Was Berry (Barry) the LA Blogger?

He knew absolutely nothing about hockey.
- Atomic Wedgie

Yeah. His blogs were so bad but that's what made them good. The comment sections were better.

The Leafs should have picked Laine
- rangerdanger94

This.

He's done a few times. But we're actually the naive ones, he doesn't care and he still cashes a check for the comments. So he's winning on that front.
- tomburton99

Does he? I thought I remembered someone saying on the Rangers blog that Jan does this just because he's a fan (and seemingly, a great guy) and doesn't get anything for it.

Does he? I thought I remembered someone saying on the Rangers blog that Jan does this just because he's a fan (and seemingly, a great guy) and doesn't get anything for it.
- Tonybere

The writers definitely get paid. That's if you have Adblock, EK post that disclaimer before you enter the site. Jan does do it because he likes it and it's a way for fans of team x,y and z to interact. However, the more comments and click the bigger the paycheck. That's why when Tanner does this, it's genius.

The writers definitely get paid. That's if you have Adblock, EK post that disclaimer before you enter the site. Jan does do it because he likes it and it's a way for fans of team x,y and z to interact. However, the more comments and click the bigger the paycheck. That's why when Tanner does this, it's genius.
- tomburton99

Apparently the number of comments doesn't matter - it's strictly the number of views of the actual blog.

Apparently the number of comments doesn't matter - it's strictly the number of views of the actual blog.
- Atomic Wedgie

That's good news. 'Cause if you told me I have been increasing Tanner's income along with my blood pressure I would ban myself from his blogs permanently!!!
Although, I'm sure my productivity in the office would inversely correlate to said blood pressure!!

I suspect that Mr. Tanner is simply doing this to generate hits - and quite frankly, the non-results based statistics would probably show what he is doing is effective.

Whether you are laughing with him or laughing at him, he's still cashing in.
- Atomic Wedgie

Well, of course he is.

Have you seen the amount of comments his blogs based on actual Coyotes news generates?

You guys bashing Tanner's Gardiner pick are just part of...





Who says something like that???
- BestRapperAlive

someone that wears an aquaman suit while taking a mail order critical thinking course

Gardiner is a good player in his own right, just like Kadri. But Tanner's consistent hyperbolic statements regarding these 2 players is what causes the negative reaction whenever either one of them are brought up.

If James simply argued that they are good players, rather than the best/elite/most underrated by far and it's not even debatable, then everyone would agree.
- rangerdanger94

If everyone agreed, James wouldn't have a blog.

Here's a secret, results matter.
- tomburton99

Results matter a lot. So if you want to get good results, you don't base your scouting /evaluations/trades/drafts/signings on results because if you do, you won't have any way of knowing whether you were lucky or got the result you deserved.

If you want to give yourself the best chance for success, in anything, you make your evaluations based on the process and not the results.

This will give you better, more repeatable results in the long run. You will also get the advantage that most of your opponents won't do this and you can take advantage of that as well.

And he deserves it.

I'll say this about Gardiner - he's one of the best in the league at taking the puck over the blueline. Which is kind of funny, because for 10 years I've been screaming at Leafs fans for falling in love with Leafs players who do one thing well, while overlooking the 20 things they do badly. But there you have it: Gardiner is great at getting the puck over the blueline - which is quite important on the powerplay.

As for Mr. Tanner's assertion that Gardiner's biggest contributions come from the defensive side of the game, yet for that very reason you can't use him on the penalty kill, well....I think I'm going to have to go lie down and think about that one for a moment.
- Atomic Wedgie

I know it seems counter-intuitive. But the best defense is not having to play defense. Jake Gardiner's ability to move the puck out of his end and keep it there means he is rarely hemmed in his own zone.

The thing about hockey stats and their advocates is I don't think they've done a very good job at explaining that no matter how good player X is at actually playing defense (that is, positioning and physical play while the other team has the puck) it can't make up for even a small percentage of extra offensive time.

There is no question that Polak is better at classical defense than Jake Gardiner. However, Gardiner will get the puck and move the puck out of the zone, through either his superior skating or passing skills (both way above average) , way faster, more often and consistently than Polak.

So if I'm explaining it well, and if you think about it, you'll see that a player who isn't necessarily defensive can have a bigger defensive impact than a player who is good at playing without the puck.

This is why you might not use Gariner to kill penalties - he's going to be hemmed in his zone regardless, so his specific abilities aren't as useful as Polaks at a time when blocking shots and half-murdering people becomes the best play.

Results matter a lot. So if you want to get good results, you don't base your scouting /evaluations/trades/drafts/signings on results because if you do, you won't have any way of knowing whether you were lucky or got the result you deserved.

If you want to give yourself the best chance for success, in anything, you make your evaluations based on the process and not the results.

This will give you better, more repeatable results in the long run. You will also get the advantage that most of your opponents won't do this and you can take advantage of that as well.
- James_Tanner

The stock market has historically returned ~7% annually over the last 100 years. Does that mean that the stock market will return 7% each year? No.

Some years the stock market will return 30%, other years it will return -40%, and other years it will return 0%, and another year it may return 7%.

The problem with looking at an average over a large sample size is that just because a player's Corsi is 52% over the last 5 years, it doesn't mean his team always possesses the puck 52% of the time every game. There are games that he may have an 80% Corsi. And games where he may have a 30% Corsi. And they can spike from one extreme to the other on a game-to-game basis. It does not "balance out" over the course in the year in regards to being able to assume that a player with a 52% Corsi over the last 5 years controls the puck 52% of the time every game.

