Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Randall Flagg

Cataloging depth scoring again, again

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Better but still not enough with regards to “in game strategy” but they’ve made a decent commitment in team building and planning. 
Just because someone makes decisions that we don’t agree with doesn’t mean they aren’t using all the knowledge at their disposal. RK is probably one if the most brilliant minds in sports and is an economics genius. We might not agree with what he chooses to believe but to think that he doesn’t know the numbers inside and out is naive or arrogant. I respect you and your opinions and hockey knowledge but I don’t know enough about you to judge your mindset.

When has Krueger ever proven that he is one of the most brilliant minds in sports, or an economics genius?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Do you actually believe the Buffalo Sabres are using analytics in a meaningful way?

I hope to god they aren't blatantly mis-using them like you do on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jad1 said:

When has Krueger ever proven that he is one of the most brilliant minds in sports, or an economics genius?

I’m not good at posting articles. You’ll have to do your own research but it’s fairly well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

I hope to god they aren't blatantly mis-using them like you do on a daily basis.

Better than your blatant disregard for evidence that doesn't fit your view, although you aren't the only poster on this board with that affliction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest our depth scoring always seems to have a similar story with 2 of the 3 lines being streaky at best and 1 typically being colder than ice.

This year our 2nd line was arguably our 4th line as Girgs actually potted a few this year and may have tied his career high in goals without the season stoppage. Larsson and Okposo also played very well. Okposo, when he came back from his injury truly played like I'd been hoping he'd be able to as he got older; gritty, usually smart, hard to knock off the puck, and having that veteran savvy (His goal against Toronto especially) 

 The Sheary, ERod, insert many names here showed up in a handful of games; were ok in about 20 and either bad or actively hurting the team in the rest. Rarely did they all click in the same game thus you ended up with many games where you'd see one of them seemingly skating circles around the opponent yet having little success

Frolik, I love ya man for your help with the Cup in Chicago, but you may just want to retire. You are the definition of a shell of your former self. 

Simmonds looked ok I guess, not worth a big contract by any means but most certainly worth a low draft pick and maybe a 1 year contract to play either 3rd/4th line minutes and be a good influence. This being said we saw like 5 games with him in our jersey and he could potentially go the way of Brian Leetch with the Leafs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Better than your blatant disregard for evidence that doesn't fit your view, although you aren't the only poster on this board with that affliction. 

I consider myself the Joe Exotic.  Honest about my opinions and upfront about them.  I may not see all the facts like you do, but I ain't afraid to hide it.  Probably get banned for this as some sort of personal attack, but hey I'm having fun on a messageboard don't @ me

Meanwhile, I consider you operating under the Carole Baskin philosophy.  You present 2%rsq p=0.4 junk statistics as they are some moral, idealistic high-ground and pretend it means something, flashing graphs of these models in shades of blue and red to people as-if they mean something, when deep down you're just a huge hypocrite afraid to admit that the stats really don't say as much as you wish they would and you can't moneyball hockey like you can with batting% in baseball.  And it sucks that Joe the LSS BB has to call you out on it.

Edited by triumph_communes
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

I consider myself the Joe Exotic.  Honest about my opinions and upfront about them.  I may not see all the facts like you do, but I ain't afraid to hide it.  Probably get banned for this as some sort of personal attack, but hey I'm having fun on a messageboard don't @ me

Meanwhile, I consider you operating under the Carole Baskin philosophy.  You present 2%rsq p=0.4 junk statistics as they are some moral, idealistic high-ground and pretend it means something, flashing graphs of these models in shades of blue and red to people as-if they mean something, when deep down you're just a huge hypocrite afraid to admit that the stats really don't say as much as you wish they would and you can't moneyball hockey like you can with batting% in baseball.  And it sucks that Joe the LSS BB has to call you out on it.

Pretty hard not to see something like that as a personal attack, wouldn't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Pretty hard not to see something like that as a personal attack, wouldn't you think?

What do you do when someone gets shown the stats are junk, ignores them, and posts them with authority in their new thread over and over again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, triumph_communes said:

What do you do when someone gets shown the stats are junk, ignores them, and posts them with authority in their new thread over and over again?

