The problem is Corsi was NOT, I repeat NOT intended to be used on a game by game basis. It's a cumulative stat meaning it's much more effective when used to gauge say a years worth of play. There are too many variables when trying to use it to analyze one game. The analysts know this already, as do most people who put stock into stats, which is why they don't bother with it during the intermissions. I wouldn't mind perhaps showing hero charts just to give subjective analysis on coaching decisions pertaining to lineups before games though.

Was there ever a hotter show on TV?
- smellmyfinger

Certainly gave Designing Women a run for it's money.

The problem is Corsi was NOT, I repeat NOT intended to be used on a game by game basis. It's a cumulative stat meaning it's much more effective when used to gauge say a years worth of play. There are too many variables when trying to use it to analyze one game. The analysts know this already, as do most people who put stock into stats, which is why they don't bother with it during the intermissions. I wouldn't mind perhaps showing hero charts just to give subjective analysis on coaching decisions pertaining to lineups before games though.
- mnhockeyguy

Sorry, you're wrong.

If it's the third period and you have been out shot-attempted 15- 8 you aren't having a very good game.

Sorry, you're wrong.

If it's the third period and you have been out shot-attempted 15- 8 you aren't having a very good game.
- James_Tanner

Typical Tanner response when his dogmatic view is challenged.

No I did in fact talk about McDavid.
- James_Tanner

Oh....you're right, but you didn't physically type "Oilers".

Sorry, you're wrong.

If it's the third period and you have been out shot-attempted 15- 8 you aren't having a very good game.
- James_Tanner

What happens if the team getting out shot, wins. Little bit of monkey wrench.

Sorry, you're wrong.

If it's the third period and you have been out shot-attempted 15- 8 you aren't having a very good game.
- James_Tanner

What if seven of those shot attempts are shots towards the net, from the blue line or red line, on line changes? Does that make your team far superior?

Brodie, Muzzin, Subban, Letang all should be on Team Canada. But it's inexcusable to not have named Brodie and Subban, at least. Pathetic even.
- James Tanner

This, and other plays like it, is why PK Subban is not on Team Canada.

Sorry, you're wrong.

If it's the third period and you have been out shot-attempted 15- 8 you aren't having a very good game.
- James_Tanner

The Kings out shot-attempted the Ducks 72-39 yesterday. The Ducks walked away with 2 points, the Kings none.

What happens if the team getting out shot, wins. Little bit of monkey wrench.
- tomburton99

Luck

The Kings out shot-attempted the Ducks 72-39 yesterday. The Ducks walked away with 2 points, the Kings none.
- tkecanuck341

Unsustainable.

The Kings out shot-attempted the Ducks 72-39 yesterday. The Ducks walked away with 2 points, the Kings none.
- tkecanuck341

Defies logic...unsustainable.

Typical Tanner response when his dogmatic view is challenged.
- leonkennedy

I don't think you know what dogmatic means. Second, you are wrong, and I told you why, how much more explanation do you need?

I mean, should I just say "agree to disagree" with everyone who is wrong? Like, every opinion is not equal, sometimes objectivity says one guys is actually wrong and one guy is right.

So if by "Typical Tanner response" you mean correctly told you the truth in a succinct and honest way, then yeah, I guess it is.

But I suspect what you mean is that "he disputed my wrong notions without regard to my feelings," in which case, I also agree but will add in a too damn bad for good measure.

Then, in a completely atypical response, I will add a little smiley dud thing so you know I'm still a nice guy.

What happens if the team getting out shot, wins. Little bit of monkey wrench.
- tomburton99

It happens all the time. Just because something doesn't occur with 100% frequency doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Sometimes teams who get outplayed win, which is why if you want to analyze anything properly you look at the process and ignore the results.

What if seven of those shot attempts are shots towards the net, from the blue line or red line, on line changes? Does that make your team far superior?
- LeftCoaster

That's an extreme example, but hopefully you're watching the game and can point out that that has occurred.

