I'll give you McDavid as superstar potential (as Kane had then as well)

Brouwer - Toews - Hossa
Ladd - Sharp - Kane
Versteeg - Bolland - Byfuglien
Eager - Madden - Kopecky

That's pretty deep. McDavid and possibly Lucic would be the only two to crack the top 6
- PatShart

You cant forget the great Pirri. He did play one game

This thread all but destroys the credibility of the three or four guys who will complain about every single thing I say. You got what you asked for and you responded exactly how I expected you to.
- James_Tanner

It destroys only yours. Not that you had any.

You failed to answer my point on Klefbom. And your post proved that Gardiner plays mostly against bottom 6 players.

Yet you again want to try to cherry pick and move Gardiner up because you say so? How does that then not also apply to anyone above or just below him?

Your arguments are so flawed and full of holes they are almost as ridiculous as your blogs.

It's not that they don't matter, it's that they don't sufficiently explain away things like people think they do.

For instance, if you shelter most players to the extent of Patrick Kane, guess what, they don't score anywhere close to how much he does and he probably wouldn't do all that differently if he didn't play on a team with a different line featuring elite players.

That being said, I even included context information for Gardiner and it looks good. (Only 30 D play significantly tougher minutes than he does, his zone starts are split equally) .

But whatever, it's not like I expect anyone to actually change their mind when confronted with new information.
- James_Tanner

30 D only play tougher mins???....except the other 29 teams have at least 2 guys minimum that play tougher mins.

If you were a GM and stuck 2 Gardiners on your top pairing...you wouldn't make the playoffs ever before being fired. ( and I don't mind the player )

Patrick O'Sullivan Verified account
‏@realPOSULLIVAN

I'm waiting to meet an analytics person who's had to go into the corner and get a puck against Shea Weber. Let me know if anyone finds one.


Are you willing to volunteer?

What's confusing? It just shows that those players all play top-line competition and that none of them play significantly harder comp. than the others. It's thirty guys separated by less than one percentage point. If I was making an argument for the merits of any player in any situation, i'd make the same exact point. If you don't people go "oh 61st isn't that great" and, well, it is.
- James_Tanner

I think his point was around... why would Gardiner make the jump (because of the 1% room for error).... but the other players ahead of him wouldn't?... so the argument of the 1% room for error would apply to all the players.. thus keeping him at 61st.

Which is "okay".. definitely top 4... with arguments for top 2.

Logical fallacy-appeal to authority alert!
- MJL

This is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy...just fyi...he has not named himself as an expert in anything to refute rebuttals.

Back to regular blogger bashing

This is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy...just fyi...he has not named himself as an expert in anything to refute rebuttals.

Back to regular blogger bashing
- McSavioursPupil

You missed it badly. Here is his statement.

"Because it's a commonly accepted fact that Bergeron is that good "

Tanner is not the expert, for heaven's sake!


The expert is those in the Hockey world who think that Bergeron is among the best players in the game.

Yes they are. Which is why you used a hero chart.

I could go pull other charts like a vollman bubble chart or some other fancy that shows Gardiner isn't even top 60 in the Nhl. You love to cherry pick your stats that's for sure.

Or I could go to hockey reference and show that Gardiner has nearly identical similarity scores to guys like Colin White, Dennis OBrien and Fedor Tyutin.
- Iggysbff

In fairness those similarity charts often produce some head-scratching results.

Better than the 2010 Hawks?
Toews, Hossa, Brouwer, Kane, Ladd, Sharp, Kopecky, Madden, Versteeg, Bolland, Byfuglien
- PatShart

If we're going all homer: 06-07 Sabres: Briere 95P, Vanek 84P, Drury 69P, Pominville 68P, Roy 63P, Afinogenov 61P. 4 guys who scored at least 32 goals and 9 with at least 13. 308 GF a full 20 more than 2nd place Ottawa. Only 1 team in the intervening years has had more GF. The 09-10 Caps at 318 when Ovechkin had 50 and Semin had 40.

In fairness those similarity charts often produce some head-scratching results.
- Wetbandit1

You're missing the point. Tanner said just because thou don't like the results of the fancies doesn't mean they're wrong. So the similarity charts must be bang on...

It destroys only yours. Not that you had any.

