Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[bleedblue1223]

Let's not compare ourselves to a team that exceeded expectations. Instead let' compare ourselves to one who vastly underperformed expectations. I got to hand it to you, that is one hell of a glass half-full approach.

I'm saying it's incredibly stupid to base how you performed in the season based on how other teams you either expected to be around or expected to be behind. Winnipeg having a great year or Jersey having a terrible year doesn't change how our season went. I'm not familiar with every model out there, but I'd bet we outperformed all or most of them. We ended the year about where they would've hoped, as a bubble playoff team, with certainly room for improvement.

Again, I'm saying it would be idiotically stupid for someone to say we had a great seasone because we finished ahead of a team that was expected to compete for the President's Trophy. And where were the expectations of us competing with Dallas?

 

[bleedblue1223]

By that measure, why ever take any risk because there's potential downside? Nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes. Once upon a time, Bruce Springsteen's live album. Also once upon a time, showing up on Oprah's show for anything made you tens of millions of dollars at a minimum. Maybe today, Taylor Swift dropping new tracks and making billions upon billions of dollars. Maybe also that the Kardashians are never f***ing going away, no matter how annoying they get and how much people become omfg, stfu about them, no one f***ing cares.

If Armstrong is as good as people claim, the Buffalo scenario isn't happening. If he's not and it does, ... well, then we'll all know, won't we. You set up your best plan, try to execute on it as well as possible, adjust it if/when needed based on how events play out. You don't create a plan, decide you're sticking to it no matter what, and if the iceberg is dead ahead you ram right f***ing through it because I GOTTA PLAN, GODDAMNIT, I AIN'T BUDGING!

It's not an all or nothing. I understand you and others here hate Armstrong and potentially hate Stillman and twist every possible thing to put their words and actions into the most negative light as possible. If the ultimate risk/reward option is burning it to the ground and praying that you get a McDavid, Bedard, etc., and the low risk/reward option is not trading away anyone and adding prime aged players to try and get back to the playoffs, I'd say we are taking a middle of the road approach, and we'll see what happens. We've drafted well, we've added a lot of picks for last draft and this one, granted all from the 2023 deadline, and a Buchnevich move is still possible.

While we don't have Heiskanen, it's not unreasonable to be able to do what Dallas was able to accomplish. Draft our own versions of Robertson, Harley, Johnston, Hintz, and fill the gaps in with vets. It seems like some here think the only option is to tank, and that's not true, and tanking doesn't even guarantee success.

 

[Celtic Note]

Sounds like you just don’t want to hear the truth. He is 1000% correct though. The attendance falls below 10k a night if they actually rebuild and run into a SJ situation. This org could not handle that for 5+ years and he knows that. I am standing in Legrands right now waiting on a sandwich. You know how many people have any St. Louis Blues attire on? 0. There is more city attire on than Blues.

The two worst years of our last rebuild was 14,200 and 12,500 respectively, not sub 10k. And, that was after the fan base got pissed about gutting a competitive team for no other reason then selling.

Legrands apparel wearing as a litmus test for Blues fandom is bizarre. I would care for one of their sandwiches however.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's not an all or nothing. I understand you and others here hate Armstrong and potentially hate Stillman

Let's start setting the record straight here.

I don't hate Armstrong. I just think he's a crappy GM who's failed upwards, who absolutely lucked into winning a Cup, who thinks because he won a Cup it validates what a genius he thinks he is and so everything else he thinks up is great because once upon a time, he won something.

I also think he has no f***ing clue what an "actuary table" is or how to use confidence intervals, but ... self-deluded genius, so it's really not a surprise.

I also don't hate Stillman either. I'm fine with him. I just think he is way too deferential to Armstrong, to the point that it's caused some of what's going on today and it's consolidated more and more decision-making power over the organization in the hands of one individual. Which, I don't need an owner to be completely involved in the day-to-day events of running a team, but I do want an owner who knows how to say the word 'no' on occasion.

and twist every possible thing to put their words and actions into the most negative light as possible.

When someone says they have an "actuary table" that tells when someone is going to play their 11th game, 50th game, 100th game, whatever, and that it can say that within 15%, plus or minus even for guys on other teams around the league, and I'm an actuary who deals with statistics and understand what actuarial tables are and how confidence intervals work, ... well, he's pretty much doing all the work himself and all I have to do is point out the absurdity of it.

Which, I will. Repeatedly. And I'll mock the ever loving shit out of it.

If the ultimate risk/reward option is burning it to the ground and praying that you get a McDavid, Bedard, etc., and the low risk/reward option is not trading away anyone and adding prime aged players to try and get back to the playoffs, I'd say we are taking a middle of the road approach, and we'll see what happens.

The is the same straw-man argument Armstrong suggested.

