Assessing Individual Player Performance at the Halfway Point

We’re at the half-way point of the 2015-16 Calgary Flames season and this seems like a perfectly fine time to take a look at the performance of the team’s players. And since the NHL already helpfully tabulates goals, assists, points and other wonderful standard statistics, we’ll be taking a different slant and assessing the club’s performance through a couple advanced statistics methods.

Disclaimer: the majority of this was written prior to Monday’s 5-4 loss to San Jose, though that game really didn’t do anything to dispute any of the claims made here.


I’m using two tools to assess player performance: Adjusted Corsi and Player Usage Charts.

The adjusted corsi equation was developed by Oilers fan/blogger Michael Parkatti.
The equation took into account quality of opponents, quality of
teammates and zone starts (i.e., where the player tends to start his
shift). This makes it easier to compare players on the same club across
various lines and roles.

Parkatti’s equation looks like this: Expected Raw Corsi = -11.91 + QualDiff*1.00 + OffZS%*0.24

For simplicity, I’ll just be presenting the differentials between the expected raw Corsi figures and the adjusted figures to showcase players that are out-performing their circumstances (or otherwise).

Player usage charts were developed by Rob Vollman, and are a good way of putting player performance into context. Vollman used time on ice of the competition that a player was out against on his Y axis (as a measure of the quality of competition; better players play more than lesser players) and a player’s percentage of offensive zone starts as the X axis, with an aim of fleshing out each individual player’s deployments relative to their teammates as a means of exploring their individual performance.



As shown above, Giordano and Brodie get the toughest competition and fairly buried in terms of offensive zone starts. But their fairly prominent blue bubbles indicate that relative to the rest of the team, their possession stats are pretty darn good. (Blue is good, red is bad.) Hamilton and Russell obviously have gotten middle-of-the-road deployments in terms of zone starts and competition; Russell’s possession numbers have been BAD, while Hamilton’s have been fairly decent actually. 

The rest of the team has fairly poor numbers with varying degrees of easy deployments. The spread of deployments speaks to how Hartley basically had to throw names into a hat for the first month of the season with an injured Brodie and Hamilton trying to figure out how to play within the system.

In terms of adjusted Corsi, the numbers basically reflect what we see from the player usage chart:

  • Brett Kulak +14.3
  • T.J. Brodie +6.0
  • Mark Giordano +5.9
  • Dougie Hamilton +3.0
  • Ladislav Smid -3.1
  • Dennis Wideman -4.5
  • Deryk Engelland -5.2
  • Kris Russell -7.2

Based on these figures, want to know why the Flames are where they are? And why they’ve had struggles defensively? It’s because they have a clear top trio of blueliners that perform well relative to their assignments, and then four guys that have under-performed.



Monahan, Gaudreau and Hudler have faced tough competition but have gotten a ton of offensive zone starts (as you’d expect Hartley to provide his best offensive talents). After that there’s a distinct secondary grouping with moderate competition and variable defensive zone starts (Colborne/Stajan/Jones/Ferland/Backlund/Frolik/Bennett).

Ferland, Backlund and Frolik perform well Corsi-wise relative to the team while Stajan and Jones struggling (though in tough circumstances). And then we have the tertiary grouping, with relatively lesser competition and a mix of zone starts (Bouma/Grant/Jooris/Raymond/Granlund), with Jooris slightly out-performing the pack and Granlund and Bouma falling behind. 

Finally, there’s Brandon Bollig, all alone at the bottom with the easiest minutes on the team and relatively poor possession stats. Ignore Engelland – he’s considered a forward and defender by stats programs because of his dual deployment in Pittsburgh.

In terms of Adjusted Corsi, again, it more or less says similar things with a few key variations:

  • Micheal Ferland +9.4
  • Mikael Backlund +7.6
  • Michael Frolik +6.3
  • Josh Jooris +3.3
  • Johnny Gaudreau +1.9
  • Joe Colborne +0.7
  • Matt Stajan +0.5
  • Mason Raymond +0.3
  • Brandon Bollig -0.5
  • Sam Bennett -0.8
  • Jiri Hudler -1.3
  • Lance Bouma -2.0
  • Sean Monahan -3.5
  • David Jones -4.6
  • Derek Grant -5.2
  • Markus Granlund -8.7

Okay, the good? Ferland, Backlund, Frolik, Jooris and Gaudreau are all doing quite well when you take into account their circumstances. And much of the middle group, including 19-Year-Old Sam Bennett, are performing as you’d expect considering that Hartley is giving them the scraps in terms of offensive zone starts.

