Wow, a guy who won 2 Norris Trophies in the past 6 years isn't mentioned on any ballots except for Chicago's JJ.

I guess if the Hawks don't win a Cup, Keith doesn't get recognition.
- bwarner929

Chara has also won one in the last 6 years......but unlike you, bruins fans realize that the fact that younger guys have overtaken him is not taking away anything he's done in the past....or saying that he's bad now.

1. Doughty
2. OEL
3. Hedman
4. Josi
5. Brodie

Karlsson cracks my top 10, but solely based on his offense. He's a defensive disaster and basically a forward

Lindholm doesn't even crack my top 20 yet, but is certainly headed towards that direction
- TylerSeguin19

this argument is so old, so retarded, and only used by idiots who never actually watch him play.......

This is because there doesn't seem to be available data for minor leagues and even if there was, it'd be hard to compare across leagues. Obviously teams can do there own work in this regard and I bet it's an exploitable area.

Another thing: In the minors, players have a much wider range of skill levels, making it easier to tell who is good at what. When you watch NHL hockey, most of the players are so close in skill level scouting becomes much more of a crapshoot.

I read once that the only difference between a second line player a fourth line player was that the second line player got the opportunity and got lucky enough during that opportunity to score a few and get a longer look. It's very similar to a sociological theory about the accumulation of opportunity.

Anyways, currently, when I say fire your scouts, I mean your NHL scouts.
- James_Tanner

There are so many players across different leagues it would be tough.

For example, the Sabres drafted a Russian player in the 7th round that basically played in the KHL junior league, his numbers were great, he was maybe the most skilled player in the league. Without any scouts, where does this player rank? Is the data weighted for competition? Does he ever get considered? He wouldn't dominate the same in the CHL.

Sabres drafted a local kid Austin Osmanski in the 6th I believe who physically was a late bloomer, his numbers weren't excellent, but physically improving every year. Does he get looked over because a kid who flatlined in the CHL at 16-17 has better possession numbers?

No doubt. Teams have the ability using video and software to break games down shift by shift, player by player. Instead of taking team shot data and applying it to every player that is on the ice, they can actually apply data to individuals player, and cut down a lot of the noise and false data that is involved with the stats that we the fans have access to. Roger Neilson did something similar back in the 70's when he used video to create a more accurate +/- stat. The limitation for NHL teams is time, and not being able to do it with every team, and every game played. In time, data collection will change, and technology will evolve to greatly improve analytics.
- MJL

Money is one limiting factor. I'd assume the higher revenue sports have all largely adopted far more advanced analytics. I'm not sure the NHL has gone down that path.

I've seen other industries where bloggers have made major changes. Economics and the widsom of crowds has definitely seen ideas gain acceptance that later trickled into the old boys club.

Money is one limiting factor. I'd assume the higher revenue sports have all largely adopted far more advanced analytics. I'm not sure the NHL has gone down that path.

I've seen other industries where bloggers have made major changes. Economics and the widsom of crowds has definitely seen ideas gain acceptance that later trickled into the old boys club.
- sditulli

There's no doubt that some teams are far more advanced, not just in compiling analytics, but in what is far more important, which is analyzing the data, and using it to an advantage. Some of that is reluctance for a variety of reasons, but I don't see as an old boys club, and to the extent that Tanner sees it. The old boys club is smart enough to know that Jake Gardiner is not an elite #1 defenseman.

You do a much better job of discrediting the entire industry every time you use stats inappropriately to support some of your more ridiculous hyberbolic click-bait statements.

If I had to choose between the confirmation bias of the eye-test and your relentlessly irresponsible use of applied statistics I would choose the former 10/10 times.

Luckily a middle ground exists. You know, people who are capable of expressing doubt and admitting potential flaws in their statistical analysis.
- RonPielep

Yeah yeah, broken record. When I argue with you every time I get the impression of a guy sitting there with a thesaurus trying to sound smart - or I guess by today's standards it's passing off googled info as their own, but you get what I'm trying to say. MLJ is crazy wrong too, but at least he's honest about it.

The craziest thing is that I constantly doubt everything and never have once said anything I say is definitive (except for Karlsson being #1 and Josi not being top 20, those are just facts). If you can find more a pseudo-journalist more willing to learn in public, go argue with him.

Other than that, I suggest the two of you argue with each other, might be a fairer fight.

Yeah yeah, broken record. When I argue with you every time I get the impression of a guy sitting there with a thesaurus trying to sound smart - or I guess by today's standards it's passing off googled info as their own, but you get what I'm trying to say. MLJ is crazy wrong too, but at least he's honest about it.

