TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
Taylor Hall continues to be draft lottery money.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Hoss said:
The Sabres have only picked seventh overall once and it did not go well. Erik Rasmussen.
This is more meaningless than Edmonton fan critiques of McLellan.
-
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:
7th is quite a high pick. Anything after the top 2 is going to come down to personal ranking and preference, Botterill still should be able to, and MUST, select a very good player in that spot. No excuses.
Yea, I really don't care about dropping from 5 to 7. It's irrelevant. I just freaking despise the teams that moved up.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Good. No more rewards for sucking.
In a league where over half the teams make the playoffs, everyone who misses kinda sucks, no?
-
Chicago, NYR, and NJ? Gross. Gross gross gross.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Derrico said:
But again. Wouldn't making the second round 2 years ago negate this point? By the way, I enjoy the discussion.
Not entirely. His Rangers success was built on relying on Lundqvist. We, uh, don't have that. You can day be coached to his team's strengths, but frankly, even in Vancouver he had Luongo in his prime. Can he win in 2019 with what is likely to be average at best goaltending? It's a fair question to ask.
2 minutes ago, darksabre said:I don't know if that's really even a thing to worry about. The principles of the game don't really change, just the way the league enforces rules.
The Sabres are a finesse scoring team similar to the Canucks back then. They used mobile defensemen to move the play. I think AV might find the situation familiar.
Luongo versus Hutton/Ullmark is a huge difference, though.
-
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:
Sabres Draft Lottery Odds:
1st: 8.5%
2nd: 8.7%
3rd: 8.9%
4th: 0.0%
5th: 8.4%
6th: 34.5%
7th: 26.7%
8th: 4.3%
So -- about a 17% chance of a huge win (i.e. Hughes or Kakko), but about a 65% chance of dropping 1-3 spots.
Yea, we basically have almost the same chance of a huge win as last year. Downside is larger, of course. Luckily, there's really not much of a difference between drafting 5th and 8th.
-
We're going to not lose. Heard it here first. Interpret that as you will.
-
11 minutes ago, Derrico said:
That's my thought as well. I kind of like the idea of AV. Why is everyone against that?
His handling of the NYR roster is about as inspiring as death. He was Bylsma.
-
4 minutes ago, matter2003 said:
Is it possible a coach can naturally "see" the same things analytics would tell him so that it doesn't make a difference whether he uses them or not because he's come to the same conclusion?
A coach can reach the same conclusions with the numbers, but it's basically impossible for him to see all of the data. Human memory and cognition is just pretty terrible that way. Whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you, but I think it is.
-
36 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:
I'd take McClellan over Viagneult. (Could we have two coaches that are so difficult to type?). I just like the fact that Botts is shooting for a coach with experience. I'm sick of this rookie crap. And that goes for Botts as well. Go for a veteran coach.
Since Lindy was fired, we've had 2 experienced coaches and 2 rookies. Since the tank, it's been 1 and 1. It's not like we haven't failed with the experienced route.
-
3 hours ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:
1. Agreed, the best result is a combination of analysis and scouting.
2. Corsi is often quoted on here yet in this instance it is so obvious that other factors are missing. On an individual level, who you are on the ice with is not dealt with and has some of the same problems old fashioned +/- has.
3. There are folks on this forum who have said they have a problem with the eyeball test.
4. No, but he won't be coaching long if he doesn't use the tools at his disposal. If there is a real advantage and some other coach is getting it and you're not, you are hurting yourself.
2. Can you find me examples of where you think it has been misused? It gets mentioned in one-game contexts here and there, but I've never gotten the impression that those doing so think it is definitive.
3. Yes, me and....not many others. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I have persuaded anyone with statistics if it disagrees with their eyes.
-
3 hours ago, nfreeman said:
Both of these are fair points. From our perspective, though, we really have no idea how applicable they are (if at all) to any particular coach. You could certainly be right that McL is just paying lip service to the use of analytics -- but we'd need a lot more data (heh) to know whether it's actually the case.
Put another way, how many coaches have come out and said that they emphasize analytics in their approach to coaching?
(For that matter, how many have come out and expressly disavowed analytics? Nolan is the only one I know of.)
Just the other day Mike Babcock said he uses xG (expected goals) to evaluate defensemen. After all, there's a reason he loves Rielly and Gardiner despite their numerous defensive zone gaffes. Jon Cooper has regularly talked about it in the past. Those are two that come to mind, and they're not exactly scrubs.
