Prospect Info: Quinton Byfield (2nd Overall 2020 Draft) Discussion part II

[Schrute farms]

It's the nature of fans when it come to prospect -- at least the highly rated and high draft picks. Fans want product and stars...and they want it NOW. It's human nature to see examples of other young, drafted players doing well and want that for our guy too. So many fans then turn to blame rather than having patience. Blame the player for sucking, blame the GM/scouts for picking the wrong guy, blame, anger, blame. We all do it at some point in time. Some more than others (some all the time -- you know who you are lol). If the Kings organization had done a true rebuild, then maybe it would give some fans some built in time & patience to allow that player to develop and grow. But there would still be complaints. It's what us fans do. Personally, i was always a fan of Vilardi and thought he would shine eventually (a rare hit for me).

BTW: speaking of Veruca Salt -- great freaking band

 

[SettlementRichie10]

there were plenty of people here bullish on Vilardi and to pretend that's not the case after the shit slinging that occured back then is ignorant at best willfully insulting at worst.

Remember that when it happens with Byfield, too.

Most of the people here being “bullish” on these prospects are simply doing so from the position of historical precedent.

Of course there are prospects who buck historical precedent. That doesn’t suddenly invalidate the historical precedent.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

Most of the people here being “bullish” on these prospects are simply doing so from the position of historical precedent.

Of course there are prospects who buck historical precedent. That doesn’t suddenly invalidate the historical precedent.

So, we are basing our prejudice off of picks chosen 20 years ago? Are you still hurt by the ghosts of Tukonen and Tambellini? Other than that, I don't see any other 1st round forward picked by the Kings that haven't ultimately developed into a pretty good NHL player of some calibre.

 

[Lt Dan]

Most of the people here being “bullish” on these prospects are simply doing so from the position of historical precedent.

Of course there are prospects who buck historical precedent. That doesn’t suddenly invalidate the historical precedent.

Are you the precedent of the using the word precedent as many times as possible in a sentence political action committee?

 

[King'sPawn]

Most of the people here being “bullish” on these prospects are simply doing so from the position of historical precedent.

Of course there are prospects who buck historical precedent. That doesn’t suddenly invalidate the historical precedent.

The best historical precedent that was referenced here was Scott Barney. And even then, it was pointed out that Jake Muzzin also recovered from injuries (it's why Pittsburgh didn't sign him after he was drafted).

People just chose which historical precedent fit their narrative better.

How fitting this is brought up in a thread about Byfield.

 

[Statto]

Disagree.

We have nothing I’ve seen but speculation with regards to Vilardi’s actual problem(s), apart from a vague comment regarding muscles and discs from Blake. At Vilardi’s age growth spurts and the associated change in gait, weak spots in the back etc (purely as an example) could easily account for it.

It’s a different sport but Steven Gerrard (football for anyone living in a cave) at this age was considered injury prone he was injured every few weeks and lots of people wrote him off. However once his strength caught up with his gangly body it was a very different story.

Given I’m not aware of any major surgical interventions and that they seem to be at least planning on him being in camp I’m not prepared to write him off. They are clearly handling the situation carefully and that’s correct. They must not take chances and the state of the Kings last season gave them no reason to do so.

Obviously we cannot count him in, but let’s not write bin him just yet either.

I feel for the kid though, it must be absolutely devastating getting so close to you dreams and having these problems. He’s young and may well have a great future, but it’s not going to feel like that for him at the moment. Not one little bit.

You say you hope he returns to help then use glib disrespectful comments like “stick a fork in...”. You’re then saying he’s at best a 4th line winger, are you sure you’re a Kings fan? I tend to be more respectful of our players.

We all have doubts, none of us is claiming to be absolutely certain that he has spondylolysis. Whilst the spondylolysis diagnosis is nothing but speculation, it at least fits both the facts and the apparent circumstances. If he were “done” then there would be no reason not to announce it. He’s on the roster, the expectation is clearly that he will be back at some point. The open time line again fits the speculation.

We know he has not had major surgery and I’m struggling to come up with an alternative diagnosis that would explain what else we know. I’m far from an expert so it could very easily just be my ignorance. However, far more of what we know supports spondylolysis than it does your assertion that “he’s done”.

A couple of posts I made on Vilardi at the time. The way things have gone are certainly consistent with spondylolysis.

I’m not showing who I replied to as I’m not point scoring.

His back definitely affected things and I was one of a number of people that believed he could still be a significant player.

 

[Choralone]

I remember being bullish on Kempe all along. Now I'm koala-ish.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

I’m not showing who I replied to as I’m not point scoring.

