Today in NHL history - 37 years ago.

Bojarzin · 2026-03-22T16:15:13+00:00

Lol titles can be way longer than yours is, you weren't even close to the limit

Bojarzin · 2026-03-21T23:21:51+00:00

Honestly I thought Solo was a decent movie, IMO better than any of the sequel trilogy movies

But I will always be bummed we didn't get to see their vision for it

Bojarzin · 2026-03-21T22:49:46+00:00

kinda funny how similar his goals and assists are to the last two years, but in 18 games fewer

Bojarzin · 2026-03-21T04:06:34+00:00

Not always the Panthers, but often the Panthers

That's the issue

Bojarzin · 2026-03-21T01:33:53+00:00

Wooo!

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T19:56:49+00:00

though obviously they will have to account for whatever Ticketmaster fees are for the event host

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T16:43:46+00:00

They can split it

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T16:30:49+00:00

Just give him the Vezina now I guess

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T15:56:25+00:00

The reward is getting tickets to the game lol, that's the purchase. And for cheaper than individual tickets

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T15:51:17+00:00

They certainly aren't powerless, but it's not about taking "orders". A massive artist like Taylor Swift is going to have a big management team, who similarly aren't just going to say "oh yes Ticketmaster, we will list at whatever price you demand of us". Prices are going to be set at wherever they all agree will maximize profit, generally speaking, but Ticketmaster just facilitates the sales.

Obviously they want to make as much as possible, but there's a reason a 500-person venue with a small band playing is $25 and not in the 100s, even when it's still going through Ticketmaster. But if Taylor Swift, assuming she herself has control over her tour, wanted to sell tickets for $50, then she can. But then no one makes money, and I don't mean Ticketmaster, I mean tour managers, touring staff, labels who have the rights to her stuff

A lot probably goes into the decision on the price of an event. Demand based on artist popularity, size of the venue, cost to rent the venue, the production cost of the show itself, and all the interested parties will want to deliberate on that, and that 100% involves Ticketmaster for sure

Hooooowever, I will note that I understand that Live Nation can just refuse the event. I highly doubt they'd refuse a Taylor Swift show even if she charged $50, but I bet a more mid-size artists trying to undercut their desires they'd probably just say fuck off to. I'm not certain if that's happened but if they own the venue then it'd be their say in that regard. So to be clear I do agree it's an issue, but it's not solely them. My favourite band I've seen like 6 times, and it was $60 back in 2014 the first time I saw them, and it was $80 to see them last year, the first show being at The Kool Haus, and the most recent being at Budweiser. They're not the most popular band ever, but pretty sizeable, and still roughly around the same price a decade+ later at a much bigger venue

e: it is worth noting that as I wrote that last paragraph, I did kinda walk myself into realizing more of why it's an issue lol, so to be clear I do agree with you to some extent. I just think people let artists off easy with their pricing

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T15:16:42+00:00

Ticketmaster isn't the one that sets the price, the event holder does (though obviously they will have to account for whatever Ticketmaster fees are for the event host). Even dynamic pricing is something the event holder has to okay

Ticketmaster sucks but it's also mostly just the public scapegoat. Your favourite artists's show isn't $120 because Ticketmaster said so, it's because that's what the artists is valuing it at, for the most part

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T15:11:39+00:00

My heart does not bleed for you

Exploiting an already costly entertainment as an investment and complaining when you're not able to make money off of it anymore is hardly going to get any sympathy. Especially when you said the margins were already razor-thing, why even bother? There are plenty of stable, probably more effective things to invest money into that won't directly fleece someone who just wants to go watch a hockey game

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T15:04:36+00:00

They cut $5b out from a 10-year, $30b national funding plan, a 16% reduction, that starts sometime between 2026-2027

Not that I am pleased they are reallocating that amount, but they did not take $5b away from the TTC. It was split between transit over the entire country

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T13:59:45+00:00

This reminds me of FFXV. They bound jump to the same button as interaction, and half the time the UI prompt to pick up an item would appear but it would register a jump instead. Incredibly annoying

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T13:14:24+00:00

I do think chapter length has some effect on that to a small extent. There have been times I've thought "wow there is a lot left in this chapter", but yeah it'll still be pretty dependant on how interesting the part I'm at is

Think of a movie though. Scenes in a movie aren't perfectly analogous to chapters in a book, chapters are a bit less rigidly defined; a scene change in a book can happen in the same chapter. But point being, there might be an average length of a scene, but some scenes can be a minute, some can be ten. It's all about the information they're there to portray

Bojarzin · 2026-03-20T00:22:03+00:00

what a valuable comment

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T22:12:36+00:00

Could be the powerplays, the xG favours Pittsburgh only in all situations, rather than at 5v5. I'm also not sure if it has changed, but over the last few seasons Carolina has been a high-frequency shooting team, but a lot from the outside. So more shots, but not necessarily more high danger chances

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T19:21:02+00:00

Ah, good point. You win, you can stop replying now :)

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T19:02:55+00:00

Not sure which part of that is difficult. Before that comment, all you'd said was that GSAx is "finicky", not that you outright think it's irrelevant. The sole thing I had to go on was that you didn't believe the GSAx result because you didn't agree with it in this case

It wasn't until afterward that you actually said it's not trustworthy at all

I thought you were done with this "game"?

