What if we get Dahlin?

[sandviper]

~3 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes to go for the lottery.

 

[WeThreeKings]

~3 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes to go for the lottery.

Game 7 Toronto v. Boston tonight
U-18 quarter-finals, NFL Draft, 2nd round begins tomorrow
Draft lotto on Saturday

SPERTZ

 

[NotProkofievian]

I'm making two points. One is that you shouldn't try to build a cup contender based on how the league was in the past. That's how you overpay for guys like Shaw.

The other is that the premise that previous cup winners didn't need elite D-men is wrong.

I think you should build a team based on how cups were won in the (recent) past, and I don't think that overpaying for Shaw is a symptom of that. If Bergevin were trying to build the hawks, he'd have done as the hawks did and tanked for our Kane and Toews. Bergevin overrated a marginal contributor to the Hawk's success. IMO, that's a distinct idea.

If the cup winners of recent years aren't an example of how to build a team, what is? If you're at all interested in making data driven decisions, you will have to use what happened in the past as your guide.

 

[sandviper]

I'm making two points. One is that you shouldn't try to build a cup contender based on how the league was in the past. That's how you overpay for guys like Shaw.

The other is that the premise that previous cup winners didn't need elite D-men is wrong.

I'd argue a core of elite defencemen can mitigate the need for a true #1 center. Nashville was a good example last year when RyJo got hurt late in the Anaheim series. They still owned the Ducks and I thought they took it to the Pens but Rinne crapped the bed and well, it's Sydney Crosby on the other team. At the same time, no #1 center for Nashville (and a beaten up top-6 forward group) was a factor.

And that is also my point about the Pens last year. Letang was hurt, but Murray was awesome as usual. However, the difference was Crosby. Your center crew has to be beyond awesome to compensate for a lack of elite defencemen. I am not sure if Pittsburgh wins without Letang AND Crosby, though they still got Malkin.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I think you should build a team based on how cups were won in the (recent) past, and I don't think that overpaying for Shaw is a symptom of that. If Bergevin were trying to build the hawks, he'd have done as the hawks did and tanked for our Kane and Toews. Bergevin overrated a marginal contributor to the Hawk's success. IMO, that's a distinct idea.

If the cup winners of recent years aren't an example of how to build a team, what is? If you're at all interested in making data driven decisions, you will have to use what happened in the past as your guide.

That's fine, but there's a difference between saying that this team one by having X elite player in this position and Y elite player at that position or that a team one by out-skating or out-muscling opponents. Or even saying that Bergevin should tank to get players like Chicago, as the rules that Chicago drafted under are no longer in place. To be clearer than I was in previous posts, you can't just look at what other teams did.

It does not require looking at previous cup winners to conclude that more truly elite players =better. If we're being data driven, its about figuring out how to optimize assets and proper evaluation of what different players contribute to winning. And while previous cup winners are a useful for determining what has worked, its more important to be able to identify what league-wide weaknesses you can exploit in the present and future.

 

[NotProkofievian]

That's fine, but there's a difference between saying that this team one by having X elite player in this position and Y elite player at that position or that a team one by out-skating or out-muscling opponents. Or even saying that Bergevin should tank to get players like Chicago, as the rules that Chicago drafted under are no longer in place. To be clearer than I was in previous posts, you can't just look at what other teams did.

It does not require looking at previous cup winners to conclude that more truly elite players =better. If we're being data driven, its about figuring out how to optimize assets and proper evaluation of what different players contribute to winning. And while previous cup winners are a useful for determining what has worked, its more important to be able to identify what league-wide weaknesses you can exploit in the present and future.

Sure, but to do that, in broad-strokes, you will take teams that are winners, and look at their players for common statistical patterns. How you set up any inference problem is you have some variable to be explained (cup winning), and some explanatory variables (things that these cup winners share). From a very high level point of view, that's really all you can do.

