Beavis+Butthead+library

Angry At Numbers

Time for that portion of the program where I turn into JenLC from Second City Hockey for a post. Though she definitely wears it better and with much better charisma. But anyway, let’s dig a little deep and see a little light on our beloved Hawks.

10, 9

The first number is Bryan Bickell’s goal total this year in 48 games. The second number is his total in 48 games last year. What I haven’t included is his paycheck, which apparently has fogged everyone’s lenses when viewing the Pit Bull Hero. But let’s go even deeper. For the most part, Bicks has played on the 3rd line this year with Andrew Shaw at center, just as he did last year. His Corsi-For percentage this year with Shaw is 57.5%, which is quite good and above the team rate actually. Last year? 57.3% with Shaw.

His overall Corsi-percentage is actually better this year, at 57.7% which is 2% above the team-rate, compared to 55.3% last year.

Ah, but some of you will point out that he was +12 last year and a -8 this year. Let me point out his PDO (sum of shooting-percentage and save-percentage while player is on the ice, essentially a measure of luck). It was 102.9 last year, and is kind of an abysmal 94.0 this year. So while Bickell may have been a tad lucky last year, he’s getting the dog’s balls luck this year (I think that term works. Let’s just go with it).

Ok, he’s only got 2 assists this year where he had 14 last year, though I’m not sure he’s supposed to be a playmaker over there. Some of that may have to do with Shaw’s slump in SH% and not having a constant threat on the other wing, which Viktor Stalberg really was during the regular season last year.

What has changed is his ice-time. Bickell has played 93 less minutes in 48 games this year vs. last, or almost exactly two per game. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s more than a little. But with less time, Bickell has scored at a higher rate and driven possession just as much.

Quite frankly, Bickell has been what he’s always been. A solid third-line winger who isn’t as physical as his size would suggest but is hardly a liability. But what has changed is his bank account, which for some reason makes people think (including his coach) that he’s going to morph into someone different at the age of 28 (which would be on the back end of a player’s prime, basically).

Even if we’re judging Bicks through the prism of his paycheck, he earned that contract through his playoff performance. It’s only fair then to only judge him after his playoff performance this year. If it’s as good as his previous three have been (and he’s been good in all of them) everyone screaming “EARN YOUR MONEY HARF HARF BLUE COLLAR HARF HARF I’M CHOKING ON A GRILLED ONION HARF HARF” can kiss his and my ass.

64.8

Brandon Saad’s and Jonathan Toews’s Corsi% when played together. Both drop about 7% when not played together. They’ve only played together for a bout 145 minutes on the season. Last season there was a drop of 5-6 % for each when they didn’t play together. Moral of the story is that they should always play together.

12.3

This is Ben Smith’s shooting percentage. What’s funny is that it might be a little low for him. In 155 games in Rockford, Smith scored 61 goals on 329 shots for a SH% of 19%. Obviously, it’s not a shock when someone’s percentage drops in the NHL, where the goalies are better and the time and space are less. But a drop of 7% sounds high, and either for the rest of this year or maybe in future years I think we can expect to see Smith’s goal total rise to somewhere between 12-17 as he figures out the NHL game more.

  • Bobby Otter

    The Bickell hate (granted only coming from some) is really unfair. I think people are just as much confusing Bickell’s crazy jump in shooting percentage in the playoffs just as much as his price tag. He shoots 18.4% in the playoffs last year and everyone thinks he’s “figured it out” rather than realizing he was just getting a nice bump from the Hockey gods.

    Stalberg did open up space for the very effective third line last year; of course that doesn’t really explain Bickell’s playoff explosion. Then again, skating with Kane and Toews helps. A lot.

    • jordyhawk

      Agree on the Bickell hate. And as for skating with 19/88, we were not looking so good against Bruins until game 4 when Bickell was re-united with them and helped create space for them (and as it turned out Q had been hiding him cuz of the knee). I seem to recall Chara was not nearly as effective once that happened.

      • Accipiter

        Somewhere in there Chara got injured which also contributed to his effectiveness.

        • Preacher

          What Chara got, was old. Seriously, the guy looked half dead by game 5. The compressed schedule, the increased minutes in the playoffs, his age–whatever it was, he went from being the “greatest d-man” in the game to being “exposed” (both quotes from various pundits).

          • Accipiter

            He was good up until a certain point, hip flexor injury (iirc) can slow you down.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            I heard he figured he’d get to see the Cup just as much if his neighbor won it.

          • Waylon

            I think the guy was 36 last season? But even so, I think the Hawks just said to hell with trying to play around him and get the best matchup and just skated right through him. The funny thing is that none of the analysts on the telecasts bothered to notice this.

      • http://www.lotsofbutterplease.com/ I am not Chico Maki

        Heh … and Bickell was up there to start this season, too. But it wasn’t quite the same magic.

        • jordyhawk

          Definitely not (bad knee? not as motivated? ..who knows). One thing to consider is that the club said it was actually close to re-upping Bickell towards the end of the regular season last year for somewhere around $2 million. They needed to close the deal then.

          • http://www.lotsofbutterplease.com/ I am not Chico Maki

            2 good points.

          • 10thMountainFire

            Two points are always good.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            3 points worse

      • ChicagoNativeSon

        Yeah, so the story line that Bickell was only effective because he skated with 19-88 isn’t entirely true. 19-88 wasn’t effective in that series without Bickell either.

        I keep saying that big bodies like Buff and Bickell prove – and have proved – their worth in the playoffs.

        And I personally believe that having a guy like Bollig on the roster will also prove valuable this playoffs now that he’s progressed. I don’t have to explain why, but maybe a guy like Patrice Bergeron can (torn rib cartilage in Game 4 of the finals, a broken rib on his left side in Game 5 and a separated right shoulder and a punctured left lung in Game 6).

        • Accipiter

          In the playoffs, every hit is an investment.

          Didn’t Fro help Bergeron acquire one of those ailments ?

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            Yup. And well put.

            And who leads the team in hits and puts some weight behind them?

          • laaarmer

            SEABROOK!

          • cliffkoroll

            ‘puts some weight behind them.’

            Why u hatez on Shawsie?

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Kane?

        • jordyhawk

          When both Bergeron and Jonny were in the lineup for game 6 I was shocked. Nails or what. If Bergeron had a little more offensive polish I shudder to think how tough he would be to play against.

        • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

          Bickell I am okay with. TOFTBO had an off year where people wanted him sold for scrap after a SC Run too. So I have some patience with him.
          .
          Bollig OTOH, well he is a meathead and does dumbshit at times. That aspect concerns me.

        • Preacher

          Don’t you think this is Q’s whole thought process? To repeat the Big Buff success of the 2010 playoffs? Which might explain John Scott on the powerplay, Brookbank as a forward, Bollig getting constant ice time, etc.

        • ToewsCheatCode

          When did 19 and 88 ever skate together without Bickell in that series?

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            Well, since Kane skated with Toews 37% of time and only 25.5% with Bickell, I’m guessing it happened. I need to look at the series shift charts though.

          • ToewsCheatCode

            Is that 5v5?

        • Why

          Couldn’t agree more with this.

      • ToewsCheatCode

        19 and 88 weren’t skating together until game 4.

        29-19-88 was the only combination we saw with those two on a line together.

        On the contrary, when Toews went down to the headshot in game 5 and bickell and Kane played together with another center (shaw?) in the third of that game, they looked completely ineffective.

        I agree that Bickell was a key contributor to that line, but he wasn’t the glue or anything.

        • ChicagoNativeSon

          Key contributor. But not the glue..or anything.
          Um, ok.

      • Waylon

        Memories are strange – I thought Chara started getting seriously exposed when every line went straight at him and his partner, no matter when he was on the ice. They ran him down at the end, he was pretty much gassed.

    • cliffkoroll

      Maybe, but it’s not just last year. Bickell’s played in 38 playoff games, and has numbers that are significantly better than during his 268 regular season games. To me, he’s always shown signs of regular season half-assery, except, oddly, in late 2011, when he was a beast down the stretch and potted a couple game winners, while the crowd snickered at his ’40 foot wrister’. Arguably, the playoffs, and playoff-Bickell, came early that year.

      Let’s see what happens this year. Moar data!

      • Bobby Otter

        Yeah, really good point about playoff v regular season Bickell. Of course, logic would tell us that regular season Bickell is the “real” Bickell and playoff Bicks is just randomness… but I’m not so sure that’s the entire answer. Moar data indeed.

      • amontesawesome

        It is mostly just last year. He’s played 572 playoff minutes and 62% of that was last year.

        • cliffkoroll

          Bobby’s point regarding last year was basically ‘sample size’. A larger sample size is usually helpful here.

          Don’t discount the 2011 and 2012 playoffs from Bickell. In 11 games, he scored 4 goals and had 2 assists. Do you suppose there is ANY 11-game stretch during the regular season when Bickell did better than this? I’d be surprised.

          And if there was, it was prolly the playoff stretch in 2011, the biggest regular season games over the past five years and maybe the best stretch of regular season hockey we’ve seen out of Bickell. Coincidence?

          My point is that Bickell is a big game player. Which is of course the same thing as a guy who loafs in non-big games.