You failed to answer my point on Klefbom. And your post proved that Gardiner plays mostly against bottom 6 players.

Yet you again want to try to cherry pick and move Gardiner up because you say so? How does that then not also apply to anyone above or just below him?

Your arguments are so flawed and full of holes they are almost as ridiculous as your blogs.
- Iggysbff

Bottom six players? Despite there not being 30 players that played significantly tougher minutes? You're a joke. It's not even fun to argue if you're just going to troll so heavily. I mean, what's the point? You're hung up on the most minuscule part of the argument, which you don't see to get, meaning nothing you ever say has any meaning.

Thanks for proving that you don't read, just insult and aren't interested in a real conversation.

I think his point was around... why would Gardiner make the jump (because of the 1% room for error).... but the other players ahead of him wouldn't?... so the argument of the 1% room for error would apply to all the players.. thus keeping him at 61st.

Which is "okay".. definitely top 4... with arguments for top 2.
- kneughter

The point isn't to move Gardiner up and no one else. The point is that players 29 through 61 have so little difference in their competition that it is a meaningless difference. It's not cherry picking, it's discounting anyone else.

It's unbelievable that this needs to be explained.

The frigging hilarious part is that QOC doesn't explain anything away in the first place and I only included it because I knew if I didn't people would complain. However, I was naive for thinking anyone here actually wanted a real conversation - you guys just want to insult people and troll the blog.

Further hilarious is that while you continue to pretend that QOC or Zone Starts matter, you fail to address that they only matter when they suit the argument of trying to explain away a player who's reputation is being superseded by the statistical analysis.

If the Predators go into next season with Pekka Rinne as their starter, they will be a middle-of-the-pack team when they could be the Cup Favorite - along with Pittsburgh and (depending) Tampa. They are a good to great goalie away from being a dominant force in the NHL.

You're missing the point. Tanner said just because thou don't like the results of the fancies doesn't mean they're wrong. So the similarity charts must be bang on...
- Iggysbff

You're ability to complain about inconsistencies while offering absolutely nothing original or interesting to a conversation is second to none.

You said (and I am paraphrasing here) "your argument is so full of holes it would be easy to destroy it" and then you complained about something that is basically semantics and didn't even have one good point.

Pathetic.

- SimmerDown17

What does this mean? Here is an idea: instead of assuming someone who says something you don't agree with is an idiot, maybe look into it first? Rinne has the worst starting goalie stats in hockey and is widely considered (at least by people who show their work) as the worst starter in hockey.

The statistics are pretty undeniable on Rinne: he's career as a good starting goalie is over.

Bottom six players? Despite there not being 30 players that played significantly tougher minutes? You're a joke. It's not even fun to argue if you're just going to troll so heavily. I mean, what's the point? You're hung up on the most minuscule part of the argument, which you don't see to get, meaning nothing you ever say has any meaning.

Thanks for proving that you don't read, just insult and aren't interested in a real conversation.
- James_Tanner

It's not trolling pointing out your many flaws and inconsistencies in your arguements. It's pretty easy to do.

What you do however is text book troll blogging.

Truth.

It's not trolling pointing out your many flaws and inconsistencies in your arguements. It's pretty easy to do.

What you do however is text book troll blogging.

Truth.
- Iggysbff

See you did it again. You don't actually point out any flaws or inconsistencies. You just say that they exist.

It's my fault though, I assumed people were actually interested in hockey. I'm sure you feel awesome at night when you think about how hard you gave it to those hockey bloggers in the comment section.

What does this mean? Here is an idea: instead of assuming someone who says something you don't agree with is an idiot, maybe look into it first? Rinne has the worst starting goalie stats in hockey and is widely considered (at least by people who show their work) as the worst starter in hockey.

The statistics are pretty undeniable on Rinne: he's career as a good starting goalie is over.
- James_Tanner

I already know about Rinne.
Tampa and Pittsburgh will be a middle-of-the-pack team or a cup favorite?

See you did it again. You don't actually point out any flaws or inconsistencies. You just say that they exist.

It's my fault though, I assumed people were actually interested in hockey. I'm sure you feel awesome at night when you think about how hard you gave it to those hockey bloggers in the comment section.
- James_Tanner

You're getting a bit upset tonight Jamesy-poo. Take 5, have a smoke.

