that teams that make analytics their bedrock will look at evaluation through a different lens than a Jim Benning, which will create internal models that are weighted more and more on data than "feel" and that teams are furociously pursuing this idea knowing that a thousand Dave Tippetts analyzing talent in real time is a guaranteed better team than a single Dave Tippett analyzing talent. Are we in agreement so far?

Ok you have (hopefully) given us something good to discuss. You mention Hextall uses analytics as "20% of the information they use"...which is to say they place a weight on that information. And place weights on other information. Do you agree with this. this is actually a model in and of itself that some teams in the league follow very rigorously. Analytics is model building to make decisions that more and more accurately predict the future. It is not corsi or the few limited metrics that often get associated to "hockey analytics." By your own admission teams have far more advanced data collection than what we see. Is it also fair to say that some teams have BETTER data or self created metrics than others, giving them an edge? Is it fair to say that if Hextalls analytics department had another teams "better" metric, then maybe they would place a larger weight...say 30%...on their analytics department? If you can agree with these statements, which based on your prior posts I assume you do, then why is it hard to take the next step which is that a team would want to continually optimize that model to increase it from 20% to 30% to 40%? Is that fair? My point from the very beginning is that teams that make analytics their bedrock will look at evaluation through a different lens than a Jim Benning, which will create internal models that are weighted more and more on data than "feel" and that teams are furociously pursuing this idea knowing that a thousand Dave Tippetts analyzing talent in real time is a guaranteed better team than a single Dave Tippett analyzing talent. Are we in agreement so far?
- Dahlmanyotes

So far? I'm done man, I've made my point. What you're discussing is a completely different topic, most of what you say I agree with. I'll say it again, I don't believe that analytics, which to me means Corsi, Corsi Rel, or any other proprietary analytic that a team develops. You want to discuss analytics on analytics! I have doubts, due to the nature of the game, that analytics will ever be the bedrock, and the main tool teams use to evaluate players and build teams. You keep mentioning Benning for some reason. Not to get off on a different topic, but I think he made a good move acquiring Gudbranson. Teams now may have a final decision maker, but it's not based on one person, and one idea. There are many voices and advisors to a GM or player personnel director.


Your point which you started with, is that I was uninformed. You were proven wrong on that. That's what our whole debate was about, and why were 2 pages deep!
Have a good night, and happy Memorial day to you.

Ah James James James. Your continued lack of knowledge is just hilarious to me. Post after post you make an even bigger ass out of yourself. Idk how you can say in one post the coyotes will make a serious run at Yandle and in another way Connor Murphy is the worst defenseman on the team. I was going to ask how they still allow you to write but I forgot it's hockey buzz. Haha

So far? I'm done man, I've made my point. What you're discussing is a completely different topic, most of what you say I agree with. I'll say it again, I don't believe that analytics, which to me means Corsi, Corsi Rel, or any other proprietary analytic that a team develops. You want to discuss analytics on analytics! I have doubts, due to the nature of the game, that analytics will ever be the bedrock, and the main tool teams use to evaluate players and build teams. You keep mentioning Benning for some reason. Not to get off on a different topic, but I think he made a good move acquiring Gudbranson. Teams now may have a final decision maker, but it's not based on one person, and one idea. There are many voices and advisors to a GM or player personnel director.


Your point which you started with, is that I was uninformed. You were proven wrong on that. That's what our whole debate was about, and why were 2 pages deep!
Have a good night, and happy Memorial day to you.
- MJL

Oh gosh...we could've avoided this whole thread if you had just started with "I agree with Jim Benning"...that perfectly sums up our whole conversation.

Oh gosh...we could've avoided this whole thread if you had just started with "I agree with Jim Benning"...that perfectly sums up our whole conversation.
- Dahlmanyotes

Where did I say I agree with Jim Benning? Do you also have a masters degree in pro hockey? LOL

Have we reached the passive-aggressive stage now?

Where did I say I agree with Jim Benning? Do you also have a masters degree in pro hockey? LOL

Have we reached the passive-aggressive stage now?
- MJL

You LITERALLY said you agreed with Jim Benning. Your official quote "Not to get off on a different topic, but I think he made a good move acquiring

Was I supposed to interpret that differently?

You LITERALLY said you agreed with Jim Benning. Your official quote "Not to get off on a different topic, but I think he made a good move acquiring

Was I supposed to interpret that differently?
- Dahlmanyotes

I think you should've interpreted it exactly as it was said. I'll elaborate for you. I think Gudbranson is going to be a good player for the Canucks. He fills a need for them. You're trying to turn it into something else. If need be, I'll explain that to you.