-
2 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:
I've read and understand the analytics. I am what some people would probably call an analytics guy. Numbers play a role, but quite frankly aren't as enlightening as some of you believe in regards to certain things.They are being overrated by the numbers crowd pure and simple. Many times they just matchup with what you see. And, sometimes they are way off based on the fact the models used don't capture everything needed in a continous action game. Does anyone really believe these Corsis truly represent the Sabres 50.0 and Lightning 51.6? This is a stat I see frequently sited on here and I'm not trying to cherry pick as there are a ton of other examples. People complaining about this guy using his eyeballs are being naive. The infamous Tangotiger (analytics guru) once said "in small samples a good scout can be superior to the numbers". Now if you want to talk about the tactics of the game and something like PP goals often originating down low, well that is something a coach can use. There are tons of examples of this, and if a coach rejects using data that is helpful, he won't be coaching too much longer. If however he rejects data that he finds lacking, well that is his perogative. Personally, I'm just tired of someone saying this defenseman has a 54.0 Corsi and ignores the rest of his game (which is alot) that is as bad as the coach who refuses to use any analytics. JMO
1st bold: But the thing is, eyes don't capture everything either. How often do you lay this exact critique on the eye test? Most people apply this particular critique asymmetrically.
2nd bold: I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate?
3rd bold: Of course. But at the same time, nobody is saying to base decisions solely on small samples.
4th bold: Naturally it's the coaches prerogative. However, if the coach always just happens to find the data lacking when it disagrees with his judgment, then that's a problem. There's not a problem with sometimes rejecting the data, but there is a big problem with always rejecting it.
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
Wild just fired their analytics guy, the analytics community thinks this was a criminal mistake. Basically we should hire him today.
Name is Andrew C Thomas
Meh. If you're not going to use the stuff (and all indications are Fenton didn't), it's a waste of payroll.
-
2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
Just saying our roster and theirs are very similar with similar flaws but their top guys better than ours and he was fired there so I just don't see what he has that'd make me think he makes us better. The under achieving in San Jose part is maybe more significant.
Well, they don't have the guy who is 2 years from being the best defenseman in the world.
I get the San Jose stuff, but how much of it was underachieving versus simply getting stuck against the Kings and Hawks in their prime? No shame in losing to those teams.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:
Don't like it.
See no way a guy who couldn't get it done with McDavid and Draisaitl will get it done with Jack and Sam.
Always thought San Jose had a roster that underachieved under him as well. A lot of early playoff exits despite a solid line up.
I'm going to hope this rumor is just him using us to increase his L.A. pay.
If you have 3 NHL forwards worth a damn, it's hard to do much, regardless of how good they are.
-
8 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
Still doesn’t make me feel better
Nope. I don't want to be misunderstood as the numbers are always right, or paint the entire picture. But this is the description of someone who will take numbers into account only if they match his existing evaluation. Just as you shouldn't only follow the stats, you shouldn't only follow your eyes.
-
3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Further to the "is McL a stupid dinosaur who rejects analytics?" question, here is an interview with him from just a couple of weeks ago: https://epellefsen.podbean.com/e/leadership-from-behind-the-bench-todd-mclellan/
They get into his approach to analytics at about the 9:30 mark.
Essentially, he says that analytics are a tool to be considered, but they have limitations. He repeats the "the best analytics are my 2 eyeballs" line that has given heartburn to some posters here.
It's just the kind of thing somebody says when they don't believe they're useful but also don't want to be hounded by questions about it.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
Based on these quotes from Jonathan Willis from The Athletic think waiting might be a good option.
Those quotes are pretty rough, I think. Seems like a guy who could accentuate our problems as likely as solve any of them.
-
4 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:
I'm sorry, did you forget?
I hate you with the fire of a thousand suns.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Just now, Brawndo said:
Unless he sucks as well
Entirely possible, and something I have wondered about on and off.
-
21 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:
Jason Nighingale is probably shitting his pants right now.
Eh, it's not like any other coach we've had lately has paid any attention to him.
-
7 minutes ago, SDS said:
Could you all do this in the appropriate topic and not one meant as a joke?
Hey now, trying to lure Angry 11 out of hiding is no laughing matter.
Draft lottery day thread 8PM NBCSN
in The Aud Club
Posted
Hoss has been kind of a dick recently.