The bad? Two-thirds of the top line (Monahan and Hudler) are under-performing relative to their circumstances. Also not great: Granlund, Jones and Bouma are leaking shot attempts even when you factor in their deployments, which isn’t good for Granlund as a guy trying to crack the NHL full-time, Jones as a player on an expiring contract, or Bouma as a guy on a bridge deal trying to make a case for himself as an impact player. (Grant’s numbers are bad, too, but I’m discounting them a bit due to sample size.)


Based on these evaluative tools, who’s performing well on the Calgary Flames through the first half (when factoring in how they’re being used by the coaching staff)? Mark Giordano, T.J. Brodie, Dougie Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, Josh Jooris, Mikael Backlund, Michael Frolik and Johnny Gaudreau.

On the flip-side, players who are performing poorly (when circumstances are factored in)? Kris Russell, Dennis Wideman, Deryk Engelland, Ladislav Smid, Markus Granlund, David Jones, Sean Monahan, Lance Bouma and Jiri Hudler.

Are you shocked? Surprised? Do the numbers match what you’ve seen in the first half? Sound off in the comments!

  • Derzie

    This is too selective. Player performance is way more than Corsi. What about goals? Assists? Turnovers? Plus/minus? Shooting %? GWGs? PPGs? Blocked shots? Cost/pt? Pt/min? Penalty minutes? Drawing Penalties? Times as a game star? Times as a league star? Production relative to ice time? Favorable deployments relative to pts (not just possession). Scoring chances for & against? Age corrected stats? This is the problem with the Corsi disciples. It is one tool in a sea of many. Drawing conclusions (good or bad) on one tool is wrong.

    • KACaribou

      Very well stated. I am a big Ferland fan, so I would choose to use these stats to support my like of the player. But as you say there is so much more.

      Some things you can’t monitor in any mathematical way; intangibles like heart and willingness to go to war to win. To me that is what brings guys up from the bowels of Corsi. Guys like Engelland, Russell, Smid, Bouma; and then guys like Ferland whom Corsi loves.

      You win with this type of intangible that you sometimes find in great players like Jonathan Toews. Most great skilled players don’t have that little extra to give however.

      The one stat I keep going back to, and the only one I really care about is quality scoring chances allowed and quality scoring chances created. I’d prefer to get 20 good quality scoring chances and only 15 SOG, than 40 SOG and 5 quality scoring chances. The great majority of shots on goal are not even remotely scoring chances.

    • SmellOfVictory

      Goals and assists are readily available everywhere. Shooting % is highly luck dependent, and isn’t a good measure of player value (except in elite cases like Gaudreau, or bottom end cases like Bollig).

      Blocked shots are of questionable value; although it’s a skill, blocking a large number of shots means the opposition has the puck more than they should. Plus/minus is just a bad version of Corsi. Times as game star is arbitrary. Times as league star is so rare that it doesn’t really matter.

      Realistically, the only numbers that would add to this picture are scoring rate, scoring chance stats, and penalty differentials.

      Also, adding too much information to an article would make it too cluttered and difficult to organize, and the average reader would probably skip over it (not saying that the numbers I mentioned would be “too much”, but there are limits).

        • aflame13

          Saying that shooting % is highly luck dependant is like saying a high k/d in Call of Duty or any other shooter is highly luck dependant. I disagree. Just like kills per death in a video game is dependent on awareness, teammates, personal skill, reaction times, emotion, patience, and the opposition’s qualities, shooting percentage is based off many things. Luck is just an easy way to explain away the finer points of the game and only really affects individual circumstances and not long periods of time as all those other things override what “luck” does.

          • SmellOfVictory

            “Luck” just means “things we can’t control”. If you believe that we, as individuals, control every factor that goes into every action, I don’t know what to tell you.

            Also, sh% is not like high k/d. A high point total is like high k/d. Or a high +/- would be like high k/d. SH% would be the same as your accuracy, except that there are a million more factors in the real world that go into where a puck goes than in the game world, affecting whether your shot hits a hitbox.

          • aflame13

            Obviously no one can control every factor, that’d be crazy to think. Different people can control factors to different degrees though. Some players can seemingly control shifts or even games when they’re playing because they’re just that good. Shooting % has more to do with a player’s abilities, their teammates, and the opposition than luck.

          • KACaribou

            Some people here take this s#$t way too seriously.

