BREAKING NEWS!

FORESTS HAVE TREES AND ROCKS AND STUFF IN THEM

Holy ___ do you? Jake Gardiner is having a career year and has been one of the best players in the NHL this season.
- James_Tanner

You really need to pay closer attention to the games and get your nose out of the spreadsheets! Gardiner is a capable offensive player and less then capable defender with questionable decision making abilities. To call him one of the best players in the NHL this year is an insult to a lot of other players.

You really need to pay closer attention to the games and get your nose out of the spreadsheets! Gardiner is a capable offensive player and less then capable defender with questionable decision making abilities. To call him one of the best players in the NHL this year is an insult to a lot of other players.
- hagar58

Not one of the best players, but he's been pretty good.

He's very possibly actually bad at defense. If there are two dmen, both have a CF of 50%, one has a CF and CA per 60 of 40, the other has a CF and CA against of 80, who is better at defending?

Just because someone drives more shots, to compensate for giving up a poop tonne of them, doesn't mean they're good at defending. It means they're sacrificing defense for offense. And there are players that play like that, that frequently give up lots of odd man rushes. Those are the kinds of things that more frequently end up at the back of their own net.
- prock

Neither is better at defending based on what you have provided.

Neither is better at defending based on what you have provided.
- Feds91Stammer

oh? So the guy that gives up twice as many chances is not better at defending?

Great.

This is the problem with people who take advanced stats too far. They get flat out stupid about it.

Just because someone drives more shots, to compensate for giving up a poop tonne of them, doesn't mean they're good at defending. It means they're sacrificing defense for offense. And there are players that play like that, that frequently give up lots of odd man rushes. Those are the kinds of things that more frequently end up at the back of their own net.
- prock

A lot of people who push advanced statistics don't seem to understand this. They just believe that high Corsi means "great at defense." They don't actually look more closely to see what's really going on.

Muzzin, whom Tanner has on his list, is a great example of the type of player that you described. He always has one of the best Corsis among defenders on his team, but also always has one of the worst GA/60 and SV%, suggesting that he gives up high-quality chances. For example, this season, he's been on the ice at 5v5 for a team-worst 54 goals against and only 38 goals for. So, this supposed "#1 defenseman" is actually hurting his team at even strength a lot more than he's helping. All of those shot attempts that contribute to him having such a high Corsi are all for nothing, nothing but stat padding, when the actual goals for and against paint a different picture.

A lot of people who push advanced statistics don't seem to understand this. They just believe that high Corsi means "great at defense." They don't actually look more closely to see what's really going on.

Muzzin, whom Tanner has on his list, is a great example of the type of player that you described. He always has one of the best Corsis among defenders on his team, but also always has one of the worst GA/60 and SV%, suggesting that he gives up high-quality chances. For example, this season, he's been on the ice at 5v5 for a team-worst 54 goals against and only 38 goals for. So, this supposed "#1 defenseman" is actually hurting his team at even strength a lot more than he's helping. All of those shot attempts that contribute to him having such a high Corsi are all for nothing, nothing but stat padding, when the actual goals for and against paint a different picture.
- Osprey

You're making the classic analytical mistake of basing your information off of results and not process. A player has barely anything to do with his goalie's save percentage.

A lot of people who push advanced statistics don't seem to understand this. They just believe that high Corsi means "great at defense." They don't actually look more closely to see what's really going on.

Muzzin, whom Tanner has on his list, is a great example of the type of player that you described. He always has one of the best Corsis among defenders on his team, but also always has one of the worst GA/60 and SV%, suggesting that he gives up high-quality chances. For example, this season, he's been on the ice at 5v5 for a team-worst 54 goals against and only 38 goals for. So, this supposed "#1 defenseman" is actually hurting his team at even strength a lot more than he's helping. All of those shot attempts that contribute to him having such a high Corsi are all for nothing, nothing but stat padding, when the actual goals for and against paint a different picture.
- Osprey

This.

I would bet my paycheck Tanner will say he is "unlucky" because he has a low PDO, but in actuality it's because of this.

You're making the classic analytical mistake of basing your information off of results and not process. A player has barely anything to do with his goalie's save percentage.
- James_Tanner

That is a ridiculous assertion. The players are the ones that determine what type of shot and from where the shot is taken which makes a massive difference on which shots are stopped and which are not.

This is why you're clueless.

You're making the classic analytical mistake of basing your information off of results and not process. A player has barely anything to do with his goalie's save percentage.
- James_Tanner

Muzzin spends a lot of time chasing the play in his own zone, and is known to lose his man a couple times a game. In their last game against Minnesota, Niederreiter's goal is just the most recent example. Muzzin was chasing the play and left Nino wide open in front of the net. That absolutely has an effect on his goalie's SV%.

You're making the classic analytical mistake of basing your information off of results and not process. A player has barely anything to do with his goalie's save percentage.
- James_Tanner

You're making the classic analytical mistake of not using results to check process. It's akin to forming hypotheses based on data and then never actually testing those hypotheses. How do you know that your interpretation of the "process" is correct if you never compare it to results? By dismissing results whenever they're brought up, in favor of your interpretation of process, you're just saying that what you want to believe is more important than anything.