The craziest thing is that I constantly doubt everything and never have once said anything I say is definitive (except for Karlsson being #1 and Josi not being top 20, those are just facts). If you can find more a pseudo-journalist more willing to learn in public, go argue with him.

Other than that, I suggest the two of you argue with each other, might be a fairer fight.
- James_Tanner

Please explain the comment " MLJ is crazy wrong too, but at least he's honest about it.

This is the Tanner playbook. When comments are made that you can't refute, attack the messenger.

There are so many players across different leagues it would be tough.

For example, the Sabres drafted a Russian player in the 7th round that basically played in the KHL junior league, his numbers were great, he was maybe the most skilled player in the league. Without any scouts, where does this player rank? Is the data weighted for competition? Does he ever get considered? He wouldn't dominate the same in the CHL.

Sabres drafted a local kid Austin Osmanski in the 6th I believe who physically was a late bloomer, his numbers weren't excellent, but physically improving every year. Does he get looked over because a kid who flatlined in the CHL at 16-17 has better possession numbers?
- sbroads24

Good points. That's where it comes down to nothing should be absolute. I think amateur scouting is incredibly important. You're trying to identify who has potential major league skill. Once they hit the NHL, you know they have that skill - now it's separating 750 guys who are all probably closer together in overall skill level than anyone really stops to consider - obviously this is going to require more than just looking at things in real time.

How is Hampus Lindholm on two lists.... I dont even know if he is top 20. Is he even the best defenseman on his team?

Please explain the comment " MLJ is crazy wrong too, but at least he's honest about it.

This is the Tanner playbook. When comments are made that you can't refute, attack the messenger.
- MJL

I think it's the human playbook. Get annoyed talking to a wall who doesn't listen to anything you say, or even consider it, and then become frustrated and lash out.

What I meant by the part you quoted was a compliment - you're just saying what you think, which is cool, even if I think you're wrong. The other guy is intentionally trying to give me a hard time.

How is Hampus Lindholm on two lists.... I dont even know if he is top 20. Is he even the best defenseman on his team?
- Mahewman

Because he was one of the half of possibly the most effective non-Karlsson pairing last season. He is 100% in the top twenty, though placement can be argued. I think what he did last year put him in the Subban-Hedman-Doughty-Letang conversation. And he is most definitely the best dman on his team.

Fair enough. I'm just referring to your comment in a blog that draisaitl would be lucky to develop into kadri. Looking at the regular box car I see that in draisaitl first full season hit 51 point and kadri in his career has never exceeded 50 points. I don't k ow a ton about advanced stats but I glance at a hero chart and see draisaitl' swaps better. So I'm just curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
- kessellover69

I'm just gonna bump this up to see if James will give me his reasoning

I think it's the human playbook. Get annoyed talking to a wall who doesn't listen to anything you say, or even consider it, and then become frustrated and lash out.

What I meant by the part you quoted was a compliment - you're just saying what you think, which is cool, even if I think you're wrong. The other guy is intentionally trying to give me a hard time.
- James_Tanner

James, the difference is that I've presented proof multiple times, to back up my statements on how NHL teams are far more advanced with analytics than what the fans have access to. You think they're an old boys club who continues to fail to embrace the holy grail of player evaluations that is analytics. They actually have, and they know it better than all of us do. The analytics we have access to are flawed, and due to those flaws, need to be used properly, and given the correct amount of weight. One of the best things that analytics has done for the fan base in terms of discussion and debate is that we can now offer "proof" of our opinions. The only problem is one side may offer a completely different conclusion as another side, using the exact same data and stats. When I tell you that the numbers you hold so dearly are flawed, and that NHL teams have access to far better data, it's like telling a child that there is no Santa Claus.

Because he was one of the half of possibly the most effective non-Karlsson pairing last season. He is 100% in the top twenty, though placement can be argued. I think what he did last year put him in the Subban-Hedman-Doughty-Letang conversation. And he is most definitely the best dman on his team.
- James_Tanner

Guess i need to watch the Ducks more often....

100% top 20 is still questionable

Karlsson Burns Hedman Subban OEL Letang Josi Keith Kingberg Gio Buff Doughty Suter Weber Brodie Seabrook Gostisbehere Pietrangelo Goligoski Ekblad Faulk? Krug? Muzzin? Vlasic? Boychuck? Parayko? Shattenkirk?

