Nashville is fine. They have an average attandance of 99.2. Without the help of nearby citys to pump in opposing fans unlike devils with 97% that get filled by Flyer, caps, pens, rags, isles, and bruin fans.

When NHL expands they should put 2 cities in... Markham/Hamilton and Seattle both in the West to balance out conferences. In 5 years when Phoenix's contract is up move them to Kansis City and Move Florida to Quebec.

NorthEast:
Quebec
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Boston
Buffalo
Columbus
Detroit

East:
Rangers
Islanders
Devils
Flyers
Penguins
Washington
Carolina
Tampa

Central:
Markham/Hamilton
Chicago
St.Louis
Kansis City
Nashville
Minnesota
Winnipeg
Stars

West:
Vancouver
Calgary
Edmonton
Seattle
Kings
Sharks
Ducks
Colorado
- youarewrong

Those teams/divisions work for me.

Re Nashville: my concern is that the 18 thousand who attend their games is their entire fan base. It would be interesting to see their local tv ratings and how much team merchandise they sell. Their ownership claims to be losing money even with a full building and a moderate payroll, thats a real concern.

Bill is Fired
- youarewrong

No Call, No Show, No Blog...

Those teams/divisions work for me.

Re Nashville: my concern is that the 18 thousand who attend their games is their entire fan base. It would be interesting to see their local tv ratings and how much team merchandise they sell. Their ownership claims to be losing money even with a full building and a moderate payroll, thats a real concern.
- BiggE

Unfortunately that will always be the case for teams like Nashville, st.Louis, Dallas, ect. They dont have the volume of people and corporations places like NY and Philly do.

I could be wrong, but from following the debate, I don't think he meant the conclusions/interpretations were black & white, only that the numbers themselves were self-evident.

I don't believe in the 100% infallibility of these new metrics -- there's ample room for improvement -- however people who refuse to allow for the benefit of analytics in hockey are just as blind as these so-called people who 'don't watch the games'.
- Tomahawk

The numbers are self evident in terms of what happened on the ice. That's all they can do. They are not self evident in terms of why the numbers are why they are. And they were used in poor context and used inaccurately to support a claim that Grossmann has played poorly. And those numbers simply can't do that. And when I tried to move the conversation away from analytics, and look at the goal highlights themselves, to get down to the nitty gritty of it, it was balked at. Not at all suprising.

As far as your last statement. I'm big beleiver in possession. And analytics such as Corsi are sound in theory, they do a much better job of measuring possession then something like +/- does. Because the sample size of a Corsi event is much larger then goals scored for or against. But they have the same pitfalls as +/-. And that's false positives and negatives, and human elements such as confirmation bias.
You look at Corsi after a game and it normally shows why one team won and one team lost the game. It shows you what happened in the game in terms of possession. Other analytics such as percentages of who played with who, and who they played against are great. They give a lot of insight. But Corsi and other analytics simply cannot isolate one player of the cause of why the numbers are what they are, nor can they determine if a player played poorly. Simply not possible.

The numbers are self evident in terms of what happened on the ice. That's all they can do. They are not self evident in terms of why the numbers are why they are. And they were used in poor context and used inaccurately to support a claim that Grossmann has played poorly. And those numbers simply can't do that. And when I tried to move the conversation away from analytics, and look at the goal highlights themselves, to get down to the nitty gritty of it, it was balked at. Not at all suprising.

As far as your last statement. I'm big beleiver in possession. And analytics such as Corsi are sound in theory, they do a much better job of measuring possession then something like +/- does. Because the sample size of a Corsi event is much larger then goals scored for or against. But they have the same pitfalls as +/-. And that's false positives and negatives, and human elements such as confirmation bias.
You look at Corsi after a game and it normally shows why one team won and one team lost the game. It shows you what happened in the game in terms of possession. Other analytics such as percentages of who played with who, and who they played against are great. They give a lot of insight. But Corsi and other analytics simply cannot isolate one player of the cause of why the numbers are what they are, nor can they determine if a player played poorly. Simply not possible.
- MJL

How about this.. We have watched Grossmann play (and not just the goals that were scored while he was on the ice)... and its easy for just about everyone to agree that he has had a down year compared to others. He has even struggled mightily at some points. He has had some good moments as well. All of that is just purely based off of watching him. With my eyes. Through the TV. In person. On the PC. Through the glass at the WFC.

Now, we also have the ability to read into some things as well. For example... at times it seems as though he is out there blocking tons of shots, but for the life of me, I cant remember us getting shots while he was out there. Boom, we have a metric for that. Well, that one game.. boy was he bad. Oh, he was with Streit that game. Hmm, these 8 games when he was with Streit stand out in the metrics, showing that they were thoroughly out played. Hmm, thats weird because his numbers arent that bad with Kimmo as his partner.