          • zacked

            Do you suppose there is ANY 11-game stretch during the regular season when Bickell did better than this?

            Well he had a 4-game goal streak in October, so there’s 2 separate 11-game stretches were he went 4-1-5. He went 2-5-7 in 11 games at the beginning of last season. He went 4-5-9 in 11 early March last year. 6-8-14 in only 8 games late March.

            So…yes?

          • cliffkoroll

            4-1-5 is not better than 4-2-6. Neither is 2-5-7.

            I’ll give you last March. I am surprised, but there is surely some overlap in those numbers, since he only had 9 goals and 14 assists all season. Still, I stand corrected.

            Apparently, Bickell steps it up for post-season and/or a contract push. I still think he’ll outperform his career numbers this post-season, as he has in the past.

          • zacked

            Yeah sorry, I think I was adding the assists-points columns by accident instead of goals-assists. In 12/2011 he had a 6-5-11 stretch. Point stands.

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            Don’t forget he played most of the 2012 playoff games with cut tendons in his hand.

    • lizmcneill

      You’d think Saad should have helped that 3rd line; while he doesn’t have Stals’ wheels he’s pretty fast and his shot is not infamously terrible. Seems like it’s never really clicked in any configuration all year, while last year it was the most consistent.

      • Bobby Otter

        Yeah, maybe it just is a combo of not as much ice time + a crappy PDO + seeing tougher competition? I don’t know. I agree, Saad should be an upgrade for that line.

        IMO, most Hawk fans unappreciated that Stals-Shaw-Bickell line last year. Without looking at the numbers, I’d guess they weren’t that far off the Ladd-Bolland-Steeger from 2010. With the 4th line is effectively the 3rd line these days, and the Hawks haven’t gotten a ton out of the 3rd line… I’m guessing the improved power play + 1st line just destroying everyone and everything has made up for the dip in production (pretty easy hypothesis to test… but can’t until later).

      • 10thMountainFire

        I think he did have a positive impact.

      • birdhead

        the third line has had, I think, pretty excellent possession stats and a crap shooting percentage generally.

    • http://www.lotsofbutterplease.com/ I am not Chico Maki

      I like Bickell. But Sam makes a strange point: post-contract Bickell should be judged on the same criteria as pre-contract Bickell. Is Ville Leino in the same boat, then? David Clarkson?

      Stan paid him; he deserved the contract (he could have commanded more as a UFA); he is not worth the contract; I don’t hate him; his low ice time is warranted (how do you just blink away half the points he had last year as “only” assists?); it’s legitimate to point out that he is not playing to his contract. All these things can co-exist, imo.

      If he plays this post-season at well-above-regular-season averages, then great, I’m perfectly prepared to appreciate him like I did Bolland. For now, I look at Bickell and see a 20-point player getting exactly the minutes he deserves.

      • Why

        I’m more confused that people want to claim it’s a bad contract after 48 regular season games, some of which he likely played hurt.

    • 10thMountainFire

      I’m much angrier at Versteeg than at Bickell. I ain’t even mad at Bickell.

      • Waylon

        I still think Steeger is hurt. I remember us having this discussion shortly after he was acquired, and one person who knew about the actual recovery timetable for a player with his injury mentioned that he may not be fully recovered until next season. Anyone here remember that one?

  • Sparky_The_Bard-barian

    No matter how well he plays, I don’t expect Bicks to be around come the end of next season when DDN/Saad are up for new paper.

    • Waylon

      Really? I know he’s not really a “banger” in the crease, but who else do the Hawks have on the roster with that kind of size that can play in critical situations?

  • birdhead

    re: Ben Smith and shooting percentage. I wanted to know if there was any work done on translating AHL to NHL sh% and managed to dig up this: http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2012/5/26/3035122/ahl-to-nhl-shot-translations

    It’s not a terribly extensive study but the money quote is this:

    On average players in the NHL shoot at .79 the rate as they did in the AHL, but there is very little correlation for individuals between how
    they shot in one league in one year as opposed to in the other league in
    the next.

    .79 of 19% is 15%, so you’re right that he has a lower-than-expected drop, but if you have a look at the picture http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1077143/AHL_to_NHL_Shoot__Conversion_medium.png, my inclination is to say that it’s not a *very* low drop.

    (Year-by-year AHL shooting stats for Ben Smith:
    10-11 (AHL) 17.0%
    11-12 (AHL) 18.1%
    12-13 (AHL) 20.1%

    It looks better when you break it down into buckets and the buckets are still consistently in that area. I wish I knew the AHL league average shooting percentages which I think would be more interesting.)

    • zacked

      I’d hazard a guess that in the AHL, a much larger percentage of Ben’s goals came while he was standing in the blue paint. With the way his line is used, I’d expect those opportunities to drop a lot and his shooting percentage to drop with it.

  • ChicagoNativeSon

    I guess reposting my link from last week would be appropriate here:

    Marion Hossa is 1st among Blackhawks in EV Goals/60 (1.36G/60). Bickell is #2 at 1.12:

    And for 3 of the last 4 seasons, Bickell has been in the top 5 in scoring rate. Only in his “down year” in 2012 did he drop out of the top 5 and that was to #6.
    http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics.php?ds=20&s=17&f1=2013_s&f2=5v5&f5=CHI&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+2+4+6+7+8+10+17+18+19+20

    • 10thMountainFire

      Maybe Q knows about an injury.

    • chichicagochi

      I never tire of your diligent Bickell defense.

      • VerStig

        I look forward to his diligent Bollig defense

      • ChicagoNativeSon

        Ha! Not so much this year though. Sam took over my watch.
        Oh inverted world.

        • bizarrohairhelmet

          Caring is creepy, especially for you.

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            Is that some sort of new slang?

  • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

    PDO, though I understand to some it measures “luck”, I am not really sure what to think of the stat by itself though.
    It is the offspring of defensive and offensive effort. The problem I have from there of it being “luck” is, what if you suck at both aspects? Could PDO not show this? Or conversely if one (or a line) excel at both, they should have a good PDO, or a mix should once again even out to about 100.
    .
    I know what the numbers show about this as well, that what I suggest is NOT always the case (Toews for example 5v5 is only 100.9).
    .
    This is a stat that I am just not really sure what to make of, and for it to be a “luck” stat given what goes into it and how those aspects come about, well just really sets off alarm bells in my head. That may be the case. It could be a totally useless stat, or it may be a supporting stat that on its own means nothing, it has to be related to or compared with or used with something more. I just do not know.

    • birdhead

      It is the offspring of defensive and offensive effort…(Toews for example 5v5 is only 100.9).

      It’s the offspring of how good your goalie has been while you’re on the ice, and how good opposing goalies have been while you’re on the ice. aka, frequently, luck. Your own example of Toews should demonstrate to you that PDO in no way demonstrates effort.

      • ToewsCheatCode

        I’m personally thrilled that Toews is at a PDO of 100 and producing like his right now. Indicates it’s a sustainable pace for him, not a matter of lucky bounces of a shooting percentage destined to crash back to the mean.

        • birdhead

          Yes. As gross and awful as this Patrick Kane slump has been, you were right yesterday when you noted that his sh% earlier in the season was equally, dramatically huge.

          • ToewsCheatCode

            Yeah, that’s why I never really bought the narrative of ‘Kane has matured as a player’ or ‘Kane has found a new gear to his game’. His shooting percentage was so high, it seemed totally unsustainable.

            Now, I would have been THRILLED to have been wrong. It would obviously be great if Kane was able to elevate himself to a new level and become one of select shooters in the NHL that maintain a remarkably high shooting percentage (relative to the field, league average of ~9%), but I wasn’t prepared to accept it before the end of an 82 game season.

            I still say he ends the season with 80+ points though… so I’m thinking he’s going to start heating up again to close out the season… which is the best time of year to get hot.

          • birdhead

            It’s currently 9.3% which I think is average for him, and which indicates to me that lately it’s been abysmal, so I expect to see a scoring uptick aaaany time now …

          • birdhead

            Mild follow-up: there’s an extent to which I don’t think 5v5 sh% tells the entire story for Kane considering the extent to which he drives the Blackhawks powerplay.

        • birdhead

          Although if you mean “in the last 5 games” for Toews, I bet his sh% in the last 5 games is pretty high.

          • ToewsCheatCode

            True. I think Toews ends the season at or just over a PPG though, for only the second time in his career. His career PPG year-over-year has been a pretty steady increase I believe.

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        Did you catch the part of me using Toews as the example that what I was suggesting is not always true.
        .
        This lack of correlation does not support any one conclusion and can support many possible explanations. It is this very wide possible influence that makes me uncertain HOW to read it.
        .
        If it were ONLY your lines SH% and opponents SV% and nothing more was involved, I would not expect wide divergences over a given team. But they not only occur, most teams have very wide divergence, meaning more is at play, there is an undercurrent. What I do not know? How important it is I do not know, but just chalking it up to luck, does not sit right with me. Something or things of value are at play.

        • birdhead

          If it were ONLY your lines SH% and opponents SV% and nothing more was involved, I would not expect wide divergences over a given team.

          Well, the divergence is not *that* wide. Get someone a decent enough sample of games and his on-ice save percentage is probably above 85%, and his on-ice shooting percentage is probably between 5 and 15%.