We've drafted well, we've added a lot of picks for last draft and this one, granted all from the 2023 deadline, and a Buchnevich move is still possible.

We think we've drafted well. Hope we've drafted well. It remains to be seen if that's really the case.

While we don't have Heiskanen, it's not unreasonable to be able to do what Dallas was able to accomplish. Draft our own versions of Robertson, Harley, Johnston, Hintz, and fill the gaps in with vets. It seems like some here think the only option is to tank, and that's not true, and tanking doesn't even guarantee success.

1. Maybe you should go read what others are actually saying, instead of taking a distorted view of it and running off like it's accurate. Or, maybe you should ask others what they really mean instead of presuming you know what they mean and running off like it's accurate.

2. Heiskanen was a 3rd overall pick in 2017. We can discuss where everyone else was drafted or who drafted them [there are 11 1st-round picks on the Dallas roster, 6 of which were Dallas picks], and we can talk about how Jason Robertson was a 2nd round steal and Roope Hintz was a 2nd round steal, but
* You gotta have someone who's a bedrock pick to build from,
* It's easier to find that guy higher in the draft than lower,
* Trying to straddle the playoff line and break above it more often than not makes it more difficult to find that guy later in the draft, and so
* You're relying on your scouting staff to be so much better than other teams that it can find those mid-to-late 1st, mid-to-late 2nd round gems
* Dallas tried the "limp it along" approach for years before finally having that "bottom out" season in 2017, which still required winning the lottery to move up from 7 to 3, and
* Within 2 seasons they were playing us in the 2nd round and stretching us to 7 games, then playing in the Finals the following season.

As this roster stands, we've got like 87 forward prospects who allegedly have top-6 potential but no one - not even Lindstein - who is clearly a future 1D or even has the potential where you'd say "there's a better than 50/50 chance he's our future 1D." You're hoping you got a steal at 29 with him, you're hoping he develops into a 1D, but that day is still 3 years, 4 years out at best. By that point, the forward corps might be early in its prime, maybe into its prime, but the defense is going to largely need to be rebuilt and our pieces are Lindstein and Buchinger whose max upside is 3/4 [I'd bet the '4' part of that]. We sure has hell don't have a Heiskanen and Harley in the system at the moment, at best Lindstein explodes into Heiskanen and we draft our Harley this year ... and again, we're still talking 3-4 years for them to make an impact, best-case.

Which, that can very easily make this a limp it along process that drags out for years and we're hoping we strike magic with a draft pick along the way ... which, as you pointed out when disparaging any rebuild case, has no guarantee of success. Give me the scenario that has a higher chance of success, let me work with it and try to maximize opportunities / minimize problems, instead of even a "middle of the road" approach that's still somewhat low-risk, low-reward hope it goes off-the-charts, off-the-actuary-table great.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Let's start setting the record straight here.

I don't hate Armstrong. I just think he's a crappy GM who's failed upwards, who absolutely lucked into winning a Cup, who thinks because he won a Cup it validates what a genius he thinks he is and so everything else he thinks up is great because once upon a time, he won something.

I also think he has no f***ing clue what an "actuary table" is or how to use confidence intervals, but ... self-deluded genius, so it's really not a surprise.

I also don't hate Stillman either. I'm fine with him. I just think he is way too deferential to Armstrong, to the point that it's caused some of what's going on today and it's consolidated more and more decision-making power over the organization in the hands of one individual. Which, I don't need an owner to be completely involved in the day-to-day events of running a team, but I do want an owner who knows how to say the word 'no' on occasion.


When someone says they have an "actuary table" that tells when someone is going to play their 11th game, 50th game, 100th game, whatever, and that it can say that within 15%, plus or minus even for guys on other teams around the league, and I'm an actuary who deals with statistics and understand what actuarial tables are and how confidence intervals work, ... well, he's pretty much doing all the work himself and all I have to do is point out the absurdity of it.

Which, I will. Repeatedly. And I'll mock the ever loving shit out of it.


The is the same straw-man argument Armstrong suggested.


We think we've drafted well. Hope we've drafted well. It remains to be seen if that's really the case.


1. Maybe you should go read what others are actually saying, instead of taking a distorted view of it and running off like it's accurate. Or, maybe you should ask others what they really mean instead of presuming you know what they mean and running off like it's accurate.

2. Heiskanen was a 3rd overall pick in 2017. We can discuss where everyone else was drafted or who drafted them [there are 11 1st-round picks on the Dallas roster, 6 of which were Dallas picks], and we can talk about how Jason Robertson was a 2nd round steal and Roope Hintz was a 2nd round steal, but
* You gotta have someone who's a bedrock pick to build from,
* It's easier to find that guy higher in the draft than lower,
* Trying to straddle the playoff line and break above it more often than not makes it more difficult to find that guy later in the draft, and so
* You're relying on your scouting staff to be so much better than other teams that it can find those mid-to-late 1st, mid-to-late 2nd round gems
* Dallas tried the "limp it along" approach for years before finally having that "bottom out" season in 2017, which still required winning the lottery to move up from 7 to 3, and
* Within 2 seasons they were playing us in the 2nd round and stretching us to 7 games, then playing in the Finals the following season.