Now, any sane, rational, normal understanding human would be able to see that in games that he seemed to struggle, his metrics would also reflect that. Does it mean that his metrics show exactly, 100%, how he played at ALL points of the game. No, but it does paint a pretty good picture of how THAT INDIVIDUAL has played. Now expand it over 50, 60, 82 games.. and if they are consistently the same, you have a pretty accurate description of how that player has played over that time span.

The numbers are self evident in terms of what happened on the ice. That's all they can do. They are not self evident in terms of why the numbers are why they are. And they were used in poor context and used inaccurately to support a claim that Grossmann has played poorly. And those numbers simply can't do that. And when I tried to move the conversation away from analytics, and look at the goal highlights themselves, to get down to the nitty gritty of it, it was balked at. Not at all suprising.

As far as your last statement. I'm big beleiver in possession. And analytics such as Corsi are sound in theory, they do a much better job of measuring possession then something like +/- does. Because the sample size of a Corsi event is much larger then goals scored for or against. But they have the same pitfalls as +/-. And that's false positives and negatives, and human elements such as confirmation bias.
You look at Corsi after a game and it normally shows why one team won and one team lost the game. It shows you what happened in the game in terms of possession. Other analytics such as percentages of who played with who, and who they played against are great. They give a lot of insight. But Corsi and other analytics simply cannot isolate one player of the cause of why the numbers are what they are, nor can they determine if a player played poorly. Simply not possible.
- MJL

trolololololol

GROSSMANN STINKS! WORST PLAYER EVER! TRADE HIM = STANLEY CUP!

The numbers are self evident in terms of what happened on the ice. That's all they can do. They are not self evident in terms of why the numbers are why they are. And they were used in poor context and used inaccurately to support a claim that Grossmann has played poorly. And those numbers simply can't do that. And when I tried to move the conversation away from analytics, and look at the goal highlights themselves, to get down to the nitty gritty of it, it was balked at. Not at all suprising.

As far as your last statement. I'm big beleiver in possession. And analytics such as Corsi are sound in theory, they do a much better job of measuring possession then something like +/- does. Because the sample size of a Corsi event is much larger then goals scored for or against. But they have the same pitfalls as +/-. And that's false positives and negatives, and human elements such as confirmation bias.
You look at Corsi after a game and it normally shows why one team won and one team lost the game. It shows you what happened in the game in terms of possession. Other analytics such as percentages of who played with who, and who they played against are great. They give a lot of insight. But Corsi and other analytics simply cannot isolate one player of the cause of why the numbers are what they are, nor can they determine if a player played poorly. Simply not possible.
- MJL

Just because a stat can't be guaranteed to completely isolate a player's contribution doesn't mean it's flawed -- there's a margin for error/confidence level in any statistical study for a reason -- the more data you can throw at a problem, the higher the level of confidence goes up.

Obviously, you can't just say "Nik Grossmann's Corsi-Rel sucks, therefore he sucks". What you can do is pull in WOWY data, pull in zone-exit %'s, and match that with game film and come out with the conclusion that "Grossmann's a problem" and not be worried that your findings are completely baseless.

Unlike random fan-X, sees Grossmann plastering a guy against the boards a couple of times, blocking a few shots, and thinking "that Grossmann guy's a beast, but the rest of the team is hot trash, he's not the problem" which is based on nothing but personal perception and preferences.

GROSSMANN STINKS! WORST PLAYER EVER! TRADE HIM = STANLEY CUP!
- jmatchett383

GROSSMAN IS A MEDIOCRE PLAYER.

Pat Burrell was also in obvious decline by 2008, despite his HR totals.

No one stat tells the tale, sir.
- johndewar

Sure. The same can be said of Howard. And yes, stats can be manipulated to say pretty much whatever you want.

GROSSMAN IS A MEDIOCRE PLAYER.
- 2Real

HE NEEDS TO GO NOW BECAUSE HE DRAGS THE REST OF THE TEAM DOWN!

Sure. The same can be said of Howard. And yes, stats can be manipulated to say pretty much whatever you want.
- wolfhounds

There were no stats of how many skanky broads were banged by Burrell each year. Numbers just don't go that high.

How about this.. We have watched Grossmann play (and not just the goals that were scored while he was on the ice)... and its easy for just about everyone to agree that he has had a down year compared to others. He has even struggled mightily at some points. He has had some good moments as well. All of that is just purely based off of watching him. With my eyes. Through the TV. In person. On the PC. Through the glass at the WFC.

