Did you honestly read that post? It was anything but great haha.
- James_Tanner

Again, that's your opinion James. One of these days you'll understand the difference between fact and opinion. On second thought, probably not. That is the problem.

You prove it with the following from your blog.

"If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

This is an opinion and it's also arrogant to assume that anyone not using analytics is just guessing. Not always the case.

You use comparisons to politics and the left and right. There is also the middle, which you don't consider. The best way to evaluate players is to use all the tools, including analytics.

You still haven't learned that the analytics we have available to us, aren't nearly good enough to use as the singular method of player evaluations.

James you really drive home my opinion of fancy stats and the people obsessed with them. I don't like them.

The shot quality argument will probably last as long as the NHL. Even among guys who are both quality analytics analysts (like, guys who might eventually get jobs doing this stuff for the NHL; not me) there are disagreements.

Certain players do take less shots, but more sure-thing shots. (Bozak maybe) and certain guys just take tons of shots (Ovechkin).

I think even for a team like Wilson's Leafs, they probably talked about that more than it actually happened, but that kind of strategy is anomalous if you looked at every team.

There will always be exceptions, and there will always be anomalies. I tend to think you can get a pretty good idea about things without worrying about shot-quality.
- James_Tanner

Thanks for the reply James. I get what you're saying. There will be anomalies, but that doesn't mean the data and conclusions you draw from it isn't still useful.

Just for kicks I went to NHL.com and searched using shooting % and arbitrarily picked >=40 gp. There are a couple names you see year to year, but also a lot of movement. Stamkos is usually in the top 15. I also saw Jiri Hudler pretty high up a a lot of times, and Tyler Bozak, whom you mentioned, was up there multiple times.

This is just not true. What side? People who laugh at the idea of using analytics? People who use the Coyotes' current record, or the Panthers, to judge a whole movement? Those people are ridiculous and deserve no respect.
- James_Tanner

You want to make everything black and white and are grouping everyone who doesn't think analytics are the be all end all into the same group of idiots that laugh at analytics and want to judge the movement on the success of the Panthers. In that scenario, yes you're on the opposite side of them and sound just as loony.

There are a lot of smart hockey who place more value in their scouting system who also see value in analytics. It's not black and white. Ignoring the information you can get from your scouts is as stupid as ignoring information you can get from analytics. You don't have to only use one or the other.

It's also not people just looking at Florida and Arizona and saying that analytics are silly. If you rank teams by CF%, they don't match up to actual success. So what exactly is the value of putting a major emphasis on shot attempts when it isn't proven to actually lead to more wins?

Objectively Wrong. Shot-attempts give you up to 20 x the sample size in a single game vs plus/minus.
- James_Tanner

Shot attempts are still influenced by every other player on the ice and are meaningless without situational context. You say shot attempts are the best indicator of possession, but face offs are meaningless? What about the fact that most offensive zone face offs usually lead to a shot attempt. If you're generating or preventing a shot attempt by winning a face off, how can they be meaningless if shot attempts are indicators of success?

The only thing that matters in a hockey game is if you scored more goals than the other team. I don't see how you can write off a stat that measures how many goals your team scored than the other team while you were on the ice. It's probably given more weight by some analysts but it's by no means useless.

The only thing that matters in a hockey game is if you scored more goals than the other team. I don't see how you can write off a stat that measures how many goals your team scored than the other team while you were on the ice. It's probably given more weight by some analysts but it's by no means useless.
- Hunkulese

Pretty stout argument.

It's the frustration of having your empirical evidence being treated the same as some random dude's whacky opinion.
- James_Tanner

Sure, it's empirical in that it's not made up, but it's correlation at best and not actual causation. And also woefully inadequate information. While I normally hate Larry Brooks, he raises some good points in this article:

http://nypost.com/2016/12...keeping-fans-in-the-dark/

How much better would the predictions be if we had access to all those and more?

Again, that's your opinion James. One of these days you'll understand the difference between fact and opinion. On second thought, probably not. That is the problem.

You prove it with the following from your blog.

"If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

This is an opinion and it's also arrogant to assume that anyone not using analytics is just guessing. Not always the case.

You use comparisons to politics and the left and right. There is also the middle, which you don't consider. The best way to evaluate players is to use all the tools, including analytics.

You still haven't learned that the analytics we have available to us, aren't nearly good enough to use as the singular method of player evaluations.
- MJL

It's almost as though they employ scouts and analytics teams for this reason exactly.
Who are we kidding... the scouts don't know anything... they are just friends of ownership collecting a nice fat paycheque and get to go watch games for free. Damn fat cats!

