Leaderboard

Do teams tell players to be tops analytically? No. But a team that takes an analytics based approach attempts to acquire players who have good puck possession numbers but are being undervalued by their team, such pittsburgh trading for Trevor Daley and Justin Schultz... two defencemen who are very good at moving the puck... or getting Hagelin, and Bonino, two guys who were good analytically. Funny thing is teams that are top 5 analytically keep winning the cup.... see Chicago and LA... And yes, if you are a good puck possession team, and make very few changes to your roster, you will probably still be a good puck possession team the following year (understanding that your roster will be a year older so young kids get better, veterans may regress etc...); but yes good possession teams generally stay good possession teams. Does it guarantee a cup... no, some luck goes into any cup, injuries, a bounce here, a hot goalie, etc... but if you are near the tops you at least make yourself a contender. You can't guarantee a cup but you give yourself a better chance. The better regular season corsi team wins 70% of playoff series, don't you think that is a good thing to strive to achieve? Since Corsi was tracked a top 5 team wins the cup every year, except one... the 2009 Penguins, who were a bad corsi team for half a season with Therrien coaching and no Sergei Gonchar, but were a top 3 team in the second half with Bylsma coaching and Gonchar back. So

It seems obvious that you won't ever be big on the intangible argument but I came across this article yesterday:https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/04/nhl-identifying-and-improving-intangibles-critical-ice-success/O8q5H6LujecKLo2cDBTGBO/story.html It seems teams are taking intangibles into consideration just as much (or to a comparable extent) as they would analytics. When teams are deciding who their depth guys will be don't they often take intangibles into consideration? Since when has the term veteran leadership gone out the window? The only difference I see here is that Weber is a skillful top pairing guy who also has a great reputation around the league for things he brings outside of his skill set and the points he puts up. What's so wrong with that argument? Considering he's played a good 10 years in the league, give or take, I don't quite see it as guess work with him. One could argue Subban brought some intangibles as well but in my honest opinion, he brought both positive as well as negative intangibles to the table. I'll repeat that I liked Subban a lot but when it comes to this specific area, I give Weber the nod. The importance and the true effect it will have on the team is certainly up for debate. I'd like to and do believe it will have a great one.

I've watched that PK video like 20 times, my wife says I'm sick... Ya love sick lol His raw emotion and youthful exuberance is infectious... Makes you wanna dream! He entertains that's for sure... But long before PK subban I loved Larry Robinson and Stephane richer Mats naslund and bobby smith Carbonneau and PATRICK ROY Skrudland and keane Schneider and desjardins Koivu and Kovalev Etc.. I was Heart broke when chelios was flipped Completely devastated when Patrick was ousted And now shaken with PK... However my love for the CH is far greater.....

Congrats, you just won the thread

Did i personally? no Have people? yes Here are some interesting things people have done on pure numbers vs trying to incorporate what hockey people see as intangibles. https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/how-much-would-you-pay-for-intangibles-in-nhl---trending-topics-134919427.html "The fact of the matter is that what is considered “intangible” should have some sort of a tangible effect on the ice. Leadership, or accountability, or whatever you want to call “being good in the room,” should be provable. For instance, we should be able to dig into the numbers, of which we have so many these days, and point to some aspect of the sport, and say that his leadership results in improved performance in such-and-such a capacity. Players who are perceived to provide little or no leadership — Mikhail Grabovski, for example — should do something worse than Callahan. Or his teammates should do something worse when he's on the ice, but when you dig into them, that's not the case." http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/stanley-cup-playoffs-bracket-showdown-advanced-stats-vs-the-eye-test/ Interesting your cup winner is #1 on the pure stats, and the finalist is #3, before the playoffs. Those teams were intangibles were weighted.. they didnt' do so well. Here are some more https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-trade-became-referendum-intangibles-trending-topics-145942053--nhl.html And from the world of the NFL and advanced stats http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/10/stats-measure-intangibles.html And there is more, a simple google search will take you there.