That's what you've got James? Seriously? What team experiments by not playing their stud #1 elite defenseman top minutes? Go back to the drawing board.

Nice logical fallacy there at the end.
- MJL

If I was trying to make a point by saying what most informed observers think, that would be an appeal to authority.

For instance "Everyone thinks this so it's true"

However, technically I'm not using a logical fallacy here because I am simply stating the fact of what people think, not drawing a conclusion from it.

My conclusion is drawn from the stats.

Anyways, semantics aside, a team that is rebuilding, using six rookies and using the regular season as an extended training camp would do exactly that.

The only alternative is that Mike Babcock isn't a very good coach. So, I will continue to believe what I previously stated, because I do not think he's a bad coach.

If I was trying to make a point by saying what most informed observers think, that would be an appeal to authority.

For instance "Everyone thinks this so it's true"

However, technically I'm not using a logical fallacy here because I am simply stating the fact of what people think, not drawing a conclusion from it.


- James_Tanner

James, do honestly believe this. You know for a fact what thousands of fans think? Here you are again, calling an opinion, a fact. It's a logical fallacy, ,a validation fallacy to be specific, but I know that only counts for other posters.

My conclusion is drawn from the stats.


- James_Tanner

Your flawed conclusion is drawn from a lack of understanding of the stats, and how to use them.

Anyways, semantics aside, a team that is rebuilding, using six rookies and using the regular season as an extended training camp would do exactly that.

The only alternative is that Mike Babcock isn't a very good coach. So, I will continue to believe what I previously stated, because I do not think he's a bad coach.
- James_Tanner

James, there is no team that would limit the minutes of a stud #1 elite defenseman. Doesn't happen. Not under any circumstances. You'd be better off going with it's a small sample size and perhaps there is some underlying reason why Gardiner's minutes are down. I retort with unless there is a health issue, even if he was off to a slow start and not playing well, any good coach, especially a veteran top coach such as Babcock would trust a true #1 elite defenseman, and give him the benefit of the doubt on playing time.

An OT is most definitely a loss when it comes because you couldn't hold a four goal lead. This is why your comments about Toronto being a playoff team are unlikely to be proven correct.
Watching your golden-boy Gardiner pinching in at the offensive blue line in the 3rd period when his team is up by 3 goals was frustrating even for someone who doesn't care about the Leafs. These are the things that your analytics don't seem to measure very well and the reason people who value the eye-test know he has much growing to do.
- Tonybere

He is a (frank)ing circus in his own end at least 2 or 3 times a period. He might be the worst defensive defenseman the Leafs have. His offense is no hell either.

The fact that there are any analytics that suggest he is even a good player is much more a comment on how stupid the analytics are than it is on his play.

I'd say it's because the Leafs are forcefeeding Rielly #1 minutes and they have two rookie d they are throwing right into the fire. Perhaps they know what they have in Gardiner and are experimenting with other players?

It's the only thing that makes sense because Gardiner is their best D and that's a unanimous opinion among informed Leafs fans.
- James_Tanner

I'm not going to bother responding this time, just to say, you wonder why most people think so lowly of you, this is why. But I realize you're just trying to get a rise out of people.

If I was trying to make a point by saying what most informed observers think, that would be an appeal to authority.

For instance "Everyone thinks this so it's true"

However, technically I'm not using a logical fallacy here because I am simply stating the fact of what people think, not drawing a conclusion from it.

My conclusion is drawn from the stats.

Anyways, semantics aside, a team that is rebuilding, using six rookies and using the regular season as an extended training camp would do exactly that.

The only alternative is that Mike Babcock isn't a very good coach. So, I will continue to believe what I previously stated, because I do not think he's a bad coach.
- James_Tanner

The simple answer is the leafs have a stats team of 4 people tracking way more data and providing more useful metrics to Babcock then are available on public websites.

Babcock is using these metrics to allocate minutes to what players are supposedly best at.

The only real potential conspiracy here is the leafs are giving gardiner easy ES minutes and top PP minutes as part of a pump and dump strategy.

The simple answer is the leafs have a stats team of 4 people tracking way more data and providing more useful metrics to Babcock then are available on public websites.

Babcock is using these metrics to allocate minutes to what players are supposedly best at.

The only real potential conspiracy here is the leafs are giving gardiner easy ES minutes and top PP minutes as part of a pump and dump strategy.
- Tumbleweed

I've had that discussion with James many times, that the analytics available to fans are archaic, and flawed, and that the teams, have far better access to better data, and therefore, much better analytics. He doesn't understand or believe that.

I've had that discussion with James many times, that the analytics available to fans are archaic, and flawed, and that the teams, have far better access to better data, and therefore, much better analytics. He doesn't understand or believe that.
- MJL

Troll City in here this morning. I'm Out.

