The Vancouver Media Thread | Part VII

[hookshott]

Let's get back to talking about the Vancouver Media...in the Vancouver Media thread!

 

[Bleach Clean]

I am not ignoring it, that's a strawman.

It's rhetorical (not treated as the main argument). You're parsing subsets within seasons to create selection bias.

Ok, I've never dismissed his struggles and acknowledged them.

Unless I am missing something, he increased his PPG from 20 to 21, almost hitting a point per game at 21. 22 was the weird short season and he scored 21 points in 26 games. The first half of his 23 year old season was where he really struggled, and he finished the year with 68 in 80 games, but he scored 43 points in the final 34 games. So he struggled for about the first half of the season or so, and then went on a tear.
You stated that it would be an "amazing" projection for someone to think that Petey would score 100 points in this league during his struggles at 23. In reality, Petey had scored 153 points over his first 165 games in the NHL over his 20-22 year seasons (including his 21 year old season where he essentially scored at a point per game).

So ya, even though he struggled pretty badly for the first half or so of his 23 year old season, it wouldn't be an "amazing" projection to project that he may become a 100 point player in his prime.

"He MAY become a 100 point player" vs " He would be a 100+ point player". These are different statements... (possibility vs probability)

Next, just use full seasons. I'm not basing my decision on a 50 game sample, but that whole season.

Pettersson was a short range below PPG over his first two NHL seasons. His 23 year old season knocked him down a peg. Now, if at base, his 20 and 21 seasons placed him in a 40%~ cohort (to use a general number) to eventually hit 100 points (something only 5 players did on average with the most pertinent 4 season sample), then his 23 year old season knocked him down a level (let's say to 30%). At that point, it wouldn't make sense to hold to say an 90% projection of him to hit 100 points eventually. It just wouldn't have made sense. I think you're favouring his 20 and 21 year old seasons too much, and his latest 23 year old season not enough (it should be the opposite).

Many thought Petey was the most gifted offensive player in his draft year, and the advanced statistics backed that up. So we are talking about a guy, who from a production perspective, was arguably the best player at the time of his draft. And then he wins rookie of the year, and then he essentially scored at a point per game during his 21 year old season. In his 22 year old season he has a bit of a dip, but that was the weird covid shortened season, and even then, he still scores 21 in 26 games. Overall, he scores very well overall for his 20-22 year old seasons, and without doing the math or research, I am going to assume he was the highest scoring player during that time at those ages.

So ya, even though Petey was struggling for the first 50 games of his 23 year old season (at which time 8 guys were, presumably, pacing to hit 100 points) I don't think it would have been an "amazing projection" to project Petey - who was, presumably, the most productive player for his age over hte previous there seasons - to eventually hit 100 points during his prime.

Oh I'm quite aware of what he tracked like in his draft year...

The most productive player for his age (draft class) is not in of itself an assurance on a future 100 point season. Off the top of my head, I can think of Boeser and Aho being atop their relative draft class and neither has hit 100 points. It would be more about absolute value relative to the best producers all time.

Whatever the case, this was about a media member like Drance (who himself is well versed in advanced metrics), projecting a rebuild having more value than what Pettersson and his then team would suggest. If he didn't think the player was of that echelon, then it was fair for him to put him in the category of an Eichel (who also hasn't hit 100 points btw) and advocate for a rebuild. It was fair, not fantasy.

You have the last word. See you out there.

 

[Bleach Clean]

- The stark difference between this year and last.
- Horvat trade
- Nobody had any idea where the team was going
- People speculated on trading Pettersson, Hughes and Demko
- Coaching situation was bad
- Now, the turn around is incredible. 5 reps at the all-star game
- Remarkable turn around
- Exciting second half, which they never thought was possible

 

[racerjoe]

Your entire point about Petterson is a strawman... we are comparing him to Dach... Petey's worst season was still better than Dach's best...

 

[StreetHawk]

- The stark difference between this year and last.
- Horvat trade
- Nobody had any idea where the team was going
- People speculated on trading Pettersson, Hughes and Demko
- Coaching situation was bad
- Now, the turn around is incredible. 5 reps at the all-star game
- Remarkable turn around
- Exciting second half, which they never thought was possible

Time was ticking on Petey and Demko's contracts. Control would pass over to them soon if the team didn't show massive improvement.

But, that's where the management team, and most managers in the NHL would try to make it work as it's hard to get talent of that level. Barring addition by subtraction (PLD), you are not likely to be as good without that high end talent. Aside from Seider, does Detroit have enough high end talent to be a true cup contender?

Have to make it work if you have that talent. Or at least try to.

 

[Vector]

DRANCE!

