Twice in one day is pretty impressive for a guy who constantly rails against people for committing the fallacy of appealing to authority.

But your recurring hypocrisy isn't news to anyone at this point.
- RonPielep

It really isn't the same thing, at all. If someone is trying to discredit me, and their argument is "all NHL GMs passed over that player, therefore he is bad" then that is an appeal to authority and is a terrible argument.

I'm just saying you can look it up. I'm not arguing against anyone. Of course I'm going to site my sources or whatever if I want to make an argument, but all I am doing here is (frustratingly) saying that if you don't believe me about Gardiner, then please look it up.

I know you're the king of "gotcha" on the internet, but you truly suck at it. Yesterday you didn't know what a pedant was, and today you don't know what a hypocrite is.

You just embarrass yourself. I mean, you come to my blog, read my stuff, then rag on me. I don't know you, you're just some anonymous guy who consistently acts like a jerk.

And as the ultimate insult, I think MLJ and Garnie know more about hockey that you.

People just don't believe you when you try to tell them that Vermette is one of the worst players in the league. That's because he's not! 17 goals in less than 80 games on a crappy team. and one of the best face off guys in the NHL. Plus he won a cup less then two years ago. I know his advanced stats are bad. But goals still matter in hockey. I also think the Yotes defense has improved, with Goligoski. He fills a big hole on the blue line. Plus OEL! Stone and Murphy are good skaters who hit very hard. Third pairing is not so good. Really depends on Smith. He needs a good year.
- Gomey

Most of his goals were scored on the powerplay - because the Yotes were bad and he got a ridiculous amount of PP time, which he'll never get again.

At 5v5 he was horrendous defensively, slow, and constantly outshot. He scored something like 12 5v5 points all year, most of them being secondary assists.

Faceoffs have no value and being good at faceoffs is about as useful for helping your team win as being good at pogs.

If a player's advanced stats are not good, he is not good. End of story.

Tanner is immune from that fallacy. I'd like Tanner to produce one high level hockey authority, that concurs that Gardiner is a top pairing defenseman. One.
- MJL

^^

This is hilarious. You think the millions of people who know how to look at stats only look at one thing and make a declaration? Anyone who compares the numbers all the way across the board will realize that Subban is way, way better than Weber.
- James_Tanner

Funny you should take this stance on subban vs webber when during the Olympic selection process your opinion on subban was less than flatering. Has you opinion changed because he is no longer with the habs, as it has for most guys on sportsnet, tsn and any other tdot based network....

[quote=James_Tanner]1. Don't conflate 5 guys in the comments section with the millions who read and love me.

There isn't even a million people who come to this website Your living in a dream world James.

You say that about me, and I guess your saying it about the entire group of people who are looking at hockey analyticaly because Gardiner being considered a top pairing dman is pretty much unanimous among those people.
- James_Tanner

*you're
*analytically

I'll bet you use the term "irregardless", don't you?

Most of his goals were scored on the powerplay - because the Yotes were bad and he got a ridiculous amount of PP time, which he'll never get again.

At 5v5 he was horrendous defensively, slow, and constantly outshot. He scored something like 12 5v5 points all year, most of them being secondary assists.

Faceoffs have no value and being good at faceoffs is about as useful for helping your team win as being good at pogs.

If a player's advanced stats are not good, he is not good. End of story.
- James_Tanner

This has to be the most retarded thing I've ever seen you type, you make fun of Garth for not reading over his blogs but you obviously have no idea what Hockey even is. They obviously only let you write on this website so people have something to come home to and take their anger out on.

... If a player's advanced stats are not good, he is not good. End of story.
- James_Tanner

James..how do you feel that Matthews stinks at fancy stats?

Team North American has a 59.7% Corsi tonight, only one player below 50%, and that's Auston Matthews at 38.46%.#Bust

— Andrew Berkshire (@AndrewBerkshire) September 11, 2016

whats your hot take here...is he good or not good?

(frank).

Most of his goals were scored on the powerplay - because the Yotes were bad and he got a ridiculous amount of PP time, which he'll never get again.

At 5v5 he was horrendous defensively, slow, and constantly outshot. He scored something like 12 5v5 points all year, most of them being secondary assists.

Faceoffs have no value and being good at faceoffs is about as useful for helping your team win as being good at pogs.

If a player's advanced stats are not good, he is not good. End of story.
- James_Tanner

I'm guessing you hate Forrest Gump too!

You say that about me, and I guess your saying it about the entire group of people who are looking at hockey analyticaly because Gardiner being considered a top pairing dman is pretty much unanimous among those people.
- James_Tanner

Who are these people?

James..how do you feel that Matthews stinks at fancy stats?

Team North American has a 59.7% Corsi tonight, only one player below 50%, and that's Auston Matthews at 38.46%.#Bust

— Andrew Berkshire (@AndrewBerkshire) September 11, 2016

whats your hot take here...is he good or not good?
- DDM-Coga

Maybe try using someone who isn't a complete dolt like Berkshire. He's on the Tanner level of awfulness.

