Oh boy.
- djamon

Yeah, I hear ya.

Yeah, I hear ya.
- annoyed

I'd love to know what numbers he has that make Gardiner look better than Rielly this year. The zone starts aren't even close, Rielly has produced more with almost no PP time, faces the opposition's top lines (it matters FFS) and has Hunwick as a partner through it all.

- lumlums

I could see Gardiner wearing a headband.

Tanner Logic:

Gardiner>Weber
Reimer>Rinne

Leafs - 38 points
Preds - 48 points



- H8terade

I don't know why i bother, cause you guys get all yer info from EA sports, but at this time, Gardiner and Reimer are better than both. There are 20 other guys on each team.

I don't know why i bother, cause you guys get all yer info from EA sports, but at this time, Gardiner and Reimer are better than both. There are 20 other guys on each team.
- James_Tanner

For 1 game or their whole careers or just this year?

Gardiner has faced the Tanner Glass's and Weber the Ovie's etc

You can't take a 30 game sample and declare someone better, it's (frank)ing insane.

Think about it

For 1 game or their whole careers or just this year?

Gardiner has faced the Tanner Glass's and Weber the Ovie's etc

You can't take a 30 game sample and declare someone better, it's (frank)ing insane.

Think about it
- annoyed

Love how no one ever talks about the Coyotes in the Coyotes blog

I don't know why i bother, cause you guys get all yer info from EA sports, but at this time, Gardiner and Reimer are better than both. There are 20 other guys on each team.
- James_Tanner

Too bad you couldn't poll every gm in the league and see how many of them would trade Rinne and Weber for Gardiner and Reimer.

My guess, only one GM would - Toronto's.

Too bad you couldn't poll every gm in the league and see how many of them would trade Rinne and Weber for Gardiner and Reimer.

My guess, only one GM would - Toronto's.
- H8terade

Couldn't fit it into the cap

Love how no one ever talks about the Coyotes in the Coyotes blog
- LeftCoaster

What the hell are the Coyotes

Too bad you couldn't poll every gm in the league and see how many of them would trade Rinne and Weber for Gardiner and Reimer.

My guess, only one GM would - Toronto's.
- H8terade

They're bad at their jobs

Love how no one ever talks about the Coyotes in the Coyotes blog
- LeftCoaster

What is there to talk about. Louis Domingue is the next great goalie. Team is bad overall at possession. Vermette is the worst. John Scott was a mistake. Tanner is better than Maloney. Rinse, wash and repeat.

Couldn't fit it into the cap
- lumlums

You're bringing logic into an illogical situation.

Too bad you couldn't poll every gm in the league and see how many of them would trade Rinne and Weber for Gardiner and Reimer.

My guess, only one GM would - Toronto's.
- H8terade

Too bad at least 1/4 of the GMs are not worth asking.

Too bad at least 1/4 of the GMs are not worth asking.
- James_Tanner

That was a legit question which you didn't answer Gardiner >Weber just this year? Or this month? Or always has been?

What size of sample do you believe this to be true for?

That was a legit question which you didn't answer Gardiner >Weber just this year? Or this month? Or always has been?

What size of sample do you believe this to be true for?
- Garnie

Right now this season. Clearly Weber is one of the best of the last decade. But he's declined a bit an Gardiner is in his prime.

The long term effects of better zone starts and qoc have virtually no effect. Not my opinion, proven fact. Might as well say global warming is fake.
- James_Tanner

Oh it's on par with the body of research behind climate change huh? That could well be the dumbest thing you've ever written on Hockeybuzz, and that's saying something.

Climate change has been supported by literally thousands of multi-disciplinary papers and studies and received endorsement from, quite literally, every single reputable scientific and academic organization in the world. Whereas your "proven fact" involves a handful of bloggers who spend their spare time trying to analyze stats like zone starts, which have only been recorded and measured since 2007/2008, and only really looked at in detail since 2011/2012 by a grand total of about 8 or 10 guys (Tulsky, Haig, Johnson, McCurdy, etc) who haven't really arrived at a consensus.

Jesus (frank)ing Christ you look like a (frank)ing simpleton when you make idiotic comparisons like that.

