I totally forgot the jfresh player card is the end all be all, thank you for your time James. You are doing just as well as Chayka
- ClaudeFather

No one is saying its the end all be all. But instead of attacking me for not annotating my work, including 3 sources and a bibliography, you could try some evidence of your own.

No one is saying its the end all be all. But instead of attacking me for not annotating my work, including 3 sources and a bibliography, you could try some evidence of your own.
- James_Tanner

Like watching the games , him scoring timely goals, great on the PK, playing really well on the defensive side of the puck and still having 20+ goals? Not to mention he clearly keeps the Locke room light and has been a part of the turnaround we had this year ? Is that not ok for evidence or do I need to sprinkle in stats?

James,

I respect your opinion but I think your narrative on the Blues is wrong.

Binnington had an abnormally high regular season save percentage, but his playoff save percentage was .914.

Both Rask and Bishop outplayed him during their respective series. Jones of course did not, and Hellebuyck was about equal I'd say.

Maybe it shouldn't bother me as a Blues fan, but people attributing luck to their win (or calling it a fluke), after waiting my entire life for a cup is a bit like rubbing salt in a wound.

They overcame a great deal to win that cup (including that horrific hand pass goal in the Shark series), and we're still riding on a high here in STL.

St. Louis absolutely won because of depth. Each of the four lines was the driver in one of the series.

'

OK I like your reverse line of thinking here. It checks out. BUT Binnington started the season as a B list prospect and took a last place team to the Cup with a bizarrely high save percentage. That is the part that is crazy.
- James_Tanner

Definitely agree Binnington was a complete unknown and came out of nowhere and good for the Blues he did, because I have minimal faith in Allen.

James,

I respect your opinion but I think your narrative on the Blues is wrong.

Binnington had an abnormally high regular season save percentage, but his playoff save percentage was .914.

Both Rask and Bishop outplayed him during their respective series. Jones of course did not, and Hellebuyck was about equal I'd say.

Maybe it shouldn't bother me as a Blues fan, but people attributing luck to their win (or calling it a fluke), after waiting my entire life for a cup is a bit like rubbing salt in a wound.

They overcame a great deal to win that cup (including that horrific hand pass goal in the Shark series), and we're still riding on a high here in STL.
- charlest

OK I totally get this.

In fact, a lot of what the people and the stats writers argue about is the idea of luck.

I am starting to realize that people see 'being lucky' as an invalidation of their work, but honestly , that isn't how the people talking about luck see it.


The NHL is a pro league, which means that the difference between players and teams is small. Now add in a salary cap and it makes it even smaller.

Also, consider that the game of hockey is a "bad game" from a game theory design standpoint. One player has an outsized effect, and the game is low scoring, so flukes have massive impacts.

Now consider that in order to determine a champion, teams play a seven game series which is so short that randomness has a massive effect *(the NHL has a lot of first round upsets, but for some reason treats teams that get upset like they are complete failures).

If you view it this way, luck is pretty much the deciding factor in every champions win. Sure, one team - say Tampa - may have the best odds of winning, but to win they'll have to also get really lucky. There is always going to be the hockey equivalent of calling a bluff correctly then watching your opponent hit two running cards to win despite massive probability in your favor. So even good teams need to get a bit lucky.


But a team like St Louis, they got incredibly lucky in the sense that a) nothing like their story (worth of a disney movie) has ever happened before b) they won with a rookie goalie who was in the AHL in January c) they were not considered one of the five or so teams that were "true cup contenders"


To change coaches and goalies and then have it almost instantly come together is so, so , so unlikely that it almost certainly has to be luck.

BUT that isn't a bad thing. Everyone needs luck to win. And, last time I checked, people love an underdog, even though the very definition of an underdog means that they were lucky if they won.

As humans, we love to credit our success to hard work and our failures to bad luck but deep down we all know that's crap. I didn't do anything to "earn" a brain that remembers everything I read, or to meet my wifes minimum requirements in the looks department. Doesn't mean I'm any less happy.

