You mean as like the definition of a small sample size?
- James_Tanner

But Nylander isn't?

Considering I'm more liberal than Jesus, hate Trump with a passion and have multiple degrees from multiple legitimate universities, your joke sucks.
- James_Tanner

No! It was funny

But Nylander isn't?
- Kaynine

Well he is in the sense he isn't going to score 120 points or whatever pace he's at. But not in the sense that we know he's going to be an awesome player.

As for the Canucks, if they have a perfect record at Christmas, I might believe they could make the Playoffs. As of right now, I haven't changed my opinion on them being one of the bottom three teams with Detroit and Columbus.

exactly....you said it's irrelevant....I disagreed...now you're saying it is relevant.


- annoyed

Quality of Competition is relevant on a game to game and shift to shift basis, but tends to be washed out of over the course of a season because players don't play significantly different minutes from each other. Try reading up on this topic, there is a million places online that will explain it to you.

I think they're better in name power and little else . They lost in 5 games. That's decisive

And The Indians didn't just squeak into the playoffs. They dominated their division all year

I think much like last year, you vastly underrate the opposition.
This year im much more amenable to the jays being the better team. At least on paper . But The royals were unequivocally the favs and the best team in baseball last year . Proven start to finish. But again, it was just luck.

And of course a guy like tulo does far more than just hit bombs. But this doesn't change the fact that pitching best our hitting. Again

I think at the end of the day we're pretty much the opposite type of fans. Optimistic vs pessimistic. And neither can prove to be the better one. But I think it's easy to see how differently we viewed home team and more importantly, our worthy opposition
- HB77

I will stand by the statement that the Royals were one of the worst, luckiest teams to ever make it to the World Series, let alone in back to back years.

I will stand by the statement that the Royals were one of the worst, luckiest teams to ever make it to the World Series, let alone in back to back years.
- James_Tanner

Remember when the Jays were the best team since May 1st? Oddly enough, the best team since April 1st is playing the best team since October 1st.

What does this all mean?

The best team is playing the hottest team..

Quality of Competition is relevant on a game to game and shift to shift basis, but tends to be washed out of over the course of a season because players don't play significantly different minutes from each other. Try reading up on this topic, there is a million places online that will explain it to you.
- James_Tanner

But you can't use it to say a player gets stuck with them all the time if, over the course of a season it doesn't matter.

Maybe you can clear something up for me. "Possession" is the Holy Grail. A won faceoff means you have possession -the vast majority of the time- but faceoffs don't matter? If a player wins a few hundred more faceoffs a year than another guy and they have relatively the same amount of points and points per game over the course of their careers. Are you really trying to tell me it's a coin flip as to who's a better player? Since faceoffs don't matter.

With all due respect James--

The team with better pitching, timely hitting, better defense and did more of the little things right than the Jays won the series. Toronto was garbage in September, but did crush the Birds and Rangers.

But the Indians swept the team that beat the Jays in your division, then beat your team 4-1 in a dominating performance. The sad reality is that you should just tip your hat to the better team and hope your club plays better next time they get a chance to get to the series. Instead you seem to be picking sour grapes and spreading them around your blog and comments section.

The Jays were a great team and had a great season. They lost to a better team.

BTW, what about Zach Werenski? So far he has played better than any rookie this year, albeit with a very small sample size. Everyone on here seems to have ignored him, even after the supposedly worst team in the NHL, the Columbus Blue Jackets, beat Chicago and shut out Dallas on back-to back nights. Ignorance ain't bliss.

But you can't use it to say a player gets stuck with them all the time if, over the course of a season it doesn't matter.

Maybe you can clear something up for me. "Possession" is the Holy Grail. A won faceoff means you have possession -the vast majority of the time- but faceoffs don't matter? If a player wins a few hundred more faceoffs a year than another guy and they have relatively the same amount of points and points per game over the course of their careers. Are you really trying to tell me it's a coin flip as to who's a better player? Since faceoffs don't matter.
- Wetbandit1

If you're not just being dismissive out of hand, I strongly suggest you google and read up on it. Faceoffs would matter if you could win enough of them, but since they're a zero sum game (i.e if you win, the other guy loses, so that a 6-4 record is really only one more win than the other guy since if you lost, he'd win) it's not possible.

For example, the best player in the NHL wins 60% but the worst only wins 40% which looks like a bigger difference than it is because of it being zero sum.

Since the range of possible %s for players is so small, it's impossible to win enough to make the difference. At lower levels of hockey, I am sure faceoffs take on more importance, but in the NHL, no one who is terrible takes that many.