If zone starts don't mean anything, then why do all the analytics sites calculate zone starts adjusted by removing events from the first 10 seconds after every faceoff? Because "it has been shown that the majority of the benefit or penalty of a zone start occurs during the first 10 seconds" (David Johnson @ puckalytics.com). That seems to directly contradict your statement that zone starts have "virtually no effect". Johnson also claims that zone starts and QoC aren't as good as other stats (which I agree with, for example quality of linemate), but he's also shown the aforementioned 10s period after a faceoff does confer an advantage / disadvantage, as well as shown that heavily skewed offensive or defensive zone assignments can alter a player's Corsi by 1-2%. That might not be a huge difference, but then again Corsi is measured through a relatively narrow frame where the vast majority of players fall between ~ 45-55% Corsi.

Not to mention McCurdy's recent October article on Hockey-Graphs.com in which they took a more in-depth look at zone starts than Johnson and the rest had, in which he concluded "Although for most players the overall effect is going to be small, the examples above clearly show that for some players it’s quite significant." - for example, the Sedins both directly benefited by more than 3 goals each due to offensive zone starts in both the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Sharp, Toews & Tavares more than 2 goals each from their offensive zone starts, etc. http://hockey-graphs.com/...l-differential/#more-4268 Even Johnson, the biggest advocate of the idea that zone starts don't matter when averaged out over time, admits that in small sample sizes (eg, a game) zone starts may have profound effects.

Likewise there are calculations that show additional benefits / disadvantages to zone starts - for example, depending on what methodology was used, it's been found that each offensive zone start at 5v5 results in anywhere from 0.18-0.6 shots on goal, or ~0.3 Fenwick events. This would undoubtedly become even more pronounced in PP or SH situations. The fact that there's still some considerable variation in findings between different methodologies implies that there is some considerable work still to be done at excluding confounding factors and selection bias. Likewise QoC stats seem largely focussed on 5v5 play, where they inevitably largely even out over time due to home & away line change advantages by coaches. However, I haven't seen anything about QoC and PP / SH time, which I suspect might display the opposite.

Similarly we've got more recent articles which throw into question your "proven facts" - for example, http://hockey-graphs.com/...be-as-simple-as-we-think/ , which notes "Not long ago, Eric Tulsky looked at competition factors at NHL Numbers. The hockey analytics community saw two changes come from this research: 1) Ice time became a preferred measure over shot metrics; 2) Impacts of “line matching” moved from being important, to overrated, and then eventually inconsequential.
Then research stopped. Not much more had been done despite huge gaps in our knowledge [...] Competition is still a real variable." Another recent article about QoC concluded "[t]he point is that Quality of Competition does matter and is important in some cases. We may have been too quick to discount its impact simply because over time, the effects are washed out. But this should not preclude the use of QoC adjustments when analyzing player performance over short periods. Based on the empirical data, the impacts of competition skill are real and they are spectacular." http://hockey-graphs.com/...real-and-its-spectacular/

If you're going to ignore factors which clearly affect Corsi and other stats, why bother using statistics at all? Oh that's right - you only use stats when it's convenient for your argument and ignore everything else, especially newer research which throws some of your so-called "proven facts" into doubt. You start off with things like "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he had one of the highest 5v5 P/60 in the league!". The next season his P/60 craters, so you then say "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he's got a good CF%! (or whatever)"... and now this season his play is so unproductive that you've had to resort to "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because his expected goals is really high!". Sad.

Minus- James bragging about Cannaunton being positive possession.
Well lets see, Cannaunton at 77.8 ozs% being 79.3 cf%
And the worst D-man in the league, Grossman at 37.5 ozs% still at 70.4 cf%
So since i know James doesn't really grasp these things. That means Cannaunton with 7 O-zone draws to 2 D-zone draws still only slightly better then Grossman with 3 O-zone draws to 5 D- zone draws.
And putting this all into perspective. Not a single Yote player was minus possession.
Although Murphy was the lowest! Despite 12 O-zone draws, And only 2 D-zone draws(that's bad James).

Oh it's on par with the body of research behind climate change huh? That could well be the dumbest thing you've ever written on Hockeybuzz, and that's saying something.

Climate change has been supported by literally thousands of multi-disciplinary papers and studies and received endorsement from, quite literally, every single reputable scientific and academic organization in the world. Whereas your "proven fact" involves a handful of bloggers who spend their spare time trying to analyze stats like zone starts, which have only been recorded and measured since 2007/2008, and only really looked at in detail since 2011/2012 by a grand total of about 8 or 10 guys (Tulsky, Haig, Johnson, McCurdy, etc) who haven't really arrived at a consensus.

Jesus (frank)ing Christ you look like a (frank)ing simpleton when you make idiotic comparisons like that.