The Blues won, they are champs, and by virtue of being an NHL team they deserved their win. But as they were not anything close to being favorites, I think we do have to admit they got a bit lucky.

Like watching the games , him scoring timely goals, great on the PK, playing really well on the defensive side of the puck and still having 20+ goals? Not to mention he clearly keeps the Locke room light and has been a part of the turnaround we had this year ? Is that not ok for evidence or do I need to sprinkle in stats?
- ClaudeFather

Claude Father...you need to just stop. Of course many people disagree with Tanner because by definition he pushes the edge so that we comment.

But you are just way off and completely missing the point. You have to be able to critically think and understand that no one is saying Kevin Hayes is a worthless player. They are simply saying he is already not worth his contract, and it’s only going to get uglier, until he is weighing down the Flyers like a Lucic or Eriksson or Okposo.

Maybe stated in a simpler way...you can cobble together great locker room guys, and good penalty killers that will produce the same result for less than $7M.

With all of that said, every season is sacred so who cares if you kill your next 6 years of you win the cup this year. But odds are that won’t happen and it will be a bad investment.

James,

I respect your opinion .
- charlest

That makes two of us!

The Bruins had three players who were not high-end picks magically turn into three of the top players in the NHL. If this happens, you are right, you do not need a top draft pick.

Pierre Bergeron, Brad Marchand and David Pastrnak have all somehow become players worthy of a #1 overall pick. But this rarely happens.


Magic? Seriously? What are the analytics of “magic”, James? Perhaps the Coyotes should hire Gandalf?

James - did you see that Chiarelli is linked to the Coyotes? I feel like there’s no credibility behind the report, but if there is I truly might just switch to my current hometown team (the Wild) full time.

Going from a GM I loved and that I truly believe has set us up for a solid 5 year run....to the worst GM in the league that represents everything I hate about GMs. Ugh...what a nightmare!!!

Claude Father...you need to just stop. Of course many people disagree with Tanner because by definition he pushes the edge so that we comment.

But you are just way off and completely missing the point. You have to be able to critically think and understand that no one is saying Kevin Hayes is a worthless player. They are simply saying he is already not worth his contract, and it’s only going to get uglier, until he is weighing down the Flyers like a Lucic or Eriksson or Okposo.

Maybe stated in a simpler way...you can cobble together great locker room guys, and good penalty killers that will produce the same result for less than $7M.

With all of that said, every season is sacred so who cares if you kill your next 6 years of you win the cup this year. But odds are that won’t happen and it will be a bad investment.
- Dahlmanyotes

Nicely put. The problem is that NHL teams (so by definition many of the fans) value things like penalty killing and being a good locker room presence too much.

Not that those things don't matter, its just they aren't rare enough to make them worth paying for.

The other problem teams have, is that they pay huge money for an outlier season. Nowhere in Kevin Hayes career was there any indication he'd be a three win player *that is an astronomically good season* but last year he was.

Odds are he never will be again. He is 28 and his contract runs to 36. He's a better player than David Clarkson, but this exactly what the Leafs did - paid big money for a character guys career season after the fact.

The reason guys like me are so obnoxious about NHL GMs is that I have literally known for years that plays like this are bad, and 22 teams continue to make them. Literally any person who just didn't sign these kind of contacts would have a vast advantage over two thirds of the NHL's GMs.

The Bruins had three players who were not high-end picks magically turn into three of the top players in the NHL. If this happens, you are right, you do not need a top draft pick.

Pierre Bergeron, Brad Marchand and David Pastrnak have all somehow become players worthy of a #1 overall pick. But this rarely happens.


Magic? Seriously? What are the analytics of “magic”, James? Perhaps the Coyotes should hire Gandalf?
- Htppr

Bergeron is second to Crosby as the best player of his generation, and was picked like 40th overall. That doesn't happen often, let alone having it happen with three guys at once. (to a lesser degree obviously)

James - did you see that Chiarelli is linked to the Coyotes? I feel like there’s no credibility behind the report, but if there is I truly might just switch to my current hometown team (the Wild) full time.