Where you get into trouble is if you draw spurious conclusions from the explanatory variables. Like, Shaw was on a cup winner, therefore he will contribute to us winning a cup. That's clearly likely to be bullshit. However, observing that every single cup winning team since the lockout had at least one elite #1 C probably can't be sensibly ignored.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Sure, but to do that, in broad-strokes, you will take teams that are winners, and look at their players for common statistical patterns. How you set up any inference problem is you have some variable to be explained (cup winning), and some explanatory variables (things that these cup winners share). From a very high level point of view, that's really all you can do.

If you want to play catch-up, sure. Or you can do things like use data and look at Staal's elite ability to generate shots and scoring chances and take a chance on him. Or identify that the lesser scouting presence and KHL fear created an opportunity to get very talented Russians lower in the draft. Or exploit the size obsession from the Chicago/LA era. Or try to find chronically undervalued players and lock them up.

Where you get into trouble is if you draw spurious conclusions from the explanatory variables. Like, Shaw was on a cup winner, therefore he will contribute to us winning a cup. That's clearly likely to be bull****. However, observing that every single cup winning team since the lockout had at least one elite #1 C probably can't be sensibly ignored.

There's more to it than the bolded. Even teams that are old school go way more in depth. Shaw was considered a "player that helps you win the cup" because when he's healthy he's relentless, and is very good at getting into dirty areas. Every cup winning team in recent history has had several guys like that. How much they should be valued is the question.

You don't need to look at cup winners to know that an elite C will help a team win the cup. That's not even a valuable observation. Crosby is not Toews is not Kopitar is not Bergeron is not Datsyuk. Its more about how best to construct a roster and

Literally everyone knows you want an elite or near elite center and D-man, plus strong depth and a goalie that can steal multiple games for you. The question is, which pieces will be more important in the future.

 

[NotProkofievian]

If you want to play catch-up, sure. Or you can do things like use data and look at Staal's elite ability to generate shots and scoring chances and take a chance on him. Or identify that the lesser scouting presence and KHL fear created an opportunity to get very talented Russians lower in the draft. Or exploit the size obsession from the Chicago/LA era. Or try to find chronically undervalued players and lock them up.

No, that's how you do inference, period. You have something to explain, and you try to explain it with things you can observe. In your first example, you first need to argue that shot creation ability is important to winning a stanley cup. How you will do that is by taking a look at cup winners, and seeing if their top players generate more shots than others, and just how important it is that they do so.

There's more to it than the bolded. Even teams that are old school go way more in depth. Shaw was considered a "player that helps you win the cup" because when he's healthy he's relentless, and is very good at getting into dirty areas. Every cup winning team in recent history has had several guys like that. How much they should be valued is the question.

You don't need to look at cup winners to know that an elite C will help a team win the cup. That's not even a valuable observation. Crosby is not Toews is not Kopitar is not Bergeron is not Datsyuk. Its more about how best to construct a roster and

Literally everyone knows you want an elite or near elite center and D-man, plus strong depth and a goalie that can steal multiple games for you. The question is, which pieces will be more important in the future.

You need to look at some team and their players to know what is making them win: period. I can't comprehend how you're not agreeing with this statement. What you seem to be suggesting is that we just assume we already know what we need, and use raw data to see who fits that assumption the best. That's not statistical inference though. It's not any better than an eye test, to be honest.

Moreover, you're sort of all over the place with this ''what worked in the past won't necessarily work in the present'' thing. Either that's the case, and you shouldn't give a shit about Eric Staal's shot generation ability, or it's not, and the past has some predictive power for the future.

You just seem to be strangely against learning from the example of cup winning teams for whatever reason.

 

[Captain Mountain]

No, that's how you do inference, period. You have something to explain, and you try to explain it with things you can observe. In your first example, you first need to argue that shot creation ability is important to winning a stanley cup. How you will do that is by taking a look at cup winners, and seeing if their top players generate more shots than others, and just how important it is that they do so.



You need to look at some team and their players to know what is making them win: period. I can't comprehend how you're not agreeing with this statement. What you seem to be suggesting is that we just assume we already know what we need, and use raw data to see who fits that assumption the best. That's not statistical inference though. It's not any better than an eye test, to be honest.

Moreover, you're sort of all over the place with this ''what worked in the past won't necessarily work in the present'' thing. Either that's the case, and you shouldn't give a **** about Eric Staal's shot generation ability, or it's not, and the past has some predictive power for the future.

