His blog is basically for troll clicks. Without the negative comments he’d be talking to himself.

Seriously, some commenters come on here every single day just to call the writers stupid. If they're going to post here every day, and know so much better than the existing writers, then they should submit a blog and show how much smarter they really are.

Tanner, I don't always agree with you(although do more often than not) but I enjoy your posts.
- DarthProbert

Hey that's a great idea...

https://my.hockeybuzz.com...t_id=18366&user_id=260330

https://my.hockeybuzz.com...t_id=18354&user_id=260330

https://my.hockeybuzz.com...t_id=18343&user_id=260330

https://my.hockeybuzz.com...r_id=260330&post_id=18283

On the weekends I like to work in the living room and blast the stereo rather than my office. That means I write with the lap top that can freeze and delete your work at anytime. So when I finish my piece, I just submit it to save, then go back and fix it up.
- James_Tanner

Soooooo you go to the living room and write your blog on an etch-a-sketch and the base from the stereo blasting out the Foo Fighters, shakes it up and erases it?

I agree with you, but I’m old. I really don’t like Steve Simmons but I don’t waste my time posting negative comments about his work.

I could choose not to read.
- shack67

You were old about 20 years ago. What you are now is (frank)ing ancient.

Tanner, Again who should Hall be playing with if not Garland and Dvorak? Garland has 19 goals and Dvorak has 18 goals. They are first and second on the team in goals! Keller, Schmalts and Kessel have been the worst players on the team! Despite the stats you like to throw out. I never seen a person discard Goals and points, for Corsi Mind blowing! And Keller has been so bad its scary with his contract. He should be benched!

You are incorrect, sir. It's baffling that you think that a team that allows more high danger chances than it gets is good at defense. The Coyotes actually allow more dangerous shot-attempts per game than the Leafs do since they fired their coach.

There might be something to the idea of keeping shots to the outside and allowing more shot-attempts on purpose that are low-danger.

There might be, I don't think so, but it's possible.

But if you move beyond Corsi and look at teams that allow dangerous chances, that argument goes out the window.

If goalie performances were linked to defense, then it follows that it would be easier to predict future goalie performance than it is.

If team defense correlated to good goaltending, then Connor McDavid wouldn't be the best player in the world, that player would be a goalie.

The best goalie in the NHL every year provides more value than whoever the best skater is, but there's no way to predict from year to year which goalie that will be. Ergo, team defense and goalie performance are a weak link at best.
- James_Tanner

What’s this years record for teams with CF%+ and HDCF+ in games?

The fly in the ointment here is how often you're wrong in calling something a fact that isn't. You still can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. That's ignorance.
- MJL

I honestly don't know if you're just trolling here. Like, you can't just say things you disagree with are not facts. You can even look up the winning percentages of teams that allow more scoring chances than they get. Anyways, probably not worth my time to argue with you, you've never once changed your mind when confronted with facts or reality.

I was recently reading about a guy in the 1800 - a philosopher - who said that facts actually only serve to get emotional arguers farther away from the truth. It's funny, I literally thought of you (and this website) while reading it.

I honestly don't know if you're just trolling here. Like, you can't just say things you disagree with are not facts. You can even look up the winning percentages of teams that allow more scoring chances than they get. Anyways, probably not worth my time to argue with you, you've never once changed your mind when confronted with facts or reality.

I was recently reading about a guy in the 1800 - a philosopher - who said that facts actually only serve to get emotional arguers farther away from the truth. It's funny, I literally thought of you (and this website) while reading it.
- James_Tanner

More hypocrisy. A guy in the 1800. Got it. You can't argue with him because he thoroughly embarrasses you in every argument. You just proved his point. Take the L. Work on your insecurity.

Seriously, some commenters come on here every single day just to call the writers stupid. If they're going to post here every day, and know so much better than the existing writers, then they should submit a blog and show how much smarter they really are.

Tanner, I don't always agree with you(although do more often than not) but I enjoy your posts.
- DarthProbert

What a brown nose

I honestly don't know if you're just trolling here. Like, you can't just say things you disagree with are not facts. You can even look up the winning percentages of teams that allow more scoring chances than they get. Anyways, probably not worth my time to argue with you, you've never once changed your mind when confronted with facts or reality.

