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

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

YA

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

Lame responce Jimmy

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

this was the lamest response to a great post i've ever seen.

i'd say "you're better than that tanner".....but we all know that you really aren't. you're the new Richard Cloutier of Hockeybuzz.

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

This is why I stop reading your blogs about two lines in.

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

This response is the equivalent of a dog sticking his tail between his legs.

this was the lamest response to a great post i've ever seen.

i'd say "you're better than that tanner".....but we all know that you really aren't. you're the new Richard Cloutier of Hockeybuzz.
- sensarmy_11

OUCH!

Lame responce Jimmy
- HamiltonHawk

Mr. Tanner to you, bud.

Mr. Tanner to you, bud.
- James_Tanner

For a guy who continually proclaims no one understands statistics when they disagree with your opinion, you sure duck any responses dealing with statistics. It's almost like you don't understand them.

For a guy who continually proclaims no one understands statistics when they disagree with your opinion, you sure duck any responses dealing with statistics. It's almost like you don't understand them.
- Isles_since_6

Eventually I just expect him to snap.

We'll all be reading this on the news websites:

"The suspect was reported running naked through the streets wearing only a pair of Arizona Coyotes socks and a Toronto Maple Leafs toque. He was last seen carrying a "NHL Statistics for Dummies" book and reportedly has a crappy taste in music."

Oh Tanner

Mr. Tanner to you, bud.
- James_Tanner

Mr. Bud to you

This response is the equivalent of a dog sticking his tail between his legs.
- BruHAWK

How would I know that? I didn't read it and won't. You guys might not know this, but after two years of dumb, emotionally disturbed people attacking you on a website, you are a) immune to insults and b) trained to stop reading at the first insulting thing.

So lame response? Calling me Cloutier? Not really hurting my feelings here. The fact is, about 98% of people who read this website don't post in the comments. Of those that do, maybe like 1/4 are worth talking to. The rest of them just want a reaction, are obsessed with 'gotchas' or just wish they were you.

The best part? I see the same clowns saying the same crap to all the people I respect and look up to, so I know I don't need to take any of it seriously.

Insult me all you want, it's just more cash in my pocket. And if the admins don't like what you say, they'll kick you out. It's all the same to me.

For a guy who continually proclaims no one understands statistics when they disagree with your opinion, you sure duck any responses dealing with statistics. It's almost like you don't understand them.
- Isles_since_6

I do not. I respond to everyone who isn't a jackass. And if you want any credibility - which you do not have - you would be fair in your assessments.

I do not. I respond to everyone who isn't a jackass. And if you want any credibility - which you do not have - you would be fair in your assessments.
- James_Tanner

I'm touched that you think I want anything from you, but frankly I think of you as just another flavour of Garth. Lot of talk, not much substance.

How would I know that? I didn't read it and won't. You guys might not know this, but after two years of dumb, emotionally disturbed people attacking you on a website, you are a) immune to insults and b) trained to stop reading at the first insulting thing.

So lame response? Calling me Cloutier? Not really hurting my feelings here. The fact is, about 98% of people who read this website don't post in the comments. Of those that do, maybe like 1/4 are worth talking to. The rest of them just want a reaction, are obsessed with 'gotchas' or just wish they were you.

The best part? I see the same clowns saying the same crap to all the people I respect and look up to, so I know I don't need to take any of it seriously.

Insult me all you want, it's just more cash in my pocket. And if the admins don't like what you say, they'll kick you out. It's all the same to me.
- James_Tanner

odd you post that, since it's obviously the only reason you write the garbage you do........for hits.......as you clearly stated in the 2nd bolded part

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.

well done. Very well reasoned argument with plenty of examples.

How would I know that? I didn't read it and won't. You guys might not know this, but after two years of dumb, emotionally disturbed people attacking you on a website, you are a) immune to insults and b) trained to stop reading at the first insulting thing.

So lame response? Calling me Cloutier? Not really hurting my feelings here. The fact is, about 98% of people who read this website don't post in the comments. Of those that do, maybe like 1/4 are worth talking to. The rest of them just want a reaction, are obsessed with 'gotchas' or just wish they were you.

The best part? I see the same clowns saying the same crap to all the people I respect and look up to, so I know I don't need to take any of it seriously.

Insult me all you want, it's just more cash in my pocket. And if the admins don't like what you say, they'll kick you out. It's all the same to me.
- James_Tanner

Tanner gets completely OWNED by TheMaritimer....

He just took his ball and ran home crying!!!

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

You are officially TheMaritimer's female dog dude

Wow

Tanner gets completely OWNED by TheMaritimer....

He just took his ball and ran home crying!!!
- AxlRose91

That must be embarrassing for Tanner oh my god

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.

Tanner, please put this peasant in his place.

Mr. Tanner.

I have some questions regarding time on ice...QOC - Zone starts etc.

