I could see myself putting on American Beauty, but honestly, I think at this point I'd spin Alanis before Tool, PJ or QOTSA.
- James_Tanner

You are getting old, but some days...I'd probably due something similiar....probably throw on Metric and not Alanis.

Same goes for The Hip....they kind of fizzled in my mind. I don't listen to a lot of either band much now. Sure they are both very good bands but you can't really rank music...music is all about what you like. I'm not a big fan of most of the bands you like...but hey...you're not wrong for liking them. Not like you are about QOC *runs away*
- Garnie

Did you read the post above? If you do, and do any research, you'll find your opinion is shared by zero informed people. Just saying.

James.
Great blog - loved the hockey insight.

Your Hip analysis however, I have the Courage, to disagree with.

After Fully Completely they were abducted by corporate aliens and started farting out McAlbums rather than their tried and true method of grinding them out and perfecting them playing clubs. Each album would come along, get hyped on the radio for a month, then dj's would realize what we all had - another one/2 song album of crappola. Gone were the days where you could spin the whole disc and know every lyric to every song. They were not a great band. They were ok. And, their big stadium shows were terrible. One of the worst 3 shows I ever saw. Pearl Jam at the Bob in Ottawa ranks as the worst all time. EV was drunk, sat on a chair and slurred the lyrics to every song.

If you need musical enlightenment, look to my handle and be amazed.

James.
Great blog - loved the hockey insight.

Your Hip analysis however, I have the Courage, to disagree with.

After Fully Completely they were abducted by corporate aliens and started farting out McAlbums rather than their tried and true method of grinding them out and perfecting them playing clubs. Each album would come along, get hyped on the radio for a month, then dj's would realize what we all had - another one/2 song album of crappola. Gone were the days where you could spin the whole disc and know every lyric to every song. They were not a great band. They were ok. And, their big stadium shows were terrible. One of the worst 3 shows I ever saw. Pearl Jam at the Bob in Ottawa ranks as the worst all time. EV was drunk, sat on a chair and slurred the lyrics to every song.

If you need musical enlightenment, look to my handle and be amazed.
- Octavarium

Thanks. I will say this: After Phantom Power, the Hip were past their prime and became a great concert band that could still put out a great single every now and again.

However, for me, the reason I rank them so highly is because there just aren't many bands that have ever had a four album run of perfection like the Hip demonstrated between Up to Here and Day for Night.

With Subban, Brodie, Giordano, Ekblad, Hamilton, Rielly, Seabrook... You could put together a second Canadian defence that's arguably as good as the one going to Toronto.
- DoubleDown

I would say they are as good.

You hit it out of the ballpark with this one tanner

Joe is such a great player. I was actually arguing with some bonehead earlier in the year and it was the typical 'joe can't get it done nonsense. His name doesn't belong with the greats. It annoyed rvrn having to bother list all of the fantastic achievings and milestones this guys reached. And still doing it.

Gudbranson is pretty bad. I've always been one to argue about cherry picking stats, but this guy is brutal by the numbers and the eye. Physical and apparently s character guy though. Wouldn'tve dealt McCann for those attributes tho

Hall left off the team is a joke. But yeah- he plays on a bad team/ he must not be very good

Not sure about ekholm Ove Lindholm or klingberg, but swedens defence is better than Canada's

The American roster is beyond understanding

The big short
- HB77

I don't know how they could announce it with a straight face.

Did you read the post above? If you do, and do any research, you'll find your opinion is shared by zero informed people. Just saying.
- James_Tanner

I've read and I just don't agree.

I've read and I just don't agree.
- Garnie

Well you should change your mind when confronted with new information because you're totally wrong. Still, it's all the same to me, you seem like a nice guy.

Joe Thornton's name belongs on the cup for sure, but there is no way he'll ever be ranked above Jaromir Jagr for my money.

Did you read the post above? If you do, and do any research, you'll find your opinion is shared by zero informed people. Just saying.
- James_Tanner

I'll translate this. Anyone who has an opinion counter to that, is uninformed.

Well you should change your mind when confronted with new information because you're totally wrong. Still, it's all the same to me, you seem like a nice guy.
- James_Tanner

I don't care if they changed the brand of ketchup, I still don't want fries with that and you are wrong.

Well you should change your mind when confronted with new information because you're totally wrong. Still, it's all the same to me, you seem like a nice guy.
- James_Tanner

New information is not automatically correct or accurate information.

Well you should change your mind when confronted with new information because you're totally wrong. Still, it's all the same to me, you seem like a nice guy.
- James_Tanner

That's exactly the type of character Dean Lombardi wants to see on the US roster!

I'll translate this. Anyone who has an opinion counter to that, is uninformed.
- MJL

Nope...i think what he was trying to say was: you're an bumhole.

