Your comment is not intelligent. His track record is why he has no contract
- Yikes726

Yes, nothing worse than massively exceeding expectations in every possible way.

When I see comments as idiotic as this I get why Tanner gets so frustrated.
- djamon

You have no idea. And I promise you, he'll read this, and act like you're the idiot. It's amusing. But thanks to him and some kid called Ranger Danger, I can write this blog without worrying too much about the criticism. You see, they make up at least 2/3rds of the criticism and between them have never made a single good point.

And if you're patient and explain it to him like he's five, he still doesn't get it. It's either frustrating or hilarious, it depends on my mood. I'm not even convinced he's real to be honest.

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.
- James_Tanner

In 2014-15, when he had the highest TOI (581 minutes) of his career, he had a PDO of 104.4 for the Stanley Cup Champions. Also his team goals for per 60 was less than team goals against. His best PDO was 90.2 when he was only on the ice for a total of 76 minutes.

James,
I am actually a fan of stats, and look forward to seeing what the Coyotes do over the next few years with their new GM (I lived in the Phoenix area for 11 years, and my first several NHL games were there), but having wathced 90% of Blackhawks' games over the last few years, Rundblad is not a good defenseman. He's a bottom-pairing, situational player at best.

You have no idea. And I promise you, he'll read this, and act like you're the idiot. It's amusing. But thanks to him and some kid called Ranger Danger, I can write this blog without worrying too much about the criticism. You see, they make up at least 2/3rds of the criticism and between them have never made a single good point.

And if you're patient and explain it to him like he's five, he still doesn't get it. It's either frustrating or hilarious, it depends on my mood. I'm not even convinced he's real to be honest.
- TheMaritime's Biatch

Oh word??

It's 100% of the time the most obvious (and lamest) insults that post the dumbest things. If you actually re-read what I wrote, you will see it's clearly calling for Rundblad to get another chance based on the idea that the stats are good and people can be wrong. At no point does it state that the stats PROVE anything.

It's hilarious how much poop I take here because when you look back at what I wrote, you realize that people have not in any way read it closely or thought about it.
- James_Tanner

Or maybe you're not expresting yourself clearly. Just something to ponder. Find it odd many seem to have an issue understanding the points yours trying to make. Maybe instead of suggesting something is wrong with the readers you could consider another alternative cause of the failure in this communication process?

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.
- James_Tanner

Students are only as good as the teacher

Even though we're breaking the 1st 2 rules, Fight Club still is a great movie! Ones that haven't aged well are all those Adam Sandler movies from back in the day. I can't believe I thought they were funny.

Neighbors 2 a bad sequel? Noted. Best sequel that I still don't know what the plot was - Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Hilarious!

Even though we're breaking the 1st 2 rules, Fight Club still is a great movie! Ones that haven't aged well are all those Adam Sandler movies from back in the day. I can't believe I thought they were funny.

Neighbors 2 a bad sequel? Noted. Best sequel that I still don't know what the plot was - Hot Tub Time Machine 2. Hilarious!
- wolphnuts12

Which ones? I still laugh my ass off at Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, even Little Nicky. I always thought Fight Club was overrated, good movie, but not worth all the hype. Goodfellas on the other hand, top 3 gangster flick of all time. Only Godfather 2, and Once Upon a Time in America are better IMO, and that's even debatable. I love me some Goodfellas.

Which ones? I still laugh my ass off at Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, Big Daddy, even Little Nicky. I always thought Fight Club was overrated, good movie, but not worth all the hype. Goodfellas on the other hand, top 3 gangster flick of all time. Only Godfather 2, and Once Upon a Time in America are better IMO, and that's even debatable. I love me some Goodfellas.
- j.boyd919

I was thinking specifically Billy Madison and The Waterboy. Happy Gilmore still has some funny lines and Shooter McGavin makes me laugh (You eat pieces of sh*t for breakfast?), but as a whole I don't find them as funny now, or funny at all, as I did then.

I was thinking specifically Billy Madison and The Waterboy. Happy Gilmore still has some funny lines and Shooter McGavin makes me laugh (You eat pieces of sh*t for breakfast?), but as a whole I don't find them as funny now, or funny at all, as I did then.
- wolphnuts12

They're aimed at 12 year olds, so it's not surprising. My buddy has a 12 year old boy who thinks they're great.