As this roster stands, we've got like 87 forward prospects who allegedly have top-6 potential but no one - not even Lindstein - who is clearly a future 1D or even has the potential where you'd say "there's a better than 50/50 chance he's our future 1D." You're hoping you got a steal at 29 with him, you're hoping he develops into a 1D, but that day is still 3 years, 4 years out at best. By that point, the forward corps might be early in its prime, maybe into its prime, but the defense is going to largely need to be rebuilt and our pieces are Lindstein and Buchinger whose max upside is 3/4 [I'd bet the '4' part of that]. We sure has hell don't have a Heiskanen and Harley in the system at the moment, at best Lindstein explodes into Heiskanen and we draft our Harley this year ... and again, we're still talking 3-4 years for them to make an impact, best-case.

Which, that can very easily make this a limp it along process that drags out for years and we're hoping we strike magic with a draft pick along the way ... which, as you pointed out when disparaging any rebuild case, has no guarantee of success. Give me the scenario that has a higher chance of success, let me work with it and try to maximize opportunities / minimize problems, instead of even a "middle of the road" approach that's still somewhat low-risk, low-reward hope it goes off-the-charts, off-the-actuary-table great.

Yes, you think he is a terrible GM, you want him off the team, and you want a GM with a completely different philosophy and style. If we want to split hairs and say you don't actually hate him, but you hate him as a GM, fine, we can leave it at that.

It's not a straw man, it's a reality. If people want to rip the team to the bare bones, you run the risk of it not working and then being f***ed for years. That's a reality of many crappy teams right now.

We have a long track record of drafting well in those areas of the draft. Do you disagree that we've largely been successful as an organization in the mid/late first, early/mid 2nd, and spread throughout the later rounds?

This discussion has been had for years, it's been had when we discuss if Army should be fired or not, it's been discussed anytime Krug has been brought up, it's been discussed anytime trading Buchnevich is brought up, it's been discussed when we were talking trading all the players last season, it was discussed in 18/19 before we went on that run, it's been discussed forever. There is a group here that believes to actually rebuild and not be a Minnesota, you have tear it completely down, so we aren't perpetually stuck in the middle. Part of that group also believes that Army is incapable of doing that and/or that ownership doesn't want to do it. Everyone on this damn board knows this, we've had this same discussion for years.

Now, if you and some others want to bring the snark down a bit, maybe an actual discussion can be had. The way our rebuild is going to be successful is if Dvorsky and we can have a strong 1/2 combo with Thomas. We don't have a Heiskanen, and likely won't, reading comprehension would've served you well here. We can hope and pray that we find a gem on defense, a Slavin, Parayko, Fox, etc., but our next core will likely be forward heavy, with a goalie that out performs the defense, and we'll search for defensive upgrades along the way, similar to how we handled our offense on our Cup run, when we picked up guys like O'Reilly, Schenn, Perron, and even Bozak.

 

[joe galiba]

Let's start setting the record straight here.

I don't hate Armstrong. I just think he's a crappy GM who's failed upwards, who absolutely lucked into winning a Cup, who thinks because he won a Cup it validates what a genius he thinks he is and so everything else he thinks up is great because once upon a time, he won something.

I also think he has no f***ing clue what an "actuary table" is or how to use confidence intervals, but ... self-deluded genius, so it's really not a surprise.

I also don't hate Stillman either. I'm fine with him. I just think he is way too deferential to Armstrong, to the point that it's caused some of what's going on today and it's consolidated more and more decision-making power over the organization in the hands of one individual. Which, I don't need an owner to be completely involved in the day-to-day events of running a team, but I do want an owner who knows how to say the word 'no' on occasion.


When someone says they have an "actuary table" that tells when someone is going to play their 11th game, 50th game, 100th game, whatever, and that it can say that within 15%, plus or minus even for guys on other teams around the league, and I'm an actuary who deals with statistics and understand what actuarial tables are and how confidence intervals work, ... well, he's pretty much doing all the work himself and all I have to do is point out the absurdity of it.

Which, I will. Repeatedly. And I'll mock the ever loving shit out of it.


The is the same straw-man argument Armstrong suggested.


We think we've drafted well. Hope we've drafted well. It remains to be seen if that's really the case.


1. Maybe you should go read what others are actually saying, instead of taking a distorted view of it and running off like it's accurate. Or, maybe you should ask others what they really mean instead of presuming you know what they mean and running off like it's accurate.

