-Vintage Canuck-

[Report] Maple Leafs, Assistant General Manager Mark Hunter mutually agree to part ways

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Toronto Maple Leafs normalizing hockey operations once again, feels great to break out into laughter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

That's what I was thinking. Or, he doesn't want to work under Kyle Dubas.

I though I heard somewhere that they wouldn't let him interview for GM jobs with other teams recently. Then when they are looking for a GM they hire someone else. Have to say I can understand, I'd be pissed off too if that was the scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I wonder if Hunter ends up in Isletown with Lou in some capacity. Like it or not this is a big loss for the leafs. 

I heard this speculation on the radio today.  It would be perfect.  Poetic justice.  Hunter and Lamo sticking it to the Leafs.  :lol:

 

The Islanders have a more talented group than the Leafs had pre Matthews.  Hunter ran their player development and draft.  It could be fun watching the 11th, 12th, 41st and 43rd picks.  But I'm getting way ahead of myself ^_^

 

Edit:  see below :huh:

Edited by Crabcakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mll said:

Can't work for another team until after the draft and free agency:

 

 

 

 

Dang

Share this post


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

Dubas will use analytics to make his decisions.  That' the (most likely) reason Lamarillo and Hunter moved on.  They can see what's coming, and know the Leafs are doomed to fall to the bottom of the league.  They are jumping ship while there is still land in sight.  

My theory is that both Lou and Hunter thought they were in line for the job.  It only stands to reason that they move on once the decision was made in Dubas' favour.

 

As for Dubas, it is possible that he is quite brilliant.  I don't really know myself.  If this is the case, I see nothing wrong with the hire.  As with any other GM, it is unlikely that they are good at everything.  What do you do then?  Hire somebody who is good at the things that you aren't good at.  If he's as smart as Shanny thinks, he'll do fine.

 

It's a shame they had to burn bridges with some top hockey minds.  Shanny seems to be a calculating guy.  I'd be surprised if he didn't expect this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

My theory is that both Lou and Hunter thought they were in line for the job.  It only stands to reason that they move on once the decision was made in Dubas' favour.

 

As for Dubas, it is possible that he is quite brilliant.  I don't really know myself.  If this is the case, I see nothing wrong with the hire.  As with any other GM, it is unlikely that they are good at everything.  What do you do then?  Hire somebody who is good at the things that you aren't good at.  If he's as smart as Shanny thinks, he'll do fine.

 

It's a shame they had to burn bridges with some top hockey minds.  Shanny seems to be a calculating guy.  I'd be surprised if he didn't expect this.

Regardless of the how’s and why’s, the bottom line is the LEAFS SUCK!  :towel:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's strange to me that the leafs woukd block Hunter from pre draft/free agency work but are ok with Lou taking all he knows to the Isles lol. I am sure Lou had much more leverage when he negotiated that contract with the Leafs to clear the deck for himself if and when he got pushed aside.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-05-22 at 6:53 AM, rekker said:

This. 

Not digging the idea of saying yes sir to young Dumbass

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-05-22 at 12:25 PM, Alflives said:

Leafs following the excellent examples set by Florida and Arizona?  :lol:

Excellent point. I for one, love watching the recurring shuffling of the deck chairs on the good ship Maple Laff.

With Gilligan, the skipper too, a  millionaire and his wife, a movie star, the professor and shanahan..... here on Maple Laff isle

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leafs always finding ways to be in the spotlight. Never a dull moment with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Hunter is a baby, allegedly not willing to work for someone younger - seems really reductive - I doubt it boils down to simply that.

 

I don't think Dubas is ready - that's my impression when I listen to him - and I wouldn't blame Hunter if he sees things differently than the course the 'Shanaplan' is taking.

 

What exactly has the 'Shanaplan' been, btw?  It's one of the strangest courses in the NHL over the past few seasons, ironically, as it was supposed to be the model to aspire to, while there was so much confusion about the direction Benning was taking....  Oh well, critical thinking has never struck me as a strong suit of NHL media.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2018 at 1:12 PM, Down by the River said:

Except Dubas isn't just an "analytics weenie".

 

People unwilling to use analytics as a tool closely parallel religious people unwilling to use science to improve life. 

This may seem like a natural analogy to make, but for me it is highly ironic.

 

The reason being - "analytics" in the hockey field - is still a relatively elementary / nascent field.   Not only are the various metrics limited, but some of them are still routinely misnamed and misrepresented.  What is taken as "possession" are not in fact possession metrics - they are shot attempt differential metrics.

Analytics in the hockey worlld still have serious limits that remain relatively unrecognized by many of the self-styled 'analytics' pundits who hard-sell them - and yet at their core is a real lack of analytical rigor.   Wadr, what is frequently passed off as 'analytics' is relatively worthless. 

 

So the idea that analytics necessarily have value - needs to be kept in context.   Analytics are only as good as the analyst. 

