Is there too much emphasis on a player's size?

[SmokeyClause]

The Moneyball example is flawed. Hockey and baseball do not work well in statistical comparison. In baseball, statistics are everything. You rarely hear things like "his contribution to the team can't be found on the stat sheet". In baseball, numbers are the most important factor. You even have numbers for defensive play. Is there a legit number for defensive play in hockey? How about hockey sense? You just can't win the argument of whether or not to see a player. Looking at the stats is one thing, but the WHL and the NHL are different beasts. Some things that work in the WHL won't work in the NHL. You can claim your superiority all you want, but the bottomline is no team bases their scouting only on numbers. Maybe if one or two did, you'd have something to stand on. But you have to remember, these guys are paid to do this. They aren't some two-bit hack that uses Hockeydb to solve their problems. Do yourself a favor, try to apply this revolutionary system to hockey. Go to an AHL game and find some scouts. Ask them what they think about your system. I doubt you get one person who says it's not a bad idea.

To step back to the baseball point, you can measure almost every aspect of a pitchers play using statistics. Same with hitters. I love moneyball and it's a wondeful book. But it just doesn't work that way in hockey. If it did, teams would be trying to employ that method as we speak. Oh, and scouts were all looking for the wrong things in the book. They were looking for people who looked like baseball players. In hockey, scouts aren't necessarily looking for the wrong players. They are looking for the players whose skill best translates in to the NHL.

 

[YouAreStupid]

But Bob Hartley gets to keep his job because they win games, not because the arena is full.

maybe so, but hockey is about entertainement... like it or not. Those folks in Atlanta have a lot of other options if they don't feel that the excitement level is where it should be.

If the NHL has any desire to get a decent TV contract in the States then they are going to have to start distancing themselves from a defense first style of game.

 

[KL*]

The Moneyball example is flawed. Hockey and baseball do not work well in statistical comparison.

As if I have never heard THAT argument before. Did you even read the thread?

In baseball, statistics are everything. You rarely hear things like "his contribution to the team can't be found on the stat sheet".

Actually, you do. But just because some writer or broadcaster says it, does that mean it's right?

In baseball, numbers are the most important factor. You even have numbers for defensive play. Is there a legit number for defensive play in hockey?

Read Moneyball to find out how important defense is. Or watch video of the old Oilers.

How about hockey sense?

No such thing. It's a made up term to bridge the gap between what a player produces and what the scout thinks of that player.

You just can't win the argument of whether or not to see a player.

Already did.

Looking at the stats is one thing, but the WHL and the NHL are different beasts.

Read this thread. Seriously. Don't jump into an argument until you already know what has been argued and what hasn't. You only make yourself look dumb (like you just did).

Some things that work in the WHL won't work in the NHL. You can claim your superiority all you want, but the bottomline is no team bases their scouting only on numbers. Maybe if one or two did, you'd have something to stand on.

...That's what baseball guys said before Beane and DePodesta...

And again, if you has read the thread, you would have seen my analogy to other parts of hockey.

NHL, circa 1960: "You can claim your superiority all you want, but the bottom line is that no NHL team uses a free-roaming defenseman in an offensive capacity." See how wrong that was?

But you have to remember, these guys are paid to do this.

So was I. And thats why my opinion is so strongly against it. What's your point?

They aren't some two-bit hack that uses Hockeydb to solve their problems.

Wow, ad hominem. That's the sign of a truly strong argument. Let me guess, your next argument will be that my mother is a slut...

Do yourself a favor, try to apply this revolutionary system to hockey. Go to an AHL game and find some scouts. Ask them what they think about your system. I doubt you get one person who says it's not a bad idea.

Scout-worship, eh? That's the sign of a great hockey mind. Well, to answer your questions...

1. I worked as a scout for a brief time. I left. It's not a fun life.

2. OF COURSE scouts are going to say it's a bad idea. They're going to lose their jobs when it becomes commonplace.

An analogy... Go to a GM factory and see if any of the human workers think it's a good idea to automate factories (and thus make them irrelevant and cost them their job).

To step back to the baseball point, you can measure almost every aspect of a pitchers play using statistics. Same with hitters. I love moneyball and it's a wondeful book. But it just doesn't work that way in hockey.

Prove it. Don't give me your BS appeal to authority logical fallacy laden tripe. PROVE to me that it doesn't work.

If it did, teams would be trying to employ that method as we speak.

BS. Beane and Depodesta proved that it worked in baseball, and even today there are only TWO teams that use it. One is Beane's A's and the other is Depodesta's Dodgers.

The thing that you just don't seem to grasp is that there's a difference between what works and what NHL teams do. NHL teams, just like baseball front offices, are old boys networks. These people have known each other for a lifetime and they make their living off of a game. They aren't about to put several hundred of their buddies out of work, no matter whether this system works or not. That's a fact. Read Moneyball and Dollar Signs and you will see teams say exactly that.