2. Heiskanen was a 3rd overall pick in 2017. We can discuss where everyone else was drafted or who drafted them [there are 11 1st-round picks on the Dallas roster, 6 of which were Dallas picks], and we can talk about how Jason Robertson was a 2nd round steal and Roope Hintz was a 2nd round steal, but
* You gotta have someone who's a bedrock pick to build from,
* It's easier to find that guy higher in the draft than lower,
* Trying to straddle the playoff line and break above it more often than not makes it more difficult to find that guy later in the draft, and so
* You're relying on your scouting staff to be so much better than other teams that it can find those mid-to-late 1st, mid-to-late 2nd round gems
* Dallas tried the "limp it along" approach for years before finally having that "bottom out" season in 2017, which still required winning the lottery to move up from 7 to 3, and
* Within 2 seasons they were playing us in the 2nd round and stretching us to 7 games, then playing in the Finals the following season.

As this roster stands, we've got like 87 forward prospects who allegedly have top-6 potential but no one - not even Lindstein - who is clearly a future 1D or even has the potential where you'd say "there's a better than 50/50 chance he's our future 1D." You're hoping you got a steal at 29 with him, you're hoping he develops into a 1D, but that day is still 3 years, 4 years out at best. By that point, the forward corps might be early in its prime, maybe into its prime, but the defense is going to largely need to be rebuilt and our pieces are Lindstein and Buchinger whose max upside is 3/4 [I'd bet the '4' part of that]. We sure has hell don't have a Heiskanen and Harley in the system at the moment, at best Lindstein explodes into Heiskanen and we draft our Harley this year ... and again, we're still talking 3-4 years for them to make an impact, best-case.

Which, that can very easily make this a limp it along process that drags out for years and we're hoping we strike magic with a draft pick along the way ... which, as you pointed out when disparaging any rebuild case, has no guarantee of success. Give me the scenario that has a higher chance of success, let me work with it and try to maximize opportunities / minimize problems, instead of even a "middle of the road" approach that's still somewhat low-risk, low-reward hope it goes off-the-charts, off-the-actuary-table great.

Really?
because he borrows the term "actuary table" to describe their internal statistical model he is an idiot?


and metaphorically he is talking about the birth, life, and death of NHL careers so...

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's not a straw man, it's a reality. If people want to rip the team to the bare bones, you run the risk of it not working and then being f***ed for years. That's a reality of many crappy teams right now.

No one here is saying "let's go for 50 points and do that for 4-5 years." That's the straw man Armstrong lobbed.

We have a long track record of drafting well in those areas of the draft. Do you disagree that we've largely been successful as an organization in the mid/late first, early/mid 2nd, and spread throughout the later rounds?

There's a hell of a lot of parsing to be done there, and I don't have time to go through it all. Maybe someone else will indulge you.

Short: I think there's been relative hits, and there's been relative misses. It by and large averages out, maybe fades a touch into the "better than expected" category but not zomg, this is like a premier scouting unit level.

This discussion has been had for years, it's been had when we discuss if Army should be fired or not, it's been discussed anytime Krug has been brought up, it's been discussed anytime trading Buchnevich is brought up, it's been discussed when we were talking trading all the players last season, it was discussed in 18/19 before we went on that run, it's been discussed forever.

There's ... a whole lot of discussion there. Is there a point?

There is a group here that believes to actually rebuild and not be a Minnesota, you have tear it completely down, so we aren't perpetually stuck in the middle. Part of that group also believes that Army is incapable of doing that and/or that ownership doesn't want to do it. Everyone on this damn board knows this, we've had this same discussion for years.

... OK? Again, is there a point here?

Now, if you and some others want to bring the snark down a bit, maybe an actual discussion can be had.

Right, it's everyone else that's the problem. Everyone else just needs to see your point of view, not the other way around.

The way our rebuild is going to be successful is if Dvorsky and we can have a strong 1/2 combo with Thomas. We don't have a Heiskanen, and likely won't, reading comprehension would've served you well here.

1. I'm glad you were able to "bring the snark down a bit" here.
2. Maybe if you'd have read - which, you've read a ton of posts, you've attempted to summarize the thoughts of others - you'd have comprehended that to be a top team you have to have a guy like Pietrangelo. Or Heiskanen. Or whoever is going to fill the "legitimate 1D" spot. Which, if you don't, then this entire comment:

We can hope and pray that we find a gem on defense, a Slavin, Parayko, Fox, etc., but our next core will likely be forward heavy, with a goalie that out performs the defense

is exactly how you end up with a middle-tier team that hugs the playoff line, maybe occasionally rises a decent way above it, but also has seasons where the defense is poor and goaltending can't save it.