          But even if you consider that a wide divergence, why not expect that? We both watch the games. If I’m watching a goaltender and a given player, I can *see* bad goals, the weird thing that goes in from center ice, or miraculously perfect tip-ins that nobody on the ice can do a damn thing about, because eight times out of ten that thing goes wide. I can *see* amazing, luck-based saves. I can *see* a goal that, if it had been an inch in the other direction, hits the goalie’s pad or blocker, and I can see the shots a goalie just gets a piece of. And I can see that Patrick Kane gets that luck in the same way that Toews does, even in the same way that Andrew Shaw and Ben Smith does. I can see, if I look at a game, the guy that everything goes in for and the guy that just puts everything on the goaltender and nothing goes in – and I can see that, next game, it might be exactly the opposite way around. Or it might stick with one guy for a while, like Patrick Sharp last season hitting every damn post available to him (not that that reflects in his PDO, but one direction’s post is another direction’s pad save).

          That is luck. i really sincerely believe that that is luck. Not that there are no people who are better shooters than others, or who play with people who are better shooters – but I think that the numbers *show* that there aren’t that many people who fall into that category, and vice versa for on-ice save percentage, because from year to year those numbers don’t repeat much. But a weird save or a bad goal can happen to anyone, and they don’t necessarily happen to everyone at the same rate. That’s why I don’t think Patrick Kane’s 4.1% sh% in the 11-12 playoffs is representative of his real scoring, or anything he’s doing – it’s representing him running into a boiling-hot goalie.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Well for starters, I will argue the Divergences ARE big.

            I took the high and low PDO from the following teams for all skaters who have skated in >50% of teams games.

            ANH, CGY, COL, DET, LAK, NSH, OTT, SJS, TOR WPG. (Basically every 4th team alphabetically)

            The lowest High was 101.8 (WPG) and highest high was 105.7 (ANH/LAK)

            The Highest Low was 100.4 (ANH and lowest low was 93.7 (CGY)

            The average high-low was 103.8-96.2 and difference of 7.6.

            The OA average was 99.99 meaning this is a good sample of the league (based on 100.0 being the league average, and error of <0.01%)
            The average SH% in the NHL is 7.67% (2136 GF / 27848 SF) the SV% is 0.923.
            Given the average spread was 7.6% in PDO, if half (3.8%) came from SH% and Half from SV% this could result in a range of
            SH% 3.8%-11.8%
            SV% 0.885-0.961.
            If it all came from one of SH% or SV% you could have
            SH% 0.0%-15.2%
            SV% of 0.847-0.999
            Those are NOT small divergences, and those are just AVERAGE based on that sample. To imply luck and luck alone could cause such a swing in those numbers and no significant factor or group of factors just does not pass my check sum test. I would have to accept shooters no matter who they are, are equal and goalies no matter who they are, are equal.
            .
            The center ice Goal is a fluke (call it luck) but those type of goals are not enough to cause this spread. If so, the quality of team and quality of opposition have to be irrelevant because they both fall within the average spread.

          • birdhead

            I would have to accept shooters no matter who they are, are equal and goalies no matter who they are, are equal.

            Well no. You’d have to accept them as variable. I would expect players on teams with excellent goaltending to have slightly higher PDOs than players on teams with crap goaltending, and I expect Sidney Crosby to have a higher PDO than Michael Frolik (opposite ends of shooting talent), but in the middle I think things wash out.

            I think PDO reflects, significantly, luck. (Playing for a team with great goaltending is also in some sense luck-driven, after all.) I mean, have a look at the top PDO players in the league (http://www.extraskater.com/players/on-ice?sort=pdo). If there’s genuine, repeatable skill there shared by such diverse players as Ryan Getzlaf and Jaden Schwartz, Dion Phaneuf and Carl Gunnarsson – well, do tell me what it is.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            If there’s genuine, repeatable skill there shared by such diverse players as Ryan Getzlaf and Jaden Schwartz, Dion Phaneuf and Carl Gunnarsson – well, do tell me what it is.

            .

            I will say this again,
            “But they not only occur, most teams have very wide divergence, meaning more is at play, there is an undercurrent. What I do not know? How important it is I do not know”
            .
            Because I cannot answer it, does not mean it has to be “luck” (I don’t know, therefore aliens). Something or things is happening under these numbers. Luck or pure randomness does not cover the spread, not even close. Why, the spread is there, I just do not know, I just know it is there.

          • laaarmer

            Yes, it’s for dinner

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Tastes like chicken

          • laaarmer

            Frog legs are lucky they taste like chicken

          • birdhead

            Luck or pure randomness does not cover the spread

            I just want to be very clear that this is your intuition, and not supported by actual numbers. Statistically there’s no reason to think the variation in PDO can’t be luck-driven. Picture a normal distribution curve and chuck a PDO curve on top of it.

            OK. Look at PDOs for last season: http://www.extraskater.com/players/on-ice?season=2012&sort=pdo and the season before: http://www.extraskater.com/players/on-ice?season=2011&sort=pdo why aren’t the same people showing up over and over again? Even if you don’t know why Jonathan Toews had an amazing PDO season in 2012-13, why wouldn’t he repeat it in 13-14? Toews is an amazingly consistent player but last year he was 9th in the league in PDO. This year he’s at 150. Is he sucking? Or is the goaltending sucking?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            That proves nothing, and it certainly does not prove Luck. PDO is no matter how you cut it, still dependent on 11 other players on the ice. They effect it, maybe even more than the individual. PDO as a team is a different beast in itself, oh and happens to be repeatable.
            Past 3 season PDO leaders, team.
            2014
            ANH, COL, BOS TOR, STL
            2013
            PIT, TOR, ANH, VAN, WPG
            2012
            ANH, COL, BOS, TOR, STL
            .
            5 teams appeared more than once. If it is repeatable at the team level. Does this mean these teams are more lucky more often than every other team to be in the Top 5 in 2 of 3 seasons? Is TOR the luckiest team in the NHL? I bet they would beg to differ.
            .
            Why this occurs, I do not know. But it does.

          • birdhead

            TOR is absolutely the luckiest team in the NHL.

          • birdhead

            Also, me pointing out that it doesn’t repeat might not prove anything, but nor does you continuing to assert that it obviously means *something*, but you don’t know *what* and can’t even come up with a couple of ideas.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Could it be, good defense, good offense, a combination, good traps, good PK, good PP, good puck control, keeping the play to the outside, getting the puck to the middle. It could be any or all of those or something totally unseen yet. The numbers indicate something. We cannot see a blackhole, and never will, but we can see its effect on everything around it. Something is effecting these numbers, I just do not know what, but the effect is there.

          • birdhead

            OK. Fine. You’re right. Toews did something special last year that he is not doing this year. Let’s call it DefinitelyNotLuck, because luck, apparently, does not exist, and certainly couldn’t explain why sometimes every shot goes in and sometimes none of them do, and why sometimes a player can’t get a save and sometimes a player can always get a save even when that player is playing with pretty much the same cast of characters in front of the same goaltending.

          • laaarmer

            What is he not doing this year? He loooks good to me. Does his job at the highest level of hockey. Top 5 center in the league. What the fuck more does he have to do that we need to quantify?

            For that matter what are we exactly quantifying here. That a players performance is not guaranteed by his previous season. Yeah, we need some stat head to run some numbers for us to know this.

          • birdhead

            I agree, I think he looks as fantastic this year as he did last year, but last year his PDO was #9 in the league and this year it’s #150 in the league, so, per TMFF, he must be doing *something* differently. His DefinitelyNotLuck is very different this year. Maybe he sucks defensively this year, or maybe he forgot how to shoot. That strikes me as really plausible. Actually, both his on-ice shooting percentage and his on-ice save percentage have dropped quite a bit, so he both forgot how to shoot this year *and* he sucks defensively.

          • laaarmer

            The first thing he has done differently is play more games and play in the olympics, which equates to even more games.

            Yeah, Toews forgot how to shoot. That’s it. Also, he forgot how to play D. hat’s definitely it. Has to be both of those things. Cannot be anything else. No doubt about it, that’s what it is.

          • zacked

            I downvoted because birdhead is putting a lot of effort into presenting a logical case and doesn’t deserve to just be snarkily blown off like that.

            You can disagree all you want but make a case.

          • laaarmer

            Fuck off.

            The argument, no matter how much effort is given is stupid. This whole thread is fucking stupid.
            See, even Birdhead says fuck off.

          • zacked

            I agree that parts of this argument are stupid.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Upboat. Luck is just the lazy way of saying you don’t want to figure it out. So is variance, for that manner.

          • birdhead

            This is just not true. You watch the games! Doesn’t a goaltender have good games and bad games – separate from any defensive breakdowns on a team level? Doesn’t a shooter have great luck sometimes and shit luck sometimes?

