garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
He scores about as much at EV as many of the D above. Would probably produce more if on the PP with that shot volume.
He could be the next Chiarot
He scores about as much at EV as many of the D above. Would probably produce more if on the PP with that shot volume.
Do the leg work and prove those things correlate to future success and we'll adjust our model to account for them. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
No doubt those are likely a positive, but how much of a positive is just as unknown as how much gritulence and interviews/60 correlate to success.
No one says any system is perfect. But ignoring the stats (ones that are less predictive then what we use) due to ",context" or "better eye data" and chasing the outliers is precisely the reason simple, EXTREMELY simple models like ours can best teams.
You think that a panel of NHL scouts haven't watched CHL prospects, but maybe HF Jets posters have?
I was one of the first out of the blocks criticizing the Stanley pick during last year's draft, but I think that many here have lost some objectivity about him. NHL scouts and folks like Button really have no reason to over-rate Stanley, and to say that they don't actually watch him and other CHL players play is ludicrous.
I think Foote goes in the top 10. I think his last name helps. I think there will be a good lhd available when the Jets pick. Someone will fall.
So because Button says he's that good, that means he's that good? Man I got some guys to show you that Button was 100% wrong about.
Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive if it was just a single scout or analyst, but you ignore the fact that a separate panel of NHL scouts (polled by THN) also continue to rank Stanley as the 8th best D from the 2016 draft after the d+1 season.
It's part of a wider issue that has bubbled to the surface in that some have decided that Stanley is a terrible prospect because Chevy and Zinger and Hillier just selected him based on size, and nothing will sway their perspective. If anyone ever mentions any quantitative or qualitative assessments that might cast Stanley in a slightly more positive light, they are dismissed out of hand because it is counter to the favoured narrative. When scouts or posters here (see above) make comparative observations (vs. other D prospects), they are dismissed out of hand because they are based on some subjective "eye test", but we seem happy to accept the views of other unnamed "observers" who question Stanley's skill based on their own "eye test". Similarly, quantitative metrics that seem fairly standard for assessing a player's contribution (like NHLE, EV point production or shot volume) that now make Stanley look not so bad compared to other d+1 defensive prospects, some seem skeptical of their validity. In some respects, this is a classic case of "confirmation bias".
I've been on record with disliking the pick intensely, and questioning the Jets' drafting strategy on the basis of the pick. However, I think it's reasonable to not just hate the pick and trash the prospect and actually be open to what other scouts, personal viewings and the stats are indicating in a balanced fashion. It's fine to have the perspective that EV points/game or all-situation NHLE or shot volume are not useful metrics to assess production. But they shouldn't be selectively downplayed in the case of Stanley because he's already been condemned as a worthless draft selection and confirms that Chevy, Zinger and Hillier are incompetent.
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. I remain hopeful but not optimistic. I am glad he was showing signs of progress in his D +1 season and it sucks he got injured because that doesn't help. He is our prospect so in a perfect scenario one day I will say "man did I get that wrong on draft day".
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.
Yeah, I guess being a pessimist has its advantages. Your fears are either confirmed or you are pleasantly surprised.
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.
Whike Stanley looked OK there especially in the final 4 on 4 scrimmage he did not rise above the rest. Niku and Green impressed me more and Poolman did what Poolman does.
Yeah, I guess being a pessimist has its advantages. Your fears are either confirmed or you are pleasantly surprised.
I liked Niku the most when I saw him. Poolman also looked polished, but that's to be expected due to his age. Green was pretty up and down for me, with very good skating but some real struggles defensively in his own zone. Stanley was a pleasant surprise, mostly with respect to his decisions with the puck. His mobility has a ways to go, but if he can pivot better and get quicker feet, his skating won't hold him back that much.
Kostalek was the biggest disappointment this last summer.
I though Poolman looked the most ready at the camp. Niku was a big surprise for me, I think the Jets have something there. Liked Stanley thought he was good for his first camp
I still like Stanley, thought he was progressing nicely this year. I still think he pans out, it's just trading that other first rounder is what leaves bitter taste in people's mouths.
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.
Didn't agree with the trade, but I'm still perplexed by how often it's inaccurately documented here. It's down at Lawless level.
Just to remind everyone...
We didn't trade "the other first rounder".
We didn't trade two picks for one.
We traded #22 and #36 for #18 and #79. Not considering the actual players picked, a popular draft pick value chart suggests that the Jets lost only about 1% of their draft pick value (541 vs. 535) in the trade.