In watching a lot of these guys over the past couple years, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how effective VH is and somewhat disappointed in JO.

VH seem to find ways to gain possession in area he looks completely overmatched. Very fast and will go to the net.

JO seems like he should be really good. Smooth skater, good offensive vision, can exit the zone, but he makes about 3-4 just insanely bad decisions per game that often turn into prime scoring chances for the other team.

I get what the stats say, but context is needed there.
- Chunk

IN most cases, and this is just a hypothesis, but non-power play bottom pairing guys who don';t get a chance to put up offense and are 'puck movers' tend to get underrated because the only times you remember anything about what they do, it's when they give the puck away.

However, with these players if their zone entires/exits and passing are strong they end up being much more effective than the 'eye test' can account for - which is why they're usually available.

This happens with forwards too - for years guys like Lee Stepniak, Brad Boyes, Derek Winnik were said to 'suck' while the stats said they were among the most effective bottom six guys in the NHL.

I think there's a lot of little things players do that help teams that aren't necessarily notice.

Then why not just say this to begin with?
That's right!...It's all about the clicks!
- camfor

It’s just like Pittsburgh unloading Sheary and Hunwick - the trade is only good if you utilize the cap space properly. The sense in the Burgh is that JJ is going to continue to be a dud and his contract will be an eye sore. Does Bowman do the same? We’ll see

IN most cases, and this is just a hypothesis, but non-power play bottom pairing guys who don';t get a chance to put up offense and are 'puck movers' tend to get underrated because the only times you remember anything about what they do, it's when they give the puck away.

However, with these players if their zone entires/exits and passing are strong they end up being much more effective than the 'eye test' can account for - which is why they're usually available.

This happens with forwards too - for years guys like Lee Stepniak, Brad Boyes, Derek Winnik were said to 'suck' while the stats said they were among the most effective bottom six guys in the NHL.

I think there's a lot of little things players do that help teams that aren't necessarily notice.
- james_tanner1

You're assuming here that NHL teams don't have access to or use stats such as zone exits/entries? So many factors come into play such as sample size, ice time, level of competition, etc. Just having good team stats doesn't make a player a good player. One of the basic concepts of analytics that you have yet to grasp is that a bad player can have good numbers and vice versa.
I'll put an NHL GM's and pro scouts eye test above a analysis of stats by a blogger any day.

What I love about the internet is that if you don't agree with someone, they're 'biased' and lack 'objectivity.' The take you are praising is very bad because its assuming all non-name brand players are bad. Oh Jordan Osterle? He sucks even though I've never seen him play or even watched him if I did, and I don't care about stats.

Sure, trust that guys 'unbiased' opinion. My opinion is this: I looked up his stats and he's a good player. The end.

The Coyotes have established a pattern of seeking out players who fit a certain analytic mold and which are undervalued by other teams.

They got Demers for peanuts. Now they have Osterle, and VH. They picked up Panik. Josh Archibald, Nick Cousins. these guys aren't going to set the world on fire, but theyve created a situation where their bottom of teh roster players are much better than most teams.
- james_tanner1

This is 100% the truth.

All these bloggers (not just James) taking the time to write articles for our enjoyment and discussion and they constantly get called all kinds of names and spoken to in a way most of the readers wouldn't have the balls to say if it was in person.

With over 20 years in the league it’s time to put together an all time coyotes starting lineup and I’ll put this lineup against any team in the time period

Doan-datsyuk-hossa
Pronger-OEL
Smith

You're assuming here that NHL teams don't have access to or use stats such as zone exits/entries? So many factors come into play such as sample size, ice time, level of competition, etc. Just having good team stats doesn't make a player a good player. One of the basic concepts of analytics that you have yet to grasp is that a bad player can have good numbers and vice versa.
I'll put an NHL GM's and pro scouts eye test above a analysis of stats by a blogger any day.
- MJL

I'm just talking about normal people's observations. I think teams and scouts also fall victim to this kind of magical thinking.

I'm just talking about normal people's observations. I think teams and scouts also fall victim to this kind of magical thinking.
- james_tanner1

when you're at the game you can key-in on 1-2 players. if you're focused and observant you can see a lot.

but there's probably a lot of group think that occurs in scouting. you have to weary of that.

when you're at the game you can key-in on 1-2 players. if you're focused and observant you can see a lot.

but there's probably a lot of group think that occurs in scouting. you have to weary of that.
- Tumbleweed

To think though, that you could watch enough hockey on TV to have an opinion on every single player in the league and think that somehow that opinion is equal to what the stats say is something I continue to find preposterous.