            The weirdest part of this discussion is the people insisting that luck is a thing made up by stats guys. Luck is a thing. Everyone knows that luck is a thing. You might not agree with how luck is quantified but it is absolutely a thing that exists.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Luck is a thing: lazy. It is 100% true. And yes, I watch the games. Very easy to demonstrate: take Kane’s goal last night. I’d bet he’d say he shoots it like that every time and this time it luckily went in. If he shot it that way every time, he’d score every time. Now take every factor you can possible think of on the shot: Kane’s position, defender’s position, goalie’s position, speed of the play, state of the puck, energy of all players combined, mental state of all players combined, etc. Everything can be accounted for. The problem is, we don’t have the resources (time, money, inclination) to track everything we can think of tracking to determine exactly what happened, so we call it luck. Luck implies there is an order to this even that is unknowable. And yet, it is a finite event and therefore knowable.

          • zacked

            I would argue that even if we did know all those variables, the outcomes would still not be deterministic. But I’m like that.

            I said I would argue it, not that I’m going to.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            For one, I’m not and therefore can’t imagine anyone else is, capable of recognizing and acting upon all the factors that could possible affect a play in real-time, though some, however, can act upon more factors than others. Second, the resources required are simply not worth our society’s expense to pursue. I don’t know why we insist on characterizing the unmeasured as luck or magic or god, etc., but it’s a thing humans do. There’s a big difference between saying we don’t know something and we can’t know something.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            “Luck” is something that occurs against the odds, not something that defines the norm. The range of luck you contend allows for a range that encompasses a Viezna trophy winner to Steve Mason of 2010. Luck is something that is outside the norm, not what defines it.

          • lizmcneill

            Mason won/was nominated for the Calder. Has his skill changed since his rookie season, or has goaltender in the league become so great that it takes several seasons to distinguish a great goaltender from a rookie playing far above his true talent level?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            The point was not the players as much as a shitty season in net. Take you pick, use Khabby this for all I care, the numbers spread and being within “luck” was the point.

          • birdhead

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Carey_(ice_hockey)

            Luck is wide, luck runs deep, weird shit happens that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, people have seasons that they can’t repeat.

            “Luck” is something that occurs against the odds, not something that defines the norm.

            No. The opposite of that. Skill is the thing that makes stuff happen *against* the odds.

            Imagine we’re playing darts. If we all stand up and fling darts at a board, some of us will hit, some of us will miss. Across a game, lots of us might get *one* bullseye, or a couple of great scores. But if someone is hitting the board all the time, if someone is hitting bullseyes all the time, that is *very improbable*. that is *against the odds*. That’s how you figure out that that person has skill, rather than luck.

            Luck is what defines the range of normal shit that normally happens. Skill is what pushes someone out of that range.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            No, that is skill. Luck would be me, hitting three bullseyes in a row, why is it luck? Because that is NOT my norm I suck at darts. A Pro however, that does that it is because of skill, not luck.
            .
            Example, play the sound of 5 marine life forms, I am willing to bet I can tell which are what a much higher rate than anybody here, because that is my skill set, that is my job. That does not make me lucky, that makes me skilled. You (or somebody who does not listen to marine life for a job) to do it at the rate I do just once, would be luck.

          • birdhead

            No, that is skill. Luck would be me, hitting three bullseyes in a row, why is it luck? Because that is NOT my norm I suck at darts. A Pro however, that does that it is because of skill, not luck.

            Yes! Exactly! This is exactly why I think Toews’ PDO last year reflects luck rather than skill. 9th in the league is not his norm. Just because hockey players are all pros doesn’t mean that luck never affects them; it just means that it looks different for them. (Like a lucky streak for a darts pro might be 25 bullseyes in a row, even though 3 in a row is a big deal for you. Or whatever. I don’t know anything about professional darts.) Stick me in the NHL and I never score a goal, ever. That doesn’t mean no NHL player has ever scored a lucky goal.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            But if you consistently do something at a higher rate than league average or your past average, when is it no longer luck and is now the norm?

          • laaarmer

            You mean like why didn’t Jamaal Mayers have as many goals as Alexander Mogilny?

            Mogilny was way luckier to have had so much more skill.
            But which player was actually better/gave his team a better chance to win? Mogilny was, of course, but Mayers might have been depending on the team he was on, like last year.

          • birdhead

            Yes, indeed. The key word in your comment is “consistently”.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            So, it is settled. If you shoot 1.0% better than the league and are 1% better in stopping pucks going into your net, and have a PDO of 102.0, it is not luck, you are just consistently better than other teams in those things when combined.

          • birdhead

            All of those things – consistently. Like, from game to game and year to year. If someone consistently has a PDO of 102.0, I will be happy to agree that it is skill-based for that player. I eagerly await your examples of players for whom that is the case.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Skill is understanding what makes the desired event happen and using your understanding to guide the outcome. Luck is achieving a desired result without understanding all of one’s actions. A lottery winner is not really skilled at picking lottery numbers.

          • Accipiter

            Homer: It was a baby ox.

            Moe: He’s right, you know.

            Principal Skinner: [surprised] About the ox ?

            Moe: About everything, dammit ! Hey Homer, wait up. I want to die too.

          • laaarmer

            That could be anybodies pig crap silo!

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            if you are going, I am going.

          • birdhead

            aw. thanks. I’m doing my best!

          • birdhead

            Hey, don’t tell me, tell TMFF. I’m the one who thinks that Toews is playing just as well this year and is just not getting all the bounces he got last year. TMFF is the one who thinks it’s a real reflection of Toews’ play.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            I did not say that nor imply it. If anything, I have said I DO NOT KNOW why PDO varies, I just am not sold it is not just “luck”.

          • birdhead

            If it isn’t luck, then it must be skill. What else is there?

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Confluence of variables that don’t have a convenient narrative?

          • birdhead

            Otherwise known as luck?

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Sure: luck, juju, Baezel, whatever you want to call it. The team’s that are not winning that do want to win will figure it out and define it a little more so that it favors their team in the future. That’s how that Passion Play goes…

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Luck=TWTW?

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            TWTW is measurable. Did you win? No = 0 TWTW. Why does the other team have more TWTW than your team? Just lucky, I guess.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Team Play and how well you handle your opponent.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            And Waylon’d

          • lizmcneill

            Do you think the players and coaches know why it varies? going by the number of times I’ve heard a version of “we just gotta keep working hard and doing the right things, and eventually the bounces will go our way”, I don’t think so. If PDO was largely due to something the players were doing, it wouldn’t swing so wildly, because they would keep doing the things that led to the high PDO.

            It’s pretty likely that Crosby is capable of elevating his on-ice sh%, which with league-average goaltending would give him a PDO of around 103 longterm. But he’s the best player in the world. If you see a whole team with a PDO of 104, is it made of 20 Sidney Crosbys, or is it getting the bounces/lucky/subject to non-skill related variance?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            IDK. ANH does have all skaters with >32 Games >100.0 PDO though!!!
            .
            IDK, but that does not mean it is not usefull it also does not mean that some mysterious force has to controlling it either.
            .
            But I DO however believe with some stats, stats guys/gals may have a better handle then teams do on cause-effect. Teams may not care or it may be too new. MLB had this issue at first, stats guys were screaming one thing and coaches another.

          • Why

            Isn’t Crosby also raising the on ice shooting percentage of his teammates though? Is it possible that one team just has a Crosby and a Malkin?

          • lizmcneill

            Only while he’s on the ice. Malkin has a high individual sh% but iirc doesn’t raise his on-ice %.

          • Why

            Fair enough. But Crosby’s raising the shooting percentage of everybody to an above average level for 20 minutes a game. Malkin’s high individual shooting percentage is also going to raise the team’s. If everyone else is average, what would the expected shooting percentage be? I’ll take a guess that the answer is higher than average.

          • lizmcneill

            I’m slightly dubious about everyone else being average, their bottom 6 is a bit of a tire fire.

            Also factor in how frequently Crosby is hurt…..

          • Why

            Go back to your original point though. You don’t need 20 healthy Sidney Crosby’s or Malkin’s to raise the expected PDO of a team. You need one or two.

          • lizmcneill

            Depends by how much you’re raising it. Pittsburgh’s 2007-13 PDO is 101. Not 104.

          • Why

            With Crosby in the lineup it is?

          • birdhead

            Or you need one really good goalie.

          • Why

            Yep. That’s another way to do it.

          • laaarmer

            How is his off ice save %?

          • Accipiter

            Depends what bank he is with.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            If you are going to per TMFF me, please use all I said, not just part, :)

            .

            “PDO is no matter how you cut it, still dependent on 11 other players on the ice.”
            .
            So maybe it is not just Toews doing something different, or maybe not him at all, but those around him.

          • birdhead

            this is part of the point of looking at PDO, though. It’s asking what is happening when a player is on the ice that a player can’t affect, but which has a really really big effect on his numbers. Mostly what it’s looking at is the work of his own and opposing goaltenders, but if you think the offense and defense he’s surrounded with is relevant, that’s also in there.

            If Sharp and Hossa are a worse combo both defensively and offensively than Saad and Hossa, that is, as far as Toews is concerned, *Toews’s bad luck.* (I don’t think this is true. I think Toews is not getting the good offensive and defensive bounces that led him to have such a spectacular PDO season last year, and I think if you switched out Saad and Sharp this season the results would have been the same. But I’m trying to work with you.)

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            That is not luck. That is team play.
            .
            My current feeling is PDO is a better team stat then player stat. It shows a net of offensive to defensive play, do they come out with an advantage? A PDO >100 says yes, <100 says no. Beyond this, I need to see more of how numbers move things.