You just seem to be strangely against learning from the example of cup winning teams for whatever reason.

Let me be even clearer than previous clarification, since it seems like you've completely misunderstood my position. You can't just look at previous cup winners to figure out what you need. You can't just say, oh, all the previous cup winners had an elite #1C, we need one too.

There's a significant difference between looking at previous cup winners rosters and replicating what they did vs. using how they achieved success to help inform how you're going to achieve success.

When I say:

...you shouldn't try to build a cup contender based on how the league was in the past...

I don't mean, don't look at previous cup winners at all. I'm saying don't try to build a team to win a cup in older competitive landscape.

You seem strangely fixated on disagreeing with a position I don't hold.

 

[PaulD]

~3 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes to go for the lottery.

Ha! yaaaaawn.

I'm looking more forward to my late lunch today. Six oclock news. Walking my dog later this evening after a game 7 and yard work on the week end.

 

[PaulD]

Let me be even clearer than previous clarification, since it seems like you've completely misunderstood my position. You can't just look at previous cup winners to figure out what you need. You can't just say, oh, all the previous cup winners had an elite #1C, we need one too.

There's a significant difference between looking at previous cup winners rosters and replicating what they did vs. using how they achieved success to help inform how you're going to achieve success.

When I say:



I don't mean, don't look at previous cup winners at all. I'm saying don't try to build a team to win a cup in older competitive landscape.

You seem strangely fixated on disagreeing with a position I don't hold.

and don't even consider getting close to a cup without a top flight center on the "go to line"

 

[Scintillating10]

Generational blueliner like Dahlin will be what we need. Boqvist may also do it. Paired with Weber on entry level contract allows us sign a star center. Also put the Subban trade behind us. As he is much better and 11 years younger.

 

[Simarino]

Generational blueliner like Dahlin will be what we need. Boqvist may also do it. Paired with Weber on entry level contract allows us sign a star center. Also put the Subban trade behind us. As he is much better and 11 years younger.

Sign a star Center?? When is the last star center to hit the ufa market?? I really dont see how we are gonna get an elite 1st line center short term and long term!!

 

[NotProkofievian]

Let me be even clearer than previous clarification, since it seems like you've completely misunderstood my position. You can't just look at previous cup winners to figure out what you need. You can't just say, oh, all the previous cup winners had an elite #1C, we need one too.

There's a significant difference between looking at previous cup winners rosters and replicating what they did vs. using how they achieved success to help inform how you're going to achieve success.

When I say:



I don't mean, don't look at previous cup winners at all. I'm saying don't try to build a team to win a cup in older competitive landscape.

You seem strangely fixated on disagreeing with a position I don't hold.

That sounds an awful lot like distinction without difference, so why don't you go ahead and elucidate, and we'll find out.

 

[PaulD]

Generational blueliner like Dahlin will be what we need. Boqvist may also do it. Paired with Weber on entry level contract allows us sign a star center. Also put the Subban trade behind us. As he is much better and 11 years younger.

Generational blue liner will be what what we need to be what exactly ? The Ottawa Senators? ..... Have they not had one for some time?

As long as this GM is running the show........ I dont care if we get Subban back and add Heddon..............without top fight centerman .....TOAST

 

[PaulD]

Sign a star Center?? When is the last star center to hit the ufa market?? I really dont see how we are gonna get an elite 1st line center short term and long term!!

Thats brillians Sherlock. Let me guess. You are basing that on the Montreal Canadiens track record for the last 20 years. lol

You ""dont see how they are gonna get one.....because the are not going to get one.

Their own GM has help press conferences announcing it.

That does not change the fact that to win a Stanley Cup you need a couple.

"You can have results or you can have excuses. You cant have both"

Guess which one MB chooses and works hardest at?

.

 

[Captain Mountain]

That sounds an awful lot like distinction without difference, so why don't you go ahead and elucidate, and we'll find out.

This isn't complex stuff. Replicating a cup winner in the summer of 2014 means Montreal looking for Kopitar level center and bringing in bigger and heavy players.

