Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Agree with most of this — except Sather paid way too much for St. Louis. Said it then and still believe it now.
Player Discussion Adam Fox
- Thread starter Brooklyn Rangers Fan
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, but the Callahan portion of the trade was arguably the biggest win for the Rangers long term.
Could you imagine if they had extended him? It would have been another disaster contract on top of Girardi and Staal.
MSL was supposed to be a big scorer, because he wasn't much of anything else. But all he did was score a whopping 82 points in 137 games for us. That is only 49 point pace over 82 games.
He scored a whopping 15 points in 25 playoff games that season. Callahan would have scored probably about 10 if he remained on the team. So we essentially gave up a 1st rounder + 2nd rounder for 5 more points in a 25 game playoff run and lost the physical and PK presence of Callahan.
He scored a whopping 15 points in 25 playoff games that season. Callahan would have scored probably about 10 if he remained on the team. So we essentially gave up a 1st rounder + 2nd rounder for 5 more points in a 25 game playoff run and lost the physical and PK presence of Callahan.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 44,836
- 40,307
With the power of hindsight, everyone is a HOF general manager.
Martin St Louis was a year removed from winning the Art Ross, and was a P/GP with Tampa the year we traded for him. Nothing indicated his production would dip that quickly.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
#WeNeverGetAPostWithoutHyperbole
Chytilmania
Registered User
- Dec 31, 2017
- 3,943
- 5,784
Yeah I wouldn't say our trades have been bad, at least we had all the right intentions even if some didn't work out well. The issues were the deals Staal and Girardi got.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 44,836
- 40,307
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
EdJovanovski
#RempeForCalder
Lol reading the whole thread he says a whole lot of nothing
These hockey journos are awful
I, on the other hand, thought the thread was excellent. Lots of insight on how players are viewed.
His answer was fox made the nhl after he stopped tracking him, and the model assumed something was wrong with him not in the nhl after d+2.
its a bad answer, and it’ll get exposed by other players who don’t leave school early, or players who leave school early but then don’t thrive after one good year.
pretty dumb reason. first off tons of, if not the majority, of players don't play in the NHL till d+2. second fox didn't want to sign with the flames and then carolina, so its not simply a case of not being good enough. Fox had 40 points in 35 games as a freshman. if we had drafted him, he might have turned pro after that year who knows.
The statistician in me loved that thread. Not only does it give a glimpse of how their model works, but it highlights the inherent flaws of any such model and a reminder not to trust predictions blindly.
For those wondering about the thread, he is not talking about what makes Adam Fox the hockey player unique, but rather what makes Fox's route to NHL unique in the sense that due to lack of data(*) and similar situations his model was unable to predict Fox's success. Out of the 6000 players in their data, nobody had a similar route to Fox... pretty interesting if ultimately useless knowledge.
(*) his model lacked the context of Fox's actions and lumped him in with the spare toys
That's a computational output. It's interesting but I've built more useful ones. What they are doing is trying to apply financial analysis to hockey, and it just doesn't work across the board. It's not a true hockey analysis if it doesn't understand the game. There are certain predictions that are safer bets than others, but I think there is a real lack of sophistication if you don't apply the context of the game itself versus not. I'm getting to a point where I can tell which teams have aces and which ones don't. It's pretty funny
. There's something you can do to really jack up the corsi numbers. Three teams in the league do it and I'm 99% certain they all have one thing in common. There was one team that was confounded about something and to me it's obvious, but if you look at the publicly accepted take on analytics, it will tell you the diametric opposite.
Team level analytics are something else. Pierre was on Chiclets asking for an equation, and I already built it. The player he mentioned right after saying that is number 1 on my list. Most feared in the game. Bar none. Why does a grown man sporting the finest swag jackets cry on national TV about re-signing a player like Gallagher? He's a true top line player. Shows up in the guy you win with category.
Not sure what you mean by "context of the game" that's fairly vague especially when talking about this particular instance.
Fox is unique in his particular model because he is a true top talent and was from his first D+1 season, but basically all of those guys turn pro immediately whereas Fox is the only one who didn't. So, he was just a weird outlier because of his decisions to stay in college instead of turning pro. There's context there but ultimately I'm not sure that's something you can work into a model that doesn't involve some kind of "manual" editing.
That said I'm no statistician, maybe his model is just pretty dumb since it seems to ignore Fox's crazy good college career after he didn't turn pro quickly. Everyone is trying to come up with their own formula that makes them unique. If you've got one that is amazingly better then you should start selling that shit to make yourself a lot of money
Fox is unique in his particular model because he is a true top talent and was from his first D+1 season, but basically all of those guys turn pro immediately whereas Fox is the only one who didn't. So, he was just a weird outlier because of his decisions to stay in college instead of turning pro. There's context there but ultimately I'm not sure that's something you can work into a model that doesn't involve some kind of "manual" editing.
That said I'm no statistician, maybe his model is just pretty dumb since it seems to ignore Fox's crazy good college career after he didn't turn pro quickly. Everyone is trying to come up with their own formula that makes them unique. If you've got one that is amazingly better then you should start selling that shit to make yourself a lot of money
Who says I don't? - It's what you can do with it that matters.
And models are static, there are more advanced outputs than just opening a file and looking at rank. Hockey context is about player utilization, makes a huge difference in winning and losing.
I'll throw another one out there. A team- perhaps out west, or in the east- has one measure that they use. You can call it effort. I know the guy whose dead last. If he's not scoring that night, you're on the losing end when he's out there.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Though crowd. 
It's just a Tweet FFS.
It's just a Tweet FFS.
It's not a scouting report. We've seen Fox play a full season in the NHL, we already know what makes him unique. I essentially only use Twitter to follow hockey nerds, and when they make a fuss about a Ranger, I usually share it here.
Last edited:
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 34,997
- 21,630
People who are smart, but unfortunately overly smart, try to take the fun out of life and sports by quantifying everything.
Let's let science be science, and sport be sport. No one goes to the bar at 7pm and drinks heavily to do science. That's what they do to watch sports.
Let's let science be science, and sport be sport. No one goes to the bar at 7pm and drinks heavily to do science. That's what they do to watch sports.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
How come every time I post something cool about Adam Fox people start throwing hissy fits.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
- Status