...

You still haven't learned that the analytics we have available to us, aren't nearly good enough to use as the singular method of player evaluations.
- MJL

He's a troll.

I am complimenting him by not suggesting the only other alternative, that he is an idiot.

James, who in actual (frank) actually said the Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson was a good deal for the Oilers outside of Oilers Management?

Talk about creating "fake news" to fit your argument.

As for your other points, analytics are a tool to better help access or predict trends, nothing more. I don't dismiss them, in fact I find them quite helpful, but they're not gospel, they're an interpretation. Example....analytics show Gardiner is an underrated d-man, who's pretty good at ensuring his team scores more for than against when he's on the ice, however using them to say he's an elite d-man when obviously he isn't (example elite d-men are usually on the ice for 24 plus minutes/g) is why people get their panties in a knot whenever you post.

I disagree. I am making a point about how we live in an environment where people don't change their mind when they learn a fact. They just turn to someone who won't challenge them and they end up reading and watching whoever will tell them what they want to hear.

I'd love for you to tell me anything I said that was 'self righteous'.
- James_Tanner

Some would say that last sentence you wrote would qualify right there.

Personally, I would like to discuss this statement:

"If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

Why is it that you feel that people who have spent the majority of their life playing, watching, coaching and discussing hockey are guessing, just because they don't keep track of numbers to put into equations? If someone understands the game of hockey well and watches teams employ certain strategies game after game, they can then gain an understanding of which plays lead to mistakes and which help win games. This method would be considered observing, measuring and analyzing data, would it not? Let me answer that, yes, it is. You don't need to try to fit data into a mathematical equation to make it worth something. If I see the puck get turned over by throwing it up the middle again and again instead of putting it off the glass and down the ice, I don't need a stat to tell me going up the middle is a bad play.

More to follow...

Some would say that last sentence you wrote would qualify right there.

Personally, I would like to discuss this statement:

"If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

Why is it that you feel that people who have spent the majority of their life playing, watching, coaching and discussing hockey are guessing, just because they don't keep track of numbers to put into equations? If someone understands the game of hockey well and watches teams employ certain strategies game after game, they can then gain an understanding of which plays lead to mistakes and which help win games. This method would be considered observing, measuring and analyzing data, would it not? Let me answer that, yes, it is. You don't need to try to fit data into a mathematical equation to make it worth something. If I see the puck get turned over by throwing it up the middle again and again instead of putting it off the glass and down the ice, I don't need a stat to tell me going up the middle is a bad play.

More to follow...
- Tonybere

They are a way to measure sure, but the jury is still out if they are the best way. Ignoring them is stupid, but coming to conclusions solely on them is not very scientific at all.

It's difficult to get people to believe some of the conclusions analytics help us draw:
- Jake Gardiner turns out to be somewhat close to an elite defenseman.
- Eric Gudbranson, former top pick, actual giant, is not very good.
-Brandon Sutter is barely a replacement player.
- Nick Bonino is a first liner.
- Antoine Vermette should have been retired three years ago, etc. etc. etc.



Please discuss the following with me:

First Gardiner,
This has gone on for quite sometime here. Is Gardiner really elite if he isn't relied on to play top minutes or PK for his team? Is he improving, absolutely. He is still young by NHL standards and shows great upside, but elite should be reserved for those that prove they are truly a cut above.

Second, Gudbranson - you may very well be right here, according to the numbers and the fact that Florida was willing to part with him. But remember, once upon a time, the Senators thought Redden was worth keeping over Chara.

Lastly, Bonino, Sutter and Vermette are very close to being the same player, yet two are garbage and one is a star? Que pasa?
Bonino has scored 0.455 pts/game over his career. Most of his success has come while centering a 3rd line (of the Stanley Cup champs) that features a 1st liner and one of the fastest players in the game.
Vermette boasts point production of 0.511 over a career that spans 2.5 times as many games. He is also a career 56% on draws, which is very high in a league that you like to point out doesn't have much parity in this area. (Sidenote: won draws lead to possession, which leads to shots, which leads to goals, which lead to wins).
Sutter, while playing on a dog of a team, has twice as many points as Bonino. Yes, Sutter makes more than twice as much money, but that's not really his fault, is it?

It's difficult to get people to believe some of the conclusions analytics help us draw:
- Jake Gardiner turns out to be somewhat close to an elite defenseman.
- Eric Gudbranson, former top pick, actual giant, is not very good.
-Brandon Sutter is barely a replacement player.
- Nick Bonino is a first liner.
- Antoine Vermette should have been retired three years ago, etc. etc. etc.



