So what now?

[Bomber0104]

The eye test is flawed, and cannot be used exclusively to accurately evaluate all teams and players. That doesn't mean watching games is entirely useless. Not sure why some need to speak in such extremes.

Any predictive model that's worth a damn is entirely comprised of observed data, from someone's eyes.

Not junk from NHL.com

And all other tools available to him, including statistics and information he gained through the use of statistics.

The person that was responsible for discovering Auston Matthews did not find him through BS stats like the one's you completely rely on for your forum debates.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. They can't accurately evaluate all teams and players and everything else using solely their eyes.

"Human beings can't accurately evaluate all hockey games played by all teams and players" - Dekes For Days

Is that better?

God forbid I come off as dishonest or anything but I don't see how you adjusting your original statement sounds any less ridiculous?

I'll let other people judge for themselves.

 

[Nylander88]

Based on rumours that have been floating around out there. And without going scorched earth on the team (because I don't think Dubas will), here's what I'd like to see.
- Bring in Bruce Boudreau. He'd be a wealth of experience for a rookie coach, and a ready-made replacement should Keefe not be the man for the job
- Bring back Spezza at league minimum
- Bring in Gudas
- Make a trade with Edmonton for Adam Larsson (Johnsson, Kerfoot, or Kapanen)

-And while not a rumour like ones above I've read, sign Josh Anderson please. If we have to let Mikheyev walk or make another tweak, do it please

 

[Dekes For Days]

Any predictive model that's worth a damn is entirely comprised of observed data, from someone's eyes.

As already explained to you, using eyes to accurately record high-impact and important events in a defined way with consistent criteria across all games is not the same thing as watching portions of a couple games and coming to conclusions and evaluations in your mind about all the players/teams in the league.

 

[Cleetus]

The eye test is flawed, and cannot be used exclusively to accurately evaluate all teams and players. That doesn't mean watching games is entirely useless. Not sure why some need to speak in such extremes.

And all other tools available to him, including statistics and information he gained through the use of statistics.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. They don't know how to accurately evaluate and assess all things they see and don't see and all teams and players and everything about them all on their own based solely on limiting and biased viewings.

take your own advice you said the eye test does not work, that is an extreme view no?

 

[Dekes For Days]

take your own advice you said the eye test does not work, that is an extreme view no?

I didn't say "the eye test doesn't work". I said it's flawed, and needs to be used in combination with other tools, to get more accurate and less biased conclusions, especially when you have an emotional investment in what you are watching. That's not an extreme view.

 

[Cleetus]

I didn't say "the eye test doesn't work". I said it's flawed, and needs to be used in combination with other tools, to get more accurate and less biased conclusions, especially when you have an emotional investment in what you are watching. That's not an extreme view.

lots of posters on this site do not have an emotional investment they are hockey fans, but you assuming that you are right about everything, is plain wrong again

 

[Dekes For Days]

lots of posters on this site do not have an emotional investment they are hockey fans

Uhh.. what? Hockey fans have emotional investments in teams/players. That's kinda a part of being a "fan". Why would they watch hockey otherwise, let alone post on a hockey forum? Are you not a Leaf fan?

 

[Cleetus]

Uhh.. what? Hockey fans have emotional investments in teams/players. That's kinda a part of being a "fan". Why would they watch hockey otherwise, let alone post on a hockey forum?

ever heard of being a fan of the game???? wow ignorance is high here....

 

[Dekes For Days]

ever heard of being a fan of the game????

Well, yes, I assume we are all fans of hockey to be posting on a hockey forum. People still form emotional investments in different teams or players. Are you not a Leaf fan?

 

[Cleetus]

Well, yes, I assume we are all fans of hockey to be posting on a hockey forum. People still form emotional investments in different teams or players. Are you not a Leaf fan?

was not talking about me yes I am a leafs fan, but I know of people who are friends of mine could care less about who wins, but are hardcore fans of the game...