If zone starts don't mean anything, then why do all the analytics sites calculate zone starts adjusted by removing events from the first 10 seconds after every faceoff? Because "it has been shown that the majority of the benefit or penalty of a zone start occurs during the first 10 seconds" (David Johnson @ puckalytics.com). That seems to directly contradict your statement that zone starts have "virtually no effect". Johnson also claims that zone starts and QoC aren't as good as other stats (which I agree with, for example quality of linemate), but he's also shown the aforementioned 10s period after a faceoff does confer an advantage / disadvantage, as well as shown that heavily skewed offensive or defensive zone assignments can alter a player's Corsi by 1-2%. That might not be a huge difference, but then again Corsi is measured through a relatively narrow frame where the vast majority of players fall between ~ 45-55% Corsi.

Not to mention McCurdy's recent October article on Hockey-Graphs.com in which they took a more in-depth look at zone starts than Johnson and the rest had, in which he concluded "Although for most players the overall effect is going to be small, the examples above clearly show that for some players it’s quite significant." - for example, the Sedins both directly benefited by more than 3 goals each due to offensive zone starts in both the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Sharp, Toews & Tavares more than 2 goals each from their offensive zone starts, etc. http://hockey-graphs.com/...l-differential/#more-4268 Even Johnson, the biggest advocate of the idea that zone starts don't matter when averaged out over time, admits that in small sample sizes (eg, a game) zone starts may have profound effects.

Likewise there are calculations that show additional benefits / disadvantages to zone starts - for example, depending on what methodology was used, it's been found that each offensive zone start at 5v5 results in anywhere from 0.18-0.6 shots on goal, or ~0.3 Fenwick events. This would undoubtedly become even more pronounced in PP or SH situations. The fact that there's still some considerable variation in findings between different methodologies implies that there is some considerable work still to be done at excluding confounding factors and selection bias. Likewise QoC stats seem largely focussed on 5v5 play, where they inevitably largely even out over time due to home & away line change advantages by coaches. However, I haven't seen anything about QoC and PP / SH time, which I suspect might display the opposite.

Similarly we've got more recent articles which throw into question your "proven facts" - for example, http://hockey-graphs.com/...be-as-simple-as-we-think/ , which notes "Not long ago, Eric Tulsky looked at competition factors at NHL Numbers. The hockey analytics community saw two changes come from this research: 1) Ice time became a preferred measure over shot metrics; 2) Impacts of “line matching” moved from being important, to overrated, and then eventually inconsequential.
Then research stopped. Not much more had been done despite huge gaps in our knowledge
- TheMaritimer[...] Competition is still a real variable." Another recent article about QoC concluded "[t]he point is that Quality of Competition does matter and is important in some cases. We may have been too quick to discount its impact simply because over time, the effects are washed out. But this should not preclude the use of QoC adjustments when analyzing player performance over short periods. Based on the empirical data, the impacts of competition skill are real and they are spectacular." http://hockey-graphs.com/...real-and-its-spectacular/

If you're going to ignore factors which clearly affect Corsi and other stats, why bother using statistics at all? Oh that's right - you only use stats when it's convenient for your argument and ignore everything else, especially newer research which throws some of your so-called "proven facts" into doubt. You start off with things like "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he had one of the highest 5v5 P/60 in the league!". The next season his P/60 craters, so you then say "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he's got a good CF%! (or whatever)"... and now this season his play is so unproductive that you've had to resort to "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because his expected goals is really high!". Sad.

Thank you!
This might be the most well written anti-Tanner post ever written.
But we are all just knuckle dragging neanderthals, That clearly are not on Tanner's level when it come to assessing NHL players.
Yet He's the one declaring the Oilers the next dynasty(possible) While at the same time not being able to see that the Panthers are actually what the oilers will strive to become.

Right now this season. Clearly Weber is one of the best of the last decade. But he's declined a bit an Gardiner is in his prime.
- James_Tanner

Meh, I don't believe you are using enough data and its misleading you in player evaluations.

But oh well, enjoy the games all the same.

Oh it's on par with the body of research behind climate change huh? That could well be the dumbest thing you've ever written on Hockeybuzz, and that's saying something.

Climate change has been supported by literally thousands of multi-disciplinary papers and studies and received endorsement from, quite literally, every single reputable scientific and academic organization in the world. Whereas your "proven fact" involves a handful of bloggers who spend their spare time trying to analyze stats like zone starts, which have only been recorded and measured since 2007/2008, and only really looked at in detail since 2011/2012 by a grand total of about 8 or 10 guys (Tulsky, Haig, Johnson, McCurdy, etc) who haven't really arrived at a consensus.