Then there is the correlation to winning - there isn't one. The best faceoff team has missed the playoffs and the worst faceoff team has won the Cup. Faceoffs just don't seem to make a difference in who actually wins.

Like QOC, you can win the odd one and turn that into a goal, but over time, the effect washes out.

The upshot of this is that while you should certainly try to win faceoffs, it makes no sense to keep one player over another for the reason that that player is good at faceoffs. It shouldn't really factor in evaluations.

With all due respect James--

The team with better pitching, timely hitting, better defense and did more of the little things right than the Jays won the series. Toronto was garbage in September, but did crush the Birds and Rangers.

But the Indians swept the team that beat the Jays in your division, then beat your team 4-1 in a dominating performance. The sad reality is that you should just tip your hat to the better team and hope your club plays better next time they get a chance to get to the series. Instead you seem to be picking sour grapes and spreading them around your blog and comments section.

The Jays were a great team and had a great season. They lost to a better team.

BTW, what about Zach Werenski? So far he has played better than any rookie this year, albeit with a very small sample size. Everyone on here seems to have ignored him, even after the supposedly worst team in the NHL, the Columbus Blue Jackets, beat Chicago and shut out Dallas on back-to back nights. Ignorance ain't bliss.
- jkumpire

I don't agree about the baseball stuff. The Jays are a monster hitting team that held the Indians to such a low amount of runs that they really should have at least pushed the series farther.

Especially without Carrasco, Salizar and (basically) Baur.

As for Werenski, outside of guys on the Leafs, I'd agree. I take him most nights on my DFS Roster.

With all due respect James--

The team with better pitching, timely hitting, better defense and did more of the little things right than the Jays won the series. Toronto was garbage in September, but did crush the Birds and Rangers.

But the Indians swept the team that beat the Jays in your division, then beat your team 4-1 in a dominating performance. The sad reality is that you should just tip your hat to the better team and hope your club plays better next time they get a chance to get to the series. Instead you seem to be picking sour grapes and spreading them around your blog and comments section.

The Jays were a great team and had a great season. They lost to a better team.

BTW, what about Zach Werenski? So far he has played better than any rookie this year, albeit with a very small sample size. Everyone on here seems to have ignored him, even after the supposedly worst team in the NHL, the Columbus Blue Jackets, beat Chicago and shut out Dallas on back-to back nights. Ignorance ain't bliss.
- jkumpire

That's overlooked here too; the fact that they swept the insanely hot Red Sox too


As far as the sour grapes, I'm not so sure. I think he genuinely believes that it was all luck. I just happen to disagree. And again, I'm the one always pushing him on blue jays discussion..

Did Duclair have a hatty tonight?

Your backup goaltender is having a heckuva game. Vrbata has always played well against the Rangers, & I've been very impressed with Chychrun, great mobility & active stick.

Sorry Tanner. Put that one to the right side.

Did Duclair have a hatty tonight?

Your backup goaltender is having a heckuva game. Vrbata has always played well against the Rangers, & I've been very impressed with Chychrun, great mobility & active stick.
- discojaws

Not a point this year and he's -4.....costing me in the hockey pool. Coyotes finish last in the league, or bottom three, just like I predicted.

Wtf was that cardinals????

James Tanner: PLUS/MINUS: Blue Jays, Coyotes, Ducks, Leafs, Scheifele, HNIC +++

Plus Minus is the weekly blog that will one day turn me into an author as renown as R.L Stine.
- James_Tanner

Agreed about HNIC , I recall Cbc doing better montage videos at the beginning of games, Rogers just comes across as cheesy and forcefully hyped and I'm pissed they took out the yearly playoffs tribute they had at the end of every Stanley cup.

Sure, I think one team can be better than the other, but the Jays are better than Cleveland and I think their lack of offense just exasperated the "you have to hit more than homers" crowd, which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Is there a better four player combo in a batting order than Jose, EE, Tulo, JD? Of course not. Is anyone who is close able to then trot out Martin, Travis and Saunders? Hardly.

Yes, the luck narrative can seem tiring, but only because luck is the biggest factor in just about everything.

The Indian's bullpen didn't really outpitch the Jays, the Jays held them to an amount of runs that should have all but guaranteed their victory.

They got to Kluber, but couldn't hit with two on and nobody out. Several times.

They got dusted by their no-name rotation guys.

The Jays were 2 or 3 random timely hits from going to the World Series. I don't believe they got beaten by the Indians, I believe they beat themselves with slumping bats.

But the HR or bust narrative pisses me off. Edwin and JD and Tulo do a lot more than hit HRs.
- James_Tanner

There are a few teams that have 4 better players in their lineups. Boston with Betts, Ortiz, Bogart's, Pedroia, and Ramirez clearly are much better. You could also put Detroit, Cubs, and even the Indians above Toronto's top four.