 

[Hodgy]

It's rhetorical (not treated as the main argument). You're parsing subsets within seasons to create selection bias.

No, I am not. It doesn't matter how you slice the data, it wasn't an "amazing projection" to project Petey to score 100 points during his first half slump of his 23 year old season.

"He MAY become a 100 point player" vs " He would be a 100+ point player". These are different statements... (possibility vs probability)

But you also said it would have been an "amazing projection", and a projection means:

"an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones".

Again, it wouldn't have been an "amazing projection".

Next, just use full seasons. I'm not basing my decision on a 50 game sample, but that whole season.

Why? Its pretty clear that the 50 or so game sample was just a blip? And anyone that made a knee jerk reaction during that period regarding Pettersson's ultimate potential was doing just that, making a knee jerk reaction.

Pettersson was a short range below PPG over his first two NHL seasons. His 23 year old season knocked him down a peg. Now, if at base, his 20 and 21 seasons placed him in a 40%~ cohort (to use a general number) to eventually hit 100 points (something only 5 players did on average with the most pertinent 4 season sample), then his 23 year old season knocked him down a level (let's say to 30%). At that point, it wouldn't make sense to hold to say an 90% projection of him to hit 100 points eventually. It just wouldn't have made sense. I think you're favouring his 20 and 21 year old seasons too much, and his latest 23 year old season not enough (it should be the opposite).

Your standard is "amazing projection".

"Amazing" means causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing. And I already defined "projection" above.

8 players were pacing for 100 points during Pettersson's slump season. And as noted early, presumably, Pettersson was the highest point producer for his age cohort up until the slump, and likely, even after the end of the slomp.

So, ya, in no way, shape or form was it a "great surprise", a "wonder" or "astonishing" that Pettersson would go on to be a top 8ish scorer in the NHL during his prime even when he was in a slump.

Oh I'm quite aware of what he tracked like in his draft year...

The most productive player for his age (draft class) is not in of itself an assurance on a future 100 point season.

It doesn't have to be an assurance. "Amazing projection" is the benchmark, not total assurance.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Boeser and Aho being atop their relative draft class and neither has hit 100 points. It would be more about absolute value relative to the best producers all time.

Pettersson has outproduced those players over the relevant ages. Boeser regressed majorly after his injury. And frankly, it wouldn't be an "amazing projection" if someone thought Aho would hit 100 points and he did.

Whatever the case, this was about a media member like Drance (who himself is well versed in advanced metrics), projecting a rebuild having more value than what Pettersson and his then team would suggest. If he didn't think the player was of that echelon, then it was fair for him to put him in the category of an Eichel (who also hasn't hit 100 points btw) and advocate for a rebuild. It was fair, not fantasy.

You have the last word. See you out there.

I can see why you want to exit this debate because you are clearly wrong. But again, you fail to address your "amazing projection" remark. It is clear you were wrong, or you didn't actually mean "amazing projection" and erred in your use of terminology.

 

[tradervik]

DRANCE!

Damn I miss that guy. What’s he up to these days?

 

[Ernie]

DRANCE!

what did he say this time

 

[Vector]

what did he say this time

Just trying to pull the thread back on topic.

 

[Ernie]

Just trying to pull the thread back on topic.

Well hasn't made any intentionally inflammatory statements recently as far as I can tell, I'm sure he's due.

 

[Vector]

Well hasn't made any intentionally inflammatory statements recently as far as I can tell, I'm sure he's due.

He's fully on-board the "go all in" train. I wouldn't be surprised, and it would actually be a lot of fun, if his next article is why the Canucks should trade every draft pick.

 

[Ernie]

He's fully on-board the "go all in" train. I wouldn't be surprised, and it would actually be a lot of fun, if his next article is why the Canucks should trade every draft pick.

Lol what a difference a year makes.

 

[nowhereman]

what did he say this time

"Something... something... Dom Luszczyszyn's model!"

 

[rypper]

what did he say this time

He's owned up to getting the team wrong this year, mostly. Still thinks very very highly of the Oilers and Dom's model.

Also loves tiers and tiering everything under the sun.

 

[Jay Cee]

Dingle Nuts Sekeres

 

[Ernie]

Dingle Nuts Sekeres

I met him years ago at the bar. I would say that's an apt title.

 

[Bleach Clean]

He's owned up to getting the team wrong this year, mostly. Still thinks very very highly of the Oilers and Dom's model.

Also loves tiers and tiering everything under the sun.