Please discuss the following with me:

First Gardiner,
This has gone on for quite sometime here. Is Gardiner really elite if he isn't relied on to play top minutes or PK for his team? Is he improving, absolutely. He is still young by NHL standards and shows great upside, but elite should be reserved for those that prove they are truly a cut above.

Second, Gudbranson - you may very well be right here, according to the numbers and the fact that Florida was willing to part with him. But remember, once upon a time, the Senators thought Redden was worth keeping over Chara.

Lastly, Bonino, Sutter and Vermette are very close to being the same player, yet two are garbage and one is a star? Que pasa?
Bonino has scored 0.455 pts/game over his career. Most of his success has come while centering a 3rd line (of the Stanley Cup champs) that features a 1st liner and one of the fastest players in the game.
Vermette boasts point production of 0.511 over a career that spans 2.5 times as many games. He is also a career 56% on draws, which is very high in a league that you like to point out doesn't have much parity in this area. (Sidenote: won draws lead to possession, which leads to shots, which leads to goals, which lead to wins).
Sutter, while playing on a dog of a team, has twice as many points as Bonino. Yes, Sutter makes more than twice as much money, but that's not really his fault, is it?
- Tonybere

I'm not an analytics guy per se, and I've been saying for 4 years that Gudbranson is a meaner version of Luke Schenn, meaning he's not very good, he's mean, but he's crap. Teams still gamble on these type of d-men hoping to find the next Keith Carney/Willie Mitchell though. That's just hockey because even on cup winners, one of these types always plays some sort of support role.

Problem is never having one of these types, its building a defense around them. Toronto used to do it often: Komisarek, Schenn. etc.

Well written James, as usual.

But as usual, the ones who disagree most with you won't even end up reading the whole article.

Well written James, as usual.

But as usual, the ones who disagree most with you won't even end up reading the whole article.
- quinneroma

I read the whole article. Its one thing to say analytics tells you things that you can't see that are happening below the surface. Things you might not even realize. It's another thing to say that Analytics are always right, and that all conclusions should be drawn from them, and if you disagree you're an idiot.

It's also poor taste to state someone said or did something when they actually didn't. Ie. WHO ARE THESE SUPPOSED PEOPLE THAT TRIED TO SUGGEST THE HALL FOR LARSSON TRADE WAS A WIN FOR THE OILERS?

These people get protective, for instance, hardly a single main-stream reporter ripped the Oilers for their historically bad Taylor Hall trade, focusing instead on pretending it was a fair trade.

This never happened! In fact people in the mainstream actually reported they were shocked that the deal was 1 for 1. Mckenzie, Dreger et al. included.

I read the whole article. Its one thing to say analytics tells you things that you can't see that are happening below the surface. Things you might not even realize. It's another thing to say that Analytics are always right, and that all conclusions should be drawn from them, and if you disagree you're an idiot.

It's also poor taste to state someone said or did something when they actually didn't. Ie. WHO ARE THESE SUPPOSED PEOPLE THAT TRIED TO SUGGEST THE HALL FOR LARSSON TRADE WAS A WIN FOR THE OILERS?



This never happened!
- mykokes

I never argued it was a fair trade, but I did argue that it made the Oilers better overall.

It's difficult to get people to believe some of the conclusions analytics help us draw:
- Jake Gardiner turns out to be somewhat close to an elite defenseman.
- Eric Gudbranson, former top pick, actual giant, is not very good.
-Brandon Sutter is barely a replacement player.
- Nick Bonino is a first liner.
- Antoine Vermette should have been retired three years ago, etc. etc. etc.



Please discuss the following with me:

First Gardiner,
This has gone on for quite sometime here. Is Gardiner really elite if he isn't relied on to play top minutes or PK for his team? Is he improving, absolutely. He is still young by NHL standards and shows great upside, but elite should be reserved for those that prove they are truly a cut above.

Second, Gudbranson - you may very well be right here, according to the numbers and the fact that Florida was willing to part with him. But remember, once upon a time, the Senators thought Redden was worth keeping over Chara.