 

[Nylander88]

Hope we move on from Freddy. He's making 5 million and is going to want a raise after this year that we 100% won't be able to afford. Talbot would be fine to bring in as a cheap tandem with Campbell. I think Campbell has starter ability tbh. We should capitalize on an asset instead of losing him for nothing like we do with most of our players. Carolina or Edmonton might be willing to take in a goalie. Johnsson & Andersen to Edmonton for Larsson & Khaira?
$8.4 million out, 5.4 million in. Spend a 2 mil or even less on goalie to pair with Campbell. Talbot would likely cost 2.5-3 but cheaper options include: Smith, Elliott, Anderson...sign one of the 3 for 1.75 mil per
Still saving a bit of money and getting better as a team imo with the addition of Larsson and more physicality in Khaira. Sign Gudas @ 2.5m, resign Dermott @ 2m, let Clifford and Mikheyev walk. Sign Josh Anderson for $2.25 mil per (think that's all it will take the year he's coming off and the flat cap).
Hyman-Matthews-Marner
Nylander-Tavares-Anderson
Robertson-Kerfoot-Kapanen
Engvall-Khaira-Spezza
Rielly-Larsson
Muzzin-Holl
Dermott-Gudas

Smith/Elliott/Anderson
Campbell

Total cap hit: 80.277 mil.
It's tight but just leaves you enough to carry a spare

 

[Gary Nylund]

They tell way more than you think they do.

There's a lot in there that contradicts your suggestion you tied to that quote you cherry picked from the article.

No, they don't.

No, there isn't.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The eye test is flawed, and cannot be used exclusively to accurately evaluate all teams and players. That doesn't mean watching games is entirely useless. Not sure why some need to speak in such extremes.

What do you mean by "not all"? Sound like you're saying some can and some can't which is a strange comment.

The eye test is just fine. If the person watching knows his stuff and watches for long enough, he'll be able to evaluate more accurately than you and your stats.

 

[ACC1224]

What do you mean by "not all"? Sound like you're saying some can and some can't which is a strange comment.

The eye test is just fine. If the person watching knows his stuff and watches for long enough, he'll be able to evaluate more accurately than you and your stats.

1000%

 

[Dekes For Days]

What do you mean by "not all"? Sound like you're saying some can and some can't which is a strange comment.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't say "not all" at any point in what you quoted/bolded, and my comment had nothing to do with the abilities of different people.

The eye test is just fine. If the person watching knows his stuff and watches for long enough, he'll be able to evaluate more accurately than you and your stats.

Eye test + using additional tools, statistics, and information available to you >> eye test. Every time.

 

[Bomber0104]

Eye test + using additional tools, statistics, and information available to you >> eye test. Every time.

Your "tools, statistics, and information" are just NHL.com scraps being toyed around with, made into a high school calibre model and then thrown on a website.

It's amazing how badly you overrate these and how you see no fault in them. Even their creators do!

Probably why you overrated the Leafs so heavily this year (Cup contenders? ) and were dead wrong about them...

...

 

[stealth1]

Well, yes, I assume we are all fans of hockey to be posting on a hockey forum. People still form emotional investments in different teams or players. Are you not a Leaf fan?

I'm not emotionally invested in any of the teams left and I can see how different how far the Leafs top players are from playing playoff hockey.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your "tools, statistics, and information" are just NHL.com scraps being played around with an made into an Excel table.

No, they're not. It's valuable information that shouldn't be ignored.

Probably why you overrated the Leafs so heavily this year and were dead wrong about them.

The only thing I was really wrong about was I thought Andersen wouldn't suck when our defense improved. Who called that?

I'm not emotionally invested in any of the teams left and I can see how different how far the Leafs top players are from playing playoff hockey.

I said emotional investment made it worse; not that it was the only way there were issues. Also, if you're comparing it to how the Leafs played, then you're comparing it to hockey you watched that you had an emotional investment in. In reality, most of these teams do the exact same things, make the exact same mistakes, and play the same way that people here complain about. Though they may not face the best defensive team in the league and a crazy hot goalie at the same time.

 

[Bomber0104]

No, they're not.

Yes they are.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

NHL.com models are garbage and even the creators of them acknowledge that.

It's valuable information that shouldn't be ignored.

