Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Canucks hire Rachel Doerrie in an analytics role

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, AV. said:

You should direct this towards the cellar dwellers in this thread who can't help but show their misogyny and bitterness because somebody who bodied their favourite GM on Twitter has now taken a job in an office that used to be his.  Seriously, look at some of these takes:  "she just shut her mouth", "i don't want analytics dweebs making decisions", etc.  Instead of celebrating a progressive hire, they're doubling down on their support for an old GM and showing their ass in the process.  Those people need to grow up.

Has nothing to do with Benning.  I don't think anyone without a solid background in hockey should be making the decisions.  The analytics department lacks the relevant experience to make any kind of hockey related decisions.  No exceptions.

 

Hope this helps.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Has nothing to do with Benning.  I don't think anyone without a solid background in hockey should be making the decisions.  The analytics department lacks the relevant experience to make any kind of hockey related decisions.  No exceptions.

 

Hope this helps.

And yet, we have teams like Tampa, Colorado, Carolina, and Florida - all heavy analytics teams - making the league bow to their feet.

Makes you wonder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AV. said:

And yet, we have teams like Tampa, Colorado, Carolina, and Florida - all heavy analytics teams - making the league bow to their feet.

Makes you wonder...

They have actual qualified hockey people making the decisions though.  We can grow the department, I just don't want anyone who doesn't have a hockey background to be making the final call.  Let's not go Full Dubas.

Edited by King Heffy
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

They have actual qualified hockey people making the decisions though.  We can grow the department, I just don't want anyone who doesn't have a hockey background to be making the final call.  Let's not go Full Dubas.

Do you think they're just ignoring everything the people from their analytics department are telling them?

 

It's obvious their input is valued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Josepho said:

Do you think they're just ignoring everything the people from their analytics department are telling them?

 

It's obvious their input is valued.

I'm not saying they should.  I'm saying they are there to advise.  Then you send some scouts to take a look and confirm.  The analytics department should not be making hockey related decisions as they are not qualified to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'm not saying they should.  I'm saying they are there to advise.  Then you send some scouts to take a look and confirm.  The analytics department should not be making hockey related decisions as they are not qualified to do so.

What hit rate on decisions or input would they have to have for you to think that they are qualified to?

 

If they are consistently giving good input (not saying they do), they should be probably be given more leeway and power. And not letting them make decisions solely because they didn't play the game professionally is silly.

 

Scouts are just random ex-players that get hired because they're buddies with other people in management. They don't have some sort of higher being of knowledge. Random fans or "analytics guys" are capable of watching and understanding as well.

Edited by Josepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Josepho said:

What hit rate on decisions or input would they have to have for you to think that they are qualified to?

 

If they are consistently giving good input (not saying they do), they should be probably be given more leeway and power. And not letting them make decisions solely because they didn't play the game professionally is silly.

 

Scouts are just random ex-players that get hired because they're buddies with other people in management. They don't have some sort of higher being of knowledge. Random fans or "analytics guys" are capable of watching and understanding as well.

No hockey experience, no decision making power.  Those who played the game at a high level do understand it better than the analytics dweebs.  Hockey is not played on a spreadsheet.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

No hockey experience, no decision making power.  Those who played the game at a high level do understand it better than the analytics dweebs.  Hockey is not played on a spreadsheet.

 

You do realize that the two most recent GMs to win the cup (Brisebois and Armstrong) never played hockey at a high level, right?

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Josepho said:

 

You do realize that the two most recent GMs to win the cup (Brisebois and Armstrong) never played hockey at a high level, right?

They also spent a long time working under those who did and received a lot of mentoring.  They also weren't primarily working in the analytics department.  Think Dave Nonis under Burke instead of hiring someone completely unqualified like Gillis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'm not saying they should.  I'm saying they are there to advise.  Then you send some scouts to take a look and confirm.  The analytics department should not be making hockey related decisions as they are not qualified to do so.

pretty sure they are there to generate data and report on the patterns, not make the decisions tho. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

They also spent a long time working under those who did and received a lot of mentoring.  They also weren't primarily working in the analytics department.  Think Dave Nonis under Burke instead of hiring someone completely unqualified like Gillis.

Then what exactly is your issue with someone being brought into the analytics department and gradually getting promoted if they're doing good work?

 

Obviously it would be bad if we pumped some random Stanford Statistics Major into a high level role, but very few people are suggesting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

That's what I would hope.  We've all seen what happened in Arizona when you let the inmates run the asylum.

this ain't that. 

 

There's a lot of room left for innovation in developing data sets and proprietary methods, and bringing in some new talent with analytics skills is a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...