TSN Radio: 1290 am - Part III

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

Its best to be right 100% of the time, and until that is achievable, both analytics and eye tests have their flaws.

holy crap insurance companies should get rid of their actuarial departments!

$$$$$$$$$$

 

[scelaton]

Its best to be right 100% of the time, and until that is achievable, both analytics and eye tests have their flaws.

So the eye test guys who understand and use analytics must be doubly flawed!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[lomiller1]

I think you are misinterpreting that comment by RR.

Its not that he is implying analytic people are idiots, rather he is stating the fact that analytics does not abide by, which is all players are individuals, and all individuals are unique.

This is kind of a problem. Not only does statistics deal with situations where the individual samples are unique and could turn out differently, dealing with this type of situation is the whole point behind statistical analysis.

Of course and individual case could turn out differently, as soon as you start using statistical analysis that's automatically the case. He isn't making a point so much as stating a tautology. The fact that an individual case could turn out differently does chance things any more than saying an individual lottery ticket could win. Sure it could but it's more likely that you just wasted your money buying the ticket.

 

[lomiller1]

Its best to be right 100% of the time

Sadly we live in a statistical universe. There is no way to know anything with 100% certainty.

 

[drumzan]

Interviews with Claude Noel are always must listen.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

This is kind of a problem. Not only does statistics deal with situations where the individual samples are unique and could turn out differently, dealing with this type of situation is the whole point behind statistical analysis.

Of course and individual case could turn out differently, as soon as you start using statistical analysis that's automatically the case. He isn't making a point so much as stating a tautology. The fact that an individual case could turn out differently does chance things any more than saying an individual lottery ticket could win. Sure it could but it's more likely that you just wasted your money buying the ticket.

But there is a winning ticket out there, somewhere, and it very well could be you?

There are many quality NHL big Dmen that statistically, did not produce well in their junior years but developed later. Stanley could very well be one of them.

 

[mcpw]

But there is a winning ticket out there, somewhere, and it very well could be you?

There are many quality NHL big Dmen that statistically, did not produce well in their junior years but developed later. Stanley could very well be one of them.

I'd rather have them buy shares than lottery tickets.

 

[SensibleGuy]

But there is a winning ticket out there, somewhere, and it very well could be you?

There are many quality NHL big Dmen that statistically, did not produce well in their junior years but developed later. Stanley could very well be one of them.

sure. He could be...since the Jets picked him I definitely hope he develops into a great dman. But even if he does it doesn't necessarily validate the Jet's trading up to get him. I mean there very well might have been players available even at the 22 pick (perhaps even a Dman who isn't a giant! *gasp*) who could go on to be even better than Stanley ever is. Remains to be seen.

Is a person better off taking a 1 in a 1000 shot at $100,000 or a 1 in a million shot at $1,000,000?

 

[lomiller1]

But there is a winning ticket out there, somewhere, and it very well could be you?

That doesn't make buying lottery tickets a good financial decision.

There are many quality NHL big Dmen that statistically, did not produce well in their junior years but developed later.

There are even more quality NHL D-men who did produce in Junior.


If you pick the right one, maybe you get the best of both worlds. Parayko was 5'11" at the start of his draft year. If we are insisting on saying "it's possible LS will get better" why are we not allowing for the possibility a more skilled smaller D-man like Cholowski will get bigger?

 

[pucka lucka]

I think Rick is pretty tongue-in-cheek most of the time and I have heard him have fun at the expense of this board and analytics but I don't think he nessesarily dismisses it I just think he finds the level of passion amusing at times. It's just his style on the show and I find it pretty entertaining even if we are the brunt of the occasional playful jab. We dish it out so it never hurts to take a shot or two.

I disagree completely that it's a playful jab. It's pot shotting at a caricature of the people here.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

Gah. Triple D and the infomercial is back. Oh well, might come back in an hour or so.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

sure. He could be...since the Jets picked him I definitely hope he develops into a great dman. But even if he does it doesn't necessarily validate the Jet's trading up to get him. I mean there very well might have been players available even at the 22 pick (perhaps even a Dman who isn't a giant! *gasp*) who could go on to be even better than Stanley ever is. Remains to be seen.

Is a person better off taking a 1 in a 1000 shot at $100,000 or a 1 in a million shot at $1,000,000?

That depends on what each raffle ticket costs

In this case the raffle ticket cost #22 & #36. As long as the Jets scouting staff had Stanley rated in the top 12 overall, it was a ticket worth buying.

