Well you must be dribbling then.
- Aussiepenguin

Nope.

Nope.
- j.boyd919

Nah.

Nah.
- VeryModernMan

He's dribbling......

Yeah for sure. I didn't think they were terrible. I thought they were okay to good. I was happy with the win regardless.
- j.boyd919

Pretty much same sentiment I said in the game thread. Good play, not great, solid goaltending, good result. We can only hope they build on this.

#Logic.

Just remember, those forwards over the age of 29 are all useless!
- Aussiepenguin

And just remember you can’t stay on topic because you are a (frank)tard that changes reality to fit your incompetent mind.

I hope Feds posts a summary of yester'todays discussion, maybe he can use it as pupile's work/college thesis. And a word about the whereabout of my buddy RafiDRW would also be nice.
- VeryModernMan

If you need me to post a summary on a very simple location based concept you might want to remove your head from aussies ass first.

And just remember you can’t stay on topic because you are a (frank)tard that changes reality to fit your incompetent mind.
- Feds91Stammer

Stay on topic?

I put forward a logical argument that you couldn't handle! Then you returned to the age old actions of throwing insults because you dont have the ability of discussion.

Changes reality? So your 'virtual' world of analytics is reality? Wow! You are 1 individual that's in denial!!

Stay on topic?

I put forward a logical argument that you couldn't handle! Then you returned to the age old actions of throwing insults because you dont have the ability of discussion.

Changes reality? So your 'virtual' world of analytics is reality? Wow! You are 1 individual that's in denial!!
- Aussiepenguin

“Logical argument” hahahahahaahaha

“Logical argument” hahahahahaahaha
- j.boyd919

Does your song go;

Nah nah, ha ha??

So in a discussion about scoring threats - ie yesterday, you would say those count as high danger, but most others would say they weren't a threat as they had very little chance of scoring. See?
- Aussiepenguin

But it is high danger. If that puck rebounds out on edge and Horny hits it and it goes up and over the pad or roofs it it's a goal. Same as Letang on Tavares, if Letang hits his stick or the puck while JT is shooting and it takes a weird angle it could beat Murray, it just so happened that it didn't that time but doesn't take away that it's in a high danger zone chance.

The battle of the two Hard Analytics vs the two Colour Comentaters

Stay on topic?

I put forward a logical argument that you couldn't handle! Then you returned to the age old actions of throwing insults because you dont have the ability of discussion.

Changes reality? So your 'virtual' world of analytics is reality? Wow! You are 1 individual that's in denial!!
- Aussiepenguin

You haven't put together one logical argument in your HockeyBuzz career.

The battle of the two Hard Analytics vs the two Colour Comentaters
- MattStrat

Is it really a battle though?

But it is high danger. If that puck rebounds out on edge and Horny hits it and it goes up and over the pad or roofs it it's a goal. Same as Letang on Tavares, if Letang hits his stick or the puck while JT is shooting and it takes a weird angle it could beat Murray, it just so happened that it didn't that time but doesn't take away that it's in a high danger zone chance.
- 668710

Glad someone can understand this simple concept.

But it is high danger. If that puck rebounds out on edge and Horny hits it and it goes up and over the pad or roofs it it's a goal. Same as Letang on Tavares, if Letang hits his stick or the puck while JT is shooting and it takes a weird angle it could beat Murray, it just so happened that it didn't that time but doesn't take away that it's in a high danger zone chance.
- 668710

Someone looking at the game, will see that really Tavares had very little chance of scoring regardless of the location of the shot. Hence Leafs fans saying that they didn't really get any good looks (take this as an example), on goal, then you have analytics saying it was a high danger scoring shot so the puppets of analytics say that they did as Tavares shot was high danger. So guys watching the game see that differently than analytics.

Sure you have shots in that area that are legitimate but you also have many that aren't. Horny slapping at a puck up against the goalies pad for example. Is that a hdsc just because of its location? What about a slap shot from Ovi outside the hash marks with the goalie completely obstructed? I'd rather have the Ovi shot as it has way more chance of scoring even though analytics says it's not due to its location.

The discussion was based on 1 saying the Leafs had fewer good scoring chances than the Pens with the analytical response quoting hdsc saying they had more chances.

Analytics should consider location & environment of shot but they don't. It's more false data!