I think you should've interpreted it exactly as it was said. I'll elaborate for you. I think Gudbranson is going to be a good player for the Canucks. He fills a need for them. You're trying to turn it into something else. If need be, I'll explain that to you.
- MJL

Ok...i guess you are saying you don't generally agree with him, but you agree with his trade? Splitting hairs...

It's not that gudbranson is a bad player. Or that McCann is a good player. I think gudbranson is great and would welcome him to the coyotes. The problem is the drastic overpayment (in other words the poor valuation of the player) based on market prices. Want to acquire gudbranson...great! Don't need McCann...GREAT. But not in that deal. The price he paid for gudbranson is almost the same price as Dougie Hamilton! Just poor talent management and negotiation, which has beenBennings calling card.

Ok...i guess you are saying you don't generally agree with him, but you agree with his trade? Splitting hairs...


- Dahlmanyotes

Call it whatever you want, it was a simple statement that meant exactly what it said. No more, no less.

It's not that gudbranson is a bad player. Or that McCann is a good player. I think gudbranson is great and would welcome him to the coyotes. The problem is the drastic overpayment (in other words the poor valuation of the player) based on market prices. Want to acquire gudbranson...great! Don't need McCann...GREAT. But not in that deal. The price he paid for gudbranson is almost the same price as Dougie Hamilton! Just poor talent management and negotiation, which has beenBennings calling card.
- Dahlmanyotes

Really depends on how McCann develops. Defenseman, especially young ones, and RH to boot, are at a premium. Boston got a first and 2 second round picks for Hamilton. I don't think it's a drastic overpayment. As with any deal, how it works out will ultimately decide if it was a good deal or not, obviously.
Another factor of the deal, is what will it cost to sign Gudbranson to a multi year deal, after Jan 1? I think a big reason Florida made the deal, is they didn't want to pay his salary demands in a long term deal, so they moved him. A poor contract can lower a player's value. As I'm sure you well know.

Call it whatever you want, it was a simple statement that meant exactly what it said. No more, no less.




Really depends on how McCann develops. Defenseman, especially young ones, and RH to boot, are at a premium. Boston got a first and 2 second round picks for Hamilton. I don't think it's a drastic overpayment. As with any deal, how it works out will ultimately decide if it was a good deal or not, obviously.
Another factor of the deal, is what will it cost to sign Gudbranson to a multi year deal, after Jan 1? I think a big reason Florida made the deal, is they didn't want to pay his salary demands in a long term deal, so they moved him. A poor contract can lower a player's value. As I'm sure you well know.
- MJL

We can always say "well it depends on how the player develops/plays" but...full circle...good analytics allows you to predict that development. GMs reliant on "well they could end up playing well" will constantly be guessing the future while others create it. Might as well trade for as many 7th round picks because it could end up being a good player...it just depends how they develop!

We can always say "well it depends on how the player develops/plays" but...full circle...good analytics allows you to predict that development. GMs reliant on "well they could end up playing well" will constantly be guessing the future while others create it. Might as well trade for as many 7th round picks because it could end up being a good player...it just depends how they develop!
- Dahlmanyotes

I don't believe that. With young players, there are so many variables involved. Part of the value in the deal was draft picks. The percentage of a 4th round pick playing 100 games in the NHL is about 20%. I think you're giving analytics, way too much credit. Who needs a GM!

I don't believe that. With young players, there are so many variables involved. Part of the value in the deal was draft picks. The percentage of a 4th round pick playing 100 games in the NHL is about 20%. I think you're giving analytics, way too much credit. Who needs a GM!
- MJL

You just defended your argument of "you are placing too much weight on analytics" by using analytics. Do you realize that analytics is what determined that the chance of a 4th round pick is 20%?

I think you are more on board with analytics than you think!!

You just defended your argument of "you are placing too much weight on analytics" by using analytics. Do you realize that analytics is what determined that the chance of a 4th round pick is 20%?

I think you are more on board with analytics than you think!!
- Dahlmanyotes

LOL, I think we're thinking in very different terms on what encompasses analytics in the sport of hockey, and you know that. Finding that percentage is a simple math equation of how many player were drafted in that round, in a certain time period, and seeing what percentage reached a bench mark in games played, such as 100. What you're saying is pretty much the equivalent of saying 2 +2 = 4 is analytics.