After reading your 500 paragraph blog before the season started, I thought for sure the Yote's would be a top 3 team in the Pacific from day one. You brainwashed me into thinking they might actually be alright but after watching 3 of their first 5 games. They look as bad as they did the first 2 1/2 months of last season. Yeah they are missing a key piece but so are a lot of the other teams.
- Itsjustarash

What other team is missing three of its best players currently?

What other team is missing three of its best players currently?
- James_Tanner

Anaheim? Getzlaf, Perry and Silfverberg (day to day) and Kesler just got back.

Anaheim? Getzlaf, Perry and Silfverberg (day to day) and Kesler just got back.
- MaximumBone

Add Ondrej Kase and Patrick Eaves to that list. Heck, add Nick Ritchie to that list too. Carter Rowney has been great this season, and he's injured now too. Max Jones would be playing, but even he's injured. Of this list, only Getzlaf, Silfverberg, and Rowney have played at all this season.

Based on this, and the fact that Arizona has played Anaheim twice, clearly the Ducks shouldn't be in second place. Of course, they're in first place in the division right now.

Tanner has been pulling the injury card since the Oilers missed the playoffs for about a decade. Good teams are deep enough to withstand a few injuries. In fact, good GMs know there will be injuries and plan for it.

And don't tell me about the Ducks' goaltending. The last time I checked, goalies were a part of the team. Plus, Ryan Miller has been stellar in addition to Gibson.

Arizona looks good skating. Their stats are buffered by being behind often. But they're not a good team.

Anaheim? Getzlaf, Perry and Silfverberg (day to day) and Kesler just got back.
- MaximumBone

Also, Vegas with Stastny (top-6) , Tuch (top-6) and Schmidt (top pair)

Anaheim? Getzlaf, Perry and Silfverberg (day to day) and Kesler just got back.
- MaximumBone

And outside of an amazing run by their goalie, they've also done poorly.

Add Ondrej Kase and Patrick Eaves to that list. Heck, add Nick Ritchie to that list too. Carter Rowney has been great this season, and he's injured now too. Max Jones would be playing, but even he's injured. Of this list, only Getzlaf, Silfverberg, and Rowney have played at all this season.

Based on this, and the fact that Arizona has played Anaheim twice, clearly the Ducks shouldn't be in second place. Of course, they're in first place in the division right now.

Tanner has been pulling the injury card since the Oilers missed the playoffs for about a decade. Good teams are deep enough to withstand a few injuries. In fact, good GMs know there will be injuries and plan for it.

And don't tell me about the Ducks' goaltending. The last time I checked, goalies were a part of the team. Plus, Ryan Miller has been stellar in addition to Gibson.

Arizona looks good skating. Their stats are buffered by being behind often. But they're not a good team.
- yzermaneely

Its like four games into the season. If the Ducks injury problems persist, they'll either get vezina like netminding from Gisbson or they'll settle in at the bottom of the league.

Injuries aren't just an excuse, they're basically the biggest factor in which teams are successful and which aren't. This isn't even up for debate. What you are saying is preposterous. Injuries matter more than pretty much anything and the healthiest teams tend to win championships.

The underlying numbers suggest that over a larger sample size they will win more than they lose.

Obviously as pointed out by MaxBone the underlying numbers may be a little skewed based on the small sample size.
- Feds91Stammer

Yes, but is that sample size relevant to an 82 game season? Or is there enough randomness and outliers to make it less useful? What is that large sample size that proves these numbers, thats what im getting at.

Mr. Tanner, i told you already while your summer "5 reasons..."-series that Coyotes have noone to score goals... hope you now hand me a very lucrative 5yr-contract as your new consultant... let's make your blog great again!

And outside of an amazing run by their goalie, they've also done poorly.
- James_Tanner

But isn't Rantaa a top 5 goalie in this league mister Tanner?
If he is(as you have claimed) shouldn't he have been able to also go on an amazing run when his team needs him to?

It's entirely possible that I was wrong, but I did and still do think they're a playoff team. It's not premature to say you miss the scoring of a 30 goal scoring 24 year old third overall pick.

Take three of the top six players off any team and see how well they do.
- James_Tanner

Galchenyuk averages 21 g / 82 games

He did 30 ONCE, from a big run in garbage time when the Habs were out of it.

Wow the coyotes message board is big time technical. Most ppl dont even know there's hockey in the desert and ya'll are already taking about advanced stats. And I thought the 3 best totes were raanta oel snd keller. I didn't know they were on IR. #blameitontheinjuries

You could be ten times worse than the Coyotes and you'd still have about a 99% chance of scoring at least one 5v5 goal over five games.

They've also got three of their best players out of the lineup. No NHL team can overcome that, and certainly not the Coyotes. Once Galchenyuk, Chychrun and Dvorak are back, scoring will be much easier.

Right now though, it's as much luck as anything else

1. Source, please. Sounds like randomly created stats spun up to prove an empty point. I know your quality of journalism would never allow that
2. Anaheim overcoming nicely. Teams do it every year. Next.
3. Sigh. You need a new theme for the new year. We’ll try to help you come up with something less worn and more accurate. I’m thinking relevant statistics. We’ll talk more

My gran would dangle all of you

Of course, shot quality can vary wildly game to game, so the shorter the sample size, the more you need to factor it in. But if a player takes 300 shots and only scores 9 goals (3%) you know he got a bit unlucky because history tells us its impossible to get that many shots without some of them being dangerous. You just wouldn't be in the NHL and take 300 useless shots. 40 sure, it's possible. 100. outside chance. But you couldn't come close to leading the league in shots and be such a bad shooter that you deserved to score only 3% of the time. Not in a professional league.

Sorry, this just isn’t true. Your comparing a player to the average of all players. But individual players in the NHL have widely varying skill sets. Some players are much better at scoring goals than others.

It’s why some baseball players consistently hit over .300, while others struggle to get to .210. Some hit over 40 HR, others are lucky to have 3 in the same amount of at bats.

A team with 12 McDavids playing forward is going to have a significantly higher shooting percentage versus a team of 12 Richard Paniks.

Now, if a guy has a history of scoring on 12 percent of his shots, and has a season where only 5% go in, then yes, maybe it’s puck luck. If a guy shoots 3% year after year, he’s just not good at shooting.