Especially time on ice, does that get factored into the equations?

example...if someone played 30 min's per game wouldn't they be a little more tired than if they only played...lets use 15 min's per game?

So the guy playing 15 mins has better #'s but the guy playing 30 mins played twice as much ( and the obviously is probably though of as the better player by his coach/gm etc )

Also I'm still trying to wrap my head around Zone Starts and QOC not having an impact long term...but it has an impact every shift/every game so I'm really confused how it wouldnt impact a players stats over the course of his career.

Regardless, I don't think it's fair that you call some guys lesser when they play 10 or 15 mins more per game and face all the tougher comp and more Dzone starts than some other guy who is used as a 2nd pair getting prime Ozone starts and getting to face lesser competition.

Sorry if I rambled but you stating things as FACT make some people go crazy...in case you havent noticed. lol.

OR read it. What a dud. Hope that was worth the hour of your time. I don't know, if I was going to write something like that, I would try not to be such an ass in the first three lines. ("Jesus Christ you're a f___simpleton?") Seriously dude? And let's say I was going to talk to someone like that, I'd damn sure not make a mistake like thinking the difference between 44% and 45% Corsi was 1% and not actually 1 number.

Anyways, if you're going to be a Richard, don't make such a dumb mistake, cause if you do, the guy you want to impress isn't going to read the whole thing.
- James_Tanner

swag

Mr. Tanner.

I have some questions regarding time on ice...QOC - Zone starts etc.

Especially time on ice, does that get factored into the equations?

Yes but it seems that there is little movement on p/60 rates when players get more ice time. This is the kind of thing where a guy might be tired and have a terrible game, but is unlikely to do that enough that it would batter in a long term evaluation. I think playing players like Karlsson less would probably help, but I don't know.

example...if someone played 30 min's per game wouldn't they be a little more tired than if they only played...lets use 15 min's per game?

I'm sure they would be, but also, they're professional athletes and are used to it. Hard to say. Personally, stairs wind me. I think Karlsson leads the league in ice time, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out some crappy players are actually better than him once he exceeds a certain amount of toi, but who knows? It's not like he's ever going to play "just" 22 minutes or whatever.

So the guy playing 15 mins has better #'s but the guy playing 30 mins played twice as much ( and the obviously is probably though of as the better player by his coach/gm etc )

Also I'm still trying to wrap my head around Zone Starts and QOC not having an impact long term...but it has an impact every shift/every game so I'm really confused how it wouldnt impact a players stats over the course of his career.

As has been pointed out ad nasuem, zone starts and qoc barely matter. Over the long term, their effect is likely minimized because you get to play with better players, in general, when you play against better players.

Then there is the fact that you earn your own zone starts by getting the puck deep, getting a whistle and staying on the ice. This also works the opposite way in that if you suck, you get more.

The NHL changes lines on a fly a lot, so zone starts don't give you anything but a general guide of usage.

Many players with bad zone starts and tough assignments succeed, so it's a crap excuse when a player doesn't.

Zone starts are generally tracked by faceoffs, which is interesting in that it is not unusual that teams take several faceoffs with the same guys on the ice over a short period of time. This obviously skews the stats to make it look worse for defensive zone starts, because if you are Karlsson, you get a dzone start and get the puck out and the next play starts in the other zone. If you are Grossmann, you can't get the puck out and your goalie covers it within ten seconds, rinse, wash, repeat and suddenly you got 3 Dzone starts, but 2 of them were your fault.

This situation happens often enough that it does skew the zone start numbers to look worse for bad players.

Finally, NHL players are the best in the world and there just isn't that much difference between the best and worst, so qoc is probably overblown just from that. Add in coaches matching lines and the effect almost goes away. Crosby just isn't going to get on the ice vs enough losers often enough (which is the key) to make a huge difference in a real game situation.

Smart coaches match lines, but you can never play your best vs the worst as much as you want. So in reality, I think what happens is that best tends to play best, second best plays second best and so on.

People have studied faceoffs and concluded that there is like - I forget exactly - 6-8 seconds after the draw where there is any real effect. I think zone starts work pretty much the same way - win the faceoff clean and get a scoring chance then boom! the zone start helped you. But 50% of the time you lose the face off and I;m guess like 80% of the rest of the time its a scramble, so not much advantage most of the time, basically.

So if you take all this together, what you get is the idea that zone starts and qoc barely matter over the course of multiple games. As has been established, to my knowledge, as a fact.

Regardless, I don't think it's fair that you call some guys lesser when they play 10 or 15 mins more per game and face all the tougher comp and more Dzone starts than some other guy who is used as a 2nd pair getting prime Ozone starts and getting to face lesser competition.

Sorry if I rambled but you stating things as FACT make some people go crazy...in case you havent noticed. lol.
- Garnie

The click-bait King does it again