triumph_communes

Thread title is pretty useless when it doesn’t tell me if it’s an RJ game o r not

Yeesh Montreal looks bad. And that team nearly got a cup last year. Goes to show what the stars aligning can do

Hinostroza finally demoted. Geez

They forced the run enough early game to give them the space. And enough throws to Diggs to open it up deep. Not sure if the Pats will bite on this though. Glad that no interception in red zone record got broken in an inconsequential way.

NO KOSKINEN

Now Boaton is going to have their ammo ti write the narratives all day. Great. McAvoy turned last second and Girgensons never even followed through. Bad luck not vicious but hey don’t let that stop them. At least these ***** know they don’t get a freebie. our forecheck was pitiful this game and we weren’t winning even without Dell. Needs addressed.

Just goon up the rat. Long season. He deserves every bit of it.

Dell is AWFUL

Buffalo had a bonafide 1C and the leagues best “2C” did nothing. Edmonton has a generational 1C and elite 1W and has done nothing. That 2C went on to become a 1C and win a cup. It’s about coaching and teamwork, not top end talent. Top end talent just let’s you get away with deficiencies in some areas.

Bryson sucks yo

Bench Skinner

Was promoted too early by a desperate GM. Upside is obvious, he’s the real deal. Always takes long necks longer to get comfortable with their body.

Puberty varies by years kid to kid so there is still going to be a preference they can’t control. Reducing the range will help minimize some, but hockey players who go to the NHL almost all skip a bunch of leagues anyway so this wouldn’t affect the top. Leaves us joe smhoes worrying about our kids going nowhere and that’s wasted effort imo Yes organizations are trying to do that work, I’m intimately aware. The only thing worse than not using statistics is improperly using statistics to make decisions. Corporates and upper management are notorious at doing this - it takes a lot of work that the type of people attracted to management don’t have the attention span for and if you take shortcuts you do more harm than good. The new analytics the NHL is collecting such as player and puck position at any given time has the ability to develop algorithms to start measuring the “it” factors. Makes it much easier to come up with metrics tracking all defensemen to tell whether they always shoot the puck when they get it like Miller, continue the cycle d to d and hope someone else makes the move like most our replacement level defenseman, or break down other teams with crazy passes like Dahlin does regularly, as well as tracking success rates and taking advantage of massive sample sizes. I’m sure there’s at least a few people out there pioneering that kind of work and making up some funny KPIs

Ah yes, that’s a different context altogether though it does loop back in. Does the NHL choose the develop older players or taller players and that’s the root cause? Statisticians have looked at many things and the one that stands out the most is date of birth. They made correlations over many different sports over the decades and found links that the older a player is for any age bracket (Jan or July depending on locale), the more likely they are to go pro. Ultimately they’ve tied it all back to the more physically mature players get more coaching attention. The amount of coaching attention one gets throughout their career is the strongest indicator for success than anything else, and coaches will usually give more attention to those more physically mature. This is the argument one always should have about players needing key minutes and they won’t develop while suffocating for 8 minutes a night. So if the league selects (drafts) larger players then they’re going to have a better chance at development and it was a self fulfilling prophecy, not an indication on size itself. Again the answer here I believe has changed with time as the barriers/privileges for success for smaller players has gone away over the years and the results speak for themselves. A relevant case study I think is with goalies. The league absolutely drafted tall goalies only, our very own GM calling goalie drafting voodoo magic so he left it to raw attributes and luck (and boy have we suffered from this). Despite this trend, large goalies have turned out to bust more often than not and a lot of teams have been burned by this approach the last handful of years. Size and fundamentals can get goalies pretty far, but to compete in the NHL it can fall short wildly quick. The best goalies have the ability to track the puck and where it’s going next without seeing it, and they don’t need to be 6’7” to block that. A few more inches of height and Dell would not have made that save in the final seconds last night, he was off the mark by a few feet. So does size matter? Yes. Does simply drafting someone because they’re bigger mean success? No. Are there small towns full of 5’9” Martin St Louis’ out there grumpy that they didn’t get drafted and their height was the reason? Nah, he’s an outlier and they always will exist. Look at Gretzky or Lemiux numbers sometime versus any other player of their respective time period and those numbers shouldn’t exist in the eyes of statistics. There’s too much there in the mythical ‘hockey sense’ to throw off any model ever created which is proof alone that your factor of choice should not be enough to overcome a well informed gut feeling. This isn’t baseball, where nothing actually matters other than being able to hit the ball or not. This is why it was able to be moneyballed. Anything else can be coached up to passable. Silly sport, but I digress.

