That is the part a lot, ("all", from what I can remember) of the analytics crowd refuses to admit.

These great new stats are at least as much, maybe more(?) team oriented than +/-.
- Aetherial

It's the smoking gun that most want to pretend doesn't exist. Just don't consider that kink in the armor, because they don't have an answer for it. I agree with the sample size issue, and that shots as an event happen a lot more, but the issue with +/- in my opinion was in how it was used. If you're a minus player, you're a bad defensive player, and vice versa. Tanner in a lot of ways does the same thing. If you have a good corsi number, then you must be a good player.
He forgets or ignores one of the basic principles that many of the pioneers of developing and writing about stats have always talked about. Sometimes a good player has a bad corsi rating, and sometimes a bad player has a good corsi rating. It's a raw number that has to be evaluated and used properly, in the correct context. When you don't, you label a Runblad a good player, and Jake Gardiner an elite #1 defenseman.

Yes, the "isolated" stats of who has the puck most, and who gets more and allows less shots. I really pulled out the obscure data for this one. .
- James_Tanner

Who said it was obscure? On the surface looking at a few stats Rundblad can look like a good defender, until you look at the whole picture and the metrics and data.

Take 2014/15 for example, since he actually got some playing time and had 49 games. He had nearly 70% to 30% Ozone starts to Dzone. The quality of competition 5v5 he faced was the lowest among all regulars in the Blackhawks D. When he was on the ice, he got Duncan Keith to babysit as his partner most often, because the coach didn't trust him playing with anyone else.

To summarize, he got cherry picked ice time, as far from his own net as often as possible, against the weakest competition and paired with the teams #1 D. That is called sheltered minutes and it is why his numbers didn't stink, because his play on the ice often did. He has a few good traits, like his shot, but defensively he leaves a lot to be desired.

It is great that your are illustrating how some "isolated" stats can be misleading, but there is nothing in the numbers that can make Rundblad a good player when you look at the whole picture and consider all the data.

Also, let's not forget that Rundblad was loaned out to Europe because he was unwanted by his team. He couldn't crack the Hawks lineup except when they were desperate to find some depth, and even then he got benched. Plus, he is now still a free agent and nobody wants to sign him.

So who do you think has it right? You or the 30 NHL teams, their GMs, scouts and staff who don't think he is worth a contract. I certainly know where I'd put my money.

When Runblad starts putting up similar possession metrics while playing 22-25 minutes a night against the other teams top forwards, than you can consider him a good defender, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Yes, the "isolated" stats of who has the puck most, and who gets more and allows less shots. I really pulled out the obscure data for this one. .
- James_Tanner

You realize isolated and obscure do not mean the same thing right?

Runblad will be on the cover of NHL 18 with a rating of 99...book it

I have watched Rundblad play a ton.

The thing is, when you watch games, you see an error and you weigh that in your evaluation far more than you should. Errors matter, but over time, if your corsi is high and you're scoring at a decent rate, they don't matter as much as you think. It's simple confirmation bias at work.
Anyways, Rundblad has been extremely effective when he's played and while I am not saying he will be an elite top pairing player, he clearly limits offense against and creatives offense for at a rate that makes him valuable and should guarantee him a job in the NHL.
- James_Tanner

If that were true, he would have worked his way into a top four, he wouldn't have been sent to pasture by the Blackhawks and he would be commanding more than one million a year.

When I started watching defenders rarely made their way to the six team NHL before 27, and the age of 29 was the point when you them become mature solid players with no warts in their game.
The scorers, Bobby Hull, Henri Richard, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate, had the most trouble playing againt the 31 year old defenseman who played them tight physical and smartly, and limited their effectiveness.

With the expansions, plus better training and minor development has helped guys come in and contribute quickly.
Rundblad is about to turn 26 and despite his quick feet and hands has not adjusted to the NHL speed or developed his on ice IQ to the point he reacts and doesn't make poor puck and positioning decisions.

The clock is ticking.

It doesn't matter where a defenseman is drafted, but at some point they are either impact guys, average guys you don't want to pay "upside salary", or guys that have been given numerous chances and still haven't figured it out.

Clearly no matter what stats are out there David is close to his last chances of catching on, with the biggest alure being you can pay him cheaply, with a slim chance he doesn't hurt you defensively.

