So only certain teams can make profits. That's a typical view from you. Should have expected that answer.
- tomburton99

What are you even talking about. They made a profit by exploiting a terrible situation. I'd criticize any team for such scum like actions.

Well that is an incorrect statement. I will bite what makes you believe that?
- rinaldo

Look it up. Lots of lit on this topic.

What are you even talking about. They made a profit by exploiting a terrible situation. I'd criticize any team for such scum like actions.
- James_Tanner

The whole situation is hypocritical. Chapman for not retiring, the Reds for trying to trade him(twice). They made a profit. They got 3 prospects for 1 player. If the Reds were honorable, they'd have cut Chapman straight up. The Yankees got, him and made a better profit. Also, guess what if the Cubs win a World Series the majority of the fan base won't care what happened in Chapman's past. Take off the rose colored glasses. This would happen in almost any pro league in any sport. You live in a fantasy world.

Look it up. Lots of lit on this topic.
- James_Tanner

no need to look it up. I see it in games with my own 2 eyes that your statement is false.

So if you lose a faceoff clean back to the point and the dman scores with 1 second left to win the game. Are you going to tell me that faceoff had nothing to do with the outcome?

no need to look it up. I see it in games with my own 2 eyes that your statement is false.

So if you lose a faceoff clean back to the point and the dman scores with 1 second left to win the game. Are you going to tell me that faceoff had nothing to do with the outcome?
- rinaldo

How often does that happen?

How often does that happen?
- eichiefs9

Last year, Rangers vs Islanders. Wasn't with 1 second left, but essentially won the islander the game.

Last year, Rangers vs Islanders. Wasn't with 1 second left, but essentially won the islander the game.
- tomburton99

Yeah and that was probably one of a small handful of times that it happened in the entire league.

What if you lose the draw, retrieve the puck nearly immediately and then score? Does that make losing faceoffs valuable?

Yeah and that was probably one of a small handful of times that it happened in the entire league.

What if you lose the draw, retrieve the puck nearly immediately and then score? Does that make losing faceoffs valuable?
- eichiefs9

No. Just wanted to prove it does happen every once in a while.

No. Just wanted to prove it does happen every once in a while.
- tomburton99

You get yourself a fancy season ticket and then you get all high and mighty on me.

You get yourself a fancy season ticket and then you get all high and mighty on me.
- eichiefs9

Uhh, this season ticket was given to me. Show some respeck.

How often does that happen?
- eichiefs9

irrelevant to what he said. Faceoff can impact the outcome of a game. It doesn't have to be a direct goal. When you constantly lose face-offs you don't have the puck. When you don't have the puck you chase. That can get you tired which can have an outcome on the game.

When you have the puck you can dictate the play. so when you can dictate the play do you think that at times that has a bearing on the outcome of the game?

The Olympics haven't been 'amateur' for many, many iterations, if ever.

And Olympic hockey is the highest form of the sport. The top 6 countries hearken back to the 'Original 6' period of the NHL, where every player on every team was highly skilled, and you were in fear of losing your job if you took a night off.

James I really don't get the face off being irrelevant comment. Most of your arguments re: what makes a player good are based on possession stats. Seems logical to assume the team that wins the face off would therefore control possession and hence elevate the stats on...possession. you don't get a positive corsi without the puck. Stands to reason you'd want to start with it no?

irrelevant to what he said. Faceoff can impact the outcome of a game. It doesn't have to be a direct goal. When you constantly lose face-offs you don't have the puck. When you don't have the puck you chase. That can get you tired which can have an outcome on the game.

When you have the puck you can dictate the play. so when you can dictate the play do you think that at times that has a bearing on the outcome of the game?
- rinaldo

It's really just not true. In theory it sounds like it makes sense, but it's impossible to accurately measure the effectiveness of a faceoff win. There's way too many variables to be able to say, with any confidence, that winning faceoffs has a positive effect on games.

Where do you draw the line as to saying the faceoff effects something? If you win a faceoff, gain possession, lose possession, then regain possession and score 3 minutes later...are you really going to try and tell me that it was because of winning the faceoff?

P.s. Not trying to rip you. I generally agree with most things you write about...apart from movie critics. I assume we'd have very good conversations over pints on most days

James I really don't get the face off being irrelevant comment. Most of your arguments re: what makes a player good are based on possession stats. Seems logical to assume the team that wins the face off would therefore control possession and hence elevate the stats on...possession. you don't get a positive corsi without the puck. Stands to reason you'd want to start with it no?
- LifeLongLeafer

I'd be happy to really explain it llater when I'm not kn my phone

irrelevant to what he said. Faceoff can impact the outcome of a game. It doesn't have to be a direct goal. When you constantly lose face-offs you don't have the puck. When you don't have the puck you chase. That can get you tired which can have an outcome on the game.

When you have the puck you can dictate the play. so when you can dictate the play do you think that at times that has a bearing on the outcome of the game?
- rinaldo

This makes too much sense to me ...has to be false

It's really just not true. In theory it sounds like it makes sense, but it's impossible to accurately measure the effectiveness of a faceoff win. There's way too many variables to be able to say, with any confidence, that winning faceoffs has a positive effect on games.