Call out the stats, not the person posting them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:

I consider myself the Joe Exotic.  Honest about my opinions and upfront about them.  I may not see all the facts like you do, but I ain't afraid to hide it.  Probably get banned for this as some sort of personal attack, but hey I'm having fun on a messageboard don't @ me

Meanwhile, I consider you operating under the Carole Baskin philosophy.  You present 2%rsq p=0.4 junk statistics as they are some moral, idealistic high-ground and pretend it means something, flashing graphs of these models in shades of blue and red to people as-if they mean something, when deep down you're just a huge hypocrite afraid to admit that the stats really don't say as much as you wish they would and you can't moneyball hockey like you can with batting% in baseball.  And it sucks that Joe the LSS BB has to call you out on it.

Where are you getting 2% rsq from? And show me his p value so I can evaluate it. 

 

You are like Joe Exotic. Convinced you are right no matter what, think your a smooth talker, flashy with little substance to your posts. 

Edited by LGR4GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Where are you getting 2% rsq from? And show me his p value so I can evaluate it. 

 

You are like Joe Exotic. Convinced you are right no matter what, think your a smooth talker, flashy with little substance to your posts. 

I think the onus on showing the rsq and p value is on the guy posting the statistics. I’ve never seen any hockey statistic/model  get to anything beyond ‘interesting idea, but nothing to sway an opinion’ on levels of Rsq related to actually winning. They always have more to do with coaching play style, luck (PDO is great, there I lied, there’s one decentish model), but always fail to predict one season to the next or players moving from one team to another where their role, teammates, system, etc all change and overly impact anything the statistic was trying to get at in the first place. Like those RAPM charts. The creator himself acknowledges they do nothing to show how only player will be on a different team or if the coach decides to change what line he is on. 

Edited by triumph_communes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

I think the onus on showing the rsq and p value is on the guy posting the statistics. I’ve never seen any hockey statistic get to anything beyond ‘interesting idea, but nothing to sway an opinion’ on levels of Rsq related to actually winning. 

You said that the number was rsq 2% and basically a p value of 40% so where did you get them from?

Edited by LGR4GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You said that the number was rsq 2% and basically a p value of 40% so where did you get them from?

The Rsq values I’ve seen in statistics I’ve looked into methodology on regarding shot location (High/low danger) etc. The p value is what I’ve seen listed for stuff like WAR charts.

Edited by triumph_communes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Those are values I’ve seen in statistics I’ve looked into methodology on regarding shot location (High/low danger) etc. 

xGF is not just using shot location though. We are talking distance, angle, type of shot, speed, goalies sv% on similar shots, shooters sh% on similar shots etc. to come up with a number. 

Edited by LGR4GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

xGF is not just using shot location though

Yeah but once you add more factors the p values turn to junk. And they don’t share how these models all do this.  Or they do like the RAPM guy and say the stats don’t really say much at the end of the day except for the far outliers, and even then only sometimes like the curious case of Marco Scandella who got older, same teammates, new coach, worst player in the league into the best one off season. 

Edited by triumph_communes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 2:33 PM, tom webster said:

I’m not good at posting articles. You’ll have to do your own research but it’s fairly well known.

Despite what these articles might claim, he hasn't been very impressive with this edition of the Sabres.  His career results in hockey and the EPL have been 'meh.'

Seriously, outside of Eichel, what's the character of this team?  Where has the Kruger influence shown itself (aside from the team's uncanny grasp on Keynesian economics)?

 

 

Edited by jad1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jad1 said:

Despite what these articles might claim, he hasn't been very impressive with this edition of the Sabres.  His career results in hockey and the EPL have been 'meh.'

Seriously, outside of Eichel, what's the character of this team?  Where has the Kruger influence shown itself (aside from the team's uncanny grasp on Keynesian economics)?

 

 

Sorry, I shouldn’t have taken you for someone who wanted to learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Sorry, I shouldn’t have taken you for someone who wanted to learn something.

And I thought I was engaging somebody with a worthwhile opinion more than 'go Google it.'  Oh well.

I HAVE learned that Krueger has a career of middling results that somehow has resulted in a myth that he's a hidden genius in both the tactics and economics of two different sports.

