Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NameFaker

Members
  • Posts

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NameFaker

  1. Maybe? I'm not sure I agree with that, but like we've established, this isn't the space for philosophical talk, haha. I like referring to Rick on the subject of school: it's not a place for smart people, Morty. I'm curious what you think Boeser will develop into, though. From my eyes, I see a guy with possible 30+ goals upside. That comment Benning made about him - how Boeser is ready to shoot before the puck's on his stick, is what'll give him an advantage. There's an intelligence at work behind the shot that's going to translate well - reading the play is probably any player's greatest strength or weakness (if they're outliers - if average, they're not worth discussing), and it seems to be Boeser's biggest plus.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Nah, they just have good writers and bad ones. Moneypuck, who's done the most work on PCS far as I can tell, has also written about Benning's supposedly bad evaluation skills. Some others were critical as well, but other writers have supported Benning's moves. As for PCS, it seems like a useful way to track progression, but that's it so far. The potential implications are interesting, though. If you can track types of players and introduce variables (events) that're consistent across the player type, then it becomes more useful. Basically, why is more data bad? I don't know, you seem to beating a scapegoat drum pretty hard, here.
  5. Well, the proof is that Virtanen's gotten better. He's playing more often, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and trust the NHL management staff. Who I don't trust is Virtanen. Kid seems dumb - not that he's unintelligent but that's he's over-thinking, which translates into dumb plays. I see him making dumb plays when he tries to be a 6th overall pick. Right now, he's not skilled enough to take advantage of his shot and speed at the NHL level, but do you think he's going to get better at mastering those skills by easily scoring at the CHL level? Besides that, he's being asked to play like a grinder this year, and I think it's pretty silly to imagine him being pigeonholed into that role for his entire career. I think it's better for Virtanen, not for every prospect. Don't straw-man, man. Context is everything. I'm a big fan of CanucksArmy, and I've kept up with their research into the PCS tool, which evaluates past success and predicts the likelihood of future success. However, even they admit the system is flawed, incomplete, and I personally think it's only a rough model for analysis. You can't say that dominating a lower league will make for success at a higher league just because of the numbers. Style of play is hugely important. Virtanen can play the NHL style at the barebones level, so why not let him develop the other side of his game while learning the physical ropes? Recall that many excellent players started out as plugs even after they'd gone through full CHL careers and time spent in the AHL. Kesler's an example, Hansen too, and those are just two popping to mind from the Nucks. Seems to me Virt's just been fast-tracked.
  6. Why? What proves your method works better than the one employed by management? What's inadequate for a rookie told to play a physical grinding game? He's nerve wracked to win, like most young men would be, and wants to do too much. He doesn't look inadequate, just like he's overthinking. And then, the whole team can be looked at through the same lens. There's lot of info out there arguing against keeping Virtanen with the Hitmen. Not sure if you've read it, but the main thing is usage. Virt wasn't faring much better minute wise than he is here, and in my opinion, testing your skills on an opponent who can beat you makes you better, rather than dominating. Case in point - Vey.
×
×
  • Create New...