I'm still trying to figure out why someone thought it was a good idea to sign a 32 year old who was a healthy scratch for last years playoffs to a 5 year contract.
Intangibles. Locker room guy. Vet presence.... Take your pick.
I'm still trying to figure out why someone thought it was a good idea to sign a 32 year old who was a healthy scratch for last years playoffs to a 5 year contract.
Call me crazy, but I think there is a slight issue with half the league's GMs not being up to the task then.Yeah, pretty much. That's exactly what I'm saying. You think the eye test can't outdo analytics, but you're not a GM. You're a fan. Based on bad analytics guys continuing to get big contracts, I'm willing to bet that they don't lean as heavily on analytics as fans do.
If terrible analytics players continuously get huge contracts from a ton of teams all throughout the league, that either tells you that GMs don't put much stock into analytics or a ton of GMs are idiots. Johnson is not the first physical player with horrible analytics to get a bad contract, and he sure won't be the last. It's really obvious that old school GMs don't value analytics as much as they value the eye test, and there are a lot more old school GMs in the NHL today than new GMs.
This has been common knowledge for several years to everyone except for the hockey men.
Yeah, I find it odd that people are somehow shocked when these bad analytics players get big contracts. It's also why I don't understand why people think the Johnson contract is immovable. Johnson today is the same Johnson he has always been, and it's the same Johnson that GMs have stupidly loved over the years. So why is that suddenly going to change now?
Analytics are a big emphasis for our hockey-operations team, and I have an excellent team that looks at players from every angle. But, as a decision maker, you need to know the context behind the numbers.
If I have one defining management philosophy, it’s that I really believe in second chances. If a player is a good guy, and he’s got talent, and you give him a second chance, he’ll give you everything he’s got.
Call me crazy, but I think there is a slight issue with half the league's GMs not being up to the task then.
Going by the conventional wisdom does not get anyone too far in this day and age. The Johnson deal - albeit not the single worst thing to have happened lately - is a prime example of that.
Here's an analytics-driven prediction: there will be a similar thread next year, posted by a fan of whichever team signs Tyler Myers.
Probably because he's in his 30's now and signed for half a decade.
JR maybe doesn't do the analytic stats stuff personally, but he said in the Player's Tribune article that he has a whole team around him doing that. It's not like he is not aware of the analytics. And to me this quote sounds like he trusts and listens to them.
I'm fairly confident that at least a third if not more of the guys in upper management positions in the NHL are morons who aren't any smarter than your average fan.Yeah, I find it odd that people are somehow shocked when these bad analytics players get big contracts. It's also why I don't understand why people think the Johnson contract is immovable. Johnson today is the same Johnson he has always been, and it's the same Johnson that GMs have stupidly loved over the years. So why is that suddenly going to change now?
Being aware of the analytics and ignoring them is even worse.JR maybe doesn't do the analytic stats stuff personally, but he said in the Player's Tribune article that he has a whole team around him doing that. It's not like he is not aware of the analytics. And to me this quote sounds like he trusts and listens to them.
Also, another quote from the article which explains alot.
JR always gets his man.
JR always strangely falls in love with certain players. He builds up an image of the player in his head that doesn't match reality. JJ is one of those guys. JR is a risk taker, sometimes his moves work out well and sometimes they don't.
The bolded actually represents a regression, but one that could be seen coming a mile away. His entire career has been based on the fact that he's such a fitness/athletics freak that he's been in good enough condition to make up for his errors - which meant that he was serviceable most of the time, and during moments when he wasn't having to compensate for his own failings (the occasional playoff series, for example) he became some kind of legendary badass.Yeah he's pretty bad. Bad positionally, not quick or fast or big and long to make up for any of that. Constantly loses puck races and battles down low.
Our GM is a dinosaur and our coach doesn’t seem interested in analytics. Chances are they were not aware how bad he was until the article came out. Rutherford probably wouldn’t even understand that chart in the article.Looking at that chart posted earlier, Crosby feels the effect more than damn near anyone else on the team. He's dragging him down!
What message is that argument supposed to convey? That the majority of GMs are deliberately being inefficient at their jobs?
The human eye cannot, I repeat, cannot outdo the good analytics can provide. If a GM does not utilise analytics, they should be fired on the spot, and if they do, catastrophes like this would not happen.