Pre-Game Talk: Sens @ Bruins Monday 1 pm

[Ray Kinsella]

Including the making of the propaganda video?

I'm not sure how your question is posed in the context of my post.

 

[solidprospect]

 

[coladin]

What it comes down to for me is, if you can get anything of value for Ceci then you have to do it. Sooner or later, other GMs are going to realize how poor he is. Who cares about replacing his minutes. They're bad minutes anyway.

As for Boro, simply getting rid of him for nothin would make our team better.

Well they might have to come TDL if they can't reach a deal. Maybe Demelo will get a good chunk of Ceci's coin

 

[Burrowsaurus]

What it comes down to for me is, if you can get anything of value for Ceci then you have to do it. Sooner or later, other GMs are going to realize how poor he is. Who cares about replacing his minutes. They're bad minutes anyway.

As for Boro, simply getting rid of him for nothin would make our team better.

people have already realized how poor he is... his name was mentioned in deas for Drouin, Duchene and taylor hall... now his name isn't mentioned at all

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious

 

[Peptic Balcers]

Or people just disagree that he's completely atrocious.

Well he has played terrible, and not just in this 3 game sample. He turns 25 in December, and has 369 games of data to assess his performance. There isn't a whole lot of reason for optimism at this point. The argument of "well, he's young" doesn't shield him from criticism any more.

 

[solidprospect]

I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious

Ceci? Yeah he's on his own island.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Boro has been atrocious. Ceci's been very uneven.

There's a big difference.

 

[Micklebot]

I actually struggled to find his name..... see he cant just be regular bad.. he has to be like atrocious

Ugh... don't want to get into player evaluation here, but that chart is embarrassing. I'd be ashamed if I had produced it


1. He chose to use shots on his axis labels even though the data is corsi or shot attempts. Why not use one of the already widely accepted terms instead of an alternate definition of shots? Nitpicking on my part, but just starts off on the wrong foot imo.
2. The data is adjusted shot attempt counts and not rates. Ok, so I guess you can argue rates could be misleading particularly with no context data incorporated... But,
3. He labelled the corners as good bad, fun and dull. This would be ok had he gone with rates, but because he used counts instead the whole chart becomes wildly misleading: Ceci isn't on an island, he just got a lot more mins than Boro and Wideman, Formenton' s numbers are actually far more concerning, but that doesn't show up. Dmen and forwards all blend into the picture despite Dmen typically having significantly more ice time.

Two big thumbs down for poor execution by mccurdy. Terrible chart imo.

 

[solidprospect]

Ugh... don't want to get into player evaluation here, but that chart is embarrassing. I'd be ashamed if I had produced it
.

Nothing shameful about posting about shot impact/supression values over a single game. Maybe everyone would like it more if it fit their Boro sucks narrative. Formenton had a couple weak shots and didn't prevent many so he's considered dull. Until next game!

 

[Micklebot]

Nothing shameful about posting about shot impact/supression values over a single game. Maybe everyone would like it more if it fit their Boro sucks narrative. Formenton had a couple weak shots and didn't prevent many so he's considered dull. Until next game!

Nothing wrong with posting shot values, but there is with the way he presented them, the chart is misleading at best. My issues with it have nothing to do with how it represents players I like or dislike, it has everything to do with how it systemically misrepresents players "dull" or "fun" style based on how many minutes they played. It was poorly made, and results in faulty impressions.

Here's the chart using rates:

Looking at the original, you'd thing Dzingel and Duchene were playing fairly average even hockey, when in reality, they were easilly the higher event players on the ice. You'd think Ceci was miles away from the cluster of everyone else when at worst he was on the outer edge of the cluster. You'd have Chara as the most "fun" when Duchene and Dzingel were well more high event players, and Stone was right there with him. The chart was simply poorly done, and deserves criticism for being poorly done, it has nothing to do with a Boro sucks narrative; just calling a spade a spade.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Ugh... don't want to get into player evaluation here, but that chart is embarrassing. I'd be ashamed if I had produced it


1. He chose to use shots on his axis labels even though the data is corsi or shot attempts. Why not use one of the already widely accepted terms instead of an alternate definition of shots? Nitpicking on my part, but just starts off on the wrong foot imo.
2. The data is adjusted shot attempt counts and not rates. Ok, so I guess you can argue rates could be misleading particularly with no context data incorporated... But,
3. He labelled the corners as good bad, fun and dull. This would be ok had he gone with rates, but because he used counts instead the whole chart becomes wildly misleading: Ceci isn't on an island, he just got a lot more mins than Boro and Wideman, Formenton' s numbers are actually far more concerning, but that doesn't show up. Dmen and forwards all blend into the picture despite Dmen typically having significantly more ice time.

