There's nothing wrong with using shooting metrics(the term puck possession is not being used correctly). It is a very useful tool for analyzing the effectiveness of players and teams. Other advanced stats are also very useful.

In reality shooting metrics should only be used as an indicator(a very useful one) to look more deeply into a player or team. To declare a team or player great or terrible based solely on Corsi/Fenwick is wrong. Corsi is a result based stat and not a process based stat as you have declared it to be.

This is why real hockey coaches, managers and players with experience are needed. They absolutely should incorporate all the tools available to them but you must realize that it isn't shot attempts that makes a player or team effective. It's all the "actual hockeying" that players and teams do which eventually lead to those shot attempts which eventually lead to goals which eventually lead to wins.(also please recognize that all shots are not created equal)

Positioning, decision making, reading the play, skating(speed and agility), strength, winning puck races and board battles, maintaining puck possession(the real kind where a team will find a teammate to pass to rather than simply dumping the puck in out of fear), passing, positioning and also most importantly positioning.

In case I forgot to mention...positioning.

As for Gardiner, you were right that he is much better than people give him credit for however this conclusion was dead wrong two seasons ago despite his positive Corsi. Once or twice a game he would make what I'm calling a critical error/giveaway that would lead to a breakaway or odd man rush for the opposition. If he's on the ice for 8 shots for in a game and only 2 shots against but those two shots are breakaways than his 80% Corsi doesn't mean anything in that specific game because those 2 shots against are more likely to lead to goals than the 8 shots for.

Over the past two seasons these critical errors are all but gone. Oct/Nov of last season were still bad but since then Gardiner has been great at limiting thos errors and he is now a reliable two-way defender because of it. Without the critical errors his Corsi numbers are now more meaningful because the danger value of the shots for and shots against are now more closely related to each other.

There's nothing wrong with using shooting metrics(the term puck possession is not being used correctly). It is a very useful tool for analyzing the effectiveness of players and teams. Other advanced stats are also very useful.

In reality shooting metrics should only be used as an indicator(a very useful one) to look more deeply into a player or team. To declare a team or player great or terrible based solely on Corsi/Fenwick is wrong. Corsi is a result based stat and not a process based stat as you have declared it to be.

This is why real hockey coaches, managers and players with experience are needed. They absolutely should incorporate all the tools available to them but you must realize that it isn't shot attempts that makes a player or team effective. It's all the "actual hockeying" that players and teams do which eventually lead to those shot attempts which eventually lead to goals which eventually lead to wins.(also please recognize that all shots are not created equal)

Positioning, decision making, reading the play, skating(speed and agility), strength, winning puck races and board battles, maintaining puck possession(the real kind where a team will find a teammate to pass to rather than simply dumping the puck in out of fear), passing, positioning and also most importantly positioning.

In case I forgot to mention...positioning.

As for Gardiner, you were right that he is much better than people give him credit for however this conclusion was dead wrong two seasons ago despite his positive Corsi. Once or twice a game he would make what I'm calling a critical error/giveaway that would lead to a breakaway or odd man rush for the opposition. If he's on the ice for 8 shots for in a game and only 2 shots against but those two shots are breakaways than his 80% Corsi doesn't mean anything in that specific game because those 2 shots against are more likely to lead to goals than the 8 shots for.

Over the past two seasons these critical errors are all but gone. Oct/Nov of last season were still bad but since then Gardiner has been great at limiting thos errors and he is now a reliable two-way defender because of it. Without the critical errors his Corsi numbers are now more meaningful because the danger value of the shots for and shots against are now more closely related to each other.
- Njuice

Posts like these come along and explain things better. This should be a chance for Tanner to learn. I hope he seizes it.

MINUS
- theStack

One minus that was the whole article making it false to call it a plus/minus article that's all I was saying

I disagree James. Analytics arent covered because they are (frank)ing boring and make bad television. The bottom line is that TV time should be used for on ice action or personality. The average working man wants to watch a game, and between periods watch highlights, and maybe chuckle a bit at Don Cherry.

You can disagree but analytics, to the majority of viewers, is just bad television.
- Larsson_fan

He did also say that the casual fan doesn't need to care about analytics which most TV viewers are. It's the hardcore folks like us who seek out more information that should care about it. This also suggests that significant TV time for analytics is unnecessary.

