greensman Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Sometimes, because we`re so invested, headlines/media can be very funny/annoying. This morning I read how Leon Draisaitl, `had been through highs and lows so far this season, but was coming out of his slump`. You mean they took him off the third line, and put him on the 2nd line, right? Sometimes I wonder if they know what `hockey` is, or if they`ve watched it!? There are a few people in this room that NEED to start taking these writer`s jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, greensman said: Sometimes, because we`re so invested, headlines/media can be very funny/annoying. This morning I read how Leon Draisaitl, `had been through highs and lows so far this season, but was coming out of his slump`. You mean they took him off the third line, and put him on the 2nd line, right? Sometimes I wonder if they know what `hockey` is, or if they`ve watched it!? There are a few people in this room that NEED to start taking these writer`s jobs. Modern media is a bit of a joke unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 31 minutes ago, J.R. said: Modern media is a bit of a joke unfortunately HEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 11 minutes ago, Squeak said: HEY! You know what I mean. The Province, TSN etc. There's some quality journalism out there (present company included) but you largely have to hunt for it and filter it out from all the 14 year old fans writing blogs in their mom's basement's. Good on you guys who are fighting the good fight but you're doing so in the middle of what is largely a cesspool IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: You know what I mean. The Province, TSN etc. There's some quality journalism out there (present company included) but you largely have to hunt for it and filter it out from all the 14 year old fans writing blogs in their mom's basement's. Good on you guys who are fighting the good fight but you're doing so in the middle of what is largely a cesspool IMO I don't consider myself a journalist - as I write terribly most of the time haha - more of an analyst? Yeah - I can understand people's frustrations, and what Green's said is exactly the issue. They get fixated on one moment of time, and create the stories from it. Don't look at big picture items, don't take the time to back up statements with facts. Off the top of my head - I think Draistail has been killing it this year, but his 'promotion' means he is now seeing success. Like c'mon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Same problem a lot of CDC has... lack of context, critical thinking etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Squeak said: HEY! I'd like to see more accountability - and calling each other to task among various elements of the analytics community. That is healthy imo. The lack thereof is problematic imo - and does not lend to intellectual honesty or the kind of rigorous criticism that it should take to thrive in what should be a competitive environment. With all due respect to the "analytics" community at large - it's represented by a relatively self-congratulatory and uncritical endorsement of each other - to the point that the term "the analytics community" is used routinely in such a way that suggests the findings are relatively consensual. However - as an armchair crtiical thinker / analyst - with a reasonable education in empiricism, the analysis of statistics, critical theory, etc - I find the general product fairly wanting - and thus the 'consensus' not particulary integral. Quite simply - the 'science' of hockey, advanced stats, "analytics", whatever the 'analytics community' wishes to refer to on any given day - is still fairly novice - but the recognition of one's own limits - the limits of corsi-gazing and its variants ("shot supression", "possession", "fenwick" etc) - is not really recognized. The authority with which "analysts" like Yost, or Drance or the other higher profile representatives of "the analytics community" - represent their 'knowledge' is pretty problematic. What you get are sweeping endorsements of the idea that certain types of players are 'behind the curve' - ie that Nashville killed the Montreal Canadians in the Subban/Weber deal, because "analytics" determine that Subban is such a far greater play-driving player (or whatever variant of dressed-up language one chooses to employ). Likewise with the "analytics were right about Gudbranson" or parallel devaluations of players like Adam Larsson, etc. I think when you get down to it, it's a simple as the "analytics community" in general - and I think it's fair to refer to it that way because there seems to be enough consent to that categorization and very little critical engagement with each other (at least published evidence of critical engagement) - the "analytics community" in general has an exceptionally novice understanding of the defensive aspects of the game, of the necessarily two way nature of the game - in favour of players whose underlying numbers appear to indicate a superior possession player. But how simple is it really? What do Gudbranson's underlying numbers in short sample here actually indicate? What has been the results of