Series Talk: WCQF: (C3) Colorado Avalanche vs (C2) Winnipeg Jets | Avs Win 4-1

[expatriatedtexan]

To be accurate though, my main contention was that Girard was not better than Makar or Toews in that series. I said he was ok at first, but got worse after, and made too many turnovers, while Toews and Makar played great IMO.

I agree the eye test is ripe for confirmation bias though.

Totally fine (as I hope you know) that we disagreed, but aside from our conversation, my issue with how public analytics are used in debate, is as argument enders. There's no way to rebut them, because they're viewed as unemotional, objective truths. We know for a fact the conclusions drawn from them are not always accurate, so this just isn't a fair way to present them in intellectually honest discussions IMO.

Like I mentioned in our conversation, what they measure is for sure an objective truth, but it's the conclusion you draw from them that can be inaccurate if you just look at the numbers, and don't think critically about the subject beyond them, because they can be influenced by so many factors that don't involve that individual player's performance.

Especially the public stats. And I think it gets underestimated how big a sample size you actually need for those outside factors to be less impactful.

But I agree, they can still provide a lot of benefit if you view them as one piece to the puzzle, along with a well trained eye, that can set aside bias as much as possible.

Oh man, it's totally fine that we disagree.

And to be truthful, my defense of Girard has become more instinctual than anything. It's an emotional thing. I think he's about what you would expect from a #3/4 LD. I know everyone would like a bit more "more" from him. Whether that be durability, physicality, tenacity, or goal scoring. I get it. But then again, add more of that quality to Girard and we're no longer talking about a 3/4 but a top pairing defender. Also, if we were to go get a #3/4 defender who has those qualities, chances are they probably won't be as smooth at transitions.

I just thought he was overall getting shat on too much by a lot of folks, so I am guilty of selecting your comment to be the one where I entered the chat, so to speak. By showing that he beat Makar in every single advanced stat, except expected goals I wasn't trying to say he was a better defensemen than Makar. I was trying to point out that people were being entirely too harsh on G. But then again, I love G. His acquisition started the transition of this team into what became the 22 Champions. He started the offense begins with the defense structure we have today. Which is also why I brought up the bias thing...because I do realize I am heavily biased toward liking and potentially irrationally defending the guy.

 

[Foppa2118]

Oh man, it's totally fine that we disagree.

And to be truthful, my defense of Girard has become more instinctual than anything. It's an emotional thing. I think he's about what you would expect from a #3/4 LD. I know everyone would like a bit more "more" from him. Whether that be durability, physicality, tenacity, or goal scoring. I get it. But then again, add more of that quality to Girard and we're no longer talking about a 3/4 but a top pairing defender. Also, if we were to go get a #3/4 defender who has those qualities, chances are they probably won't be as smooth at transitions.

I just thought he was overall getting shat on too much by a lot of folks, so I am guilty of selecting your comment to be the one where I entered the chat, so to speak. By showing that he beat Makar in every single advanced stat, except expected goals I wasn't trying to say he was a better defensemen than Makar. I was trying to point out that people were being entirely too harsh on G. But then again, I love G. His acquisition started the transition of this team into what became the 22 Champions. He started the offense begins with the defense structure we have today. Which is also why I brought up the bias thing...because I do realize I am heavily biased toward liking and potentially irrationally defending the guy.

I would definitely agree that Girard is a fine 3/4.

I tend to prefer more well rounded defenseman, but the few occasions I'll critique his game, I try to also acknowledge that he's as elite as it gets in the NHL in terms of transitioning the puck. That's a big contribution, and you're right, his addition started the Avs attention on improving the D core, and made the team drastically better right off the bat.

I think he needs to play with a guy like Manson to cover for some of his limitations (and vice versa) and play to expectations in that 3/4 role, but that's just my opinion.

