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.
- James_Tanner

I feel the same, I'll use a different set of players next time, but I'll try my hardest not to discuss your player evaluations in the future and stick to music and stuff we agree on.

Cheers

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

Patrik Stefan, Zack Hamill, Stan Chistov, Gilbert Brule, Alex Svitov, and Dustin Brown approve of this post.

I feel the same, I'll use a different set of players next time, but I'll try my hardest not to discuss your player evaluations in the future and stick to music and stuff we agree on.

Cheers
- Garnie

Oh there is no need to agree with me. You're entitled to your opinions, and you are at least fairly respectable about disagreeing, so no big deal. I just don't get why you use the same example that is clearly wrong, every time.

Patrik Stefan, Zack Hamill, Stan Chistov, Gilbert Brule, Alex Svitov, and Dustin Brown approve of this post.
- sniper11

Perhaps you should look up words like "tend" "seem" "largely" "anecdote."

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.
- MJL

It is exceedingly naive.

No sense even arguing with him on it. At some point, hopefully, he will come to the realization that the rest of us aren't stupid and may, in fact, be right.

Until then... let's just keep spewing out corsi numbers, calculated to a 1/100th of a percent

Oh there is no need to agree with me. You're entitled to your opinions, and you are at least fairly respectable about disagreeing, so no big deal. I just don't get why you use the same example that is clearly wrong, every time.
- James_Tanner

you always have to throw that in....and i"m not wrong. As I said....i'm going to try not and talk evaluations as we are not even close to agreeing. There are even more variables then I've used...but I'm not going any farther.

Perhaps you should look up words like "tend" "seem" "largely" "anecdote."
- James_Tanner

Perhaps you should do actual research and stop making things up or P-hacking results. Almost all players do not have the same level of success when moved up in the lineup. And to disprove your point even more, moving up guarantees you are playing with better players than before. I remember German Titov stinking it up on a line with Lemieux and Jagr. Hell, even Bobby Ryan couldn't really get it going playing with Getzlaf and Perry. It is idiotic to suggest a good 4th liner will be a good 1st liner because he succeeded on the 4th line. It has been tried millions of times by every single team with disappointing results nearly every time. Players "tend" to get demoted back to where they were successful. They "seem" to be better utilized in that role than on a top line. You are "largely" incorrect about this and I doubt you can provide a single "anecdote" where the results are repetitive and sustainable. You must be Petr Tenkrat's brother-in-law or something.

Perhaps you should do actual research and stop making things up or P-hacking results. Almost all players do not have the same level of success when moved up in the lineup. And to disprove your point even more, moving up guarantees you are playing with better players than before. I remember German Titov stinking it up on a line with Lemieux and Jagr. Hell, even Bobby Ryan couldn't really get it going playing with Getzlaf and Perry. It is idiotic to suggest a good 4th liner will be a good 1st liner because he succeeded on the 4th line. It has been tried millions of times by every single team with disappointing results nearly every time. Players "tend" to get demoted back to where they were successful. They "seem" to be better utilized in that role than on a top line. You are "largely" incorrect about this and I doubt you can provide a single "anecdote" where the results are repetitive and sustainable. You must be Petr Tenkrat's brother-in-law or something.
- sniper11

Well said. The Flyers tried to play Matt Read, who before the past few seasons, put up strong numbers playing on the 3rd line, up on a line with Giroux. It didn't work, and Read struggled. There's hundreds of examples for that kind of thing. Lots of variables involved. They just didn't click and couldn't find chemistry. I guess it all goes against the infallible facts that Tanner speaks of.

you always have to throw that in....and i"m not wrong. As I said....i'm going to try not and talk evaluations as we are not even close to agreeing. There are even more variables then I've used...but I'm not going any farther.
- Garnie

Yes, you are. You constantly mention Gardiner and Rielliy as having played different competition , but it is a FACT that they played the EXACT same competition. I PROVED this and as such, you are WRONG. OBJECTIVELY.

We do not need to agree. As my good friend John Oliver once said, "Are there Hats? Do Owls exist?"

Yes, you are. You constantly mention Gardiner and Rielliy as having played different competition , but it is a FACT that they played the EXACT same competition. I PROVED this and as such, you are WRONG. OBJECTIVELY.

We do not need to agree. As my good friend John Oliver once said, "Are there Hats? Do Owls exist?"
- James_Tanner

You're friends with JOHN OLIVER!!!!
Wow... impressive.

Yes, you are. You constantly mention Gardiner and Rielliy as having played different competition , but it is a FACT that they played the EXACT same competition. I PROVED this and as such, you are WRONG. OBJECTIVELY.

We do not need to agree. As my good friend John Oliver once said, "Are there Hats? Do Owls exist?"
- James_Tanner

Ok, I'll let you pretend you won and so we can just stop the madness...

Competitions Corsi's being the same does not equal same competition...sorry, you can believe that all you want...shout it from the roof tops....but it's incorrect.

Go look at the ice times vs the best player on each team....don't look at the corsi, look at Jamie Benn look Alex Ovechkin...look at Sid Crosby. Plus Rielly played TOUGHER MINUTES...pk is 100x harder than pp or 5v5. Rielly has 100's of more PK mins than Gardiner...

Anyways....now look what you've done...you got me all heated again

Ok, I'll let you pretend you won and so we can just stop the madness...

Competitions Corsi's being the same does not equal same competition...sorry, you can believe that all you want...shout it from the roof tops....but it's incorrect.

Go look at the ice times vs the best player on each team....don't look at the corsi, look at Jamie Benn look Alex Ovechkin...look at Sid Crosby. Plus Rielly played TOUGHER MINUTES...pk is 100x harder than pp or 5v5. Rielly has 100's of more PK mins than Gardiner...

Anyways....now look what you've done...you got me all heated again


- Garnie

It is a rough combination to be both incorrect and unwilling to listen to reason. How am I supposed to even have a conversation with someone who just will not listen?

Ironically, you bring up penalty kill. You put Rielly out there because Gardiner is your best player and it's wasteful to use him on the PK. It's the same reason they don't use Karlsson on the PK - not because he can't do it, but it's a waste of the limited minutes you can use him for.

It is a rough combination to be both incorrect and unwilling to listen to reason. How am I supposed to even have a conversation with someone who just will not listen?

Ironically, you bring up penalty kill. You put Rielly out there because Gardiner is your best player and it's wasteful to use him on the PK. It's the same reason they don't use Karlsson on the PK - not because he can't do it, but it's a waste of the limited minutes you can use him for.
- James_Tanner

*sigh*

I already said we are far apart...I listen, I'm not the only one who thinks you use the #'s as GODs WORD when they are far from that.

It is a rough combination to be both incorrect and unwilling to listen to reason. How am I supposed to even have a conversation with someone who just will not listen?

Ironically, you bring up penalty kill. You put Rielly out there because Gardiner is your best player and it's wasteful to use him on the PK. It's the same reason they don't use Karlsson on the PK - not because he can't do it, but it's a waste of the limited minutes you can use him for.
- James_Tanner

If Gard's was our best D...I would use him against Ovie/Benn/Crosby etc 5v5 but instead he got zero mins against them (or very little)...so maybe he had better stats ( shots for / against ) that doesnt mean he's the best D on the team...he was utilized very well. Funny how you say there are only so many ELITE players in the league....and Rielly and Hunny pretty much faced every teams Elite players every night....but yet Gard's and Rielly faced the same comp.

just doesnt add up to me....again sorry