This discussion should end, because the even though the paint is drying you are in the corner with no way of leaping out.

If that were true, he would have worked his way into a top four, he wouldn't have been sent to pasture by the Blackhawks and he would be commanding more than one million a year.

When I started watching defenders rarely made their way to the six team NHL before 27, and the age of 29 was the point when you them become mature solid players with no warts in their game.
The scorers, Bobby Hull, Henri Richard, Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate, had the most trouble playing againt the 31 year old defenseman who played them tight physical and smartly, and limited their effectiveness.

With the expansions, plus better training and minor development has helped guys come in and contribute quickly.
Rundblad is about to turn 26 and despite his quick feet and hands has not adjusted to the NHL speed or developed his on ice IQ to the point he reacts and doesn't make poor puck and positioning decisions.

The clock is ticking.

It doesn't matter where a defenseman is drafted, but at some point they are either impact guys, average guys you don't want to pay "upside salary", or guys that have been given numerous chances and still haven't figured it out.

Clearly no matter what stats are out there David is close to his last chances of catching on, with the biggest alure being you can pay him cheaply, with a slim chance he doesn't hurt you defensively.

This discussion should end, because the even though the paint is drying you are in the corner with no way of leaping out.
- wiz1901

I have to say, this is one of the worst, most annoying conversations this comments section has ever seen.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that a) he has good stats b) that warrants giving him a chance at a zero-risk deal c) NHL teams can - and often do - all pass on a guy who goes on to a good career. Not saying this is likely or even that it happens often, but it does happen.

Considering those are my main points, it is ridiculous that nearly everyone keeps using the same reasoning i.e that he must suck because ever team passed on him.

Logically, this is a massive breakdown because if the point is "he might be good in spite of all teams passing on him" then "all teams passed on him" is not a response that makes any sense.

Finally, I've seen people bending over backwards to discredit his stats. You don't have to do this. Maybe there is more to evaluating players than just raw stats, however stats are still the most important factor, because no matter what you say David Rundblad has been VERY effective over the course of 110 some-odd NHL games. Now, perhaps there are reasons for this and obviously he should normalize over time, if he gets it, because I don't really think it's likely he is a first pairing Dman. However, it isn't impossible.

You can throw out all the excuses you want to - credit his teammates, detract from his opposition or his zone starts - but it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty much accepted as a fact that a) if you perform well low in the lineup it transfers as you move up and b) quality of Teammates, competition and zone starts have way way way less of an effect than people think.

As far as every single way we have to measure a hockey player, Rundblad looks great. There is enough sample size and real world information to adjust this so you can reasonably doubt that he is in fact great. But you can't excuse all of it away and it would be stupid to write off a player who has been this measurably effective.

Stats might 'not tell the whole story' but they certainly tell most of it. And again, I'm not arguing that Rundblad is an allstar. All I am saying is that instead of trading away a core forward piece with 82 games to go until the Playoffs, from a risk/reward perspective, it makes sense to keep the forward and sign the defenseman who has shown to be very effective in the NHL. Give him a chance to play 20 mins a game on a second pairing and see if you don't strike gold.

If, in fact, it turns out that he really can't cut it at that level, then you cut him and go back to the idea of moving a forward for a defenseman.

The fact that he's been so effective, statistically, suggests he should be given a shot. That's it.

After scoring 3 goals in 56 games, 25 year old Martin St. Louis cleared waivers and everyone in the NHL passed on him, including at the expansion draft where the future hall of famer went unselected.

This is after teams all passed on him as a UFA and he was cut from the Senators training camp on a PTO.

Much like Rundblad, after clearing waivers multiple times, he was bought out and became a UFA.

As I am sure you know if you're reading a hockey blog in August, MSL went on to be one of the best players of his generation, playing in a `1000 games, winning a Cup , multiple gold medals as a member of Team Canada, became the captain of the Lightning and has over 1000 NHL points.

He is an automatic hall of famer.

Now, I am in no way saying this means Rundblad will follow the same path, just pointing out that it's not impossible. And more than that, making the point that just because everyone in the league agrees on something , it doesn't make it true.

I have to say, this is one of the worst, most annoying conversations this comments section has ever seen.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that a) he has good stats b) that warrants giving him a chance at a zero-risk deal c) NHL teams can - and often do - all pass on a guy who goes on to a good career. Not saying this is likely or even that it happens often, but it does happen.


