Can’t use Moneyball or Billy Bean as an example totally overrated, never won a World Series. Plus the movie fully glosses over the great pitching they had. ( did not read the book)

Stats are great better in baseball and Nfl.
Hockey too fluid.

I have to stop coming here feels like the blogger is about to become a modern unibomber.( except that guy was smart just twisted).

His politics are too much, didn’t Jordan Peterson get protested against. It’s just a thing these guys do now.

It’s one thing to chuckle at Eks rumours but this guy has a weird complex.

Not 50 years old I know you despise people that are older.

Can’t use Moneyball or Billy Bean as an example totally overrated, never won a World Series. Plus the movie fully glosses over the great pitching they had. ( did not read the book)

Stats are great better in baseball and Nfl.
Hockey too fluid.

I have to stop coming here feels like the blogger is about to become a modern unibomber.( except that guy was smart just twisted).

His politics are too much, didn’t Jordan Peterson get protested against. It’s just a thing these guys do now.

It’s one thing to chuckle at Eks rumours but this guy has a weird complex.

Not 50 years old I know you despise people that are older.
- Merkmayhem

I am good friends with Billy Koch's brother Eric. Billy was very important in that run as relief pitcher. He also was very smart with his money. He's set. I remember when he started making big bucks, his brother asked him for a car....He got one. A used Ford Explorer. He was like WTF!!?

Billy told him, " you want a fancy car, go earn the dollars and buy it yourself". Lol

I agree, rrentz. I still don't agree it is that simple, but this argument bolstered by facts has me considering where my thinking may be revised.
- Tonybere

For some teams there's a huge difference between GSAA (goalie stat based on number of shots) and GSAx (goalie stat based on xG).
We can look at someone like Vasilevskiy, since he's a great example. There are 65 goalies with at least 5000 shots against since 2007. Vasilevskiy is ranked 14th in GSAA with 57.0, but he ranks 53rd in GSAx with -32.4.
So one metric thinks he's a great goalie and the other thinks he's a really bad goalie. This indicates that team defense plays a big role for either GSAA or GSAx or maybe both. For most teams GSAA and GSAx are close, but there are some extreme cases in both ends of the spectrum.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between GSAA and GSAx.

All stats from evolving-hockey.com

It's why Tyson Barrie helps is team defensively better than Roman Polak, even though Polak is a much better defender.

Well, that proves it everyone. Not only does Tanner not watch the Yotes play, he doesn't watch his beloved Leafs either. Tyson Barrie and helping defensively don't belong together in the same breath. Barrie plays like he's still in junior. Big bomb from the point and all.

Well, that proves it everyone. Not only does Tanner not watch the Yotes play, he doesn't watch his beloved Leafs either. Tyson Barrie and helping defensively don't belong together in the same breath. Barrie plays like he's still in junior. Big bomb from the point and all.
- leafsfann

Isn't there talk of trading him due to his defensive shortcomings?

What are you talking about?
- James_Tanner

Your insulting a professional athlete not to his face. Typical keyboard jackass. What I’m saying is your first paragraph, while trying to be funny or witty is a insult to the guy. Hockey is brutal sport. Don’t you think he gets himself in the best shape ? Are all of his injury’s his fault ? How about I throw a keyboard at your fat head for six months. Idiot

On the fact that we can predict with near certainty which teams will be good defensively, but goalies are totally unpredictable.


- James_Tanner

I'm not sure who we is, but you can't even come up with a accurate analysis on players using the stats you love after the fact. Franson is a #1 defenseman, Gardiner is elite, Runblad and so on. Nobody can predict anything in hockey with near certainty.

On the fact that if you just measure team stats and match them up with goalie stats there is almost no correlation.


- James_Tanner

There is tons of correlation between team defense and goalie play when watching an actual game. It doesn't take Scotty Bowman to see that. What you allude to is a failure of the stats and how good they are and not that the correlation doesn't exist. It does. Also illustrates your fatal flaw that you over rely on stats to form your opinions and don't know how to properly use them.

In hockey, the difference between a great goalie and a bad goalie is like three or four goals per hundred shots. Luck plays a larger role in goalie performance than team defense does.


