Mr.53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 12 hours ago, Rick_theRyper said: In 2 years time almost of our forwards in the top 9 will be 20 goal guys. I am also very excited. So much that Im gonna get cable again.. No more reddit.. Lol cheers to being hopful! Damn Canucks... You went and got this boy so excited he's repaying for cable... Damn.. hahaha but for real. It's going to be exciting to see who steps up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliasSkywalker Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 15 hours ago, ReggieBush said: How is Tkatchuk in tier 3, yet Bo who outscored him this year (being deployed as a 3rd line center, and as a matchup guy) is not ranked? Bo had the same amount of points as Rikard Rakell, who is ranked. Same with Silverberg and Mikael Frolik. Yes, the player tier 1-5 ranking is pretty suspect. According to their rating, Taylor Hall (20+33=53) is a Tier 1 star even though he was second behind Kyle Palmieri (not rated on tiers 1 to 5) in scoring on the Devils. Bo (20+32=52) rates zero on the tier scale as well. If the player ratings are that inaccurate, then I wouldn't take this analysis as any more than a rough approximation of overall star power. But to say NJD has a tier 1 star and we have none is a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Gudbransons_Elbow said: LOL Michael Frolik has more star power than Bo. Cool story bro. ....go sit on your hands in the corner...and don't turn around or get up until you see the stars....Bo, Boeser, Rodin, Stecher and more on the way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianRugby Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 17 hours ago, Slegr said: Bbbbb.. bbbut we just resigned Chaput, and we got Megna! It's eastern "media" they probably don't know about Chaput-anator or Megna-godzilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 How do you define star power? I ask because if you are going by traditional definitions than it means the LA Kings didn't have any star power in their 2012 run. I know they had some good and great players but their players reached star power status after their cup win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 12 hours ago, SabreFan1 said: As I said to the poster above... Whether you like it or not, plenty of teams, including the Canucks are using analytics now. Like JB and other GMs have said, "it's one of the tools in their belt". I'm not talking about techniques teams may be using internally, you'll never get to know exactly what those are. I'm talking about crap articles like this one, and the idea that what these guys do is anything resembling "analysis". It isn't. All these hacks do is come up with different ways of telling us the guys that score the most are the NHLs 'best'. This "star" thing is a perfect example. Calgary is above the "championship cutoff" over Anaheim? Montreal? NYR? okie dokie. Looks like Winnipeg is heading for the cup final too. Thats some analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 16 hours ago, ReggieBush said: How is Tkatchuk in tier 3, yet Bo who outscored him this year (being deployed as a 3rd line center, and as a matchup guy) is not ranked? Bo had the same amount of points as Rikard Rakell, who is ranked. Same with Silverberg and Mikael Frolik. his gamescore calculation model is based off far more than just points. Tkachuk was one of the best possession players in the league last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, iinatcc said: How do you define star power? I ask because if you are going by traditional definitions than it means the LA Kings didn't have any star power in their 2012 run. I know they had some good and great players but their players reached star power status after their cup win. it literally says what a star is in the first couple of sentences of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 13 hours ago, NameFaker said: Looks like a lot of people here didn't read the article... It's saying that if you take an aggregated measure of balanced stats, our players are making less of an impact than other teams' players. This is not that complicated. We have been an abysmal team for three years (the length of their "study"). It's not at all controversial that we have no "stars" who're carrying the team. Horvat, Henrik, Daniel. All them are outside of the parameters set up by the study. So, go ahead and gripe about the bias of Eastern media or whatever else, saying we totally have stars. Fact is, our team has sucked and probably will suck for a year or two more. What this article could do for us, as a fanbase, is make us more critical of our moves and create upwards pressure on management to be creative and include analytics in their decision-making (something they did with Dahlen, Petterson, Goldobin, and all of our FA signings). I just don't get why people are pissed off. It's only a model, not fu&king Camelot. this is an excellent post. people here, 90% from what I read don't understand this is a MODEL not an opinion piece. It's NOT a subjective piece of literature. It's a mathematical model that is impartial to any sort of bias that people are complaining about. It uses raw stats to calculate "star power". Nothing wrong with it. I wish people would just open the article and read first before starting to get upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 13 hours ago, Eastsidenuck said: Lol whoever wrote this should be immediately fired There's no real writing involved. It's a model. It's not like he's saying "I think the Canucks have no starpower". It's not an opinion piece. If you opened it instead of reading the headline, you would know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 15 hours ago, debluvscanucks said: By: Dom Luszczyszyn All that needs to be said. (Who?) Also: are we making a movie or playing hockey? I don't care about the hoopla, just win games. Edmonton had star power... oh no. Please put the article in your post, not just a link. What does the author have anything to do with the credibility of the article? It's an article based on a model, not an opinion piece. If he wrote, "I think the Canucks have no stars, XYZ are the reasons why", sure you could question his credibility. He uses raw numbers though. No subjectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, GoBoGo53 said: this is an excellent post. people here, 90% from what I read don't understand this is a MODEL not an opinion piece. It's NOT a subjective piece of literature. It's a mathematical model that is impartial to any sort of bias that people are complaining about. It uses raw stats to calculate "star power". Nothing wrong with it. I wish people would just open the article and read first before starting to get upset. this right here is whats wrong with the current state of hockey 'analysis'. I did look at the original article and nearly spit out my coffee. Its completely biased, and in fact isn't strictly an "analysis" actually. His model is biased, its a bit freaky that you think it isn't. He picks certain stats over