SmokeyClause said:
The Moneyball example is flawed. Hockey and baseball do not work well in statistical comparison.
As if I have never heard THAT argument before. Did you even read the thread?
SmokeyClause said:
In baseball, statistics are everything. You rarely hear things like "his contribution to the team can't be found on the stat sheet".
Actually, you do. But just because some writer or broadcaster says it, does that mean it's right?
SmokeyClause said:
In baseball, numbers are the most important factor. You even have numbers for defensive play. Is there a legit number for defensive play in hockey?
Read Moneyball to find out how important defense is. Or watch video of the old Oilers.
SmokeyClause said:
No such thing. It's a made up term to bridge the gap between what a player produces and what the scout thinks of that player.
SmokeyClause said:
You just can't win the argument of whether or not to see a player.
Already did.
SmokeyClause said:
Looking at the stats is one thing, but the WHL and the NHL are different beasts.
Read this thread. Seriously. Don't jump into an argument until you already know what has been argued and what hasn't. You only make yourself look dumb (like you just did).
SmokeyClause said:
Some things that work in the WHL won't work in the NHL. You can claim your superiority all you want, but the bottomline is no team bases their scouting only on numbers. Maybe if one or two did, you'd have something to stand on.
...That's what baseball guys said before Beane and DePodesta...
And again, if you has read the thread, you would have seen my analogy to other parts of hockey.
NHL, circa 1960: "You can claim your superiority all you want, but the bottom line is that no NHL team uses a free-roaming defenseman in an offensive capacity." See how wrong that was?
SmokeyClause said:
But you have to remember, these guys are paid to do this.
So was I. And thats why my opinion is so strongly against it. What's your point?
SmokeyClause said:
They aren't some two-bit hack that uses Hockeydb to solve their problems.
Wow, ad hominem. That's the sign of a truly strong argument. Let me guess, your next argument will be that my mother is a slut...
SmokeyClause said:
Do yourself a favor, try to apply this revolutionary system to hockey. Go to an AHL game and find some scouts. Ask them what they think about your system. I doubt you get one person who says it's not a bad idea.
Scout-worship, eh? That's the sign of a great hockey mind. Well, to answer your questions...
1. I worked as a scout for a brief time. I left. It's not a fun life.
2. OF COURSE scouts are going to say it's a bad idea. They're going to lose their jobs when it becomes commonplace.
An analogy... Go to a GM factory and see if any of the human workers think it's a good idea to automate factories (and thus make them irrelevant and cost them their job).
SmokeyClause said:
To step back to the baseball point, you can measure almost every aspect of a pitchers play using statistics. Same with hitters. I love moneyball and it's a wondeful book. But it just doesn't work that way in hockey.
Prove it. Don't give me your BS appeal to authority logical fallacy laden tripe. PROVE to me that it doesn't work.
SmokeyClause said:
If it did, teams would be trying to employ that method as we speak.
BS. Beane and Depodesta proved that it worked in baseball, and even today there are only TWO teams that use it. One is Beane's A's and the other is Depodesta's Dodgers.
The thing that you just don't seem to grasp is that there's a difference between what works and what NHL teams do. NHL teams, just like baseball front offices, are old boys networks. These people have known each other for a lifetime and they make their living off of a game. They aren't about to put several hundred of their buddies out of work, no matter whether this system works or not. That's a fact. Read Moneyball and Dollar Signs and you will see teams say exactly that.
SmokeyClause said:
Oh, and scouts were all looking for the wrong things in the book. They were looking for people who looked like baseball players. In hockey, scouts aren't necessarily looking for the wrong players. They are looking for the players whose skill best translates in to the NHL.
Wow, you haven't the slightest clue, do you?
What's the difference between "the face" and "hockey sense?" Nothing. Same thing, different sport.
"Looking for players whose skill best translates to the NHL" is another way of saying "watching a player and imagining them in the NHL." It doesn't mean they are doing anything more scientifically or objectively. It's all projection. I should know, I did it myself.