Since when is my word not good enough? I constantly use evidence to support my claims and get called an idiot by people who's essential argument boils down to "because I said so."

So this is me, testing that style of argument out. Or I guess I could be like HB and just think that being the first one to be pious and condescending wins an argument. Or I could ignore obvious irony and rant for a half an hour about what a piece of crap I am. Whatever you want, your call.
- James_Tanner

I'm so confused but okay. I'm trying to have a civil discussion but you obviously want nothing to do with it. Sorry for wasting your time I guess

I'm so confused but okay. I'm trying to have a civil discussion but you obviously want nothing to do with it. Sorry for wasting your time I guess
- JakeTech19

I have never called you an idiot and find your writing genuinely entertaining one way or another. No hard feelings.

good lord

The emphasis being on being a human. More than I can so for most of you trolls.
- James_Tanner

Don't listen to the haters man. Keep fighting the good fight. 20 years from now everyone will finally catch onto our way of thinking.

I'm so confused but okay. I'm trying to have a civil discussion but you obviously want nothing to do with it. Sorry for wasting your time I guess
- JakeTech19

Nah, I'm just joking around man, no offense. I just didn't have the time to go into anything right then. I like Leddy over Weber because in nearly all statistics I have read, he appears superior, and it's not just this past year.

Some sneer at possession, but if you assume that over time that all shots are equal, then whoever gets the most shots wins, again, over time.

This is why I value possession so highly. It also correlates to winning games more so than any other stat. Also, Leddy appears to make his teammates better, and appears to be valuable at both ends of the ice.

The problem people have is that everyone just says Weber is one of the best, even though he is not as good as he used to be. Also, I don't ignore (like some say) the peripherals or the intangibles, but I just put more weight into hard stats.

Just saying I like one player more than the other doesn't mean I think Weber is not great, he's amazing. I just looked at the stats and came to my conclusion. Leddy just scored the same amount of points as Weber did, but his team had the puck more when he was on the ice and his teammates all improved more when they played with him.

Contrary to popular belief, I watch a ridiculous amount of hockey, ten times more than before I blogged, and I was watching a lot then. I also have never made a single assertion ever just to get hits or be contrary for the sake of it.

You're welcome to check the data and draw your own conclusion. No where did I say what I think is a fact.

Check the data yourself:

WaronIce.com
Stats.hockey.analysis.com
ownthepuck.blogspot.com

I have never called you an idiot and find your writing genuinely entertaining one way or another. No hard feelings.
- JakeTech19

Again, sorry for being douchy with you, I often tend to just be glib, sarcastic, ironic, etc with no real indications that I am doing so. I tend to think anyone who reads me regularly gets it, but because of my ego I just assume that is everyone.

Don't listen to the haters man. Keep fighting the good fight. 20 years from now everyone will finally catch onto our way of thinking.
- Nucker101

Well I don't really know about that, but I appreciate the sentiment. Certainly one day it will be less acceptable to write off stats analysis because you "know the game" can invent opinions out of the air and argue them with a straight face and use popularity as a basis for thinking what you do.

Oh wait, that would require everyone to inform themselves before calling someone else an idiot, so never mind!

Might be funny without the casual homophobia....but at least I'm not the only one w/ a sense of humor around here.
- James_Tanner

Don't forget that I am much, much smarter than you.
- James_Tanner

Thank you Dr Science.

Since when is my word not good enough? I constantly use evidence to support my claims and get called an idiot by people who's essential argument boils down to "because I said so."

So this is me, testing that style of argument out. Or I guess I could be like HB and just think that being the first one to be pious and condescending wins an argument. Or I could ignore obvious irony and rant for a half an hour about what a piece of crap I am. Whatever you want, your call.
- James_Tanner

So please show me where you provided this when you typed that Sekera was better then Josi?
Look James i enjoy your blogs. I have probably done more research then ever on players just trying to prove you wrong. And "sometimes" i find that you are indeed correct, And i end up changing my mind on certain players.
But your blogs always end up going like this.
You post a blog with maybe one or two sentences(sometime more) that will get people irate enough to comment, We/they argue back and forth with each other until eventually if delves into a lot of posters calling you an idiot, And you being condescending with your replies as if you are that much smarter then everyone else(including almost all of the current management and coaches in the NHL) And in the end there usually are a lot more questions then answers as to how everybody came to their conclusions. All good!
The thing that i guess i have the most issue with is that somewhere along the way you usually end up doing exactly what you complain about other poster doing, Which is provide little to no proof that your claims are legit. You claim there is proof out there, But seldom prove anything. And you should be held to a higher standard then the average poster because you are the Blogger!

