Ray Kinsella
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2018
- 2,105
- 955
I'm not sure how your question is posed in the context of my post.Including the making of the propaganda video?
I'm not sure how your question is posed in the context of my post.Including the making of the propaganda video?
What it comes down to for me is, if you can get anything of value for Ceci then you have to do it. Sooner or later, other GMs are going to realize how poor he is. Who cares about replacing his minutes. They're bad minutes anyway.
As for Boro, simply getting rid of him for nothin would make our team better.
people have already realized how poor he is... his name was mentioned in deas for Drouin, Duchene and taylor hall... now his name isn't mentioned at allWhat it comes down to for me is, if you can get anything of value for Ceci then you have to do it. Sooner or later, other GMs are going to realize how poor he is. Who cares about replacing his minutes. They're bad minutes anyway.
As for Boro, simply getting rid of him for nothin would make our team better.
I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious
Or people just disagree that he's completely atrocious.
Ceci? Yeah he's on his own island.I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious
I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious
Nothing shameful about posting about shot impact/supression values over a single game. Maybe everyone would like it more if it fit their Boro sucks narrative. Formenton had a couple weak shots and didn't prevent many so he's considered dull. Until next game!Ugh... don't want to get into player evaluation here, but that chart is embarrassing. I'd be ashamed if I had produced it
.
Nothing shameful about posting about shot impact/supression values over a single game. Maybe everyone would like it more if it fit their Boro sucks narrative. Formenton had a couple weak shots and didn't prevent many so he's considered dull. Until next game!
It’s just one number. But ceci really WAS bad. It’s not like “wow this chart is lying ceci in fact was good”. He was bad in this one particular stat and how he looked at it. But he was also terribleUgh... don't want to get into player evaluation here, but that chart is embarrassing. I'd be ashamed if I had produced it
1. He chose to use shots on his axis labels even though the data is corsi or shot attempts. Why not use one of the already widely accepted terms instead of an alternate definition of shots? Nitpicking on my part, but just starts off on the wrong foot imo.
2. The data is adjusted shot attempt counts and not rates. Ok, so I guess you can argue rates could be misleading particularly with no context data incorporated... But,
3. He labelled the corners as good bad, fun and dull. This would be ok had he gone with rates, but because he used counts instead the whole chart becomes wildly misleading: Ceci isn't on an island, he just got a lot more mins than Boro and Wideman, Formenton' s numbers are actually far more concerning, but that doesn't show up. Dmen and forwards all blend into the picture despite Dmen typically having significantly more ice time.
Two big thumbs down for poor execution by mccurdy. Terrible chart imo.
Is just a chart rating shots though, the shots taken we're dull or bad, or the shots they prevented we're dull or bad not their actual overall play? I tend to focus more on the good or bad part while looking at the chart than the dull or bad.Nothing wrong with posting shot values, but there is with the way he presented them, the chart is misleading at best. My issues with it have nothing to do with how it represents players I like or dislike, it has everything to do with how it systemically misrepresents players "dull" or "fun" style based on how many minutes they played. It was poorly made, and results in faulty impressions.
It’s just one number. But ceci really WAS bad. It’s not like “wow this chart is lying ceci in fact was good”. He was bad in this one particular stat and how he looked at it. But he was also terrible
Is just a chart rating shots though, the shots taken we're dull or bad, or the shots they prevented we're dull or bad not their actual overall play? I tend to focus more on the good or bad part while looking at the chart than the dull or bad.
I'm still not following what the heck you mean. The chart had quadrants labelled as Dull, Fun, Good and Bad, but those just represent how many shots were taken with a guy on the ice given the x an y axis. There's nothing qualitative about the data, it's all quantitative.Meant dull or fun* on the chart. I should have just posted a diagram where shots we're taken from.
What about the big red line..the lines full positive or negative is towards the good or bad corners... shouldnt we focus more on good vs bad than dull vs fun according to chart?I'm still not following what the heck you mean. The chart had quadrants labelled as Dull, Fun, Good and Bad, but those just represent how many shots were taken with a guy on the ice given the x an y axis. There's nothing qualitative about the data, it's all quantitative.
What about the big red line..the lines full positive or negative is towards the good or bad corners... shouldnt we focus more on good vs bad than dull vs fun according to chart?
I thought it just illustrates what the title suggest, 5 on 5 shots that are score adjusted. Wasn't aware that corsi was involved.Fine, then just post CF% because apparently that's all you want to focus on... problem is the chart is visually deceptive in that high event players (or whatever the heck we want to call them, because it's skewed by icetime) end up appearing farther away from the big red line. The chart is terrible. I don't need a misleading chart to tell me who had poor CF%
Let me frame it this way, what does the chart do to make the data more illustrative of how the game occurred?
- It does a poor job of illustrating players relative CF% (because the higher you go along either axis, the greater visual distance from the baseline)
- It does a poor job of displaying players relative shot production/suppression (because it doesn't account for time on ice)
So what exactly is the chart accomplishing?
I thought it just illustrates what the title suggest, 5 on 5 shots that are score adjusted. Wasn't aware that corsi was involved.