Drance will be a polarizing figure in this market because he's right a lot, and his process is rigorous/well thought out. But when the lower probability scenario in his model occurs, like the team going from being 14 points back from 8th at All-star break last year to this year sitting atop the league at All-star break, he will not hold the public to the same rigorous/well thought out standard he had employed. Nor will he re-quantify his earlier position (the logic/nuance). Instead, he'll admit that he was wrong because that's more important to the average fan. (He knows this)

They don't want to be told that points percentage is how you should actually measure win rate. Or that a massive turn around was assigned a 20-25% probability in his rebuild model. That it was a potential outcome that was accounted for, just of a much lower probability in the overall model. Nope, people just remember he wanted to rebuild and don't care about probability. It's a beer and peanuts market (nothing wrong with that), and he's an outlier... But what a necessary one, imo.





@racerjoe And Eichel, and DeBrincat, Seguin, Hall... Basically, any building block that was forgone to build again. Pettersson doesn't need to be exactly like any single one for the 'rebuild a rebuild' premise to hold. (NOTE: This is all from Drance's particular perspective, not the one I held)

@Hodgy (bait posting now?) No, it's because you think being one of the top producers in your age cohort ((Draft class) you're using a relative point marker here, FYI) lends to an 80%-90% probability that those top players will hit 100 points eventually. Not true. Even from just a cursory look (again, as I did this a few years back), this is incorrect. I gauge it to be about 45% for the top5 early producers in each draft class (used a .70~ PPG marker). Now add in a poor recent season performance (season blocks due to their use in analytics and model trees (no partial seasons)), a bad team, and that 45% should decline to what, 35%? 25%? Maybe closer to 35% because he had good absolute production at 20 and 21. A 35% hit rate is statistically unlikely at base. Therefore, betting on the over in that particular offseason (context) would have been amazingly bold. The team stunk.

You keep using 8 100 point producers but the 4 year average was 5 per year (4 on average if we are using the 5 year average).

Aho didn't hit 100 points.

Nothing else in your posts is worth debating. If you have the wrong base percentage/probability, everything else you say is meaningless. I've now explained my position thoroughly, again. You're free to conclude that it's wrong (we're talking past each other at this point).

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I find him irritating because he’s just so holier than thou. He thinks he’s the only one in our market using analytics.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I find him irritating because he’s just so holier than thou. He thinks he’s the only one in our market using analytics.

There is that aspect too, I'll admit. He displays a lot of knowledge when he speaks. Sometimes that comes across as arrogance. I just hope he doesn't dumb it down for fans looking more for a correction than to gain from his insight.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

There is that aspect too, I'll admit. He displays a lot of knowledge when he speaks. Sometimes that comes across as arrogance. I just hope he doesn't dumb it down for fans looking more for a correction than to gain from his insight.

I agree with a lot of what the man says, I don’t think he’s dumb. I agree that we should temper expectations with this team, even still if he’s done with that I think he was right.

I think some of it is he treats some listeners like morons bc they don’t take what he says as gospel. But, he’s usually correct. I don’t even think he was that wrong about Green, wrong nonetheless however.

 

[Jay Cee]

I met him years ago at the bar. I would say that's an apt title.

I bet he was pulling at will.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

It's Canuck Time | Defector

A couple of Detroit Lions playoff wins can do funny things to a girl. They can upend the truths on which you’ve built your life. They can make you cry at something as simple as a pregame entrance. And they can instill an optimism that is contagious across sports, communicable to all franchises...

defector.com

Defector article on the Canucks this season. Not super insightful but a pleasant, funny read.

It made me realize that while there is informed Canucks coverage these days, there are no good writers who cover the team anymore. Botch was probably the last one. Harrison Mooney was pretty good too.

Drance writes like he's covering a war crimes trial at the Hague. IMac writes like an 8th grader. Everyone else is doing listicles. It's sad.

Hopefully if this team goes on a run they get Gary Mason back writing about sports or something.

 

[Vector]

Patrick Johnston writes some very good articles on the Canucks. Jeff Paterson's weekly CanucksArmy article is quite good too. Dayal has some excellent stuff if you're more analytically inclined.

 

[bossram]

I find him irritating because he’s just so holier than thou. He thinks he’s the only one in our market using analytics.

As far as MSM guys in the VAN media market, he pretty much is the only one.

He's owned up to getting the team wrong this year, mostly. Still thinks very very highly of the Oilers and Dom's model.

Also loves tiers and tiering everything under the sun.

FWIW Dom's model had the highest pre-season rating of the Canucks of any public model/prognosticator...including sportsbooks betting odds.

Patrick Johnston writes some very good articles on the Canucks. Jeff Paterson's weekly CanucksArmy article is quite good too. Dayal has some excellent stuff if you're more analytically inclined.

Dayal is great and I read literally everything he puts out. But he has more of a league-wide portfolio now.