Wraith

If your TNT feed on Spectrum is frozen like mine, try the TNT streaming app. That is working for me on my Roku.

The guy is less than a year out from major knee reconstruction.

This is a good time to point out that when "everyone is looking at it the same way" there is an enormous opportunity for the smart and clever people to gain an advantage. That is the real premise of "Moneyball." "Moneyball" was not about adherence to one particular school of analytical thought. It was about identifying the market inefficiencies and exploiting them. When everyone (the "market") is on the same page about what is valuable and not valuable, it becomes very cost effective to find the hidden value in the "not valuable." Sooner or later, everyone else will recognize that hidden value and the "not valuables" become "valuable." In the process, formerly "valuables" will be "not valuables" and the process will repeat. The system is read and react, and therefore will never reach an equilibrium and will be entertainingly dynamic for those not afraid of change.

Mitchell is an UFA. Flynn is about to be an RFA. Very big difference when it comes to return.

Curious that you think the better data from the NHL will remove the need for the stats nerds. The fact that the NHL is even doing this is due to the success of the stats nerds within the NHL and the other professional sports and the result will be even more work for them with a wealth of new information.

Have any of you folks making the comparison to Jonathan Drouin ever actually looked at Drouin's record? Even after the "extra" year in Juniors, Drouin has played three seasons with a total of 128 games in Juniors. In comparison, Sam Reinhart has already played in 3 full seasons and part of a fourth, for a total of 203 games. Reinhart already has 60% (75 games, a full season's worth!) more games in Juniors than Drouin and if he goes back again this year he will have more than doubled Drouin's experience. It is a horrible comparison!

I think the notion that a coach doesn't have to understand analytics at all is a fallacy. Yes, a big part of the current work in most sports is player evaluation and thus handled by the General Manager, not the coach. But an underrated aspect of sports analysis is evaluating tactics. Since the sports data revolution started with baseball, there is a great example about how analytics have not infiltrated the managers the way they have the front office. This has a profound effect on day-to-day tactics. Managers will, almost every day, refuse to use their best relief pitchers in the highest leverage (most important) game situations because it's not a "save situation." Team's regularly blow leads in the sixth, seventh, or eighth inning with an inferior relief pitcher on the mound while their closer, inarguably the best reliever on the team, watches because it's not a save situation yet. It's infuriating. It's especially infuriating because baseball, with it's rich history and incredibly large sample size, has a system that can tell you, in real time, when the high leverage situations are! Having your best relief pitcher enter the game at the start of the ninth inning with nobody on base is almost never the best use of his skills. But the current generation of managers have grown up being told that is how you use a bullpen and so it remains. Now to hockey. One tactical situation that is starting to get noticed by the stat heads in the dump-in versus the carry-in entry into the offensive zone. Willfully turning the puck over to the opponent at a very high rate using the dump and chase method is incredibly inefficient compared to the carry-in.This article sums it up nicely: http://www.si.com/nh...-chase-strategy Can any of you image a traditionalist like Nolan, who is all about the effort, would ever advocate for a lower rate of dump and chases?

15 years ago? Thurman Munson doesn't ring a bell to you, does it?

Drouin is not a good comparison. Even with his "extra" season, he only has 128 games in junior. Reinhart already has 203.

Very interesting. First thing that jumped out at me was Regehr. If my memory is correct, he would've been in the upper left corner by himself last season. It (at least partially) explained his horrible Corsi numbers last year. This year he's being used just like most of the team and his Corsi is still crappy.

I'm in the same region (Time Warner Finger Lakes) and the only fool proof method is to record the SD Feed (channel 51). Although tonight the guide was actually correct for a change (game was on MSG2, 1093).

Agreed. Stafford has been given a ton of defensive responsibility this season so far and has been excellent. His puck possession in the offensive zone was also very good tonight. The points will start coming.

The latest poll from IBD/TIPP, from over the weekend, 2012 shows Obama +6 in the general election. The article is relevant because it says that IBD/TIPP was the most accurant final polling (amongst daily tracking polls and otherwise) in 2004 and 2008. It's the counter point to the Gallup poll. Someday this disparity will make for an interesting case study about likely voter screening.

Yes and no. Your guess is accurate in that Rosen's main critique of the TPC analysis is that it assume a net zero change in income or spending. A huge section of the analysis is focused on that. He includes 3%, 5%, and 7% growth in his calculations. Rosen's argument on that front is that because the plan is clearly aimed at growth, assuming exactly zero growth is wrong. The argument is a bit of a red herring, though, because regardless of the assumed growth rate, the primary source of additional tax revenue comes from three tax base broadening measures. Here, Rosen's numbers differ substantially from the TPC analysis and I see no explanation as to why. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You said unemployment figures were misleading. I'm saying they are no more misleading now than they've ever been. I'm also saying that we're also better off now than this time four years ago (the original question). At this time in 2008, unemployment was at 8%, under employment was at 14%, and both were skyrocketing. Now, unemployment is at 8% and improving slowly. Underemployment is at 14% and improving slowly. From an employment standpoint, that is much better. It's not recovered. Who here is arguing that it is recovered?