The fallacy the article has is taking all current NHL players and plotting their size versus points as the basis for assessing whether size matters in the NHL. The fact is the selection whether size matters happened before the dataset of ‘NHL Players’ came to be. This is the bias. It happened in deciding who is good enough to be in the NHL. So to address the question you have to assess whether NHL players are different in size than the general population (more specifically the populations that hockey players come from) and see if there is a difference there and apply statistical tools. If there is a difference (I’m lazy and assuming yes hockey players are larger humans on average than the typical 5’9”), then you can conclude it is an important factor. The ‘tell’ is how many NHL players are a certain height relative to how many people are a similar height. If hockey players average 6’1” but people are 5’9” then yes, size “matters” plain and simple. How much does it matter? That’s where we’d have to get much more complicated let’s be honest in the 60s the pool of hockey players was smaller and more representative of a general population. It was more about who had the money to afford equipment, spend their lifetime in a hockey rink being trained, etc. and at the end of the day they plotted size vs points and larger players were better. As the years went on and the privileges were torn away as teams were in pursuit of the best players, this difference also went away. And that’s what the article saw by separating those time periods. After teams did everything they could to select the best hockey players, size among those selected to play hockey no longer mattered anymore. And that’s not because size doesn’t matter, it’s because the players who couldn’t overcome size disadvantage didn’t make it to the NHL anymore. What could be interesting here is seeing how the size of players changed as a whole changed over those periods as well to prove what I just alluded to.

All you’ve proven is this is over your head. I can keep rewording it until you understand or you can take offense and I can’t fix that. Size does matter or NHL players wouldn’t be larger on average than most humans. Take jockeys for example - much smaller on average then most humans because smaller size matters there. But the meaning of “matters” is just one factor of many and can easily be overcome by skill, smarts, leadership, etc. Selection bias has to do with how a particular dataset is being interpreted and the OPs article succumbed to it. That has nothing to do with the concept of size, it’s just how that particular dataset came to be.

System and such is fine Insee it more of a problem of players like Skinner and Miller are being put out for key scenarios and they are absolutely not the players who should be there for them.

They were on the offense with 30 left and didn’t try pinning until 16. Calm down

Cause Cody Ford is an abomination and we’re going to lose the division

Yes it is. You’re confusing the context. The dataset used is biased therefore the hypothesis was not tested properly. The conclusion that size does not matter based on that dataset is improper. The proper assessment is even easier than that effort article partaked in. It would have been to just take the average size of NHL players, which are the selected set of the human population. I’m sure it’s higher than the regular population, therefore some size is beneficial. Thing that’s hard for people conceptualize is percentages. If the correlation only accounts for let’s say 15% of the variation, then yes size does matter, but it is just one factor of many. I think if anything has been made more clear in this league is coaching is a higher factor than any group of players. Bottom feeder teams can change coaches and win the cup the very same year. It’s happened many times before. This is why I have such problems with all the stats that get thrown out all the time, they are more strongly tied to the player usage and system than the player itself. The stats that are all relative within a team is a step beyond that, but each time you do this the more data is needed to make it worthwhile.

Flavor of his mouthwash

Selection bias. Only players who are talented get to play in the NHL. Only smaller players whose talents exceeds their body limitations play in the NHL. Similarly, larger players with less talents still make it if there’s any benefit to their size alone. Therefore the production is leveled because of selection bias. What changed from the 60s to the 90s? Drafting! (Aka the introduction of the selection bias). Stats 101 is above journalism and sabrespace posting I see.

Dahlin is our best player. Y’all got spoiled on Eichel who literally would do it all on his own. They didn’t even play that bad and Tokarski played well. Just outclassed. It’ll be nice when our 1C , top pairing defenseman, top scorer, and shiny new power forward, and starting goalie are healthy again. No team survives losing all of that.

Get 0.5-2 mbps. Best we can get. Used to get a better signal with Sprint but they turned the tower away from me when they upgraded it to 5g. Yay internets.

Miller is LAZY