Which, is what some of us are trying to avoid, because then you do end up bottoming out and it takes years to get through because you've exhausted what high-end talent you did have, and everything becomes I have faith our scouting staff can find gems which ... let me see if I was able to read and comprehend stuff you've said previously ...

focuses on the upside too much and ignores the risk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No one here is saying "let's go for 50 points and do that for 4-5 years." That's the straw man Armstrong lobbed.

I'll just be direct here, what path do you want to follow, and how what would you do to get there?

There's a hell of a lot of parsing to be done there, and I don't have time to go through it all. Maybe someone else will indulge you.

Short: I think there's been relative hits, and there's been relative misses. It by and large averages out, maybe fades a touch into the "better than expected" category but not zomg, this is like a premier scouting unit level.

Here's one analysis that has us as the 8th best drafting team, while only have 1 top 10 pick. As an organization, we've done very well at drafting NHL players, and drafting higer impact players in the mid/late 1st and 2nd.

Ranking the NHL’s best and worst drafting teams since 2007: 16-1

There's ... a whole lot of discussion there. Is there a point?

... OK? Again, is there a point here?


Right, it's everyone else that's the problem. Everyone else just needs to see your point of view, not the other way around.


1. I'm glad you were able to "bring the snark down a bit" here.
2. Maybe if you'd have read - which, you've read a ton of posts, you've attempted to summarize the thoughts of others - you'd have comprehended that to be a top team you have to have a guy like Pietrangelo. Or Heiskanen. Or whoever is going to fill the "legitimate 1D" spot. Which, if you don't, then this entire comment:


is exactly how you end up with a middle-tier team that hugs the playoff line, maybe occasionally rises a decent way above it, but also has seasons where the defense is poor and goaltending can't save it.

Which, is what some of us are trying to avoid, because then you do end up bottoming out and it takes years to get through because you've exhausted what high-end talent you did have, and everything becomes I have faith our scouting staff can find gems which ... let me see if I was able to read and comprehend stuff you've said previously ...

The rest of what you say is mostly nonsense, and I will continue this snark as long as you and @Majorityof1 continue it with me. I like having good faith discussions on here, but I'm fine being an ass if that's how others want to respond. If you don't want have a discussion with me, then you don't have to respond, just know, I'll snarkily respond to responses.

 

[Blueston]

The two worst years of our last rebuild was 14,200 and 12,500 respectively, not sub 10k. And, that was after the fan base got pissed about gutting a competitive team for no other reason then selling.

Legrands apparel wearing as a litmus test for Blues fandom is bizarre. I would care for one of their sandwiches however.

but how many of those tickets were free or reduced? how much did luxury box sales decline? advertising? how long did THOSE take to rebound? not to mention, with failure of bally's we are still working through options for local tv and we need folks to watch that. you and i and the folks on this board will likely continue to watch and follow, but it's the less rabid fans that they need to stay interested.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The two worst years of our last rebuild was 14,200 and 12,500 respectively, not sub 10k. And, that was after the fan base got pissed about gutting a competitive team for no other reason then selling.

Legrands apparel wearing as a litmus test for Blues fandom is bizarre. I would care for one of their sandwiches however.

And my position is that if Army embraces the tank and sells off a bunch of pieces for picks, we'll see attendance numbers of 12.5-15k, and even with just a couple seasons of those numbers, it will have pretty significant long-term impact. And that's not even factoring in the developmental impact on the youth when you load the team with garbage replacements to actually get the team to a tank level bad.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Really?
because he borrows the term "actuary table" to describe their internal statistical model he is an idiot?

He's an idiot for a lot of reasons, which HF doesn't have the bandwidth to cover.

Using the term "actuary table" and the phrase "15%, plus or minus" in relation to it merely underscores it.

and metaphorically he is talking about the birth, life, and death of NHL careers so...

.... that's still not what he's really doing, and I can guarantee his "actuary table" doesn't really do it within 15%, plus or minus, no matter how much he may claim it does, and that it's really not applicable at some individual player level because of .... god, do I want to throw out a few things and see if they show up in some future press conference? Yeah, yeah I do.

1. Data at an aggregate level may have some amount of credibility. Data at an individual level like we're talking for NHL players has zero credibility. It's the same reason you get zero credibility for your driving experience even though you may say I'm a really safe driver, I should have lower rates. OK, your experience in relation to the population as a whole or the cohort to which you belong is miniscule; to give you full credibility means if (when) you are in an accident, we should assign full credibility to it and charge you accordingly. That's ... not how that works. That's not how any of that works.

2. Subsets of data under aggregate level will always have more statistical variance, which impacts future estimates. The more variance, the more unreliable the future estimate.

