Don't the Leafs employ a female skating coach Barb Underhill?

Yes they do, but she's not a full time coach. She's technically a consultant which means she is not an employee of MLSE she is a contractor. She won't be getting health benefits through the Leafs or a salary. She gets a fee. Barb probably has some type of a non-compete clause in her contract preventing her from working with any other NHL teams, affiliates, or drafted prospects but other than that she is likely free to have other clients.

Many NHL teams hire former figure skaters as skating coaches. They are often female. I took a few lessons at an elite referee development camp from Sergei Tartykov(not a female) - a former Russian Olympic figure skater who is now(as of 3 years ago) the skating coach for the Minnesota Wild.

I got slightly faster but more importantly I'm utilizing my strides properly now. I'm using about 3/4 the strides and maybe 1/2 the energy I used to.

Understood, but again, the worst? Where's the data on that?
- Pelle31Forever

No idea how you could quantify "the worst", but a .908 save percentage is pretty bad. Fortunately for Nashville no team allowed less shots on goal than they did last year.

Not so sure I agree that this generation of men is all that different when it pertains to its treatment of women. I see disgusting comments about women on this site that I don't think the boomers would ever say. People get banned all the time but never for degrading women. This internet generation has grown up with unlimited access to porn where anything goes. It has shaped how men see women and how young women see themselves.

I agree the gay community has made significant gains but I fear women might be worse off. Reading posts about the Olympics the comments about female athletes were rarely about talent.

Good blog as usual Jim. Cheers
- shack67

His track record is why he doesn't have a contract at this point. I don't think there are many people who follow the game, who share your way of thinking. I doubt you could get Kyle Dubas, or John Chayka to agree with your way of thinking on Runblad. I doubt you get anyone involved with an NHL team to agree with you.
- MJL

Just a point of principle: This isn't a good argument.

I often get called arrogant for not couching my writing in "I thinks" and "in my opinions." I'm only trying to write in a confident tone. If you disagree with it, I see how it can be construed as arrogant, and that's fine. Maybe I am just a really arrogant SOB, it's possible. (Though, make an argument that actually proves your point and I'll come around to your way of thinking).

I make that preface because I don't want you to think I am dismissing you because I would dismiss you know matter what you say.

It isn't personal, and for all I know you're a hockey genius and correct on this point.

BUT : You can't say what you think the opinions of other people you don't know are. In no way is that a good argument.

Considering no team has signed him, there is a good chance you are correct, but you don't need to pretend you have insight into the minds of people you've never talked to.

Just a point of principle: This isn't a good argument.

I often get called arrogant for not couching my writing in "I thinks" and "in my opinions." I'm only trying to write in a confident tone. If you disagree with it, I see how it can be construed as arrogant, and that's fine. Maybe I am just a really arrogant SOB, it's possible. (Though, make an argument that actually proves your point and I'll come around to your way of thinking).

I make that preface because I don't want you to think I am dismissing you because I would dismiss you know matter what you say.

It isn't personal, and for all I know you're a hockey genius and correct on this point.

BUT : You can't say what you think the opinions of other people you don't know are. In no way is that a good argument.

Considering no team has signed him, there is a good chance you are correct, but you don't need to pretend you have insight into the minds of people you've never talked to.
- James_Tanner

This has worked for me so far. Just ask Pat Morris.

Just a point of principle: This isn't a good argument.


BUT : You can't say what you think the opinions of other people you don't know are. In no way is that a good argument.

Considering no team has signed him, there is a good chance you are correct, but you don't need to pretend you have insight into the minds of people you've never talked to.
- James_Tanner

You're right, it isn't a good argument, it's better than good. I think it's safe to assume that if your argument with regards to Runblad was even remotely true, he'd be signed to a contract by now. I can actually say that, because this is just another in a long line of examples that shows that you don't know how to properly use analytics, or come to reasonable conclusions using them. It's not personal James, it's just the way it is. Actions speak louder than words.

After watching waaaay too much of Rundblad, the fact you compare him to an elite, top pairing defenseman is absolutely laughable to me. I recognize the stats you brought up. His corsi and shots against are ostensibly fantastic numbers, but his stats are very misleading. Coach Q sheltered Rundblad extensively, giving him almost exclusively offensive zone draws while pairing him with a Seabrook or a Hjalmarsson. The fact he played mainly in the offensive zone with a partner who picked up his devensive responsibilities directly influenced and definitely inflated the stats of his you highlighted. Rundblad could have the skills to make it as a last pairing defenseman on an adequate team in a pinch, but his defensive skills are just atrocious. He looks lost very often, backs away from contact, fequently falls down when beat or bumped into, loses battles like it's his job, and has a bad habit of losing his man. All of these facts you could confirm after watching him play multiple times, but none of these would be assertained from the stats you have presented, which again, do not tell the whole story.