They could do a half hour analytics show on saturday/sunday morning instead of playing soccer. That would be sweet. But don't like joker Yost be involved. He uses nice math but sometimes the assumptions that come before using the math make his points irrelevant and wrong. Like that time he assigned value to draft picks based solely on games played. He essentially says a 4th line goon who plays 1000 games for 2 minutes a game is equal to a superstar who plays 1000 games. The math was very pretty though - meaningless - but pretty nonetheless.

It's idiotic. Whatever the arguments about the best way to evaluate players, there is no doubt whatsoever that faceoffs are talked about to the point where they are blown out of all proportion, in terms of importance.

No one who takes a faceoff regularly in the NHL is bad or good enough that it matters at all. Everyone once in a while a goal is scored off a faceoff and people say that makes them important when really it's like a lottery winner saying "and they said the lottery was a waste of money."
- James_Tanner

I go to this site everyday. I read anything Leafy. Then anything Tannery. Then anything Oilery because because misery loves company. I really enjoy your blogs James, even though I don't agree with you on politics. Enjoy your take on analytics. I've learned alot from your blogs. Keep up the good work.

Fair point. I had this argument with my friend Gerry the other day. He just says'who cares"? And I see his point. If you're a fan and you'e not writing, gambling, or trying to get a job in the league - then most of these stats are for super nerds.

However, Gerry just watches on TV, he doesn't go on the internet and argue about who is better - and if you're going to do that, you should know stats.
- James_Tanner

I dont really argue who is better. To me it doesnt matter when the eye test is so close that you need analytics to sway an arguement. I mean, an arguement between who is better better between say, Sid and Ovie , doesnt really matter. If Im a Penguins fan, I dont care if you can prove Ovechkin is statistically better, becase my guy brought me home 2 stanley cups, which is THE bottom line. And from a Washington fans perspective, thats all that should matter to them as well.

I can watch a game and tell if the team is do inating or getting spanked, regardless of the score, and I dont need any sort of analytics to enhance my experience.

I appreciate the way thoughtfulness and reason are part of your posts. Not a Coyotes fan but I'll always read your articles.

What drives someone to be like you are on here? What do you get out of it?

Anyone who writes a daily blog is going to occasionally be wrong or put their foot in their mouth - and I do it all the time. But I do learn. I started here as a homer-cheerleader and then got into stats and learned about them on the fly, in public.

I don't know how to analyze them properly because that's a convenient talking point for you and makes it easier for you to dismiss them. Doesn't mean you're fully wrong though - I learn something knew everyday.
- James_Tanner

Reasonably Question, I'll answer for you.

Fry is one of the stupidest morons ever to grace Hockeybuzz.

That oughta do it.

It's idiotic. Whatever the arguments about the best way to evaluate players, there is no doubt whatsoever that faceoffs are talked about to the point where they are blown out of all proportion, in terms of importance.

No one who takes a faceoff regularly in the NHL is bad or good enough that it matters at all. Everyone once in a while a goal is scored off a faceoff and people say that makes them important when really it's like a lottery winner saying "and they said the lottery was a waste of money."
- James_Tanner

Well the Leafs were terrible in the faceoff circle last night so that's why they were talking about it. It would have been just as absurd to spend the whole night talking about how they badly lost the "possession"(shots) battle. The Leafs played better than the Sens last night and they won the game regardless of the faceoff and shot totals.

Reasonably Question, I'll answer for you.

Fry is one of the stupidest morons ever to grace Hockeybuzz.

That oughta do it.
- Larsson_fan

Personal attacks all day. Tsk tsk

Personal attacks all day. Tsk tsk
- fry

I wont take any shots if you cease to be a moron. Is that fair?

I wont take any shots if you cease to be a moron. Is that fair?
- Larsson_fan

When you are banned constantly for spewing hate and come back as an alt it might be a good idea to at least try to be different. Is that even possible for you? Jero

When you are banned constantly for spewing hate and come back as an alt it might be a good idea to at least try to be different. Is that even possible for you? Jero
- Procrastinator

Can we decide what his next alt will be? "Fry_Fan" would be my vote.

Can we decide what his next alt will be? "Fry_Fan" would be my vote.


- fry

It does have a certain ring to it.

When you are banned constantly for spewing hate and come back as an alt it might be a good idea to at least try to be different. Is that even possible for you? Jero
- Procrastinator

Nope. I am who I am. If you dont like it I dont care. If you choose to be a rat to the mods about alt's and what not...well I guess you just are who you are.