- James_Tanner

On Rundblad:

he's a great player with tons of skill who'll be fine if he ever got pot in a position to succeed instead of getting ten mins a night as a 6th dman. - You

I don't even necessarily disagree with the bold points above, but you can't really say that's those are the only points you've been trying to make when this whole gongshow started with your "he's a great player" quote.

After scoring 3 goals in 56 games, 25 year old Martin St. Louis cleared waivers and everyone in the NHL passed on him, including at the expansion draft where the future hall of famer went unselected.

This is after teams all passed on him as a UFA and he was cut from the Senators training camp on a PTO.

Much like Rundblad, after clearing waivers multiple times, he was bought out and became a UFA.

As I am sure you know if you're reading a hockey blog in August, MSL went on to be one of the best players of his generation, playing in a `1000 games, winning a Cup , multiple gold medals as a member of Team Canada, became the captain of the Lightning and has over 1000 NHL points.

He is an automatic hall of famer.

Now, I am in no way saying this means Rundblad will follow the same path, just pointing out that it's not impossible. And more than that, making the point that just because everyone in the league agrees on something , it doesn't make it true.
- James_Tanner

the classic outlier example. what about the thousands who didn't pan out and were passed over? Everyone can give some example to show that yes it can happen. exception not the norm.

Tanner why do you think the coyotes have not extended an offer to Rundblad? clearly the new GM is a forward thinker and uses analytical methods when assessing a player. Why has he not taken that leap yet do you think?

should be given an invite to a teams camp? yes I would give it. nothing to lose. provides ahl depth. that's about it.

I have to say, this is one of the worst, most annoying conversations this comments section has ever seen.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that a) he has good stats b) that warrants giving him a chance at a zero-risk deal c) NHL teams can - and often do - all pass on a guy who goes on to a good career. Not saying this is likely or even that it happens often, but it does happen.

Considering those are my main points, it is ridiculous that nearly everyone keeps using the same reasoning i.e that he must suck because ever team passed on him.

Logically, this is a massive breakdown because if the point is "he might be good in spite of all teams passing on him" then "all teams passed on him" is not a response that makes any sense.

Finally, I've seen people bending over backwards to discredit his stats. You don't have to do this. Maybe there is more to evaluating players than just raw stats, however stats are still the most important factor, because no matter what you say David Rundblad has been VERY effective over the course of 110 some-odd NHL games. Now, perhaps there are reasons for this and obviously he should normalize over time, if he gets it, because I don't really think it's likely he is a first pairing Dman. However, it isn't impossible.

You can throw out all the excuses you want to - credit his teammates, detract from his opposition or his zone starts - but it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty much accepted as a fact that a) if you perform well low in the lineup it transfers as you move up and b) quality of Teammates, competition and zone starts have way way way less of an effect than people think.

As far as every single way we have to measure a hockey player, Rundblad looks great. There is enough sample size and real world information to adjust this so you can reasonably doubt that he is in fact great. But you can't excuse all of it away and it would be stupid to write off a player who has been this measurably effective.

Stats might 'not tell the whole story' but they certainly tell most of it. And again, I'm not arguing that Rundblad is an allstar. All I am saying is that instead of trading away a core forward piece with 82 games to go until the Playoffs, from a risk/reward perspective, it makes sense to keep the forward and sign the defenseman who has shown to be very effective in the NHL. Give him a chance to play 20 mins a game on a second pairing and see if you don't strike gold.

If, in fact, it turns out that he really can't cut it at that level, then you cut him and go back to the idea of moving a forward for a defenseman.

The fact that he's been so effective, statistically, suggests he should be given a shot. That's it.
- James_Tanner

So something that teams often do... doesn't happen often?

On Rundblad:

I don't even necessarily disagree with the bold points above, but you can't really say that's those are the only points you've been trying to make when this whole gongshow started with your "he's a great player" quote.
- PancakesPenner

He is a great player though. He made the NHL and put up amazing stats. He might not be great like Crosby, but at worst, that's a true statement.

the classic outlier example. what about the thousands who didn't pan out and were passed over? Everyone can give some example to show that yes it can happen. exception not the norm.

