you are not in that category
- blueshirts_fan

Writers?

They first draft copy I can turn out is in fact why I'm objectively speaking one of the best writers alive today.
- James_Tanner

Do you have any stats to back this up? I’ve only looked at the results and they don’t support this claim.

Do you have any stats to back this up? I’ve only looked at the results and they don’t support this claim.
- Tannerisanidiot

The Mendoza line is an expression in baseball deriving from the name of shortstop Mario Mendoza, whose poor batting average is taken to define the threshold of incompetent hitting. The cutoff point is most often said to be .200[1] (although Mendoza's career average was .215) and, when a position player's batting average falls below that level, the player is said to be "below the Mendoza Line". This is often thought of as the offensive threshold below which a player's presence on a Major League Baseball team cannot be justified, regardless of his defensive abilities. The term is used in other contexts when one is so incompetent in one key skill that other skills cannot compensate for that deficiency.

But for judging Tanner's writing skills, I suggest using the poverty line.

James you should swap teams with Ryan Wilson for a bit. I love this.

Tanner blogging under a different teams banner again. Whose taking bets on how long until it's locked and he's banished to sit in the corner again?

The Mendoza line is an expression in baseball deriving from the name of shortstop Mario Mendoza, whose poor batting average is taken to define the threshold of incompetent hitting. The cutoff point is most often said to be .200
- Atomic Wedgie[1] (although Mendoza's career average was .215) and, when a position player's batting average falls below that level, the player is said to be "below the Mendoza Line". This is often thought of as the offensive threshold below which a player's presence on a Major League Baseball team cannot be justified, regardless of his defensive abilities. The term is used in other contexts when one is so incompetent in one key skill that other skills cannot compensate for that deficiency.

But for judging Tanner's writing skills, I suggest using the poverty line.

Gold, Jerry!!!

Tanner blogging under a different teams banner again. Whose taking bets on how long until it's locked and he's banished to sit in the corner again?
- leafsfann

The rules are that if breaking news occurs, you've got to give that team's blogger 24 hours exclusive to cover it before writing your opinion. But I just want to write a random Oilers blog I'm allowed to, as long as it's not at the expense of covering the Coyotes.

If threads get locked thats on your guys. If I do something bad they'll take down m blog, not lock the thread.

Do you have any stats to back this up? I’ve only looked at the results and they don’t support this claim.
- Tannerisanidiot

Four years ago you made a screen name using my name, and are still coming here and using it.

Hockey is a depth-driven game more than a star-driven one. At least at the top levels.

I read the article that you source for depth vs star power and it was very interesting but I don't think it tells a complete picture to definitively say that star power>depth. I think one major issue is that what the stats and you define as depth isn't the same definition as what is generally used. Its not really hard to see that having a better top player is more important than the #12 forward, but I don't think anyone that would argue for depth over star power would try to argue that having a better 4th line than the other team is more important than having a better top line. Also there is only 1 example of a weak link team and from my understanding of the soccer study, it doesn't really give an apples to apples comparison to hockey. The 11th best player on a soccer team is more equivalent to probably your weakest top 6 forward or weakest top 4 dman. They have limited subs per game so squad rotation on a game to game basis is more a measure of depth in soccer than a starter. Would soccer still be considered a weak link game over the long run if it compared the top player to a backup? Would hockey still be considered a strong link if it only factored in game events of players on the ice? (Best and worst player on the ice vs on the team) It would also be interesting to see how this apllied long term to the playoffs when teams have more time to game plan and match lines against a teams top player.

Four years ago you made a screen name using my name, and are still coming here and using it.
- James_Tanner

And you keep referencing it.

Hook line and sinker.

Is the risk extreme if you get someone like Gibson? If I round up the five smartest guys I know when it comes to hockey, I think four of them will say Gibson is the NHL's best goalie.
- James_Tanner

Just like OEL is the best blue liner in the NHL

Four years ago you made a screen name using my name, and are still coming here and using it.
- James_Tanner

Thanks for the update, you didn’t answer the question.

Just like OEL is the best blue liner in the NHL
- Yoda

I think you mean Gardiner.

Oilers going to Oiler. A #1 goalie isn’t going to fix that level of stupid.

They traded away the best hockey player in history. They hired the last moron to play without a helmet as their Head Coach, and when that didn’t work they promoted him to GM.

The organization doesn’t want to win. And you fools keep praying they do.

I think you mean Gardiner.
- Beergu

I think you mean Franson.

Oilers going to Oiler. A #1 goalie isn’t going to fix that level of stupid.

They traded away the best hockey player in history. They hired the last moron to play without a helmet as their Head Coach, and when that didn’t work they promoted him to GM.

The organization doesn’t want to win. And you fools keep praying they do.
- Razzdazzle1

Says the douchey Flames fan who is currently not even holding down a wildcard spot lmao.

Oilers going to Oiler. A #1 goalie isn’t going to fix that level of stupid.

They traded away the best hockey player in history. They hired the last moron to play without a helmet as their Head Coach, and when that didn’t work they promoted him to GM.

