Fuzzy Analytics

[The CyNick]

Maybe you don't like analytics because you don't like math?

I got 95% in calculus in university.

 

[saltming]

I got 95% in calculus in university.

Then how did you figure chosing 2 out of 10 is 10%?

 

[The CyNick]

Team has publicly embraced the use of analytic methods in conjunction with highly skilled talent evaluators.

Analytics support the idea that high performing draft re-entries have not been fairly evaluated in the past and represent good value.

Team picks disproportionately high amount of high performing draft re-entries.

Theory: Team used analytic methods in conjunction with highly skilled talent evaluators.


Surely a scholar like yourself is familiar with Occam's Razor?

I'm also familiar with the term false narrative.

Why only pick one of the ten DEV guys? Maybe they were never looked at, which would mean DEV wasn't used initially. Or maybe they were looked at and NINETY PERCENT didn't pass the eye test. Heck of an awesome system that DEV is.

Should we expect going forward that we continue to draft many overagers? Or was this a one time strategy? What happened to the previous year strategy of picking small skilled players? I guess last year's analytics was small skilled guys are the wave of the future. But now is overagers. Next year it'll be kids who owned red bikes.

You sure the real occams razor is that we have our scouts look at guys and we pick BPA?

 

[The CyNick]

Then how did you figure chosing 2 out of 10 is 10%?

We only picked one. Anaheim took the other guy if I recall correctly. We could have had him too, but clearly we didn't think he was worth a pick.

 

[4thline]

I'm also familiar with the term false narrative.

Why only pick one of the ten DEV guys? Maybe they were never looked at, which would mean DEV wasn't used initially. Or maybe they were looked at and NINETY PERCENT didn't pass the eye test. Heck of an awesome system that DEV is.

Should we expect going forward that we continue to draft many overagers? Or was this a one time strategy? What happened to the previous year strategy of picking small skilled players? I guess last year's analytics was small skilled guys are the wave of the future. But now is overagers. Next year it'll be kids who owned red bikes.

You sure the real occams razor is that we have our scouts look at guys and we pick BPA?

Will we continue drafting them? That depends. As with drafting the undersized guys that depends. If other teams start doing it do it too that would raise their expected draft position and make it less likely that they're the best pick available at a given slot. And that's the bottom line, picking the best available player at each slot. Not following a strategy blindly but using a hybrid of all resources at our disposal to pick the best players. Scarier than the black and white world you want to paint things as I know.

 

[saltming]

We only picked one. Anaheim took the other guy if I recall correctly. We could have had him too, but clearly we didn't think he was worth a pick.

Ahh I see.
Sorry I thought you were talking in general and not lefs specific.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

Ahh I see.
Sorry I thought you were talking in general and not lefs specific.

Look up Sam Steel's stats and compare them with Adam Brooks stats ...

 

[The CyNick]

Ahh I see.
Sorry I thought you were talking in general and not lefs specific.

Mistakes happen. It's how we improve after making the mistake that is key.

 

[saltming]

Mistakes happen. It's how we improve after making the mistake that is key.

The hard part is seeing and admitting we have made a mistake.

 

[Menzinger]

Why do you assume they used the analytics to identify any of the players? Do you know that they scouted all ten of those guys? Why stop at the top 10? Isn't it possible they had their eye on Brooks going back to last year, saw he improved throughout the year and picked him? Why do we assume this DEV analysis was the starting point?

Because the team didn't hire Dubas an an entire department of analytics guys to not use stats.

Also, Mirtle has reported most of the scouts fired during Shanahan's culling of the front office were let go for not getting on board with the use of stats to help supplement their analysis.

 

[The CyNick]

Because the team didn't hire Dubas an an entire department of analytics guys to not use stats.

Also, Mirtle has reported most of the scouts fired during Shanahan's culling of the front office were let go for not getting on board with the use of stats to help supplement their analysis.