New blog in 3, 2, 1...............................?
Also something that i don't like.
Not the quantity of your blogs Because honestly they hold over the summer months. But the fact that when pushed into a real tight spot where you may not be able to Chart/Graph your way out of it.............A new blog to save the day.

Thank you Dr Science.
- itsborken

You're welcome, sir.

So please show me where you provided this when you typed that Sekera was better then Josi?
Look James i enjoy your blogs. I have probably done more research then ever on players just trying to prove you wrong. And "sometimes" i find that you are indeed correct, And i end up changing my mind on certain players.
But your blogs always end up going like this.
You post a blog with maybe one or two sentences(sometime more) that will get people irate enough to comment, We/they argue back and forth with each other until eventually if delves into a lot of posters calling you an idiot, And you being condescending with your replies as if you are that much smarter then everyone else(including almost all of the current management and coaches in the NHL) And in the end there usually are a lot more questions then answers as to how everybody came to their conclusions. All good!
The thing that i guess i have the most issue with is that somewhere along the way you usually end up doing exactly what you complain about other poster doing, Which is provide little to no proof that your claims are legit. You claim there is proof out there, But seldom prove anything. And you should be held to a higher standard then the average poster because you are the Blogger!
- camfor

Sekera scores at a similar pace, but get less minutes. He makes his linemates better than Josi does and plays better defense. Josi scores more, but the cost is worse defense and worse linemates. Can that scoring be maintainted? RJ has a higher PDO, suggesting the difference isnt' as great as it appears.

Sekera possesses the puck more. (this is a three year look at their stats).

Overall, Josi scores more, and Sekera is better at everything else. You can make a good argument Josi is better, or you could pick Serkera, neither is massively better and its fairly subjective at this point, but we're still talking about players who are around the 20-30 best D in the NHL.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=retannered&defid=8326719
- rangerdanger94

This is amazing.

Well I don't really know about that, but I appreciate the sentiment. Certainly one day it will be less acceptable to write off stats analysis because you "know the game" can invent opinions out of the air and argue them with a straight face and use popularity as a basis for thinking what you do.

Oh wait, that would require everyone to inform themselves before calling someone else an idiot, so never mind!
- James_Tanner

This is also great.

Nah, I'm just joking around man, no offense. I just didn't have the time to go into anything right then. I like Leddy over Weber because in nearly all statistics I have read, he appears superior, and it's not just this past year.

Some sneer at possession, but if you assume that over time that all shots are equal, then whoever gets the most shots wins, again, over time.

This is why I value possession so highly. It also correlates to winning games more so than any other stat. Also, Leddy appears to make his teammates better, and appears to be valuable at both ends of the ice.

The problem people have is that everyone just says Weber is one of the best, even though he is not as good as he used to be. Also, I don't ignore (like some say) the peripherals or the intangibles, but I just put more weight into hard stats.

Just saying I like one player more than the other doesn't mean I think Weber is not great, he's amazing. I just looked at the stats and came to my conclusion. Leddy just scored the same amount of points as Weber did, but his team had the puck more when he was on the ice and his teammates all improved more when they played with him.

Contrary to popular belief, I watch a ridiculous amount of hockey, ten times more than before I blogged, and I was watching a lot then. I also have never made a single assertion ever just to get hits or be contrary for the sake of it.

You're welcome to check the data and draw your own conclusion. No where did I say what I think is a fact.

Check the data yourself:

WaronIce.com
Stats.hockey.analysis.com
ownthepuck.blogspot.com
- James_Tanner

No worries, appreciate the feedback. Definitely see what you mean as far as possession. The team that has the puck and can transition the puck effectively is more often than not going to come out on top. I'll look into the stats further, thanks for the links.

Nah, I'm just joking around man, no offense. I just didn't have the time to go into anything right then. I like Leddy over Weber because in nearly all statistics I have read, he appears superior, and it's not just this past year.

Some sneer at possession, but if you assume that over time that all shots are equal, then whoever gets the most shots wins, again, over time.

This is why I value possession so highly. It also correlates to winning games more so than any other stat. Also, Leddy appears to make his teammates better, and appears to be valuable at both ends of the ice.

The problem people have is that everyone just says Weber is one of the best, even though he is not as good as he used to be. Also, I don't ignore (like some say) the peripherals or the intangibles, but I just put more weight into hard stats.

Just saying I like one player more than the other doesn't mean I think Weber is not great, he's amazing. I just looked at the stats and came to my conclusion. Leddy just scored the same amount of points as Weber did, but his team had the puck more when he was on the ice and his teammates all improved more when they played with him.

Contrary to popular belief, I watch a ridiculous amount of hockey, ten times more than before I blogged, and I was watching a lot then. I also have never made a single assertion ever just to get hits or be contrary for the sake of it.