Troll City in here this morning. I'm Out.
- James_Tanner

See, this is absurd. You call it trolling to suggest that the billion dollar enterprise with 100s of millions of dollars to profit, doesn't invest more than a few hacks on the net, in top notch analytics, aimed at trying to win?

I'd say it's trolling to suggest otherwise. There is such a thing as a "troll blog" you know. You're not immune to being a troll because your comments are posted differently than ours.

See, this is absurd. You call it trolling to suggest that the billion dollar enterprise with 100s of millions of dollars to profit, doesn't invest more than a few hacks on the net, in top notch analytics, aimed at trying to win?

I'd say it's trolling to suggest otherwise. There is such a thing as a "troll blog" you know. You're not immune to being a troll because your comments are posted differently than ours.
- prock

The only troll comment was the guy making the non-sensible rationalization that the coach prefers to play worse players over better players.

I think we’re in a troll free zone now.

The only troll comment was the guy making the non-sensible rationalization that the coach prefers to play worse players over better players.

I think we’re in a troll free zone now.
- Tumbleweed

In the world cup, he was heavily relied on, playing number one minutes.

Surely Chiarelli and Mclellan were motivated by reasons other than giving him a "long training camp" for a "rebuilding team", no?

Or could it possibly be, they're just playing the best dman???

In the world cup, he was heavily relied on, playing number one minutes.

Surely Chiarelli and Mclellan were motivated by reasons other than giving him a "long training camp" for a "rebuilding team", no?

Or could it possibly be, they're just playing the best dman???
- prock

Just experimenting

Just experimenting
- Tumbleweed

just scouting.

Just experimenting
- Tumbleweed

Absolutely! Teams often do that.

The only troll comment was the guy making the non-sensible rationalization that the coach prefers to play worse players over better players.

I think we’re in a troll free zone now.
- Tumbleweed

First, nearly every coach in the NHL is guilty at times of giving ice time to players he prefers to players who are objectively better.

Second, for a rebuilding team, part of the process to eventually winning may be to sacrifice short term winning for long term learning that will eventually pay off.

Every single coach who knows he isnt winning this year does this.

First, nearly every coach in the NHL is guilty at times of giving ice time to players he prefers to players who are objectively better.

Second, for a rebuilding team, part of the process to eventually winning may be to sacrifice short term winning for long term learning that will eventually pay off.

Every single coach who knows he isnt winning this year does this.
- James_Tanner

None of that explains or justifies your stance. Elite #1 defenseman don't get passed over for ice time. Ever! A coaches #1 job is to win! If those players were all comparable, you might have a point here, but you claim that Gardiner is an elite #1 defenseman. Teams kill to get that kind of player.

First, nearly every coach in the NHL is guilty at times of giving ice time to players he prefers to players who are objectively better.

Second, for a rebuilding team, part of the process to eventually winning may be to sacrifice short term winning for long term learning that will eventually pay off.

Every single coach who knows he isnt winning this year does this.
- James_Tanner

But nearly everyone agrees Rielly is better. Gardiner is not "objectively" better. Subjectively, according to you, and just about only you, he is.

Sometimes, part of the process for long term winning, is putting substandard players in an easy position to succeed, in order to get the most out of them when you trade them. Why wouldn't you think that's just as feasible an answer to why he's garnering decent stats?

FFS, if Gardiner was the amazing dman you think he is, with the forwards they have, the other Dmen they have, Babcock wouldn't even "know he isn't winning". Because they'd have a solid, pretty deep set of forwards, and solid set of D, let by a top notch number 1 in Gardiner. i.e. if Gardiner was what you claim he is, him, along with Rielly, Zaitsev, and the rest of them, they'd be a playoff team.

First, nearly every coach in the NHL is guilty at times of giving ice time to players he prefers to players who are objectively better.

Second, for a rebuilding team, part of the process to eventually winning may be to sacrifice short term winning for long term learning that will eventually pay off.

Every single coach who knows he isnt winning this year does this.
- James_Tanner

The issue is you’re being closed minded. Babcock’s player usage doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived notions, so you’re using poor rationalizations to support it.

Babcock is clearly allocating minutes in very purposeful way; definitely not haphazardly.

Reilly is clearly better at running a 1-3-1 PP than gardiner. For that PP to really work well you need a dynamic offensive player like OEL/Reilly at the top. It’s a bit stagnate with gardiner at the top.

But they must be looking at trying to max net goal differential; not necessarily how to max out gross goal scoring.

So when allocating minutes to produce the best results, they must see that having a gardiner on the PP and less ES will have a positive net goal differential vs. putting rielly on the PP and less ES.

Com’ on jimmy. Babcock is playing to win games.

None of that explains or justifies your stance. Elite #1 defenseman don't get passed over for ice time. Ever! A coaches #1 job is to win! If those players were all comparable, you might have a point here, but you claim that Gardiner is an elite #1 defenseman. Teams kill to get that kind of player.
- MJL

The stats say Gardiner is one of the moat effective defensemen in the leauge. It is a serious mystery why he isn't playing more and all I did was posit a reason.

