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

I think you just dropped an analytics bomb buddy. Well done.

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.
- mykokes

Cody Franson is better than Rasmus Ristolainen, special teams don't matter even though their goals do on the scoreboard, faceoffs either because the team that wins in the O-zone doesn't shoot the puck right away.

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

Cody Franson

Well said. Analytics and advanced stats are why I spend most of my time on SB Nation, reading articles and speaking with a community that understands their value.

If I hear another person say "Henrik Lundqvist is finished, he's allowing so many goals this year" but completely ignore his consistently good high danger sv% and shot distance/shot volume rates, I'm going to get an ulcer.

Cody Franson
- Wetbandit1

So, what you're saying is that your team doesn't have an elite #1 D-man?

Well said. Analytics and advanced stats are why I spend most of my time on SB Nation, reading articles and speaking with a community that understands their value.

If I hear another person say "Henrik Lundqvist is finished, he's allowing so many goals this year" but completely ignore his consistently good high danger sv% and shot distance/shot volume rates, I'm going to get an ulcer.
- SpeedBlue91

True, but if Hank doesn't start saving the easier ones, I'm going to get one!

So, what you're saying is that your team doesn't have an elite #1 D-man?
- Tonybere

Definitely not. Have you seen Risto's CF%! Never mind that he's 5th in points amongst defensemen, we all know special teams don't matter.

Well said. Analytics and advanced stats are why I spend most of my time on SB Nation, reading articles and speaking with a community that understands their value.

If I hear another person say "Henrik Lundqvist is finished, he's allowing so many goals this year" but completely ignore his consistently good high danger sv% and shot distance/shot volume rates, I'm going to get an ulcer.
- SpeedBlue91

Sure, but his actual SV% sucks, so he must be letting in easier ones to balance it out.

Edit: He's 28th amongst goalies who've played at least 20 games. That's not good. I'm not willing to say he's finished, but the numbers aren't exactly promising. He's not super young, although goalies can go to almost 40 and still be productive, he has played an absolute sh¡t ton of games though.

Double edit: He's been on the ice for 42,111 minutes!!!

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

I was just making a joke that he is playing 0 minutes as an elite defenceman... because he's injured.
Carry on.

I was just making a joke that he is playing 0 minutes as an elite defenceman... because he's injured.
Carry on.
- mlindsay

I got what you were going for.

True story, people were actually female dogging that Eichel sucks because he got injured. They'd say, 100% serious, "How many goals does Jack have?" when he was out. Then scream something about last place when they weren't in last place. It's seriously over there. It's a bit better now, because those morons have mostly been banned by this point.

Sure, but his actual SV% sucks, so he must be letting in easier ones to balance it out.

Edit: He's 28th amongst goalies who've played at least 20 games. That's not good. I'm not willing to say he's finished, but the numbers aren't exactly promising. He's not super young, although goalies can go to almost 40 and still be productive, he has played an absolute sh¡t ton of games though.

Double edit: He's been on the ice for 42,111 minutes!!!
- Wetbandit1

He certainly isn't having his best statistical year, thats for sure. But people are throwing him under the bus, saying he's done, when he's not. You can't look at just save percentage or goals against and say "thats a bad goalie." He plays behind one of the worst defenses in the league. He's constantly getting screened by his own players, getting uncleared rebounds chipped by him, and seeing deflected shots. People fail to realize this. I believe he's lost a bit of focus because he's trying to compensate for a bad defense, and he's overthinking certain things, which spells disaster. His actual skill or reaction time isn't declining. He just has a shatty defense.

He certainly isn't having his best statistical year, thats for sure. But people are throwing him under the bus, saying he's done, when he's not. You can't look at just save percentage or goals against and say "thats a bad goalie." He plays behind one of the worst defenses in the league. He's constantly getting screened by his own players, getting uncleared rebounds chipped by him, and seeing deflected shots. People fail to realize this. I believe he's lost a bit of focus because he's trying to compensate for a bad defense, and he's overthinking certain things, which spells disaster. His actual skill or reaction time isn't declining. He just has a shatty defense.
- SpeedBlue91

Everything that you just said happens to every goalie in the league except the worst defense part. I do however think that he's still a very good goalie. He's 34 and has a faced a LOT of shots. He's also had several injuries which may also be affecting his play. He may not have a stellar D in front of him but he gives you a chance to win every night.

