Just not true . If the Coyotes play bad I'll say so.
- james_tanner1

I very rarely see any comments from you about the Coyotes playing poorly. But a lot of blogs and bs about them just having bad luck. It gets old. This song is on repeat.

If you really don’t understand what he was saying, then I don’t know what to say. When you look at the whole game, the coyotes were the better team. There was a two minute stretch where the stars were and it resulted in a loss. Statistics prove that out. I am baffled that you are not able to understand that and actually wasted time trying to question it in this board.

I guess I assume most of the people on here are adults, but I should remember you may be a 12 year old still learning the basics of math.
- Dahlmanyotes

So the Sabres should've won on Thursday and not lost 4-0 because they crushed the Bruins 57.94% to 42.06% overall and 58.82% to 41.18% 5v5 and had an xGF of 1.66 to 1.48. All of that and the Sabres had 2, maybe 3 chances the entire game. Shots are important, but quality is infinitely more so.

So the Sabres should've won on Thursday and not lost 4-0 because they crushed the Bruins 57.94% to 42.06% overall and 58.82% to 41.18% 5v5 and had an xGF of 1.66 to 1.48. All of that and the Sabres had 2, maybe 3 chances the entire game. Shots are important, but quality is infinitely more so.
- Wetbandit1

Yes, shots (or shot attempts) are completely worthless as predictors, because they value a soft shot from the blue line the same as a high danger shot from the slot.

Also, when a team gets up 3-0, they pull back, start taking less offensive chances, stop sending in as many fore-checkers, stop pinching D in the offensive zone, etc. So it not at all surprising that a team down 3 for half the game would have good Corsi.

The posters on this board legitimately have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s embarrassing. Take a simple stats tutorial on YouTube or something. Shots and possession are strongly correlated to goals and winning. That is why it’s important to pay attention to those stats night in and night out. Sometimes the under shooting team wins, because as statistical rules teach us, there are always outliers. But, over time, the high shot team will have more wins than the low shot team. It’s jot even close to debateable, and like most of the trolls on this board, it’s hilarious to watch people wiff on common sense so regularly.
- Dahlmanyotes

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.

Yup, new season, same old Tanner. We all should know by now the Yotes only don't win because of bad luck, the Leafs will win it all (unless they too will get unlucky), and the only thing besides bad luck that stops these two teams from facing off in the finals is the pet Edmonton Oilers, because stupid math says only 2 teams can go to the finals.

This blog like Tanner saying Trump is bad for the economy, despite two years of unprecedented growth; basically it's saying: what I want to be true isn't actually true, so i'll have to convince you with the old routine of smoke and mirrors (handpicked stats and overlooked biases)

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.
- Osprey

- LeftCoaster

Tanner just got boofed!

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.
- Osprey

Totally. Also like the other person was saying, it can depend on where the team is in the game (teams behind take more chances to shoot), how good the shooters are (Hyman's shot does not equal Matthews shot), which team you're playing (not everyone plays the same teams) etc. All shots are not created equal.

If you don't count the last 2 minutes of the game where they idiotically refused to pull Raanta for 25 seconds despite having full control over the puck, and even more idiotically not being able to get off a decent shot despite having a 6 on 3 for the last minute of the game, then yeah, they played a good game. They put a lot of harmless perimeter shots on Gibby.

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.
- Osprey

This is called spin.

You're taking anomalies and using them as bad examples without any thought about averages, or sample sizes.

This is called spin.

You're taking anomalies and using them as bad examples without any thought about averages, or sample sizes.
- James_Tanner

Neat. Let me try this.
"Dylan Strome is a PPG player because of his final 9 games played last season and is the best Coyotes player according to the fancy stats based on his 21 total games played last season. Even though I have never watched him play an entire NHL game before, based on the above FACTS I say he is and always will be an NHL superstar".

Neat. Let me try this.
"Dylan Strome is a PPG player because of his final 9 games played last season and is the best Coyotes player according to the fancy stats based on his 21 total games played last season. Even though I have never watched him play an entire NHL game before, based on the above FACTS I say he is and always will be an NHL superstar".
- ruttager17

Hes a writer, if he doesnt write controversial stuff then hes doing it for free.

