[quote=James_Tanner]
You contradict yourself all the time!
You have argued over and over again about the parity of NHL players and the talent level(difference) being slim. Yet then you non-stop bash on players like Grossman, over and over again, Wash, Rinse, Repeat. So which is it James?

Better get a new blog up before you lose all your street Cred.

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

He's much more insufferable than Cloutier.

I guess you have caught on to why people like me in Pittsburgh are scared to death of what Rutherford will do to this franchise if it misses the playoffs and attempt to re-tool the roster. YIKES! It will be Hurricanes North, and we all know how bad that team has been for several years.

[quote=James_Tanner]


Thanks James, I'll only touch on a couple things.

My studies on Rielly / Gardiner come up vastly different, also my eye test tells me one thing LOUDLY ( RIELLY > GARDINER ) but the Corsi tells a complete opposite story and it makes no sense....maybe it's an anomaly, I know you don't agree. Same as Cody Franson...the guy is used in positions to get shots on net....great release/great shot/makes a great pass but he's terribly slow when going backwards and doesnt turn that great, hence the reason he will never be a #1D on any team in the NHL ( save the Leafs last year )

Even you said it yourself... 1/4 of the GM's are clueless....but what about the other 75% who passed on a guy like Franson?

Also I'd say even Pro Hockey players get tired playing against other pro hockey players, so I'd think 30min game vs 20min game there would still be differences in stats but that's just my opinion obviously.


Thanks again.

Thanks James, I'll only touch on a couple things.

My studies on Rielly / Gardiner come up vastly different, also my eye test tells me one thing LOUDLY ( RIELLY > GARDINER ) but the Corsi tells a complete opposite story and it makes no sense....maybe it's an anomaly, I know you don't agree. Same as Cody Franson...the guy is used in positions to get shots on net....great release/great shot/makes a great pass but he's terribly slow when going backwards and doesnt turn that great, hence the reason he will never be a #1D on any team in the NHL ( save the Leafs last year )

Even you said it yourself... 1/4 of the GM's are clueless....but what about the other 75% who passed on a guy like Franson?

Also I'd say even Pro Hockey players get tired playing against other pro hockey players, so I'd think 30min game vs 20min game there would still be differences in stats but that's just my opinion obviously.


Thanks again.
- Garnie

IF you look at Gardiner and Rielly, it's not just possession where Gardiner is better.

High danger scoring chance differential: JG +47, Rielly +4
All scoring chance differential" JG + 52 MR - 21
shots JG + 29 MR - 64

The Leafs also allow less goals and score more when Gardiner is on the ice.

So, ignoring possession, at which Gardiner is dominant, the Leafs get more than one extra high danger scoring chance per game, while Rielly costs them one every other game.

So if you score more with Gardiner, you get more shots,chances etc and he prevents more shots, chances and goals.

Even accounting for usage, those are massive differences. So where's the reasoning for Rielly over Gardiner?

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

The irony and hypocrisy is oh so rich... your entire modus operandi is to insult anyone who disagrees with you and say stuff like "can't argue facts!". So when someone does it to you, suddenly you're offended? So much for your self-professed claims to only care about facts.

Let's go back to January 10/17:

First of all, I don't give a crap about hits. I do not do this for the small amount of money I get. I have integrity and two year of being the most honest hockey writer in the world should say I have earned the right to go outside the box and give my opinion ESPECIALLY WHEN I BACK IT UP WITH FACTS.

You trot out the same old quality of competition crap, but won't spend five minutes reading about how it doesn't matter. Jesus, you're on a computer, google it.

Second, I don't care if I am criticized. I expect people to use some facts to back up their points if they want to be taken seriously and I will change my mind when confronted with new information. Again, I've proved this over and over.
- James_Tanner

A few days earlier on Jan 4 you wrote this:

The work to determine the exact effect of zone starts and qoc is also rock solid. The only blind people are the ones who don't take in new information and adjust what they believe.
- James_Tanner

In light of your response to my post in this thread, I have to say that your actions seem a wee bit contradictory, no?

