Yep. Why pay an elite goal scorer like Panarin BIG money when you can pay a 4th line plug league minimum? There's no difference. When the Pens beat the Wings to win the Cup in 2009 and Jordan Staal was their 3rd line center, he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
- gergeswillems

Panarin is arguably the NHL's best player. Don't you ever get tired of going online and taking things out of context so you can harass someone who has nothing but contempt for you?

I mean honestly, I haven't even met you before and I despise you. I think you're a loser, and anytime you insult me, I think it's good, because I wouldn't want to agree with you on anything.

Pretty much. Jones is being paid like a star.
- gergeswillems

Heck, come to think of it, that's Chicago's roster as well...

So you agree with Tanner's Cup winning formula?

Star-Star-Star
Plug-Plug-Plug
Plug-Plug-Plug
Plug-Plug-Plug

Star-Star
Plug-Plug
Plug-Plug

Star-Plug
- gergeswillems

I was being sarcastic, but rereading it I see that I wasn't clear. 5 minutes ago I honestly didn't know who Christoffer Ehn was.
Inspired by this discussion I just wrote an article on the subject: https://hockey-statistics...trong-or-weak-link-sport/

You would obviously have to put some trust into my statistical ability, but I don't think I'm of base.

Tanner-Tool-Bag
Tool-Tanner-Bag
Bag-Tool-Tanner
Tanner-Bag-Tool

Tanner-Tool
Tool-Bag
Bag-Tanner

Tanner-Tool
- rrentz

I was being sarcastic, but rereading it I see that I wasn't clear. 5 minutes ago I honestly didn't know who Christoffer Ehn was.
Inspired by this discussion I just wrote an article on the subject: https://hockey-statistics...trong-or-weak-link-sport/

You would obviously have to put some trust into my statistical ability, but I don't think I'm of base.
- Skytte

My bad. I missed on your sarcasm. No one knows who Christoffer Ehn is. He himself doesn't know who he is. That's my point really. Tanner saying there's not much difference between the worst player in the NHL and most second liners is ignorant. I know he's trolling for clicks but it's still a dumb thing to say.

Panarin is arguably the NHL's best player. Don't you ever get tired of going online and taking things out of context so you can harass someone who has nothing but contempt for you?

I mean honestly, I haven't even met you before and I despise you. I think you're a loser, and anytime you insult me, I think it's good, because I wouldn't want to agree with you on anything.
- James_Tanner

The feeling is mutual. So in other words you have nothing to back up your ignorant argument. Rinse. Repeat. It's not my fault you're stupid. You're incapable of having an actual hockey conversation because you lack basic hockey knowledge and can't take any criticism.

I used specific examples to support my argument. What have you done? Nothing. But you're all about using personal insults because you're a big baby. Not just with me. But with everyone. Your MO is always the same. Predictable. I won't apologize for knowing more about hockey than you do.

Mr. James Tanner Sr:

" I apologize to the entire human race for not wearing a condom. I didn't realize the pain and suffering it would cause"

James,

This is probably one of the best breakdowns of (the many iterations of) WAR that I've found.

https://hockey-graphs.com...hy-and-objectives-part-1/

Please explain which system you are using and why you think it is useful. Considering they state multiple times that the number itself is not the be-all end-all.

The concept of WAR, however, feels a bit like the “holy grail” in hockey. Many have tried their hand at creating a model like this or one that has similar goals – often these people have been some of the leading voices in hockey statistics. The “Single Number Dream” has been as elusive as really anything else in hockey statistics it seems – and for good reason. A WAR model (for any sport) poses several incredibly important questions about how we as analysts evaluate players. WAR is not really about the single number, ironically enough. It’s about the way we arrive at that number. This number, as many have said before, is an estimate at best; it is not definite, it has uncertainty and assumptions, an implied “range” surrounds each number for each player.

While this ambiguity is often overlooked, the final number isn’t exactly easy. But it’s the process and the questions and ultimately the philosophy that make the search for the single number such an important aspect of sports statistics. How should we evaluate players? How do we combine the many aspects of such complex games, on the same scale and adjusted in just the right way, that we can confidently compare even-strength offense to even-strength defense, or a stolen base to a double, or a rebound to a 3-pointer? In our opinion, the process of finding the answers to these questions is just as important as what the single number actually tells us. So what has hockey done with this? We’re going to revisit baseball shortly, but since this is hockey let’s cover the prior work our sport has to offer.

James,

This is probably one of the best breakdowns of (the many iterations of) WAR that I've found.

https://hockey-graphs.com...hy-and-objectives-part-1/

Please explain which system you are using and why you think it is useful. Considering they state multiple times that the number itself is not the be-all end-all.

The concept of WAR, however, feels a bit like the “holy grail” in hockey. Many have tried their hand at creating a model like this or one that has similar goals – often these people have been some of the leading voices in hockey statistics. The “Single Number Dream” has been as elusive as really anything else in hockey statistics it seems – and for good reason. A WAR model (for any sport) poses several incredibly important questions about how we as analysts evaluate players. WAR is not really about the single number, ironically enough. It’s about the way we arrive at that number. This number, as many have said before, is an estimate at best; it is not definite, it has uncertainty and assumptions, an implied “range” surrounds each number for each player.

While this ambiguity is often overlooked, the final number isn’t exactly easy. But it’s the process and the questions and ultimately the philosophy that make the search for the single number such an important aspect of sports statistics. How should we evaluate players? How do we combine the many aspects of such complex games, on the same scale and adjusted in just the right way, that we can confidently compare even-strength offense to even-strength defense, or a stolen base to a double, or a rebound to a 3-pointer? In our opinion, the process of finding the answers to these questions is just as important as what the single number actually tells us. So what has hockey done with this? We’re going to revisit baseball shortly, but since this is hockey let’s cover the prior work our sport has to offer.

- Chunk

I agree with all of this. Part of the problem is that we can't compare WAR to anything on the individual player level. There's no agreed upon way to evaluate a player's ability. You can use points, goals, corsi, expected goals or trust your eye test and gut feeling. No matter what it will always be your flawed and biased opinion.
WAR can be used as part of your player analysis, but it should never stand alone.

When you're evaluating teams it's quite different though. Everyone agrees how you measure a team's ability - you look at the win column. A good team can lose games over the short term, but if a team keeps losing, then it's not a good team. It's as simple as that.
This is why I always compare stats at the team level. How well does a team stat correlate with winning. And Team-WAR actually correlates really well with winning.

Terrible take.
- James_Tanner

Yeah, because face offs and penalties drawn are a huge part of the game and make a player more valuable. Aren't you in the faceoffs don't matter camp?

ROR is a WAR and GAR king, in reality he's merely a good player.