Yes, but not full time.
- James_Tanner

Ah, I wasn't sure p/t or f/t.

That happens all the time. Literally every game. It's incredibly hard to get favorable matchups because of the amount of time that players change on the fly, and because the other coach is always anticipating and reacting to your moves.

The net result is that players face nearly every player on the other team ever game. This is partly why QOC isn't a widely respected stat - over time, there is very little difference between who you play against.
- James_Tanner

Well I don't agree - player A hops the boards and player C from the other team bolts for the bench. Plus if you look at ice times of D they are in line, example Rielly played 1st pair and had large mins Vs all the other teams top lines - Polak played 3rd pair and had very little 5v5 time against - anyways, this has been spun about 100x so no since in doing it again and again.

Not so sure I agree that this generation of men is all that different when it pertains to its treatment of women. I see disgusting comments about women on this site that I don't think the boomers would ever say. People get banned all the time but never for degrading women. This internet generation has grown up with unlimited access to porn where anything goes. It has shaped how men see women and how young women see themselves.

I agree the gay community has made significant gains but I fear women might be worse off. Reading posts about the Olympics the comments about female athletes were rarely about talent.

Good blog as usual Jim. Cheers
- shack67

An excellent point, and thankyou. I really don't know if our generation is better about that issue or not. I think we might just be more socially conscious in general, and various surveys on social issues by age basically confirm this.

It is also important to remember than mean comments on the internet are almost always made by lonely 12-20 year old white males. I'm not talking about the people who interact and participate, but the ones who would make disparaging comments about a team hiring a female skating coach.

They may at times be the loudest voice, but they don't represent your average person.

Not so sure I agree that this generation of men is all that different when it pertains to its treatment of women. I see disgusting comments about women on this site that I don't think the boomers would ever say. People get banned all the time but never for degrading women. This internet generation has grown up with unlimited access to porn where anything goes. It has shaped how men see women and how young women see themselves.

I agree the gay community has made significant gains but I fear women might be worse off. Reading posts about the Olympics the comments about female athletes were rarely about talent.

Good blog as usual Jim. Cheers
- shack67

Thank the lord for that

After watching waaaay too much of Rundblad, the fact you compare him to an elite, top pairing defenseman is absolutely laughable to me. I recognize the stats you brought up. His corsi and shots against are ostensibly fantastic numbers, but his stats are very misleading. Coach Q sheltered Rundblad extensively, giving him almost exclusively offensive zone draws while pairing him with a Seabrook or a Hjalmarsson. The fact he played mainly in the offensive zone with a partner who picked up his devensive responsibilities directly influenced and definitely inflated the stats of his you highlighted. Rundblad could have the skills to make it as a last pairing defenseman on an adequate team in a pinch, but his defensive skills are just atrocious. He looks lost very often, backs away from contact, fequently falls down when beat or bumped into, loses battles like it's his job, and has a bad habit of losing his man. All of these facts you could confirm after watching him play multiple times, but none of these would be assertained from the stats you have presented, which again, do not tell the whole story.
- cnfan261311

Please explain to me why your observations are to be weighed more heavily than the stats which we have to measure a player by.

If he looks bad doing it, but is always putting up positive results, what exactly is the problem?

Why is how a coach deploys him a problem? If you are a coach and you deploy a player and because of that a player performs better, then you have just done exactly what the point of your job is. Big deal.

Quenville is also a master at deploying the weapon that is Patrick Kane, even though he isn't very good without the puck, he is still the leading scorer and a positive asset to his team. We don't detract from Kane because he is utilized properly, we shouldn't detract from Rundblad either.

You're right, it isn't a good argument, it's better than good. I think it's safe to assume that if your argument with regards to Runblad was even remotely true, he'd be signed to a contract by now. I can actually say that, because this is just another in a long line of examples that shows that you don't know how to properly use analytics, or come to reasonable conclusions using them. It's not personal James, it's just the way it is. Actions speak louder than words.
- MJL

If you aren't going to be reasonable, how can we have a conversation? All pro sports have many examples of players who were eventually effective that were passed over multiple times by their entire league.

Brett Hull comes to mind. Edwin Encarnation. Recently, Brad Boyes, Jiri Tlusky, Jiri Hudler and others.

It's not that rare of a thing because in reality, the differences in talent between guys who make it and guys who just miss isn't really that big at all. We're talking very very thin margins.

