To be honest, I would pay money to watch that guy decimate the arguments put on this board about advanced stats. That guy is extremely knowledgeable, dedicated and smart. If he says Vlasic is the best all-round defenseman or that Chris Tanev is the tenth best in the NHL, people best be listening.
- James_Tanner

RelCorsi & RelTMCorsi = Cassettes

qndCoris & xGD60RelTM = CD’s

I think we’re still one giant leap away from MP3 players; but in the meantime, it’s time for you to move out of the 1980’s of advanced stats.

You telling other people how to evaluate hockey players is the absolute best. Please never stop.
- James_Tanner

First of all, you're wrong again. I'm not telling anyone how to evaluate hockey players, I'm just giving my opinion. Secondly, this is another in a long list of posts you've made, that bring zero value to the conversation. Whenever someone makes a post contrary to your beliefs on analytics, you act like an 8 year old who was just told Santa Clause isn't real!

To be honest, I would pay money to watch that guy decimate the arguments put on this board about advanced stats. That guy is extremely knowledgeable, dedicated and smart. If he says Vlasic is the best all-round defenseman or that Chris Tanev is the tenth best in the NHL, people best be listening.
- James_Tanner

James, you've claimed in recent posts that you are "in" the analytics community, and have spent a lot of time extensively researching analytics. So why can't you decimate the arguments put on this board?

James, you've claimed in recent posts that you are "in" the analytics community, and have spent a lot of time extensively researching analytics. So why can't you decimate the arguments put on this board?
- MJL

How is it even possible that you make hockey unfun? Consider this our last exchange.

How is it even possible that you make hockey unfun? Consider this our last exchange.
- James_Tanner

How is it even possible that you make hockey unfun? Consider this our last exchange.
- James_Tanner

Why does this bother you so much? How can you claim to have interest in a subject, and then when presented with an opposing/more advanced/different opinion, you get frustrated and leave?

You don't have to know everything on the subject. You don't have to claim to either. When you have passion in a subject, you should want to discuss or debate it. Professing it, only to run away when someone challenges your knowledge is a sign of a character flaw.

I'm willing to bet those you try to reference probably discuss these things fairly often. I'm betting they even debate it with people. It forces people to defend their arguments. It makes them think. And sometimes, it even makes them think of better points. Sometimes, losing an argument, can actually lead to advances in the field.

Until you get some humility, and patience, you'll never truly be respected for your knowledge in it, or your writing either for that matter.

How is it even possible that you make hockey unfun? Consider this our last exchange.
- James_Tanner

That's a shame James. There's a real opportunity for some good discussion and ideas, if you would just open your mind a little. You don't have to have a PHD in statistical analysis to understand some very basic concepts of both the flaws, and usefulness of analytics. Objectivity, and balance is very important. I don't claim to be an expert on analytics, but I do understand the game of hockey pretty well. The nature of the game, along with the current data collection methods available, are the biggest issues with analytics.

He is sound defensively, but the other team rarely has the puck when he's on the ice anyways

-JTanner

I don't get how you say this....no player has the puck so much that the other team rarely has it?

What does CF60 58.92 and CA60 55.12 mean by the way? Is that Shot for/against per 60 mins played?

So every game Taylor gets less than 1 extra shot against the opposition then what they get against him?

He plays 15 mins 5v5 avg and he gets 3.87 every 60....so he's so dominant he almost gets 1 extra shot per game. Did I calculate that right?

But the other team rarely has the puck?

He is sound defensively, but the other team rarely has the puck when he's on the ice anyways

-JTanner

I don't get how you say this....no player has the puck so much that the other team rarely has it?

What does CF60 58.92 and CA60 55.12 mean by the way? Is that Shot for/against per 60 mins played?

So every game Taylor gets less than 1 extra shot against the opposition then what they get against him?

He plays 15 mins 5v5 avg and he gets 3.87 every 60....so he's so dominant he almost gets 1 extra shot per game. Did I calculate that right?

But the other team rarely has the puck?
- Garnie

That was just another example of hyperbole. It's actually a 3.8 shot attempt difference.

That was just another example of hyperbole. It's actually a 3.8 shot attempt difference.
- MJL

Per 60 mins played 5v5?

that would be less than 1 shot per game as he only plays about 15 mins/game?

