Shut up... You're all cucks.
- laughs2907

bunch of feminazis around here.

bunch of feminazis around here.
- Mr.Bobby

Hey Mr. Bobby, did you see that b1tch flip out about the Hawaiian figurine in the taxi?

I regret posting here immensely.

Hey Mr. Bobby, did you see that b1tch flip out about the Hawaiian figurine in the taxi?
- laughs2907

Yeah, she was being oppressed so hard.

I regret posting here immensely.
- BINGO!

Hi



Does that make you feel any better?

I regret posting here immensely.
- BINGO!

pretty good summary of my career on here

pretty good summary of my career on here
- daeth

One for you too. Feel better champ!

I regret posting here immensely.
- BINGO!

- Tumbleweed

- BINGO!

How did you enjoy commodore’s big news?

How did you enjoy commodore’s big news?
- Tumbleweed

I'm a fan. Love guys like Raffi.

Fantastic blog Mr. French

Yeah, she was being oppressed so hard.
- Mr.Bobby

I know... Thank god that guy was fired.

How did you enjoy commodore’s big news?
- Tumbleweed

Torres was the "big news"?

This is the best blog I've ever read on this site.

This essay-like post would have been much more impactful if you had taken the time to include a Tears for Fears or Talking Heads video.
- 1979AD

This is the best blog I've ever read on this site.
- Scabeh

Yes... awesome work Adam... that was a great read.

I haven't gotten fully into the world of advanced stats, but I can see where there is value in very detailed analytics for any sport. That being said, you can't look only at charts and make accurate decisions and comparisons based only on those charts. You can make an informed educated guess... but stats can lie. Our eye's can lie too. There is a middle ground that can be found utilizing the new age analytics with the old school eye test.

Nice blog.

The numbers can be useful for better defining a player's performance but there is a misguided attempt by some to make them as meaningful as those used by...say...baseball. There are simply too many other variables (other teammates) that factor into the hockey equation where as baseball is almost entirely '1 on 1' when it comes to their metrics.

In the NHL EA Sports and things announcers on TV say shape how almost all people see things. The real dumbing down of discourse occurs when people repeat what they hear on TV as fact. The idea that there is two equally valid ways to evaluate players is ridiculous. That each tells "part of the story" is wrong.

Maybe you could make a case between professional scouts vs stats but if we're just talking the average persons hockey watching experience vs stats then it's a nonstarter.

You can watch hockey all you want, but your mind is going to be warped by high-impact plays and highlights + things people say.

No one, whether they're using stats or not, is really "objective". But at least when you use stats you're measuring something - no matter how great of an eye you have, this is always going to have more weight. The idea that it might not is preposterous to a degree it's hard to talk about while still being nice.

We have irrefutable data from every single field of study that says that humans are terrible at drawing conclusions from things they watch. (Observing something in order to write down data points is not the same as watching something and drawing a conclusion).

In nearly every case, measuring something brings out radically different (or at least counter-intuitive) results than what you thought from your experience.


In hockey, you don't have to watch a player and look at his stats and come to a conclusion. It is not about balance. As a fan, when you watch hockey, you should just have fun because nearly all the conclusions you draw from your eye test will be either obvious or so biased as to be scientifically useless. There is simply too much data in a single game to organize with your eyes and mind - and that's before including all the biases (recency, confirmation etc).

It is psychically impossible to watch enough hockey that you could be informed just through what you watch. When people talk about "the eye test" they are really just repeating back some combination of games they've watched, highlights they've seen and things they've heard about the player.

But mostly what authoritative media members have said.

Further bringing the ability of the eye test into question is the idea that, at the professional level, most players have such marginally different skill levels that what we usually argue about is preposterous.

Example: it's pretty clear who the top 3-5 defenseman are, but after that, the next 15-20 guys are practically interchangeable. Anyone who tells you that they can use their eye only to authoritatively say who is better between Pieterangelo and Vlasic is lying or wrong.

Anyways, this idea that there are two equally valid ways to evaluate players is preposterous. The way to evaluate players is with statistics. Traditional scouting is also helpful, but people who watch TV aren't professional scouts.

If a players reputation is different from what his stats say, everything we know about every topic in the history of the world says that the stats should be given priority.

The idea that hockey is the once exception to the entire universe is very dumb.

Oh, and further complicating the idea is that hockey is a game were 98% of the time there are no goals. Tiny little imperceptible plays add up to huge dividends over the course of a season. For every screwup Jake Gardiner makes that results in a goal - he may be skating the puck out his zone 2/10s of a second faster than the league average. Over the course of the year, this is going to be a major fact - but it's not something you can ever really see.