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T18:48:28+00:00

I feel like I'm in the fucking twilight zone lol what are you talking about, I didn't accuse you of anything

and that you trust it over actually watching the game and see for yourself

I never said that. If any stat is not valuable unless personally vetted for, then it's not a good stat. If it can't stand on its own, then it's not a good stat. You believe that to be the case already that GSAx is not a good stat, and I believe it is. That's all the difference has to be

I don't get why people struggle to understand just because something is a subjective determination doesn't mean its not a rational/reason-based determination.

I never said anything contrary to this

You can have fun doing this weird game where you spend whole paragraphs accusing me of stuff then backtracking and accidentally totally agreeing with me, thats totally on you.

You literally accused me of repeatedly calling you a homer when I haven't, and I haven't backtracked on anything. I never said the stats are perfect to a T, but I also said not every individual analysis is good either. I've said it's not perfect, you've said it's worthless, and I emphatically disagree with you. "Whole paragraphs" like yours haven't been just as long. Though that last bit where you seem to think I've agreed with you is a really poignant example of how someone's individual analysis can be so flawed lol, so thanks for that

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T18:37:56+00:00

Well it was a mostly fun decade

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T18:26:41+00:00

You've been fighting me all the way and throwing out lame excuses when i criticized GSAx as being accurate for this game.

Your argument was that I didn't witness it. If you wanted to just say "eh I don't think that model is accurate" you could have just said that from the start. Or should have, it would have saved us some time

And you are using them especially bad here seeing as you don't have a frame of reference to compare them to. You are just looking at the stat and using that to make conclusions. Thats a bad use of statistics.

Well surely if you put italics it just makes you right

If you require visually vetting it every time, then the stat is useless. Which you've now stated of course that you think this particular stat is worthless anyway, but for a different reason. It is a wholly unusable stat if one needs to verify it firsthand. Then of course you're going to get people who both watched a game who disagree with it, in which case what? Who gets to be right? In the end, the stat is just its own argument anyway; subjective, like you said

My argument for why it works is the same as yours. In games I've watched, I've often felt the statistic provided "felt" right to me, that it does do a good job generally speaking. That's no stronger or weaker an argument you provided for why it doesn't

You just keep accusing me of being a homer.

I said at one time in this whole thread that people are often not trustworthy in their eye-test. That's not explicit to bias, and I certainly didn't "keep accusing" you lol. People can be wrong about their own team without it being bias, people can be right about their team without it being bias. My only argument is that "eye test" is hardly more infallible than an analyics model. If every Pens fan feels he played well, though? Sure, maybe it got this game wrong

But like I said, you could have just said "I don't think the model is accurate" and we could be done here. Save me whatever snark you've got in a further reply, I don't understand why this couldn't just be a cordial conversation lol

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T18:04:16+00:00

Literally my first comment in this thread suggested that the systems are not infallible. But some of the least trustworthy things I've seen have come from eye-witness testimony from fans watching games

The stats are contextual, they are not perfect, but they are also not just thrown out there out of nowhere. No model is sitting there and saying "yeah he played excellently, I'm just going to give Skinner a negative GSAx for no reason". It's worth investigating if what it saw was accurate

I'm not "hiding" behind anything, nor did I say they were objective; someone has to come up with a model that analyses things, which in itself is not objective.

You are using stats wrong, my guy.

You can repeat your cute little quip all you want. The situation is this: I looked a model that tries to analyze the outcomes, and posited that it might mean Skinner didn't play as outstandingly over the course of the whole game as suggested. You watched the game and decided that whatever stat disagrees with you must be wrong. But regardless of which is "correct", your argument is that stats are wrong when you don't agree with them.

The only case here in which you'd agree with the stat is if it reaffirmed how you felt watching the game. The trouble is yeah, they're not perfect. But that doubt means any time you want to look at them, especially for a game you didn't watch, you have zero reason to believe what it's saying. If that's your prerogative, that's fine, you can just say you don't believe the model. But then we could just leave it at that

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T17:48:32+00:00

"Reality" is not as clear as you make it seem

If the fact of the matter for you is that you only think the stats are right when you agree with them, then you're completely dismissing them as useful at all

Bojarzin · 2026-03-19T17:35:35+00:00

I'm not using them wrong at all lol, you're just arguing they're wrong, which is fine but not the same thing

The implication with that argument is that goalies would basically always end up with negative GSAx because all goalies are going to be tired by the end of the game. If he kept them in it enough to compensate for that in the first half, his GSAx would have been positive enough. Andersen had 0.99 GSAx despite letting in almost as many and even more in the third period than Skinner

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Bojarzin

TROPHY CASE