Per 60 mins played 5v5?

that would be less than 1 shot per game as he only plays about 15 mins/game?
- Garnie

I get what you're saying now. They use per 60 to try and make it equal for every player, for comparison purposes.

At 5 on 5 hockey, last season Taylor Hall was on the ice for 1261 shot attempts for, and 1163 shot attempts against, for the entire season.

Per 60 mins played 5v5?

that would be less than 1 shot per game as he only plays about 15 mins/game?
- Garnie

*waits for tanner to re-define the word ‘rarely’….

They use per 60 to try and make it equal for every player, for comparison purposes.

At 5 on 5 hockey, last season Taylor Hall was on the ice for 1261 shot attempts for, and 1163 shot attempts against, for the entire season.
- MJL

oh...so my math was off I guess...but it's still just over 1 shot/game.

oh...so my math was off I guess...but it's still just over 1 shot/game.
- Garnie

Yes.

*waits for tanner to re-define the word ‘rarely’….
- Tumbleweed

in fairness, while that sounds insignificant, it's not. The difference between the worst team in the league's average shots allowed per game, and the best, was 5.5. So, 4ish isn't an overly small number.

Which is also why people who lean on "it's only the first 10 seconds after a faceoff that impacts posession" when discussing zone starts. It sounds small, but, given that there are 60 faceoffs a game, some quick math will tell you that's a decent portion of a game.

Not remotely close to qualifying as "rarely" though.

Hopefully, Dustin Byfuglien's incompetence in his own zone tonight will send this blogger back to the drawing board, because he obviously has no clue about this game.

Yes, Buff is a prolific offensive defenseman with a cannon shot, but is sloppy and lazy in his own zone, takes dumb penalties and has been exposed badly tonight. Yet this blogger has waxed eloquent about the greatness of Byfuglien for 2 weeks now. This blogger is the type of person you see grading youth hockey tryouts and gets memorized by flash and sizzle, but can't recognize who the good players REALLY are.

Hopefully, Dustin Byfuglien's incompetence in his own zone tonight will send this blogger back to the drawing board, because he obviously has no clue about this game.

Yes, Buff is a prolific offensive defenseman with a cannon shot, but is sloppy and lazy in his own zone, takes dumb penalties and has been exposed badly tonight. Yet this blogger has waxed eloquent about the greatness of Byfuglien for 2 weeks now. This blogger is the type of person you see grading youth hockey tryouts and gets memorized by flash and sizzle, but can't recognize who the good players REALLY are.
- kwolf68

Yes, the 1st CAN goal had Buff's stink all over it. He let his check get between him and the net, to perfectly receive the carom off the end boards. There is a reason Q didn't play Buff on D.

And team NA didn't look so hot against the Russians. I expect SWE to send them home.

in fairness, while that sounds insignificant, it's not. The difference between the worst team in the league's average shots allowed per game, and the best, was 5.5. So, 4ish isn't an overly small number.

Which is also why people who lean on "it's only the first 10 seconds after a faceoff that impacts posession" when discussing zone starts. It sounds small, but, given that there are 60 faceoffs a game, some quick math will tell you that's a decent portion of a game.

Not remotely close to qualifying as "rarely" though.
- prock

Fair enough. We're talking shot attempts, but i'm sure the logic holds up.

I've always questioned the blanket application of the 10 second rule of thumb, but discussion for another day.

Fair enough. We're talking shot attempts, but i'm sure the logic holds up.

I've always questioned the blanket application of the 10 second rule of thumb, but discussion for another day.
- Tumbleweed

True. It's still a decent diff. even if half turn out to be on net, it's still enough to take a team from league basement to wildcard territory.

Fair enough. We're talking shot attempts, but i'm sure the logic holds up.

I've always questioned the blanket application of the 10 second rule of thumb, but discussion for another day.
- Tumbleweed

The 10 second rule is arbitrary. The 10 second part anyway. There is some research on it, but its basically an average amount of time from faceoff to event. I'm not so sure "average" is actually the correct term because the time will fluctuate and it doesn't matter if it changes. They had to apply some measure to it, right? It should just be referred to as the first event after a faceoff because that's all it means.

Why does this bother you so much? How can you claim to have interest in a subject, and then when presented with an opposing/more advanced/different opinion, you get frustrated and leave?

