oldnews Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Honky Cat said: Ever notice how the analytic guys kind of look alike.. Analytics are only as good as the analyst - and these guys flat out aren't very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said: But the article on the Hockey News said so, so it has to be true. The author of the article is a weasel who admittedly doesn't even watch the game. It's analyticzzzzzz only twerps like this deranged hobbit that are polluting the landscape. But how do you really feel Phil? I laughed so hard at this.... I don't know what the fn 'methodology' is and don't care - how the hell they come up with this dumbassed "GameScore percentile" doesn't matter to me - the fact that they have 40yr old Jarome Iginla with his 27pts, his -30, and his ironically poor possession numbers in the "star" list is evidence enough / beyond me. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?db=201617&sit=5v5&type=corsi&teamid=14&pos=skaters&minutes=200&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC Mad respect for Iginla - he used to be a great player - and even at 40 is a serviceable depth player - mean no disrespect to him - but the fact he's still a "star" in these 'analysts' eyes is downright absurd. Henrik nearly doubled his production - and who considers the Sedins to still be "stars"? Th'analyticzzzz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 1 hour ago, kilgore said: Wouldn't that only prove the point that he isn't biased towards one team or another? That this is "just the facts maam"? I don't think people are saying it was/is biased towards or against a team. People are saying it is biased in the way Dom decided what constitutes "star power" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 The interesting thing about the list with the cup winning teams that THN provided is that aside from the obvious names like Crosby and Toews, not a lot of the guys were top 1-2 draft picks. Who knows what the Canucks have going but the good news is that this team has way more prospects in the system with the potential to be stars than I can ever remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 7 hours ago, smokes said: Aside from Luongo, Vancouver historically is better at making thier own stars. Generally speaking high costing UFA's and stars coming from other teams don't really do well in Vancouver as they did when they established themselves in the first place i.e. Messier, Sundin etc. The True stars of Vancouver came from developing in Vancouver. McLein, Linden, Bure, Jovanovski, Ohlund, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Kesler, and the Sedins. There are no stars now because there was a gap in youngsters coming up because of the trading of so many picks and that's why we don't have any stars in the Canucks. Right now there may not be any stars on the team but from the look of prospects camp and the extra stock in the cuppard. I believe there are a couple of stars in the making. Who? I don't know players like Burrows have proven my predictions wrong too many times. I'm offended you could spell all those names ie: Jovanovski...but yet mess up a Canucks legend...Kirk McLean's name...blasphemy!! But you are right we don't seem to do well with stars signing with our team...okay... I've calmed down now...i'm not offended anymore, but i'm bored and decided to at least point it out...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said: But the article on the Hockey News said so, so it has to be true. The author of the article is a weasel who admittedly doesn't even watch the game. It's analyticzzzzzz only twerps like this deranged hobbit that are polluting the landscape. DOM LUSZCZYSZYN ABOUT Dom Luszczyszyn is a freelancer for The Hockey News. His passion for the game stems from his father, who enjoys yelling at the TV while watching. Dom has strong opinions on your favorite team based on numbers – and numbers only – because he doesn't watch the games, just his spreadsheets. ...this kind of "hockey writer" gets my blood boiling. I don't want an accountant crunching numbers and telling me xyz player is great based only upon what he see's analytically, yet doesn't watch the game. I think analytics have their place when blended with actually watching and seeing how the player reacts on ice. This pure analytics based crap is just nonsense. Hockey is such a dynamic sport that it's so hard to quantify all the small things that happen during the game! You need to see it to understand it, and even then a person needs to have a certain level of hockey awareness/experience with the game to watch for those small things as well. There are lots of these "writers" coming out of the woods these days, and they barely watch the game. Just the numbers. It blows me away. Anyways, i'm sure he's a nice guy otherwise.....naw...screw it....screw him, he's not a good person!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attila Umbrus Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 To end my rant on this silly hedgehog of a mans article...HORVAT!!!! Mike drop....i'm out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 neither has cdc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 5 hours ago, kilgore said: I usually agree with you Good Man but biased against who?...the Canucks? I just can't believe that this writer worked overtime gathering all this information on a quest to make the Canucks look bad. Was Vegas on the bottom also because of 'bias"? He must have lost a chunk of dough on the slots there to have a bigger gripe against Vegas than Vancouver. What would be the point of doing all that research and effort just to "massage it until it fit the top producers in the league"? First off, the top producers would most likely be at the top of most every study, no matter how your rearranged the stats. The quibble seems to be how high from the bottom the Canucks are. There seems to be a lot of denial on here on just how bad the drafting history has been for the Canucks. And bad luck. Or a combination like picking Bourdon over Kopitar. Or Nedved over Jagr, Primeau, Sydor, Hatcher, Tkachuk, or Brodeur. Add to that bad trades from our earliest days (Cam Neely who would have fit that star power) No, his approach is inherently biased, riddled with error, and of no real value. Then some other hack uses it to bash the Canucks or someone on CDC is lighting their hair on fire over it. Or claiming its proof of something management isn't doing. I'm just very tired of seeing article after article claiming to use the word "analysis" when its simply a brain