Jesus (frank)ing Christ you look like a (frank)ing simpleton when you make idiotic comparisons like that.

If zone starts don't mean anything, then why do all the analytics sites calculate zone starts adjusted by removing events from the first 10 seconds after every faceoff? Because "it has been shown that the majority of the benefit or penalty of a zone start occurs during the first 10 seconds" (David Johnson @ puckalytics.com). That seems to directly contradict your statement that zone starts have "virtually no effect". Johnson also claims that zone starts and QoC aren't as good as other stats (which I agree with, for example quality of linemate), but he's also shown the aforementioned 10s period after a faceoff does confer an advantage / disadvantage, as well as shown that heavily skewed offensive or defensive zone assignments can alter a player's Corsi by 1-2%. That might not be a huge difference, but then again Corsi is measured through a relatively narrow frame where the vast majority of players fall between ~ 45-55% Corsi.

Not to mention McCurdy's recent October article on Hockey-Graphs.com in which they took a more in-depth look at zone starts than Johnson and the rest had, in which he concluded "Although for most players the overall effect is going to be small, the examples above clearly show that for some players it’s quite significant." - for example, the Sedins both directly benefited by more than 3 goals each due to offensive zone starts in both the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Sharp, Toews & Tavares more than 2 goals each from their offensive zone starts, etc. http://hockey-graphs.com/...l-differential/#more-4268 Even Johnson, the biggest advocate of the idea that zone starts don't matter when averaged out over time, admits that in small sample sizes (eg, a game) zone starts may have profound effects.

Likewise there are calculations that show additional benefits / disadvantages to zone starts - for example, depending on what methodology was used, it's been found that each offensive zone start at 5v5 results in anywhere from 0.18-0.6 shots on goal, or ~0.3 Fenwick events. This would undoubtedly become even more pronounced in PP or SH situations. The fact that there's still some considerable variation in findings between different methodologies implies that there is some considerable work still to be done at excluding confounding factors and selection bias. Likewise QoC stats seem largely focussed on 5v5 play, where they inevitably largely even out over time due to home & away line change advantages by coaches. However, I haven't seen anything about QoC and PP / SH time, which I suspect might display the opposite.

Similarly we've got more recent articles which throw into question your "proven facts" - for example, http://hockey-graphs.com/...be-as-simple-as-we-think/ , which notes "Not long ago, Eric Tulsky looked at competition factors at NHL Numbers. The hockey analytics community saw two changes come from this research: 1) Ice time became a preferred measure over shot metrics; 2) Impacts of “line matching” moved from being important, to overrated, and then eventually inconsequential.
Then research stopped. Not much more had been done despite huge gaps in our knowledge
- TheMaritimer[...] Competition is still a real variable." Another recent article about QoC concluded "[t]he point is that Quality of Competition does matter and is important in some cases. We may have been too quick to discount its impact simply because over time, the effects are washed out. But this should not preclude the use of QoC adjustments when analyzing player performance over short periods. Based on the empirical data, the impacts of competition skill are real and they are spectacular." http://hockey-graphs.com/...real-and-its-spectacular/

If you're going to ignore factors which clearly affect Corsi and other stats, why bother using statistics at all? Oh that's right - you only use stats when it's convenient for your argument and ignore everything else, especially newer research which throws some of your so-called "proven facts" into doubt. You start off with things like "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he had one of the highest 5v5 P/60 in the league!". The next season his P/60 craters, so you then say "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he's got a good CF%! (or whatever)"... and now this season his play is so unproductive that you've had to resort to "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because his expected goals is really high!". Sad.

One of the best posts I have read on this site. Interested to see a response from Tanner on this.

Too bad at least 1/4 of the GMs are not worth asking.
- James_Tanner

Why's that? Does the hockeybuzz blogger really think he's smarter than 30 NHL GM's?

If you walked into a room full of NHL GM's and scouts and told them that Gardiner and Reimer are better than Weber and Rinne you'd be laughed out of there so fast it would set the analytics movement back decades.

Let me know if you want to try though, i'd love to sell tickets!

Oh it's on par with the body of research behind climate change huh? That could well be the dumbest thing you've ever written on Hockeybuzz, and that's saying something.