The end.

Neat. Let me try this.
"Dylan Strome is a PPG player because of his final 9 games played last season and is the best Coyotes player according to the fancy stats based on his 21 total games played last season. Even though I have never watched him play an entire NHL game before, based on the above FACTS I say he is and always will be an NHL superstar".
- ruttager17

Well that's dumb, you're just exaggerating, misquoting and lying.

This is called spin.

You're taking anomalies and using them as bad examples without any thought about averages, or sample sizes.
- James_Tanner

It's not spin it's the results. An anomaly is something that doesn't happen very often, and this data shows the opposite. These are the results that a person should be looking for when using the data, if the results don't match the theory then the theory needs work.

That's the thing about statistical analysis, the results dont lie and if they aren't consistent then the theory isn't good. In terms of sample size, I would totally agree, an 82 game season isn't a large enough sample size, but an 82 game season is all you get which is why I find stats like this to be unreliable. Over 1000 games I'm sure it works out but since it's an 82 game season, the anomalies are to big to make the theory useful.

It's a good general thing, more shots, but if that's what you're relying on to determine if a team played well or not, you're not getting close to the full picture.

Actually, you probably lose 95% of the time, because no team is going to play like that for a full game unless it's behind on the scoreboard. If any of the early chances had gone in and the Yotes had gotten the tying goal and even a lead, they would've backed off and not needed to play like that until the final buzzer.


It's a little ridiculous how you value shots that don't go in over shots that do. You always play up shots that your team takes as "domination" and downplay goals by the opposing teams as "good bounces." If the teams were reversed, would you acknowledge that the other team dominated yours and that it was only for a few lucky bounces that your team won? I doubt it. I imagine that you'd spin it as your team making the most of its scoring opportunities and playing great defense to hold your leads (and maintain the shutouts), while downplaying the other team's large number of shots as low quality and born of desperation.


- Osprey

Not only that but tanner doesn't include the goalie as part of the team and excludes the role a goalie plays. For example if a goaltender gives a dominant performance and you don't score, well then you go beat by that team. No different than if a skater does the same thing.

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.
- Osprey

You grabbed 4 data points from each season over two seasons and act as if you’ve proven a point?? The very real truth is that taking multiple seasons in to account and getting a significant data size, the correlation is clear and obvious.

Of course I fully agree that you need to use the data to ask questions and dive deeper and you will find cases and reasons why anomalies occur. But trying to argue that shots and possession aren’t correlated to wins is setting hockey back like 30 years. Embarrassing.

Last year:
Carolina had the best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Calgary had the 2nd-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Chicago had the 4th-best shot attempt differential. They missed the playoffs.
Washington had the 24-best shot attempt differential (one spot worse than Arizona). They won their division and the Cup.
Minnesota had the 28th-best shot attempt differential. They had the 11-most goals in the league and made the playoffs over 13 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

The year before:
LA had the best shot differential. They missed the playoffs.
Boston had the 2nd-best shot differential. They only barely made the playoffs.
Pittsburgh had the 16th-best shot attempt differential. They finished with 111pts and won the Cup.
NY Rangers had the 27th-best shot attempt differential. They made the playoffs over 9 teams with better shot attempt differentials.

There's not as much of a correlation as you want to believe. That's the danger of thinking that things are "common sense," since you can take for granted that they're true and not bother to check how true they actually are.
- Osprey

Well done. I love when guys claim it's common sense and state that fans don't understand only to show that they are in fact who doesn't understand.

You grabbed 4 data points from each season over two seasons and act as if you’ve proven a point?? The very real truth is that taking multiple seasons in to account and getting a significant data size, the correlation is clear and obvious.

Of course I fully agree that you need to use the data to ask questions and dive deeper and you will find cases and reasons why anomalies occur. But trying to argue that shots and possession aren’t correlated to wins is setting hockey back like 30 years. Embarrassing.
- Dahlmanyotes

Shot metrics are only one factor and even then it has to be taken in context. It's not even close to what you think it is. The first evidence of that is that you call it anomalies. It's not.