            If a player is a selective shooter like former Flame Alex Tanguay was, who game after game people tell him SHOOOOOOOOOT!!! Yet he never did, but his shooting percentage may have been high because he wanted about a 90% opportunity to score before he would shoot and not pass.

            So in that example does it make Tanguay a valuable player because he may have a high shooting percentage?

            Or say you are a guy like Bennett whose coach is telling him to shoot at every conseivable opportunity.

            Do you think Bennett is worried about his shooting percentage because it will go down if he is taking shots willy-nilly that aren’t even possible scoring opportunities?

            Or do you think Bennett is going to just do what his coach tells him regardless of what his shooting percentage is because he wants to stay in the NHL making millions rather than at home figuring out advanced stats for free for a hockey blog?

          • PrairieStew

            You make a very good point. I recall how people would get on Tanguay to shoot more because “he’s an accurate shooter – more goals are bound to go in”, while I would say on of the reasons he was (is) a high S% guy is that he only takes high percentage shots. Yes there were many times he would pass rather than take the shot, and the pass might not work, but if it had it would have been a tap in for Iggy. So how do you measure whether the best play is a 10% shot or a 50% chance to make a pass that has a 50% chance of going in.

            I have always thought a pass first guy like Tanguay ( and Makarov before him) gets unfairly treated by shot counting stats alone and the shooting percentage of him and those who play with him should also be considered. On the flip side, guys who shoot from everywhere might, like a blind squirrel, find a nut occasionally; but are they creating chances or ‘near miss’ chances at the same rate as a playmaker ?

          • KACaribou

            You nailed my point. That being that these idiotic stats do not define how a game went, or whether a player is good or not. It’s over-analysis.

            People: watch the goddam game, and if you understand what you are seeing you can make the informed decision yourself considering the circumstances of every play!

            Use that metric, not someone else’s stats which may or may not be accurate! We can’t even count on the accuracy of simple hit or shot stats in some buildings, what makes you think all these other stats are accurate?

            Judge yourself. Should he have shot? Did he have a choice considering the defence and location of his teammates… etc… etc… etc…

          • Skuehler

            if sh% isn’t highly influenced by randomness then why is Monahan having an all time career low sh% season…did he get worse due to his two seasons of NHL experience…or?

            I look forward to hearing your post facto explanation.

        • SmellOfVictory

          Alex Steen’s sh% year-to-year, from 09/10-12/13:

          12.7, 9.2, 11.2, 6.2

          Jarome Iginla (one of the most consistent goal scorers in NHL history) sh% year-to-year, from 09/10-12/13:

          12.4, 14.9, 12.8, 10.4

          And that’s over an entire season. Shooting percentage is obviously highly variable, even with good/elite shooters; you don’t think that qualifies as luck? Do you honestly think that, when a skater lets the puck go, he has complete control over it, whether it hits someone in front, if the goalie happens to be having a hot game, whether his stick catches on a rut in the ice, what the temperature in the rink is? You don’t think those kinds of factors can cluster over the course of multiple games?

          • SmellOfVictory

            No, it means he’s got average (maybe slightly below) scoring ability. Every player has some sort of a base sh% (we just use career sh% because it’s the closest we can get) that fluctuates based on other circumstances. The fact that it can fluctuate by 20-50% year-to-year means that a player’s current year’s sh% is not very meaningful in terms of assessing how well he’s actually playing, though.

          • Johnny Goooooooaldreau

            Last night encapsulates Backlund for me.

            Did some good things, did some bad things.

            Gets the puck with 1/2 the net open and waits for the goalie to come across before he gets his shot away. He is either a match fixer like the Pakistani Cricketers, or he doesn’t even have the wrist strength to just snap the puck into the net like most of those so called “lucky ” shooters would.

      • Derzie

        No. Every stat has flaws. That’s why they can’t be considered alone. Every stat has validity and contributes a piece to the big picture. Watch one play sequence, pause it and describe what you saw. There is a lot of information and not all of it can be measured. Discarding information because of perceived flaws is short-sighted. Those flaws are truths, in that every stat has them.

    • The Last Big Bear

      I have an extensive background in statistics, and used to pay my bills by running some pretty heavy stats in medical research.

      And I’ve done more work on hockey analytics on my own time than I would ever admit to in front of people I know.

      But what I’ve found is that when looking at forwards, no matter how rigorous and nuanced the analytic model is, no method is materially any better than just looking at Corsi and Quality of Competition numbers (ie the “Vollman sledgehammer” charts above).