A stat that weights an Ovechkin one-timer vs a Marincin point shot the same should be categorically ignored, full stop.

Continue arguing to the contrary though.

It's a great look.

 

[Dekes For Days]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

I have explained and supported the use of these stats extensively and repeatedly, which accompanies the piles of widely available information that does the same, if you'd like to understand more about them. Because it doesn't seem like you really understand them from your subsequent comment.

*Suggests an improvement in defense, based on the eye test*
"That's ridiculous. We need to see some evidence!"
*Shows a defense improvement in shots*
"Yeah, but what about quality!?"
*Uses stats that measure quantity and quality of opportunities against*
"Psh, advanced stats garbage. It's not 1000% perfect down to 15 decimal points! We should use our eyes!"

And around and around we go, because in actuality, you just don't want to admit to the obvious truth, that literally everything supports. We were better defensively this year.

 

[Bomber0104]

I have explained and supported the use of these stats extensively and repeatedly, which accompanies the piles of widely available information that does the same, if you'd like to understand more about them. Because it doesn't seem like you really understand them from your subsequent comment.

*Suggests an improvement in defense, based on the eye test*
"That's ridiculous. We need to see some evidence!"
*Shows a defense improvement in shots*
"Yeah, but what about quality!?"
*Uses stats that measure quantity and quality of opportunities against*
"Psh, advanced stats garbage. It's not 1000% perfect down to 15 decimal points! We should use our eyes!"

And around and around we go, because in actuality, you just don't want to admit to the obvious truth, that literally everything supports. We were better defensively this year.

So now you've moved onto to not only outright ignoring what I say, responding to a tiny snippet of my post which you cut out, but now are making up your own arguments, literally arguing with your make-believe argument, in order to prove yourself right in some way?

Not sure whether to or in this situation but there's really not much left to say at this point.

Everyone here can read this for themselves and make their own determinations.

And always remember folks..

"Human beings can't accurately assess a hockey game" - Dekes For Days

Only websites and blogs made by human beings can

 

[All Mod Cons]

Maybe if you're totally new to the game and have no idea how to analyze a game with your own two eyes.

I can only imagine how junior and AAA scouts get by without the NHL.com's garbage data that they make into inaccurate models. It's an absolute miracle that McDavid and Matthews got noticed without knowing their expected goals.



"Humans can't watch hockey properly" - Dekes For Days

I can't.

Do you even bother watching games? I cam never tell who's actually won or not. I wait for the spreadsheets myself. Game 5 vs the Jackets tonight. Cannot wait.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So now you've moved onto to not only ignoring what I say, responding to a tiny snippet of my post, but now making up your own arguments and then trying to refute them and prove yourself right.

I didn't ignore what you said. I've already responded to everything else through our discussion. Not sure what I'm supposed to get out of repeating things endlessly.

Those statements aren't direct quotes, but they are the essence of this conversation, just like they are the essence of every single time this conversation comes up, when somebody arbitrarily decides that more information is bad, unless it has the same infinite and unnecessary detail that teams spend millions of dollars creating. Which is obviously unrealistic, so those people go back to infinitely worse methods than ones they have available to them, leading them to obviously incorrect conclusions.

As I said earlier, a quote that's been passed through the ages: "Don't let perfection be the enemy of good".

And always remember folks..

Still making up quotes I didn't say, I see. Once again, what I actually said:

They don't know how to accurately evaluate and assess all things they see and don't see and all teams and players and everything about them all on their own based solely on limiting and biased viewings.

 

[Bomber0104]

Do you even bother watching games? I cam never tell who's actually won or not. I wait for the spreadsheets myself. Game 5 vs the Jackets tonight. Cannot wait.

Nah, games take too long to watch. And you have to watch every little thing? And with my lying eyes that don't know what they're seeing?

Yuck.

And even if they win who cares really? Score effects, puck luck, regression to the mean...

I care more about who was "expected" to win, score, shoot, etc. from what the NHL.com website posts afterwards.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You believe you have explained, but honestly you have not.

I have explained thoroughly (which you can read back and see), and there is information widely available to you, if you wish to understand and learn.