Where do you draw the line as to saying the faceoff effects something? If you win a faceoff, gain possession, lose possession, then regain possession and score 3 minutes later...are you really going to try and tell me that it was because of winning the faceoff?
- eichiefs9

well in your opinion its not true.

It's really just not true. In theory it sounds like it makes sense, but it's impossible to accurately measure the effectiveness of a faceoff win. There's way too many variables to be able to say, with any confidence, that winning faceoffs has a positive effect on games.

Where do you draw the line as to saying the faceoff effects something? If you win a faceoff, gain possession, lose possession, then regain possession and score 3 minutes later...are you really going to try and tell me that it was because of winning the faceoff?
- eichiefs9

You can argue against pretty much any stat out there if you really want to ...which is why the eye test is something people with common sense use for instances like the one you stated

You can argue against pretty much any stat out there if you really want to ...which is why the eye test is something people with common sense use for instances like the one you stated
- Redmile247

Right, using your common sense to interpret what you see is fine...but you, me, or anyone doesn't watch every hockey game and remember each individual faceoff and it's outcome. So you'd have to rely on metrics and it's nearly impossible to prove any correlation between faceoff wins and success over a large enough sample size to validate it.

Does winning faceoffs sometimes result in positive events for the team that won them? Sure. But there are also a lot of times where it results in a negative event. And unless you can definitively tell me what type of outcome it has the overwhelming majority of the time, by using tangible proof (the eye test doesn't count), then the correct answer is that there is no evidence that faceoffs have an impact on a team's success.

James Tanner: PLUS/MINUS: Oooooh Child, It's the Extended 3 Hour Addition
Back on Monday for a special Holiday Edition.
- James_Tanner

Wasn't Jim Carey in "The Grinch"?

You had to have liked "So I Married An Ax Murderer".......

Right, using your common sense to interpret what you see is fine...but you, me, or anyone doesn't watch every hockey game and remember each individual faceoff and it's outcome. So you'd have to rely on metrics and it's nearly impossible to prove any correlation between faceoff wins and success over a large enough sample size to validate it.

Does winning faceoffs sometimes result in positive events for the team that won them? Sure. But there are also a lot of times where it results in a negative event. And unless you can definitively tell me what type of outcome it has the overwhelming majority of the time, by using tangible proof (the eye test doesn't count), then the correct answer is that there is no evidence that faceoffs have an impact on a team's success.
- eichiefs9

good stuff.

simple question for you. Do you think face-offs can impact a teams success? yes or no.

Right, using your common sense to interpret what you see is fine...but you, me, or anyone doesn't watch every hockey game and remember each individual faceoff and it's outcome. So you'd have to rely on metrics and it's nearly impossible to prove any correlation between faceoff wins and success over a large enough sample size to validate it.

Does winning faceoffs sometimes result in positive events for the team that won them? Sure. But there are also a lot of times where it results in a negative event. And unless you can definitively tell me what type of outcome it has the overwhelming majority of the time, by using tangible proof (the eye test doesn't count), then the correct answer is that there is no evidence that faceoffs have an impact on a team's success.
- eichiefs9

From what I’ve read, I think the main argument is that the impact of winning face-offs is minimal towards scoring goals. Not that is doesn’t help at all.

Having possession of the puck in a good location (the offensive zone) is necessary for a shot attempt – and leads to goals. Anecdotally, winning face-offs seems to lead to this. I also think aggregating data could discount in-game situations too much, but just my gut feeling.

The now defunct war-on-ice used face-offs as part of the ‘GAR’ calculation – along with shot attempts, shot quality, drawing penalties etc. It seemed to me like these guys had their act together.

good stuff.

simple question for you. Do you think face-offs can impact a teams success? yes or no.
- rinaldo

It's not a simple yes or no question, so phrasing it that way to try and make your point is incredibly prejudicial.

I think finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk can, and does, happen. Doesn't mean I'm going to tell you that walking on the sidewalk leads to adding $100 in my bank account.

From what I’ve read, I think the main argument is that the impact of winning face-offs is minimal towards scoring goals. Not that is doesn’t help at all.

Having possession of the puck in a good location (the offensive zone) is necessary for a shot attempt – and leads to goals. Anecdotally, winning face-offs seems to lead to this. I also think aggregating data could discount in-game situations too much, but just my gut feeling.

The now defunct war-on-ice used face-offs as part of the ‘GAR’ calculation – along with shot attempts, shot quality, drawing penalties etc. It seemed to me like these guys had their act together.
- Tumbleweed

Yeah I wasn't saying that winning faceoffs was bad or anything, just that there's zero credible evidence (other than a bunch of anonymous internet posters' "eye tests") that proves anything one way or another. Therefore, if you can't tell me that it has one kind of effect, it's not a metric that really holds any value in evaluating a player's worth.