Toughness is measured more in hits and the ability to respond as opposed to punches to the face these days. Komorov, Martin and Polak were all amoung the league leaders in hits last year. They can all take a regular shift and aren't a liability. Toughness on the bench is not tough.
Fuzzy Analytics
- Thread starter saltming
- Start date
Toughness is measured more in hits and the ability to respond as opposed to punches to the face these days. Komorov, Martin and Polak were all amoung the league leaders in hits last year. They can all take a regular shift and aren't a liability. Toughness on the bench is not tough.
*yawn*
Analytics long-ago showed that goals for/goals against isn't as good of a predictor of future success as more advanced stats.
diceman934
Help is on the way.
He said goals for vs goals against in a game....wins vs losses. It is the one stat that is not open for manipulation.
Yes, and? A team's management is interested in making decisions that will help them win future games. For that, they need forward-looking stats.
diceman934
Help is on the way.
You are 100% correct.....it was all the eye test by a former Regina Pat coach and player...Dirk liked him a lot. Dale Derkatch lives in Regina and is a Leaf scout.
diceman934
Help is on the way.
LOL. You're a better man than I. When I get annoyed out of my mind, I have a tendency to post in a way that earns me infractions and gets me banned from threads.
We are over that now! I would like to think that....Now that Dion is gone.....no more thread bands for us
Nithoniniel
Registered User
Edit: As for the rest of the original post I wrote, it's not worth it. No interest in continuing a discussion with someone who only stoop to deflections and childish barbs, instead of trying to participate in an intellectual debate. Such behavior is just childish, and I've learnt that the best way to deal with childishness is just to ignore it.
The feeling is mutual. I am a one-man cheering squad whenever I read one of your posts.
The feeling is mutual. I am a one-man cheering squad whenever I read one of your posts.
Last edited:
blueberrie
Registered User
- Mar 23, 2010
- 2,733
- 404
I think its pretty clear by now The Cynick isnt going to change his mind. Not one bit of stats will be superior to the eye test.
More articles probably wont help cause it sounds like he doesnt even read or try to understand them, and wont ever entertain the thought of how these stats could be useful. As we all know close mindedness is the mark of a scholar.
It still kinda sounds like to him there is grizzled hockey people vs geeks vs gentlemen who youre able to tell from a glance and there is no overlap between them.
More articles probably wont help cause it sounds like he doesnt even read or try to understand them, and wont ever entertain the thought of how these stats could be useful. As we all know close mindedness is the mark of a scholar.
It still kinda sounds like to him there is grizzled hockey people vs geeks vs gentlemen who youre able to tell from a glance and there is no overlap between them.
This was written before the 2016 NHL draft.
2016 NHL Draft – The Top 10 Overage Players Available
Looking forward to the 2016 NHL draft, I ran the DEV numbers for all draft eligible overage players. One player in particular that I want to discuss is Adam Brooks. Brooks is relatively undersized at 5’10, but in his 3rd year of draft eligibility DEV suggests he’s worth selecting with a pick from 28 – 33 overall. Brooks was valued as a pick from 55 - 82 last year, demonstrating two things: 30 NHL teams passed over a prospect worth selecting in the 3rd round with their late round picks last year, and Brooks has improved considerably since last year. Some of Brooks’ successful comparables include players like Claude Giroux, Derek Roy, Ondrej Palat, Patrick O’Sullivan, Martin Erat & Jordan Eberle. I suspect he will not be selected as high as DEV values him, but if he’s available in the mid-rounds, Brooks seems like the obvious candidate to draft if a team is looking for a value selection. Obviously Brooks is not a lock to be a successful NHL player, but DEV indicates that he’s just as likely to be an impact NHL player as any other player who is optimally selected in the top of the 2nd round.
These are the top 10 overage CHL forwards according to DEV:
Conclusion
If you view the NHL as a marketplace, the most undervalued commodity is legitimate NHL prospects who were passed over in their first year of draft eligibility, otherwise known as overage players. Thus, the natural way to game the NHL draft is to exploit the aforementioned inefficiency. DEV exclusively compares players with other prospects in the same year of draft eligibility. As a result, perhaps the most practical usage of DEV is for identifying overage draft eligible prospects and quantifying where they should be selected.
By Zac Urback
diceman934
Help is on the way.
This was written before the 2016 NHL draft.
2016 NHL Draft – The Top 10 Overage Players Available
Looking forward to the 2016 NHL draft, I ran the DEV numbers for all draft eligible overage players. One player in particular that I want to discuss is Adam Brooks. Brooks is relatively undersized at 5’10, but in his 3rd year of draft eligibility DEV suggests he’s worth selecting with a pick from 28 – 33 overall. Brooks was valued as a pick from 55 - 82 last year, demonstrating two things: 30 NHL teams passed over a prospect worth selecting in the 3rd round with their late round picks last year, and Brooks has improved considerably since last year. Some of Brooks’ successful comparables include players like Claude Giroux, Derek Roy, Ondrej Palat, Patrick O’Sullivan, Martin Erat & Jordan Eberle. I suspect he will not be selected as high as DEV values him, but if he’s available in the mid-rounds, Brooks seems like the obvious candidate to draft if a team is looking for a value selection. Obviously Brooks is not a lock to be a successful NHL player, but DEV indicates that he’s just as likely to be an impact NHL player as any other player who is optimally selected in the top of the 2nd round.