You're welcome to check the data and draw your own conclusion. No where did I say what I think is a fact.

Check the data yourself:

WaronIce.com
Stats.hockey.analysis.com
ownthepuck.blogspot.com
- James_Tanner

My issue is with relying so heavily on shot statistics is while CORSI, Fenwick etc. have a strong correlation to winning at a team level were every shot can be seen as equal, it doesn’t necessarily transfer well to every individual were every shooter is not necessarily equal.

For individuals, I think it’s a great tool to identify players that can be analyzed further; not so much a be all end all for defining who the best players are.

Sekera scores at a similar pace, but get less minutes. He makes his linemates better than Josi does and plays better defense. Josi scores more, but the cost is worse defense and worse linemates. Can that scoring be maintainted? RJ has a higher PDO, suggesting the difference isnt' as great as it appears.

Sekera possesses the puck more. (this is a three year look at their stats).

Overall, Josi scores more, and Sekera is better at everything else. You can make a good argument Josi is better, or you could pick Serkera, neither is massively better and its fairly subjective at this point, but we're still talking about players who are around the 20-30 best D in the NHL.
- James_Tanner

Isn't it reasonable to assume (without me directly looking) that Josi is put in more compromising situations than Sekera, which leads to less productivity from a possession standpoint?

Who's to say if Sekera was deployed the way Josi is/was that the results wouldn't be similar.

Problem is there is no way to definitely say.

Isn't it reasonable to assume (without me directly looking) that Josi is put in more compromising situations than Sekera, which leads to less productivity from a possession standpoint?

Who's to say if Sekera was deployed the way Josi is/was that the results wouldn't be similar.

Problem is there is no way to definitely say.
- sbroads24

Josi 209 blocked shots (2nd in the NHL)
To me that says he is used in almost all the tough situations defensively.
I watched him in this years playoffs and if James thinks Sekera is better defensively then i can't even begin to make him see the light.

Sekera scores at a similar pace, but get less minutes. He makes his linemates better than Josi does and plays better defense. Josi scores more, but the cost is worse defense and worse linemates. Can that scoring be maintainted? RJ has a higher PDO, suggesting the difference isnt' as great as it appears.

Sekera possesses the puck more. (this is a three year look at their stats).

Overall, Josi scores more, and Sekera is better at everything else. You can make a good argument Josi is better, or you could pick Serkera, neither is massively better and its fairly subjective at this point, but we're still talking about players who are around the 20-30 best D in the NHL.
- James_Tanner

Sekera gets less then half the ice time as Josi?
Thats the only way that makes any sense.
Because no way in heii do they score at a similar pace(did you even look at the stats?)
Put it to you this way. OEL greatest stat is his goals, Blew every "D" man away.
He scored one more even strength goal than Josi.
And Josi is way better in his own end then you are giving him credit for. 209 blocked shots says a lot about what he is able to do and he racks up points at an "elite" level. If your not willing to suck it up and admit your wrong about Josi being better then Sekera then i will do us both a favor and not be dumb enough to add to your hit count any longer.

Don't listen to the haters man. Keep fighting the good fight. 20 years from now everyone will finally catch onto our way of thinking.
- Nucker101

Those who ignore on ice play, context, nuances of the game, the difference an immeasurable play can make to the outcome of the game, situational differences and style of game as irrelevant in the face of advanced numbers, are every bit as ignorant as those who don't put credence into underlying statistics.

If there's ever a time that the thinking in the nhl relies solely on corsi etc, the league and player analysis will be much worse off

Coaches and gm's certainly aren't infallible by any means. But either way, you think there's even one that would even hesitate for a second with a decision between nick leddy and Shea weber?

The jake gardiners and nick leddys of the game are solid 2nd pairing options at best on a winning squad.
Shea weber is a true 1 by any rational metric

Those who ignore on ice play, context, nuances of the game, the difference an immeasurable play can make to the outcome of the game, situational differences and style of game as irrelevant in the face of advanced numbers, are every bit as ignorant as those who don't put credence into underlying statistics.

If there's ever a time that the thinking in the nhl relies solely on corsi etc, the league and player analysis will be much worse off

Coaches and gm's certainly aren't infallible by any means. But either way, you think there's even one that would even hesitate for a second with a decision between nick leddy and Shea weber?

The jake gardiners and nick leddys of the game are solid 2nd pairing options at best on a winning squad.
Shea weber is a true 1 by any rational metric
- HB77

Nucker is just pissed that Tanner is using analytics. His blogs give much less merit to Nucker's arguments because he shows how easy it is to take statistics and skew them to favour your argument.

As I've said for years, statistics are like a lamp post. They should be used for support not illumination.