Shot metrics are only one factor and even then it has to be taken in context. It's not even close to what you think it is. The first evidence of that is that you call it anomalies. It's not.
- MJL

Thank you for referring to them as shot metrics because that is exactly what they are. Possession is an entirely different thing.

Thank you for referring to them as shot metrics because that is exactly what they are. Possession is an entirely different thing.
- Njuice

Agreed.

Well that's dumb, you're just exaggerating, misquoting and lying.
- James_Tanner

Funny thing is that the only thing I really did was to slightly exaggerate.

You grabbed 4 data points from each season over two seasons and act as if you’ve proven a point?? The very real truth is that taking multiple seasons in to account and getting a significant data size, the correlation is clear and obvious.

Of course I fully agree that you need to use the data to ask questions and dive deeper and you will find cases and reasons why anomalies occur. But trying to argue that shots and possession aren’t correlated to wins is setting hockey back like 30 years. Embarrassing.
- Dahlmanyotes

What is embarrassing is that you seem to think correlation = causation.

Shot metrics are only one factor and even then it has to be taken in context. It's not even close to what you think it is. The first evidence of that is that you call it anomalies. It's not.
- MJL

Prove it. I am a data scientist and expert in that field. I am also a lifelong hockey fanatic. I have run the regressions myself and the correlation is absolutely there. I don’t even know how people could even begin to think otherwise. It’s a baseline for the advanced stats/metrics that have been developed over the last five years. It started with the correlation of shots to wins, then a derivative of that was created to correlate possession to shots. Now scenario based possession, including competition quality, situational variables, etc are being added in. It’s on the verge of a big data play in which virtual cognition will start to build algorithms that can create an inifinite number of scenarios compared to the few we judge now.

I absolutely understand advanced hockey analytics and absolutely understand there are outliers and sometimes they have a good reason, and sometimes they don’t. But trying to deny that shot differential isn’t the base of it all is ridiculous and just can’t be proven.

Based on that, Tanners analysis is spot on. The coyotes dominated in all of the baseline stats/metrics and if they continue that same rate they will be a playoff team.

Prove it. I am a data scientist and expert in that field. I am also a lifelong hockey fanatic. I have run the regressions myself and the correlation is absolutely there. I don’t even know how people could even begin to think otherwise. It’s a baseline for the advanced stats/metrics that have been developed over the last five years. It started with the correlation of shots to wins, then a derivative of that was created to correlate possession to shots. Now scenario based possession, including competition quality, situational variables, etc are being added in. It’s on the verge of a big data play in which virtual cognition will start to build algorithms that can create an inifinite number of scenarios compared to the few we judge now.

I absolutely understand advanced hockey analytics and absolutely understand there are outliers and sometimes they have a good reason, and sometimes they don’t. But trying to deny that shot differential isn’t the base of it all is ridiculous and just can’t be proven.

Based on that, Tanners analysis is spot on. The coyotes dominated in all of the baseline stats/metrics and if they continue that same rate they will be a playoff team.
- Dahlmanyotes

Says Tanner and the self proclaimed(internet) expert!
I was on the fence about the Yotes making the playoffs before. But you can count me in now!

Prove it. I am a data scientist and expert in that field. I am also a lifelong hockey fanatic. I have run the regressions myself and the correlation is absolutely there. I don’t even know how people could even begin to think otherwise. It’s a baseline for the advanced stats/metrics that have been developed over the last five years. It started with the correlation of shots to wins, then a derivative of that was created to correlate possession to shots. Now scenario based possession, including competition quality, situational variables, etc are being added in. It’s on the verge of a big data play in which virtual cognition will start to build algorithms that can create an inifinite number of scenarios compared to the few we judge now.

I absolutely understand advanced hockey analytics and absolutely understand there are outliers and sometimes they have a good reason, and sometimes they don’t. But trying to deny that shot differential isn’t the base of it all is ridiculous and just can’t be proven.

Based on that, Tanners analysis is spot on. The coyotes dominated in all of the baseline stats/metrics and if they continue that same rate they will be a playoff team.
- Dahlmanyotes

Chicago is undefeated in regulation, With points in every game played. I predict that if they continue this, They will be a playoff team.
I am also an expert at things.....See!