Going from a GM I loved and that I truly believe has set us up for a solid 5 year run....to the worst GM in the league that represents everything I hate about GMs. Ugh...what a nightmare!!!
- Dahlmanyotes

Yeah I saw it, feel the same way. Go Wild

I am confused here.

Are you saying that I should stay true to what I wrote three years ago despite getting a lot information that changed my mind in the intern?

I was led to believe that Chayka was THE analytics guy......but as time went on and I started talking to people like Dom Z, Ian Tulloch, JFresh, Ryan Stimson etc. I realized that what Chayka was doing with his company was vastly different from what the "analytics community" was doing with free public data.

Over time, they came to resent that people like me were promoting the narrative that he was their avatar. Again, there is so much information out there about this, and instead of re-reading my old crap for a lame "gotcha" moment, you could easily have spent that time learning something worthwhile.
- James_Tanner

This could easily describe 93% of your blogs.
This has always been my sticking point with you, James. You are guilty of 100% of the things you call others posters out for. 100%. Hypocrisy leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all around it.

Claude Father...you need to just stop. Of course many people disagree with Tanner because by definition he pushes the edge so that we comment.

But you are just way off and completely missing the point. You have to be able to critically think and understand that no one is saying Kevin Hayes is a worthless player. They are simply saying he is already not worth his contract, and it’s only going to get uglier, until he is weighing down the Flyers like a Lucic or Eriksson or Okposo.

Maybe stated in a simpler way...you can cobble together great locker room guys, and good penalty killers that will produce the same result for less than $7M.

With all of that said, every season is sacred so who cares if you kill your next 6 years of you win the cup this year. But odds are that won’t happen and it will be a bad investment.
- Dahlmanyotes

We have good depth in all three groups though , d/F/G. It’s ok to have someone overpaid on your team, the Flyers aren’t in a bad spot because Kevin Hayes makes $7M

Claude Father...you need to just stop. Of course many people disagree with Tanner because by definition he pushes the edge so that we comment.

But you are just way off and completely missing the point. You have to be able to critically think and understand that no one is saying Kevin Hayes is a worthless player. They are simply saying he is already not worth his contract, and it’s only going to get uglier, until he is weighing down the Flyers like a Lucic or Eriksson or Okposo.

Maybe stated in a simpler way...you can cobble together great locker room guys, and good penalty killers that will produce the same result for less than $7M.

With all of that said, every season is sacred so who cares if you kill your next 6 years of you win the cup this year. But odds are that won’t happen and it will be a bad investment.
- Dahlmanyotes

Pretty sure there’s a chance that Hayes has more then just 1 year in him...let’s not forget that any contract can be traded in this league as we’ve seen a 100x. JMO

Can't be that important, the coyotes are involved.

There was nothing political about my last blog. If that were the case, I would have been fired four years ago, but no one minds when you tell the truth.

They were not a fan of the swearing and attacks on a certain ex-GM. Or was it an elaborate ruse to create drama? You'll never know!

I think Chayka is the second best young GM in the game and the Coyotes will regret losing him.

But I know for a fact that whenever someone questions your knowledge on something, it's a form of gatekeeping born of jealousy and insecurity. (Which should be obvious but probably isn't to someone with morals that allow them to insult someone from behind an anonymous user name).
- James_Tanner

There was nothing political about my last blog. If that were the case, I would have been fired four years ago, but no one minds when you tell the truth.

They were not a fan of the swearing and attacks on a certain ex-GM. Or was it an elaborate ruse to create drama? You'll never know!

I think Chayka is the second best young GM in the game and the Coyotes will regret losing him.