Now, we also have the ability to read into some things as well. For example... at times it seems as though he is out there blocking tons of shots, but for the life of me, I cant remember us getting shots while he was out there. Boom, we have a metric for that. Well, that one game.. boy was he bad. Oh, he was with Streit that game. Hmm, these 8 games when he was with Streit stand out in the metrics, showing that they were thoroughly out played. Hmm, thats weird because his numbers arent that bad with Kimmo as his partner.

Now, any sane, rational, normal understanding human would be able to see that in games that he seemed to struggle, his metrics would also reflect that. Does it mean that his metrics show exactly, 100%, how he played at ALL points of the game. No, but it does paint a pretty good picture of how THAT INDIVIDUAL has played. Now expand it over 50, 60, 82 games.. and if they are consistently the same, you have a pretty accurate description of how that player has played over that time span.

- jak521

Like I said. Metrics in the hands of coaches and GMs is like Cliff Notes in the hands of someone that read that novel. They will add insight to what you have already seen.

Metrics in the hands of Fans and Writers is like Cliff notes in the hands of someone who didnt read the book. They might know the crude outline of the story but they would be missing a big story.

And that is where my issue with metrics is. Any time us fans see the metrics its from someone posting something to back-up thier believed claim or a writer trying to impress readers. You cant judge a player by these numbers, and you cant compair players by these numbers... and it bothers me when people try.

Hey look, it's talk about Grossmann day again.

There were no stats of how many skanky broads were banged by Burrell each year. Numbers just don't go that high.
- jmatchett383

Pat the Bat, always looking for a field to play in.

My goodness...be safe out there guys it is nasty
- Giroux_Is_God

temple law trudges on. probably hoping to create some tort litigation so we have some practice

Pat Burrell has a championship to his name and hit 33 homeruns in 2008. Not too shabby.
- wolfhounds

true. but my point is that while i admit i dont have the stats in front of me to look it up, it sure as hell felt like the majority of his homeruns would occur with the team either up or down by enough for it to be inconsequential.

Soon, we won't even have to watch the games. We can just read stats all day

Just because a stat can't be guaranteed to completely isolate a player's contribution doesn't mean it's flawed -- there's a margin for error/confidence level in any statistical study for a reason -- the more data you can throw at a problem, the higher the level of confidence goes up.

Obviously, you can't just say "Nik Grossmann's Corsi-Rel sucks, therefore he sucks". What you can do is pull in WOWY data, pull in zone-exit %'s, and match that with game film and come out with the conclusion that "Grossmann's a problem" and not be worried that your findings are completely baseless.

Unlike random fan-X, sees Grossmann plastering a guy against the boards a couple of times, blocking a few shots, and thinking "that Grossmann guy's a beast, but the rest of the team is hot trash, he's not the problem" which is based on nothing but personal perception and preferences.
- Tomahawk

This is exactly what I hate about these numbers. What you did there was pull the numbers you needed to show that Grossmann is not a great outlet passer, and thus you think you won the arguement that Grossmann sucks. What you fail to see, and what the other person is able to see, is maybe there is more to being a defenseman then moving the puck out of the zone. Maybe he does a good job keeping a player to the outside on shots. maybe he blocks a ton of shots... Maybe he does throw hits and knock players off the puck. Maybe he clears the front of the net very well. Just because he isnt a great outlet passer does not mean he is a "problem" It MEANS that the coach has to take into account his weakness and put someone that compliments him with him.

How about this.. We have watched Grossmann play (and not just the goals that were scored while he was on the ice)... and its easy for just about everyone to agree that he has had a down year compared to others. He has even struggled mightily at some points. He has had some good moments as well. All of that is just purely based off of watching him. With my eyes. Through the TV. In person. On the PC. Through the glass at the WFC.


- jak521

I can't speak for we, but I can speak for myself. I have also watched Grossmann play, and not just the goals that were scored. But I have also taken the time to extensively review all the goals that Grossmann has been on the ice, with the exception of the last few recent games. And Grossmann is responsible for a very small percentage of them. And what I take away from watching those videos is that Grossmann is hung out to dry and left to try and makeup for other players breakdowns at an alarming rate. And I would agree that he had a stretch in January where his play was subpar, and he deserves criticism for that. But overall, Grossmann has continued to be what he's always been. A solid physical shot blocking defenseman. Albeit one with limitations to this game.

Now, we also have the ability to read into some things as well. For example... at times it seems as though he is out there blocking tons of shots, but for the life of me, I cant remember us getting shots while he was out there. Boom, we have a metric for that. Well, that one game.. boy was he bad. Oh, he was with Streit that game. Hmm, these 8 games when he was with Streit stand out in the metrics, showing that they were thoroughly out played. Hmm, thats weird because his numbers arent that bad with Kimmo as his partner.


