Confirmed with Link: Murray accepts qualifying offer

[CBJWerenski8]

I'll clock in with 20

 

[Viqsi]

To continue with the themes: "stick with the truth" and "not liking objectively false assertions", I would like to know, what are the "things" that are supposedly accounted for, that I say aren't? And what is the "x", that is supposedly one of the main things analytics "actually solidly does"? Since most of the idea that I am wrong (about the "validity" of analytics) is based on this, I'd like to know. I have acknowledged in the past that some of these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for some of the underlying factors. My issue (and why I say "attempt) is that these "analytics" ATTEMPT to account for these "things" by associating a number value to something that CANT be measured in that way. These "models" and just HOW MUCH or even simply HOW they are affected by (some) of these underlying factors, is, for a lack of better/complex words, completely made up. The problem here is people's correlation between "stats" and "facts". The "stats" shouldn't be considered "facts" when the "model" and the numbers "plugged" into it are NOT based on reality.

Quick reminder that the "analytics" talk started spiraling when the claim was made that the "numbers" showed/proved Bobrovsky was more valuable/important than Tavares, Panarin and MANY other VERY valuable/important players. My initial complaint (other than disagreeing wholeheartedly on what they supposedly "showed") was that (IMO) you cannot SUCCESSFULLY compare the "importance" of a 1st line center and starting goalie to their respective/SEPARATE teams by looking at "statistics". Whether they are "concrete" numbers, or essentially made up, by "plugging them" into some UNREALISTIC "model".

You can look into the details of how those models are developed if you like; I occasionally do so, but a few of them admittedly go over my head in some of the details. The core problem, though, is that at its core this assertion ("these things can't be measured with numbers") is largely rejecting the entire field of statistics as nonviable. Which is a tad awkward for me to let pass, seeing as though helping maintain software in support of statistical analyses is my day job.
I don't manage the actual analysis myself, as I'm not a statistician. But I can address nearly everything else around it.

* * *​

And NOW I'll go back to this. You were attempting to compare the SPORT of hockey to a (type of) car. You were also attempting to compare your precious stats (NOT facts) to that of a cars "manual" and/or engine. So essentially you are trying to say that since I don't 'know' or care about your stats (aka the manual/engine) that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to the "car", aka THE SPORT OF HOCKEY. We'd be better off with 1960's baseball comparisons, as that's at least a somewhat relatable team sport or sport at all.

I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.

 

[major major]

I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.

Yeah the metaphor was about statistics, not hockey.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Ryan Murray sucks. Ryan Murray is great. Please take a side and get this thread back on track.

OK.

He sucks.

Just had to.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Sometimes he is great. But, sometimes he sucks. It's weird because I want to pick one and stick with it

 

[CBJx614]

Ugh.

That passing though.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Ugh.

That passing though.

I miss Johansen too, but I feel like we should talk about Ryan Murray in this topic.

 

[CBJx614]

I miss Johansen too, but I feel like we should talk about Ryan Murray in this topic.

Says the person bringing up Johansen.

I posted it because of Murray's beautiful stretch pass that made that possible. It's one of his few highlight plays...

 

[Maylo]

....., but I feel like we should talk about Ryan Murray in this topic.

I had a dream about Murr last night, in that dream i was a girl who is in love with Murr, but he chose another girl who said to me - he kissed her. That was strange, since i'm a man and married. I think Panarin situation somehow morfed into that dream, This off season really took a toll on us/me.

Does it count as Ryan Murray talk or TMI?

 

[BrianT12]

Very movable contract

 

[EspenK]

Very movable contract

Good point.

 

[Old Guy]

Yea.......that's where I was when I saw it. I think Jarmo wanted this cheap, short and lots of upside so he could be a real asset to package in a trade. It wouldn't surprise me if sometime before July 1, 2019 Jarmo is quoted as saying"......and we thank Ryan Murray for his service to the organization"

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

A big reason we all can say what a great blueline the CBJ has is because Ryan Murray is on it, can play anywhere from 2-5 and complement just about anyone.

My take is that this is a "show us" contract for the team and an "I'll show them" contract for the player.

 

[The Wheelchair]

Ryan Murray is about the most boring player on the Jackets. This is mostly a good thing but in some respects it can also be a bad thing. It's good to have him and it's good to not commit a ton of money and term to him. I predict that he will miss one game this season and it will be game 82 and it will be because the Jackets will have clinched the Metro by that point. It is July and I have every right to be wildly optimistic.