Well I don't agree - player A hops the boards and player C from the other team bolts for the bench. Plus if you look at ice times of D they are in line, example Rielly played 1st pair and had large mins Vs all the other teams top lines - Polak played 3rd pair and had very little 5v5 time against - anyways, this has been spun about 100x so no since in doing it again and again.
- Garnie

You don't agree, but you are objectively wrong. Some people actually think the earth is flat. That doesn't make knowing it is round "an opinion."

Please explain to me why your observations are to be weighed more heavily than the stats which we have to measure a player by.

If he looks bad doing it, but is always putting up positive results, what exactly is the problem?


- James_Tanner

The problem is that he benefits from how he is used, and who he plays with, and the stats, are due to that, and not to his actual individual play. That is why you have to actually watch the game, and watch the player. Analytics by themselves, can only tell you what happens on the ice. Why they happen, requires analysis.

If you aren't going to be reasonable, how can we have a conversation? All pro sports have many examples of players who were eventually effective that were passed over multiple times by their entire league.

Brett Hull comes to mind. Edwin Encarnation. Recently, Brad Boyes, Jiri Tlusky, Jiri Hudler and others.

It's not that rare of a thing because in reality, the differences in talent between guys who make it and guys who just miss isn't really that big at all. We're talking very very thin margins.
- James_Tanner

So because those players were passed over for whatever reason, and wound up being good players, that means that is the case with Runblad? What about the players that are passed over that never make it? Any of them out there? Myself and others, are being reasonable. We know from watching Runblad actually play, that he is not what you think he is. Your characterization of Runblad as a player, is not reasonable.

If you aren't going to be reasonable, how can we have a conversation? All pro sports have many examples of players who were eventually effective that were passed over multiple times by their entire league.

Brett Hull comes to mind. Edwin Encarnation. Recently, Brad Boyes, Jiri Tlusky, Jiri Hudler and others.

It's not that rare of a thing because in reality, the differences in talent between guys who make it and guys who just miss isn't really that big at all. We're talking very very thin margins.
- James_Tanner

Thin margins - exactly like the Team Canada players you
complain about not being picked? ( not trying to pick at you but you say 1 thing about certain players and then do the exact opposite for other players - like Keith or Seabrook being picked over Subban )

You don't agree, but you are objectively wrong. Some people actually think the earth is flat. That doesn't make knowing it is round "an opinion."
- James_Tanner

Player A plays against a player who avg's 10 shots/game

Player B plays against a player who avg's 1 shot/game

It's not hard to figure out who's Corsi/stats are going to be better, it's not hard for some I should say.

Cheers, I know what you believe to be fact....so carry on.

Please explain to me why your observations are to be weighed more heavily than the stats which we have to measure a player by.

If he looks bad doing it, but is always putting up positive results, what exactly is the problem?

Why is how a coach deploys him a problem? If you are a coach and you deploy a player and because of that a player performs better, then you have just done exactly what the point of your job is. Big deal.

Quenville is also a master at deploying the weapon that is Patrick Kane, even though he isn't very good without the puck, he is still the leading scorer and a positive asset to his team. We don't detract from Kane because he is utilized properly, we shouldn't detract from Rundblad either.
- James_Tanner

I suppose it just matters what you want out of a defenseman then.

Rundblad cannot defend well whatsoever. His shots against stats and corsi are ridiculously skewed because of the situations he plays in and the partner he plays with. In other words, if other borderline professional players like Rundblad were played with players such as Seabrook or Hjalmarsson in strictly the offensive zone, they would have comparable numbers to Rundblad.

For a young Edmonton team that needs a defenseman who can defend, Rundblad is not the answer unless they are looking to put a stictly offensive defenseman on the point, which again, solves none of their problems.

And it's not just that he looks bad doing his job. He flat out doesn't do his job as a defenseman, which is to be able to contribute to your team positively on the defensive side of the ice. He is a plus skater and a plus shooter. Outside of those qualities, he has few to zero redeeming qualities as a player. Don't get me wrong, those qualities are important, but for a defenseman, defense should come first, as most coaches im sure will tell you, and Rundblad does not have the skills necessary for defense.

As for Kane, Kane can backcheck. Kane can play defense somewhat well, nothing to be blown away by, but he can certainly hold his own, moreso than Rundblad. Kane's job is not to play defense though. His job is to put up points, and he does this really well.

Rundblad is a defenseman. If you as a coach want him to be on the ice for ten minutes a night, some of which is powerplay, and maybe get a point once every four to seven games, absolutely sign him up. If you want him to contribute to keeping the puck out of your own net, Rundblad is certainly not your guy and can hold only an extremely limited role.