Like you can probably watch John Tavares or Connor McDavid and use your eye test to declare them among the best in the world. But if you are talking about Jordan Osterle, then I think that the stats should make up 99% of the analysis of his play.

I've seen lots of games where Jordan Osterle played, but I can't tell you any single time I finished the game and remembered years later how I thought he played.

To think though, that you could watch enough hockey on TV to have an opinion on every single player in the league and think that somehow that opinion is equal to what the stats say is something I continue to find preposterous.

Like you can probably watch John Tavares or Connor McDavid and use your eye test to declare them among the best in the world. But if you are talking about Jordan Osterle, then I think that the stats should make up 99% of the analysis of his play.

I've seen lots of games where Jordan Osterle played, but I can't tell you any single time I finished the game and remembered years later how I thought he played.
- james_tanner1

that's why team's have several pro scouts situated in different areas that they send to games. usually to scout specific players they are interested in....not to take in a game for fun. it's easy enough to watch every shift for a particular player if you're focused.

i assume video is heavily used in the summer.

Based off what? You're intimate knowledge of what every team is willing to pay for cap space?

People have strong opinions on trades involving players they've never heard of. This is probably a good trade for both teams, but the Coyotes - at worst - end up with two quality NHL players with the chance that Vince H. is a diamond in the rough type guy.
- james_tanner1

at worst is they dont have an nhl career.

so does the new dman bump golisgoski out of the top 4?

IN most cases, and this is just a hypothesis, but non-power play bottom pairing guys who don';t get a chance to put up offense and are 'puck movers' tend to get underrated because the only times you remember anything about what they do, it's when they give the puck away.

However, with these players if their zone entires/exits and passing are strong they end up being much more effective than the 'eye test' can account for - which is why they're usually available.

This happens with forwards too - for years guys like Lee Stepniak, Brad Boyes, Derek Winnik were said to 'suck' while the stats said they were among the most effective bottom six guys in the NHL.

I think there's a lot of little things players do that help teams that aren't necessarily notice.
- james_tanner1

thats not true at all

To think though, that you could watch enough hockey on TV to have an opinion on every single player in the league and think that somehow that opinion is equal to what the stats say is something I continue to find preposterous.

Like you can probably watch John Tavares or Connor McDavid and use your eye test to declare them among the best in the world. But if you are talking about Jordan Osterle, then I think that the stats should make up 99% of the analysis of his play.

I've seen lots of games where Jordan Osterle played, but I can't tell you any single time I finished the game and remembered years later how I thought he played.
- james_tanner1

keep up the good work jimmy. be up your way in a few months. send me your address we can break bread.

that's why team's have several pro scouts situated in different areas that they send to games. usually to scout specific players they are interested in....not to take in a game for fun. it's easy enough to watch every shift for a particular player if you're focused.

i assume video is heavily used in the summer.
- Tumbleweed

Yes again though, I'm just talking about NHL fans and writers.

As far as scouts go, I don't think scouting is useless at all. I just think that stats are always going to be a better indicator of what will happen than what a scout says, and the evidence clearly supports this conclusion.

Yes again though, I'm just talking about NHL fans and writers.

As far as scouts go, I don't think scouting is useless at all. I just think that stats are always going to be a better indicator of what will happen than what a scout says, and the evidence clearly supports this conclusion.
- james_tanner1

you don't buy a house (or rent) without walking through.

i'm sure both are used.

I'm just talking about normal people's observations. I think teams and scouts also fall victim to this kind of magical thinking.
- james_tanner1

How do you explain the high percentage of times that you're wrong about players using the magic formula that you have?

To think though, that you could watch enough hockey on TV to have an opinion on every single player in the league and think that somehow that opinion is equal to what the stats say is something I continue to find preposterous.


- james_tanner1

There is some truth to this. The fly in the ointment is that they stats that you rely on aren't very good overall.

Yes again though, I'm just talking about NHL fans and writers.

As far as scouts go, I don't think scouting is useless at all. I just think that stats are always going to be a better indicator of what will happen than what a scout says, and the evidence clearly supports this conclusion.
- james_tanner1

There is no direct evidence to support that at all. If it was true, NHL teams would fire all of their scouts, save a boatload of money, and just rely on stats.