 

[db2011]

Hard to predict games missed due to injury. I thought the injury-prone thing was largely a case of poor timing, but then he went and missed those games last year. Still, I'm going with >10.

 

[db2011]

* * *​

I'd read that metaphor as being used w/r/t hockey statistics, not hockey the game. Which in that case was true - you were critiquing statistics without knowing much of anything about what they were and what they measured. If it was intended to be about any measurement or evaluation of hockey, then yes, that'd be over the line.

That's a helpful clarification, but I still think it takes a fair amount of hubris to assert the "owner's manual" model. There's only one edition of an owner's manual for a vehicle, and it is not subject to interpretation.

 

[Monk]

That's a helpful clarification, but I still think it takes a fair amount of hubris to assert the "owner's manual" model. There's only one edition of an owner's manual for a vehicle, and it is not subject to interpretation.

Which analogy would you use to describe someone's unwillingness to look beyond surface level of a thing but still denies the thing's value outright?

The analogy was about someone here refusing to read the manual more so than another claiming to be the master of said manual...

Wow is it the offseason or what.

 

[db2011]

Which analogy would you use to describe someone's unwillingness to look beyond surface level of a thing but still denies the thing's value outright?

The analogy was about someone here refusing to read the manual more so than another claiming to be the master of said manual...

Wow is it the offseason or what.

I guess I would use an analogy that didn't imply 1:1 understanding of a subject, and didn't rely on the subject being a discrete, fully knowable entity. It's not difficult to come up with a better analogy than the one that was used.

Maybe like, I got my postgraduate degree in Elizabethan theatre, and this guy's trying to tell me about Avengers: Infinity War LOL

 

[CarolinaBlueJacket]

Murray = Klesla
Both were very high draft picks that are serviceable but haven't lived up to what I was hoping for when drafted, then again both were weak draft years, so if they had been drafted in any other years they would have been later draft picks with lower expectations.

 

[thebus88]

Ryan Murray is about the most boring player on the Jackets. This is mostly a good thing but in some respects it can also be a bad thing.

A bad thing in what way?

I predict that he will miss one game this season and it will be game 82 and it will be because the Jackets will have clinched the Metro by that point. It is July and I have every right to be wildly optimistic.

Now (for 5 bonus points) predict if this will be interpreted as a "healthy scratch", and that he's poised to be passed up by Carlsson, or that he's "obviously banged up", "damaged goods", "not healthy for the most important time of the year", and "the team needs to move on"?

 

[major major]

That's a helpful clarification, but I still think it takes a fair amount of hubris to assert the "owner's manual" model. There's only one edition of an owner's manual for a vehicle, and it is not subject to interpretation.

You misread it. We were talking about analytical models, and I said I read the manual and look under the hood, and Bus does not (he proudly admits to not looking at them). I did not say in any way shape or form that I exclusively have the manual to ice hockey and others do not. We were talking about analytical models that I read about.

I guess I would use an analogy that didn't imply 1:1 understanding of a subject, and didn't rely on the subject being a discrete, fully knowable entity. It's not difficult to come up with a better analogy than the one that was used.

Maybe like, I got my postgraduate degree in Elizabethan theatre, and this guy's trying to tell me about Avengers: Infinity War LOL

This is pure imagination. Stick with what I'm literally saying and you'll save some time.

 

[db2011]

You misread it. We were talking about analytical models, and I said I read the manual and look under the hood, and Bus does not (he proudly admits to not looking at them). I did not say in any way shape or form that I exclusively have the manual to ice hockey and others do not. We were talking about analytical models that I read about.



This is pure imagination. Stick with what I'm literally saying and you'll save some time.

You've misread my post to Viqsi. Granting that you're talking about analytical models and not the sport of hockey, my point in saying there's only one edition of a manual and that it's not open to interpretation is that from the outside, it appears as though there are multiple analytical models and that the data they produce is open to interpretation.

If you wish to proceed as if analytics enjoy a consensus and that there is not a sizable block of fans who find them dubious, it's you who are wasting your time. There may be a manual for the stats, certainly there is a right way to arrive the numbers based on the data and how they are used. But Corsi, as an example, has fallen in regard even within the community that adheres to analytics. Presumably it's been supplanted by a better stat or set of stats. Point being, "analytics" refers to a field that doesn't seem at all settled.