You don't have to, we all probably know.

 

[AbsentMojo]

Are you the precedent of the using the word precedent as many times as possible in a sentence political action committee?

Id say the use of precedent 3 times in a 2 sentence post is mostly like unprecedented on this board.

 

[AbsentMojo]

I remember being bullish on Kempe all along. Now I'm koala-ish.

You shall be known as Koalone going fwd because of this

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Are you the precedent of the using the word precedent as many times as possible in a sentence political action committee?

Lt Dan where are your legs

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The best historical precedent that was referenced here was Scott Barney. And even then, it was pointed out that Jake Muzzin also recovered from injuries (it's why Pittsburgh didn't sign him after he was drafted).

People just chose which historical precedent fit their narrative better.

How fitting this is brought up in a thread about Byfield.

This post is a good example of how poorly this board understands statistics and probability.

The vast majority of prospects in D+5 who have not broken out will NEVER breakout. This isn’t a matter of “choosing a precedent.” It’s basic f***ing math.

Even if there is a trend of players breaking out as overagers (the Tage Thompson phenomenon), it’s still significantly outweighed by overall trends.

One, two, or even a hundred prospects bucking a historical trend does not invalidate all future support of that trend. Just because Vilardi broke out as an overager doesn’t mean Byfield will.

The reality is that NO ONE knows who will break out and when. No one. Not you. Not me. Not Rob Blake. No one.

All we have is historical data to determine probability. So when people like @Herby and I “bash Byfield”, we’re not doing so from a position of personally disliking the player, or staking out some grand prediction. We’re also not having a binary discussion of Byfield breaking out or not breaking out. We’re simply acknowledging probability.

Trends matter. Precedent matters. History matters. All three were against Vilardi when he broke out. All three were against Patrick Stefan, too, and hundreds of other busts.

All three are against Byfield now. Does that mean he won’t break out? Absolutely not. But at this point, the data suggests he has a higher PROBABILITY of becoming a disappointment relative to his draft position than a success.

People need to stop taking objectively anomalous cases like Vilardi and treating them as evidence of something.

 

[Brownie to Pancakes]

This post is a good example of how poorly this board understands statistics and probability.

The vast majority of prospects in D+5 who have not broken out will NEVER breakout. This isn’t a matter of “choosing a precedent.” It’s basic f***ing math.

Even if there is a trend of players breaking out as overagers (the Tage Thompson phenomenon), it’s still significantly outweighed by overall trends.

One, two, or even a hundred prospects bucking a historical trend does not invalidate all future support of that trend. Just because Vilardi broke out as an overager doesn’t mean Byfield will.

The reality is that NO ONE knows who will break out and when. No one. Not you. Not me. Not Rob Blake. No one.

All we have is historical data to determine probability. So when people like @Herby and I “bash Byfield”, we’re not doing so from a position of personally disliking the player, or staking out some grand prediction. We’re also not having a binary discussion of Byfield breaking out or not breaking out. We’re simply acknowledging probability.

Trends matter. Precedent matters. History matters. All three were against Vilardi when he broke out. All three were against Patrick Stefan, too, and hundreds of other busts.

All three are against Byfield now. Does that mean he won’t break out? Absolutely not. But at this point, the data suggests he has a higher PROBABILITY of becoming a disappointment relative to his draft position than a success.

People need to stop taking objectively anomalous cases like Vilardi and treating them as evidence of something.

I basically agree but like a lot of the Byfield discourse on this forum is absolutely in the "grand prediction" vein. A lot of people act like declaring bust or not a bust as early and stridently as possible carries currency--it doesn't.

 

[Axl Rhoadz]

This post is a good example of how poorly this board understands statistics and probability.

The vast majority of prospects in D+5 who have not broken out will NEVER breakout. This isn’t a matter of “choosing a precedent.” It’s basic f***ing math.

Even if there is a trend of players breaking out as overagers (the Tage Thompson phenomenon), it’s still significantly outweighed by overall trends.

One, two, or even a hundred prospects bucking a historical trend does not invalidate all future support of that trend. Just because Vilardi broke out as an overager doesn’t mean Byfield will.

The reality is that NO ONE knows who will break out and when. No one. Not you. Not me. Not Rob Blake. No one.

All we have is historical data to determine probability. So when people like @Herby and I “bash Byfield”, we’re not doing so from a position of personally disliking the player, or staking out some grand prediction. We’re also not having a binary discussion of Byfield breaking out or not breaking out. We’re simply acknowledging probability.

Trends matter. Precedent matters. History matters. All three were against Vilardi when he broke out. All three were against Patrick Stefan, too, and hundreds of other busts.