There is some truth to this. The fly in the ointment is that they stats that you rely on aren't very good overall.
- MJL

To be fair, he does utilize possession stats and they’re not always a bad thing. He just usually doesn’t go broad scope and then says luck on conflicting data. He’s basically got his bachelors degree in medicine and didn’t retain anything from his actual doctorate. If that makes anything sense.

To be fair, he does utilize possession stats and they’re not always a bad thing. He just usually doesn’t go broad scope and then says luck on conflicting data. He’s basically got his bachelors degree in medicine and didn’t retain anything from his actual doctorate. If that makes anything sense.
- YzermanTheMan

The stats available publicly are okay and have some value. I do agree with his point that an average fan couldn't possibly have an accurate read on every NHL player. Realistically though, the stats available publicly need to be used properly in the correct context and could maybe account for 20% of the information needed for an accurate analysis. tons of false data involved

How do you explain the high percentage of times that you're wrong about players using the magic formula that you have?
- MJL

Who says I have a magic formula? Its so tiring talking to you because you twist people's words around and never seek to learn anything. I think you're hilarious, but come on man. No evidence? MY formula? Ridiculous things like saying 'if this was true everyone fire their scouts' no that isn't what would happen.

The stats available publicly are okay and have some value. I do agree with his point that an average fan couldn't possibly have an accurate read on every NHL player. Realistically though, the stats available publicly need to be used properly in the correct context and could maybe account for 20% of the information needed for an accurate analysis. tons of false data involved
- MJL

You're pulling numbers like 20% out of your.......thin air. You have NO IDEA as you've consistently demonstrated for multiple years now, how these stats work or whether or not they're effective.

This is what certain people do, they dismiss things that would have to make them question their own views and say that they are false, misused, can't be trusted etc.


Now where have we seen this exact strategy?

You're pulling numbers like 20% out of your.......thin air. You have NO IDEA as you've consistently demonstrated for multiple years now, how these stats work or whether or not they're effective.

This is what certain people do, they dismiss things that would have to make them question their own views and say that they are false, misused, can't be trusted etc.


Now where have we seen this exact strategy?
- james_tanner1

easy one.

in your blogs.

Who says I have a magic formula? Its so tiring talking to you because you twist people's words around and never seek to learn anything. I think you're hilarious, but come on man. No evidence? MY formula? Ridiculous things like saying 'if this was true everyone fire their scouts' no that isn't what would happen.
- james_tanner1

You get so upset when someone throws your rhetoric back at you. You make statements like scouts and NHL teams fall victim to a magic formula as if you're an authority who knows better than they do! None of your words have been twisted.

I simply stated if the method of using analytics is so superior than why are you wrong about players so often? That is a valid question. I know you don't want to look within and instead hide behind more rhetoric.

Yes, if using the stats that you worship was such a superior method and as you state the evidence of that is overwhelming, that's exactly what would happen. They'd fire the scouts and just use stats.

You're pulling numbers like 20% out of your.......thin air. You have NO IDEA as you've consistently demonstrated for multiple years now, how these stats work or whether or not they're effective.

This is what certain people do, they dismiss things that would have to make them question their own views and say that they are false, misused, can't be trusted etc.


Now where have we seen this exact strategy?
- james_tanner1

Actually I have consistently refuted you and your ridiculous overuse of analytics more times than I could count. The 20% number is an approximation and is based on numerous statement by GM's of how much analytics factor into their decision making process. That's the proprietary analytics that NHL teams have that are infinitely better than what the public has access to. What the public has access to is archaic.

I know this reality crushes your world and the idea that you had that you were going to elevate yourself up to expert blogger with the new science of analytics but that has been an epic failure.

thats not true at all
- rinaldo

I think Tanner is talking from a professional perspective, not a fan perspective. Fans appreciate these players but GMs often saw these players as replaceable and often times not gritty enough. All of those players continued to bounce around even though the analytics showed that they were effective within their roles
When Pitt was tight against the cap I wanted them so badly to give Boyes $2.5M go see what would happen. Best case scenario? He puts up 55 points on Sid’s wing. Worst case scenario, he puts up his usual 35 points. Under $3M for 38 points worked out pretty well for Florida. Dude was good at face offs in the twilight of his career and was a a positive possession player almost every year. For his NHL career he put up .61PPG. For comparison, Hornqvist is a .63PPG player. Each are effective in their own way - yet have similar production and one has made a lot more money over his career than the other