Oh, and scouts were all looking for the wrong things in the book. They were looking for people who looked like baseball players. In hockey, scouts aren't necessarily looking for the wrong players. They are looking for the players whose skill best translates in to the NHL.

Wow, you haven't the slightest clue, do you?

What's the difference between "the face" and "hockey sense?" Nothing. Same thing, different sport.

"Looking for players whose skill best translates to the NHL" is another way of saying "watching a player and imagining them in the NHL." It doesn't mean they are doing anything more scientifically or objectively. It's all projection. I should know, I did it myself.

 

[andora]

hmm, this is getting really good, i'm seeing this more clearly now (not sure why it took as long as it did), but ABQAvsFan is making sense to me. i'm still an advocate of watching players your team has the potential to draft, but i'm getting this other approach more now, well maybe not *getting* it, but seeing it's strengths

 

[Russian Fan]

You take a team full of those guys.

I will take a team full of 40 goal scorers.

My team will win 99 times out of 100.

looks like Miracle on Ice 1980

99 times out 100 , the Soviets would have won that game but that 1 particular time at this 1 particular day it didn't.

 

[andora]

looks like Miracle on Ice 1980

99 times out 100 , the Soviets would have won that game but that 1 particular time at this 1 particular day it didn't.

 

[Vincent_TheGreat]

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even comment on that. Please reformulate that argument coherently.
QUOTE]

Didn't you learn how to read?

 

[Epsilon]

looks like Miracle on Ice 1980

99 times out 100 , the Soviets would have won that game but that 1 particular time at this 1 particular day it didn't.

What kind of point is that exactly? You would take the team that wins once out of every hundred games just because they win that one game?

 

[Russian Fan]

What kind of point is that exactly? You would take the team that wins once out of every hundred games just because they win that one game?

I said the opposite of it, that I would take USSR over USA & 99 times out of 100 they would win it.

I didn't know it wasn't obvious that team USA in lake placid was all about team working & grit & that the USSR was all about talent.

We can replay this game a 100 time & the USSR would came out of it the 99 other times. I'm not the only one who said this, even Herb Brooks team USA coach said it to his players before that miraculous game start.

So I was just related ABQ & Takkie comments about a hard working team vs a skilled team, the skilled team would won 99 times out of 100.

Did I said it better ?

 

[KL*]

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even comment on that. Please reformulate that argument coherently.
QUOTE]

Didn't you learn how to read?

Interesting that you ignored the entire post except for that little tidbit.

Thus, I take it that you are conceding the argument. Heh.

 

[shveik]

Not at all.

Think about it... The Red Wings in the late 90's, why did they win Cups? Was it their size? Or did they assemble a TON of skill and mixed skill with grit and rolled 4 lines?

The reason they won the Cup is because they kept a constant barrage of scorers coming at you. Wave after wave, you couldn't take a shift off because they didn't have a "4th line." Their "4th line" could just as easily win the game as their "1st line."

The Edmonton Oilers, why did they win their Cups? Did they have size and grit? Did they play sound, solid defense? Did Dave Semenko win them Cups? Or was it a deluge of scorers headed at you shift after shift, a wide open style that scored more goals than you could?

Look, I don't blame you guys for thinking that "size," "leadership" and all that other nonsense is important for building a team. But you're wrong.

There was a time where people thought that if a defenseman joined the rush that it was going to cost you games and you couldn't win like that. Then came Bobby Orr.

There was a time where people thought you HAD to have an enforcer. Now, there are a handful of enforcers in the NHL, and they are all journeymen. And the teams that have them don't win Cups.

There was a time where people thought size mattered. That time is still going on right now, but they will learn how wrong they are.

You are right that the Red Wings won by throwing 4 lines at you. But not 4 lines full of scorers, but the 4 well rounded lines that could do it all. Never mind that this well balanced roster allowed the coach to mix and match the lines. So that example goes agaunst your one-dimensional "lets score the rest be damned" doctrine.

The Oilers are much more in line with what you preach. But at the same time you make an argument against yourself later on. Times change. The one-dimensional Oilers dominated the era of pilon-like "stay at 3-foot radius home" defensemen, and the 3rd and 4th lines filled with tough as nails forwards who could not skate to save their life. That changed. This days NHL caliber players are required to do more than one thing. Not just score, but forecheck, backcheck, and grind. Not just be tough, but play sound defensive game and cycle the puck in the offensive zone. With the talent the Oilers had, they probably could adapt their game very well to todays NHL, but I am pretty sure they would not dominate.

Of course like you said the times change. Right now the level of talent in the NHL is so high, you can't get away with doing just one thing well, whether it is score, play defense, or even fight. You have to be able to do many things, and currently scoring is not at the top of the priority list. If they crack down on obstruction, and reign in goalie equipment the emphasis may shift to scoring, but right now it is not. That said, the times of one-dimensional hockey, whether that be scoring or thuggery, are gone for good (unless they inflate the NHL to 50 teams, or ban Europeans from coming over, but that's another story). You have to look at all facets of the game.