The stock market has historically returned ~7% annually over the last 100 years. Does that mean that the stock market will return 7% each year? No.

Some years the stock market will return 30%, other years it will return -40%, and other years it will return 0%, and another year it may return 7%.

The problem with looking at an average over a large sample size is that just because a player's Corsi is 52% over the last 5 years, it doesn't mean his team always possesses the puck 52% of the time every game. There are games that he may have an 80% Corsi. And games where he may have a 30% Corsi. And they can spike from one extreme to the other on a game-to-game basis. It does not "balance out" over the course in the year in regards to being able to assume that a player with a 52% Corsi over the last 5 years controls the puck 52% of the time every game.
- rangerdanger94

You're not going to believe me if I tell you what's wrong with this, so I urge you to go do some reading on this topic by someone who isn't me. Process > Results and no sane person will tell you anything differently.

You're not going to believe me if I tell you what's wrong with this, so I urge you to go do some reading on this topic by someone who isn't me. Process > Results and no sane person will tell you anything differently.
- James_Tanner

Being process vs results oriented is important in business, but could you link me to some reading on this topic by someone who isn't you please? Some reading that can translate to evaluating athletes?

Edit: a quick search led me to this article: http://www.nwlean.net/article0412.htm

Basically contradicts everything you say.

I know it seems counter-intuitive. But the best defense is not having to play defense. Jake Gardiner's ability to move the puck out of his end and keep it there means he is rarely hemmed in his own zone.

The thing about hockey stats and their advocates is I don't think they've done a very good job at explaining that no matter how good player X is at actually playing defense (that is, positioning and physical play while the other team has the puck) it can't make up for even a small percentage of extra offensive time.

There is no question that Polak is better at classical defense than Jake Gardiner. However, Gardiner will get the puck and move the puck out of the zone, through either his superior skating or passing skills (both way above average) , way faster, more often and consistently than Polak.

Let's face it, the only numbers that matter are wins and loses. Stats are helpful but not the answer to everything. I have worked with accountants for years and you could give the same set of numbers to 20 of them and get 20 different interpretations.

So if I'm explaining it well, and if you think about it, you'll see that a player who isn't necessarily defensive can have a bigger defensive impact than a player who is good at playing without the puck.

This is why you might not use Gariner to kill penalties - he's going to be hemmed in his zone regardless, so his specific abilities aren't as useful as Polaks at a time when blocking shots and half-murdering people becomes the best play.
- James_Tanner

See how many times a night his superior passing ability results in an icing or is picked off and comes back the other way. If the puck leaves your zone and comes back in, where has it gotten you? And using Polak as a yardstick is a poor comparison.

Who cares about his point totals? He played on some of the worst offensive teams of recent history and he wasn't on the PP for much of that time.

Vlasic, who's been elite for years is 4 or 5 years older and didn't top 36 points until last year.

Chris Tanev has a career high of 20 points and he's elite too.
- James_Tanner

If you don't use result based stats, Kadri is far superior, more consistent and much better at defense. If you're going to argue, at least be honest about it. Stepan is your favorite and you won't admit Kadri is better no matter what proof you see.

The reality is, Kadri is several levels above Stepan. He's way, way, way better.
- James_Tanner

Screw results, right? Who wants those? Idiots, that's who, I tells ya. Only idiots in this world strive for results.

Kadri is a good player in his own right. However, to make a statement that he is "several levels" above Stepan and "way, way, way better" is hyperbolic and where you lose credibility.
- rangerdanger94

I don't even have to spend 5 seconds looking to know that what Tanner is referring to is his golden CorsiRel........

Kadri is a good player in his own right. However, to make a statement that he is "several levels" above Stepan and "way, way, way better" is hyperbolic and where you lose credibility.
- rangerdanger94

FWIW, I'd say they're pretty close, with edge to Kadri for me. He just does everything.

Not at an elite level, like someone may try to suggest, but Kadri really is a great guy to have on your team. He really doesn't have to many holes in his game. Good, and talented offensively. Responsible defensively (although no Selkes in his future, he's good not great). And a female dog to play against.

Ryan. Mother(frank)ing. McDonagh.

And Brady Skjei.

And Nick Holden.

At least 60% of the Rangers roster is underrated, really.
- rangerdanger94

Seriously? McDonagh is pretty highly regarded around the league and in the media.

If anyone, I think Klein is fairly underrated.

Seriously? McDonagh is pretty highly regarded around the league and in the media.

If anyone, I think Klein is fairly underrated.
- Rinosaur

McDonagh is as good as Kris Letang.

Seriously? McDonagh is pretty highly regarded around the league and in the media.

If anyone, I think Klein is fairly underrated.
- Rinosaur

Klein has stunk this year.

I suspect that Mr. Tanner is simply doing this to generate hits - and quite frankly, the non-results based statistics would probably show what he is doing is effective.

Whether you are laughing with him or laughing at him, he's still cashing in.
- Atomic Wedgie

that does not matter, as jornalism and hits are largely factored by luck. Progress is more important then results.

Being process vs results oriented is important in business, but could you link me to some reading on this topic by someone who isn't you please? Some reading that can translate to evaluating athletes?

Edit: a quick search led me to this article: http://www.nwlean.net/article0412.htm

Basically contradicts everything you say.
- rangerdanger94

In my entire life, including time teaching students who had previously never written assignments in English, that is the worst piece of evidence anyone has ever presented me.

Get rid of the fan boys and get some real bloggers.