NameFaker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 17 hours ago, The Lock said: Analytical tools will only ever go so far as the people using them. Some people use these analytical tools to support an argument, while others based their argument around the analysis. In either case, it does make someone right or wrong. That's the problem with using these tools. They're great in assisting an argument but, if it's the main focus of the argument or is what's mainly relied on to support an argument, it's flaws (as you mentioned earlier) are going to come out and not supply a good argument. That's really my problem with a lot of these articles from canucksarmy or other sites. They rely too heavily on these analytical tools to support what's really just another opinion. I guess my question to you would be this: what does canucksarmy have with their articles that I cannot already find on CDC? Do these people have more knowledge or are they just opinions like you and me? EDIT: And, just to clarify, I agree that Virtanen's where he should be in the nhl. I'm just more curious about the analytics themselves. Well, I find value on the site learning about how statistical analysis operates, and, I'd argue that few of the writers on the site openly endorse a sports-view which singularly locks-in on analytics as the sole tool for evaluating talent. I think the quality of bloggers on the site has seriously degraded, though, and the fill-ins are a bunch of plugs. The whole site's deflated since Cam and Dmitri left. Still, there's material to be learned from. You're spot on about the tools, and clearly you caught the implication as it regards moneypuck. I think "right" and "wrong" might be slightly misleading terms when talking about these kinds of decisions, though. Analytics isn't advanced enough to make any kind of judgement wholly right or wrong, and I'm not sure it ever will be. That said, there's plenty of useful data out there: Hansen's GF% and Corsi% with the Sedins from years past was a good indicator that he'd be a good fit with them, and although the eye test didn't make them look great all the time, chemistry's formed and they're humming now. You also mentioned that they rely too heavily on the tools to bolster what's just another opinion. Well, way I look at it, every statement of fact is an opinion (creatio ex nihilo) and the best statements are those with the most convincing reasons supporting it. I can say Rene Descartes and Chris Higgins are the same. That's a fact. I think that. Might not be true, but how can you prove it? Yadda yadda yadda, reasons, etc. Anyhow, my point is that the analytics available are great tools for making an argument more robust, and there's also nothing wrong with starting from statistics, either. If your argument is based entirely on one model or the other, you're ignoring information willfully, and are thus being ignorant. See, that's the thing about CDC. Most of what I've read here is reactionary - it responds to an event with vague assertions and validates itself with anecdotes, weird historicism, and ad hominem. So, what would you find on Canucksarmy that you won't find on CDC? Well, when articles are actually published, they're much more thought provoking than "Virtanen's good, but he's not that good, so we should send him back to junior! He looks crappy!" because they have data points which form the evidence for their reasoning. It's a question of whether you prefer the specious claims of CDC or those of CA. I go on both because I'm bored and horribly depressed (why else?), but I prefer the intellectual rigour of CA at the least. It's like being at University with an anarchist liberatarian - you probably don't see things they way they do, but at least their opinions make you think about your own. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 13 minutes ago, NameFaker said: Well, I find value on the site learning about how statistical analysis operates, and, I'd argue that few of the writers on the site openly endorse a sports-view which singularly locks-in on analytics as the sole tool for evaluating talent. I think the quality of bloggers on the site has seriously degraded, though, and the fill-ins are a bunch of plugs. The whole site's deflated since Cam and Dmitri left. Still, there's material to be learned from. You're spot on about the tools, and clearly you caught the implication as it regards moneypuck. I think "right" and "wrong" might be slightly misleading terms when talking about these kinds of decisions, though. Analytics isn't advanced enough to make any kind of judgement wholly right or wrong, and I'm not sure it ever will be. That said, there's plenty of useful data out there: Hansen's GF% and Corsi% with the Sedins from years past was a good indicator that he'd be a good fit with them, and although the eye test didn't make them look great all the time, chemistry's formed and they're humming now. You also mentioned that they rely too heavily on the tools to bolster what's just another opinion. Well, way I look at it, every statement of fact is an opinion (creatio ex nihilo) and the best statements are those with the most convincing reasons supporting it. I can say Rene Descartes and Chris Higgins are the same. That's a fact. I think that. Might not be true, but how can you prove it? Yadda yadda yadda, reasons, etc. Anyhow, my point is that the analytics available are great tools for making an argument more robust, and there's also nothing wrong with starting from statistics, either. If your argument is based entirely on one model or the other, you're ignoring information willfully, and are thus being ignorant. See, that's the thing about CDC. Most of what I've read here is reactionary - it responds to an event with vague assertions and validates itself with anecdotes, weird historicism, and ad hominem. So, what would you find on Canucksarmy that you won't find on CDC? Well, when articles are actually published, they're much more thought provoking than "Virtanen's good, but he's not that good, so we should send him back to junior! He looks crappy!" because they have data points which form the evidence for their reasoning. It's a question of whether you prefer the specious claims of CDC or those of CA. I go on both because I'm bored and horribly depressed (why else?), but I prefer the intellectual rigour of CA at the least. It's like being at University with an anarchist liberatarian - you probably don't see things they way they do, but at least their opinions make you think about your own. See, the way I look at things. Facts and opinions are not the same. A fact is a concrete piece of evidence, such as a statistic or something universally accepted (for example, we all have brains.... well, maybe not all of CDC but you hopefully get my drift). An opinion is a thought formed by a person. Often, people perceive their opinion as being a fact when it's really not. Science commonly goes through the hypothesis phase, where one attempts to prove their thought as being fact. I think that's a similar thought to your "creatio ex nihilo" point. I can see your point with why to go to CA. I guess with me, while I know I have time to read both, I try and limit my craziness of the day to one site. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post wshdrvvn Posted December 2, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2015 you know what i like to do with advanced stats? be encouraged by them when they support our guys; and completely ignore them when they don't. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 This kid is the real deal guaranteed. He's going to be our top goal scorer for a lot of years to come. He'll average about 35-40 each season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 20 minutes ago, hatedkid666 said: This kid is the real deal guaranteed. He's going to be our top goal scorer for a lot of years to come. He'll average about 35-40 each season You know that from half an ncaa season eh? Cdc logic to a &^@#ing tee right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 24 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: You know that from half an ncaa season eh? Cdc logic to a &^@#ing tee right here. ...the guys excited about a prospect... I think you need a new drama regulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NameFaker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 20 hours ago, The Lock said: See, the way I look at things. Facts and opinions are not the same. A fact is a concrete piece of evidence, such as a statistic or something universally accepted (for example, we all have brains.... well, maybe not all of CDC but you hopefully get my drift). An opinion is a thought formed by a person. Often, people perceive their opinion as being a fact when it's really not. Science commonly goes through the hypothesis phase, where one attempts to prove their thought as being fact. I think that's a similar thought to your "creatio ex nihilo" point. I can see your point with why to go to CA. I guess with me, while I know I have time to read both, I try and limit my craziness of the day to one site. lol Yeah, fair enough. CA is quicker to read, usually. I guess I'm more of a nihilist about knowledge than you are. I don't believe "facts" exist aside from human interpretations of those facts. Every statement is made by a mind, and acknowledged by other minds. So it's the same argument from Plato's Republic on the nature of justice: if everyone agrees, that makes it true. Science is just a different mode of rhetoric. That said, I support science, and I see much more value in it than any other option for "knowing". Apologies for getting philosophical - this is probably not the space. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 minute ago, Canorth said: ...the guys excited about a prospect... I think you need a new drama regulator. Nope. I get torn a new one for criticising a player the same can be expected when someone claims a prospect will net 35-40 on the regular. Its only fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 He will be a solid 25-30 goal scorer in his Prime. Might have the odd 35 goal year but he is definitely not going to average 35-40 goals a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorth Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Nvm Forget it... Edited December 3, 2015 by Canorth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Look it would be great if he did do these amazing things but the past shows that one day we'll laugh at these comments. Visit the first page of some of our prospects. Shroeder - next yzerman Horvat- next toews Shinkaruk - next kane Shirokov-next bure Cassels - a lock for our fourth line c this year. Doesnt belong in the ahl. I hope im wrong but i think we need to take it down a notch when evaluating our prospects. If boeser is expected to score 30 goals a season based on half an ncaa season, then virtanen can be expected to be no more than raffi torres. Cant contradict ourselves here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: Look it would be great if he did do these amazing things but the past shows that one day we'll laugh at these comments. Visit the first page of some of our prospects. Shroeder - next yzerman Horvat- next toews Shinkaruk - next kane Shirokov-next bure Cassels - a lock for our fourth line c this year. Doesnt belong in the ahl. I hope im wrong but i think we need to take it down a notch when evaluating our prospects. If boeser is expected to score 30 goals a season based on half an ncaa season, then virtanen can be expected to be no more than raffi torres. Cant contradict ourselves here. Maybe people just need to post less in prospects threads. So. Many. Posts. All dedicated to pre-conceived notions and biases. All stated over and over... and over... I mean, there are other thoughts to be had, aren't there? edit: I get to talk like this now because my 30,000+ posts went down to 15.8k. lol Edited December 3, 2015 by TOMapleLaughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 hour ago, Gooseberries said: You know that from half an ncaa season eh? Cdc logic to a &^@#ing tee right here. Woah relax big guy. I just think he looks like a sure thing prospect. Yikes, someone needs some sleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 25 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: Look it would be great if he did do these amazing things but the past shows that one day we'll laugh at these comments. Visit the first page of some of our prospects. Shroeder - next yzerman Horvat- next toews Shinkaruk - next kane Shirokov-next bure Cassels - a lock for our fourth line c this year. Doesnt belong in the ahl. I hope im wrong but i think we need to take it down a notch when evaluating our prospects. If boeser is expected to score 30 goals a season based on half an ncaa season, then virtanen can be expected to be no more than raffi torres. Cant contradict ourselves here. Don't get to high, don't get to low. Being part of the problem on the 'low' side doesn't 'balance' the problem, it's contributing to the same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Don't get to high, don't get to low. Being part of the problem on the 'low' side doesn't 'balance' the problem, it's contributing to the same problem. The "Virtanen is Raffi Torres and Nylander and Ehlers are Bure" crowd is pretty much on par with the "each and every prospect is a future Hall Of Famer" crowd. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said: The "Virtanen is Raffi Torres and Nylander and Ehlers are Bure" crowd is pretty much on par with the "each and every prospect is a future Hall Of Famer" crowd. Exactly. It doesn't balance things out, it doesn't add substance or thought provoking discussion. It adds to the same juvenile 'noise' as the overly enthusiastic, rah rah nonsense. They're both equally a waste of page space and bytes. Be the change you wish to see. You want a more balanced perspective on here? Present one. If not, STFU and quit b1tching. Edited December 3, 2015 by J.R. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Exactly. It doesn't balance things out, it doesn't add substance or thought provoking discussion. It adds to the same juvenile 'noise' as the overly enthusiastic, rah rah nonsense. They're both equally a waste of page space and bytes. Be the change you wish to see. You want a more balanced perspective on here? Present one. If not, STFU and quit b1tching. Haha mods should add this to the "terms and conditions" required to join| CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 1 hour ago, NameFaker said: Yeah, fair enough. CA is quicker to read, usually. I guess I'm more of a nihilist about knowledge than you are. I don't believe "facts" exist aside from human interpretations of those facts. Every statement is made by a mind, and acknowledged by other minds. So it's the same argument from Plato's Republic on the nature of justice: if everyone agrees, that makes it true. Science is just a different mode of rhetoric. That said, I support science, and I see much more value in it than any other option for "knowing". Apologies for getting philosophical - this is probably not the space. Well, I also firmly believe that it takes different mindsets to make the world go round, or at least allow humanity to progress at a faster rate. There are so many different ways to look at things at times. I actually hate the school system where it teaches kids that there's "1 right answer". There isn't. Anyway, I think it's been a cool discussion at least on a thread we probably shouldn't be having this discussion on. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nergish Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 28 minutes ago, J.R. said: Don't get to high, don't get to low. Being part of the problem on the 'low' side doesn't 'balance' the problem, it's contributing to the same problem. hehe, I think the point is more that we don't actually know. Nobody does. Some guys pan out, some don't. Some surprise you. Our future 1st line might be comprised of players we don't even have on our radar... but you do need to try to cultivate a good pool of prospects and develop them to fill roles. But our drafting history over the last 10 years is spotty largely in part to picking 23rd(ish) for so many years, and trying to get the same truculent 2-way player in that spot draft after draft. In the last couple years we've had better picks to play with, but also sought out complementary players with unique skillsets. Minimal overlap between our prospects, and a very diverse cupboard for our offensive guys. Defence needs a lot of work, obviously, but we've certainly whipped together an admirable forward group. I think it's pretty clear that McCann is our finesse guy, Jake is our up-tempo wildcard (who can rely on his physicality at the very least), and Bo is future captain. The rest will have to carve out their own spots... but since this is a Boeser thread I will boldly claim that, of all our other prospects, he is the one most likely to sit with the others and be an important player for Vancouver. Of course I'm not basing it on much (if anything), I just really like the look of this player. I'm also fairly certain Brock has taken notice of Jake and Jared playing with the big club and has been trying to fast-track his own development in order to follow in their footsteps. The excitement of having those guys up trickles down through the organization. I've read some posters suggesting that our other "older" players in the minors may be upset with the game of leapfrog, but they neglect to consider the young guys like Brock who can look at our team and think "damn, maybe I could play for the Canucks sooner than later; better put the work in". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 7 minutes ago, nergish said: hehe, I think the point is more that we don't actually know. Nobody does. Some guys pan out, some don't. Some surprise you. Our future 1st line might be comprised of players we don't even have on our radar... but you do need to try to cultivate a good pool of prospects and develop them to fill roles. But our drafting history over the last 10 years is spotty largely in part to picking 23rd(ish) for so many years, and trying to get the same truculent 2-way player in that spot draft after draft. In the last couple years we've had better picks to play with, but also sought out complementary players with unique skillsets. Minimal overlap between our prospects, and a very diverse cupboard for our offensive guys. Defence needs a lot of work, obviously, but we've certainly whipped together an admirable forward group. I think it's pretty clear that McCann is our finesse guy, Jake is our up-tempo wildcard (who can rely on his physicality at the very least), and Bo is future captain. The rest will have to carve out their own spots... but since this is a Boeser thread I will boldly claim that, of all our other prospects, he is the one most likely to sit with the others and be an important player for Vancouver. Of course I'm not basing it on much (if anything), I just really like the look of this player. I'm also fairly certain Brock has taken notice of Jake and Jared playing with the big club and has been trying to fast-track his own development in order to follow in their footsteps. The excitement of having those guys up trickles down through the organization. I've read some posters suggesting that our other "older" players in the minors may be upset with the game of leapfrog, but they neglect to consider the young guys like Brock who can look at our team and think "damn, maybe I could play for the Canucks sooner than later; better put the work in". Hutton came in at 22. Maybe it's best to wait for Besser too? Then he makes a bigger impact, when he does arrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now