the Weber/Subban deal - have they vindicated the 'analytics community's" perspective? Are the Edmonton Oilers that much worse off with Larsson as opposed to Hall? If simple old behind-the-curve Jim, the laughing stock of the "analytics community" is such a failure on all counts analytical, why has the sum of all these failures resulted in a net positive possession team? I realize some analysts will object to that fact, and hope to 'adjust' results with "close" taken into account, but by the converse measure, I'll disregard a lot of the goals the team has given up when behind (and thereby apologize for their goal differential) simply by convincing myself that they're taking greater risks, giving up more odd man rushes, etc while playing from behind. And I'll also disallow the third period results of the Chicago game, cause teams play differently with the lead, so that Chicago comeback doesn't really tell us anything about the Canucks. Well, really? Do we have six comebacks because of factors that don't 'count' or need to be 'adjusted'. It all matters/counts - as do the defensive contributions of players that are as of yet irreducible to the reading of corsi alone. The 'adjustment' of stats - like we saw with Filopovic - is even more problematic than cherry-picking or over-weighing particular indicators/measures without an adequate balancing of the larger contextual indicators. Likewise, the pretense of a lot of it to have 'adjusted for usage' simply does not hold any water whatsoever. In the end, I see an "analytics community" that has relatively paralyzed themselves and don't appear to be digging deeper - "paralysis by analysis" - and don't seem to understand the reasons why a Jim Benning's eyes glaze over when Thomas Drance asks him a question - it's not necessarily because Benning is too simple to understand him. There is an additional underlying problem with "analytics" - and that is opportunism - the attempt to sell the craft - the interest in using the results for the purpose of advancement - the attempts around the league to cozy up to or convert team management groups into "analyics' administrations - and as a result, some of the rigour and intellectual honesty gets lost imo in the process. Is Rowe really that much more hockey-intelligent than Tallon? I guess the test of results will tell us in due course. So I hope it's needless to say that this critique is most certainly not directed at people like yourself Ryan - but more intended as a desire to see more rigor in the "analytics community" and some differing voices - some difference of opinion - some constructive criticism of the (relatively obvious wadr) limits of current 'analytics' - perhaps yours is a different voice in that field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Those are absolutely fair criticisms - and I don't take them as a shot at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Movement: The Bruins would like to send down Quinton Howden Movement: The Bruins would like to call up Christian Dvorak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 hours ago, greensman said: Sometimes I wonder if they know what `hockey` is, or if they`ve watched it!? There are a few people in this room that NEED to start taking these writer`s jobs. 33 minutes ago, Squeak said: Those are absolutely fair criticisms - and I don't take them as a shot at me. As long as you got the shot that WAS at you... and OTHERS who`ll remain nameless, but they know who they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, greensman said: As long as you got the shot that WAS at you... and OTHERS who`ll remain nameless, but they know who they are Utterly false. Funny enough, if it's a joke - but there were certainly names - people that have been outspoken in ripping Benning but haven't necessarily delivered - no one really remained "nameless" - and I'm also pretty aware/sure that the Squeak doesn't share every opinion stated by the "analytics community" - he's said as much before. Moreover - it's not really a "shot" - it's a reasonable enough critique. If the "analytics community" doesn't wish to receive some tough criticism, perhaps it shouldn't rip into all these deals in such an outspoken and authoritative way or dish out so many harsh verdicts on GMs like Benning. I'm not so sure the Rowes, Chaykas, Yosts are really as fit to one up the Dale Talons, Maloneys, and Bennings as they purport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 12 minutes ago, oldnews said: Utterly false. Funny enough, if it's a joke - but there were certainly names - people that have been outspoken in ripping Benning but haven't necessarily delivered - no one really remained "nameless" - and I'm also pretty aware/sure that the Squeak doesn't share every opinion stated by the "analytics community" - he's said as much before. Moreover - it's not really a "shot" - it's a reasonable enough critique. If the "analytics community" doesn't wish to receive some tough criticism, perhaps it shouldn't rip into all these deals in such an outspoken and authoritative way or dish out so many harsh verdicts on GMs like Benning. I'm not so sure the Rowes, Chaykas, Yosts are really as fit to one up the Dale Talons, Maloneys, and Bennings