          • birdhead

            You basically use PDO as a goal differential stat, is what you’re saying. But if you’re gonna use it for that you may as well just use goal differential.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Maybe? IDK, depends on what else is inside PDO that is not inside simple GD.

          • birdhead

            (I don’t think PDO tells you anything about offensive or defensive play. It doesn’t tell you how many shots a team gets or how many shots they allow, or what proportion of shot attempts they take. It just tells you certain results.)

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            What is wrong with saying I don’t know?

          • laaarmer

            I don’t know

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            you don’t know. That was easy.

          • red palace

            A part of the difference — a part — could simply be shot selection.

          • birdhead

            I mean, you’re saying a player is responsible for his goalie having an on-ice save percentage of 99%? What makes more sense, that a player is that kind of perfect or that he got lucky?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Neither. It is something else or a combination of things, because it does NOT make sense.

          • birdhead

            If I’m looking at that player, and that player is Carl Gunnarsson, I’m a lot happier saying that he got lucky than I am saying that not only my but pretty much everyone’s evaluation of Carl Gunnarsson’s contributions are missing something HUGE about his play. (And something that he wasn’t doing last year.)

        • birdhead

          I think it was Bobby, but the comment has disappeared for me, who pointed out in this thread that since every shot is either a goal or a save, the league PDO – combined shooting and save percentages – is always, by definition, 100. If you were going to look at the perfectly average player, playing in front of the perfect goalie, you would expect him to have an on-ice save percentage of 91.4% and a shooting percentage of 8.94%. Right? But – on the one hand, some goalies (not many!) are better than others; on the other hand, some shooters (not many!) are better than others; and on the third hand, Weird Shit Happens, which you and I know because we both watch the games. Players have good streaks and bad streaks. It happens. Why wouldn’t you expect to see that reflected in the numbers?

        • zacked

          You should look up the binomial distribution, it’s basically an exact refutation of your point here.

          • laaarmer

            If we tell Kane and Toews what the Binomial distribution is, will it make them play hockey better?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Human element is not required nor desired in stats, it tends to fuck them up with variances and shit.

          • laaarmer

            Of course you mean luck when you say “variances and SHIT”, right?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            No, I mean QoS.

          • laaarmer

            Quality of shit?

          • zacked

            Probably depends on the player. For Kaner I’m gonna go with “no”.

            Definitely when they’re retired and take front of office jobs, though.

          • birdhead

            Here’s a pretty picture

            http://nhlnumbers.com/uploads/Image/Figure1_DistbyPDO.png

            That’s PDO changing with different numbers of games played. I drew that from here: http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/1/10/studying-luck-other-factors-in-pdo

            And here’s one looking at expected PDO variance (i.e. a PDO outside this is the kind of thing that you would say is definitely not driven entirely by luck): http://nhlnumbers.com/uploads/Image/Figure2_rand_deviations2.png

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Two of the three of those are NHL averages, Of course you will get that result you have to. For every goal that increase the SH% the SV% has to drop equally. Teams and players are not bound by those limits though. They can have a SV% high and SH% high and vice versa, because each goal does not also effect the opposite part. for the league average they do.
            .
            If you use the NHL numbers you can only come up with results that equal 100.00. Teams and individual players do not. They are part of the 100.00 for the NHL, but for themselves, they independent from every other goal.

    • Bobby Otter

      I actually think it’s one of the better “advance” stats because it does a good job at pointing out noise. Since volume of shots don’t really matter (take this with a bit of a gain of salt), it’s only looking at your save percentage and shooting percentage when on ice. Since a shot must either go in or be saved, over the long run, you’ll end up at 1 (or 1000). This does a really good job answer a bunch of questions on it: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/01/21/pdo-explained/

      If your next question is: Why hasn’t Toronto regressed… I have no clue. It’s getting really weird at this point.

      • ToewsCheatCode

        Statistical anomalies happen. Stats can tell us what is likely, not always what is certain.

        • Why

          We used to just call “statistical anomalies” good players.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Or John Scott

          • birdhead

            That’s why you gave Jim Carey the Vezina Trophy.

          • Why

            Probably. The Vezina trophy is awarded annually to the goalie who played the best during the year, not the goalie who my spreadsheet said should have had the best year.

          • birdhead

            “Jim Carey was a good NHL goaltender” is a new one on me!

          • Why

            I said he deserved the Vezina. Is your plan to award the Vezina on the basis of a three year sample size?

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        Since a shot must either go in or be saved, over the long run, you’ll end up at 1 (or 1000).
        No, you do not. The NHL average has to match this, but nothing else beyond that requires a team or player to do that, either statistically or mathematically. A team or player does not have to migrate to the NHL average. If they are good, they will be above it and should for the most part stay above it. If they are bad, be below it. These variances make the average. Most will fall close to the average, but the really good/bad will be outside the average and STDEV. The NHL will always find the mean, it has too in most stats. Individual Teams and players are not bound by the same inherent limits though.

      • zacked

        PDO is weird, because it’s garbage stat that happens to be quite useful as a shorthand. Kind of like OPS in baseball.

        • cliffkoroll

          I don’t think OPS is a garbage stat, or remotely comparable to PDO. It does try to cram a lot of disparate stuff into one number, so it is guilty of the fallacy of reification, but it is incredibly useful. PDO is mildly interesting.

          • zacked

            It’s garbage because it is slamming two things together that have little to do with each other, and it weights SLG the same as OBP, when a point of OBP is significantly more valuable than a point of SLG. There are much better stats.

            PDO is useful in the same kind of shorthand way OPS is, but just like I’d rather just see BA/OBP/SLG separately, I’d rather see shooting % and save % separately.

    • laaarmer

      Luck. The catch all for when it doesn’t work out.

      • 10thMountainFire

        Actually, ‘luck’ is when things do work out.

        • laaarmer

          Only if you’re the lucky one.

          But what I mean is, I can’t explain it statistically, so It didn’t work out how I had thought, therefore it’s luck/random. Which is, of course horse hockey.

          • Bobby Otter

            So the Leafs and Avs are actually good and Cup contenders?

          • laaarmer

            No, but it appears they are unlucky as compared to others, that are more lucky.

          • Paul the Fossil

            Aw, that’s not even vaguely what is meant when PDO is described as an indicator of a player’s “luck”. Really using the word “luck” is a pretty poor choice of shorthand.

          • laaarmer

            Luck. It’s what’s for dinner.

          • 10thMountainFire

            You have to stop drinking unicorn blood.

          • lizmcneill

            How large a component of luck do you think is involved in the result of a single hockey game? A playoff series? A season?

          • Accipiter

            It varies.

          • zacked

            I keep trying to up and downvote you but it will only let me pick one.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Ah, well. It will just have to be Schroedinger’s Cat Boat

          • zacked

            I’m just going to change it every 60 seconds for the rest of my life. This is my destiny.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Most people will go their entire lives without a clear purpose. You’re lucky.

          • Accipiter

            That is unfortunate.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            the boating on Accip’s comment wins the internetz for today

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            0%

          • laaarmer

            In the un(im)measureable definition of luck?

            A little bit, but the skill of the teams or lackthereof, determines the outcome of a season. To say the EDM is unlucky is assinine. So is to say the Anaheim is lucky to be 1st in the league. I believe this is why the playoffs are not single elimination. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. Which of course means all the players in the USA should carry guns on the ice, so long as they have a permit.

          • red palace

            Kind of a lot.
            Some.
            Not much at all.

          • SuperHawk27

            I’ve never seen horse hockey. Do you have a link of the rules?

      • zacked

        No, it’s the catch all for when things are demonstrably not repeatable.

        • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

          Not repeatable to the current limits does not mean not repeatable or be parsed in totality though. It could also simply mean, we have not figure out how it repeats or how it is influenced, it may not be broken down far enough yet to understand that, so it appears “random” though it may not actually be.

          • zacked

            That’s true, if you’re talking absolutes, but I know which side I’d put my money down on.

    • red palace

      I use it as one among several indicators of effectiveness. But only for a player relative to his teammates, since the stat is very heavily influenced by goalie performance, and I think it is generally accepted that some goalies have better seasons than others. I don’t think it is of much use for samples of less than a few dozen games (see birdhead’s graph).

  • Commit88

    I love these articles. Thanks for shedding light on the Bickell thing. I guess I expected more from him this year as well, but maybe I shouldn’t. I agree that his playoff performance matters most.

    • 10thMountainFire

      You know Sam calls it ‘angry at numbers’ yet numbers appear to make him happy… and a few of us seem to be actually angry at numbers.

  • 10thMountainFire

    Saad and Serious make sweet, sweet music together. It’s symphonic.

    • ChicagoNativeSon

      Except for in last year’s playoffs when they were awful together.

      I assume many forgot – or have wiped it from memory – but aside from Hossa (53%), Toews shared more TOI with Saad (39%) than any other forward. And Saad played more with Toews than anyone (48%).

      During the regular season, Toews’ scoring rate was 1.68 G/60. Saad’s was .87 G/60. In the playoffs, Toews was 0.16 G/60 and Saad 0.19 G/60.

