carpandean

What I "see" in draft grading and outcome is that you can, at best, put players into buckets. That is, small groups of players who have roughly the same estimated chance of performing at a particular level in the NHL. However, there is so much uncertainty in projecting that saying your rankings/ratings actually puts one player notably better than a handful of players around him is nonsense (other than those top few standouts in strong drafts.) So, yeah, if you're left with the last player from one bucket, then you go BPA, because there is a notable drop to go for need. Otherwise, you can draft for need within the current bucket (assuming that at least one choice meets that need.) These buckets will generally get larger the further back you go, but in most drafts, they start to appear even in the mid first round. Really, suggesting strict BPA implies that you can reasonably give players single-number ratings that provides some absolute ordering. The reality is that you have scouts who watch games (live/video) and use experience to project (guesstimate) where a players game will go in years to come. That would be hard enough if there were only one type of player, but there's many. Forwards vs. defensemen vs. goalies, offensive defensemen vs. stay-at-home, passer-first vs. shoot-first, etc. How can you possibly expect a true ordering? Ask 30 GMs and you'd get 30 different orderings. Some of that would be due to skill in identifying talent, but a lot of it would also be the actually uncertainty involved (the best GM in the world will just be more right, more often, but he will get plenty wrong.) Not to mention the fact that GMs don't personal watch/rate all (or even most) of the players. They can't; not enough time. They have scouts who are giving them their thoughts, which they then try to compile into one rating. I guess my point is that BPA sounds like a nice, precise science for drafting, but unfortunately is based on too much uncertainty to really be such.

No. Business, but our coursework was mostly advanced mathematics (econometrics, mathematical programming, stochastic processes, etc.) Different than physics, obviously, but probably more alike than many would expect. In fact, a lot of business systems are analyzed by approximating them as known physical systems (for example, modeling/analyzing/approximating queues using fluid dynamics.)

Congratulations and good luck! Every program is a little different, but what most have in common is that the first two years are very tough and designed to trim the group down. In addition to the original acceptance letter, there were three other letters that we received in the first two-and-a-half years that could have said "you're done."

O'Reilly was impressive in the accuracy portion. I seem to remember that during the NHL one, they said that only three players had gone 4-for-4 at an All-Star game. Obviously, more have done it at team competitions, but it's still hard to do. What was possibly more impressive was that Foligno went 3-for-3 - looked like he missed just low on the upper-right target - and finished 4-for-5. For a guy not known for his hands, that was a nice round. Jack should take the next matchup, but you never know. McCabe may have the edge in the hardest shot, but Jack does use a relative long stick for a forward and has a hard shot, so I wouldn't count on it. Jack better take the accuracy with ease. I wish I could say that Jack is good in shootouts, but he hasn't shown it yet. Jake is a relative unknown there.

Don't forget "go after (fight) anyone who takes a run at them."

Finally accepted that the wife and I wouldn't have a chance to see this together in the theater. Had the opportunity to catch it during the day, so I decided to go alone. Large reclining stadium seats with a grand total of seven people (me and three senior couples.) I had a row to myself. Just me, a bucket of popcorn and a Cherry Coke. Very nice! As for the movie, I won't go into a detailed review. It was a fun movie that got better as it went on. Had some things that annoyed me, but I got over most of them. Could have been better, but I was glad that I saw it, especially on the big screen. I'll watch it again.

Yeah, that was part of what I wanted to see in the side-by-side. I thought it seemed like Larkin started before the red line, but didn't go back to watch. Looking back at the video on Youtube now, he started just in front of the blue line, but the clock started and stopped based on the red line. I did a quick time from where he started to when he crossed the same spot and got over 13.6 seconds. McDavid started maybe two strides behind the red line compared to 5-6 strides for Larkin. They need consistent rules.

When I watched McDavid's attempt at the record, after watching the replay of Larkin's run last year, I thought "wow, he destroyed the record." Then, the time came up. I would love to see a split screen of the two runs to compare.

Can I get the CliffsNotes version? :P

I don't have specific quotes to give you, but I seem to remember some interviews near the beginning of the season where he implied otherwise, specifically about the defense. Basically, they were "I could make some moves that might help a little right now, but wouldn't help - and could hurt - them in their long-term potential (i.e., when Jack, Sam, etc, are ready to make the real push for the Cup)" type comments.