All three are against Byfield now. Does that mean he won’t break out? Absolutely not. But at this point, the data suggests he has a higher PROBABILITY of becoming a disappointment relative to his draft position than a success.

People need to stop taking objectively anomalous cases like Vilardi and treating them as evidence of something.

Kempe and Vilardi are the oldest #1 Forward draft picks we have since Pearson. I think it's safe to say both have 'hit'. Next up is Kupari - jury is still out, but the glimpses are there. Turcotte/Byfield would follow. At this point, there is nothing concrete to say that any of these picks are busts.

 

[King'sPawn]

This post is a good example of how poorly this board understands statistics and probability.

The vast majority of prospects in D+5 who have not broken out will NEVER breakout. This isn’t a matter of “choosing a precedent.” It’s basic f***ing math.

Even if there is a trend of players breaking out as overagers (the Tage Thompson phenomenon), it’s still significantly outweighed by overall trends.

One, two, or even a hundred prospects bucking a historical trend does not invalidate all future support of that trend. Just because Vilardi broke out as an overager doesn’t mean Byfield will.

The reality is that NO ONE knows who will break out and when. No one. Not you. Not me. Not Rob Blake. No one.

All we have is historical data to determine probability. So when people like @Herby and I “bash Byfield”, we’re not doing so from a position of personally disliking the player, or staking out some grand prediction. We’re also not having a binary discussion of Byfield breaking out or not breaking out. We’re simply acknowledging probability.

Trends matter. Precedent matters. History matters. All three were against Vilardi when he broke out. All three were against Patrick Stefan, too, and hundreds of other busts.

All three are against Byfield now. Does that mean he won’t break out? Absolutely not. But at this point, the data suggests he has a higher PROBABILITY of becoming a disappointment relative to his draft position than a success.

People need to stop taking objectively anomalous cases like Vilardi and treating them as evidence of something.

I was simply drawing a parallel of how people making conclusions in either direction will use evidence to fit their narrative. If you don't like how the discussion of Vilardi ties into Byfield - let's not talk about Vilardi in a Byfield thread. Or don't go on a rant about how me or others don't understand statistics or probability. That's GBH tactic bullshit.

Plenty of players recover from injuries. Many don't. You don't decide the fate or future of players based on probabilities though. Otherwise, we'd just have a 2-round draft at best.

I, myself, have stated the numbers aren't there, but I think they'll trend up. For me, this is based on spending over 20 years focusing more on draft and prospect growth. Others have more or less experience and focus on this. And I could be wrong. I stated my expectations for Byfield this past season as well as my expectations next season. Others have also expressed a concern for the numbers but like the way Byfield is playing.

God forbid some of us use our own experience in watching players and applying what we've observed to see where Byfield is trending towards beyond the stat sheet.

What I have ALSO said is teams need to know what they have by the time a player hits waivers so they can make their critical decision.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I basically agree but like a lot of the Byfield discourse on this forum is absolutely in the "grand prediction" vein. A lot of people act like declaring bust or not a bust as early and stridently as possible carries currency--it doesn't.

I 100% agree, which is why the better posters here are usually careful with their language (eg, “doesn’t seem likely…” “history doesn’t support…”).

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I was simply drawing a parallel of how people making conclusions in either direction will use evidence to fit their narrative. If you don't like how the discussion of Vilardi ties into Byfield - let's not talk about Vilardi in a Byfield thread. Or don't go on a rant about how me or others don't understand statistics or probability. That's GBH tactic bullshit.

Plenty of players recover from injuries. Many don't. You don't decide the fate or future of players based on probabilities though. Otherwise, we'd just have a 2-round draft at best.

I, myself, have stated the numbers aren't there, but I think they'll trend up. For me, this is based on spending over 20 years focusing more on draft and prospect growth. Others have more or less experience and focus on this. And I could be wrong. I stated my expectations for Byfield this past season as well as my expectations next season. Others have also expressed a concern for the numbers but like the way Byfield is playing.

God forbid some of us use our own experience in watching players and applying what we've observed to see where Byfield is trending towards beyond the stat sheet.

What I have ALSO said is teams need to know what they have by the time a player hits waivers so they can make their critical decision.

My issue is that you’re presenting each side as statistically equal, which is false.

The list of struggling prospects who remain unproductive after D+5 is much, MUCH longer than the list of players like Vilardi who suddenly turn it around.

You can tone police by accusing me of using GBH tactics, but what do you expect me to say here? You’re blatantly misrepresenting the statistics, which indicates you don’t comprehend the statistics.

