James Tanner: Stats, the Eye-Test, Leadership and Love

James Tanner: Stats, the Eye-Test, Leadership and Love
- James_Tanner

Very extremely educated post by the mostly extremely educated blogger out there

Still wrong about the Foo Fighters.

The Foo Fighters are the worst most successful/commercial band in the world. Except for maybe Nickelback. Both junk.

James Tanner: Stats, the Eye-Test, Leadership and Love
- James_Tanner

One of your best, Tanner!

Like I've said before; you're a good writer - specially when you put more than 5 mins into it aaand do a little proofreading...

Ron Hainsey is awful.

Rick Tocchet on the Jack Adams ballot. Thoughts?

Ron Hainsey is awful.
- j.boyd919

I can’t believe there’s people in the world who think otherwise.

Drew Doughty

Shot Attempts 47%
Shots 46%
Scoring chances 45%
High Danger Scoring Chances 44%

Drew Doughty

Shot Attempts 47%
Shots 46%
Scoring chances 45%
High Danger Scoring Chances 44%
- Garnie

Career or this season? I think we all know the answer...

Career or this season? I think we all know the answer...
- DutchSenators

LA would have been better to replace him for the year with any old AHL prospect.

Drew Doughty

Shot Attempts 47%
Shots 46%
Scoring chances 45%
High Danger Scoring Chances 44%
- Garnie

I would bet money that Doughty is a positive impact compared to his team. I was wrong to not mention relative stats, and after reading this comment I added a paragraph.

LA would have been better to replace him for the year with any old AHL prospect.
- Garnie

True for Hainsey, not for Doughty

Rick Tocchet on the Jack Adams ballot. Thoughts?
- neem55

Go for it, I couldn't care less about the Jack Adams. Tochhett is definitely doing better this year than he did in the past, although, let's be realistic. The Coyotes have been destroyed by injury and a lot of their success is so improbable that I'd have a hard time just saying it was because the coaching was awesome.

I'm sure they're a well coached team and that that is a factor, but it's probably not as big of a factor as people think.

One of your best, Tanner!

Like I've said before; you're a good writer - specially when you put more than 5 mins into it aaand do a little proofreading...
- 21peter

Much appreciated.

I can’t believe there’s people in the world who think otherwise.
- RafiDRW

so is Trevor

One of the better blogs I've read here in a while. Nice work.

Regarding the Foo Fighters...I liked their 1st two albums then lost total interest in what they released after, it didnt do anything for me. Music (IMO) should make you feel something, anything, and they ceased doing that for me a long time ago.

LA would have been better to replace him for the year with any old AHL prospect.
- Garnie

or Muzzin

so is Trevor
- DeflatedPucks

He’ll be a penguin again soon enough.

One of the better blogs I've read here in a while. Nice work.

Regarding the Foo Fighters...I liked their 1st two albums then lost total interest in what they released after, it didnt do anything for me. Music (IMO) should make you feel something, anything, and they ceased doing that for me a long time ago.
- MattStrat

A lot of their stuff post-2000 has been corporate filler. But god damn so I love their self titled album and love The Colour and the Shape even more. That album was amazing.

Hi James.

I feel like I have to respond to this post, as I think you are oversimplifying things and draws conclusions that you really can’t draw.
Let me start by saying, that I’m in no way against using statistics. In fact, I very much see myself as a numbers guy.
You are looking at 5 stats when you are evaluating a player, but in reality shot attempts, shots, scoring chances and high danger scoring chances are connected. Goals is a bit different as that is also dependent on shooting% and save%.
Anyway, I prefer using expected goal differential (xG+/-) instead of looking at 4 stats. It accounts for the amount of unblocked shot attempts and the quality of those chances. In other words, It’s the expected amount of goals if the shooting and the goaltending is average.

So let us turn our attention to Ron Hainsey. He’s the worst defender on the team in terms xG+/- per 60 minutes with -0.17, so he is almost certainly due a regression in actual goal differential. We completely agree so far, but you cannot conclude that he’s bad player based on this alone. You have to adjust for quality of competition, quality of line mates, zone starts and so on.
You could draw the exact same conclusion about Morgan Reilly, as he’s the second worst defender in terms of expected goal differential per 60. Then you will say, it’s because he plays with Hainsey, but it could be the other way around. That’s the problem with using on ice stats. It’s dependent on all the players on the ice.

As a side note. Corsi, fenwick, scoring chances, high danger scoring chances or xG+/- does NOT correlate with winning. Many people seem to think that the best possession teams will eventually prevail, but that is not necessarily the case. You cannot ignore PDO and PDO will NOT regress to the mean over time. Good goaltending and shooting is just as important as good possession numbers.
That is not to say that corsi is not important because clearly it is, but so is PDO.

Hi James.