It's not trolling pointing out your many flaws and inconsistencies in your arguements. It's pretty easy to do.

What you do however is text book troll blogging.

Truth.
- Iggysbff

I don't mind James, but he would make a terrible Lawyer, or get eaten alive on the Dragons Den if he were pitching his arguements there.

I'm not sure if he realizes it or not, but a credible arguement needs to be able to see both sides, and have an intelligent counter.

He half asses it when presented with a counter point by saying it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it's no mystery why James has been unable to convince anyone of his points.

What I suggest James do is read Jonathan Willis from Oilers nation and a bunch of other Edmonton media outlets. He's smarter than James, and a far better writer, and explains his POV with great detail, yet with the grace James lacks. He also deals with the comment section with a lot more class, but then, he doesn't get ripped nearly as much.

I don't mind James, but he would make a terrible Lawyer, or get eaten alive on the Dragons Den if he were pitching his arguements there.

I'm not sure if he realizes it or not, but a credible arguement needs to be able to see both sides, and have an intelligent counter.

He half asses it when presented with a counter point by saying it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, it's no mystery why James has been unable to convince anyone of his points.

What I suggest James do is read Jonathan Willis from Oilers nation and a bunch of other Edmonton media outlets. He's smarter than James, and a far better writer, and explains his POV with great detail, yet with the grace James lacks. He also deals with the comment section with a lot more class, but then, he doesn't get ripped nearly as much.
- Jeropotato

It's Tanners' own fault. Especially when he says like like "Gardiner has had five straight 30 point seasons" in regards to James being challenged on Gardiner being an elite #1 d-man. First off, Gardiner spent almost all of 2012-2013 in the AHL. Second, Gardiner had only 24 points in 2014-15. At the end he just brushes it off like it was never mentioned. Gotta love Tanner. He's assumed the roll of the HB troll blogger.

It's Tanners' own fault. Especially when he says like like "Gardiner has had five straight 30 point seasons" in regards to James being challenged on Gardiner being an elite #1 d-man. First off, Gardiner spent almost all of 2012-2013 in the AHL. Second, Gardiner had only 24 points in 2014-15. At the end he just brushes it off like it was never mentioned. Gotta love Tanner. He's assumed the roll of the HB troll blogger.
- tomburton99

Sam Woo Jr.

But I hope you know it's all an act. Absolutely no one could be so vapid.

You missed it badly. Here is his statement.

"Because it's a commonly accepted fact that Bergeron is that good "

Tanner is not the expert, for heaven's sake!


The expert is those in the Hockey world who think that Bergeron is among the best players in the game.
- MJL

You missed the main point, no one has been claimed to be an expert that must be listened to.

I have no doubt that his statement may be a logical fallacy, but it isn't actually the one you claim it to be.

To be Argument from Authority// Appeal to Authority it would have been phrased more like:

I am an (expert in field), So I know what I am talking about...

or

They are NHL Management, they know hockey players.

not

It is generally assumed that every one knows this.

You missed the main point, no one has been claimed to be an expert that must be listened to.

I have no doubt that his statement may be a logical fallacy, but it isn't actually the one you claim it to be.

To be Argument from Authority// Appeal to Authority it would have been phrased more like:

I am an (expert in field), So I know what I am talking about...

or

They are NHL Management, they know hockey players.

not

It is generally assumed that every one knows this.
- McSavioursPupil

No I didn't miss the point at all, you're missing it. It is a virtual guarantee that if someone replied to a statement that Tanner made in that manner, without a shadow of a doubt, Tanner would've dodged the actual topic of the conversation, and accused the poster of making an appeal to authority. Pretty simple.

No I didn't miss the point at all, you're missing it. It is a virtual guarantee that if someone replied to a statement that Tanner made in that manner, without a shadow of a doubt, Tanner would've dodged the actual topic of the conversation, and accused the poster of making an appeal to authority. Pretty simple.
- MJL

NO, you just don't understand what logical fallacies are, or how they work.

However, I was wrong about Gardiner, I didn't realize one of his 30 point seasons was in the minors during the lockout. Big deal. Y'all still shut up quick about zone starts and QOC though.