Tanner why do you think the coyotes have not extended an offer to Rundblad? clearly the new GM is a forward thinker and uses analytical methods when assessing a player. Why has he not taken that leap yet do you think?

should be given an invite to a teams camp? yes I would give it. nothing to lose. provides ahl depth. that's about it.
- rinaldo

Of course it's an outlier example. But when people say "You're an idiot because if you knew anything you'd realize that you are not smarter than all 30 GMs who passed on him"


So yeah, total outlier. But it DOES happen sometimes, and considering the argument being presented, in this situation, it's a Trump card.

Of course it's an outlier example. But when people say "You're an idiot because if you knew anything you'd realize that you are not smarter than all 30 GMs who passed on him"


So yeah, total outlier. But it DOES happen sometimes, and considering the argument being presented, in this situation, it's a Trump card.
- James_Tanner

it def happens. one would be foolish not to say it doesn't. Just that it doesn't happen often is my guess.

GM's are in the business to win games or they wont be a GM for long. Clearly they see something you do not despite what those limited stats say. One thing that kills me is you don't think the competition one plays against is a big factor. I cant agree with that at all. It def matters. Matters at all levels of sports.

Why wont you answer my other question?

it def happens. one would be foolish not to say it doesn't. Just that it doesn't happen often is my guess.

GM's are in the business to win games or they wont be a GM for long. Clearly they see something you do not despite what those limited stats say. One thing that kills me is you don't think the competition one plays against is a big factor. I cant agree with that at all. It def matters. Matters at all levels of sports.

Why wont you answer my other question?
- rinaldo

Sorry it's not that I was avoiding it, what was it? I'll answer it.

As for the competition thing, it's not that id doesn't matter, it's that it evens out over time and outside of the elite, most NHL players are very close in skill - we're talking the best 1000 out of 7 billion here.

I have to say, this is one of the worst, most annoying conversations this comments section has ever seen.

The entire point I've been trying to make is that a) he has good stats b) that warrants giving him a chance at a zero-risk deal c) NHL teams can - and often do - all pass on a guy who goes on to a good career. Not saying this is likely or even that it happens often, but it does happen.

Considering those are my main points, it is ridiculous that nearly everyone keeps using the same reasoning i.e that he must suck because ever team passed on him.

Logically, this is a massive breakdown because if the point is "he might be good in spite of all teams passing on him" then "all teams passed on him" is not a response that makes any sense.

Finally, I've seen people bending over backwards to discredit his stats. You don't have to do this. Maybe there is more to evaluating players than just raw stats, however stats are still the most important factor, because no matter what you say David Rundblad has been VERY effective over the course of 110 some-odd NHL games. Now, perhaps there are reasons for this and obviously he should normalize over time, if he gets it, because I don't really think it's likely he is a first pairing Dman. However, it isn't impossible.

You can throw out all the excuses you want to - credit his teammates, detract from his opposition or his zone starts - but it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty much accepted as a fact that a) if you perform well low in the lineup it transfers as you move up and b) quality of Teammates, competition and zone starts have way way way less of an effect than people think.

As far as every single way we have to measure a hockey player, Rundblad looks great. There is enough sample size and real world information to adjust this so you can reasonably doubt that he is in fact great. But you can't excuse all of it away and it would be stupid to write off a player who has been this measurably effective.

Stats might 'not tell the whole story' but they certainly tell most of it. And again, I'm not arguing that Rundblad is an allstar. All I am saying is that instead of trading away a core forward piece with 82 games to go until the Playoffs, from a risk/reward perspective, it makes sense to keep the forward and sign the defenseman who has shown to be very effective in the NHL. Give him a chance to play 20 mins a game on a second pairing and see if you don't strike gold.

If, in fact, it turns out that he really can't cut it at that level, then you cut him and go back to the idea of moving a forward for a defenseman.


The fact that he's been so effective, statistically, suggests he should be given a shot. That's it.
- James_Tanner

Or maybe he's just not that good and his Corsi is an anomaly....not sure why you get so worked up...maybe you're off the mark on this one....no big deal...you throw lots of darts...some are obviously going to miss. You are going to get lots of disappointing replies when you state this:

As for Rundblad, he's a great player with tons of skill. It's just not true....maybe you could have said...he's getting a bad rap and could possibly turn out if given another chance...or something along those lines...but to call him great with tons of skills...maybe the stats that are being looked at are not as good as you think they are....maybe.