Again, Vilardi’s development and breakout is historically rare. Do you really disagree with this?

 

[johnjm22]

Statistical averages are useful when applied to large batches, but less useful when applied to singular cases.

An individual evaluation likely carries more predicative weight, but can't be fully quantified because it involves qualitative analysis.

I feel pretty confident Byfield will be fine. Perhaps not the elite player you hoped you were getting at 2OA (although that upside is still there), but I think a very good player.

That said, I can't completely disregard the possibility that he busts, but I think the chances are relatively low based on what I've seen of him.

 

[Nasti]

This post is a good example of how poorly this board understands statistics and probability.

The vast majority of prospects in D+5 who have not broken out will NEVER breakout. This isn’t a matter of “choosing a precedent.” It’s basic f***ing math.

Even if there is a trend of players breaking out as overagers (the Tage Thompson phenomenon), it’s still significantly outweighed by overall trends.

One, two, or even a hundred prospects bucking a historical trend does not invalidate all future support of that trend. Just because Vilardi broke out as an overager doesn’t mean Byfield will.

The reality is that NO ONE knows who will break out and when. No one. Not you. Not me. Not Rob Blake. No one.

All we have is historical data to determine probability. So when people like @Herby and I “bash Byfield”, we’re not doing so from a position of personally disliking the player, or staking out some grand prediction. We’re also not having a binary discussion of Byfield breaking out or not breaking out. We’re simply acknowledging probability.

Trends matter. Precedent matters. History matters. All three were against Vilardi when he broke out. All three were against Patrick Stefan, too, and hundreds of other busts.

All three are against Byfield now. Does that mean he won’t break out? Absolutely not. But at this point, the data suggests he has a higher PROBABILITY of becoming a disappointment relative to his draft position than a success.

People need to stop taking objectively anomalous cases like Vilardi and treating them as evidence of something.

If we’re talking trends, didn’t Byfield improve this year compared to last? Maybe not enough to be considered a trend but I find it odd that some here keep ignoring that fact.

 

[King'sPawn]

My issue is that you’re presenting each side as statistically equal, which is false.

The list of struggling prospects who remain unproductive after D+5 is much, MUCH longer than the list of players like Vilardi who suddenly turn it around.

You can tone police by accusing me of using GBH tactics, but what do you expect me to say here? You’re blatantly misrepresenting the statistics, which indicates you don’t comprehend the statistics.

Again, Vilardi’s development and breakout is historically rare. Do you really disagree with this?

You're ignoring key points which makes the trends irrelevant in Vilardi's case.

Vilardi was unproductive because he missed a couple seasons due to back injury. Do you not see how that differs from other players who are unproductive in their D+5 season?

For one who is so superior in understanding statistics and trends, you conveniently ignore significant variables.

Like I said, many people have made predictions based on previous observations. Those who watched Vilardi beyond cherrypicking a season where he's underwhelming had EQUALLY valid arguments in being patient versus not leaning on trends.

Some put emphasis on observations. Others don't. You pretending that you have a superior understanding of statistics while also focusing on those statistics without context is the superior way to predict, instead of recognizing people have valid observable data and experience to disagree with "the trends" is narrow-minded. And why sometimes people will rightfully get called a "stat watcher."

No, the sides aren't statistically equal in happening. Yet for ALL the data you want to lean on, there are variables that we aren't privy to. People will focus on what they CAN see, and thus may not feel it's a good idea to suggest that a player fits a trend. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating a player or deciding that there's an error in calculating the probability in a certain outcome, provided it's defensible.

We saw it with Vilardi. We are seeing it with Byfield. Is that understandable? Or do you have more statistics and probability lectures for us poor plebs who prefer to make predictions based on observations?

Edit: FFS I was literally just trying to be glib in talking about how people made their own decisions on projecting a player and it's become this bullshit of "I understand statistics better than you."

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Most of the people here being “bullish” on these prospects are simply doing so from the position of historical precedent.

Of course there are prospects who buck historical precedent. That doesn’t suddenly invalidate the historical precedent.

I don't give a shit what the reason is--though plenty had very valid and reasonable thoughts on Vilardi.

My point was, and is, if three years from now Byfield is ripping it up and you come here to say "no one was ever high on him anyway" you'd better damn well believe I'm going to go uh f***ing excuse me?

Before this season we had plenty of posters ready to dump Vilardi and suggest he was a waiver bust while more than a few of us were saying he's closer to a 60 point player than a bust but here we are with people completely dismissing our now clearly valid beliefs? f*** that.