Player A plays against a player who avg's 10 shots/game

Player B plays against a player who avg's 1 shot/game

It's not hard to figure out who's Corsi/stats are going to be better, it's not hard for some I should say.

Cheers, I know what you believe to be fact....so carry on.
- Garnie

Anyone who doesn't think how a player is used, is what situations, who he plays with, and against who, affects players stats, is delusional.

"MINUS: Yesterday, this blog suffered a meltdown in the comments section when people went berserk over me suggesting that David Rundblad is a good hockey player.

In 113 career NHL games played, Rundblad has a CF% of 55.11."


No, James, the "facts" are these:

1) David Rundblad is a marginal NHL player—hence, what is it, 4 organizations in 5 years?

2) Anyone who has seen him—who knows what they're looking at—sees a guy who is slower than molasses in January, AND really unwilling to engage physically. He is a coach killer and a dressing room poison—even though he might be a really nice kid—because he gives up so easily under physical pressure.

3) He can pass. He can really fire the puck on the power play. But that, unfortunately, is really it, and as such, his weaknesses combined with his strengths make him a luxury defenseman— a guy who might help you situationally for less than 10 minutes a game.

4) All of the above points to one larger truth: analytics, as contextual as you might try to make them, can be misleading.

5) In other words, Rundblad is not great. He is not good. He is just kind of disappointing, which is why so many teams have given up on him. If he got really hungry and became a lot tougher to play against, then you have a serviceable third pairing d-man, due to his lack of mobility, and that's it.

Cheers and glad to help!

"MINUS: Yesterday, this blog suffered a meltdown in the comments section when people went berserk over me suggesting that David Rundblad is a good hockey player.

In 113 career NHL games played, Rundblad has a CF% of 55.11."


No, James, the "facts" are these:

1) David Rundblad is a marginal NHL player—hence, what is it, 4 organizations in 5 years?

2) Anyone who has seen him—who knows what they're looking at—sees a guy who is slower than molasses in January, AND really unwilling to engage physically. He is a coach killer and a dressing room poison—even though he might be a really nice kid—because he gives up so easily under physical pressure.

3) He can pass. He can really fire the puck on the power play. But that, unfortunately, is really it, and as such, his weaknesses combined with his strengths make him a luxury defenseman— a guy who might help you situationally for less than 10 minutes a game.

4) All of the above points to one larger truth: analytics, as contextual as you might try to make them, can be misleading.

5) In other words, Rundblad is not great. He is not good. He is just kind of disappointing, which is why so many teams have given up on him. If he got really hungry and became a lot tougher to play against, then you have a serviceable third pairing d-man, due to his lack of mobility, and that's it.

Cheers and glad to help!
- John Jaeckel

Please explain to me why your observations are to be weighed more heavily than the stats which we have to measure a player by.

If he looks bad doing it, but is always putting up positive results, what exactly is the problem?

Why is how a coach deploys him a problem? If you are a coach and you deploy a player and because of that a player performs better, then you have just done exactly what the point of your job is. Big deal.

Quenville is also a master at deploying the weapon that is Patrick Kane, even though he isn't very good without the puck, he is still the leading scorer and a positive asset to his team. We don't detract from Kane because he is utilized properly, we shouldn't detract from Rundblad either.
- James_Tanner

James, you should stop comparing Patrick Kane to David Rundblad. One is a near generational talent—the other has struggled to stay in the NHL. Their relative "gifts" are not equatable. At all.

The Blackhawks, at least, tried "utilizing" Rundblad in all kinds of situations, including at times pairing him with a 2-time Norris winner. Pffffffffffft.

Thin margins - exactly like the Team Canada players you
complain about not being picked? ( not trying to pick at you but you say 1 thing about certain players and then do the exact opposite for other players - like Keith or Seabrook being picked over Subban )
- Garnie

You are right that the differences between players being picked for team Canada are marginal. however, the margin for winning there is also slimmer, so it's different than in the regular NHL.

The difference between Subban and Seabrook is not marginal.

Player A plays against a player who avg's 10 shots/game

Player B plays against a player who avg's 1 shot/game

It's not hard to figure out who's Corsi/stats are going to be better, it's not hard for some I should say.

Cheers, I know what you believe to be fact....so carry on.
- Garnie

You are right. The only problem is that that kind of extreme example goes away after a significant number of games have been played. That is why even though QOC doesn't matter long term, you can still get beneficial situations and matchups on a game to game basis.