I just don't buy it. The team under him is a mess.  And yet some people want to not only give him a pass, but promote him to a front office position.  It's a kind of Stockholm syndrome from watching a bad team for 10 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 6:57 AM, triumph_communes said:

Silly to draw conclusions. Botterill hasn’t gone after the cream yet in his deals, or at least, not a good enough offer to any of them. 
 

Now he has cap. Unknown territory 

LOL.  Oh my, my stomach is hurting from this. Ha ha 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

I consider myself the Joe Exotic.  ... 

This is hysterical.  Who would think this? !!! 
 

You could blow away John Belushi, Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy with this stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar Wilde so wonderfully disturbed me with “Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”  I am an Aristotelian, after all.

I wake to see Joe Exotic tussling with a Liger.  Oh, Mr. Wilde, come hither!

Edited by Neo
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 9:00 AM, dudacek said:

I remember a team that made "small" moves that improved the team: Grier, Numminen, Lydman...

It's crazy to me that people might think Sheary, Vesey, Frolik, Sobotka etc. are irrelevant in the big picture. Critical mass creates depth and gets players slotted into roles where they can succeed. These are roster-building truisms that haven't hasn't changed since 2005.

Two of those players are replacement level or below. Sheary and Vesey are dime-a-dozen.

Yes, completely irrelevant adds without the building blocks above them stabilized. It's not about adding players like that. They can be grabbed from the trash heap or as UFAs at any time. It's about having a solid 3 lines above so, at best, Vesey is playing in a 4th line role, and players like Frolik and Sobotka don't see the roster, at all, for even a minute of action. 

You don't reach critical mass by adding bottom line/bottom 6 players. You reach critical mass by adding top 6 players so fringe top 6 players play on the lower lines. Botterill thinks if you add enough bottom 6ers, enough will develop into top 6 players, surely. And that if you acquire enough left shot, left wing potential 15 goal men, one will adequately play 2C. He's out to lunch. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Two of those players are replacement level or below. Sheary and Vesey are dime-a-dozen.

Yes, completely irrelevant adds without the building blocks above them stabilized. It's not about adding players like that. They can be grabbed from the trash heap or as UFAs at any time. It's about having a solid 3 lines above so, at best, Vesey is playing in a 4th line role, and players like Frolik and Sobotka don't see the roster, at all, for even a minute of action. 

You don't reach critical mass by adding bottom line/bottom 6 players. You reach critical mass by adding top 6 players so fringe top 6 players play on the lower lines. Botterill thinks if you add enough bottom 6ers, enough will develop into top 6 players, surely. And that if you acquire enough left shot, left wing potential 15 goal men, one will adequately play 2C. He's out to lunch. 

You know I agree with you right? This reads like you’re arguing with me.

“Irrelevant” was in reference to those who were implying that Frolik et-al are irrelevant to Botterill’s record as a GM. The fact that he wasted assets on them is entirely relevant.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 10:32 PM, jad1 said:

And I thought I was engaging somebody with a worthwhile opinion more than 'go Google it.'  Oh well.

I HAVE learned that Krueger has a career of middling results that somehow has resulted in a myth that he's a hidden genius in both the tactics and economics of two different sports.

I just don't buy it. The team under him is a mess.  And yet some people want to not only give him a pass, but promote him to a front office position.  It's a kind of Stockholm syndrome from watching a bad team for 10 years.

 

A) I didn’t say anything about sports economics. He is a member of the World Economic Forum. He has a world class reputation when it comes to motivation and leadership techniques.

B) None of it means that he’s a good hockey coach and that was not my point. My point was that with his background, there is no way he doesn’t know what analytics are out there. He may choose not to believe him, or have his own opinion, but he has read it all.

C) The team is not a mess and has shown more discipline and mental toughness under him. It’s poorly constructed and, in my opinion, that makes it tough to judge his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dudacek said:

You know I agree with you right? This reads like you’re arguing with me.

“Irrelevant” was in reference to those who were implying that Frolik et-al are irrelevant to Botterill’s record as a GM. The fact that he wasted assets on them is entirely relevant.

My bad. Reading comp fail. 

Edited by Thorny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...