I think what's even stupider is the idea that I would think mentioning David Rundblad would be at all controversial. Like, how would I even begin to possibly think anyone would care?
The fact is, I do a lot of my writing based on, looking into and talking about stats. David Rundblad happens to have either be a) that one player where the stats are crazy wrong, or b) massively underappreciated.
Either way, that is interesting to me. But to think I would intentionally try to start a "David Rundblad Controversy" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.
- James_Tanner
James, I'm a believer in advanced stats, analytics and metrics. In general, and in a large enough sample size, they support the efficacy of players both as individuals and, more importantly, within systems. But I also believe you cannot look at stats alone. You can't ignore the eye test any more than you can ignore statistics. In sports, but especially in hockey, some players provide intangibles that are either immeasurable, or for which we have not invented the appropriate statistic.
In this case, if you choose to focus on Rundblad's stats, you should also consider his TOI and games played, because those categories make it obvious that (3-Time Stanley Cup Winning) Head Coach Joel Quenneville had no confidence in him. Or you can cue up just about any game the Blackhawks played and you could see what a complete and utter train wreck Rundblad had been as a Blackhawk.