as they purport. I was only referring to the fact that Squeak should be writing instead of these bum-oragutangs they give us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, greensman said: I was only referring to the fact that Squeak should be writing instead of these bum-oragutangs they give us. that is a pretty intelligent take greens. sorry for misreading it. If that were the end-effect, then I feel a lot better about taking the shot. On a comparable note - I read a guy a while ago - he wrote for one of the Ontario papers - that started publishing really interesting and informative accounts of aspects of systems hockey. I'm pretty disappointed it seems to have disappeared. Aside from that I've only really been able to find a source or two that delves into the actual nuts and bolts and xs and os of various hockey systems - Blueshirt Banter - a pretty damn good blog that covers the New York Rangers. I think there needs to be a lot more of that engaging, thoughtful, substantive material - or at least that it would really serve discussion in a positive way - the alternative one liners characterizing systems - WD "the trap - Torturefella "shotblocking" - AV "defend the 0-0 tie" are just so off, reductive and wanting. With the amount of former players circling around in the broadcast community, you'd think it wouldn't be that hard to improve fan understandings of hockey systems, tactics, adjustments.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 If the GM`s that I`m referring to would take over as writers, our current media would topple. We`ve never had accurate news. Right now, we get impulse and headline driven news, which is sensational and harmful to the community of fans. It`s toxic. When i went to NY years ago, I remember reading their sports section, which was packed with stories on players and prospects... it blew my mind! It was so interesting, and made me appreciate the inner turmoil of `what makes a NHL line-up`. I think if people were presented with both fact based analysis and learned expertise, they would appreciate the daily intrigue of a team`s inner workings, and how that translates to on ice. I think they would put down the crap they are reading, and take interest. I get that it`s important that hockey reach out to appeal to that 13 year old skater girl, or whatever... fan-base, blah, blah... but there`s no need to demean a sport or it`s player in the process. Its true, by dumbing it all down, you can appeal to a broader base... but you could also step it up, and raise your standards, and bring the fans up with you. Our local media/entertainment has chosen `serving lobster and sensational headlines` over the game. Other cities don't. Overall, thats my fan experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Demotion: The Minnesota Wild demote F Michael Chaput (no waivers required). Callup: The Minnesota Wild call up F Scott Laughton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 This talk is all above me way above me, would just simply say it is disappointing to read so many " news " items that do not place context into the whole story re: Draisaitl for the apparent hope it grabs the " dumby " audience and creates a stir. I only really ever listen out for what Bob McKenzie has to say, my idol right there. Should also mention I am really enjoying Hockey Prospect Radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Webb Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 3 hours ago, oldnews said: I'd like to see more accountability - and calling each other to task among various elements of the analytics community. That is healthy imo. The lack thereof is problematic imo - and does not lend to intellectual honesty or the kind of rigorous criticism that it should take to thrive in what should be a competitive environment. With all due respect to the "analytics" community at large - it's represented by a relatively self-congratulatory and uncritical endorsement of each other - to the point that the term "the analytics community" is used routinely in such a way that suggests the findings are relatively consensual. However - as an armchair crtiical thinker / analyst - with a reasonable education in empiricism, the analysis of statistics, critical theory, etc - I find the general product fairly wanting - and thus the 'consensus' not particulary integral. Quite simply - the 'science' of hockey, advanced stats, "analytics", whatever the 'analytics community' wishes to refer to on any given day - is still fairly novice - but the recognition of one's own limits - the limits of corsi-gazing and its variants ("shot supression", "possession", "fenwick" etc) - is not really recognized. The authority with which "analysts" like Yost, or Drance or the other higher profile representatives of "the analytics community" - represent their 'knowledge' is pretty problematic. What you get are sweeping endorsements of the idea that certain types of players are 'behind the curve' - ie that Nashville killed the Montreal Canadians in the Subban/Weber deal, because "analytics" determine that Subban is such a far greater play-driving player (or whatever variant of dressed-up language one chooses to employ). Likewise with the "analytics were right