- James_Tanner

Sometimes I wonder. You often state that shot metrics are a better stat than any goal based stat due to the sample size. We know that in hockey, goals are a low occurring event. Three or four goals per hundred shots is a lot. You know this but just conveniently ignore it. I watch a lot of games and can tell when a team is more likely to get a lucky bounce. More times than not it's the team that is outplaying and outworking the opposition. Wonder why that is?

Defense does help, but if you look around the league, the teams that actually have the reputations for being good defensively usually always have goalies on massive hot streaks, and more often than not, bad defensive stats.



- James_Tanner

This is completely inaccurate. Hot streaks don't last a complete season and 50-60 games.

The Leafs - after they fired Babcock - allowed roughly the same amount of dangerous chances per game as Dallas and St Louis, while allowing less than Arizona and the Islanders.

All four teams have a good defensive reputation which is entirely goalie based. The Leafs ended up 8th overall after their fired their coach, but they did it with good team defense and lousy goalie (ranked 26th).


- James_Tanner

It's interesting how when Trotz took over the Islanders, instituted better defensive principles and systems play, The Isles went from being one of the worst defensive teams to one of the best. Must be because Trotz has a horseshoe, a four leaf clover and rabbit's foot in his pants pocket.

The evidence that I am correct here is astounding, but it's a bit counter-intuitive to common hockey dogma, so a lot of people just dismiss it without looking into it.
- James_Tanner

It's not dismissed because it's counter-intuitive. it's dismissed because you don't know what you're talking about. For example, you have no clue that some of the Yotes teams stats are mediocre is not because they aren't good defensively. It's because they aren't good offensively. If they spent more time attacking instead of defending, those numbers would be better. Unforutnately no matter how good you are defensively, if you're defending, you're losing. Attacking in winning hockey. unfortunately the Yotes don't have the talent to accomplish that yet.

Its pretty funny to see how heavily people rely on Corsi and Fenwick, especially after NHL teams don't find them useful or predictive. These stats fail to reflect the quality of the shot. Was it from the slot? Was the goalie screened? Was it an odd-man rush? Or was it a guy getting angled to the boards by a d-man, with backside pressure from a forward coming back, and he flips a weak wrister on net?

People have tried to improve upon this using scoring chances, but again, this is pretty subjective. Ovechkin ripping a shot from his wheelhouse with a guy crashing the far post has the same value as Ron Hainsey floating a shot into the breadbasket so he can get a whistle.

This is where it helps to WATCH the games.

Its also pretty funny that these are based on even-strength play. That's funny, because approximately 25% of the game is special teams. Seems like that could make a difference, right? In the last 3 seasons (well 2 seasons + 70 games)...Arizona has been shorthanded less often than every other team in the NHL, except Columbus. So they are consistently disciplined, which again speaks to being well-coached and well-structured. If I was a goalie, I'd sure love to play for a team that stays out of the penalty box. When Arizona is short-handed, which isn't that often, their PK is fantastic. In the last full-season, they tied for the best PK in the entire NHL, while also scoring the 2nd most short-handed goals to boot. Seems like Tocchet has quite a number of PK specialists to choose from, and has them blocking shots like crazy. Before this season was halted, Arizona's PK was 5th.

This is where it helps to WATCH the games.

Every time an Arizona goalie gets in the net he's playing behind a very well-coached, well-disciplined team. They keep shots to the outside. They clear the crease and let goalies see the puck. They don't take many penalties. And when they do, they are among the best at killing them off. The reason they don't win more is they don't score much themselves. Part of that is because of the lack of skill, and part is because of the obsession with playing a low event defensive game. If you actually WATCH the games you'll see a lot of 2-1 games, 3-2 in a shootout. Seems like the kind of place that would be pretty conducive for a goalie to put up good stats.

But people can believe whatever they want to believe in. I understand stats. I understand their value, but also their limitations. I also WATCH games. Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. That helps with my knowledge. Or listen to the guy who watches lots of movies and listens to music...
- Kooleus

This is the best post I've ready by you. Well done.

Well, that proves it everyone. Not only does Tanner not watch the Yotes play, he doesn't watch his beloved Leafs either. Tyson Barrie and helping defensively don't belong together in the same breath. Barrie plays like he's still in junior. Big bomb from the point and all.
- leafsfann

The player he used as an example may not be a good one but his point is that in today's NHL game, having the puck more and attacking the other team is the best way to defend. Even if your team is great at defending, it's not winning hockey. It's losing hockey.
With that said, every team still needs situational defenders.

