The Lightning are like last year's Penguins - they are expected to do well, so when they do, people assume it's because they're a great team. The expectations are hiding some underlying issues. Not to say they're not a good team but let's see how it goes.

As for the Oilers, I hate their GM, but they've got a deep team a good goalie and the best player in the world. I also think Klefbom is pretty great.
- james_tanner1

In what way are the Oilers deep? No different than the Flames the year prior... you had players with career years and collectively the team thrived.

Fast forward and expectations combined with almost every team around them improving AND adjusting means they came crashing to earth. They will be better than they have shown but save a biblical win streak, they will be hard pressed to make the playoffs.

And yes Talbot is a good goalie where last year he was great... makes a big difference. This needed to be the year they challenged from a cap perspective. When the new contracts kick in, its going to be difficult to fill the team needs with limited cap space.

I'm a little confused.

The Coyotes are the worst team in the league - on pace to be the worst team in the history of the NHL.

But it's too early to pin this blame on Chayka - he's just in the second year of his tenure, and these things take time.

I actually agree with this.

But while it is far too early to judge Chayka on his results, it's not too early to declare him to be one of the best GMs in the league?

It seems to me that we either judge him by his results, or we agree it's too early to judge him by his results.
- Atomic Wedgie

Contradictions galore for Mr. Tanner. He states that Edmonton is a top team, a deep team, with the good goalie and the best player, but their GM stinks. Of course anyone with some common sense knows that it's far too early to blame Chayks. At the same time it's far too early to name him one of the top GM's in the league. YOu have to actually win and win consistently to earn that title.

We also know that if a team is way down in the standings by about Thanksgiving, their chances of making the playoffs dramatically decrease, which Tanner has talked about numerous times. However today he states that people put way too much focus on wins and losses, especially early. Tanner truly believes that leading in various stats columns is more important that actual wins and losses. He is that detached from reality.

He also doesn't understand that being a good GM isn't about being declared the winner of a trade by the bloggers and analysts. It's about building a good team.

Funny thing about this blog is that were the Yotes record all wins and only one regulation loss, Tanner would be smearing a whole bunch of "I told you so's" in our faces. But alas, It's just a whole lot of the same excuses(wash,rinse,repeat) And don't forget to troll a little bit about one of the better teams in the league so you can keep your "hits" up there!

I'm a little confused.

The Coyotes are the worst team in the league - on pace to be the worst team in the history of the NHL.

But it's too early to pin this blame on Chayka - he's just in the second year of his tenure, and these things take time.

I actually agree with this.

But while it is far too early to judge Chayka on his results, it's not too early to declare him to be one of the best GMs in the league?

It seems to me that we either judge him by his results, or we agree it's too early to judge him by his results.
- Atomic Wedgie

I don't think it's too early, being 'one of the best GMs' in pretty easily considering over half of them seem to make it up as they go along, don't understand risk vs reward and believe that if you're over 60 you're pretty much infallible.

Were I to be hired tomorrow to run an NHL team, I'd enter the league as, at worst, a top ten GM.

Contradictions galore for Mr. Tanner. He states that Edmonton is a top team, a deep team, with the good goalie and the best player, but their GM stinks. Of course anyone with some common sense knows that it's far too early to blame Chayks. At the same time it's far too early to name him one of the top GM's in the league. YOu have to actually win and win consistently to earn that title.

We also know that if a team is way down in the standings by about Thanksgiving, their chances of making the playoffs dramatically decrease, which Tanner has talked about numerous times. However today he states that people put way too much focus on wins and losses, especially early. Tanner truly believes that leading in various stats columns is more important that actual wins and losses. He is that detached from reality.

He also doesn't understand that being a good GM isn't about being declared the winner of a trade by the bloggers and analysts. It's about building a good team.
- MJL

Exactly why he can't understand why Nashville makes that trade. He has never understood how hard it is to win the ultimate prize. And dismisses any winners as "lucky" Please explain (mathematically) how Three teams can be lucky enough to win the Stanley cup eight of the last nine years? Seems mathematically to be next to impossible doesn't it?

I don't think it's too early, being 'one of the best GMs' in pretty easily considering over half of them seem to make it up as they go along, don't understand risk vs reward and believe that if you're over 60 you're pretty much infallible.

Were I to be hired tomorrow to run an NHL team, I'd enter the league as, at worst, a top ten GM.
- james_tanner1

This is another one of those comments that we're not supposed to take seriously, correct?

"The fact is, the Coyotes have played 15 games and used four goalies."

So have the Vegas Golden Knights.

This is another one of those comments that we're not supposed to take seriously, correct?

- MJL

The fact that you even have to ask gives me serious reservations about the human race.

"The fact is, the Coyotes have played 15 games and used four goalies."

So have the Vegas Golden Knights.
- Healthy-Scratch

Who happen to have had an incredible run of luck. They will crash back down to earth and finish somewhere in the bottom five, if not 31st.

The fact that you even have to ask gives me serious reservations about the human race.
- james_tanner1

The fact that you think I'm actually asking there gives me serious reservations about the human race.