      For defencemen, I think Corsi numbers are almost useless. If you’ve read the comments sections here for more than about a month, then you’ve heard me drone on about this before. Corsi numbers are about as good as points, or +/-, when it comes to assessing defencemen. If a guy has crazy good numbers, he’s probably good. But there are plenty of top-tier defencemen with middling-to-poor corsi numbers.

      The only good stat I trust when it comes to defencemen is ice time. Which tells you how an NHL level coach evaluates the player relative to his teammates. Nothing else seems to work.

      The same is not so true for forwards. Corsi numbers (with some context of player usage) seem to be a very good reflection of a forward’s ability. At least over a large enough sample size (I don’t think half a season is enough, but it’s a good start)

      Of course there are always some guys who are consistently better than their corsi numbers suggest, especially power forwards. Just off the top of my head, I think Wayne Simmonds for example usually has “meh” corsi numbers, but is a very effective player.

      And on the other hand, there are some players who are good but their corsi numbers make them look like All-Stars, particularly defensive centremen like Backlund and Neilsen.

      I don’t like to use ‘adjusted corsi’ as a single number, because I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. But I think the “Vollman Sledgehammer” charts above work as well for forwards as any statistical model I’ve ever seen.

      • DestroDertell

        “For defencemen, I think Corsi numbers are almost useless. If you’ve read the comments sections here for more than about a month, then you’ve heard me drone on about this before. Corsi numbers are about as good as points, or +/-, when it comes to assessing defencemen. If a guy has crazy good numbers, he’s probably good. But there are plenty of top-tier defencemen with middling-to-poor corsi numbers.

        The only good stat I trust when it comes to defencemen is ice time. Which tells you how an NHL level coach evaluates the player relative to his teammates. Nothing else seems to work.”

        How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

        Who, exactly, are “these top-tier defencemen with middling-to-poor corsi numbers”? Trevor Daley (played 23 minutes/night in 2014-15) has already been traded twice since last season, Andrew MacDonald (played 23 minutes/night in 2013-14) failed as a bottom-pairing defenseman and now gets 5M$/year to play in the AHL. Now, most rangers/ducks fans view Girardi, Bieksa and Staal as cap dumps (the three gets first pairing minutes/night). Kris Russell is next.

        Given the fact that it has been proven there’s no proof a defensemen’s on-ice shooting% and save% relative to their teammates isn’t completely random year-by-year, I’ll use the metric (Corsi%Rel) that’s sustainable over a long amount of time (even if it is less so for defensemen) anytime over “I only accept information that confirms my existing beliefs”.

        EDIT: There’s actually far from plenty top-pairing defencemen with a poor corsiRel. It’s a small minority.

        PK Subban +6.02

        Mark Giordano +5.74

        Brian Campbell +5.02

        Anton Stralman +4.78

        Dougie Hamilton + 4.72

        Oliver Ekman-Larsson +4.71

        Kris Letang +4.67

        Nick Leddy +4.50

        Erik Karlsson +4.47

        Justin Faulk +3.94

        Erik Johnson +3.82

        Aaron Ekblad +3.76

        Zdeno Chara +3.71

        Andrei Markov +3.62

        Brent Burns +3.56

        Alex Edler +3.56

        Johnny Boychuk +3.51

        Jake Muzzin +3.47

        Jake Trouba +2.49

        Alex Goligoski +2.34

        Drew Doughty +1.95

        John Klingberg +1.84

        TJ Brodie +1.79

        ME Vlasic +1.78

        Dan Hamhuis +1.41

        Hampus Lindholm +0.71

        Victor Hedman +0.37

        Adam Larsson +0.18

        (All stats from last year)

        • The Last Big Bear

          (CorsiRel 2014-15 from BehindTheNet)

          Roman Josi: -9.7

          Niklas Kronwall: -9.6

          Shea Weber: -9.3

          Marc Staal: -9.0

          Jay Bouwmeester: -7.3

          Alex Pietrangelo: -5.7

          Brent Seabrook: -3.0

          Jonas Brodin: -0.5

          Dustin Byfuglien: -0.1

          Yannick Weber: +0.2

          Ryan Suter: +1.5

          Justin Schultz: +7.9

          Jordie Benn: +8.6

          Oskar Klefbom: +9.4

          Josi and Weber are horrible. Schultz and Klefbom are spectacular. Brodin and Suter are ‘meh’. Kronwall is a dud. St Louis’ top pairing was a disaster last year.

          Does this sound like something that reflects reality?

          • DestroDertell

            Corsi stats always shows something that’s happening in reality. Assumptions don’t always reflect reality.