3. Historical data may still be unreliable for future projections if the events that occurred in history aren't occurring in the future. Or, new events that occur today that didn't occur in history. If sufficient adjustments aren't made - say, addition of teams or shifts in how long players play or the shift post-2005 to younger players, or how players playing games may (does) vary with the performance of the franchise he's a part of, or at least 4 other things I can immediately think of - future projections off the data are going to be inaccurate.

4. Presuming those estimates are within +/- 15% is ... that's probably the funniest part of it all, because the work I do attempts to make estimates within a 95% confidence interval, +/- 5%. Or, a 90% CI within +/- 10%. And, it makes an assumption about the distribution of the data in order to form the correct CI and margin of error. I will bet 5 years' worth of salary Doug has no idea how his data is distributed, or what kind of confidence interval is implied by claiming his actuary table can say someone will play their 11th game, or 50th game, or 100th game, to within 15%, plus or minus.

It's a staggeringly idiotic attempt by Armstrong to show everyone he understands statistics and is using them to inform and make decisions. And, it's not surprising to me at all. And, way too many people are still going to fall for it.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Any proof of a promise that we were meant to compete with Dallas this season?

And that's the frustrating part, we don't have to make shit up to criticize Army. There's a long list that you can criticize Army for.

 

[Blueston]

He's an idiot for a lot of reasons, which HF doesn't have the bandwidth to cover.

Using the term "actuary table" and the phrase "15%, plus or minus" in relation to it merely underscores it.


.... that's still not what he's really doing, and I can guarantee his "actuary table" doesn't really do it within 15%, plus or minus, no matter how much he may claim it does, and that it's really not applicable at some individual player level because of .... god, do I want to throw out a few things and see if they show up in some future press conference? Yeah, yeah I do.

1. Data at an aggregate level may have some amount of credibility. Data at an individual level like we're talking for NHL players has zero credibility. It's the same reason you get zero credibility for your driving experience even though you may say I'm a really safe driver, I should have lower rates. OK, your experience in relation to the population as a whole or the cohort to which you belong is miniscule; to give you full credibility means if (when) you are in an accident, we should assign full credibility to it and charge you accordingly. That's ... not how that works. That's not how any of that works.

2. Subsets of data under aggregate level will always have more statistical variance, which impacts future estimates. The more variance, the more unreliable the future estimate.

3. Historical data may still be unreliable for future projections if the events that occurred in history aren't occurring in the future. Or, new events that occur today that didn't occur in history. If sufficient adjustments aren't made - say, addition of teams or shifts in how long players play or the shift post-2005 to younger players, or how players playing games may (does) vary with the performance of the franchise he's a part of, or at least 4 other things I can immediately think of - future projections off the data are going to be inaccurate.

4. Presuming those estimates are within +/- 15% is ... that's probably the funniest part of it all, because the work I do attempts to make estimates within a 95% confidence interval, +/- 5%. Or, a 90% CI within +/- 10%. And, it makes an assumption about the distribution of the data in order to form the correct CI and margin of error. I will bet 5 years' worth of salary Doug has no idea how his data is distributed, or what kind of confidence interval is implied by claiming his actuary table can say someone will play their 11th game, or 50th game, or 100th game, to within 15%, plus or minus.

It's a staggeringly idiotic attempt by Armstrong to show everyone he understands statistics and is using them to inform and make decisions. And, it's not surprising to me at all. And, way too many people are still going to fall for it.

better he should quote esoteric proprietary models? he is dumming this down for public consumption, which i suspect you already know.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'll just be direct here, what path do you want to follow, and how what would you do to get there?

I offered a thought elsewhere, haven't expanded on it completely because I've been involved in other stuff.

For someone who complains about the reading comprehension of others, I leave it to you to go find it.

The rest of what you say is mostly nonsense, and I will continue this snark as long as you and @Majorityof1 continue it with me.

OK. I mean, if it makes you feel better, do it. Turn it up to 11, for all I care.

More than likely you're just going to bore me at some point, especially when you claim what others say that disagrees with you is nonsense and claim everyone else is using best-case scenarios and ignoring the downside risk when your own suggestions about what to do also use best-case scenarios and ignore downside risk, but ... whatever.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I offered a thought elsewhere, haven't expanded on it completely because I've been involved in other stuff.

For someone who complains about the reading comprehension of others, I leave it to you to go find it.

OK. I mean, if it makes you feel better, do it. Turn it up to 11, for all I care.

More than likely you're just going to bore me at some point, especially when you claim what others say that disagrees with you is nonsense and claim everyone else is using best-case scenarios and ignoring the downside risk when your own suggestions about what to do also use best-case scenarios and ignore downside risk, but ... whatever.

It was mostly nonsense because nothing of substance was provided. Telling that the piece of substance that I provided you decided not to respond to.