The fact that you think I'm actually asking there gives me serious reservations about the human race.
- MJL

don't fret.

i think everyone other than tanner got it.

The people who are currently chirping about Chayka have an i-told-you-so air about them and they are ridiculous.
- James_Tanner

You're just upset because you love to be the one saying "I told you so" and can't be. If the Coyotes were off to the start that the Knights are, we wouldn't hear the end of it from you. You're the last person who should be complaining about the "ridiculous" "air" that others have.

I'm saying you'd have to be pretty stupid to criticize a guy 15 games into a season when he's used four goalies and has his star defenseman on the IR.

In the NHL the healthiest team almost always ends up with the best record.
- James_Tanner

Maybe he should've built a team with the depth to overcome injuries, rather than one that could be utterly crippled by them.

The NHL is a salary cap league with 100% parity. Hate to say it, but it's all about 99% luck.
- james_tanner1

You don't hate to say it. You love believing that the NHL is 99% luck because it's a convenient excuse whenever the results don't match your theories. You seem to have no self-awareness that your championing of analytics and your heavy belief in luck are contradictory. If the NHL is "99% luck," then analytics aren't important at all and every argument that you try to make for them is easily refuted. You implied in this blog that the Pens using analytics and having won back-to-back Cups were related, but, if it's all just 99% luck, that gives it a 99% chance that it's simply coincidence that a believer in analytics won back to back.

Also, you repeatedly suggest that the Yotes being as bad as they are is because of goaltending and defensemen injuries, the team being young, the coach being new and every other excuse that you can think of, suggesting that it's not a coincidence... and then turn around and argue that such things account for only 1% of the total picture because the other 99% is luck. Which is it: are they bad because of that litany of reasons or because of bad luck? You need to make up your mind because you lose all credibility and just look like a hypocrite by saying whatever seems like a convenient excuse for what you're responding to, never mind that it contradicts an excuse you made just minutes before.

I don't think it's too early, being 'one of the best GMs' in pretty easily considering over half of them seem to make it up as they go along, don't understand risk vs reward and believe that if you're over 60 you're pretty much infallible.

Were I to be hired tomorrow to run an NHL team, I'd enter the league as, at worst, a top ten GM.
- james_tanner1

Another for the top 10 Tannecdotes for sure, BUT you always give me a good laugh and put a smile on my face. Thanks Tanner!

You're just upset because you love to be the one saying "I told you so" and can't be. If the Coyotes were off to the start that the Knights are, we wouldn't hear the end of it from you. You're the last person who should be complaining about the "ridiculous" "air" that others have.



Maybe he should've built a team with the depth to overcome injuries, rather than one that could be utterly crippled by them.



You don't hate to say it. You love believing that the NHL is 99% luck because it's a convenient excuse whenever the results don't match your theories. You seem to have no self-awareness that your championing of analytics and your heavy belief in luck are contradictory. If the NHL is "99% luck," then analytics aren't important at all and every argument that you try to make for them is easily refuted. You implied in this blog that the Pens using analytics and having won back-to-back Cups were related, but, if it's all just 99% luck, that gives it a 99% chance that it's simply coincidence that a believer in analytics won back to back.

Also, you repeatedly suggest that the Yotes being as bad as they are is because of goaltending and defensemen injuries, the team being young, the coach being new and every other excuse that you can think of, suggesting that it's not a coincidence... and then turn around and argue that such things account for only 1% of the total picture because the other 99% is luck. Which is it: are they bad because of that litany of reasons or because of bad luck? You need to make up your mind because you lose all credibility and just look like a hypocrite by saying whatever seems like a convenient excuse for what you're responding to, never mind that it contradicts an excuse you made just minutes before.
- Osprey

Well done! Wish I had posted this. Pretty much sums it up.

Call it what you want, they have some underlying issues.

16th in corsi/possession

under 50% Corsi

3rd in PDO (owing to 3rd highest 5v5 shooting percentage)

Kucherov is scoring a goal per game and shooting a ridiculous 25%

No one can sustain a 28% power-play success rate.

So while they'll still be with Toronto, Columbus and Edmonton as one of the best teams in the NHL, they are way, way overperforming.
- james_tanner1

The Kings were 1st in the NHL in CF% for each of the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2015-17 seasons by a substantial margin. They missed the playoffs in two out of three of those seasons, and only won 1 playoff game in the third.

This season, they are 14th in the NHL (compared to Tampa's 16th), and they are best in the West 1/5 of the way through the season.

Their PDO was at 1000 or below in each of the past three seasons, while their PDO this season is nearly 1030.

So by your logic, the Kings were playing much better hockey under Darryl Sutter for the past 3 years than they have been this year, and they've just gotten really lucky so far this season, while having terrible luck for the past 3 years.

Not sure I buy it.

Well done! Wish I had posted this. Pretty much sums it up.

- MJL

I read half of it and thought it was you the whole time.. haha

The Kings were 1st in the NHL in CF% for each of the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2015-17 seasons by a substantial margin. They missed the playoffs in two out of three of those seasons, and only won 1 playoff game in the third.

This season, they are 14th in the NHL (compared to Tampa's 16th), and they are best in the West 1/5 of the way through the season.