Lastly, Bonino, Sutter and Vermette are very close to being the same player, yet two are garbage and one is a star? Que pasa?
Bonino has scored 0.455 pts/game over his career. Most of his success has come while centering a 3rd line (of the Stanley Cup champs) that features a 1st liner and one of the fastest players in the game.
Vermette boasts point production of 0.511 over a career that spans 2.5 times as many games. He is also a career 56% on draws, which is very high in a league that you like to point out doesn't have much parity in this area. (Sidenote: won draws lead to possession, which leads to shots, which leads to goals, which lead to wins).
Sutter, while playing on a dog of a team, has twice as many points as Bonino. Yes, Sutter makes more than twice as much money, but that's not really his fault, is it?
- Tonybere

James? James?
Is this thing on?

Some would say that last sentence you wrote would qualify right there.

Personally, I would like to discuss this statement:

"If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

Why is it that you feel that people who have spent the majority of their life playing, watching, coaching and discussing hockey are guessing, just because they don't keep track of numbers to put into equations? If someone understands the game of hockey well and watches teams employ certain strategies game after game, they can then gain an understanding of which plays lead to mistakes and which help win games. This method would be considered observing, measuring and analyzing data, would it not? Let me answer that, yes, it is. You don't need to try to fit data into a mathematical equation to make it worth something. If I see the puck get turned over by throwing it up the middle again and again instead of putting it off the glass and down the ice, I don't need a stat to tell me going up the middle is a bad play.

More to follow...
- Tonybere

Do you mean to say that actually watching the game, is collecting data? Blasphemous!


Well done.

Does anybody else know of any elite #1 defenseman that don't lead their team in icetime besides Jake Gardiner?

Does anybody else know of any elite #1 defenseman that don't lead their team in icetime besides Jake Gardiner?
- MJL

Yes.
Subban at the moment.


Of course... he's injured and not playing. But the stats don't lie.

Well written James, as usual.

But as usual, the ones who disagree most with you won't even end up reading the whole article.
- quinneroma

I see bloggers have Alts too

Yes.
Subban at the moment.


Of course... he's injured and not playing. But the stats don't lie.
- mlindsay

Isn't that because they happen to have two elite defenseman?

39 players (over 400 minutes played) have better CF% 5v5 numbers than Crosby.

That isn't an "outlier".

There has never been a good explanation as to how these stats are viable, or indicative of anything significant (particularly "driving possession") ... and still come up with these rankings.

Imagine how many points Malkin would have if 88 players didn't have better CF% than him!

How many goals would Patrick Laine have if there wasn't 330 players with better CF% than him.

Imagine how good Patrick Maroon's (18th) numbers would be if he wasn't being held back by Connor McDavid (46)

I bet Backstrom, Toews, Ekblad, Hall and Seguin are all pretty ashamed that at least 150 players in the league have better CF% than they do.

How has Chicago ever won even a game this year with Keith and Seabrook being ranked 199/200.

There must be 28 teams embarassed that no one on their roster is as good as Lars Eller.

I bet the Habs are upset that there are 185 players better than Shea Weber.

It is a shame that Schiefele, Kessel, and Erik Karlsson are all below 220 other players.

Raise your hand if you think your team would love to have Rasmus Ristolainen, J.T. Miller or Travis Hamonic. Sadly, there are 400+ players better than these guys.

but also opening meaningful dialogue with the opposition.
- Thecakeisalie

less and less people seem to acomplish this.. the internet has ruined meaningful conversation.. people say things they would never have the balls to in face to face conversation.. it's the same dynamic of why people scream at other drivers while driving but are timid people in their everyday interactions

39 players (over 400 minutes played) have better CF% 5v5 numbers than Crosby.

That isn't an "outlier".

There has never been a good explanation as to how these stats are viable, or indicative of anything significant (particularly "driving possession") ... and still come up with these rankings.

Imagine how many points Malkin would have if 88 players didn't have better CF% than him!

How many goals would Patrick Laine have if there wasn't 330 players with better CF% than him.

Imagine how good Patrick Maroon's (18th) numbers would be if he wasn't being held back by Connor McDavid (46)

I bet Backstrom, Toews, Ekblad, Hall and Seguin are all pretty ashamed that at least 150 players in the league have better CF% than they do.

How has Chicago ever won even a game this year with Keith and Seabrook being ranked 199/200.

There must be 28 teams embarassed that no one on their roster is as good as Lars Eller.

I bet the Habs are upset that there are 185 players better than Shea Weber.

It is a shame that Schiefele, Kessel, and Erik Karlsson are all below 220 other players.

Raise your hand if you think your team would love to have Rasmus Ristolainen, J.T. Miller or Travis Hamonic. Sadly, there are 400+ players better than these guys.
- Aetherial

Ryan Suter blows! There's 205 defenseman better than he is!