You don't have to know everything on the subject. You don't have to claim to either. When you have passion in a subject, you should want to discuss or debate it. Professing it, only to run away when someone challenges your knowledge is a sign of a character flaw.

I'm willing to bet those you try to reference probably discuss these things fairly often. I'm betting they even debate it with people. It forces people to defend their arguments. It makes them think. And sometimes, it even makes them think of better points. Sometimes, losing an argument, can actually lead to advances in the field.

Until you get some humility, and patience, you'll never truly be respected for your knowledge in it, or your writing either for that matter.
- prock

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the poster. Dispite constant arguments which can only be described as pedantic and sophistic, I come here every day and back up what I write.

Today, (or yesterday I guess) the argument made no sense. Perhaps it's because I only skim read or skip outright what certain posters write, but nothing of the past page or so has made any sense to me.

Certainly of ALL the things you could say about me, that I wont discuss things when people challenge or disagree with me is a lie worthy of Trump.

ON the other hand MLJ has started to make me physically sick, so it's not a case of acting like a baby, it's a case of that guy is ridiculous on 10000 levels and I will no longer be entertaining his posts.

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the poster. Dispite constant arguments which can only be described as pedantic and sophistic, I come here every day and back up what I write.

Today, (or yesterday I guess) the argument made no sense. Perhaps it's because I only skim read or skip outright what certain posters write, but nothing of the past page or so has made any sense to me.

Certainly of ALL the things you could say about me, that I wont discuss things when people challenge or disagree with me is a lie worthy of Trump.

ON the other hand MLJ has started to make me physically sick, so it's not a case of acting like a baby, it's a case of that guy is ridiculous on 10000 levels and I will no longer be entertaining his posts.
- JTanner

There was nothing ridiculous about what he posted. All of the conversation offered in the last few days, has been very reasonable, and well thought out. I do give you credit, for coming on the blog, and interacting, probably a lot more than any other blogger, but that's just a guess.
James, what is so ridiculous about asking you if the HERO charts you like to post, use score adjusted data? What is so ridiculous about stating that analytics should not be the only method used to evaluate players? What is so ridiculous in discussing the obvious flaws that a stat like corsi has? I think what is ridiculous is, instead of addressing those points reasonably, you degrade the thread into conversation that has zero to do with the actual topic, and make it personal. That's telling.

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the poster. Dispite constant arguments which can only be described as pedantic and sophistic, I come here every day and back up what I write.

Today, (or yesterday I guess) the argument made no sense. Perhaps it's because I only skim read or skip outright what certain posters write, but nothing of the past page or so has made any sense to me.

Certainly of ALL the things you could say about me, that I wont discuss things when people challenge or disagree with me is a lie worthy of Trump.

ON the other hand MLJ has started to make me physically sick, so it's not a case of acting like a baby, it's a case of that guy is ridiculous on 10000 levels and I will no longer be entertaining his posts.
- JTanner

If you really wanted to make this post impactful, you should have gone with a bigger exaggeration and said it was a lie on Hillary's level.

#stopmisusingherocharts

This is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the poster. Dispite constant arguments which can only be described as pedantic and sophistic, I come here every day and back up what I write.

Today, (or yesterday I guess) the argument made no sense. Perhaps it's because I only skim read or skip outright what certain posters write, but nothing of the past page or so has made any sense to me.

Certainly of ALL the things you could say about me, that I wont discuss things when people challenge or disagree with me is a lie worthy of Trump.

ON the other hand MLJ has started to make me physically sick, so it's not a case of acting like a baby, it's a case of that guy is ridiculous on 10000 levels and I will no longer be entertaining his posts.
- JTanner

No, you don't really back it up. Frequently, several posters have provided evidence to the contrary, and references backing it up, and you get mad, tuck tail, and run. Then call it all lies, and tell them they refuse to listen.

He's not acting like a baby. if anyone is, it's you. The minute anyone disputes what you say, you get angry.

Anyone truly interested, knowledgeable, and passionate about a subject, would be all too happy to discuss it. You try to lecture it, get shot down, and get angry.

Every person you've personally attacked has tried to comment reasonably here. do you really wonder why you're not taken seriously by 90% of the posters here?