I'll translate this. Anyone who has an opinion counter to that, is uninformed.
- MJL

So far. I haven't seen a good argument for using QOC to discredit good stats or to excuse bad ones (outside of ex.small sample sizes). Not once. Not ever.

However, should one materialize, I am happy to adjust my worldview accordingly.

So far. I haven't seen a good argument for using QOC to discredit good stats or to excuse bad ones (outside of ex.small sample sizes). Not once. Not ever.

However, should one materialize, I am happy to adjust my worldview accordingly.
- James_Tanner

Hey James...serious question, I actually just want to know if you ever played hockey, and if so what level. I'm not trying to be an a-hole honestly....just curious.

So far. I haven't seen a good argument for using QOC to discredit good stats or to excuse bad ones (outside of ex.small sample sizes). Not once. Not ever.

However, should one materialize, I am happy to adjust my worldview accordingly.
- James_Tanner

Why does it have to be to discredit a stat, or to excuse one? I think completely disregarding the quality of the opponent and the team, is naive.

Well you should change your mind when confronted with new information because you're totally wrong. Still, it's all the same to me, you seem like a nice guy.
- James_Tanner

Sure I look at shots on net etc, I just don't lump them all together...and playing against elite talent MOST of the game and being deployed in the D zone against them the majority is for sure going to skew the stats. I don't care what kind of math people come up with to try and get them into the game.

You sometimes need to start at the beginning and find out WHY certain guys are getting more shots/less shots, it's not always the same answer.

Anyways....cheers.

Sure I look at shots on net etc, I just don't lump them all together...and playing against elite talent MOST of the game and being deployed in the D zone against them the majority is for sure going to skew the stats. I don't care what kind of math people come up with to try and get them into the game.

You sometimes need to start at the beginning and find out WHY certain guys are getting more shots/less shots, it's not always the same answer.

Anyways....cheers.
- Garnie

What you don't seem to comprehend is that if you play the toughest matchups, you tend to also have the best teammates, largely cancelling out the effect.

How do we know this is what happens? Because there is very little fluctuation of stats when guys go from low to high in the lineup. I.E if you were putting up mad numbers against weak competition, you tend to put up the same numbers when things get harder.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that if you play the toughest matchups, you tend to also have the best teammates, largely cancelling out the effect.

How do we know this is what happens? Because there is very little fluctuation of stats when guys go from low to high in the lineup. I.E if you were putting up mad numbers against weak competition, you tend to put up the same numbers when things get harder.
- James_Tanner

Not always the case. Sean Couturier for the Flyers, season after season faced some of the toughest icetime in the NHL. He did not have the best teammates. The same is true for many players, especially for players on poor teams. Defenseman in particular on bad teams, have their numbers skewed due to the roles they have to play, without much support.
One of the very basic premises of analytics is that they can make good players look bad, and bad players look good, all due to the infinite number of variables involved in the sport, as well as the poor data collection.

Not always the case. Sean Couturier for the Flyers, season after season faced some of the toughest icetime in the NHL. He did not have the best teammates. The same is true for many players, especially for players on poor teams. Defenseman in particular on bad teams, have their numbers skewed due to the roles they have to play, without much support.
One of the very basic premises of analytics is that they can make good players look bad, and bad players look good, all due to the infinite number of variables involved in the sport, as well as the poor data collection.
- MJL

Exactly...Ie. Morgan Rielly being paired with Hunwick and playing against ALL the top lines. It wouldnt matter who T.O. put on the ice...they weren't ELITE so Hunny and Rielly get the shaft when it comes to ANALytics and everybody all of a sudden think Gardiner's Bobby (frank)ing Orr...( not that I think Rielly is great defensively, but you can't compare other players in the league when the situations are nowhere near )

Stick to the coyotes.

Exactly...Ie. Morgan Rielly being paired with Hunwick and playing against ALL the top lines.


It wouldnt matter who T.O. put on the ice...they weren't ELITE so Hunny and Rielly get the shaft when it comes to ANALytics and everybody all of a sudden think Gardiner's Bobby (frank)ing Orr...( not that I think Rielly is great defensively, but you can't compare other players in the league when the situations are nowhere near )
- Garnie

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. But excepting that, how many times have you mentioned the same thing only to have me point out that they faced the exact same competition?

The average corsi of their competition was as follows (from war on ice):

Morgan Rielly: 50.49
Jake Gardiner: 50.12

So, sure, Rielly faced competition of approximately 1/3 of a percentage point higher. I.E the exact same. This is at least the third time I've pointed this out to you.


So when Gardiner put up a 53% CF for the year, numbers which are either elite or on the cusp of being so, vs Rielly's 49% it is because Gardiner is just (at present) the better player. No one got 'the shaft' because, over 82 games, they faced the same competition.

I feel like its groudhog day here.

Stick to the coyotes.
- Newgod77

You stick to the Coyotes.

You stick to the Coyotes.
- James_Tanner

Your face is the Coyotes