Generally speaking, I think there's a lot of critiques that don't factor in what the player's role is. We often hold bottom pairing defenseman to second pairing standards, second pairing defenseman to first pairing standards, 4th liners to 3rd liners, 3rd liners to top 6'ers, etc.

Even the stars of the game don't play perfect hockey. The further down the depth chart you go, the more flaws, and especially the more inconsistency you should expect.

 

[Hasbro]

I'm not gonna argue one way or the other with Dubas but it's absolutely true with Chayka. His sister might be an analytics expert, but he isn't. I don't even know if I can remember any moves he made that looked analytically-inclined. The Avs have more examples of that.

Perhaps the more foolish errand is running around calling these nerdy-looking GMs who didn't play "computer boys" and just automatically anointing them representatives of analytics when literally every single team in the league utilizes them to varying degrees.

And when they fail saying they never were that to begin with and/or blaming traditionalists in the org for any failures.

The EGO inherent sports analytics is a major flaw.

 

[BigCKU]

Nevermind

 

[Pokecheque]

And when they fail saying they never were that to begin with and/or blaming traditionalists in the org for any failures.

The EGO inherent sports analytics is a major flaw.

I'll admit there are some in the analytics community who are insufferable, but I don't think that applies to all or even a majority of them. Many of them freely admit that the numbers don't always lead to Valhalla. It usually gives you added insight toward making a sensible decision but it's not end-all-be-all.

A prime example of analytics not predicting future success was way back in 2014 when the Canucks acquired Rafael Diaz and sent Dale Weise to the Canadiens. Weise by all appearances was a big, fast winger who was little more than a marginal grinder, and while Diaz wasn't a huge star or anything, he did put up good underlying numbers and appeared to be a solid depth puckmoving defenseman. Fast forward one year later, Weise became "Dutch Gretzky" and Diaz played a whopping six games for the Canucks before being flipped to the Rangers for a fifth rounder. I'm sure there are more recent and likely better examples but that's the one that always stands out to me.

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

 

[henchman21]

I'll admit there are some in the analytics community who are insufferable, but I don't think that applies to all or even a majority of them. Many of them freely admit that the numbers don't always lead to Valhalla. It usually gives you added insight toward making a sensible decision but it's not end-all-be-all.

A prime example of analytics not predicting future success was way back in 2014 when the Canucks acquired Rafael Diaz and sent Dale Weise to the Canadiens. Weise by all appearances was a big, fast winger who was little more than a marginal grinder, and while Diaz wasn't a huge star or anything, he did put up good underlying numbers and appeared to be a solid depth puckmoving defenseman. Fast forward one year later, Weise became "Dutch Gretzky" and Diaz played a whopping six games for the Canucks before being flipped to the Rangers for a fifth rounder. I'm sure there are more recent and likely better examples but that's the one that always stands out to me.

It is most certainly the majority.

 

[Pokecheque]

It is most certainly the majority.

not in my experience but whatever.

 

[Avsfan1921]

not in my experience but whatever.

It has in mine and on some regards I completely understand. They are hard numbers, and objectively it’s hard to not take hard numbers in a complete and factual manner. IMO, the disconnect is in the nuance. 5-4=1, it’s a hard number, fact, and no room for nuance. George has (theoretical) .899 save percentage, it’s a hard number, fact and room for nuance. Many can’t get over the room for nuance.

I fancy myself as a progressive person, hell, even have a small business that works in the analytics field, but with how aggressive people are on stats it has turned me off of them almost completely in regards to sports. That’s not right on my part but it’s like trying to converse with a fan base you just don’t like, their team might be good (stats being the team) but the fans (people who use no context with stats) make it unbearable to listen to.

 

[Hasbro]

I'll admit there are some in the analytics community who are insufferable,

And their Lickspittles. We remember the "Top 3 GM Chayka" days and "Dubas knows things about players no other player knows".

 

[Avsfan1921]

And their Lickspittles. We remember the "Top 3 GM Chayka" days and "Dubas knows things about players no other player knows".

Only because he was looking through their phones!