 

[Celtic Note]

And my position is that if Army embraces the tank and sells off a bunch of pieces for picks, we'll see attendance numbers of 12.5-15k, and even with just a couple seasons of those numbers, it will have pretty significant long-term impact. And that's not even factoring in the developmental impact on the youth when you load the team with garbage replacements to actually get the team to a tank level bad.

but how many of those tickets were free or reduced? how much did luxury box sales decline? advertising? how long did THOSE take to rebound? not to mention, with failure of bally's we are still working through options for local tv and we need folks to watch that. you and i and the folks on this board will likely continue to watch and follow, but it's the less rabid fans that they need to stay interested.

I am not saying bottoming out won’t hurt. But other franchises are able to do it. If ours cannot, that’s fine, but don’t use the fans as an excuse. Other organizations have go through the drops in attendance, the reduced ticket prices and add revenue too.

I have listened to three interviews over the last two years where Army says St. Louis cannot handle a rebuild or the fans won’t support it. But we as fans have gone through it before and we can again. If the organization cannot, again that’s fine. Stillman and co might not be as loaded as other owners. Again that’s fine. I like rooting for the underdog. I wish Stillman the best because he seems like a good guy and I would rather have him as an owner than some rich douche that thinks he is God’s gift to the world.

But Army, please don’t let the first words out of your mouth be about the fans as to why we won’t rebuild when it’s our owners financial position and GMs desires to not go that route…that’s all I am saying.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

better he should quote esoteric proprietary models? he is dumming this down for public consumption, which i suspect you already know.

1. If he's going to say something, I'd prefer he say something incredibly generic, we have tools we've developed that help us with decision-making, and leave it at that. No one knows what those tools are, he's not giving away any information, but he's also not lobbing phrases and words that very quickly illustrate a gross lack of understanding of what he's talking about and/or an inflated sense of knowledge.

Sure, it could then get into criticizing if those tools work, but since no one would have any clue what those are there's nothing really to say beyond I think whatever tools he says he has don't really work and not ... well, everything I'm going to mock him for over the next forever.

2. No, I don't know that he's "dumming this down for public consumption." It might help if you asked me what I thought he was doing, instead of presuming you think I know what he's doing when you really don't know what I think.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I am not saying bottoming out won’t hurt. But other franchises are able to do it. If ours cannot, that’s fine, but don’t use the fans as an excuse. Other organizations have go through the drops in attendance, the reduced ticket prices and add revenue too.

I have listened to three interviews over the last two years where Army says St. Louis cannot handle a rebuild or the fans won’t support it. But we as fans have gone through it before and we can again. If the organization cannot, again that’s fine. Stillman and co might not be as loaded as other owners. Again that’s fine. I like rooting for the underdog. I wish Stillman the best because he seems like a good guy and I would rather have him as an owner than some rich douche that thinks he is God’s gift to the world.

But Army, please don’t let the first words out of your mouth (on three separate interviews) be about the fans as to why we won’t rebuild when it’s our owners financial position and GMs desires to not go that route…that’s all I am saying.

The fans are apart of that though. It's why tanking as an actual strategy usually isn't what happens, and it's incompetence, where GM/Front Office turnover follows and even the team being sold.

Now, I would agree, there is a bit of politician speak when it comes to the fans. Either you don't believe the fans will show up in a tank, and that's why you don't do the tank, or you have a die-hard base like the Cardinals, where Mo says he owes it to the fans to always put a competitive team on the field as a reason to avoid a rebuild. That is frustrating as a fan.

At least with Army, he's willing to move players when it makes sense. Getting the additional 1sts last season, having an additional 2nd and 3rd this season, and maybe Buchnevich can bring more.

 

[joe galiba]

He's an idiot for a lot of reasons, which HF doesn't have the bandwidth to cover.

Using the term "actuary table" and the phrase "15%, plus or minus" in relation to it merely underscores it.


.... that's still not what he's really doing, and I can guarantee his "actuary table" doesn't really do it within 15%, plus or minus, no matter how much he may claim it does, and that it's really not applicable at some individual player level because of .... god, do I want to throw out a few things and see if they show up in some future press conference? Yeah, yeah I do.

1. Data at an aggregate level may have some amount of credibility. Data at an individual level like we're talking for NHL players has zero credibility. It's the same reason you get zero credibility for your driving experience even though you may say I'm a really safe driver, I should have lower rates. OK, your experience in relation to the population as a whole or the cohort to which you belong is miniscule; to give you full credibility means if (when) you are in an accident, we should assign full credibility to it and charge you accordingly. That's ... not how that works. That's not how any of that works.

2. Subsets of data under aggregate level will always have more statistical variance, which impacts future estimates. The more variance, the more unreliable the future estimate.