I feel like I have to respond to this post, as I think you are oversimplifying things and draws conclusions that you really can’t draw.
Let me start by saying, that I’m in no way against using statistics. In fact, I very much see myself as a numbers guy.
You are looking at 5 stats when you are evaluating a player, but in reality shot attempts, shots, scoring chances and high danger scoring chances are connected. Goals is a bit different as that is also dependent on shooting% and save%.
Anyway, I prefer using expected goal differential (xG+/-) instead of looking at 4 stats. It accounts for the amount of unblocked shot attempts and the quality of those chances. In other words, It’s the expected amount of goals if the shooting and the goaltending is average.

So let us turn our attention to Ron Hainsey. He’s the worst defender on the team in terms xG+/- per 60 minutes with -0.17, so he is almost certainly due a regression in actual goal differential. We completely agree so far, but you cannot conclude that he’s bad player based on this alone. You have to adjust for quality of competition, quality of line mates, zone starts and so on.
You could draw the exact same conclusion about Morgan Reilly, as he’s the second worst defender in terms of expected goal differential per 60. Then you will say, it’s because he plays with Hainsey, but it could be the other way around. That’s the problem with using on ice stats. It’s dependent on all the players on the ice.

As a side note. Corsi, fenwick, scoring chances, high danger scoring chances or xG+/- does NOT correlate with winning. Many people seem to think that the best possession teams will eventually prevail, but that is not necessarily the case. You cannot ignore PDO and PDO will NOT regress to the mean over time. Good goaltending and shooting is just as important as good possession numbers.
That is not to say that corsi is not important because clearly it is, but so is PDO.
- Goislanders

Well Tanner's Liberal Arts Degree says otherwise, so

Hi James.

I feel like I have to respond to this post, as I think you are oversimplifying things and draws conclusions that you really can’t draw.
Let me start by saying, that I’m in no way against using statistics. In fact, I very much see myself as a numbers guy.
You are looking at 5 stats when you are evaluating a player, but in reality shot attempts, shots, scoring chances and high danger scoring chances are connected. Goals is a bit different as that is also dependent on shooting% and save%.
Anyway, I prefer using expected goal differential (xG+/-) instead of looking at 4 stats. It accounts for the amount of unblocked shot attempts and the quality of those chances. In other words, It’s the expected amount of goals if the shooting and the goaltending is average.

So let us turn our attention to Ron Hainsey. He’s the worst defender on the team in terms xG+/- per 60 minutes with -0.17, so he is almost certainly due a regression in actual goal differential. We completely agree so far, but you cannot conclude that he’s bad player based on this alone. You have to adjust for quality of competition, quality of line mates, zone starts and so on.
You could draw the exact same conclusion about Morgan Reilly, as he’s the second worst defender in terms of expected goal differential per 60. Then you will say, it’s because he plays with Hainsey, but it could be the other way around. That’s the problem with using on ice stats. It’s dependent on all the players on the ice.

As a side note. Corsi, fenwick, scoring chances, high danger scoring chances or xG+/- does NOT correlate with winning. Many people seem to think that the best possession teams will eventually prevail, but that is not necessarily the case. You cannot ignore PDO and PDO will NOT regress to the mean over time. Good goaltending and shooting is just as important as good possession numbers.
That is not to say that corsi is not important because clearly it is, but so is PDO.
- Goislanders

Morgan Rielly's the luckiest sum female dog in the league then.

Hainsey's a close 2nd with Jake Gardiner coming in at #4

GO LEAFS GO

Hi James.

I feel like I have to respond to this post, as I think you are oversimplifying things and draws conclusions that you really can’t draw.
Let me start by saying, that I’m in no way against using statistics. In fact, I very much see myself as a numbers guy.
You are looking at 5 stats when you are evaluating a player, but in reality shot attempts, shots, scoring chances and high danger scoring chances are connected. Goals is a bit different as that is also dependent on shooting% and save%.
Anyway, I prefer using expected goal differential (xG+/-) instead of looking at 4 stats. It accounts for the amount of unblocked shot attempts and the quality of those chances. In other words, It’s the expected amount of goals if the shooting and the goaltending is average.

So let us turn our attention to Ron Hainsey. He’s the worst defender on the team in terms xG+/- per 60 minutes with -0.17, so he is almost certainly due a regression in actual goal differential. We completely agree so far, but you cannot conclude that he’s bad player based on this alone. You have to adjust for quality of competition, quality of line mates, zone starts and so on.
You could draw the exact same conclusion about Morgan Reilly, as he’s the second worst defender in terms of expected goal differential per 60. Then you will say, it’s because he plays with Hainsey, but it could be the other way around. That’s the problem with using on ice stats. It’s dependent on all the players on the ice.

As a side note. Corsi, fenwick, scoring chances, high danger scoring chances or xG+/- does NOT correlate with winning. Many people seem to think that the best possession teams will eventually prevail, but that is not necessarily the case. You cannot ignore PDO and PDO will NOT regress to the mean over time. Good goaltending and shooting is just as important as good possession numbers.
That is not to say that corsi is not important because clearly it is, but so is PDO.
- Goislanders

Hey I like xgoals too, I don't think there's just one way to do it.


As for Rielly the WOWYs have at 55% when he gets away from Hainsey and I think if you factor in what he's done with such a bad partner, he should get the Norris hands down this year.

The games aren't played on a spreadsheet...