"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

You'll have to forgive me, I can no longer participate in stats vs whatever kind of arguments from guys "who know what to look for." I am just going to have to accept that people are not interested, for whatever reason, for even considering anything other than the most obvious and easiest answer.

I happen to think Runblad has great potential and that one day he'll be a late blooming and excellent player. I guess we'll just have to see.

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.
- James_Tanner

Not saying it is right or wrong, but coaches and team management people don't look at it like it's an all star game. The look at roles, and fit, and what kind of skill sets they want on the team. It's not just blindly looking at it and saying who is a better overall player, Subban or Seabrooke? They look at situational play, and roles in forming a team.

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.
- John Jaeckel

Please tell me you're just being obtuse on purpose here, because the point I was making doesn't seem that hard to grasp - every player gets utilized how the coach thinks will make him more effective and as such it isn't a very good argument to detract from what he's done just because its much better than you would have expected from that player.

In short, when anyone says "Player X is garbage and his success is only due to how he was deployed" they are making a bad argument.

Obviously I agree Patrick Kane is an excellent player.

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.
- James_Tanner

If you look at game statistics and icetime situations for players, for a lot of players, it doesn't go away at all after a significant amount of games. It remains a factor throughout the season.

Please tell me you're just being obtuse on purpose here, because the point I was making doesn't seem that hard to grasp - every player gets utilized how the coach thinks will make him more effective and as such it isn't a very good argument to detract from what he's done just because its much better than you would have expected from that player.

In short, when anyone says "Player X is garbage and his success is only due to how he was deployed" they are making a bad argument.

Obviously I agree Patrick Kane is an excellent player.
- James_Tanner

Didn't you say something similar about Artemi Panarin? Not that he was trash but his stats were a direct result of playing with Kane?

Please tell me you're just being obtuse on purpose here, because the point I was making doesn't seem that hard to grasp - every player gets utilized how the coach thinks will make him more effective and as such it isn't a very good argument to detract from what he's done just because its much better than you would have expected from that player.

In short, when anyone says "Player X is garbage and his success is only due to how he was deployed" they are making a bad argument.


- James_Tanner

False. Just because a coach puts a player in a spot that he thinks is best for him, doesn't mean he will succeed and play effectively, in that spot. Not only can player X be a beneficiary from how he is deployed, it is often the case for some players. If it is true, then it's a good argument, not a bad argument. The only bad argument being made here is the one your offering on Runblad, due to blatant and blind misuse of stats.

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.
- James_Tanner

Like 10yrs maybe QOC would even out...maybe even less if the guy plays 1st pairing at some time, but 1 yr is ridiculous just as you call Jake Gardiner elite he has zero stats to compare because he's sheltered from the other teams best line his whole career so far where as a player like Rielly last year seemed to only face the top lines with a crappy partner to boot.

Apples to oranges is basically what Corsi equates too if we don't watch the games and take into consideration the QOC.

Cool music video! I didn't even recognize Cherry until his hat came off.

"I don't even want to get in an argument about stats 'only telling a part of the story' (worst cliche ever, btw) or whatever, I just want to point out that thinking beyond what actual GMs do and what TSN and your local newspaper tell you is OK."

The problem most people have with your arguments about stats (or at least the reasonable ones I see) are that you seem as extreme about stats being the only necessary tool needed as your opponents are against them.

Statistics are a great tool and should be used by any intelligent person working in hockey or even a regular fan. IT IS NOT THE ONLY THING YOU SHOULD BASE YOUR JUDGEMENT ON THOUGH. It should be one of multiple tools in your toolbox used to base decisions on.

Maybe it is because of all the criticism you face, but you often come off as a pretentious extremist that will not even consider anyone else's point of view because "you know you're right and everyone else is wrong".

Like most things in life, it's about moderation and finding middle ground. Use all the options at your disposal to make good decisions, such as stats, expert opinions (this is where it gets complicated as you need to judge who counts as a true expert and who is an ass pretending to know what they are talking about), your own experiences and conclusions, and likely many other things I haven't thought of right now.

The problem here of course, is that unlike statistics, the other methods for making these decisions are highly subjective. This is why some people are more qualified to make hockey decisions - in those highly subjective areas they are better than most people for one reason or another. If they also start using statistics in their decision making process it can only improve their work.