Nope. I am who I am. If you dont like it I dont care. If you choose to be a rat to the mods about alt's and what not...well I guess you just are who you are.
- Larsson_fan

I don't think anyone really cares if you're using an alt. You've had a long time to wrap your head around the Code of Conduct though.

Nope. I am who I am. If you dont like it I dont care. If you choose to be a rat to the mods about alt's and what not...well I guess you just are who you are.
- Larsson_fan

Hockeybuzz is a better place without you. The Oilers blog has been taken over by people like you who don't talk hockey. Hits are way down even though the team is doing great. A couple of guys like HB77 try but for the most part bullies like you have ruined that site. Get a life man.

Hockeybuzz is a better place without you. The Oilers blog has been taken over by people like you who don't talk hockey. Hits are way down even though the team is doing great. A couple of guys like HB77 try but for the most part bullies like you have ruined that site. Get a life man.
- Procrastinator

I think there is issues on both sides.

Analytics bloggers/twitter personalities have done the same thing they accuse others of doing- being close minded.

There is no 1000% correct way to rank players.

If you talk to anyone in Buffalo, Rasmus Ristolainen is an all star, on the cusp of Norris worthy defenseman. If you talk to anyone who uses analytics as a base, he's a below average player.

Both opinions are probably wrong.

Comparing hockey analytics to politics is an amateurish joke.

Agreed on the post that analytics makes for boring tv.

People have different personal wants and needs and thus have different political preferences. Your self righteous attitude will prevent you from ever understanding this.

I think there is issues on both sides.

Analytics bloggers/twitter personalities have done the same thing they accuse others of doing- being close minded.

There is no 1000% correct way to rank players.

If you talk to anyone in Buffalo, Rasmus Ristolainen is an all star, on the cusp of Norris worthy defenseman. If you talk to anyone who uses analytics as a base, he's a below average player.

Both opinions are probably wrong.
- sbroads24

When the 100% analytics guys start acting or behaving like they are better/truer fans because they pour over stats than the guy that goes to as many games as he can afford and watches the rest on TV then I will simply stay off hockey boards entirely. No time for pompous ass hats.

When the 100% analytics guys start acting or behaving like they are better/truer fans because they pour over stats than the guy that goes to as many games as he can afford and watches the rest on TV then I will simply stay off hockey boards entirely. No time for pompous ass hats.
- Larsson_fan

That's the thing. I had a guy on twitter, who actually was convinced the Sabres gave up the wrong D man to Colorado, and was convinced we should have kept Zadorov cause he was better than Ristolainen.

Not only was he wrong, he was a total douche about it. But hey, he had those facts to hide behind.

Same goes for the people on the other side as well.

James, I think you're a good blogger, but you ridiculously overrate the analytics we as fans have access to. They just aren't that good. Use them as a tool to help you know what happened, but not much value for rating most players. They just aren't good enough. They should make up about 20% of the conversation.


What you are conflating, and don't understand is that there is a difference between the sound science of analytics, and the practical application and results when put into practice in a particular sport. Until they improve the data collection methods, analytics for a team sport like hockey will never be as valuable as you make them out to be. Now if we're talking about analytics that the teams have access to, that's a different story.

When the 100% analytics guys start acting or behaving like they are better/truer fans because they pour over stats than the guy that goes to as many games as he can afford and watches the rest on TV then I will simply stay off hockey boards entirely. No time for pompous ass hats.
- Larsson_fan

Nothing in the post you quoted was an attack on analytics experts, so why are you bringing that up as an argument to ignore his post? Your post is the self righteous drivel that just annoys people on the other side of this argument.

He's correct.
Stats are a useful tool. True.
Stats by themselves will sometimes give you incorrect conclusions (especially if used incorrectly or you use the wrong stats). True.

Both sides need to stop using absolutes and they might make some progress at not only properly evaluating players, but also opening meaningful dialogue with the opposition.

Nothing in the post you quoted was an attack on analytics experts, so why are you bringing that up as an argument to ignore his post? Your post is the self righteous drivel that just annoys people on the other side of this argument.

He's correct.
Stats are a useful tool. True.
Stats by themselves will sometimes give you incorrect conclusions (especially if used incorrectly or you use the wrong stats). True.

Both sides need to stop using absolutes and they might make some progress at not only properly evaluating players, but also opening meaningful dialogue with the opposition.
- Thecakeisalie