This is why stats are sometimes wildly different from what people observe. Little things make a huge difference in the aggregate, where as you only remember high impact plays like a give away or a goal.
- James_Tanner

Two things here, one, the above completely disregards that a lot of the stats we have at our disposal are flawed. That's a big reason why stats are sometimes wildly different form what people observe, and why stats that show that Rundblad is a good player, are flawed. Secondly, and most importantly. It is equally wrong to ignore advanced stats and to rely on them exclusively.

Maybe they are so close that there is no meaningful way to quantify the difference statistically, right now.

And THAT is the point. You can argue all day that stats are the only valid way to assess the differences. That's great, when you have the correct stats.

Nobody does, not yet, and they won't so long as they refuse to question their current theories and conclusions.
- Aetherial

I believe that the science of the analytics is sound, but the issue really is data collection. The sources that we have available to us, don't have the ability currently to collect the data they really need to give us better stats. NHL teams do, so they have better stats. Also, as with any stats, they still have to be analyzed, to come to a conclusion. A person such as James Tanner who is an over the top believer in analytics, wants to say that they remove the human element, and bias, etc. They really don't, simply because two proponents of analytics can come to two very different conclusion about a player, using the same stats.

Since the very first time someone described what Corsi or Fenwick is, people have come up with similar, REAL WORLD examples of how the stats could be flawed as a tool for assessing players.

They have always been ignored by the very same people who turn around call them narrow-minded.
- Aetherial

That is patently, 100% false.

One component of "analytics" is to question everything. Hockey-stats people have and do question each other on everything. There are conferences, websites, 100000 s of papers to read etc.

Like any field of study, it is always evolving. I can guarantee you that every single objection people post on this website when you start talking about stats has been looked at and overcome by the people who are leading the on this stuff.

Just for one example it's been found that score-adjusted corsi for the team is the stat that best predicts future wins. You act like people just came up with some theories and put them out there like they were facts. IN reality all this stuff is constantly being refined.
- James_Tanner

It is constantly being refined, because it's flawed. That's the nature of refinement. The biggest objection to Corsi and it's related stats has not been overcome, because it can't be. Not unless they come up with better data collection for the stats that fans have access to.

Look at this beast. I'm told he's a first liner even in 2010



With underlying numbers like these, he and Rundblad will lead Magnitogorsk to victory!

The evolution of the HERO Chart. Something that still adds a prescribed value, that is entirely subjective. They continue to expand and become more complex, yet they are beyond any scrutiny because they are perfect and without flaw.

stupid ipad. just lost my ridiculously long and well thought out message.

point. Frenchy is right. You must comsider all aspects of the game. If Dubas or Chayka followed Tanners blogs they would consider the over simplification of their area of expertise a disgrace. Dubas wont walk into Shannys office and say "hey look at this fourth liners 5v5 primary points per 60 over his 100 game career. acquire him now and put him on your first line.". and he sure as poop wouldnt ignore all the details of the game that actually lead to results. If you wanted a statistical model to even come close to being a 100 per cent accurate indicator of performance the data you would need to collect would be absurd. The positioning section of this type of model alone could probably not be computed on your average $400 laptop. This section would make something as complicated as a game of chess and all its many possible outcomes look like a simple coin flip.

Dont hate advanced stats because one arrogant blogger refuses to use them properly and insists on ignoring the actual playing of hockey. Real hockey people are using them in coordination with the methods of evaluation a traditional player, coach, scout, etc would use - which is the understanding of the very complicated game of hockey and all the tiny plays and decisions that go into making a successful player and team.

The best players should have better advanced stats then others, but having a handful of solid advanced stats does not necessarily make you one of the best players. Kadri firing pucks from the outside right into the bread basket does not make him elite. Neither does one or two stats from a bottom pairing D mans very short career and tiny sample size.

Advanced stats are useful. Not understanding anything about how hockey is played is not useful.

oh yeah, almost forgot, please stop arguing with tanner and commenting on his blogs, hes made it very clear he doesnt want to learn about hockey and doesnt value anybody elses thoughts or ideas even if they are far more qualified then him - which happens to be exactly what he accuses others of doing. just let him be by himself believing he knows more about hockey than all the players, scouts, coaches and gms.

Look at this beast. I'm told he's a first liner even in 2010



With underlying numbers like these, he and Rundblad will lead Magnitogorsk to victory!

The evolution of the HERO Chart. Something that still adds a prescribed value, that is entirely subjective. They continue to expand and become more complex, yet they are beyond any scrutiny because they are perfect and without flaw.
- AdamFrench

Frenchy, you are a beauty.
Gonna save this link and copy and paste it to every single blog that Tanner posts in the future.