As for save percentage, if players have barely have anything to do with it, why does Muzzin have one of the worst SV% on his team four years in a row? Is it coincidence?

You're making the classic analytical mistake of not using results to check process. It's akin to forming hypotheses based on data and then never actually testing those hypotheses. How do you know that your interpretation of the "process" is correct if you never compare it to results? By dismissing results whenever they're brought up, in favor of your interpretation of process, you're just saying that what you want to believe is more important than anything.

As for save percentage, if players have barely have anything to do with it, why does Muzzin have one of the worst SV% on his team four years in a row? Is it coincidence?
- Osprey

What he said.

That is a ridiculous assertion. The players are the ones that determine what type of shot and from where the shot is taken which makes a massive difference on which shots are stopped and which are not.

This is why you're clueless.
- NugentHallberle

No, it's why you're clueless. You guys simply do not understand big data sample sizes, probabilities or anomalies. Trust me when I say you do not understand what you're talking about. You aren't onto something the entire analytics community has missed.

Also Jake Muzzin has two Stanley Cups, made Team Canada and I find it hilarious that you don't know this stuff and you're calling me clueless.

Get a grip.

You're making the classic analytical mistake of not using results to check process. It's akin to forming hypotheses based on data and then never actually testing those hypotheses. How do you know that your interpretation of the "process" is correct if you never compare it to results? By dismissing results whenever they're brought up, in favor of your interpretation of process, you're just saying that what you want to believe is more important than anything.

As for save percentage, if players have barely have anything to do with it, why does Muzzin have one of the worst SV% on his team four years in a row? Is it coincidence?
- Osprey

Yes. It actually is.

Muzzin spends a lot of time chasing the play in his own zone, and is known to lose his man a couple times a game. In their last game against Minnesota, Niederreiter's goal is just the most recent example. Muzzin was chasing the play and left Nino wide open in front of the net. That absolutely has an effect on his goalie's SV%.
- PancakesPenner

This is called confirmation bias. It's remembering one single play and then applying it to stand in for your entire argument. This is also the logical fallacy of making an anecdotal argument.

No, it's why you're clueless. You guys simply do not understand big data sample sizes, probabilities or anomalies. Trust me when I say you do not understand what you're talking about. You aren't onto something the entire analytics community has missed.

Also Jake Muzzin has two Stanley Cups, made Team Canada and I find it hilarious that you don't know this stuff and you're calling me clueless.

Get a grip.
- james_tanner1

Kyle Clifford also has two Cups, so using Cup wins as a reason for Muzzin being a top 30 D is ridiculous. As far as him making Team Canada, he's a top 30 because the people who put together that team picked him? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, which you bring up all the time.

This is called confirmation bias. It's remembering one single play and then applying it to stand in for your entire argument. This is also the logical fallacy of making an anecdotal argument.
- james_tanner1

That was citing a specific example to support his thesis. Your middle name is confirmation bias.

No, it's why you're clueless. You guys simply do not understand big data sample sizes, probabilities or anomalies. Trust me when I say you do not understand what you're talking about. You aren't onto something the entire analytics community has missed.

Also Jake Muzzin has two Stanley Cups, made Team Canada and I find it hilarious that you don't know this stuff and you're calling me clueless.

Get a grip.
- james_tanner1

I understand them just fine, I probably took more of those courses during my engineering degree than your fake English degree.

Not saying analytics community has missed anything, they simply choose to ignore it... Or at least you do. It's not coincidence and it's not bad luck. Your process isn't perfect yet you treat it as if it's foolproof and anything that doesn't fit your narrative is attributed to PDO or coincidence.

Jake Muzzin made Team Canada and played one game in the World Cup... Weird how guys like Weber and Pietrangelo, who didn't make your list, played all 6 games.

Kyle Clifford also has two Cups, so using Cup wins as a reason for Muzzin being a top 30 D is ridiculous. As far as him making Team Canada, he's a top 30 because the people who put together that team picked him? Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, which you bring up all the time.
- PancakesPenner

Using cups and team Canada roster spots to define a player's Worth. Funny seeing James do that. Memory of a fish.

No, it's why you're clueless. You guys simply do not understand big data sample sizes, probabilities or anomalies. Trust me when I say you do not understand what you're talking about. You aren't onto something the entire analytics community has missed.

Also Jake Muzzin has two Stanley Cups, made Team Canada and I find it hilarious that you don't know this stuff and you're calling me clueless.
- james_tanner1

Muzzin has only one Stanley Cup, not two, and you're calling other people clueless for not knowing this "stuff."

This is called confirmation bias. It's remembering one single play and then applying it to stand in for your entire argument. This is also the logical fallacy of making an anecdotal argument.
- james_tanner1

This is called a comprehension problem... or you're willfully twisting his argument. He quite clearly stated his argument and, then, in his own words, "just the most recent example" to support it. That's simply good argumentation, but the way that you turned that into "remembering one single play and then applying it to stand in for your entire argument" says more about how you choose to argue, not with solid evidence, but by twisting the other person's argument to suit your bias against it. In a way, you're the one applying the confirmation bias.