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.
- James_Tanner

Because it isn't just as simple as Rundblad is excellent, because the stats say so.

Don't worry though, in a year, when Rundblad fades away into obscurity, (Hasn't he already?) when someone mentions how you called him a "great" player, you will just blame there reading comprehension

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.
- James_Tanner

The question in my mind is Rundblad’s career pdo piss poor because he is unlucky or because he sucks.

From what I know, he is player that can drive pucks to the net in the ozone, but makes significant mistakes that lead to a disproportionate number of goals in the dzone.

These numbers in my opinion prove exactly what type of player he is. His pdo appears to be deservedly bad; unless he improves is dzone play, it will not rise. I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt that his pdo is poor because of luck.

Tanner what is your opinion why do you think the coyotes GM hasn't extended an offer or PTO to rundblad yet?

It's 100% of the time the most obvious (and lamest) insults that post the dumbest things. If you actually re-read what I wrote, you will see it's clearly calling for Rundblad to get another chance based on the idea that the stats are good and people can be wrong. At no point does it state that the stats PROVE anything.

It's hilarious how much poop I take here because when you look back at what I wrote, you realize that people have not in any way read it closely or thought about it.
- James_Tanner

I actually don't care one way or the other about Rundblad. If I did want to form an opinion though, I would look at what the fans think AND what the rest of the NHL teams seem to think about is value.

Haha ohhhhhhh James Tanner. You are the hockey blogger equivalent of a Donald Trump, knowing as much about hockey as George Stroumboulopoulos.

Rich and compelling stuff Tanner. Seriously

They're aimed at 12 year olds, so it's not surprising. My buddy has a 12 year old boy who thinks they're great.
- James_Tanner

Are we talking about your blogs?

The question in my mind is Rundblad’s career pdo piss poor because he is unlucky or because he sucks.

From what I know, he is player that can drive pucks to the net in the ozone, but makes significant mistakes that lead to a disproportionate number of goals in the dzone.

These numbers in my opinion prove exactly what time of player he is. His pdo appears to be deservedly bad; unless he improves is dzone play, it will not rise. I don't think he gets the benefit of the doubt that his pdo is poor because of luck.
- Tumbleweed

Study after study shows that players cannot effect their own shooting percentage (except in rare cases w/ guys who don't shoot a lot) and that they also have no effect on their goalies save % when they are on the ice - hence why PDO is an attribute of luck.

Almost all players eventually normalize to 100% PDO.

Because it isn't just as simple as Rundblad is excellent, because the stats say so.

Don't worry though, in a year, when Rundblad fades away into obscurity, (Hasn't he already?) when someone mentions how you called him a "great" player, you will just blame there reading comprehension
- sbroads24

I won't. It's entirely possible he never plays another shift in the NHL - my point is just that he's being unfairly overlooked.

However, as I pointed out, your specific responses indicate that you either didn't read closely or didn't understand.

Study after study shows that players cannot effect their own shooting percentage (except in rare cases w/ guys who don't shoot a lot) and that they also have no effect on their goalies save % when they are on the ice - hence why PDO is an attribute of luck.

Almost all players eventually normalize to 100% PDO.
- James_Tanner

false. you need to read up on pdo.

look at crosby as the obvious example of player who's pdo is well above 100 .. and it is not due to luck. There are dozens of other examples.

on the flip side, bad players will have pdo's of less then 100 consistently. like a tanner glass or potentially a rundblad.


i think pdo can be a great; but used in the right context. in rundblad's case, don't assume it will change. Based on what you see of player, is it likely bad luck or bad play that is causing a poor pdo? like i said, in his case the pdo is perfectly in line with my expecations of him as player and i don't think it will change.

false. you need to read up on pdo.

look at crosby as the obvious example of player who's pdo is well above 100 .. and it is not due to luck. There are dozens of other examples.

on the flip side, bad players will have pdo's of less then 100 consistently. like a tanner glass or potentially a rundblad.


i think pdo can be a great; but used in the right context. in rundblad's case, don't assume it will change. Based on what you see of player, is it likely bad luck or bad play that is causing a poor pdo? like i said, in his case the pdo is perfectly in line with my expecations of him as player and i don't think it will change.
- Tumbleweed

As I said, ALMOST all players. Crosby is the best player in the world, for like a decade, so it makes sense he'd be high. Not a very good example.