Maybe try using someone who isn't a complete dolt like Berkshire. He's on the Tanner level of awfulness.
- H8terade

Numbers don't lie thought (and I agree hes just another troll too). I want tanners take here. Hes had bad fancy stats this tourney but says he does all the little things well (eye test). I need resolution here

Give it to me Tamsy. Give me the HOT HOT HOT take

It really isn't the same thing, at all. If someone is trying to discredit me, and their argument is "all NHL GMs passed over that player, therefore he is bad" then that is an appeal to authority and is a terrible argument.

I'm just saying you can look it up. I'm not arguing against anyone. Of course I'm going to site my sources or whatever if I want to make an argument, but all I am doing here is (frustratingly) saying that if you don't believe me about Gardiner, then please look it up.

I know you're the king of "gotcha" on the internet, but you truly suck at it. Yesterday you didn't know what a pedant was, and today you don't know what a hypocrite is.

You just embarrass yourself. I mean, you come to my blog, read my stuff, then rag on me. I don't know you, you're just some anonymous guy who consistently acts like a jerk.

And as the ultimate insult, I think MLJ and Garnie know more about hockey that you.
- James_Tanner

It's exactly the same fallacy James, you consistently appeal to authority because you lack a substantive argument to back up your claims. Even if there are statisticians out there who believe what you say, until you can comprehensively understand and explain their conclusions and limitations, you are simply appealing to authority. Then you turn around and rail against people who appeal to authority when they discuss what professional scouts and GMs say.

Yesterday I knew what a pedant was and today I know what a hypocrite is. You sir, are a hypocrite and a pretty poopty one at that.

If you'd like to make up some more bullpoop claims that you can't support go right ahead. Hurl some more insults and throw some more poop at the wall to see if it sticks. The only person who repeatedly embarrasses himself in here is you James, and if that isn't clear from the 50 other posters who come in here daily to spell it out for you, then you are either impressively dense or willfully ignorant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume like most others that you are just a willfully ignorant troll.

Oh and nice ultimate insult James, that one really hit home.

i'm sure he'll do fine.

the fact they his biggest comparison points for rel stats will be jossi, ekholm, ellis etc. vs. markov, petry, emelin etc. will surely mean his corsi rel stats won't look as good; even though he could be doing better in system that is better for him.

a simple known flaw in corsi rel stats.
- Tumbleweed

Agreed. Excellent point.

Brian Burke, but he also once said Dion Phaneuf was one of the 4 best defencemen in the league!
- hagar58

Link?

Matthews better than Mackinnon LOL
- QuickSCF

Matthews looked great, but how anyone could come away from that game without thinking Mackinnon and McDavid were the two most impressive players is baffling

It really isn't the same thing, at all. If someone is trying to discredit me, and their argument is "all NHL GMs passed over that player, therefore he is bad" then that is an appeal to authority and is a terrible argument.

I'm just saying you can look it up. I'm not arguing against anyone. Of course I'm going to site my sources or whatever if I want to make an argument, but all I am doing here is (frustratingly) saying that if you don't believe me about Gardiner, then please look it up.

I know you're the king of "gotcha" on the internet, but you truly suck at it. Yesterday you didn't know what a pedant was, and today you don't know what a hypocrite is.

You just embarrass yourself. I mean, you come to my blog, read my stuff, then rag on me. I don't know you, you're just some anonymous guy who consistently acts like a jerk.

And as the ultimate insult, I think MLJ and Garnie know more about hockey that you.
- James_Tanner

Man up James. It's exactly the same, and you did exactly what you repeatedly criticize others for. Who is MLJ?

Numbers don't lie thought (and I agree hes just another troll too). I want tanners take here. Hes had bad fancy stats this tourney but says he does all the little things well (eye test). I need resolution here

Give it to me Tamsy. Give me the HOT HOT HOT take
- DDM-Coga

Was going to post this, but I have a suspicion we wouldn't get an answer

Was going to post this, but I have a suspicion we wouldn't get an answer
- sbroads24

its just a small sample size so you can't take anything from it but the fact he has ben so hard line if you have bad possession numbers youre a bad player is just stubborn. Its never as simple as that

its just a small sample size so you can't take anything from it but the fact he has ben so hard line if you have bad possession numbers youre a bad player is just stubborn. Its never as simple as that
- DDM-Coga

No kidding. I will never, ever, ever agree that QoC does not make a significant difference. Ever. It's the phoniest narrative I have ever heard.

Man up James. It's exactly the same, and you did exactly what you repeatedly criticize others for. Who is MLJ?
- MJL

Accountability is not a term that James has any familiarity with.

If a player's advanced stats are not good, he is not good. End of story.
- James_Tanner

That's false. The developers of advanced stats don't even believe that. Making that statement only further reinforces that you don't understand analytics. A good player on a bad team, can have bad statistics. Vice versa, a bad player on a good team can have good stats (Runblad). Someone who is such a believer in analytics, should at least have a grasp on the basic fundamentals.



http://www.si.com/nhl/201...-defense-hockey-analytics

Numbers don't lie thought (and I agree hes just another troll too). I want tanners take here. Hes had bad fancy stats this tourney but says he does all the little things well (eye test). I need resolution here

Give it to me Tamsy. Give me the HOT HOT HOT take
- DDM-Coga

I've got a hot lunch for ya....

I've got a hot lunch for ya....
- Tumbleweed

Meat and two veg...?