He certainly isn't having his best statistical year, thats for sure. But people are throwing him under the bus, saying he's done, when he's not. You can't look at just save percentage or goals against and say "thats a bad goalie." He plays behind one of the worst defenses in the league. He's constantly getting screened by his own players, getting uncleared rebounds chipped by him, and seeing deflected shots. People fail to realize this. I believe he's lost a bit of focus because he's trying to compensate for a bad defense, and he's overthinking certain things, which spells disaster. His actual skill or reaction time isn't declining. He just has a shatty defense.
- SpeedBlue91

With all due respect, I disagree. This feels like having a domestic in public, being on this thread rather than the Rangers, but...
Our D is not nearly as bad as it was last season. They are not at the top, don't get me wrong, but they are not "one of the worst defenses in the league." McD is a stud. Skjei, while showing at times he is a rookie, is solid in every zone with crazy potential. Girardi is MUCH better than last year after some time to rest and heal. Staal is slowing for sure, but still great on the PK. Holden is one of the surprises around the league. What a value on his contract. Klein has been a tire fire, for sure. That hurts, because he had been so dependable. And I admit that while he has rebounded, Girardi needs to be sheltered from top pair minutes. Like most of the league, the right side of our D needs help, but the left side is better than most teams.
While some of this takes blame from Lundqvist, he has not been good when needed. I hate to admit it, but being a reactionary goaltender, he looks to me to be showing signs of slowing. That doesn't mean he's done, but I wish I did know what it DOES mean. We have TONS of good goaltending in the system, but no room for them at the top so long as Hank still want so to play here.

With all due respect, I disagree. This feels like having a domestic in public, being on this thread rather than the Rangers, but...

- Tonybere

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

This post is so (frank)ing good I will stamp this a 100%guarantee that tanner wont address it.

This post is so (frank)ing good I will stamp this a 100%guarantee that tanner wont address it.
- Larsson_fan

I don't think addressing that is worth my time, to be honest. It's kind of like when it snows in May and some genius says "See Pa, there ain't no global warmin'"

I don't think addressing that is worth my time, to be honest. It's kind of like when it snows in May and some genius says "See Pa, there ain't no global warmin'"
- James_Tanner

So you're comparing a freak weather event to an occurrence that happens every single season, to many, many players. How many did he list there?

There's a much better argument to be made there, James.

Do you know what you just did there? You contributed to " the conversation is devolving right before our eyes into stupidity and extremism."

Quoted from your blog.

Definitely not. Have you seen Risto's CF%! Never mind that he's 5th in points amongst defensemen, we all know special teams don't matter.
- Wetbandit1

Honest question, when you see multiple stats that 80-90% of the elite defense have in common in this league, and Risto does not perform well in those categories, that doesn't make you question how good he really is?

It's never as simple as "His CF% sucks therefore he sucks"

It's most statistical categories outside basic point production that he struggles with.

I don't think addressing that is worth my time, to be honest. It's kind of like when it snows in May and some genius says "See Pa, there ain't no global warmin'"
- James_Tanner

That's what i expected.

I'll pick a different "advanced stat" next time and do the same thing.

So you're comparing a freak weather event to an occurrence that happens every single season, to many, many players. How many did he list there?

There's a much better argument to be made there, James.

Do you know what you just did there? You contributed to " the conversation is devolving right before our eyes into stupidity and extremism."

Quoted from your blog.
- MJL

.... and I just skimmed the list and picked some names.

I don't think addressing that is worth my time, to be honest. It's kind of like when it snows in May and some genius says "See Pa, there ain't no global warmin'"
- James_Tanner

Wow.
D-bag level 100 achieved.