No one is saying big sample size aren't better or that these kind of things are not common in small sample sizes, but if a guy can use plus/minus - which is crap even in a massive sample size - then I am sure no one is going to be severely mislead by pointing out which team is getting the most shot attempts.

I don't think you know what dogmatic means. Second, you are wrong, and I told you why, how much more explanation do you need?

I mean, should I just say "agree to disagree" with everyone who is wrong? Like, every opinion is not equal, sometimes objectivity says one guys is actually wrong and one guy is right.

So if by "Typical Tanner response" you mean correctly told you the truth in a succinct and honest way, then yeah, I guess it is.

But I suspect what you mean is that "he disputed my wrong notions without regard to my feelings," in which case, I also agree but will add in a too damn bad for good measure.

Then, in a completely atypical response, I will add a little smiley dud thing so you know I'm still a nice guy.
- James_Tanner

The Coyotes were out shot yesterday 33-26, won 5-1. So in fact you are wrong.

This, and other plays like it, is why PK Subban is not on Team Canada.


- tkecanuck341

That is one play in which you are committing a confirmation bias and a recency bias to confirm what you believe.

The whole point of advanced stats is that they give credence to little sublte unseen but effective plays and balance everything out so that you don't give too much weight to the plays you happen to remember.

Subban has such good stats that you can ignore his bad plays - every single D in the NHL has multiple plays that are that bad per season.

It happens all the time. Just because something doesn't occur with 100% frequency doesn't mean it isn't correct.

Sometimes teams who get outplayed win, which is why if you want to analyze anything properly you look at the process and ignore the results.
- James_Tanner

The wild were out shot yesterday 32-30. Won 3-2.

Senators out shot 43-31, won 3-2.

The Kings out shot-attempted the Ducks 72-39 yesterday. The Ducks walked away with 2 points, the Kings none.
- tkecanuck341

Happens all the time, but if the Kings always play that way they will, over time, have more points than the Ducks.

The Kings totally deserved to win yesterday. They just didn't.

The Coyotes were out shot yesterday 33-26, won 5-1. So in fact you are wrong.
- tomburton99

But what were the Coyotes chances, even strength while wearing purple jerseys on a Tuesday. To me, that is a real measure of a teams success.

James I wouldn't put much stock in what Steve Simmons says. Pretty sure he just makes this nonsense up. Whenever he needs a negative story about the leafs he creates one. He also suggested that Lou can bend the rules just because he's Lou. Ridiculous.

The Coyotes were out shot yesterday 33-26, won 5-1. So in fact you are wrong.
- tomburton99

Hes a leaf fan so he doesnt care as much about the Coyotes

The Coyotes were out shot yesterday 33-26, won 5-1. So in fact you are wrong.
- tomburton99

What am I wrong about?

The team who plays the best doesn't always win. In fact, they probably only win about 60 odd percent of the time. Luck is a major major major factor in the outcome of games when teams are evenly matched, which every team in the NHL is.

Happens all the time, but if the Kings always play that way they will, over time, have more points than the Ducks.

The Kings totally deserved to win yesterday. They just didn't.
- James_Tanner

By your standards half the teams that played yesterday deserved to win and didn't. So what does that say about you "theory of logic concerning advanced stats?"

That is one play in which you are committing a confirmation bias and a recency bias to confirm what you believe.

The whole point of advanced stats is that they give credence to little sublte unseen but effective plays and balance everything out so that you don't give too much weight to the plays you happen to remember.

Subban has such good stats that you can ignore his bad plays - every single D in the NHL has multiple plays that are that bad per season.
- James_Tanner

It's not only this one play, and the fact that he fell down and gave up a turnover is secondary here. The fact that he is irresponsible enough to try something like this during a line change when he is the only defenseman back shows that he is reckless.

I can show you a dozen clips of him doing this exact thing successfully that should be just as damning to his chance of making the team.