But I know for a fact that whenever someone questions your knowledge on something, it's a form of gatekeeping born of jealousy and insecurity. (Which should be obvious but probably isn't to someone with morals that allow them to insult someone from behind an anonymous user name).
- James_Tanner

If I did Lawncare for a living and kept putting the wrong chemicals on the lawn and it always looked like crap I would get canned. You sir are the crappy lawn on my street. You need to be scrapped off and thrown in a dumpster. Nobody is jealous, I mean nobody.

If I did Lawncare for a living and kept putting the wrong chemicals on the lawn and it always looked like crap I would get canned. You sir are the crappy lawn on my street. You need to be scrapped off and thrown in a dumpster. Nobody is jealous, I mean nobody.
- Angus4444

This is very, very true. Regardless of anything else said on this board.

Honest question:

Why do people like you attack people or find reasons to ignore them if you don't like what they say?


Hayes compares poorly to other players on other teams who play the same role as he does. His 5v5 offense is poor, his 5v5 defense is so-so, and his only real contributions are on the PP where you don't need to pay a player 8 million to get them.

The fact is, he plays a type of game that we have always been told makes a big impact, and so you believe that anyone who says differently must be an idiot, despite it turning out that when you measure things instead of guessing, players like Hayes just aren't that helpful.
- James_Tanner

Says the guy who would fire employees who voted for trump

Kevin Hayes!!!

OK I totally get this.

In fact, a lot of what the people and the stats writers argue about is the idea of luck.

I am starting to realize that people see 'being lucky' as an invalidation of their work, but honestly , that isn't how the people talking about luck see it.


The NHL is a pro league, which means that the difference between players and teams is small. Now add in a salary cap and it makes it even smaller.

Also, consider that the game of hockey is a "bad game" from a game theory design standpoint. One player has an outsized effect, and the game is low scoring, so flukes have massive impacts.

Now consider that in order to determine a champion, teams play a seven game series which is so short that randomness has a massive effect *(the NHL has a lot of first round upsets, but for some reason treats teams that get upset like they are complete failures).

If you view it this way, luck is pretty much the deciding factor in every champions win. Sure, one team - say Tampa - may have the best odds of winning, but to win they'll have to also get really lucky. There is always going to be the hockey equivalent of calling a bluff correctly then watching your opponent hit two running cards to win despite massive probability in your favor. So even good teams need to get a bit lucky.


But a team like St Louis, they got incredibly lucky in the sense that a) nothing like their story (worth of a disney movie) has ever happened before b) they won with a rookie goalie who was in the AHL in January c) they were not considered one of the five or so teams that were "true cup contenders"


To change coaches and goalies and then have it almost instantly come together is so, so , so unlikely that it almost certainly has to be luck.

BUT that isn't a bad thing. Everyone needs luck to win. And, last time I checked, people love an underdog, even though the very definition of an underdog means that they were lucky if they won.

As humans, we love to credit our success to hard work and our failures to bad luck but deep down we all know that's crap. I didn't do anything to "earn" a brain that remembers everything I read, or to meet my wifes minimum requirements in the looks department. Doesn't mean I'm any less happy.

The Blues won, they are champs, and by virtue of being an NHL team they deserved their win. But as they were not anything close to being favorites, I think we do have to admit they got a bit lucky.
- James_Tanner

The concept of "luck" is slightly overblown in analytics circles as well, though.

There are things that are often ruled as "luck" can be influenced by talent levels.

Two players take the same shot from the same location on the ice against the same goalie. One goes in, the other does not. Is one shooter more lucky or are they just better at shooting the puck?

Game Theory?

Ha All nhl players are not smart enough for this blogger.


.

So let me piece this together:

Coyotes hire Chayka. He’s into Analytics. Tanner becomes a big fanboy.

But as time went on, Tanner started talking to Jfresh and friends, who were all bitter that Chayka wasn’t basing all of his decision on Jfresh cards, but Chayka actually was using some proprietary data. Therefore, Chayka is doing it all wrong. So Jfresh and friends were all butthurt that media gurus like Tanner were putting Chayka on this analytics pedestal.