Or maybe he's just not that good and his Corsi is an anomaly....not sure why you get so worked up...maybe you're off the mark on this one....no big deal...you throw lots of darts...some are obviously going to miss. You are going to get lots of disappointing replies when you state this:

As for Rundblad, he's a great player with tons of skill. It's just not true....maybe you could have said...he's getting a bad rap and could possibly turn out if given another chance...or something along those lines...but to call him great with tons of skills...maybe the stats that are being looked at are not as good as you think they are....maybe.
- Garnie

Sorry it's not that I was avoiding it, what was it? I'll answer it.

As for the competition thing, it's not that id doesn't matter, it's that it evens out over time and outside of the elite, most NHL players are very close in skill - we're talking the best 1000 out of 7 billion here.
- James_Tanner

why do you think the coyotes GM who is very analytical hasn't signed or offered rundblad a contract/PTO?

I think it matters big time. that's just me though.

why do you think the coyotes GM who is very analytical hasn't signed or offered rundblad a contract/PTO?

I think it matters big time. that's just me though.
- rinaldo

Why did Chicago dump him is a better question. stan bowman was one of the pioneers of advanced stats and Chicago still relies on them quite heavily.

why do you think the coyotes GM who is very analytical hasn't signed or offered rundblad a contract/PTO?

I think it matters big time. that's just me though.
- rinaldo

Well, who's to say he won't? Certainly I think he should. But that being said, the Coyotes have about 11 or 12 guys in camp already who'll be competing for a job on D.

Why did Chicago dump him is a better question. stan bowman was one of the pioneers of advanced stats and Chicago still relies on them quite heavily.
- Tumbleweed

I don't think that's a true statement at all.

James Tanner: PLUS/MINUS: On Rundblad, Team Canada and Various Philosophies

PLUS/MINUS: The blog that you love to love.
- James_Tanner

James, I hate basketball. Let's get that out of the way. But the teams the USA Men's BB team beat all had professional NBA players on the roster. Australia, France, Serbia and France. Google better, ok.

I don't think that's a true statement at all.
- James_Tanner

You don’t know this?

Google it. Bowman is tight lipped about it, other than they have a proprietary system that they don’t want other teams to know about.

Not at all curious as to why they were willing to give rundblad a chance in the 1st place?

These guys seemed to have found an interesting trend, that certainly isn’t a fluke:


https://mapleleafshotstov...cago-blackhawks-playbook/

i can't believe you didn't know chicago has been using advanced stats for years.

did you think their 3 stanley cups were a fluke???

http://www.espn.com/nhl/s...give-blackhawks-advantage

http://deadspin.com/the-b...ouldnt-your-te-1570839139

http://www.secondcityhock...-analytics-statistics-nhl

It's the smoking gun that most want to pretend doesn't exist. Just don't consider that kink in the armor, because they don't have an answer for it. I agree with the sample size issue, and that shots as an event happen a lot more, but the issue with +/- in my opinion was in how it was used. If you're a minus player, you're a bad defensive player, and vice versa. Tanner in a lot of ways does the same thing. If you have a good corsi number, then you must be a good player.
He forgets or ignores one of the basic principles that many of the pioneers of developing and writing about stats have always talked about. Sometimes a good player has a bad corsi rating, and sometimes a bad player has a good corsi rating. It's a raw number that has to be evaluated and used properly, in the correct context. When you don't, you label a Runblad a good player, and Jake Gardiner an elite #1 defenseman.
- MJL

Next time someone tells us all about how +/- is a team stat, we should point out that in 2015-2016, 7/9, (Mmmmm, 7 of 9) and 10 /17 CF% players were Los Angeles Kings (according to some page I just found).

i can't believe you didn't know chicago has been using advanced stats for years.

did you think their 3 stanley cups were a fluke???

http://www.espn.com/nhl/s...give-blackhawks-advantage

http://deadspin.com/the-b...ouldnt-your-te-1570839139

http://www.secondcityhock...-analytics-statistics-nhl
- Tumbleweed

All teams use stats to some degree. As of today, the Blackhawks are not considered to be one of the leading teams moving in the analytical direction.

For proof, see the contracts they gave their superstars, the contract they gave to Seabrook, the way they lost Terro and their tendency to reward players like Bolland or whats his name.

Not that their a terribly run team, but I wouldn't put them at the forefront of the movement.