Their PDO was at 1000 or below in each of the past three seasons, while their PDO this season is nearly 1030.

So by your logic, the Kings were playing much better hockey under Darryl Sutter for the past 3 years than they have been this year, and they've just gotten really lucky so far this season, while having terrible luck for the past 3 years.

Not sure I buy it.
- tkecanuck341

This is why anecdotal evidence is bad evidence. You can't just take one example and say if something works or not. ON the whole, corsi-for percentage correlates to winning better than anything else other than goal differential.

Almost all of the 'Tanner you're so stupid, here's why" comments come from people having no clue about probabilities.

The probability that a team would lead the NHL in CF for three years in a row and miss the playoffs is likely incredibly low. I doubt if it's ever even happened before. But it's obviously not zero.

Someone above asked how you can use analytics but then talk about luck, but the two go hand in hand. If a team has a 60% win probability and they lose, they got unlucky.

But if you always bet whenever there was a 60% chance of winning, you'd make a ton of money over the long term.

If people thought about analytics in terms of poker, we'd all be better off. I think everyone can understand that if you were to go all in with AA vs A2 you're over 90% to win, but when you do lose, which you will sometimes, you got unlucky.

I read half of it and thought it was you the whole time.. haha
- james_tanner1

If I was you I would have quit reading it half way through also. Let's see if you can make a credible response.

This is why anecdotal evidence is bad evidence. You can't just take one example and say if something works or not. ON the whole, corsi-for percentage correlates to winning better than anything else other than goal differential.

Almost all of the 'Tanner you're so stupid, here's why" comments come from people having no clue about probabilities.

The probability that a team would lead the NHL in CF for three years in a row and miss the playoffs is likely incredibly low. I doubt if it's ever even happened before. But it's obviously not zero.

Someone above asked how you can use analytics but then talk about luck, but the two go hand in hand. If a team has a 60% win probability and they lose, they got unlucky.

But if you always bet whenever there was a 60% chance of winning, you'd make a ton of money over the long term.

If people thought about analytics in terms of poker, we'd all be better off. I think everyone can understand that if you were to go all in with AA vs A2 you're over 90% to win, but when you do lose, which you will sometimes, you got unlucky.
- james_tanner1

s is another one of your tactics. The only flaw here is that what he offered is not anecdotal. He offered facts. This is another one of your tactics. "What I say is true most of the time, disregard that it's not true this time" . There's that self awareness roaring it's ugly head again.

This is why anecdotal evidence is bad evidence. You can't just take one example and say if something works or not. ON the whole, corsi-for percentage correlates to winning better than anything else other than goal differential.

Almost all of the 'Tanner you're so stupid, here's why" comments come from people having no clue about probabilities.

The probability that a team would lead the NHL in CF for three years in a row and miss the playoffs is likely incredibly low. I doubt if it's ever even happened before. But it's obviously not zero.

Someone above asked how you can use analytics but then talk about luck, but the two go hand in hand. If a team has a 60% win probability and they lose, they got unlucky.

But if you always bet whenever there was a 60% chance of winning, you'd make a ton of money over the long term.

If people thought about analytics in terms of poker, we'd all be better off. I think everyone can understand that if you were to go all in with AA vs A2 you're over 90% to win, but when you do lose, which you will sometimes, you got unlucky.
- james_tanner1

The three teams that lead the NHL so far this year in CF%.

1. Carolina
2. Edmonton
3. Montreal

Those teams position in the standings so far this year:

24. Montreal
26. Carolina
29. Edmonton

Look, I'm not trying to say that advanced stats are meaningless. Quite the opposite, I think they can be incredibly telling when used effectively. However, a lot of the time you use the argument that a team is "good" but "unlucky" when they have a high CF% and low PDO, while using the opposite argument that a team is "bad" but "incredibly lucky" when they have a low CF% and high PDO. There are just too many counterexamples to keep making this argument.

Bottom line in professional sports is that it's a result based business! It's irrelevant if the stats say we should be doing this or should be doing that.....if you're not getting it done, you're going to take heat! You can throw out all the fancy stats you want...if it's not translating to wins, jobs are on the line!

31st in a 31 team league...this is the NHL there is gonna be criticism

So the Oilers are a deep team, have a good goalie and top players but the GM sucks. Makes sense.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.
- MJL

The Oilers have a few good players from sucking balls and winning lotteries...and even that wasn't enough because their idiot GM has capped them out without any depth

The NHL is a salary cap league with 100% parity. Hate to say it, but it's all about 99% luck.
- james_tanner1

Tanner, you take my last comment down? Just a simple chirp about how winning a best of 7 series is luck. Ya maybe one game from a bad bounce or missed call, but winning a cup is an absolute grind that requires all hands-on-deck. Thats why Chi, LA, and Pitts have been regulars the past decade. I'm starting to think your wild ideas are so out there, you might actually be Bryzgalov. You want to ban slap shots too bud?????

The Oilers have a few good players from sucking balls and winning lotteries...and even that wasn't enough because their idiot GM has capped them out without any depth
- flashfire

Edmonton is sitting with currently over 10M in available cap space.