      Toews’ scoring rate was over 10x higher in the reg season (that’s over 1,000% higher!) Toews had the worst scoring rate league-wide of any player who scored a goal in last year’s playoffs. Saad was 2nd worst.

      Mind-boggling. Bad luck? Small sample? Not sure of their playoff WOWY’s since the site isn’t working for PO data, but I feel pretty confident that kind of suck will never happen again. The Captain won’t let it.

      And to think the Hawks won the Cup with Toews (and Saad) going through such a gawd awful streak. Depth, Hawks haz it.

      • SuperHawk27

        It’s unfair to only use scoring to determine the success of a hockey player in the playoffs but those numbers are scary. Also, Toews might have been injured and Saad was a rookie with no training camp. It’ll be exciting to see what they can do together this year in the playoffs if they get a chance.

      • 10thMountainFire

        That’s an interesting reflection of the post-season bad. Does that explain why Saad saw his ice time reduced in the playoffs?

        Eye test, fancy stats… can you speak of anything that stands out recently in the improvement of 20 and 19 together? What do you think they figured out?

        • laaarmer

          Saad is older and better. Not so much an LC

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            So, luck, amiright?

  • birdhead

    Disqus is actively disappearing comments now. Disqus, you dick.

    • laaarmer

      Disqus is the “Mr Hand” of comments software thingies

    • Accipiter

      Please do not associate Disqus with anything male, it is insulting.

      • birdhead

        You’re right, that was wrong. Disqus, you fuckwit.

  • birdhead

    While we’re on fun numbers. Per Jen on twitter, the Hawks’ PK% since Jan 1 is 90.24. Best in the league on the season is 87.2% … http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20142ALLSAAAll&sort=penaltyKillPercentage&viewName=penaltyKill

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      Here is the Hawks rolling 10 game PP-PK average. (Sorry reads right to left due to how the stats get downloaded)

      • birdhead

        Hah. fun to see it plotted against the PP%. Why can’t they do what they did between, umm … mid-Dec and mid-Jan? Good PP AND good PK!

        (I actually would be legitimately interested to see a kind of PP/PK “plus-minus” – goals for on the PP versus goals against on the PK. Is it really a trade-off?)

        • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

          This is a rolling 10 game SUM of PPG-PPGA (right to left again)

      • VerStig

        I would label one series “Kitchen” and the other “Kompon”

        • ToewsCheatCode

          I’m not even sure who’s running what anymore. I know last year Kompon was in charge of the PK, which was amazing. But I think he was also in charge of the PP which was god-awful.

          This year I think they split special teams between the two… I’m just not sure if they switched or who got what.

    • ToewsCheatCode

      I likey.

      I’ll take an invincible PK over a white-hot PP any day once playoffs hit.

      • zacked

        Everyone says that, and I feel the same, but the ‘hawks draw a lot more penalties than they take, so…

        • ToewsCheatCode

          But they can also beat pretty much any team 5v5. So having a bad PP and an amazing PK effectively neutralizes the special teams battle and leaves the Hawks to dismantle teams 5v5.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Plus, being really good at defense is easier to control than controlling how poor the other team is on defense.

          • SuperHawk27

            See last year’s PK vs PP vs 5v5 number.

  • Preacher

    So what happens with Saad, Toews, and Kane on line one and Hossa, Sharp, 2C-du-jour on line two? What would the numbers look like then?

    • Accipiter

      20 – 19 – 88
      10 – ?? – 81

      I think that’s right.

      • birdhead

        oh you.

    • ToewsCheatCode

      20-19-88
      10-26-81

      Zus is the second line center going forward. That’s pretty clear.

      • Preacher

        The “numbers” I meant were the goals and assists. I know the jersey numbers.

        • laaarmer

          What difference does it make?

          Just win baby!

        • ballyb11

          Be clear next time.

        • ToewsCheatCode

          Well I don’t know, I can’t tell the future. Both lines could tear things up, both lines could do nothing, each could be at opposite ends of the spectrum, or both lines could be somewhere in between.

    • TheFullAmonte

      I would like to see that once Hossa gets back.

  • ToewsCheatCode

    Newest Stanley Cup odds from Vegas:

    Blues 5/1
    Hawks 13/2
    Pens 13/2
    Ducks 15/2
    Bruins 15/2
    Sharks 10/1
    Kings 12/1
    Avs 20/1
    Rangers 20/1
    Habs 25/1
    Leafs 25/1

    • Preacher

      I’d put the Bruins at the top of the Eastern Conference finalists. Blues and Sharks are the only teams that scare me in the West.

      • ToewsCheatCode

        Yeah, but the Penguins always get overrated heading into the playoffs. Not that I can blame people – a team with Crosby and Malkin is damn appealing.

        I think the Bruins would be higher were it not for the fact that their defense is currently a huge question mark because of injuries.

      • Waylon

        I used to feel the same way, but LA’s recent player acquisition has changed my mind a bit about their chances.

      • TheFullAmonte

        Yeah but Vegas makes the odds so for them it is smarter to put the Pens higher as more people would be likely to bet on the Pens over the Bruins.

    • cliffkoroll

      The above numbers tell us that, even at this late date, the Stanley Cup favorite St. Louis Blues have a 16.7% chance of winning it all, and a 83.3% chance of not winning it all.

      The Hawks have a 13.3% chance of winning it all and a 86.7% chance of not winning it all.

      Those of you toying with the idea of hurling yourself from the ledge if the Hawks don’t win it all this year, please take note.

      • SuperHawk27

        Crouched and ready!

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        So any team that wins it has to be “lucky” since the odds are never in their favor?

    • Why

      They like the Western Conference a lot and are pretty sure the East comes down to the two obvious teams.

  • jordyhawk

    I’m not heavy into stats, but here’s one for you. Ben Smith (Benny as Q
    calls him) has 2 penalty minutes this year (line comps: 52 has 69, 16
    has 28). I do not know how you can grind as hard as Benny does and 80%
    of the way through the year have 1 penalty. Benny is a bottom 6 rock star. Please re-up him now.

    • VerStig

      I don’t know about the rest of you but to me Benny’s looked good to my eye test ever since he entered the league. He may always be a bottom-6 grinder but as Sam suggests, he may have a higher ceiling than we realize.

      • jordyhawk

        Grinds, really improving on the PK, has become something of the go-to guy for RH draws, chips in with 2ary scoring. What more can you ask? This is my problem with the Bollig deal–Benny is worth more and should have been inked first.

        • lizmcneill

          Benny is a pending RFA. Barring any further fax mishaps, Benny can’t walk.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            I wonder if Stan ever got Wilson back for his screwing with Niemi/Hjammer.

          • SuperHawk27

            Does winning a 2nd cup with a different goalie count?

          • jordyhawk

            He can be offer-sheeted and I could see him drawing up to 1.5 or so in which case it would be up to us to match. It will be interesting. Stan played tougher with Kruger last year than he did with Leddy. I though Leddy should have got a bout 500k less and Kruger a bit more.

    • birdhead

      that is a heck of a number.

  • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

    Wait, isn’t today No Math Monday?

    • bizarrohairhelmet

      Worse. It’s No Meth Monday. I feel itchy.

      • Accipiter

        Try pulling out your teeth.
        (if you have any left)

        • bizarrohairhelmet

          Well, now my teeth don’t itch. Which is good. My brain still itches.

          • Accipiter

            You have done enough meth.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            so far

  • birdhead

    TMFF, I’m not ignoring your comment with the PP/PK goals chart, but when I refreshed Disqus has hidden all your comments from me. I’m sure it’s beautiful though :( Hopefully it’ll show up later.

    • bizarrohairhelmet

      TL;DR – Some stuff got better. Other things got worse. Somewhere in there, a monkey learned how to say “Pop Tart” in sign-language.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      Here again.

  • HossasPierogi

    Stan Bowman was talking the other day about how they didn’t see the need for a 2C because the “Hawks don’t play hockey that way,” with the hitting line, defense line, etc.” All I could think when I heard that was that’s not really true. I’ve always felt that the Hawks should spread the wealth more down through line 3, but Q seems locked into the top 6 mentality. If what Bowman says is true, why not give Sharp and Hossa some line 3 shifts? Or put Sharp back at center. We have three left wings who can make significant impacts — Sharp, Saad and Bickell. We have three right wings — Kane, Hossa, Versteeg. Until there’s not a drop off between the wing talent and the center talent, Stan, or until one of the wings becomes a center, you’ll going to continue to get questions about 2C.

    • cliffkoroll

      ‘Q seems locked into a top 6 mentality.’ Really?

      By the way, if Saad-Toews-Shaw becomes a thing, we will see something like this, since Kane and Hossa don’t play on the same line.

  • zacked

    Ok, after a lot of extensive research I’ve finally mathematically proven why the Blackhawks have so far scored fewer goals this calendar year:

    Dec 08, 2013 – Brandon Bollig’s latest fight.

    Boom.

    • laaarmer

      They were at the top of the league at that point too, eh? Coincidence?

      • zacked

        There ain’t no coincidences. This is hockey!

  • laaarmer

    I got so lucky at the stop sign today.

    • 10thMountainFire

      Luck was never so annoying.