            You’re probably using a different metric than me. According to, Schultz had a +3,6 CorsiRel%, Klefbom had +4,3.

            Not only that, but some of those guys on that list are not even top pairing defenseman, like Y. Weber and Staal. Plus, Staal is one of those overrated defenseman I mentioned earlier that’s now viewed as a cap dump by NYR fans.

            Byfuglien has good possession numbers as a Dman, but his overall Corsi was dragged down by the time he played as a forward. Not a good example either.

            Yes, Klefbom is underrated. Other than your own abilities, QoT is the biggest driver of possession which probably helped Schultz, since they were paired together for quite some time last year. Also, it’s pretty easy to good relative to Nikitin and Ference.

            Brodin and Suter are infact, meh. Like Baalzamon said, not even the best d-man on his team. See Suter’s possession number when he’s paired with Spurgeon instead of Brodin – they take a huge rise. Even Suter openly said he didn’t want to be with Brodin earlier in the season (something about Brodin being left-handed and stuff).

            Kronwall was partly dragged down by Ericsson the pylon. Plus, like most 35 years old, he used to be better at Corsi.

            Don’t know about St-Louis, but I was never a big fan of Bouwmeester so it doesn’t surprises me one bit he’s a poor possession player.

            Weber’s best days are behind him. Since Suter left, he has never been as good at possession. He still can score goals, so I guess there’s that.

      • KACaribou

        The only good stat I trust when it comes to defencemen is ice time. Which tells you how an NHL level coach evaluates the player relative to his teammates. Nothing else seems to work.

        That works in some cases but not others. Using icetime would imply that Ryan Suter is the best defenseman in the league. IMO he isn’t even the best defenseman on his team.

        • The Last Big Bear

          Jay Bouwmeester was a reigning NHL ironman, multi-time Canadian Olympian, Olympic gold medalist, NHL All-Star, top pairing defenceman.

          A lot of the people who cheered the day he left were idiots.

    • SmellOfVictory

      He proved this at the end of the game when he showed that Burns has no coconuts. All Burns could do was complain to the ref that Ferland was shoving him.

  • Craik

    Good: Gaudreau, Frolik, Gio, Brodie, Ferland, Jooris, Backlund

    Bad: Colbone, Russell, Wideman, Hudler, Bouma, Jones

    ^^ That literally could have been the article. We know who’s good, we know who needs to go.

      • ClayBort

        Care to elaborate how Colborne has done ANYTHING to warrant the ice time he sees and situations he’s deployed in?

        He’s a fourth liner at best who should be seeing no more than 10 mins a night, with zero PP time, and sure as hell shouldn’t be on the ice in a one goal game with less than 2 mins remaining.

        • cberg

          Well there’s lots of ways to answer that, but one quick thought is he is sometimes the 6th attacker that comes out when the goalie is pulled. Great plan, a guy who is strong along the boards and can tie up the puck keeping it from the opposition. Other similar guys, like Ferland would be another choice with similar reasoning.

          • ClayBort

            Not if a shot attempt isn’t taken. Don’t confuse corsi possession with time of possession. Just because you have time of possession doesn’t mean you accomplished anything with it.

            [edit] technically time of possession prevents corsi events against… however I believe the last EN goal against was this exact Colborne turnover.

  • KACaribou

    From game reports I had the impression that Granlund was doing pretty well, but the shot metrics make it look like he’s getting crushed 5v5. Any thoughts on the discrepancy?

    P.S. I promise not to bring up Monahan again 🙂 He had a good game last night.

    • Tomas Oppolzer

      Monny was good last night but he missed some grade A chances in front of the net gift wrapped by Johnny. The team deserved a better fate… A little bit of bad luck and old Ramos. My biggest concern is we have not been able to secure any points in 2 Of the biggest games of the year. I think playoffs without an insertion of some new talent is going to be tough.

      • Derzie


        Okay, since you brought Monahan up… Better to have chances and fail to bury them then not have them at all. Even Ovechkin fails to bury a good chunk of his chances. It’s just going to happen. The next time he scores 2 in a game we’ll forget all about it. I’m happy to give credit where it’s due, and that game improved my opinion of Monahan.

        We can say bad luck, but the defense on some of the early goals was *blech*. Even if you are outshooting by a large margin, those things matter, particularly early in the game.

        I’d say they deserved the loss on the whole, even if they did a lot of things right.

  • mattyc

    If you actually look at the data, they show that although there are extremes (the Stamkos/Tanguay’s, and the Glass/Bollig’s), the vast majority of players shooting percentages are not repeatable season over season, and therefore tend to all cluster right around league average. Reversion to the mean.