I was recently reading about a guy in the 1800 - a philosopher - who said that facts actually only serve to get emotional arguers farther away from the truth. It's funny, I literally thought of you (and this website) while reading it.
- James_Tanner

Have you ever bothered to look this up yourself? In the last two seasons 10 teams made the playoffs with a SCF% under 50 - including one Presidents trophy winner. The stats are not nearly as black and white as you seem to think.
I would be more careful calling something an indisputable fact without bringing any proof if I were you. And I'm not even disagreeing with you that shot creation is important. You're just missing half the equation.

Have you ever bothered to look this up yourself? In the last two seasons 10 teams made the playoffs with a SCF% under 50 - including one Presidents trophy winner. The stats are not nearly as black and white as you seem to think.
I would be more careful calling something an indisputable fact without bringing any proof if I were you. And I'm not even disagreeing with you that shot creation is important. You're just missing half the equation.
- Goislanders

And I would bet you anything that all those teams were saved by goalies, who make the difference.

All I'm trying to do is point out that there is a difference between team defense and goaltending. If you allow more shot attempts or scoring chances than you get, you are not a good defensive team.

More hypocrisy. A guy in the 1800. Got it. You can't argue with him because he thoroughly embarrasses you in every argument. You just proved his point. Take the L. Work on your insecurity.
- gergeswillems

This is hilarious. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

This is hilarious. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
- James_Tanner

Look in the mirror, Hypocrite.

His blog is basically for troll clicks. Without the negative comments he’d be talking to himself.
- Newgod77

He's a typical smug liberal.

I honestly don't know if you're just trolling here. Like, you can't just say things you disagree with are not facts. You can even look up the winning percentages of teams that allow more scoring chances than they get. Anyways, probably not worth my time to argue with you, you've never once changed your mind when confronted with facts or reality.

I was recently reading about a guy in the 1800 - a philosopher - who said that facts actually only serve to get emotional arguers farther away from the truth. It's funny, I literally thought of you (and this website) while reading it.
- James_Tanner

You didn't make any valid points here Tanner! That's typical of your responses. Your comment of looking up winning percentage of teams that allow more scoring chances than they get does not support the comment that you made. Just another strawman argument on your part.
Again, some self awareness here is required. You constantly accuse people of doing something that you do yourself. You don't have an open mind and you still don't now how to properly use analytics and statistical data. You consistently make bad conclusion and analysis.

I'm open to and available for debate with you on any hockey subject you want. I challenge you to do so. Not sure you can do that without insults.

And I would bet you anything that all those teams were saved by goalies, who make the difference.

All I'm trying to do is point out that there is a difference between team defense and goaltending. If you allow more shot attempts or scoring chances than you get, you are not a good defensive team.
- James_Tanner

That might be true. It might also be that you're not just not a good offensive team. You don't possess the puck enough or generate enough scoring chances offensively. That's why what you're calling an indisputable fact, is not so.

You keep trying to separate team defense and goaltending. They are linked and symbiotic with one another. The scoring chance stats are also, like most analytics, flawed.

This is hilarious. You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.
- James_Tanner

You finally got something right! Now if you would just practice this with introspect on your own comments and what you label as "indisputable facts".

You were old about 20 years ago. What you are now is (frank)ing ancient.
- leonkennedy

Good one my friend

And I would bet you anything that all those teams were saved by goalies, who make the difference.

All I'm trying to do is point out that there is a difference between team defense and goaltending. If you allow more shot attempts or scoring chances than you get, you are not a good defensive team.
- James_Tanner

If you're not good at shot creation then you have to compensate by getting good goaltending and/or good shooting, but that's really the whole point. You can't just ignore goaltending and shooting like you do. That's an indisputable fact which I can prove, but I'm not sure this is the right forum though.

Anyway, I think you should take your own advise and take a deeper look into what actually correlates with winning. Then you will come to realize that none of the following stats are particularly good at explaining past results: Corsi, Fenwick, Shots, scoring changes, high danger scoring chances and expected goals (although better than the rest because it tries to combine quantity and quality of the chances).
All of these stats completely ignore goaltending and shooting.

I see you have written another blog, so I guess you want this discussion to end here. That's fine, but I think you should be more openminded towards new ideas - especially since you're constantly saying the same thing to your readers.