      • laaarmer

        You know, whenever somebody says luck to support their statistical conclusion, they EEEEEEmmediately become full of shit. Piles of it.

        • 10thMountainFire

          I guess that explains Pierre McGuire’s height.

          • laaarmer

            He is very lucky.
            I mean how else can we explain his having that job?

          • 10thMountainFire

            Every sport needs a troll.

          • laaarmer

            I’m right here
            /me’d

          • 10thMountainFire

            You’re trolling me with that avatar.

          • laaarmer

            So, what you are saying is that as far as trolling you goes, I’m lucky to have this avatar? Because if you mean that, I see what you are getting at, at least as far as the trolling you is concerned.

          • 10thMountainFire

            Lucky guess.

          • Z-man19

            If it weren’t for ‘cip, myself and TMFF, you wouldn’t have that glorious avatar. Our skill, your luck

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            My click, your upboat!

          • Z-man19

            You deserve at least 50.456321% of the credit

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Hanging out on NM again?

          • Z-man19

            I’m a monogamous blog visitor

        • zacked

          Someone get this man a greasemonkey extension that changes the word “luck” to “variance”.

          • laaarmer

            I can see right through that much BS.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            So Kane is having a variance problem. Seems adjustable.

  • CozBullsFan

    I wanted to update everyone that took the time to help me create the new Guide to TCI. First off, I want to thank everyone that took personal time out of their day to help with the Guide. It looks great! I gave Sam the OK to use the guide as it currently stands. A new link should appear on the top of the website soon. It will either say Guide or TCI Guide.

    I would like to add that I am keeping the Google Document live so anyone can update it whenever they want. If we get enough updates or additions, I’ll let Sam know so it can be updated to the website.

    Thanks again!

    • bizarrohairhelmet

      Luckily it got finished.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      Mike Milbury- FUCKING IDIOT:

      • bizarrohairhelmet

        Hopefully he’s been tossed from the procreation pool by now.

    • Z-man19

      A big thanks should go to Coz for kick starting the guide and keeping it afloat

      • CozBullsFan

        It was a group effort. I just kept spamming people to annoy them enough to finish it. haha

        • Z-man19

          You were a good pivot

  • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

    I am sorry all. I di not mean to start a maths problems and philosophy-astronomical debate of the square root of pie.

    • laaarmer

      Yes you did.

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        No, I did not!

  • laaarmer

    The raw data for Corsi and it’s derivative stat Fenwick are obtained from the “play by play” right?

    Lets say Seabrook purposely sends a puck wide of the net looking for a tip/bounce/just getting the puck down low. This is a Corsi event anyway, right?

    • Why

      Who knows. Someone has to judge whether it’s a shot attempt. If they call it a pass or a dump in, it doesn’t register.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      I am not 100% certain, but I believe yes, it is a shot at net, since it may be tipped-redirected on the way by???

      • laaarmer

        So I don’t like that.

        • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

          I could be wrong. Ask Bob

    • birdhead

      Yes, it’s a Corsi event. It’s an event used to indicate that the Blackhawks have possession of the puck.

      For example, if Doughty sends a puck wide of the net looking for a tip or a bounce or getting the puck down low, that is considered to be a statistical indication that the LA Kings have the puck.

      • birdhead

        But what Why said is correct in that if it’s called a pass it won’t be counted. (I don’t think dump-ins are usually counted.) It has to look like a shot or a shot attempt that missed the net.

        • Why

          Which is why your possession point remains absurd. Corsi counts shot attempts. It doesn’t count passes or other indicators of possession. If Doughty sends a puck wide and it’s not a shot attempt, it’s not counted.

          • birdhead

            uh-huh

          • lizmcneill

            But teams don’t pass forever without shooting (unless they’re the Blackhawks on the power play.) The point of shooting is to get a goal. The point of passes is to get a shot. The point of Doughty dumping it in is so his forwards can forecheck and regain the puck in the o-zone. The “oh, but if players do x and y that would break Corsi” doesn’t apply when the players are trying to win at hockey rather than game their Corsi.

          • Why

            So you’re not measuring possession. You’re measuring shot attempts, which you’ve decided are more important than possession or a better indicator of what teams are trying to do. My point here is simple and is aimed at the people that constantly call Corsi and Fenwick a possession stat: Stop lying. If you’re not measuring possession, stop telling people that you are.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            It is an indicator of possession. In its wrought sense it is a SAN (Shot At Net) For/Against stat. Since no stat directly measures possession let alone possession in the Offensive Zone, Corsi-Fenwick are the best analogs to it. It DOES assume if you have the puck you are directing it at net, and by using this assumption it can gauge who has the puck more in the offensive zone and it is in your defensive zone. If a team does pass-pass-pass and not shoot as much, it will effect Corsi-Fenwick. But on the whole it is a good indicator, it is NOT a definite finite stat, but it can certainly indicate who caries the play more.

          • Accipiter

            Here we go ….

          • Z-man19

            Wanna play tic tac toe?

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Pussies! lol

          • Z-man19

            If this topic were mashed potatoes, it’d be cream of potato soup by now

          • Why

            Yep. But I assume other people read these blogs from time to time. If we keep getting posts that use Corsi and Fenwick as synonyms for “good hockey” or possession, I maintain that someone should say something.

          • Z-man19

            Everyone should add the Why asterisk to any post referencing CORSI or Fenwick. Make your point and then: *Why disagrees

          • Why

            Or defend a point if you’re willing to make it. Or ignore my posts. Either or.

          • birdhead

            You aren’t willing to defend yours.

          • Why

            To recap, I talk about Corsi too much and I’m not willing to defend my points on Corsi.

          • birdhead

            At no point have you offered an argument that suggests that Corsi and Fenwick aren’t good measures of possession and predictors of success and future scoring. You keep saying they aren’t, because you can come up with theoretical situations in which they aren’t, but you haven’t actually gone and tracked possession to show that. Unlike proponents of Corsi and Fenwick, who have done so.

            You also offer no other method of statistically evaluating players. In other words, your contribution is entirely negative – “I don’t like what you’re saying” – and not positive – not even in the sense of constructive criticism, because there is nothing constructive about your criticism.

          • Why

            Your first paragraph is either a lie or ignorant. Proponents of Corsi and Fenwick have never tracked possession. They’ve tracked time on the attack. They’ve tracked time in the offensive zone. But, as best I can tell, they’ve never tracked possession. That thing you’re writing isn’t true.

            And your second paragraph can be boiled down pretty quickly: If you don’t like fundamentalist Islam, you should come up with your own religion. Nope. If the stats are flawed, we need to acknowledge how and why they’re flawed. I consider it constructive to point out when people are saying things that aren’t true.

          • birdhead

            Pardon me, that was an error. I should have said possession in the attacking zone. As always, it’s easier for you to call people liars than to consider they might be making genuine, sincere contributions.

            You still haven’t showed that it’s not true, by the way. You don’t believe it’s true. But you haven’t bothered to actually find out.

          • Why

            And the guy who did that sample found differences between TOA and Corsi could beat least, IIRC, 8% on a game by game basis. And he only counted 41 games. For a stat where an 8% difference is monstrous. Keep those fingers in your ears though. Carlisle is stupid and the Leafs are terrible.

          • Accipiter

            How do we know ‘the guy’ didn’t make any errors in his calculations ?

          • Why

            He could have. But that doesn’t exactly make this point stronger:

            You keep saying they aren’t, because you can come up with theoretical situations in which they aren’t, but you haven’t actually gone and tracked possession to show that. Unlike proponents of Corsi and Fenwick, who have done so.

            I’ve seen the “study.” If I assume everything was tracked correctly, there’s still major problems with the conclusions people are drawing from it. If everything wasn’t tracked correctly, then that thing above is still untrue.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            I guess the “indicator” part of possession is eluding you. At times a team leads in SOG, but trails in Corsi-Fenwick. Leads Corsi trails Fenwick, or any combination. If you look at the numbers, than can still tell you things. Maybe NOT the exact degree to the punctilianth decimal point, but can tell you things about the play of the game.

          • Why

            All numbers tell you things. A team is leading in Fenwick but trailing in Corsi and even strength shots on goal? Are they ahead in “possession?”

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Actually, my first thought is play is probably fairly even, but the team leading Fenwick is not being selective enough in SOG, they are having too many shots blocked. They need to work to better shooting lanes

          • birdhead

            I don’t think Carlyle is stupid because of the Leafs’ Corsi. I think Carlyle is stupid because he thinks helmets cause brains to overheat and he went on record with a newspaper saying so.

          • ahnfire

            if the two of you could have your disagreements re: Corsi/Fenwick/FancyStats without consistently inferring the other is idiotic/close-minded/etc., I’d greatly appreciate it.

            Otherwise, move along and just stop talking about it for the night.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            There’s Ahn. Do you have the Kopecky Hat Trick thing by chance?

          • ahnfire
          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Good enough. Turns out tinypic doesn’t last forever. I don’t even remember the titles.

          • CozBullsFan

            I vote no more math on off days here. The same arguments repeated each thread. The same people arguing the same sides in the belief that it will change the other sides opinion. It’s an exercise in futility.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            I cannot recall the last time Luck was hammered out.

