Toews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Just now, oldnews said: Here it is: Someone that thinks that fenwick or corsi against - all alone - tells you anything at all. Also under the misconception that shot metrics like those are effected by PDO - which is a shooting and save percentage metric and has literally nothing to do with fenwick or corsi. But "regression could be coming" - and would have literally nothing to do with Sbisa's shot attempt differentials - which Toews hasn't even touched upon, because all he's referenced is half of an isolated F/C metric - the against - and doesn't seem to understand how entirely meaningless those numbers are - even more meaningless than the percentages of FvA. Anyhow, this one is going absolultely nowhere. Explain where I correlated the two. FA60 and CA60 are adjusted for team. Sbisa is still doing a poor job at shot suppression. He is riding a sky high PDO which is why his some of his other metrics look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Seriously....he wants someone to go through a Yost article line by line, with screenshots and tables? A yost article AND 200+ pages of the Sutter thread to hand deliver him the info he wants to back up HIS statements while demanding others back up there statements with their own info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 minute ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Seriously....he wants someone to go through a Yost article line by line, with screenshots and tables? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, oldnews said: Here it is: Someone that thinks that fenwick or corsi against - all alone - tells you anything at all. Also under the misconception that shot metrics like those are effected by PDO - which is a shooting and save percentage metric and has literally nothing to do with fenwick or corsi. But "regression could be coming" - and would have literally nothing to do with Sbisa's shot attempt differentials - which Toews hasn't even touched upon, because all he's referenced is half of an isolated F/C metric - the against - and doesn't seem to understand how entirely meaningless those numbers are - even more meaningless than the percentages of FvA. Anyhow, this one is going absolultely nowhere. One would think that it would be common sense that dismissing context, not recognizing the limits of data etc is a poor way of forming an opinion. You would hope one wouldn't need evidence to draw that conclusion. But as they say, common sense, isn't so common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said: Seriously....he wants someone to go through a Yost article line by line, with screenshots and tables? I'd rather not go through a Yost article at all, never mind the rest! Not even for a cheap laugh! @PhillipBlunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Glad to see you're bringing that same winning character from the election thread in to here You're making a bold statement about or against someone's character or posts by calling them a hypocrite even though they've grounded their statements in numbers and mathematical facts. You're demanding proof, yet refusing to provide any yourself, just slagging not one but now multiple posters while contributing NOTHING of your own doing it. They've multiple times proven their cases and directed you where to find examples of and proof of what they're stating with you simply replying I don't want to go through that much detail to find what you're saying go do it for me Analytics stated Gudbranson was not good in Florida, yet those SAME analytics state Yannick Weber IS a good player. Ironically, Gudbranson helped us and Florida win games, Yannick Weber not so much. Those SAME analytics and analysts claim Shae Weber is not really as good of a defenseman as his points dictate, yet look at how Montreal is doing and how Nashville is doing, oh might I add a Nashville that added a Subban whose analytics state is an absolute stud. So allow me to simplify this. YOU are stating Oldnews and others are hypocrites by ONLY posting numbers that suit their case yet ignoring those numbers when they don't. Show proof of that. You have to do the work to support your argument. Because I recall numerous times Oldnews, Sid and others have used numbers to both villify and honour a player in the same season without bias. If you're to lazy to find your own information to back u p your argument, do not demand others do the work for you. Uhh what? Whose character have I attacked? I see you are still good at making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoseTruckWasIt Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: I'd rather not go through a Yost article at all, never mind the rest! Not even for a cheap laugh! That's a huge price to pay for a laugh. Nothing cheap about it. Just sneering through his prose. I'd sooner try to get a laugh out of Solaris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 14 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said: He's got you there, Oldnews. I'm still waiting for you to explain what the 189lb enforcers? refers to. Let me guess. Is it a shot at Dorsett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CeeBee51 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, oldnews said: I'm still waiting for you to explain what the 189lb enforcers? refers to. Let me guess. Is it a shot at Dorsett? I think it's his mother-in-law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Toews said: Nah I think you have little to no clue of what you are talking about. Its easy to feign expertise in a relatively new age of analytics. You just have to claim that your approach is superior and accuse every other person as "having no clue". I don't need you to provide an explanation because I know you have none. You have never delved into the specifics of why a particular metric is more useful and in what context. All you do is regurgitate random stats when can be conveniently used to support an argument. Congrats you can read a spreadsheet and post random numbers. Yet here you are claiming to be an expert. k thanks for the laughs You're in here propping up the 'work' of people who precisely fit your description, (and parroting them yourself) - and wonder why people like myself - I have never claimed to be an "expert" (and never made a penny selling myself as one) - are critical of them. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 17 hours ago, Toews said: The funny thing is I am not even a big fan of analytics. Some of what they say makes sense but they can't possibly measure the impact that a 6'5 defenseman brings in terms of intimidation, physicality and ability to clear the front of the net. All shots are pretty much equal in advanced stats but we know that a shot that is easily seen by a goaltender often gets saved while shots in traffic are much harder to save. Gudbranson hasn't played very well this year but I have high hopes that he can be that kind of guy for the Canucks. He will never be a analytics darling though, but that is just fine with me if he can bring those other elements. While this statement is not correct, you at least seem to be looking at the reality - of the limits - of some metrics - and attempting to make some sense. Yes, with corsi, all shots are equal, including blocked shots. With fenwick, all shots on net are equal. But we all know that not all shots are equal. We also know that some players have very high PDOs - year after year - and that assuming they will "regress" isn't necessarily an understanding of reality or PDO. Some players simply take higher percentage shots routinely (and/or shoot the puck exceptionally well) - and otherwise opt for possession (some almost to a fault - ie the Sedins - who have perennial "sky high" PDOs. To assume they will "regress" is a misunderstanding of individual PDO. For example, Daniel Sedin's career PDO is 102.5 - that is not simply "luck" that will "regress" - it's an indication of the quality of shots he and his linemates take and his/their ability to finish - in addition to the quality of defense and goaltending that has played behind them throughout their careers. PDO as it relates to teams is probably more 'reliable' in expecting "regression" than it is when it comes to individuals, who have particular traits that can cause these numbers to rise above or below median - over large samples - for reasons that are not reducible to luck or situational small samples. People that want to understand Sutter's upside also need to delve deeper than elementary, cherry-picked 'analytics'. Clearly the Canucks as an organization are adept in this respect. When you get into goal-based metrics, your claim falls apart - because clearly all shots are not "equal" when it comes to GF/GA, GF/FA%, PDO, etc. And here's where you seem to be in denial regarding Sbisa's "analytics". Again, players don't have "analytics" - analytics are created by analysts. Players have some raw data - 'advanced stats' attached to them, that are more or less 'objective' but still subject to error and subjective criteria. Maybe you should use a bit of your analytical thinking - as you've applied it to Gudbranson - and try it on for size in relation to Luca Sbisa. You may also look deeper than cherry-picked and isolated shot metrics and find that Gudbranson's 'analytics' are better than you realized. Or you could just read Sid's posts regarding Sbisa - which may leave you disappointed when it comes to your expectation of "regression". His PDO was higher last year than it sits this year. You might start to wonder whether Sbisa's goal metrics are "luck", or whether all shots are not equal (as you seem to realize in relation to Gudbranson) - and whether your assumptions about Sbisa - based upon FA or CA alone - are all that reliable. They may be enough to satisfy you to declare that his "analytics" are awful - but clearly, you'd be basing that on a very elementary misconception. And given Sbisa's PDO over two seasons - it's possible it regresses - and it's also possible that he simply does not give up a great deal of high quality scoring chances / shots. If you or I could predict the future. we'd be better than "experts" - but even as amateurs, we can see when people make lofty claims and grandiose claims to knowledge that are simply not substantiated with weak analytics at their foundation - and that knowing the future would require 'analtyics' that none of us really possess. So you can swallow all the Yost you want, but that's all it is - self-inflated, pretentious claims to know more than he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The only dilemma i see is that we finally have some depth on D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 52 minutes ago, Monteeun said: The only dilemma i see is that we finally have some depth on D. Yeah - they could be facing a 'crisis' of wealth on the blueline in the near future - not unlike the goaltending "dilemnas" the team has dealt with in recent years. A problem every GM and coach wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sbriggs Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Ok its too funny reading all this expert crap on here. I think its simple, we like Guddy and if he's not willing to fall in at 4-4.5m long term then we need a bridge contract @ 4 m and see what happens to his game over a 2-3 year period. I think its way to early to give up on a guy with his size and toughness @ 24 years old. We develope D-men pretty good here so I think he'll turn out to be a very good top 4 d man and we'll want him come play off time, he's just that kind of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, Sbriggs said: Ok its too funny reading all this expert crap on here. I think its simple, we like Guddy and if he's not willing to fall in at 4-4.5m long term then we need a bridge contract @ 4 m and see what happens to his game over a 2-3 year period. I think its way to early to give up on a guy with his size and toughness @ 24 years old. We develope D-men pretty good here so I think he'll turn out to be a very good top 4 d man and we'll want him come play off time, he's just that kind of player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 1/05/2017 at 11:08 AM, Warhippy said: Just remember everyone. It's all ANALyitics here. I mean, just look at ANALytics gurus in 22nd place Florida and 29th place Arizona to see why this ANALytics thing is important. I mean Florida went gung ho in the ANALytics dept and threw away workhorse Gudbranson as fast as possible. A guy they trusted for over 24 minutes a night through their team record regular season and 26+ minutes in the playoffs. It's important to understand that ANALytically, Gudbranson is not REAL GUD at all...and this is a dilemma of cap-tastic proportions. Haha...I wonder if they regret trading him away now? I'd even throw Toronto into the ANALytics crowd, but they haven't went full ANAL like Arizona and Florida. At least TO is icing a better product than the other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 The only problem I see with Guddy is that he is either A: Luke Shenn....or B: Willile Mitchell...if he turns out to be like Willie...sign me up to the Guddy train we got a keeper! If he turns out like Shenn...my Willie will go soft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 4 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said: Crap, I can't stop nodding my head while watching this!!?? It's infectious!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said: Crap, I can't stop nodding my head while watching this!!?? It's infectious!! Stop the mimicking before the gun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Stop the mimicking before the gun! Luckily, I don't own one...:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.