For a stats guy, you seem to ignore the fact that Jose is only a .234 hitter, Tulo a .250 hitter
And Martin and Saunders aren't great hitters. Rather than go by reputations, go by actual stats. You keep preaching that with hockey so why ignore them for baseball where I would say stats better gauge a player's ability.

The Jay's were clearly bearen by the better team, Cleveland. The playoff teams are so close that a few clutch hits is what usually separates the winners and losers.

Also, I think the "you have to hit more than homers" statement does stand up to scrutiny. The team that hits the most homers in a season rarely wins the World Series.

If you're not just being dismissive out of hand, I strongly suggest you google and read up on it. Faceoffs would matter if you could win enough of them, but since they're a zero sum game (i.e if you win, the other guy loses, so that a 6-4 record is really only one more win than the other guy since if you lost, he'd win) it's not possible.

For example, the best player in the NHL wins 60% but the worst only wins 40% which looks like a bigger difference than it is because of it being zero sum.

Since the range of possible %s for players is so small, it's impossible to win enough to make the difference. At lower levels of hockey, I am sure faceoffs take on more importance, but in the NHL, no one who is terrible takes that many.

Then there is the correlation to winning - there isn't one. The best faceoff team has missed the playoffs and the worst faceoff team has won the Cup. Faceoffs just don't seem to make a difference in who actually wins.

Like QOC, you can win the odd one and turn that into a goal, but over time, the effect washes out.

The upshot of this is that while you should certainly try to win faceoffs, it makes no sense to keep one player over another for the reason that that player is good at faceoffs. It shouldn't really factor in evaluations.
- James_Tanner

I get as a team they don't necessarily mean too much, I'm talking about a narrow situation 2 players who have the same stats except one is 56% on draws and wins 300 more faceoffs than the other guy, and let's say he's 50%. You're saying you wouldn't take player A? Because if faceoffs truly don't matter then you just flip a coin, or pick a player because you like that he parts his hair to the left. You can't really have it both ways.

And as far as correlation to winning there is no correlation to winning for any stats except scoring more goals than the other guy on a nightly basis. Statistically speaking over the course of many thousands of games yes I agree stats matter, but you essentially reset after 82 games, and that's not really enough of a sample size statistically speaking to say any one thing contributed to winning, because any one thing can be written off. Faceoffs don't matter, special teams don't matter, blocked shots don't matter... If you had a trial of a drug that only had 82 people in it you'd be laughed out of the room. Or if you did a study trying to link eating bacon to cancer and only had 82 people, same thing, there just isn't enough data.

Actually, it's Duclair that's overrated. Rangers are just fine. Your leafs are garbage though. You're the joke of HB! .

Actually, it's Duclair that's overrated. Rangers are just fine. Your leafs are garbage though. You're the joke of HB! .
- JohnnyNYR27

I've always thought that Duclair has sick hands, a great shot, is really skilled, and plays well defensively. But his hockey IQ and vision are not good. He does not have that sixth sense the elite players have on how to get open.

Nice to see more Ween content James, even if Deaner is a huge Flyers fan.

i see you apply the same logic to baseball analysis as you do hockey analysis. if the outcome isn't what you wanted or predicted, it's just bad luck.
- DoubleDown

this ^^^^^^^^^^^

If you want facts, kadri shot under 2% for over hakf a year and around 5% overall.

He was among league leaders in shots.

The worts players shoot 7%

His career sh percentage is over 10.

His linemates all shot under 7%

He objectively had one of the unluckiest seasons ever.
- James_Tanner

so, he has bad aim????? not unlucky

dont act like you dont know what a pokemon is
- DDM-Coga

Coga for blogger

"Make Hockey Buzz Good Again"

2 Cups in the last 5 years. But yeah, he's terrible.
- H8terade

Cups don't matter. They are a notoriously unreliable measure of success because winning a cup is such a rare event.

In order to measure the true success of a GM you have to count the number of phone calls they make to other GM's. Some people like to only count phone calls regarding player trades, while others count all phone calls made by a GM to another GM and even count wrong numbers if the intent was to dial-up another GM. Butt-dialing GMs can also be included although the number of butt-dials is relatively small.

The number of calls cannot be weighted by context of the standings, whether or not the GM's are friends, whether the call is long-distance, or crosses time-zone(s) or target GM has a player requesting a trade. It is PROVEN that these things all even out over time.

This is absolute truth, it isn't up to you to agree or disagree. It is simply a mathematical fact. If you don't agree either you don't understand it or you are an idiot and a troll.