The Gudbranson dilemma

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Yeah, that's what uninformed opinions are like. 

Oh no....he got to you too.

 

You don't recover from that level of circular stupidity.  You can only respond to it and hope natural selection does its thing

[Toews]

52 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

 

Analytics and the use of them are not all created equal.

 

@oldnews' reasoned, allowing for context (usage, team mates etc) and generally far more in depth understanding compared to the click baiting, editorialized and generally shallow coverage we see from the like of J.D. et al is not an apples and apples comparison.

You are telling me that not all shot metrics are created equally so tell me which shot metrics you agree with using and which you don't. Perhaps you can actually tell me where the bias is in the articles by TSN. I want a more nuanced response than the superficial arguments that I see in these thread. 

 

If you are going to knock the content as flawed you have to provide a reason why you think the "coverage" is not up to par. From what I can see these analytics guys use the same stats to judge different players. Its not like their methodology changes with team or player. Gudbranson is a poor possession player based on shot metrics, its the reason why Florida traded him. Its the reason why the analytics crowd does not appreciate his game at all. Tanev on the other hand is a stats darling because he is one of the best in the league at shot suppression. The same stats which are used by analytics guys to laud Tanev are instead used to lambast Gudbranson. Its not like Gudbranson has amazing shot metrics and these writers are lying to you and purposefully withholding information. No amount of mental gymnastics makes Gudbranson's shot metrics look great. So if you dislike analytics stop using it when it suits your argument and then turn around and post "OMGZ Analytixzzzzz sucks herp de derp".

 

All I see old news doing is using these numbers when it suits his argument and then criticizing their use when it doesn't.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

You are telling me that not all shot metrics are created equally so tell me which shot metrics you agree with using and which you don't. Perhaps you can actually tell me where the bias is in the articles by TSN. I want a more nuanced response than the superficial arguments that I see in these thread. 

 

If you are going to knock the content as flawed you have to provide a reason why you think the "coverage" is not up to par. From what I can see these analytics guys use the same stats to judge different players. Its not like their methodology changes with team or player. Gudbranson is a poor possession player based on shot metrics, its the reason why Florida traded him. Its the reason why the analytics crowd does not appreciate his game at all. Tanev on the other hand is a stats darling because he is one of the best in the league at shot suppression. The same stats which are used by analytics guys to laud Tanev are instead used to lambast Gudbranson. Its not like Gudbranson has amazing shot metrics and these writers are lying to you and purposefully withholding information. No amount of mental gymnastics makes Gudbranson's shot metrics look great. So if you dislike analytics stop using it when it suits your argument and then turn around and post "OMGZ Analytixzzzzz sucks herp de derp".

 

All I see old news doing is using these numbers when it suits his argument and then criticizing their use when it doesn't.

 Go look through the Sutter trade thread. Or the Gudrbanson one.

 

You're not considering context. Just like those 'writers'.

[Toews]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 Go look through the Sutter trade thread. Or the Gudrbanson one.

For what? More cherry picking of stats that suit one's argument? The stats guys themselves squabble over which stat accurately reflects reality. Now you are telling me that the stats they use are misleading but the stats that old news uses are infallible and free from bias. That's laughable, as is claiming that old news is free from bias.

[stawns]

11 minutes ago, Toews said:

You are telling me that not all shot metrics are created equally so tell me which shot metrics you agree with using and which you don't. Perhaps you can actually tell me where the bias is in the articles by TSN. I want a more nuanced response than the superficial arguments that I see in these thread. 

 

If you are going to knock the content as flawed you have to provide a reason why you think the "coverage" is not up to par. From what I can see these analytics guys use the same stats to judge different players. Its not like their methodology changes with team or player. Gudbranson is a poor possession player based on shot metrics, its the reason why Florida traded him. Its the reason why the analytics crowd does not appreciate his game at all. Tanev on the other hand is a stats darling because he is one of the best in the league at shot suppression. The same stats which are used by analytics guys to laud Tanev are instead used to lambast Gudbranson. Its not like Gudbranson has amazing shot metrics and these writers are lying to you and purposefully withholding information. No amount of mental gymnastics makes Gudbranson's shot metrics look great. So if you dislike analytics stop using it when it suits your argument and then turn around and post "OMGZ Analytixzzzzz sucks herp de derp".