I don't believe for a second any reporter knows why scouts were let go. In any company, when new mgmt is brought in, they want to bring in their own people. Shanny is no different. Doesn't mean analytics was the litmus test. Mirtle has to write something, so the analytics bit fits the narrative of the day. It's also well documented that the Leafs don't let a lot of info out. Hard to imagine you can't pick up a thread on a trade, but you've got ears in exit interviews.

At no point have I said I don't believe analytics are used. I just don't think analytics is driving the bus. My GUESS with Brooks is our scouts watched him last year, the same guys saw him this year. They flagged him as a mid round pick if available based on YoY progression. Possibly within there they ran it by Dubas and he may have referenced the DEV numbers. After the real hockey people shook off the glazed look in their eyes, they had some additional people put eyes on him in the W and put him on the list.

 

[Menzinger]

I don't believe for a second any reporter knows why scouts were let go. In any company, when new mgmt is brought in, they want to bring in their own people. Shanny is no different. Doesn't mean analytics was the litmus test. Mirtle has to write something, so the analytics bit fits the narrative of the day. It's also well documented that the Leafs don't let a lot of info out. Hard to imagine you can't pick up a thread on a trade, but you've got ears in exit interviews.

At no point have I said I don't believe analytics are used. I just don't think analytics is driving the bus. My GUESS with Brooks is our scouts watched him last year, the same guys saw him this year. They flagged him as a mid round pick if available based on YoY progression. Possibly within there they ran it by Dubas and he may have referenced the DEV numbers. After the real hockey people shook off the glazed look in their eyes, they had some additional people put eyes on him in the W and put him on the list.

Well, it IS the job of reporters to find out information not known to the public at large...

Again, it's illogical to assume stats aren't playing a LARGE role in scouting based on the amount of money the team has invested and the personnel they've hired.

And nobody has ever claimed stats would be the only thing they use in player evaluation, but it clearly plays a role.

 

[The CyNick]

Well, it IS the job of reporters to find out information not known to the public at large...

Again, it's illogical to assume stats aren't playing a LARGE role in scouting based on the amount of money the team has invested and the personnel they've hired.

And nobody has ever claimed stats would be the only thing they use in player evaluation, but it clearly plays a role.

Right, it's their job to find trade rumors too. And many have said the Leafs are fort knox. So how does he know what is said in exit interviews?

How much money have they sunk into analytics? What % is it of total hockey ops costs? I think you're making some wild leaps there.

Never said it didn't play a role. The amount of role is up for debate. I don't see the evidence that it's the primary focus.

 

[The CyNick]

Will we continue drafting them? That depends. As with drafting the undersized guys that depends. If other teams start doing it do it too that would raise their expected draft position and make it less likely that they're the best pick available at a given slot. And that's the bottom line, picking the best available player at each slot. Not following a strategy blindly but using a hybrid of all resources at our disposal to pick the best players. Scarier than the black and white world you want to paint things as I know.

Best player available based on the eye test is my world.

 

[diceman934]

I don't believe for a second any reporter knows why scouts were let go. In any company, when new mgmt is brought in, they want to bring in their own people. Shanny is no different. Doesn't mean analytics was the litmus test. Mirtle has to write something, so the analytics bit fits the narrative of the day. It's also well documented that the Leafs don't let a lot of info out. Hard to imagine you can't pick up a thread on a trade, but you've got ears in exit interviews.

At no point have I said I don't believe analytics are used. I just don't think analytics is driving the bus. My GUESS with Brooks is our scouts watched him last year, the same guys saw him this year. They flagged him as a mid round pick if available based on YoY progression. Possibly within there they ran it by Dubas and he may have referenced the DEV numbers. After the real hockey people shook off the glazed look in their eyes, they had some additional people put eyes on him in the W and put him on the list.

The Leafs hired Dale Derkatch at the end of August last year.....he loved his game then and obviously still does. Dale is an eye test Scout.....and obvious would use other tools to confirm his opinion, and to add so is Hunter!