QoC doesn't matter over the long-term in analyzing players. All the road/home differences even out over time.

QoC completely matters game-to-game. Home coaches should absolutely be using last change to gain favorable match-ups - it makes a difference.

Do i win?

QoC doesn't matter over the long-term in analyzing players. All the road/home differences even out over time.

QoC completely matters game-to-game. Home coaches should absolutely be using last change to gain favorable match-ups - it makes a difference.

Do i win?
- Tumbleweed

No you lose

So if QOC affects the stats on 1 shift, they effect the stats every game which means they effect the stats in the long run.

You know 911 was an inside job? I have seen the expert analysis and testimony.
Did you know that 911 was not an inside job? I have also seen the expert analysis and testimony.

QoC doesn't matter over the long-term in analyzing players. All the road/home differences even out over time.

QoC completely matters game-to-game. Home coaches should absolutely be using last change to gain favorable match-ups - it makes a difference.

Do i win?
- Tumbleweed

Yes.

No you lose

So if QOC affects the stats on 1 shift, they effect the stats every game which means they effect the stats in the long run.

You know 911 was an inside job? I have seen the expert analysis and testimony.
Did you know that 911 was not an inside job? I have also seen the expert analysis and testimony.



- Garnie

Yes.
- PepinoPamplemousse

QoC doesn't matter over the long-term in analyzing players. All the road/home differences even out over time.

QoC completely matters game-to-game. Home coaches do absolutely use last change to gain favorable match-ups - it makes a difference.

Do i win?
- Tumbleweed

Both points are correct. Problem is the 2nd point is not considered in Tanner's original argument which used the long-term "average" of home/road splits to generate the premise that QoC doesn't have an affect on underlying statistics.

Problem with the first point is taking the "average" still won't tell the real story about the value of a player. Specifically speaking if a player only "thrives" under ideal home conditions with ideal matchups just how "valuable" is said player? The stats of such with a thriving player at home averaging out with a liability on the road will point to an average if not slightly above-average player but in hockey terms said player is more liability than star simply b/c said player relies on ideal matchups to find success.

Also fixed the bold

But for argument's sake I will call you the winner and move on. Life is too short for this poop

Both points are correct. Problem is the 2nd point is not considered in Tanner's original argument which used the long-term "average" of home/road splits to generate the premise that QoC doesn't have an affect on underlying statistics.

Problem with the first point is taking the "average" still won't tell the real story about the value of a player. Specifically speaking if a player only "thrives" under ideal home conditions with ideal matchups just how "valuable" is said player? The stats of such with a thriving player at home averaging out with a liability on the road will point to an average if not slightly above-average player but in hockey terms said player is more liability than star simply b/c said player relies on ideal matchups to find success.

Also fixed the bold

But for argument's sake I will call you the winner and move on. Life is too short for this poop
- uf1910

yeah - to me the data is there not to tell you if a player is good or bad.

it's there to tell you why a player is good or bad - as you point out with players thriving under certain conditions. the more you dive into it, the more you'll find out.

- Tumbleweed

Sorry, I know it hurts.

Sorry, I know it hurts.
- Garnie

but that's why you need to dive into the data and look at additional details at an individual player level

Both points are correct. Problem is the 2nd point is not considered in Tanner's original argument which used the long-term "average" of home/road splits to generate the premise that QoC doesn't have an affect on underlying statistics.

Problem with the first point is taking the "average" still won't tell the real story about the value of a player. Specifically speaking if a player only "thrives" under ideal home conditions with ideal matchups just how "valuable" is said player? The stats of such with a thriving player at home averaging out with a liability on the road will point to an average if not slightly above-average player but in hockey terms said player is more liability than star simply b/c said player relies on ideal matchups to find success.

Also fixed the bold

But for argument's sake I will call you the winner and move on. Life is too short for this poop
- uf1910

In the original blog, it says in like one of the first paragraphs that you can for sure 100% get favorable matchups. I don't know why we're arguing.

The entire point is that you can't look at a player and make the excuse that he plays tough competition so fairly has bad stats. Just like you can't look at a player, say his minutes are easy and ignore his good stats.

Whatever you're on about with home/road is beyond me. It seems like you're just agreeing with me in an awkward and pedantic way.