Or John Holmes. ;)

Certainly wouldn't be drafting for need, but in the (admittedly limited) games that I saw Nico Hischier play in at the WJC, he was a dominant player. He dictated play and drove hard to the net. Was the highest scoring draft-eligible player at the tournament.

Looking at the game summary, Byfuglien* officially received: 2 minutes for Cross Checking against Robin Lehner 2 minutes for Roughing against Robin Lehner 2 minutes for Unsportsmanlike Conduct against Robin Lehner 10 minute Misconduct against Robin Lehner Robin got 2 for Roughing against Byfuglien. * Could you imagine how many misspellings there would be of his last name if he were ever traded to the Sabres?! I looked like Deadpool after Negasonic Teenage Warhead pointed out that Ajax had escaped, going back-and-forth with NHL.com to get it right.

I think about this every time that I watch it.

I live. Just busy. Have read a lot more here than I have posted, of late. It's nice to be missed, though.

Actually, the Elector College (not to mention the makeup of Congress) is a compromise between the two systems. At the founding, some advocated for each state having an equal vote and some advocated for a straight (democratic) vote. The EC ensures that smaller/less population dense states still have some representation as states, while giving more voting power to states with larger populations. If you want to get rid of the EC, why not also change Congress to straight proportional representation? Why not get rid of state elected governors and switch to federal appointees? Replace State police with a federal police force? It's funny how both sides (and I include myself) are hypocritical about states' power depending on which side of the issue it puts them on. Ironically, Californians are actually calling for their state to become its own Sovereign nation because they feel that states, individually, have more power than they like. Why aren't they pushing to eliminate states, all together, instead?

To be fair, Trump said that he would deport all illegals, which would include the white European ones ... all three or four of them. ;)

Yeah, emphasis on "should be". I don't think either side ever really thinks that way. Interesting hypothetical: what if each county in NY were given a fixed number of electoral votes, plus an additional amount based on population, and then counties would determine how their electoral votes are cast (all-or-nothing, like the EC.) What would state elections (Governor, in particular) look like? Might be the same end result, but it would definitely be closer.

I actually agree with (or, would at least consider, in the second case) both of these. No matter who won the election, it was close. The closer the results, the more the elected should be willing to compromise. I like the logic of the second one, at least. Would have to think about the practical ramifications.

Think? Yes. Know? No. It might have strengthened her lead ... or weakened it ... or washed. Point is, nobody knows. It's much like forecasting before the election. Based on some facts, but still doesn't mean it has to be right.

And if the election had been run as a popular one, rather than one under the EC, the votes cast would have been the same. You're right, if's are all fantasy. :P

I keep hearing here and elsewhere about "the popular vote" and who won it. There is no "popular vote" in the US. Didn't happen; doesn't exist. In order for there to be one, the electoral college would have to be eliminated and then voters would have to vote under those rules. Otherwise, it's like saying that the Bruins won the "goal differential" vote last year over the Flyers, so they deserved to be in the playoffs. Teams would have managed games differently if the rules had been that playoff ranking would be based on goal differential than they did knowing it was based on points, so you can't simply say that the GD would have been the same. Likewise, voting (both turnout and actual candidate selected) is affected by the rules under which we vote. For example, let's say that a New Yorker generally leans towards Libertarian (even if he doesn't particularly like Johnson), doesn't really like either Trump or Clinton, but definitely prefers Trump over Clinton. Under the EC rules, he might think, "Clinton has my state in the bag, so I'm going to make a symbolic vote for Johnson, showing my rejection of the two main party candidates." That same voter under the popular vote rules might think, "as much as I hate the thought of voting for Trump, I'd be wasting my vote on Johnson, and I can at least help keep Clinton from winning, so I'll vote for him (Trump)." Now, I will readily admit that the effect works both ways and I can't tell you whether it would strengthen or weaker her support. My point is simply that just because they counted the number of votes cast doesn't mean they had a popular vote. Nobody knows what that result would have been.

Current or former? I have no problem with a professor dating a former student, but I have a huge problem with dating a current one.

Such a Buffalo start. Three "generational" talents come into the league in two years: Edmonton's gets 2 goals and an assist. The Oilers get two points. Toronto's gets 4 goals. The Maple Leafs get a point. Buffalo's gets hurt. The Sabres get nothing. Is it the Buffalo Curse or Tank Karma? Both?

Well, at least we don't have that slacker McDavid ... 2 goals and an assist ... slacker.