That being said, 6 other teams passed him over with picks 12-17. It's clear that at least 20% of other NHL scouting staffs didn't share this high opinion & this same feeling is shared by many mock GM's here.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

You seriously think that the Jets organization, including their professional scouts only saw a 2" difference between the two and didn't do any other due diligence? I guarantee you that there was a very big factor or more than one that the scouts liked about Stanley. I think in general here on HFJets, there is a feeling that Chevy and the scouts just look at things at the level that we get to see, but that just isn't the case. There is no way that they made the decision to take Stanley, not only in the first round, but to move up to do so.

The decision certainly has nothing to do with stats, because they obviously don't look great (at least the stats I've been shown). The decision probably all boils down to interviews with Stanley and everyone he knows and works with.

Everyone hated the pick vehemently, yet he was one of, if not the best player in development camp.

Lastly, we could do much worse than ending up with a calder winning Dman.

I've seen this many times. It is the lamest response I can imagine. Sorry. There is nothing that anybody could possibly say in an interview that can trump a lack of talent. Character, work ethic, etc. are important deciding factors when choosing between players who are otherwise close.

I didn't attend dev camp but everything I've seen here indicated people were pleasantly surprised that he wasn't as bad as they had feared. Nothing to suggest that he was the best, or even among the best players in camp. Keep in mind what it was. Some drills and a couple of scrimmages in early summer.

Myers won the Calder. Since then he has been a so-so 2nd pairing D man. But we could do a lot worse than that too. I will be very happy with Stanley if he becomes that. That would be beating the odds.

I'm afraid I didn't make my point very well in the post you quoted. I didn't mean to make it about Stanley. He is only 1 of a type. Whileee is making a point about how poorly both analytics and scouts do at picking out the winners among the very large D men. They pass on ones they should pick and pick ones they should pass. I'm wondering how it can be done better or if it can be done better. Maybe Stanley is one of the exceptions, IDK and history seems to say that no one else knows either. That includes Chevy and the Jets scouts. They have taken a flyer on a player because of what he has a chance of becoming.

The way that pick makes the most sense to me is that they really had a low opinion of this draft class. They couldn't even be bothered making a 7th round pick. They decided that a long shot on Stanley was the best they could do after the first 12-16 picks were gone. If Green at 79 was as good a bet (or very nearly as good) as Clague at 36 then the cost of the trade was near nil. If Stanley at 18 was a better bet than Johansen at 22 then it makes sense. I don't buy that assessment but I think it is what they must have believed.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

That doesn't make buying lottery tickets a good financial decision.



There are even more quality NHL D-men who did produce in Junior.


If you pick the right one, maybe you get the best of both worlds. Parayko was 5'11" at the start of his draft year. If we are insisting on saying "it's possible LS will get better" why are we not allowing for the possibility a more skilled smaller D-man like Cholowski will get bigger?

Love this argument.

 

[Whileee]

Quick question....

Clague and Stanley

vs.

Stanley and Green

How much difference is there?

 

[ps241]

I disagree completely that it's a playful jab. It's pot shotting at a caricature of the people here.

So kind of like we do here in this thread at the 1290 radio teams?

I didn't hear this exact interview so I shouldn't comment on it specifically but I have heard Rick take what I think are playful shots at "the fans/analytic community are up in arms" and I always felt he was just taking the piss. Making an honest point while sarcastically taking a fun shot. Honestly, its water off my back but to each their own.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

There are even more quality NHL D-men who did produce in Junior.

But there are also examples of very good large tall NHL Dmen that produced later, developed later.

It makes sense, doesn't it?

Coordination, puck skills and skating mechanics probably take longer to develop based on the size of the player?

Size is a skill in today's NHL, especially at the goalie and defensive positions. The ability to see above the crowd, longer sticks, reach that takes passing lanes away. If these types of players take longer, would it not be wise to identify them?

If you pick the right one, maybe you get the best of both worlds. Parayko was 5'11" at the start of his draft year. If we are insisting on saying "it's possible LS will get better" why are we not allowing for the possibility a more skilled smaller D-man like Cholowski will get bigger?

This is where I believe the Jets believe they did pick the right one. They scouted him quite extensively and you would have to believe that any concerns or apprehensions were diminished through their scouting.

So while Cholowski may get bigger, Stanley may get much much better. I tend to believe the skill is more likely to be developed than hoping a 18 year old has a growth spurt left in him, but I do not know what the average growth in height happens after that age.

I like we went after him. I tend to believe they saw a few things they liked and after seeing him at development camp, I feel like he has a hell of a chance to be a top 4 Dman for us, and hopefully a player the can possibly help replace Buff down the road.

 

[KingBogo]

But there are also examples of very good large tall NHL Dmen that produced later, developed later.