Honest question, when you see multiple stats that 80-90% of the elite defense have in common in this league, and Risto does not perform well in those categories, that doesn't make you question how good he really is?

It's never as simple as "His CF% sucks therefore he sucks"

It's most statistical categories outside basic point production that he struggles with.
- sbroads24

It is never that simple. not the way most of these advanced stats proponents use these stats.

I think you can look at the number, and consider the reasons why a number may be higher or lower than expected and then look into the reasons why and see what may need to be addressed or changed and/or decide how seriously to take that number?

... We don't get that here though. What we get is BS like, player X is a top # player at his position because his Corsi is ##.##

These advanced stats proponents ALWAYS back off the use of an individuals stat and ALWAYS admit that they are a *tool* for analysis and not the "be-all-end-all".

and then next week they are right back using stats to rank players and argue why one guy is better than another and why GMs are all stupid.


I guaran-(frank)ing-tee if Risto was available on the market every GM In the league would be interested, regardless of those stats.

So you're comparing a freak weather event to an occurrence that happens every single season, to many, many players. How many did he list there?

There's a much better argument to be made there, James.

Do you know what you just did there? You contributed to " the conversation is devolving right before our eyes into stupidity and extremism."

Quoted from your blog.
- MJL

NO. What I did was prevent that from happening. You have no idea.
Yeah, Patrick Laine has a bad Corsi - but NO ONE is evaluating him just based on that. However, even if they were, they'd know that Laine would have to sustain an 80's level shooting-percentage just to be a positive net benifit to his team.

The only people using single numbers and making crazy assumptions based on one stat or another are the people who make preposterous statements to debunk things.

I literally do not care what you think though. You can accuse me of doing what I am speaking out against, but I was very clear: listening to other people does not mean listening to everyone and everything. You have a horrible misunderstanding of how this stuff is used, and you constantly use intellectually dishonest misleading arguments to go against things I say. Therefore, there is no point arguing with you. We are not two equally informed people having a debate. I am informed, you are either not informed or intentionally trolling and there is just no point in arguing with you, or people like you. I cannot address every whacked out idea, but I think I've shown way more patience in dealing with honest misunderstandings than I need to anyways.

I'm not even saying my way is 100% right. I'm just saying when I choose to listen to people who make good arguments that may help me evolve and or change my mind, one of those people will not be you. No offense.

Honest question, when you see multiple stats that 80-90% of the elite defense have in common in this league, and Risto does not perform well in those categories, that doesn't make you question how good he really is?

It's never as simple as "His CF% sucks therefore he sucks"

It's most statistical categories outside basic point production that he struggles with.
- sbroads24

You should just go smash your head into a wall. You'll get better results than trying to reason with him.

Even though you're right. And even though it's somewhat ironic that people say "you can't you just corsi" even though you don't and then they immediately turn around and say he scores a ton of points so he's good. (Note: points are just one stat!!)

It is never that simple. not the way most of these advanced stats proponents use these stats.

I think you can look at the number, and consider the reasons why a number may be higher or lower than expected and then look into the reasons why and see what may need to be addressed or changed and/or decide how seriously to take that number?

... We don't get that here though. What we get is BS like, player X is a top # player at his position because his Corsi is ##.##

These advanced stats proponents ALWAYS back off the use of an individuals stat and ALWAYS admit that they are a *tool* for analysis and not the "be-all-end-all".

and then next week they are right back using stats to rank players and argue why one guy is better than another and why GMs are all stupid.


I guaran-(frank)ing-tee if Risto was available on the market every GM In the league would be interested, regardless of those stats.
- Aetherial

Advanced stats are incredibly mis-used and widely misunderstood. I really think it comes down to a lot factors why. Some people are just analytical by nature and searching for a better way. I don't want to sound arrogant, but I truly wonder if a lot, not all, but a lot, actually understand the game. Some people brilliantly use analytics to make a point. Anytime you start dealing in absolutes, you get into a lot of trouble. Tanner is the poster child for that.