- jak521

Metrics of possession don't prove that Grossmann has played poorly. There is also a large percentage of false and positive negatives involved with Corsi and shot generation.
And when Striet plays with Timonen, isn't it possible that the cause of that is simply that Timonen and the other players Striet played with are better at driving possesion when compared to Grossmann? Rather then stating that Grossmann has played poorly. It's the same flawed argument. It's comparble to criticizing a player for not scoring goals, and saying he played poorly, when goal scoring is not the players forte, and why he's in the lineup.

Now, any sane, rational, normal understanding human would be able to see that in games that he seemed to struggle, his metrics would also reflect that. Does it mean that his metrics show exactly, 100%, how he played at ALL points of the game. No, but it does paint a pretty good picture of how THAT INDIVIDUAL has played. Now expand it over 50, 60, 82 games.. and if they are consistently the same, you have a pretty accurate description of how that player has played over that time span.

- jak521

He may struggle in puck movement and the metrics may show possession numbers, but that is misusing the statistics. Those metrics are not capable of showing how well a player played. Simply not possible. And when I get home I'd be glad to provide plenty of reference material which states the the metrics you refer to can't be used that way. If we want to reference a normal human understanding, I would think that would take into account that there is more then one player on the ice, and the numbers can't isolate that player.

Here's one piece of reference material that artfully explains why those numbers aren't reliable for rating players. And I have a lot more where that came from. Enjoy.

http://blogs.edmontonjour...-wrong-with-some-players/

(frank)ing gross buzz again

Can we all just get back to hating Jay Rosehill's extension?

I can't speak for we, but I can speak for myself. I have also watched Grossmann play, and not just the goals that were scored. But I have also taken the time to extensively review all the goals that Grossmann has been on the ice, with the exception of the last few recent games. And Grossmann is responsible for a very small percentage of them. And what I take away from watching those videos is that Grossmann is hung out to dry and left to try and makeup for other players breakdowns at an alarming rate. And I would agree that he had a stretch in January where his play was subpar, and he deserves criticism for that. But overall, Grossmann has continued to be what he's always been. A solid physical shot blocking defenseman. Albeit one with limitations to this game.



Metrics of possession don't prove that Grossmann has played poorly. There is also a large percentage of false and positive negatives involved with Corsi and shot generation.
And when Striet plays with Timonen, isn't it possible that the cause of that is simply that Timonen and the other players Striet played with are better at driving possesion when compared to Grossmann? Rather then stating that Grossmann has played poorly. It's the same flawed argument. It's comparble to criticizing a player for not scoring goals, and saying he played poorly, when goal scoring is not the players forte, and why he's in the lineup.




He may struggle in puck movement and the metrics may show possession numbers, but that is misusing the statistics. Those metrics are not capable of showing how well a player played. Simply not possible. And when I get home I'd be glad to provide plenty of reference material which states the the metrics you refer to can't be used that way. If we want to reference a normal human understanding, I would think that would take into account that there is more then one player on the ice, and the numbers can't isolate that player.

Here's one piece of reference material that artfully explains why those numbers aren't reliable for rating players. And I have a lot more where that came from. Enjoy.

http://blogs.edmontonjour...-wrong-with-some-players/
- MJL

MJL is right. And I think he will agree. Metric numbers are good to have, and use. But they just dont tell the entire story and are dangerous in the hands of someone that doesnt realize that.

Can we all just get back to hating Jay Rosehill's extension?
- jmatchett383

Rosehill got extended?

Just because a stat can't be guaranteed to completely isolate a player's contribution doesn't mean it's flawed -- there's a margin for error/confidence level in any statistical study for a reason -- the more data you can throw at a problem, the higher the level of confidence goes up.

Obviously, you can't just say "Nik Grossmann's Corsi-Rel sucks, therefore he sucks". What you can do is pull in WOWY data, pull in zone-exit %'s, and match that with game film and come out with the conclusion that "Grossmann's a problem" and not be worried that your findings are completely baseless.

Unlike random fan-X, sees Grossmann plastering a guy against the boards a couple of times, blocking a few shots, and thinking "that Grossmann guy's a beast, but the rest of the team is hot trash, he's not the problem" which is based on nothing but personal perception and preferences.
- Tomahawk

The stat is not flawed when it is used in the proper context. When it is not used in the proper context, it is. You can't look at all the analytics and come to a definitive conclusion that Grossmann has not played well. That is the arguement. Can it be used to state that the Flyers need to upgrade that spot, and get a more skilled player in that role that is capable of doing more in terms of all around play, sure. But Grossmann is only capable of doing what he is capable of. He has limitations to his game. A NHL player who is not a goal scorer, and is cast in a different role, isn't playing poorly because he's not putting up good numbers in a metric that someone wants to choose to rate him, which is goal scoring. It's all about context.

Here's a good read. Just insert Grossmann in place of Murray.

http://www.thepensblog.co...the-need-for-context.html