These are the top 10 overage CHL forwards according to DEV:
Conclusion
If you view the NHL as a marketplace, the most undervalued commodity is legitimate NHL prospects who were passed over in their first year of draft eligibility, otherwise known as overage players. Thus, the natural way to game the NHL draft is to exploit the aforementioned inefficiency. DEV exclusively compares players with other prospects in the same year of draft eligibility. As a result, perhaps the most practical usage of DEV is for identifying overage draft eligible prospects and quantifying where they should be selected.
By Zac Urback
Funny, that Dirk never once talk about this once when I talked with him while watching the Pats play. He liked his game as he said and I agree that he was a very typical late bloomer who lead his team in scoring by a huge amount.
I did a basic review of the 2015 playoffs. The team with lower goals against won, I think it was, 12 of the 15 series.
A gambler could have done quite well using that oh so basic predictor.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
That's what I'm saying.
Analytics didn't identify the need to add Martin/Polak, but they are a big part of why they were the specific players chosen to address that need.
Kurtz
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2005
- 10,100
- 6,970
The team with the best GA/G went 9-6 in '16. Not bad, but I think you'd still lose money since you'd usually be picking the favourite.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
I think its pretty clear by now The Cynick isnt going to change his mind. Not one bit of stats will be superior to the eye test.
More articles probably wont help cause it sounds like he doesnt even read or try to understand them, and wont ever entertain the thought of how these stats could be useful. As we all know close mindedness is the mark of a scholar.
It still kinda sounds like to him there is grizzled hockey people vs geeks vs gentlemen who youre able to tell from a glance and there is no overlap between them.
Funny that you accuse me of not reading, but if you read my posts you would see I read most of what is posted here. The only thing I couldn't get through was one article that was just too long and struggled to hold my attention. That's not my fault.
I'm all for useful stats if they are collected in an accurate manner and tell you something worthwhile. Few of the stats I have seen do that. Further to that, none of it addresses the fine nuances that occur during a game. It's not like baseball, which had repeatable situations that you can evaluate over time. Hockey is a fluid game, and these stats pull you down a rabbit hole and seem to appeal to people who don't understand how to evaluate using their own eyes.
Anyone can be a gentleman, but fewer and fewer people choose to act like one. They all want to be behind a computer screen trying to be the smartest guy in the room. They usually fail and look like geeks in the process.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
This was written before the 2016 NHL draft.
2016 NHL Draft – The Top 10 Overage Players Available
Looking forward to the 2016 NHL draft, I ran the DEV numbers for all draft eligible overage players. One player in particular that I want to discuss is Adam Brooks. Brooks is relatively undersized at 5’10, but in his 3rd year of draft eligibility DEV suggests he’s worth selecting with a pick from 28 – 33 overall. Brooks was valued as a pick from 55 - 82 last year, demonstrating two things: 30 NHL teams passed over a prospect worth selecting in the 3rd round with their late round picks last year, and Brooks has improved considerably since last year. Some of Brooks’ successful comparables include players like Claude Giroux, Derek Roy, Ondrej Palat, Patrick O’Sullivan, Martin Erat & Jordan Eberle. I suspect he will not be selected as high as DEV values him, but if he’s available in the mid-rounds, Brooks seems like the obvious candidate to draft if a team is looking for a value selection. Obviously Brooks is not a lock to be a successful NHL player, but DEV indicates that he’s just as likely to be an impact NHL player as any other player who is optimally selected in the top of the 2nd round.
These are the top 10 overage CHL forwards according to DEV:
Conclusion
If you view the NHL as a marketplace, the most undervalued commodity is legitimate NHL prospects who were passed over in their first year of draft eligibility, otherwise known as overage players. Thus, the natural way to game the NHL draft is to exploit the aforementioned inefficiency. DEV exclusively compares players with other prospects in the same year of draft eligibility. As a result, perhaps the most practical usage of DEV is for identifying overage draft eligible prospects and quantifying where they should be selected.
By Zac Urback
The Leafs should have taken all of the top 10 DEV guys if they were really applying that strategy. Only 2 of the 10 were taken at all. Seems odd to have this glaring competitive advantage right in front of you and you only utilize 10% of it.
In reality they had a trusted source watch him much of the year (and prior years) The source said this kid has improved a ton. Leafs thought he was worth a flyer with a mid pick. It's not hard to understand.
Again with the false dichotomy. It's getting really tedious.
Use analytics to identify pool of likely undervalued players (by systematically acknowledging that reentry's are chronically and unjustifiably undervalued).
Using scouting to assess which of those players is the best with the best chance of success, relative to the available non-reentries at each draft slot.
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
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?
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 73,812
- 39,345
ACC1224
Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
- Aug 19, 2002
- 73,812
- 39,345
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?Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 4 Boston Bruins @ Toronto Maple Leafs - Boston leads series 2-1Wagers: 11Staked: $29,211.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs - Boston leads series 2-1Wagers: 6Staked: $7,365.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
-