So when it comes to Byfield, if you disagree with me, that's cool. I'm fine with that. But don't act like I never held this viewpoint.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I don't give a shit what the reason is--though plenty had very valid and reasonable thoughts on Vilardi.

My point was, and is, if three years from now Byfield is ripping it up and you come here to say "no one was ever high on him anyway" you'd better damn well believe I'm going to go uh f***ing excuse me?

Before this season we had plenty of posters ready to dump Vilardi and suggest he was a waiver bust while more than a few of us were saying he's closer to a 60 point player than a bust but here we are with people completely dismissing our now clearly valid beliefs? f*** that.

So when it comes to Byfield, if you disagree with me, that's cool. I'm fine with that. But don't act like I never held this viewpoint.

Posters were right to label Vilardi as a waiver bust based on every rational metric we had at the time. The Kings got very lucky with Vilardi. His development curve was absolutely not the norm.

I don’t know why you and others get so contentious about this. It’s just math and odds. You’re the one turning this into a huge personal “f*** you I told you so.”

There are a lot of Vilardi or Kempe truthers on this board, including yourself, who also swore up and down about Scott Parse, or Purcell, or Tukonen, or a whole other laundry list of failed prospects. So why should you accrue all of this credibility for being right on Vilardi but being wrong on other prospects?

You’re the one making this personal. All I do is look at historical trends and align my opinion accordingly. That’s what I did with Vilardi. That’s what I’m doing with Byfield.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

You're ignoring key points which makes the trends irrelevant in Vilardi's case.

Vilardi was unproductive because he missed a couple seasons due to back injury. Do you not see how that differs from other players who are unproductive in their D+5 season?

For one who is so superior in understanding statistics and trends, you conveniently ignore significant variables.

Like I said, many people have made predictions based on previous observations. Those who watched Vilardi beyond cherrypicking a season where he's underwhelming had EQUALLY valid arguments in being patient versus not leaning on trends.

Some put emphasis on observations. Others don't. You pretending that you have a superior understanding of statistics while also focusing on those statistics without context is the superior way to predict, instead of recognizing people have valid observable data and experience to disagree with "the trends" is narrow-minded. And why sometimes people will rightfully get called a "stat watcher."

No, the sides aren't statistically equal in happening. Yet for ALL the data you want to lean on, there are variables that we aren't privy to. People will focus on what they CAN see, and thus may not feel it's a good idea to suggest that a player fits a trend. There's nothing wrong with reevaluating a player or deciding that there's an error in calculating the probability in a certain outcome, provided it's defensible.

We saw it with Vilardi. We are seeing it with Byfield. Is that understandable? Or do you have more statistics and probability lectures for us poor plebs who prefer to make predictions based on observations?

Edit: FFS I was literally just trying to be glib in talking about how people made their own decisions on projecting a player and it's become this bullshit of "I understand statistics better than you."

Vilardi’s injury history was MORE evidence in favor of him busting, not the other way around. Do you know how many prospects fail precisely because of significant back injuries?

I’m not trying to lecture you or condescend. But you’re continuing to mistake the exception for the rule, and that’s what I have an issue with.

 

[FeartheFur]

Byfield is gonna surprise a lot of you guys next year. That’s all I’m going to say.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Posters were right to label Vilardi as a waiver bust based on every rational metric we had at the time. The Kings got very lucky with Vilardi. His development curve was absolutely not the norm.

I don’t know why you and others get so contentious about this. It’s just math and odds. You’re the one turning this into a huge personal “f*** you I told you so.”

There are a lot of Vilardi or Kempe truthers on this board, including yourself, who also swore up and down about Scott Parse, or Purcell, or Tukonen, or a whole other laundry list of failed prospects. So why should you accrue all of this credibility for being right on Vilardi but being wrong on other prospects?

You’re the one making this personal. All I do is look at historical trends and align my opinion accordingly. That’s what I did with Vilardi. That’s what I’m doing with Byfield.

I'm taking it personally because a handful of posters are saying no one was big on Vilardi, an out and out lie. That's it. I'm not attacking anyone who was down on him in any way. Just like I wouldn't hold that against anyone who feels similarly about Byfield.

But clearly, that's not 'all you're doing here,' seeing as you feel the need to defend other posters retroactively motherf***ing those of us who DID stand by the guy in light of historical trends.

None of this was even at you in any way--you're the one who interjected yourself in that part of the conversation.

But hey if you want to go one further and dredge up my post history about other prospects, be my guest, you know I don't run from that stuff, I'm wrong plenty. But I'll defend and stand by my opinion and that's all I'm doing with Vilardi.