3. Historical data may still be unreliable for future projections if the events that occurred in history aren't occurring in the future. Or, new events that occur today that didn't occur in history. If sufficient adjustments aren't made - say, addition of teams or shifts in how long players play or the shift post-2005 to younger players, or how players playing games may (does) vary with the performance of the franchise he's a part of, or at least 4 other things I can immediately think of - future projections off the data are going to be inaccurate.

4. Presuming those estimates are within +/- 15% is ... that's probably the funniest part of it all, because the work I do attempts to make estimates within a 95% confidence interval, +/- 5%. Or, a 90% CI within +/- 10%. And, it makes an assumption about the distribution of the data in order to form the correct CI and margin of error. I will bet 5 years' worth of salary Doug has no idea how his data is distributed, or what kind of confidence interval is implied by claiming his actuary table can say someone will play their 11th game, or 50th game, or 100th game, to within 15%, plus or minus.

It's a staggeringly idiotic attempt by Armstrong to show everyone he understands statistics and is using them to inform and make decisions. And, it's not surprising to me at all. And, way too many people are still going to fall for it.

He isn't the math major, the Blues have actual other employees who actual get paid to put pencil to paper and give him the info in a digestible form that the whole staff can use, and because he generalizes this in an interview does not make him an idiot

the part he is wrong about is the +/- 15%, everyone knows that that everything is +/- 50%

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

but how many of those tickets were free or reduced? how much did luxury box sales decline? advertising? how long did THOSE take to rebound? not to mention, with failure of bally's we are still working through options for local tv and we need folks to watch that. you and i and the folks on this board will likely continue to watch and follow, but it's the less rabid fans that they need to stay interested.

That's my fear. With the Rams leaving, City SC arriving, and the current economic and political climate in the City of St. Louis, I am, for the first time, questioning whether this team would remain viable enough to remain in St. Louis if we were to hit a decade of futility.

 

[Blueston]

1. If he's going to say something, I'd prefer he say something incredibly generic, we have tools we've developed that help us with decision-making, and leave it at that. No one knows what those tools are, he's not giving away any information, but he's also not lobbing phrases and words that very quickly illustrate a gross lack of understanding of what he's talking about and/or an inflated sense of knowledge.

Sure, it could then get into criticizing if those tools work, but since no one would have any clue what those are there's nothing really to say beyond I think whatever tools he says he has don't really work and not ... well, everything I'm going to mock him for over the next forever.

2. No, I don't know that he's "dumming this down for public consumption." It might help if you asked me what I thought he was doing, instead of presuming you think I know what he's doing when you really don't know what I think.

what do you think he was doing?

 

[Brian39]

3. Attendance was technically a sellout this year, because tickets were sold early in the season on the promise this would be a playoff-contending team able to compete with a Dallas, ahead of a Winnipeg. And, because the team is still riding the post-Cup wave. Attendance was also technically a sellout last year, and we all recall late-season games where there were a handful of fans dressed as empty seats.

They also gave tickets away this year, which I haven't seen in quite some time. I got a free ticket for filling out a fan survey (which I gave to a friend because I had a conflict). That was a first for me. Other than a couple 'sorry we messed up your account' tickets I got as a half season-ticket holder, I believe that the last free tickets I got directly from the organization was directly following the lockout.

I also got more emails for ticket deals than I got the last couple years and every time I looked at tickets for games there were more than a few non-resale tickets for sale on Ticketmaster. We may have been at 99.9% attendance this year on paper, but it certainly wasn't from selling all the tickets for face value. That also has a big impact on the bottom line.

 

[Frenzy31]

That's my fear. With the Rams leaving, City SC arriving, and the current economic and political climate in the City of St. Louis, I am, for the first time, questioning whether this team would remain viable enough to remain in St. Louis if we were to hit a decade of futility.

I remember when we were bottoming out the attendance was like 7K. That is crap. Sorry, it is. And this wouldn't be for on year. We would be looking at 5-7 years of complete garbage with attendance that would reflect that. To think otherwise is ignorant to reality,

 

[SirPaste]

Any proof of a promise that we were meant to compete with Dallas this season?

And that's the frustrating part, we don't have to make shit up to criticize Army. There's a long list that you can criticize Army for.

He never said that. He said Dallas and Colorado were at the top and he thought we could compete for that third spot. As he mentioned in the presser yesterday he made those comments thinking the Jets were trading Hellebuyck and Scheifele so the Jets were obviously better than anyone expected because they didn't end up blowing up their roster.

 

[bleedblue1223]

He never said that. He said Dallas and Colorado were at the top and he thought we could compete for that third spot. As he mentioned in the presser yesterday he made those comments thinking the Jets were trading Hellebuyck and Scheifele so the Jets were obviously better than anyone expected because they didn't end up blowing up their roster.

I know, I was making a snarky response to Ted who was alluding to Army blowing smoke up Blues fans asses by saying we could compete with Dallas this past season. Army never made that promise before the season started.