    Is Gaudreau a higher percentage shooter? Probably, but beyond those extreme cases, you’re unlikely to see it.

  • mattyc

    Discussions about Call of Duty K/D ratios and how it relates to SH%?

    This comment section is a GD tire fire. And that’s saying something for FlamesNation

    • KACaribou

      And there you have it. I would never get satisfaction from reading Corsi stats rather than watching a hockey game.

      Mind you I am old school. I watch the game and decide who played best by that metric rather than let someone’s stats after the game decide for me, or make me change my mind.

  • Skuehler

    Would be interesting to see some advanced stats on the business end. So many guys signing multi-year multi-million dollar contracts that end up being cap anchors and/or playing in the minors. Let alone guys getting bought out and signing elsewhere. What stats are available for measuring value and effective management?

  • I’m gonna go out on a limb and surmise that Bob Hartley is incapable of reading the OP charts, or chooses a completely deviant method of using the data and applying it to line combinations and player usage.

    Something like….. opposite day.

    • KACaribou

      I am going to go out on a limb and surmise that Coach Hartley uses his eyeballs and hockey knowledge which vastly outweighs anyone here to choose line combination and player usage.

      Boy some people think highly of themselves here.

      • KACaribou

        “the coach can do no wrong cause he’s the coach and we should all blindly agree with everything he does”

        You would fit in nicely with the MSM in this city.

  • Mullen7

    I know it’s nothing new but it was SO frustrating watching Colborne last night! 95% of the time he touched the puck the play died on his stick and resulted in a turnover. Even times where I didn’t know it was him I would get frustrated at what happened on the ice and then find during the replay that it had been his fault. He was an absolute boat anchor to his linemates.

  • hulkingloooooob

    I’d love to hear someones impressions of each player without using ANY stats. just the real deal, who can play hockey with all it’s “un-stat-able” realities. when the first 15 games of the season were so different then the rest, i’d say this renders advanced stats fairly useless. at least at this point in the season. who’s playing well now? who’s over achieving, who’s not. etc…..these stat workouts bore me and i just see incongruencies rather then telling data.

    • KACaribou

      Guessing most couldn’t analyze a game without statistics telling them what they saw. You are so bloody right though my friend. What did you think of last night’s game from a fan perspective who actually goes to the game to watch it?

      • Tomas Oppolzer

        Most of us can. It’s been said many times by many different people, these stats (corsi, fenwick…) aren’t to be used by themselves, but are intended to be used as a tool to help you evaluate what you’re watching. It’s not the only evaluation tool one uses. But you don’t want to acknowledge that. It would ruin your narrative that all adavanced-stats people only have their heads buried in stat sheets.

        • hulkingloooooob

          you get to my point exactly….so why not present the cold hard “advanced” data as well as impressions and discussion of those elements of the game that are intangible or don’t represent well in said data. these articles are often a simple cut and paste presentation of the “cold hard facts” with a nice intro anyone including eric francis could write with little or no analysis beyond ” as you can see, so and so scored high here and so and so scored low there” yes we can see that…..but wait….there’s more? I think there should be…

          • Avalain

            I understand where you’re coming from, but don’t we get stuff like that in the post game threads? I don’t really need a separate article to tell me that Colborne gave the puck away or Gaudreau made a nice pass. The advanced stats threads are good in that this is information that I don’t personally have on hand.

          • hulkingloooooob

            I guess i just feel like some of those writers who heavily endorse advanced stats are reticent to expose the areas of weakness within advanced stats. For me, this is where the true interest lies. Yes we have advanced stats and they are here to stay, and yes they can offer us lots of useful data and illuminations, but at some point more people are going to have to start talking about where they go wrong, or at least where they don’t tell the whole picture. i guess i want advanced stats to continue to advance and become increasingly nuanced. to me this is where to true value lies, especially to the teams who are indeed starting to make use of them.

  • Phillip

    I haven’t said anything before about this, but if any of us want to be treated with respect promoting our advanced stats theories, we have to also be respectful to people who disagree with us.

  • KACaribou

    If you look at my earlier comments, they are very reasonable. Then some dick comes on and starts with the ignorant comments that my thinking is dinosaur-like and the “new way” is the right way. I don’t mean to torment anyone, but they need to be open to other points of view. We have free speech here. ON isn’t only advance stats nerds. There are real hockey comments. Some here too. Not all nerd-stat people here, some like to talk about hockey too.