Looking at how they achieved success is observing how, among other things, they investing in analytics, sold high on guys with inflated value and played a punishing possession game, and used back-diving contracts to optimize their present term cap space. Then take what techniques work best (and still have competitive value) in the current league environment and incorporate in your strategy.

 

[CauZuki]

~3 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes to go for the lottery.

We are going to get boned, attache ta tuque!

 

[NotProkofievian]

This isn't complex stuff. Replicating a cup winner in the summer of 2014 means Montreal looking for Kopitar level center and bringing in bigger and heavy players.

Looking at how they achieved success is observing how, among other things, they investing in analytics, sold high on guys with inflated value and played a punishing possession game, and used back-diving contracts to optimize their present term cap space. Then take what techniques work best (and still have competitive value) in the current league environment and incorporate in your strategy.

Sorry, but there's some slight of hand going on here.

The first point you make about replicating a cup winner is looking for players who fulfilled similar roles. This is apparently something you shouldn't do. There is no reason why you must specify ''big and heavy'' in this analysis, only, though. The phrase which set you off was ''look at previous cup winners.'' Well, indeed, since ''[you're] not saying don't look at previous cup winners'' one can look at previous cup winners in many ways: specifically by analyzing what, if any, statistical trends are more prevalent in cup winners and their players than in non-cup winners. Or in other words:

its about proper evaluation of what different players contribute to winning.

Well, in order to do that, you will have to look at the players who actually won. It's not ''playing catch up.'' It's just how you do the thing. About league environments, you do have to assume some stationarity, but there's a pretty strong argument that league conditions are relatively stationary, with a few abrupt changes every decade or so, and it's based entirely on looking at cup winners: cup winners tend to repeat.

Where the slight of hand comes in is the second point: it's not at all about evaluating which players contribute to your winning (beyond ''investing in analytics''), or what team type of team composition would best accomplish the goal of winning - which was the point that old mate was trying to make originally - but how to optimize team operations. But in order to do that, you need to have a goal, and those goals are what players do we need to fill what roles. In so far as your second point concerns ''proper evaluation of what different players contribute to winning'' any analytics team who knew what they were doing would be doing the exact same process that I described, because that's how analytics work.

It seems like you think that inference and prediction are disjoint tasks. Like, we should be proactive, and attempt to predict how to win. But to predict what will be successful in the future, we need to infer with what sensitivity different players and roles affected a team's success. The prediction will be based on this inference. There's never been a prediction algorithm that didn't do basically this.

P.S. I don't know how you can suggest that we can't tank effectively with the new rules, but we can look at how teams like Chicago used back diving contracts to a competitive advantage with a straight face.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I'd be shocked if Tkachuk isn't playing in the NHL next season. His brother made the NHL as an 18 year old and was basically a 50 point player.

Brady is by all accounts significantly better, will be a year older, and already has experience playing against grown men. Taking this into account I'd be shocked if he wasn't in the NHL next season.

He does have the size to make the transition for sure. Depends on who drafts him IMO. Can’t argue too much about Tkachuk makeing it though. Maybe there is 3 guys who make it. Won’t be extremely surprised if some others do as well but it’s not probable

 

[nhlfan9191]

~3 days, 8 hours and 35 minutes to go for the lottery.

I just want it to be over so we can stop talking about the chances and get back to reality.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Brady better than Matthew? What?

It’s certainly debatable. Look at some of the reports and it says that Brady could end up being better than his brother Matthew. No guarantees but it’s not far fetched

 

[Habs Halifax]

I just want it to be over so we can stop talking about the chances and get back to reality.

60% chance we draft 5th or 6th. 30% chance we grab one of the top 3 spots. That is reality!

Still fun to think about snagging Dahlin as he fits very well with one of our team needs and he could be a game changer. Dream is not crushed yet

 

[VAN-HAB]

I hope we don’t win the lottery, yea I hate Purple Pants that much

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I just want it to be over so we can stop talking about the chances and get back to reality.

If we end up with first it will suck for discussion though lol. At least we can debate different picks at any other spot haha.