Now that Chayka failed, oh sorry quit, well now the knives come out. Tanner declares Analytics is alive and well, because Chayka wasn’t really doing it right. Jfresh said so.

Now interestingly, as Tanner learned all of this info about Chayka “not doing Analytics the right way” he never once mentioned that in any of his articles over the years!! Isn’t that weird?? Tanner defended everything Chayka did. Not once did Tanner ever say “Hey everyone. This seems like an odd move by Chayka. It doesn’t really fit the typical “analytics” model. I’ve been talking to Jfresh and friends, who are the real analytics experts, and they think Chayka is insane.”

Does anyone remember that? Of course not. It was years of Tanner defending every single thing Chayka did. Not one peep about how his analytics approach was very flawed and shunned by Jfresh and friends.

Yup. We can see right though this. Seems like moving the goalposts again.

OK I totally get this.

In fact, a lot of what the people and the stats writers argue about is the idea of luck.

I am starting to realize that people see 'being lucky' as an invalidation of their work, but honestly , that isn't how the people talking about luck see it.


The NHL is a pro league, which means that the difference between players and teams is small. Now add in a salary cap and it makes it even smaller.

Also, consider that the game of hockey is a "bad game" from a game theory design standpoint. One player has an outsized effect, and the game is low scoring, so flukes have massive impacts.

Now consider that in order to determine a champion, teams play a seven game series which is so short that randomness has a massive effect *(the NHL has a lot of first round upsets, but for some reason treats teams that get upset like they are complete failures).

If you view it this way, luck is pretty much the deciding factor in every champions win. Sure, one team - say Tampa - may have the best odds of winning, but to win they'll have to also get really lucky. There is always going to be the hockey equivalent of calling a bluff correctly then watching your opponent hit two running cards to win despite massive probability in your favor. So even good teams need to get a bit lucky.


But a team like St Louis, they got incredibly lucky in the sense that a) nothing like their story (worth of a disney movie) has ever happened before b) they won with a rookie goalie who was in the AHL in January c) they were not considered one of the five or so teams that were "true cup contenders"


To change coaches and goalies and then have it almost instantly come together is so, so , so unlikely that it almost certainly has to be luck.

BUT that isn't a bad thing. Everyone needs luck to win. And, last time I checked, people love an underdog, even though the very definition of an underdog means that they were lucky if they won.

As humans, we love to credit our success to hard work and our failures to bad luck but deep down we all know that's crap. I didn't do anything to "earn" a brain that remembers everything I read, or to meet my wifes minimum requirements in the looks department. Doesn't mean I'm any less happy.

The Blues won, they are champs, and by virtue of being an NHL team they deserved their win. But as they were not anything close to being favorites, I think we do have to admit they got a bit lucky.
- James_Tanner

I absolutely think luck matters but I guess you saying their win was flukey bothers me.

Firstly, I think many people predicted the Blues were in contention for the cup. Petro's team was labeled chokers in the past for not having made it to the WCF except for one time previously.

The Blues, as a franchise over the age of 50, have only missed the playoffs nine times. They're perennial contenders and I'd argue they've been unlucky due to the fact the one time they received the first overall pick the consensus was Erik Johnson.

Also, I look at them sticking with Allen for the first half of last season as a big mistake. The team played more strongly to their potential once they got over .90 goaltending and would have been a heck of a team with Husso (their expected heir apparent at the time) too.

Binnington wasn't some scrub, he was drafted by the team based on his talent. Still though, of course his level of performance was unexpected.

I struggle though with identifying how much luck is a factor. If you watch that game seven against Dallas where they put what felt like hundreds of shots on Bishop while holding the Stars offense completely at Bay, the team was simply outworking their opponents. Eventually one goes in because of that dominance.

Same with the Sharks series. After that hand pass goal I thought they were done. This team with some of the same players has had epic playoff collapses in the past where they showed up following a lost and completely played timid, waiting to lose. They came out in that series and we're pissed.

I think luck matters, but I'm hesitant to say every team is within inches of each other and luck is what really pushes the needle.