 

All I see old news doing is using these numbers when it suits his argument and then criticizing their use when it doesn't.

 

They traded him because, like most teams with a stable of young players, they had to decide which ones they were going to pay and which ones they weren't.  Ekblad made Guddy expendable and they could put McCann in the minors.........that's why he was traded

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

For what? More cherry picking of stats that suit one's argument? The stats guys themselves squabble over which stat accurately reflects reality. Now you are telling me that the stats they use are misleading but the stats that old news uses are infallible and free from bias. That's laughable, as is claiming that old news is free from bias.

 

That's not at all what I said actually.

 

Also, this:

 

They traded him because, like most teams with a stable of young players, they had to decide which ones they were going to pay and which ones they weren't.  Ekblad made Guddy expendable and they could put McCann in the minors.........that's why he was traded

[Toews]

Just now, stawns said:

 

They traded him because, like most teams with a stable of young players, they had to decide which ones they were going to pay and which ones they weren't.  Ekblad made Guddy expendable and they could put McCann in the minors.........that's why he was traded

But I thought he got traded because "Analytixzzz". I mean I was told that pretty much the whole summer that the Canucks got a steal and Florida's reliance on advanced stats is what is dooming their team right now.

4 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

That's not at all what I said actually.

 

Also, this:

 

No I believe what you are saying is that old news' analytics makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside whereas anything from the analytics community that isn't in favor of the Canucks is "click baiting, editorialized and generally shallow coverage".

 

[stawns]

Just now, Toews said:

But I thought he got traded because "Analytixzzz". I mean I was told that pretty much the whole summer that the Canucks got a steal and Florida's reliance on advanced stats is what is dooming their team right now.

No I believe what you are saying is that old news' analytics makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside whereas anything from the analytics community that isn't in favor of the Canucks is "click baiting, editorialized and generally shallow coverage".

 

while I do believe that there is very little place for analytics in hockey and it's not doing teams any favours building their rosters, it was a money decision on Guddy, imo.  I think Florida fans would concur as he was a fan favourite.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

But I thought he got traded because "Analytixzzz". I mean I was told that pretty much the whole summer that the Canucks got a steal and Florida's reliance on advanced stats is what is dooming their team right now.

No I believe what you are saying is that old news' analytics makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside whereas anything from the analytics community that isn't in favor of the Canucks is "click baiting, editorialized and generally shallow coverage".

 

 

They're all (largely) the same numbers. How one interprets them, the context, weight etc given to those numbers, the depth one goes in to them differs. The desire/need for one side to editorialize in the name of web traffic differs.

 

I'm sorry if you're having trouble grasping the difference.

[Toews]

Just now, stawns said:

while I do believe that there is very little place for analytics in hockey and it's not doing teams any favours building their rosters, it was a money decision on Guddy, imo.  I think Florida fans would concur as he was a fan favourite.

If Florida is relying heavily on analytics to make their judgements of players then it stands to reason that they judged Gudbranson worth using analytics. So if they decided that he wasn't worth 4M+ long term they likely did so with the help of analytics. Its not like they were desperate to preserve cap space. They saw it fit to pay Yandle and Demers big money yet walked away from Gudbranson.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

They saw it fit to pay Yandle and Demers big money yet walked away from Gudbranson.

Exactly, they saw fit to put their limited dollars elsewhere.

 

How's that working out for them BTW?

[bobbyg43]

Jim Benning is in the corner so to speak on this one .

If he lets him go the return may be negligible to what we paid for him.

If he keeps him which I believe he should . He needs to cut some fat from the roster payroll .in order to balance the books out on the cap.

[appleboy]

It sounds like Guddy has had troubles with the wrist for much of the year.