I might be able to keep going... I guess its all preference.

It was one of the most ridiculous comments I ever read. Even by Tanner's standards.
- MJL

The guy has he head up JT's behind....or he is JT...1 or the other.

Yeah yeah, broken record. When I argue with you every time I get the impression of a guy sitting there with a thesaurus trying to sound smart - or I guess by today's standards it's passing off googled info as their own, but you get what I'm trying to say. MLJ is crazy wrong too, but at least he's honest about it.

The craziest thing is that I constantly doubt everything and never have once said anything I say is definitive (except for Karlsson being #1 and Josi not being top 20, those are just facts). If you can find more a pseudo-journalist more willing to learn in public, go argue with him.

Other than that, I suggest the two of you argue with each other, might be a fairer fight.
- James_Tanner

What googled info are you even talking about?

And honest about what? How about you stop with the baseless accusations and focus on the discussion at hand...

Tanner, the manner in which you present your opinions and how dismissive you are of valid arguments and perspectives of others is evidence enough of your lack of doubt in your statistical conclusions. A responsible statistician doesn't immediately dismiss the opinions of those who don't share their statistical tools. And just because said statistician realizes at a later date that they are wrong, and is willing to admit it, does not then negate the fact that the original presentation of the statistical conclusion was irresponsible and short-sighted.

Confirmation bias in the eye-test is apparently the end all be all in dismissing the eye test as completely useless.

But valid concerns about subjective statistical inference or short-sighted statistical modeling are apparently easily dismissed and not a big deal.

This asymmetry of expressing doubt for each evaluation method is exactly why your use of statistics is irresponsible and why some of the click-bait conclusions you conjure up push more people away from analytics than the other way around.

Confirmation bias in the eye-test is apparently the end all be all in dismissing the eye test as completely useless.

But valid concerns about subjective statistical inference or short-sighted statistical modeling are apparently easily dismissed and not a big deal.
- RonPielep

Yep, confirmation bias is also in play with analytics though.

Yep, confirmation bias is also in play with analytics though.
- MJL

100%. I try to cover that in subjective statistical inference. And I edited my post further.

Everyone who put a name other than Karlsson at #1 should be out of a job. He has more takeaways than the names that the idiots put ahead of him and he is a point per game defenseman in 2016. He led the league in assists. A league with centers like Sidney Crosby, Tyler Seguin, and Connor McDavid.

Doughty's Norris this season should have .61 engraved on it. That's his points per game which is unacceptable for a Norris winner. The best defenseman in the NHL absolutely MUST be more productive than that. Muzzin makes Doughty look good.

Idk why people are still surprised by anything written by the laughable excuse for a hockey analyst known as James Tanner. Logic doesn't enter the equation in anything he says. Yesterday, the NHL MVP and Art Ross winner (by 18points) isn't even a Top 5 winger. Today, the Norris Trophy winner isn't even a Top 5 Dman in the NHL. Tanner's existence on this site, and especially every hot stove, is to say ridiculous things for clicks. Plain and simple. I watch the Senators often and Karlsson should play wing, his team would win more games.

Everyone who put a name other than Karlsson at #1 should be out of a job. He has more takeaways than the names that the idiots put ahead of him and he is a point per game defenseman in 2016. He led the league in assists. A league with centers like Sidney Crosby, Tyler Seguin, and Connor McDavid.

Doughty's Norris this season should have .61 engraved on it. That's his points per game which is unacceptable for a Norris winner. The best defenseman in the NHL absolutely MUST be more productive than that. Muzzin makes Doughty look good.
- P.klem

Is there some kind of rulebook written somewhere that states this must? Doughty was 9th in the league in scoring among defenseman. Doughty is the best defenseman in the NHL in my opinion.

Don't play big minutes for a winning team or on a team winning it all the time. Play for teams that usually miss the play offs and you are a top shelf player?

Idk why people are still surprised by anything written by the laughable excuse for a hockey analyst known as James Tanner. Logic doesn't enter the equation in anything he says. Yesterday, the NHL MVP and Art Ross winner (by 18points) isn't even a Top 5 winger. Today, the Norris Trophy winner isn't even a Top 5 Dman in the NHL. Tanner's existence on this site, and especially every hot stove, is to say ridiculous things for clicks. Plain and simple. I watch the Senators often and Karlsson should play wing, his team would win more games.
- EnzoD

^^^^^^^
[quote=James_Tanner]
I'm not seeing your response to the comments you quoted and bolded. Am I supposed to?