Analytics can be of value - and are tools that should be used to the extent that they have utility - and then recognized for their limits.  In reality, every team in the NHL uses analytics regardless - but they undoubtedly have various degrees to which they depend on them.   There is also an important distinction to be made between data - ie the 'advanced stats' that people use as a source - and the margins of error that also exist at that level - and the 'analysis' of them.   'Advanced stats' and 'analytics' are not the same thing - 'analytics' are what some people make of those 'advanced stats'.   The interpretation and analyis of statistics is by no measure a hard science, particularly when there are so many 'metrics' in play in an overlapping field.

 

Believing in the utility of 'analytics' - without a firm grasp on the use, value and limits of them - is actually not an appeal to 'science' however - it's ironically, faith, itself.  No one here has any real idea what 'analytics' a person like Dubas relies on vs the various other NHL regimes out there.  This is not a hand that teams show freely - for good reason - it is literally the intelligence they rely upon to make crucial decisions.   What competitor shares their forms and sources of intelligence with their other competitiors?  Unfortunately what the public receives isn't necessarily representative - it's the Yosts and canucksmarmy types whose work no NHL franchise should rely upon - and ironically, those most associated with analytics have not exactly impressed anyone to this point (and not surprising, because the extent to which the 'science' can be creditted with trail-blazing change in the NHL is highly debatable).

 

Not all "science" is equal.  Naming ones findings 'scientific' doesn't necessarily make it so,nor authoritative.  People willing to believe in any 'analytics' that they're presented with - aren't necessarily advancing 'science' in the process.  

Edited by oldnews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This may seem like a natural analogy to make, but for me it is highly ironic.

 

The reason being - "analytics" in the hockey field - is still a relatively elementary / nascent field.   Not only are the various metrics limited, but some of them are still routinely misnamed and misrepresented.  What is taken as "possession" are not in fact possession metrics - they are shot attempt differential metrics.

Analytics in the hockey worlld still have serious limits that remain relatively unrecognized by many of the self-styled 'analytics' pundits who hard-sell them - and yet at their core is a real lack of analytical rigor.   Wadr, what is frequently passed off as 'analytics' is relatively worthless. 

 

So the idea that analytics necessarily have value - needs to be kept in context.   Analytics are only as good as the analyst. 

Analytics can be of value - and are tools that should be used to the extent that they have utility - and then recognized for their limits.  In reality, every team in the NHL uses analytics regardless - but they undoubtedly have various degrees to which they depend on them.   There is also an important distinction to be made between data - ie the 'advanced stats' that people use as a source - and the margins of error that also exist at that level - and the 'analysis' of them.   'Advanced stats' and 'analytics' are not the same thing - 'analytics' are what some people make of those 'advanced stats'.   The interpretation and analyis of statistics is by no measure a hard science, particularly when there are so many 'metrics' in play in an overlapping field.

 

Believing in the utility of 'analytics' - without a firm grasp on the use, value and limits of them - is actually not an appeal to 'science' however - it's ironically, faith, itself.  No one here has any real idea what 'analytics' a person like Dubas relies on vs the various other NHL regimes out there.  This is not a hand that teams show freely - for good reason - it is literally the intelligence they rely upon to make crucial decisions.   What competitor shares their forms and sources of intelligence with their other competitiors?  Unfortunately what the public receives isn't necessarily representative - it's the Yosts and canucksmarmy types whose work no NHL franchise should rely upon - and ironically, those most associated with analytics have not exactly impressed anyone to this point (and not surprising, because the extent to which the 'science' can be creditted with trail-blazing change in the NHL is highly debatable).

 

Not all "science" is equal.  Naming ones findings 'scientific' doesn't necessarily make it so,nor authoritative.  People willing to believe in any 'analytics' that they're presented with - aren't necessarily advancing 'science' in the process.  

I agree with almost everything that you're saying, except that my opnion is that what you are describing is a problem with the user, not with the approach. "Analytics" is not responsible for poor decisions, those that implement and interpret analytics are the ones that are at fault. 

 

What I disagree with is the idea that the interpreteation and analysis of statistics is not a hard science... any part of hard science is the appropriate analysis and interpretation of the data... it is just that, at present, when it comes to advanced stats/analytics in the NHL department, there is nobody that is actually doing this... or at least nobody that is exposing their work to the general public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

I agree with almost everything that you're saying, except that my opnion is that what you are describing is a problem with the user, not with the approach. "Analytics" is not responsible for poor decisions, those that implement and interpret analytics are the ones that are at fault. 

 

What I disagree with is the idea that the interpreteation and analysis of statistics is not a hard science... any part of hard science is the appropriate analysis and interpretation of the data... it is just that, at present, when it comes to advanced stats/analytics in the NHL department, there is nobody that is actually doing this... or at least nobody that is exposing their work to the general public. 

Isn't any scientific analysis of data only as valid as the data?  I question the method of data collection, its validity, and (therefore) any of the conclusions made from it. 

Plus/Minus is (arguably?) the simplest statistical measure of performance, and there are many who claim it's completing misleading.  Yet, plus/minus is likely the most accurate raw data.  

Garbage in = Garbage out.

This analytics is tool for coaches and managers, but nothing more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.