Climate change has been supported by literally thousands of multi-disciplinary papers and studies and received endorsement from, quite literally, every single reputable scientific and academic organization in the world. Whereas your "proven fact" involves a handful of bloggers who spend their spare time trying to analyze stats like zone starts, which have only been recorded and measured since 2007/2008, and only really looked at in detail since 2011/2012 by a grand total of about 8 or 10 guys (Tulsky, Haig, Johnson, McCurdy, etc) who haven't really arrived at a consensus.

Jesus (frank)ing Christ you look like a (frank)ing simpleton when you make idiotic comparisons like that.

If zone starts don't mean anything, then why do all the analytics sites calculate zone starts adjusted by removing events from the first 10 seconds after every faceoff? Because "it has been shown that the majority of the benefit or penalty of a zone start occurs during the first 10 seconds" (David Johnson @ puckalytics.com). That seems to directly contradict your statement that zone starts have "virtually no effect". Johnson also claims that zone starts and QoC aren't as good as other stats (which I agree with, for example quality of linemate), but he's also shown the aforementioned 10s period after a faceoff does confer an advantage / disadvantage, as well as shown that heavily skewed offensive or defensive zone assignments can alter a player's Corsi by 1-2%. That might not be a huge difference, but then again Corsi is measured through a relatively narrow frame where the vast majority of players fall between ~ 45-55% Corsi.

Not to mention McCurdy's recent October article on Hockey-Graphs.com in which they took a more in-depth look at zone starts than Johnson and the rest had, in which he concluded "Although for most players the overall effect is going to be small, the examples above clearly show that for some players it’s quite significant." - for example, the Sedins both directly benefited by more than 3 goals each due to offensive zone starts in both the 2011 and 2012 seasons, Sharp, Toews & Tavares more than 2 goals each from their offensive zone starts, etc. http://hockey-graphs.com/...l-differential/#more-4268 Even Johnson, the biggest advocate of the idea that zone starts don't matter when averaged out over time, admits that in small sample sizes (eg, a game) zone starts may have profound effects.

Likewise there are calculations that show additional benefits / disadvantages to zone starts - for example, depending on what methodology was used, it's been found that each offensive zone start at 5v5 results in anywhere from 0.18-0.6 shots on goal, or ~0.3 Fenwick events. This would undoubtedly become even more pronounced in PP or SH situations. The fact that there's still some considerable variation in findings between different methodologies implies that there is some considerable work still to be done at excluding confounding factors and selection bias. Likewise QoC stats seem largely focussed on 5v5 play, where they inevitably largely even out over time due to home & away line change advantages by coaches. However, I haven't seen anything about QoC and PP / SH time, which I suspect might display the opposite.

Similarly we've got more recent articles which throw into question your "proven facts" - for example, http://hockey-graphs.com/...be-as-simple-as-we-think/ , which notes "Not long ago, Eric Tulsky looked at competition factors at NHL Numbers. The hockey analytics community saw two changes come from this research: 1) Ice time became a preferred measure over shot metrics; 2) Impacts of “line matching” moved from being important, to overrated, and then eventually inconsequential.
Then research stopped. Not much more had been done despite huge gaps in our knowledge
- TheMaritimer[...] Competition is still a real variable." Another recent article about QoC concluded "[t]he point is that Quality of Competition does matter and is important in some cases. We may have been too quick to discount its impact simply because over time, the effects are washed out. But this should not preclude the use of QoC adjustments when analyzing player performance over short periods. Based on the empirical data, the impacts of competition skill are real and they are spectacular." http://hockey-graphs.com/...real-and-its-spectacular/

If you're going to ignore factors which clearly affect Corsi and other stats, why bother using statistics at all? Oh that's right - you only use stats when it's convenient for your argument and ignore everything else, especially newer research which throws some of your so-called "proven facts" into doubt. You start off with things like "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he had one of the highest 5v5 P/60 in the league!". The next season his P/60 craters, so you then say "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because he's got a good CF%! (or whatever)"... and now this season his play is so unproductive that you've had to resort to "Nazem Kadri is one of the best centers in the league because his expected goals is really high!". Sad.

Pity That tanner isn't going to ever respond to this post. 👍

Pity That tanner isn't going to ever respond to this post. 👍
- Pres.cup

Was thinking the same thing

Someone compared the zone starts of Rielly and Gardiner, and the guy said Gardiner had been better this year. If he meant what you said he needs to learn how to write, if he meant what I said then he's a dumbass.
- djamon

Naw bro you just need to chillax your keyboard campaign...