However logically, Mogan Rielly is their future and they play the same position so that automatically relegates Gardiner to the second pairing .

I can pretty much guarantee you that as the season gets going Gardiner will get second pairing minutes.

"It's important for our young players to improve at faceoffs, starting with the puck leads to more success"

-Mike Babcock

"Faceoffs have no value and being good at faceoffs is about as useful for helping your team win as being good at pogs"

-James Tanner


One of these people are very wrong

A loss in overtime isn't really a loss.

Due to the silly NHL point system that rewards a team for ending the game after the overtime period with one less goal than their opponent (or shootout phase for that matter), technically Tanner your statement is true.

I do find it hilarious however when people claim that a team whose record stands at 17-15-4 (for example) profusely argue that the team is above .500
While the numbers as written look good, and seem to suggest that a team has 2 more wins than losses (which in it of itself is false), and therefore must be above .500, the correct mathematical calculation for determining winning percentage (which the term .500 represents) is taking the number of wins divided by the number of games played. In the above example, the team's winning percentage would be .472, which clearly is not "above .500"

Btw, your Falco selection, although fantastic, might have been rejected based on dance-ability level (or lack thereof). You might have decided at that point to select another Falco composition, Der Kommissar.... although the DJ may have only had the After the Fire version in his collection. Regardless, probably more appealing to wedding party goers.

Falco was brilliant, btw
RIP Hans Holzel

-Mike Babcock


-James Tanner


One of these people are very wrong
- BestRapperAlive

But someone did a detailed complex analysis that says because theoretically very few goals are scored within 10 seconds of a face-off, they don’t matter.

I could have saved those people a lot of time and told them that very few goals are scored within 10 seconds of a face-off.

The stats say Gardiner is one of the moat effective defensemen in the leauge. It is a serious mystery why he isn't playing more and all I did was posit a reason.

However logically, Mogan Rielly is their future and they play the same position so that automatically relegates Gardiner to the second pairing .

I can pretty much guarantee you that as the season gets going Gardiner will get second pairing minutes.
- James_Tanner

At least now you're getting on the right track, of it being a small sample size. As an elite # 1 defenseman, he should be getting first pairing minutes though. He should be getting second pairing minutes because that's what he is, a 2nd pairing defenseman.

But someone did a detailed complex analysis that says because theoretically very few goals are scored within 10 seconds of a face-off, they don’t matter.

I could have saved those people a lot of time and told them that very few goals are scored within 10 seconds of a face-off.
- Tumbleweed

Hey if the number crunching doesn't say what you want it to say, just move the goal posts!

A loss in overtime isn't really a loss.

Due to the silly NHL point system that rewards a team for ending the game after the overtime period with one less goal than their opponent (or shootout phase for that matter), technically Tanner your statement is true.

I do find it hilarious however when people claim that a team whose record stands at 17-15-4 (for example) profusely argue that the team is above .500
While the numbers as written look good, and seem to suggest that a team has 2 more wins than losses (which in it of itself is false), and therefore must be above .500, the correct mathematical calculation for determining winning percentage (which the term .500 represents) is taking the number of wins divided by the number of games played. In the above example, the team's winning percentage would be .472, which clearly is not "above .500"

Btw, your Falco selection, although fantastic, might have been rejected based on dance-ability level (or lack thereof). You might have decided at that point to select another Falco composition, Der Kommissar.... although the DJ may have only had the After the Fire version in his collection. Regardless, probably more appealing to wedding party goers.

Falco was brilliant, btw
RIP Hans Holzel
- Katana777

.560 is probably what you have to play to be a playoff team if use the common convention for a .500 record.

so collecting 1 point or .500 actually leaves you trailing a playoff position...made worse if you lost to an in-conference team.

A loss in overtime isn't really a loss.

Due to the silly NHL point system that rewards a team for ending the game after the overtime period with one less goal than their opponent (or shootout phase for that matter), technically Tanner your statement is true.

I do find it hilarious however when people claim that a team whose record stands at 17-15-4 (for example) profusely argue that the team is above .500
While the numbers as written look good, and seem to suggest that a team has 2 more wins than losses (which in it of itself is false), and therefore must be above .500, the correct mathematical calculation for determining winning percentage (which the term .500 represents) is taking the number of wins divided by the number of games played. In the above example, the team's winning percentage would be .472, which clearly is not "above .500"

Btw, your Falco selection, although fantastic, might have been rejected based on dance-ability level (or lack thereof). You might have decided at that point to select another Falco composition, Der Kommissar.... although the DJ may have only had the After the Fire version in his collection. Regardless, probably more appealing to wedding party goers.

Falco was brilliant, btw
RIP Hans Holzel
- Katana777

Sir, your taste in music is superb.