It makes sense, doesn't it?

Coordination, puck skills and skating mechanics probably take longer to develop based on the size of the player?

Size is a skill in today's NHL, especially at the goalie and defensive positions. The ability to see above the crowd, longer sticks, reach that takes passing lanes away. If these types of players take longer, would it not be wise to identify them?




This is where I believe the Jets believe they did pick the right one. They scouted him quite extensively and you would have to believe that any concerns or apprehensions were diminished through their scouting.

So while Cholowski may get bigger, Stanley may get much much better. I tend to believe the skill is more likely to be developed than hoping a 18 year old has a growth spurt left in him, but I do not know what the average growth in height happens after that age.

I like we went after him. I tend to believe they saw a few things they liked and after seeing him at development camp, I feel like he has a hell of a chance to be a top 4 Dman for us, and hopefully a player the can possibly help replace Buff down the road.

Watching Stanley develop into that top 4 beast will be a hell of a lot of fun.

 

[Howard Chuck]

I've seen this many times. It is the lamest response I can imagine. Sorry. There is nothing that anybody could possibly say in an interview that can trump a lack of talent. Character, work ethic, etc. are important deciding factors when choosing between players who are otherwise close.

I didn't attend dev camp but everything I've seen here indicated people were pleasantly surprised that he wasn't as bad as they had feared. Nothing to suggest that he was the best, or even among the best players in camp. Keep in mind what it was. Some drills and a couple of scrimmages in early summer.

Myers won the Calder. Since then he has been a so-so 2nd pairing D man. But we could do a lot worse than that too. I will be very happy with Stanley if he becomes that. That would be beating the odds.

I'm afraid I didn't make my point very well in the post you quoted. I didn't mean to make it about Stanley. He is only 1 of a type. Whileee is making a point about how poorly both analytics and scouts do at picking out the winners among the very large D men. They pass on ones they should pick and pick ones they should pass. I'm wondering how it can be done better or if it can be done better. Maybe Stanley is one of the exceptions, IDK and history seems to say that no one else knows either. That includes Chevy and the Jets scouts. They have taken a flyer on a player because of what he has a chance of becoming.

The way that pick makes the most sense to me is that they really had a low opinion of this draft class. They couldn't even be bothered making a 7th round pick. They decided that a long shot on Stanley was the best they could do after the first 12-16 picks were gone. If Green at 79 was as good a bet (or very nearly as good) as Clague at 36 then the cost of the trade was near nil. If Stanley at 18 was a better bet than Johansen at 22 then it makes sense. I don't buy that assessment but I think it is what they must have believed.

This explanation makes sense to me as well.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Quick question....

Clague and Stanley

vs.

Stanley and Green

How much difference is there?

Some but not an awful lot. Hard to put a number on it.

Stanley and Green

vs

Johansen and Clague

How much difference is there?

Maybe not quite so quick a question or at least not so quick an answer. The best answer might be 'ask me in 2-3 years'.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I heard some clown on the radio yesterday stating that he visited the Hull household as a child - friends with Bret I think - and he never saw Bobby lay a hand on his wife. I am paraphrasing here but he thinks the whole Bobby Hull as a wife-beater was blown out of proportion and that since he never saw anything untoward during his visits that it was very unlikely Hull beat his wife

Lawless rightfully stated that abuse is kept behind close doors and that includes household visits by other family and friends.

Another guy called in before that and tried to downplay Hull's violent past by emphasizing the big risk he took in signing with a fledgling league with no guarantee it would survive past a few months and Hull would unlikely be able to return to the NHL...although he ignored the huge payout of $1 million and a substantial portion of that was guaranteed.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

That whole conversation makes me cringe and turn the channel. It takes a lot of eloquence to debate a heavy topic like that and none of the callers nor the hosts, save perhaps Matt, have the chops.

They could state their opinions once and then simply go "to each their own" and probably stay in legally safe territory - I'm pretty positive the station lawyers would appreciate it.

 

[Romang67]

holy crap insurance companies should get rid of their actuarial departments!

$$$$$$$$$$

Don't tell them that yet. That's my plan for how I'm gonna make a lot of money quickly before I get a fun job.

 

[drumzan]

Edmunds: Next up we'll have Darren Dunn from Assiniboia Downs, discuss the Blue Jays and then we'll talk a little golf.

(Turns off radio)

 

[Gm0ney]

Edmunds: Next up we'll have Darren Dunn from Assiniboia Downs, discuss the Blue Jays and then we'll talk a little golf.

(Turns off radio)

They lost me at "Edmonds:"...