Two big thumbs down for poor execution by mccurdy. Terrible chart imo.

It’s just one number. But ceci really WAS bad. It’s not like “wow this chart is lying ceci in fact was good”. He was bad in this one particular stat and how he looked at it. But he was also terrible

 

[solidprospect]

Nothing wrong with posting shot values, but there is with the way he presented them, the chart is misleading at best. My issues with it have nothing to do with how it represents players I like or dislike, it has everything to do with how it systemically misrepresents players "dull" or "fun" style based on how many minutes they played. It was poorly made, and results in faulty impressions.

Is just a chart rating shots though, the shots taken we're dull or bad, or the shots they prevented we're dull or bad not their actual overall play? I tend to focus more on the good or bad part while looking at the chart than the dull or bad.

Your chart does show that Ceci wasn't great though and Boro isn't as bad same as the shot rating chart.

 

[Micklebot]

It’s just one number. But ceci really WAS bad. It’s not like “wow this chart is lying ceci in fact was good”. He was bad in this one particular stat and how he looked at it. But he was also terrible

Yeah, I'm not commenting on Ceci, I'm commenting on the chart, which is terrible. It happens to exaggerate how bad Ceci was, but that's not really my point.

 

[Micklebot]

Is just a chart rating shots though, the shots taken we're dull or bad, or the shots they prevented we're dull or bad not their actual overall play? I tend to focus more on the good or bad part while looking at the chart than the dull or bad.

Either I don't understand what you are trying to say or you don't seem to understand the chart. It doesn't rank the quality of the shots, it purely shows the quantity. You can't have x/y coordinates both tell the number of shots, for (x axis) and against (y axis) and also tell you anything about how exciting those specific shots were. Dull just means low event hockey (low total shots for and against) while fun means high event hockey, problem being that because it doesn't account for time played, it doesn't accurately portray that, unless by dull he meant boy it's boring watching that guy sit on the bench, and fun means wow he played a lot.

The good/bad is just CF%, but on this chart the higher event hockey you play the bigger a change in % appears to be which is another reason the chart is kind of dumb, though he does attempt to address that with the diagonal lines, so kudos there.

 

[solidprospect]

Meant dull or fun* on the chart. I should have just posted a diagram where shots we're taken from.

 

[Micklebot]

Meant dull or fun* on the chart. I should have just posted a diagram where shots we're taken from.

I'm still not following what the heck you mean. The chart had quadrants labelled as Dull, Fun, Good and Bad, but those just represent how many shots were taken with a guy on the ice given the x an y axis. There's nothing qualitative about the data, it's all quantitative.

 

[solidprospect]

I'm still not following what the heck you mean. The chart had quadrants labelled as Dull, Fun, Good and Bad, but those just represent how many shots were taken with a guy on the ice given the x an y axis. There's nothing qualitative about the data, it's all quantitative.

What about the big red line..the lines full positive or negative is towards the good or bad corners... shouldnt we focus more on good vs bad than dull vs fun according to chart?

 

[Alex1234]

 

[Micklebot]

What about the big red line..the lines full positive or negative is towards the good or bad corners... shouldnt we focus more on good vs bad than dull vs fun according to chart?

Fine, then just post CF% because apparently that's all you want to focus on... problem is the chart is visually deceptive in that high event players (or whatever the heck we want to call them, because it's skewed by icetime) end up appearing farther away from the big red line. The chart is terrible. I don't need a misleading chart to tell me who had poor CF%

Let me frame it this way, what does the chart do to make the data more illustrative of how the game occurred?

- It does a poor job of illustrating players relative CF% (because the higher you go along either axis, the greater visual distance from the baseline)
- It does a poor job of displaying players relative shot production/suppression (because it doesn't account for time on ice)

So what exactly is the chart accomplishing?

 

[solidprospect]

Fine, then just post CF% because apparently that's all you want to focus on... problem is the chart is visually deceptive in that high event players (or whatever the heck we want to call them, because it's skewed by icetime) end up appearing farther away from the big red line. The chart is terrible. I don't need a misleading chart to tell me who had poor CF%

Let me frame it this way, what does the chart do to make the data more illustrative of how the game occurred?

- It does a poor job of illustrating players relative CF% (because the higher you go along either axis, the greater visual distance from the baseline)
- It does a poor job of displaying players relative shot production/suppression (because it doesn't account for time on ice)

So what exactly is the chart accomplishing?

I thought it just illustrates what the title suggest, 5 on 5 shots that are score adjusted. Wasn't aware that corsi was involved.

 

[Micklebot]

I thought it just illustrates what the title suggest, 5 on 5 shots that are score adjusted. Wasn't aware that corsi was involved.

Yeah, that's part of the problem (the first one I identified in my original complaint), he mislabeled it too. Again, crap chart is crap.