 

Analytics are just a tool to evaluate how a player is playing at the time they are compiled. They are compiled over a period of time to give averages. They do not take into account that these are people and can be trained to change habits and make adjustments in how they play. Sbisa is a good example of how players can be coached and learn to make adjustments or just build their confidence. Changing a players line mate may be all that is required to correct his stats. Chemistry is a big part of any team sport.  

[Toews]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

They're all (largely) the same numbers. How one interprets them, the context, weight etc given to those numbers, the depth one goes in to them differs. The desire/need for one side to editorialize in the name of web traffic differs.

 

I'm sorry if you're having trouble grasping the difference.

So perhaps you can tell us where the analytics guys are failing in their approach and why you think old news's approach is superior. You keep shouting "BIAS!" but fail to do provide even shred of evidence that supports your view. As old news puts it, all I see are "cookie cutter" responses.

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Exactly, they saw fit to put their limited dollars elsewhere.

 

How's that working out for them BTW?

Keep up with the argument. I am not arguing pro or anti analytics. I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You love the "unbiased" and "fair" metrics provided by old news because they make you feel all fuzzy on the inside. When the same metrics are used to criticize the Canucks you turn around and yell bias.

[aGENT]

Just now, Toews said:

So perhaps you can tell us where the analytics guys are failing in their approach and why you think old news's approach is superior. You keep shouting "BIAS!" but fail to do provide even shred of evidence that supports your view. As old news puts it, all I see are "cookie cutter" responses.

 

Like I said. See the Sutter thread.

 

Editorialized articles on Sutter's 'Analytixzzz' coming from PIT showed a comparatively poorer player and a supposed 'loss' on the trade for Vancouver. (Just like in the Weber/Subban trade as well.)

 

They did not take any/enough account of their usage, their line mates/partners, their roles or their defensive play (which analytics are poor at measuring anyway). It also doesn't take in to account things like skating ability or intangibles like leadership. Never mind actual team needs (see: the Larsson/Hall trade as well).

 

It's not that I think ON's numbers are 'better', it's that I think he makes a far more educated, reasoned, deeper understanding, proper weighting assessment with them.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, Toews said:

Keep up with the argument. I am not arguing pro or anti analytics. I am accusing you of hypocrisy. You love the "unbiased" and "fair" metrics provided by old news because they make you feel all fuzzy on the inside. When the same metrics are used to criticize the Canucks you turn around and yell bias.

 

I'm not against analytics either. Again, it's not the metrics that are unfair/fair/biased. It's the opinions and assessments made from them that are.

 

It certainly has nothing to do with feeling fuzzy (speaking of editorializing).

[Toews]

1 minute ago, J.R. said:

 

Like I said. See the Sutter thread.

 

Editorialized articles on Sutter's 'Analytixzzz' coming from PIT showed a comparatively poorer player and a supposed 'loss' on the trade for Vancouver. (Just like in the Weber/Subban trade as well.)

 

They did not take any/enough account of their usage, their line mates/partners, their roles or their defensive play (which analytics are poor at measuring anyway). It also doesn't take in to account things like skating ability or intangibles like leadership. Never mind actual team needs (see: the Larsson/Hall trade as well).

 

It's not that I think ON's numbers are 'better', it's that I think he makes a far more educated, reasoned, deeper understanding, proper weighting assessment with them.

So you expect me to wade through a 200+ page thread to find the support for your argument? Nah, that's your job. If you are claiming bias you have to do the work to support that argument.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

So you expect me to wade through a 200+ page thread to find the support for your argument? Nah, that's your job. If you are claiming bias you have to do the work to support that argument.

 

That's what the rest of the post is.

 

If you want details, go read the thread.

[iinatcc]

On 1/5/2017 at 6:59 PM, FijianCanuck said:

Or sign him and hope he pans out at over 5 mil for 5 years.

 

I'm beginning to think 5 M for 5 years might be too high for Gudbranson. Petry and Bogosian are getting $4 million salaries.

 

I'd be fine for 4 years at 4 million.