The critique is that people who don't agree with analytics (not saying I'm one, I'm indifferent) just don't understand them. Surely you can see the problem with that. I understand, to a lot of people who think a certain way, stats are fun and analytics are a revolution. But don't pretend there hasn't always been tension between interpreting sports through statistical analysis, and however you wish to characterize alternate approaches. The Oakland A's never won a World Series in the moneyball era, so the detractors aren't without a case here.

 

[EspenK]

DSL has lost the room... This inane discussion of owners manuals and looking under the hood and analogies needs its own thread.

 

[major major]

You've misread my post to Viqsi. Granting that you're talking about analytical models and not the sport of hockey, my point in saying there's only one edition of a manual and that it's not open to interpretation is that from the outside, it appears as though there are multiple analytical models and that the data they produce is open to interpretation.

If you wish to proceed as if analytics enjoy a consensus and that there is not a sizable block of fans who find them dubious, it's you who are wasting your time. There may be a manual for the stats, certainly there is a right way to arrive the numbers based on the data and how they are used. But Corsi, as an example, has fallen in regard even within the community that adheres to analytics. Presumably it's been supplanted by a better stat or set of stats. Point being, "analytics" refers to a field that doesn't seem at all settled.

The critique is that people who don't agree with analytics (not saying I'm one, I'm indifferent) just don't understand them. Surely you can see the problem with that. I understand, to a lot of people who think a certain way, stats are fun and analytics are a revolution. But don't pretend there hasn't always been tension between interpreting sports through statistical analysis, and however you wish to characterize alternate approaches. The Oakland A's never won a World Series in the moneyball era, so the detractors aren't without a case here.

I've already been clear on this - I'm not of the opinion that analytics should be immune from critique. It has lots of problems. I think a good chunk of the possession stuff will fall out of favor if we get better data on puck and player location. You keep thinking I'm saying something that I am not. I've never claimed that there was "one manual". Next time you're of the mind to disagree with me, read again word for word and ask yourself if I'm actually saying what you're imagining.

 

[thebus88]

Which analogy would you use to describe someone's unwillingness to look beyond surface level of a thing but still denies the thing's value outright?

The analogy was about someone here refusing to read the manual more so than another claiming to be the master of said manual...

The problem is, I have EXPLAINED in many ways, and given many examples as to why I have an (as you put it) "unwillingness" to look beyond the "surface level". Also, the thing is, I HAVE looked a bit at just WHAT IS beyond that surface level. Not only do I literally have a very hard time even understanding what I am looking at, but the majority of the time a person is attempting to use them in an argument, I also disagree with what they are saying, either the "stats" or the person.

The MAIN argument/question is THIS: HOW MUCH should you take these "stats" in account when evaluating hockey players?

I have many issues with using these "stats" as your major or PRIMARY "evaluation tool". To put it simply, the amount of VARIABLES that these models "leave out" is SO significant, that they should be looked at/taken in with extreme discretion. I'm talking tangible variables and intangible variables. Were talking team by team, line by line. "Chemistry", or the lack there of between players/lines/teams. Coaching techniques and decisions. Off ice issues. Sickness. Playable injuries we know nothing about. REAL VARIABLES that can not be given a "decimal value" and plugged into the model. Not to mention all the little bounces, mistakes, or great offensive or defensive plays that happen ON THE ICE, THAT THESE MODELS DO NOT (literally can not) TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. Things that affect the game MORE (imo, I guess) than the "tangible" variables these models DO take into account.

The problem with these variables that are involved with the models (and given number values) is that they are given ARTIFICIAL VALUES. They are not realistic in terms of "impact". Therefore the "stats" are not REALISTIC.

What's even more UNREALISTIC (when looking beyond the surface) is using these unrealistic numbers to then MAKE UP completely new "advanced analysis" comparing players ON DIFFERENT TEAMS AND THAT PLAY VASTLY (goalie to skater) DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

They may show WHAT has happened, but most of the "Analytics Crew" attempt to pass of that they show WHY things have happened. With SO MUCH info missing and much of the other info (again, I guess imo) misinterpreted, they should be looked at as "stats" not "FACTS".

Nothing about them is ADVANCED, other than the math you have to do to come up with the "stats" aka "reality".