          • CozBullsFan

            If you tell a Statistician that you can tell him to a degree how lucky or unlucky a team is through math, he’s going to laugh at you. Luck is not definable.

          • Why

            Until you want to piss of Leaf fans. Then PDO is a measure of luck.

          • CozBullsFan

            PDO is used primarily by fans of bad teams to give them hope that their team really isn’t as bad as they look. In reality, they are. No team has a base line level of play. Injuries, roster changes, and opponents vary. These factors make PDO a worthless stat.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            I am open to the idea at the team level it may have use. The player level, not yet, do not understand enough of all the parts that make it move.

          • CozBullsFan

            Ok, let me ask you this. Has any team in the last 20 years maintained SH% and SV% levels from year to year? If you answer is no, the PDO is not reliable. There is no feasible way a team can carry the same %’s year to year while the level of competition increases and decreases.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Short answer, Yes. TOR has been in the Top 5 the past three years at least. ANH, STL, COL have been in the Top 5 2 of the past 3 years.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Keep in mind I am simply open to the idea, not committed to it. See below (prior), I still do not know what to make of this stat yet. I have questions about it I need to get figured out before I buy into it at any level as being anything more than a fancy number that really has no real value.

          • CozBullsFan

            Being in the top 5 does not infer that they have the same percentages year to year.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            No, but it could also mean that there is fire where there is smoke too. It does support the idea it can be a useful stat, it does not prove it is, just supports it can be.

          • ChicagoNativeSon

            You completely misunderstand PDO. PDO is not meant to be “reliable” as in a predictor. It’s not hit or miss. It’s not only used by fans of bad teams. And yes, statisticians do quantify luck. But I do not think it means what you think it means.

          • Why

            Sometimes, but my point still kind of stands. Let’s say I run a blog and like statistics. Let’s suppose that I also like web hits. Let’s suppose I cheer for a popular team. And let’s suppose there’s money to be made by calling the coach is an idiot and claiming the sky is falling. If the PDO is too high, it’s my new best friend.

          • CozBullsFan

            How people use PDO to their advantage doesn’t make it reliable stat. PDO does not prove anything. It’s hit or miss. People only point out the hits. That’s why it gets headlines. In reality, it’s more wrong than right.

          • Why

            I’ve got no illusions on changing anyone’s opinion that’s already entrenched. But I’ll have the discussion if people post about it.

          • CozBullsFan

            To each their own. I, for one, do not like banging my head against a wall. Nor do I like seeing these arguments get so heated for no reason.

          • Why

            Fair enough. We disagree on whether there’s a good reason here. If you want to stay out of it, that’s your call.

          • CozBullsFan

            I was just trying to play peacemaker. heh

          • VerStig

            Yeah… I’d consider it a real breakthrough if someone actually managed to convince someone of something. I think it’s possible, but definitely not with the current understanding of hockey stats as it stands. We need something new.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Well, I got not convinced but pushed firmly into the notion that PDO is not a good/reliable indicator of “Luck/Randomness” and that it is probably a much better team stat than player stat.

          • Z-man19

            The Why Alternative

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            I just noticed this. You are willing and do assume what people are reading and thinking who are new on this site, but willing to assume SAN indicates possession and that a team with possession will Shoot at the Net?

          • Why

            My personal hot button. Yep.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Well how much luck goes into QoS, that help define what Corsi-Fenwick For percentages are and the teams OA SH%/SV%?

          • Why

            Quality of shot does not help define Corsi and Fenwick for.

            As to the luck question, in general the answer is pretty simple. We don’t know and we’re never going to get appropriate sample sizes that allow us to find out.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Well for one QoS does if it is a BS. BS are not part of Corsi but are of Fenwick! lol

          • Z-man19

            Hangman?

          • Why

            As do shots on goal, as do hits (often in a negative sense), as do goals for and goals against, etc. This isn’t new or applicable only to Corsi.

            You said it yourself. No stat measures possession.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Hits, meh, IDK about that one. Some teams (TOR/LAK) hit everything that moves even if they have the puck.
            .
            You have to do the best you can, and Corsi-Fenwick so far are accepted as the best.

          • Why

            Yep. All of those stats have flaws. They’re not perfect indicators of possession. How did you put it:
            “But on the whole it is a good indicator, it is NOT a definite finite stat, but it can certainly indicate who caries the play more.”

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            No, but Corsi-Fenwich seem to be more in line though. Hits are very arena specific, whereas shots are much less so, and offer high volume to help generate larger samples and reduce the noise.

          • Why

            If you want larger samples, why not include completed passes, giveaways and takeaways? What you’re eliminating isn’t noise, it’s just things you’re ignoring.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            Passes are not measured
            GV and TK are still too subjective (Ones GV can be another’s TK and another’s lost possession).
            SAN are much more stable League wide and are measured.

          • birdhead

            Why literally can’t see people mention Corsi without explaining that everyone who uses it or thinks about it is a deluded idiot. It is very boring and repetitive and will only lead to your blood pressure rising … I recommend avoiding.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            And I do not do that? lol

          • birdhead

            No. You have genuinely held convictions on which we disagree (and some on which we agree) but you don’t repeat yourself and you don’t cast yourself as a white knight, out on your steed defending poor idiots who might mistakenly think that they’re learning things.

          • birdhead

            I’m well aware that I can be pretty repetitive, by the way.

    • VerStig

      I think it’s the scorer’s discretion (and I assume scorers have some hockey IQ). So if it looks like his intention is to get a tip then they’ll count it as a MS (missed shot), but if he’s just getting the puck down low, off the end boards or something, they might not count it as anything.

  • 10thMountainFire

    Good Toews Face courtesy of Blackhawk Nation on FB.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      WAY too much photoshops!

  • Accipiter

    Peverley collapsed on Dallas bench. Has history of cardiac issues.
    Hope he is okay.

    • CozBullsFan

      Scary situation.

    • ahnfire

      The game has been cancelled. Peverly is reported to be conscious and headed to the hospital.

      • CozBullsFan

        I guess it will be played at a later date. That’s the right decision. There’s no way either team could get back into the mindset of playing a game after seeing that.

    • bizarrohairhelmet

      You know it’s bad when there are no negative Puck Daddy comments about it.

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        You speak and the rocks got moved. They have crawled out.

        • bizarrohairhelmet

          Yeah. Expecting civility at Yahoo is a little naive I guess.

  • roadhog

    Stalberg loses his man twice in the D zone leaving Rinne with no chance- both goals by pressing D men. Preds hanging on 3-2 in the third vs. Ottawa.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      Fuck Nashville

      • Z-man19

        Fuck river scum

        • roadhog

          Fuck Walkom FOREVER.

    • CozBullsFan

      Q is in some dark room, laughing manically as he watches the game.

      • roadhog

        I know right? Shades of the pre-benching last post season.

      • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

        Smoking a Havanna

  • roadhog

    Tied in Ottawa. Huge 3rd period comeback. We got a hockey game.

    • roadhog

      Preds take it 4 on 4 in OT thanks to a horrible turnover by the Sens D. Onto pull for the Jets against the ‘Lanche.

  • CozBullsFan

    For anyone that is bored with math, check the link below. The world’s fastest robot against one of the best table tennis players.

    http://www.kuka-timoboll.com/en/home/

    • Arctic Ice

      I would’ve like seeing that in real time and not with so much slow motion.

      • CozBullsFan

        Yeah, I agree. I was expecting something more realistic too.

  • CozBullsFan

    I expected more from you Winnipeg…

    • Joe Banks

      Bastards!

  • VerStig

    If a butterfly flaps its wings in China…

    • Joe Banks

      yes?

      • VerStig

        Just trolling people re: stats and luck and randomness…

        Actually the actual quote (see bottom of page) has the butterfly flapping its wings in New Delhi and causing a hurricane (hockey!) in North Carolina.

  • Joe Banks

    Wow. Van blew a 3 goal lead…

    • CozBullsFan

      In epic fashion no less.

  • 1benmenno

    The cosmos is 13.4 billion years old. Hard to comprehend. For the sake of perspective, let’s shrink it down. Let’s say all of time is the length of an NHL season. The cosmos begins when the NHL season does, in October. God knows what the preseason means in this metaphor.

    • 1benmenno

      … and Tyson has put Pluto on waivers.

      • 10thMountainFire

        Pluto is a planet. I don’t care how many degrees all the smarty pantses have, all the knowledge, all the experience, all the training, all the expertise. Pluto is a planet. NEXT.

        • Z-man19

          Uranus?

          • 10thMountainFire

            I’m from Mars.

        • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

          Ceres?

          • 10thMountainFire

            Europa.

          • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

            That is a moon. Ceres is at least a Plaentoid.

          • bizarrohairhelmet

            Attempt no landing there.

  • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

    11 Goals in Vancouver, unfortunately for Torts the Canucks scored only 4 of them, the Islanders got the rest.

    • http://www.our-founding.com/ Toews makes funny faces

      Even better, New York scored ALL 7 in the third period when VAN led 3-0 after 2 periods! lol

  • 334Rules

    “dog’s balls luck” – dog’s balls get licked on a regular basis. How can that be a bad thing?

    • bizarrohairhelmet

      depends on who’s doing the licking