The organization doesn’t want to win. And you fools keep praying they do.
- Razzdazzle1

All of that is still better than the organization who hired a coach that #MeToo'd half of their team.

All of that is still better than the organization who hired a coach that #MeToo'd half of their team.
- Reveen

Dude, really?

Craig MacTavish killed a woman while driving drunk.

You probably don't want to open this can of worms.

Just sayin'...

Hockey is a depth-driven game more than a star-driven one. At least at the top levels.
- bmeltzer

Most people think that, but it isn't true. There is hardly any difference between second liners and fourth liners, from an impact standpoint (war/60 etc).

Here is one article on this, but there are many available.

https://hockey-graphs.com...istribution-within-teams/

I read the article that you source for depth vs star power and it was very interesting but I don't think it tells a complete picture to definitively say that star power>depth. I think one major issue is that what the stats and you define as depth isn't the same definition as what is generally used. Its not really hard to see that having a better top player is more important than the #12 forward, but I don't think anyone that would argue for depth over star power would try to argue that having a better 4th line than the other team is more important than having a better top line. Also there is only 1 example of a weak link team and from my understanding of the soccer study, it doesn't really give an apples to apples comparison to hockey. The 11th best player on a soccer team is more equivalent to probably your weakest top 6 forward or weakest top 4 dman. They have limited subs per game so squad rotation on a game to game basis is more a measure of depth in soccer than a starter. Would soccer still be considered a weak link game over the long run if it compared the top player to a backup? Would hockey still be considered a strong link if it only factored in game events of players on the ice? (Best and worst player on the ice vs on the team) It would also be interesting to see how this apllied long term to the playoffs when teams have more time to game plan and match lines against a teams top player.
- rmdevil313

You've got some good points, but there are several articles on this that I have read, they're all different, all come to the same conclusion.

If you actually think about it, it makes a lot of sense just from a logical standpoint.

Would you rather Have Mcdavid and two league minimum players, or three average players who add up to the same salary?

It's obvious that option A is the better option.

It also becomes obvious if you go to one of the stats sites and start looking at things like GWAR/60. 90% of the league fits into a smaller range than the top ten percent of players.

So there's a lot of space between say McDavid and a lower-end elite player like Nylander. But there's almost no difference between say a guy like Pierre Engvall and what you can normally expect to get from any non elite player.

Of course there are fractional differences, but in a salary cap league you should definitely be paying for star players and filling in your roster with guys league minimum players.

The Oilers with McDavid, Draisaitl, RNH and Klefbom could beat a much deeper team with less star power over 50% of the time, goalies being equal.

People think depth is important and that hockey is more like Soccer than the NBA, but only because that's what they've always been told.

I'm yet to see someone actually look into this and come away with a different conclusion, but of course I'd be open to it, I just haven't seen it.

Damn. Another Meltzer ownage coming isnt it?!

Gets popcorn cause its like matrix slow train wreck watching. You just cant look away.

Most people think that, but it isn't true. There is hardly any difference between second liners and fourth liners, from an impact standpoint (war/60 etc).

Here is one article on this, but there are many available.

https://hockey-graphs.com...istribution-within-teams/
- James_Tanner

You're exposing your lack of basic hockey knowledge, Tanner.


aaand about you being a top writer - I'm sure you know how far down that ladder you are...

Damn. Another Meltzer ownage coming isnt it?!

Gets popcorn cause its like matrix slow train wreck watching. You just cant look away.
- Roadrunner75

Hey I am more than happy to have Bill chime in. If he provides as well thought out and articulate answer as he always does, I would welcome it. I don't know why everything is always about "getting owned."

If his answer was so good that he proved me wrong and forced me to change my views, I'd be happy. I wouldn't fell defeated or attacked. Shouldn't two guys who make at least part of their living writing about hockey discuss their different ideas?

Perhaps if we didn't all participate in a culture that considers being proven wrong or being corrected our world wouldn't be so screwed up. Other people have ideas you might not have thought of. They might understand things better.

Anyways, I may be getting off on a tangent, but I just think what you said was really embarrassing, and I'd rather be so wrong that every other writer on here stopped in to call me an idiot, than give one crap about ever being wrong about an idea I had about hockey.

I love to explore things outside the realm of accepted practices, and I'm pretty lazy. I could own myself in ten minutes and I'm sure Bill is more than up to the task.

You're exposing your lack of basic hockey knowledge, Tanner.


aaand about you being a top writer - I'm sure you know how far down that ladder you are...
- 21peter

I honestly hate the part where it starts being about "hockey knowledge" because you know its just gotten dumb at that point.

This too we see in our politics - the other person's ideas are not even worth thinking about. It's rather convenient if you don't even have to consider what someone is saying.

If you go through the history of knowledge about every single subject in the history of mankind, you will learn that literally every single person who ever put forth a theory that questioned what had always been done was called an uninformed idiot. Every single one.

Now, I'm not proving the earth round or anything, but if you don't think there's at least something to the fact that we have ways of measuring hockey players that suggest some of our assumptions are wrong, I am not sure why you'd even bother to go on the internet and discuss hockey at all.