fart with numbers. Its like calling McDonalds "nutrition". Oh no doubt the Canucks have suffered from some piss poor drafting over the years, thats undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSnipeshow91 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 We are going to be in good shape in a few years if some of our prospects pan out Gaudette/Dahlen-Tier 5 Juolevi-tier 4 Boeser-Tier3 Horvat-Tier 3 Demko-Tier 3 Pettersson-Tier3 Dahlin-Tier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 For now we don't but wait for Boeser, Dahlen, Demko and of course Pettersson and maybe Juolevi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said: But the article on the Hockey News said so, so it has to be true. The author of the article is a weasel who admittedly doesn't even watch the game. It's analyticzzzzzz only twerps like this deranged hobbit that are polluting the landscape. It's people like this Dom guy who make me lose all faith in sports articles in general. The internet's allowed for pretty much anyone to write and article. Unfortunately, some of these people are like this guy who probably knows as much about hockey as the average Canadian knows about cricket.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyking8888 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 There is no shame having no star power. However it is stupid to pay star money to non-star players. Good teams concentrate on the stars first. Secondary players can be filled with cheap money. Average teams probably only have one star. They over spend on the secondary players, hope they can be good. Bad teams pays non-star players star money. They over value their own players and spend more than they should on everybody. The result tells the story. When you look at how teams spend their money, Nashville is the best ran team in the NHL. Calgary, Florida and Vancouver are the worst. Carolina and Arizona not in the worst managed category ,because they never spent up to the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogersTowell Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 This "Game Score" stat ignores all context, as well as discounting special teams and a player's roles on the team in various 5 on 5 situations. It doesn't take into account o-zone vs d-zone starts or anything other than goals, 1st assists, 2nd assists, and 5v5 corsi scores with various weightings and a couple of other minor stats. As a result, it will rank players based only on these statistics and won't give a complete picture. That's just fine as long as you realise that this is lacking a lot of the context that you'd really want to use to rank players by. It certainly doesn't create stats that you can reliably rank players by in order to predict 'star power' on the ice and because of that, the article is intrinsically flawed. The worst thing about the article from my perspective is that it tries to compare the NHL to the NBA, which makes no sense at all. In the NBA you have 5 starters who play the bulk of the minutes on the court. In the NHL you may have a first line that play 35% of the ice time, which means that 'stars' even when you measure them reliably, aren't going to have as big an impact on the game as they would in the NBA. Honestly, you could take any of a number of stats, weight them by what you think is important, and aggregate them to create a ranking and be just as (in)accurate as this methodology. I don't think there's inherently any bias in the writers system (ie: I don't think he set it up to create any particular outcome) but it is still inherently flawed and gives some pretty questionable results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowtieCanuck Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/16/2017 at 2:31 AM, IBatch said: Me neither. The Hockey News had one writer predict the same not too long ago (albiet as a dark horse) so not all of them are just following the Leafs. Good lord though, on that front the media over in TO practically is planning a parade after last year... I made this after the umpteenth post I saw from Leafs fan on my facebook claiming he was going to win them the cup....after his first game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanisleryan Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 Captain Obvious approves this article by The Hockey News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 I can't disagree, we don't have star power, we also have no exciting players either. There are a bunch of good and valuable players but no one is truly exciting to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/16/2017 at 0:31 PM, Nucksfollower1983 said: man look at the rest of that list, the guy has bergeron and pastrnak ahead of malkin and ovechkin. he has stone, ardvisson and trochek ahead of Stamkos, Benn, Toews and getzlaf. how much crack did he smoke before he wrote that? At least one rock, maybe two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 7/16/2017 at 0:35 PM, Honky Cat said: Ever notice how the analytic guys kind of look alike.. That's a costume, right? Who is that porno Dracula? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 11 hours ago, mpt said: I can't disagree, we don't have star power, we also have no exciting players either. There are a bunch of good and valuable players but no one is truly exciting to watch. I get what your saying. Man it makes you pine for the days whenever Bure got the puck on his stick all the butts were out of their seats with a collective ewww or ahhh sound loud enough to send shivers. Lafluer did that too. Not many players are ever that exciting though, even most superstars. Naslund had a bit of it, but not the same, Jovo or Ohlund were fun to watch because at any given time they could flatten guys (Edler what happened to you?) Linden put guys through the glass and could score.... Bertuzzi was a beast for us... Momesso Diduck Babych all fun to watch I could list dozens of guys like that... Ruutuuuu. Hahaha bye bye Phanuef you hoser. Horvat I guess is the best equivalent, fun to watch but not overly exciting. You are right. This team needs guys that can hammer guys, burn with speed, and make endless amazing saves to amp up the excitement. Pettersson highlights are very promising, can score like Sakic and his main deke was Bures bread and butter too. Juolevi won't bring any wow factor, his game is Vlasic like or even Lindstrom like, maybe nice to watch but not a lot of wow. Guess we are just going to have to wait and see. Hockey IS exciting fortunately for us in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.