A few more gems:

[...] Just because you don't like or agree with the results does not make something invalid. A lot of models end up showing surprising results: should we reject them all just because they give us new information?

I happen to know that these systems were devised by math experts. They don't care if the results don't jibe with hockey lore; they care only that they are accurate.

And, since accuracy is an issue, I have been lead to believe, from a trusted math expert, that this is rock solid and the absolute best predictive tool at our disposal.
- James_Tanner

... and yet a week later when you're presented with new models that present new information you decide to ignore it!

Coincidentally, the same day you also posted

"you can pretty much suck it ya whiner"
- James_Tanner

in response to Blackstrom2. But I'm sure that was just an isolated incident....oh wait, what's this?

you are the single most annoying person I have come across.
- James_Tanner

Clearly you always treat your readers with the utmost respect and professionalism. You've absolutely shown by your actions that you're open-minded, reasonable and definitely not a hypocrite!

The irony and hypocrisy is oh so rich... your entire modus operandi is to insult anyone who disagrees with you and say stuff like "can't argue facts!". So when someone does it to you, suddenly you're offended? So much for your self-professed claims to only care about facts.

Let's go back to January 10/17:



A few days earlier on Jan 4 you wrote this:



In light of your response to my post in this thread, I have to say that your actions seem a wee bit contradictory, no?

A few more gems: ... and yet a week later when you're presented with new models that present new information you decide to ignore it!

Coincidentally, the same day you also posted in response to Blackstrom2. But I'm sure that was just an isolated incident....oh wait, what's this?

Clearly you always treat your readers with the utmost respect and professionalism. You've absolutely shown by your actions that you're open-minded, reasonable and definitely not a hypocrite!
- TheMaritimer

Oh....wow.....this is a BLOODBATH

Tanner - I've never seen anyone get so utterly and completely eviscerated in an argument in my life

This dude absolutely slaughtered you in every way. And the funny part is that he's way smarter and more well-researched than you, so you literally have no chance

The irony and hypocrisy is oh so rich... your entire modus operandi is to insult anyone who disagrees with you and say stuff like "can't argue facts!". So when someone does it to you, suddenly you're offended? So much for your self-professed claims to only care about facts.

Let's go back to January 10/17:



A few days earlier on Jan 4 you wrote this:



In light of your response to my post in this thread, I have to say that your actions seem a wee bit contradictory, no?

A few more gems: ... and yet a week later when you're presented with new models that present new information you decide to ignore it!

Coincidentally, the same day you also posted in response to Blackstrom2. But I'm sure that was just an isolated incident....oh wait, what's this?

Clearly you always treat your readers with the utmost respect and professionalism. You've absolutely shown by your actions that you're open-minded, reasonable and definitely not a hypocrite!
- TheMaritimer

IF you look at Gardiner and Rielly, it's not just possession where Gardiner is better.

High danger scoring chance differential: JG +47, Rielly +4
All scoring chance differential" JG + 52 MR - 21
shots JG + 29 MR - 64

The Leafs also allow less goals and score more when Gardiner is on the ice.

So, ignoring possession, at which Gardiner is dominant, the Leafs get more than one extra high danger scoring chance per game, while Rielly costs them one every other game.

So if you score more with Gardiner, you get more shots,chances etc and he prevents more shots, chances and goals.

Even accounting for usage, those are massive differences. So where's the reasoning for Rielly over Gardiner?
- James_Tanner

Don't you see it as odd that everything about QOC Etc Shows up in this exact example. Let's take Boston vs To - Patrice Bergeron being 1 of the best C's on the planet but when I look for 5v5 ice time between Jake and him I find 0 but when I take a look at Rielly it shows 31 mins of ice time, same as Ovie I don't see any 5v5 time yet Rielly has 24 mins against the top shot producer in the world. This goes on and on for the top players of each team. It makes a HUGE difference IMO