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.
- James_Tanner

Why are you bringing race into this? Where's the data to suggest that whites are more sexist than other races? In Canada the only communities where violence against women is not decreasing is the aboriginal communities.

I expect Prust won't make the team. I am guessing he is there so the young guys have someone they can "compete against and take a roster spot from". You don't want prospects being handed spots, but at the same time if you have too many other players needing nhl spots, it gets difficult to make room. You can only demote so many vets to the minors before they start taking time away from your prospects down there.

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

What makes you arrogant is your refusal to acknowledge the possibility that you are incorrect about anything, and you do it in an unnecessarily rude way. This is why you get slammed nonstop. You don't come across as confident, you come across as insecure because you react belligerently when you're challenged.

It would be interesting if you had a blog specific to advanced metrics, wrote a piece every week and then engaged with the commentariat civilly afterward. Honestly it would be an interesting and fun exercise because it's gotten very hard to discuss this matter intelligently in hockey circles. People question this stuff. And it doesn't make them dumb or conservative, it just means they think on their own and don't necessarily swallow narratives blindly.

It is interesting watching someone fight so hard on the alter of, "Stats are math & math is truth, so I'm right". Math may be a form of truth, but stats are an analysis tool based on defined aggregates. Stats are not a real world specific truth, they are a trend.

Runblad is awful...and soft...and slow.....and ....well bad

Never forget the day James Tanner got absolutely destroyed in a debate about stats by TheMartimer and refused to respond because he had no rebuttal

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=132362&page=5

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

Brooke Shields

(drops microphone)

Never forget the day James Tanner got absolutely destroyed in a debate about stats by TheMartimer and refused to respond because he had no rebuttal

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=132362&page=5
- rangerdanger94

I stood up and clapped after reading that. It was beautiful.

The Leafs got Martin. They didn't "hire" Prust. They gave him an opportunity. No strings attached. They also gave up some picks to get Anderson , but that's cool too. They had a plethora of picks this year. Had a ton last year. Will have a ton next year. So instead of wasting a high pick drafting a goalie who is unproven and years away from being ready they traded for one who has played in the league. Who isn't a kid. And who still can have a decade of success potentially. And they still drafted a goalie for the future to develop too.

Now if they had traded a guy like Zibby for Brassard then you'd have a reason to question the teams philosophy and direction. They also went high skill potential last year. They have a lot of those guys. So they got some other types of prospects this year. Last year was small with skill with years of development ahead. This year is bigger, less development needed. Can't have all the same type of players/prospects in the ssystem.

I also find it odd you take issue with Komo and JVR being around. You have to give the many young players coming in as kids and or rookies some competent veterans to play with. Trade them later. What's the rush? I don't see how this is a minus in any way, shape or form. I find 6 rookies as your top 6 to be a minus and far more ridiculous.

I stood up and clapped after reading that. It was beautiful.
- Steven_Seagull

James was so rattled

As my generation takes more power in this world, things like women in sports will become more common and things like the Brexit and the Trump Campaign will come to be seen as the last grasp at power from a generation who's power is fading fast. Good riddance.

It is also important to remember than mean comments on the internet are almost always made by lonely 12-20 year old white males.

- James_Tanner

Never argue with stupid people,
they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.
- Mark Twain

James was so rattled
- rangerdanger94

I read his response, too. Classic.

This is the problem with saying QoC does not matter.

David Runblad has played a very limited amount of games, with very limited ice time, mostly on a 3rd pair.

Whenever he has been dressed, for the most part he has been sheltered.

In 2014-15 he had about 20 games where he played less than 11 minutes.

In 9 games last year he played 16+ minutes only twice.

His numbers shouldn't even qualify as a sample size.

Not saying it is right or wrong, but coaches and team management people don't look at it like it's an all star game. The look at roles, and fit, and what kind of skill sets they want on the team. It's not just blindly looking at it and saying who is a better overall player, Subban or Seabrooke? They look at situational play, and roles in forming a team.
- MJL

Agreed. Team Canada is trying to put together the best "team" possible not a collection of the best players.

James you need to watch Goodfellas a few dozen more times, Fight Club too.

Subban and letang over every d man on the Canadian roster!! They are the best 2 (including doughty) ... It's a joke....

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

Why don't u name the many and I mean many who were passed over becuSe they were not good enough. They few u mention are the exception not the rule

Rundblad is the new gormley ..now that would be an awesome top pair d