The player he used as an example may not be a good one but his point is that in today's NHL game, having the puck more and attacking the other team is the best way to defend. Even if your team is great at defending, it's not winning hockey. It's losing hockey.
With that said, every team still needs situational defenders.
- MJL

Also, Most teams make sure that every line has at least one defensively responsible player on the ice to mitigate any guys caught deep or for turnovers

I've been trying to find some good information on these topics.

I have found an in-depth statistical analysis that indicates defensive-forwards have the biggest impact towards team success of any player position and type.

What I have read about team defence and goalie performance is well-summarized by this quote:

The core problem with this analysis is we know shot distance is not the key component of average shot quality differences on the offensive side of the game for individual players.

Numerous studies have shown that shot distance/location distributions are not significantly different across players and do not play a significant role in average on-ice shot quality.

On-ice shooting percentages vary significantly across players, shot distance/location does not. The conclusion must be that disparity in distance/location is not the significant driver for on-ice shot quality across players (it exists but is relatively minor).

What is? Probably things like taking shots on the rush, one-timers from cross ice passes, shooting talent (speed/accuracy), etc. The circumstances leading up to the shot is what mostly drives shot quality, not the distance or location.

Unfortunately, until player and puck tracking technology comes into play these other factors can’t be directly quantified. Until then we are left somewhat in the dark to the extent that team defense impacts goalie save percentage.

Multiple perspectives are partially supported by this summary as it appears that both are true: common sense combined with the eye-test makes it probable that certain factors we cannot quantify impact shot quality AND current stats cannot find strong correlation between team defence and goalie performance. Perhaps technology will help move the argument along in the near future.

Multiple perspectives are partially supported by this summary as it appears that both are true: common sense combined with the eye-test makes it probable that certain factors we cannot quantify impact shot quality AND current stats cannot find strong correlation between team defence and goalie performance. Perhaps technology will help move the argument along in the near future.


- TomDelongeAva

That really the issue. If the stats that the blogger worships at the alter of can't find a correlation then he thinks it doesn't exist. Those who watch and know the game well know that there certainly is a correlation between team defense and goaltending. So does every NHL coach who ever lived. Most also know that shot quality data is woefully inadequate. There's a lot of "noise" and false data in publicly available hockey analytics.

After all these years, the blogger still can't figure it out. If he did, he'd have to admit that his bubble has been crushed and his shtick as a blogger has been exposed. He thought he was going to show the world that he knew more about the sport than others did and how much smarter he is than others. It's been a colossal failure for him.

This blogger once famously stated that an average player, it escapes me who he mentioned as an example, could score just as many goals as Alex Ovechkin could if he could generate the same number of shots as Ovechkin did.

That really the issue. If the stats that the blogger worships at the alter of can't find a correlation then he thinks it doesn't exist. Those who watch and know the game well know that there certainly is a correlation between team defense and goaltending. So does every NHL coach who ever lived. Most also know that shot quality data is woefully inadequate. There's a lot of "noise" and false data in publicly available hockey analytics.

After all these years, the blogger still can't figure it out. If he did, he'd have to admit that his bubble has been crushed and his shtick as a blogger has been exposed. He thought he was going to show the world that he knew more about the sport than others did and how much smarter he is than others. It's been a colossal failure for him.

This blogger once famously stated that an average player, it escapes me who he mentioned as an example, could score just as many goals as Alex Ovechkin could if he could generate the same number of shots as Ovechkin did.
- MJL

Wasn't it Brett Connolly?

If Nic Petan was given the same ice-time as Ovechkin and the same cushy powerplay spot he'd have the same goals as Ovechkin. Oh wait, did I mention the PP...my stats only focus on 5-on-5. So when someone gets a PP we should just bury our head in the sand and ignore it. If goalies happen to play for teams that stay out of the box and/or who are excellent at killing penalties, well, I guess that's just luck or something.

Tanner why don't you write for a movie or music review site? You seem like you know about that stuff. You clearly know nothing about hockey. It actually seems like you know less about the game than when you started blogging. I'm starting to feel bad for you buddy. You should check it out.