others. Bias. He decides on weighting of each. Bias. He says himself that its raw and has problems. Its nothing even close to an actual statistical analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Boudrias said: Bert and Naslund weren't really developed in Vancouver and interestingly are the weakest names. I would add Burrows and Smyl to your list. Tanti? Tanti for sure. I added Bert and Naslund just because both of them were just prospects who didn't really make a name for themselves until they came to Van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBoGo53 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: this right here is whats wrong with the current state of hockey 'analysis'. I did look at the original article and nearly spit out my coffee. Its completely biased, and in fact isn't strictly an "analysis" actually. His model is biased, its a bit freaky that you think it isn't. He picks certain stats over others. Bias. He decides on weighting of each. Bias. He says himself that its raw and has problems. Its nothing even close to an actual statistical analysis. So he specifically picked statistics that would make Canucks players look bad? is that what you are suggesting? Of course the data is raw and has problems, it probably took a lot of time to figure out the weighting of the data he chose. HIs model isn't biased towards anything. He weights statistics that best represents the impact a star should have on the game. It's fair to criticize the model, but I don't think it's fair to say eastern media bias or criticize the author because it's not like he uses a different calculation specifically to make the canucks look bad. The people who say Horvat (I agree to some extent by the way) is an opinion based take. It can be debated back and forth because theres no science behind it. The validity of this model can absolutely be debated, but it has to be done on a grander level than just the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris12345 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 All I know is I'll be going to Vegas 3-4 times a year to NOT watch the Canucks. Already checked the schedule and it's McDavid, Crosby, and Ovie all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 32 minutes ago, GoBoGo53 said: So he specifically picked statistics that would make Canucks players look bad? is that what you are suggesting? Of course the data is raw and has problems, it probably took a lot of time to figure out the weighting of the data he chose. HIs model isn't biased towards anything. He weights statistics that best represents the impact a star should have on the game. "So he specifically picked statistics that would make Canucks players look bad? is that what you are suggesting?" Strawman- at no point did S'all say that or suggest that. "He weights statistics that best represents the impact a star should have on the game." He weighs statistics HE feels best represents..... In other words BIAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, GoBoGo53 said: So he specifically picked statistics that would make Canucks players look bad? is that what you are suggesting? Of course the data is raw and has problems, it probably took a lot of time to figure out the weighting of the data he chose. HIs model isn't biased towards anything. He weights statistics that best represents the impact a star should have on the game. It's fair to criticize the model, but I don't think it's fair to say eastern media bias or criticize the author because it's not like he uses a different calculation specifically to make the canucks look bad. The people who say Horvat (I agree to some extent by the way) is an opinion based take. It can be debated back and forth because theres no science behind it. The validity of this model can absolutely be debated, but it has to be done on a grander level than just the Canucks. You're not getting it. He - him, the author - picked the stats and weights - he thinks represents "star power". Its completely biased. He didn't arrive at it via experimentation of raw data. He had an idea, and massaged it until it fit the top producers in the league. Be glad this isn't how people design planes. He in fact has done nothing to forward knowledge of this topic whatsoever. Overall scoring stats would lead you to the same end point. All he did was provide a bunch of fluff around the concept of who's a "1" and who's a "5". It has all the credibility of a National Enquirer Elvis sighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 12 minutes ago, gurn said: "So he specifically picked statistics that would make Canucks players look bad? is that what you are suggesting?" Strawman- at no point did Saul say that or suggest that. "He weights statistics that best represents the impact a star should have on the game." He weighs statistics HE feels best represents..... In other words BIAS Not to worry over the stats, they are what they are. This is why Vegas gives odds in some contests and makes millions. Fans will support and bet on their team regardless of evidence. In fact quite often the "evidence" is considered tainted because it goes against "their" team. There is a simpler way for anyone disagreeing with the stats table, just go to NHL.com and create the stats that support your position that the Canucks are a good/better/superior team, then get Vegas to change the odds of success. Of course there is a big problem with the table of champions, the Canucks aren't on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanaholic Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 BETTER LATE THAN NEVER for this REBUILD . . . It should have been started in 2012 or at the very latest 2013. BUT, owners had different ideas - got to make those playoffs and get the "no sharing of revenue" for one round. That was our downfall and that is why it is likely going to take at least 3 more years to be a team that might do something in the playoffs. I will tell you one thing: I am NOT going to be NEGATIVE next year on how this team plays. I want them to take their time and build us a winner . . .PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE and CHEERING, CHEERING, CHEERING . . . Give these boys of ours a REASON to want to play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, Fanaholic said: BETTER LATE THAN NEVER for this REBUILD . . . It should have been started in 2012 or at the very latest 2013. BUT, owners had different ideas - got to make those playoffs and get the "no sharing of revenue" for one round. That was our downfall and that is why it is likely going to take at least 3 more years to be a team that might do something in the playoffs. I will tell you one thing: I am NOT going to be NEGATIVE next year on how this team plays. I want them to take their time and build us a winner . . .PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE and CHEERING, CHEERING, CHEERING . . . Give these boys of ours a REASON to want to play here. Ever consider that Gillis had a different idea after making the finals in 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.