The Hawks chose to have Runbad play out of the country rather than take up a roster spot in the AHL. I go to 30-40 Hawk games a year and the 4 minutes he plays a game is worse in person than on tv. He plays like he is 5'2" and handling a hand grenade.

As I said, ALMOST all players. Crosby is the best player in the world, for like a decade, so it makes sense he'd be high. Not a very good example.
- James_Tanner

Sigh. Like you can’t do your own (frank)ing data search.

The difference I see is most players will be in in around a 100 pdo, a big difference than almost all. say 2/3 of players. the rest will be outside of that, on the high or low end.

Top 50 guys with pdo > 100 and > 260 games since 2010:

player games pdo
Derek Stepan 434 102.8
Kyle Palmieri 280 102.7
Milan Lucic 448 102.4
Martin St. Louis 362 102.4
Chris Kunitz 428 102.4
Sidney Crosby 336 102.4
Pascal Dupuis 284 102.3
Alex Tanguay 349 102.2
David Krejci 400 102.1
Dale Weise 329 102
Adam McQuaid 328 102
Steven Stamkos 408 102
Jarome Iginla 450 102
Thomas Vanek 428 102
Bobby Ryan 439 101.9
Rick Nash 405 101.9
Johan Franzen 283 101.8
Saku Koivu 261 101.8
Clarke MacArthur 340 101.8
Teemu Selanne 265 101.8
Matt Beleskey 347 101.8
Henrik Sedin 438 101.7
Reilly Smith 285 101.7
Tyson Barrie 264 101.7
Alexander Semin 323 101.7
Jannik Hansen 430 101.7
Andrej Meszaros 266 101.7
Mats Zuccarello 303 101.6
Tyler Seguin 425 101.6
Jaromir Jagr 356 101.6
Michael Ryder 336 101.6
David Desharnais 398 101.5
James Neal 407 101.5
Ryan McDonagh 390 101.5
Jonathan Toews 423 101.5
Brandon Saad 286 101.5
Loui Eriksson 433 101.5
Mikhail Grabovski 370 101.5
Brad Marchand 434 101.4
Zdeno Chara 428 101.4
Daniel Sedin 438 101.4
Joe Pavelski 450 101.4
T.J. Oshie 390 101.4
Ryan Getzlaf 424 101.4
Nikolay Kulemin 433 101.3
Jiri Hudler 421 101.3
Kevin Klein 405 101.3
Carl Gunnarsson 394 101.3
Dan Hamhuis 389 101.3
Anze Kopitar 446 101.2

How is Rundblad's Expected Goals? What about his Luck %?

Fun stat,

I DID mention relative stats in the article, and Rundblad's career relative CF is + 2%
and his career PDO is 98.99. (So who's the one cherry picking stats?? It ain't me).

The entire response to my point about Rundblad has been people coming up with more and more ridiculous ways to explain away his stats. Hilariously, all I said was that instead of ignoring his measurable effectiveness, it'd make sense to give him a risk-free tryout, since it's not impossible that good player's get overlooked.

I've never seen such poor reading comprehension in my entire life - and I've taught English to very bad students.
- James_Tanner

That's not completely true James, you labeled Runblad as a good player. That's what people are objecting to.

You have no idea. And I promise you, he'll read this, and act like you're the idiot. It's amusing. But thanks to him and some kid called Ranger Danger, I can write this blog without worrying too much about the criticism. You see, they make up at least 2/3rds of the criticism and between them have never made a single good point.

And if you're patient and explain it to him like he's five, he still doesn't get it. It's either frustrating or hilarious, it depends on my mood. I'm not even convinced he's real to be honest.
- James_Tanner

Do you have any stats to back up your assumption of who makes up 2/3rds of the criticism?

From my point of view, 9 out of 10 posters on your blogs criticize your opinions.

The person you replied to, had no clue about what was being stated, which was proven with subsequent follow up posts.