Tanner why don't you write for a movie or music review site? You seem like you know about that stuff. You clearly know nothing about hockey. It actually seems like you know less about the game than when you started blogging. I'm starting to feel bad for you buddy. You should check it out.
- Gomey

It must be hard to see everything you believed in discredited. In previous years it was all about Corsi and Fenwick, which are now considered to be a joke. Every move by Chayka and Dubas were hailed as brilliant, while both have flopped, particularly Chayka who has been fleeced several times. His thoughts on roster construction are a laughingstock. Predictions on players - Domi, Galchenyuk, Keller, Schmaltz, Kessel, Demers, Goligoski - have been extraordinarly wrong. At each step, the readers who he considered to be in need of his superior insights have been mostly correct. I feel bad, but its also pretty funny.

[quote=TomDelongeAva]

This is great... an actual hockey discussion on a Tanner blog. Do you have a link for the article? I would love to read it.

Theoretically you could measure goaltender performance, if you could effectively measure shot quality. But like you say, shot location on its own is not a great way to estimate the quality of a chance.
If the expected goals models were perfect, you would expect GSAx to perfectly and isolated measure goaltender performance, but that's unfortunately not the case. In fact there's a big difference between xG(Moneypuck) and xG(Evolvinghockey)/xG(NaturalStatTrick).

[quote=Skytte]

Steve Valliquette, former ranger goalie, just in case any of you non Ranger fans don't know him,
founded Clear Sight Analytics, a data company that counts a handful of NHL teams as clients for a service that provides information on shots and scoring chances in extreme detail.

His system is being used by a few NHL teams right now. It's pretty amazing stuff. It breakdowns everything. Every NHL shot, position of shot, factors of shot (screens), and goalie response, saves, etc are all analyzed

Here's the website

https://www.csahockey.com/

That really the issue. If the stats that the blogger worships at the alter of can't find a correlation then he thinks it doesn't exist. Those who watch and know the game well know that there certainly is a correlation between team defense and goaltending. So does every NHL coach who ever lived. Most also know that shot quality data is woefully inadequate. There's a lot of "noise" and false data in publicly available hockey analytics.

After all these years, the blogger still can't figure it out. If he did, he'd have to admit that his bubble has been crushed and his shtick as a blogger has been exposed. He thought he was going to show the world that he knew more about the sport than others did and how much smarter he is than others. It's been a colossal failure for him.

This blogger once famously stated that an average player, it escapes me who he mentioned as an example, could score just as many goals as Alex Ovechkin could if he could generate the same number of shots as Ovechkin did.
- MJL

Tanner Glass I believe.

Tanner Glass I believe.
- Garnie

LMAO!!
I'm not sure Tanner Glass could score more goals than ME, if we were given the same number of chances!!!

LMAO!!
I'm not sure Tanner Glass could score more goals than ME, if we were given the same number of chances!!!
- Tonybere

May as well be Danny Tanner.

For the gentleman who asked:

Here are the articles I was referencing

http://chan.mie.utoronto....2/05/HockeyClustering.pdf

https://canucksarmy.com/2...n-goaltending-statistics/

Unfortunately they are not as recent as I would like, but I don't think the information is obsolete at this point. Enjoy!

Your insulting a professional athlete not to his face. Typical keyboard jackass. What I’m saying is your first paragraph, while trying to be funny or witty is a insult to the guy. Hockey is brutal sport. Don’t you think he gets himself in the best shape ? Are all of his injury’s his fault ? How about I throw a keyboard at your fat head for six months. Idiot
- Angus4444

This was hilarious.

Tanner why don't you write for a movie or music review site? You seem like you know about that stuff. You clearly know nothing about hockey. It actually seems like you know less about the game than when you started blogging. I'm starting to feel bad for you buddy. You should check it out.
- Gomey

Hey man, I get it. When I'm jealous of someone, sometimes I lash out too. I might not know much about hockey, but I definitely know more than anyone who's ever brought it up.

Hey man, I get it. When I'm jealous of someone, sometimes I lash out too. I might not know much about hockey, but I definitely know more than anyone who's ever brought it up.
- James_Tanner