about Gudbranson" or parallel devaluations of players like Adam Larsson, etc. I think when you get down to it, it's a simple as the "analytics community" in general - and I think it's fair to refer to it that way because there seems to be enough consent to that categorization and very little critical engagement with each other (at least published evidence of critical engagement) - the "analytics community" in general has an exceptionally novice understanding of the defensive aspects of the game, of the necessarily two way nature of the game - in favour of players whose underlying numbers appear to indicate a superior possession player. But how simple is it really? What do Gudbranson's underlying numbers in short sample here actually indicate? What has been the results of the Weber/Subban deal - have they vindicated the 'analytics community's" perspective? Are the Edmonton Oilers that much worse off with Larsson as opposed to Hall? If simple old behind-the-curve Jim, the laughing stock of the "analytics community" is such a failure on all counts analytical, why has the sum of all these failures resulted in a net positive possession team? I realize some analysts will object to that fact, and hope to 'adjust' results with "close" taken into account, but by the converse measure, I'll disregard a lot of the goals the team has given up when behind (and thereby apologize for their goal differential) simply by convincing myself that they're taking greater risks, giving up more odd man rushes, etc while playing from behind. And I'll also disallow the third period results of the Chicago game, cause teams play differently with the lead, so that Chicago comeback doesn't really tell us anything about the Canucks. Well, really? Do we have six comebacks because of factors that don't 'count' or need to be 'adjusted'. It all matters/counts - as do the defensive contributions of players that are as of yet irreducible to the reading of corsi alone. The 'adjustment' of stats - like we saw with Filopovic - is even more problematic than cherry-picking or over-weighing particular indicators/measures without an adequate balancing of the larger contextual indicators. Likewise, the pretense of a lot of it to have 'adjusted for usage' simply does not hold any water whatsoever. In the end, I see an "analytics community" that has relatively paralyzed themselves and don't appear to be digging deeper - "paralysis by analysis" - and don't seem to understand the reasons why a Jim Benning's eyes glaze over when Thomas Drance asks him a question - it's not necessarily because Benning is too simple to understand him. There is an additional underlying problem with "analytics" - and that is opportunism - the attempt to sell the craft - the interest in using the results for the purpose of advancement - the attempts around the league to cozy up to or convert team management groups into "analyics' administrations - and as a result, some of the rigour and intellectual honesty gets lost imo in the process. Is Rowe really that much more hockey-intelligent than Tallon? I guess the test of results will tell us in due course. So I hope it's needless to say that this critique is most certainly not directed at people like yourself Ryan - but more intended as a desire to see more rigor in the "analytics community" and some differing voices - some difference of opinion - some constructive criticism of the (relatively obvious wadr) limits of current 'analytics' - perhaps yours is a different voice in that field. For the other GM's in this pool, I would seriously take note of the clear and consisce critical thinking provided by Old News. As someone that was worked in the hockey industry for that last 16 years, that was one of the most fair and insightful things I have read in along time. Nobody in the so called analytics community wants to call anyone one out on their lack of understanding of the statistics they claim to be experts in. Expertise of this nature requires a high level of academic prowess, the time to perfect your critical thinking skills and most importantly actually attend 150+ live games per year to understand what is actually going on out on the ice. Take a bow, Oldie! Stick Tap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Webb Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Mike Vanderhoek said: This talk is all above me way above me, would just simply say it is disappointing to read so many " news " items that do not place context into the whole story re: Draisaitl for the apparent hope it grabs the " dumby " audience and creates a stir. I only really ever listen out for what Bob McKenzie has to say, my idol right there. Should also mention I am really enjoying Hockey Prospect Radio. The Hockey Prospect Radio comment was the best thing anyone has every said. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greensman Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Analytics - thought they were the next `Moneyball` Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nail Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Pretty happy with the way Chad Johnson has been playing recently.. Makes Price-Johnson a pretty good tandem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.