Marvin

Welcome to the board.

<math_stats_geek> There really are multiple questions for analytics supporters and skeptics to look at which this thread touches upon: 1. Prerequisite questions A. What data are being collected and quantified? B. What are the data you collected supposed to be telling you? C. How did you demonstrate that the data you collected actually tell you what you say it does? D. How did you demonstrate that the data you collected actually matter to winning or losing? Championships? (Based on my research, "team built for regular season but not the playoffs" is statistically demonstrable.) E. Can you find your blind spots, biases, etc. and how do you account for them? For instance, how do you recognise good players on bad teams even though they might have mediocre analytics? For players who do badly, is there a reasons to expect them to improve? Are there times when a bad player could have good numbers? 2. Then, once you answer those questions, you can get around to the main point of the thread. A. Who are the analytics darlings who are bad and how do you recognise them? B. Who are the analytics busts who are good and how do you recognise them? </math_stats_geek> I argue that questions 2.A. and 2.B. are largely subjective unless you are quantifying something most people are not accounting for. Moreover, I think that it is fair to argue more than numbers. The statistics which the NHL has kept over the years don't fairly evaluate players, which is why we need ways to make adjustments. Dave "Cementhead" Semenko scores 20 goals on Gretzky's wing. For years, Boston's young D had the good luck to be paired with Bobby Orr and then Brad Park. Even though we have more numbers, we still must recognise their limitations. I am a numbers guy and am guided maybe a little to much by the analytics. Even with all that bias, I myself argue, "when all other things are equal, a little more will beats a little more skill." And I believe that whole-heartedly. (It is one of the reasons I actually feel pretty good about GMKA and HCDG.) Of course, if I knew how to quantify "will versus skill," I would be a multi-millionaire.

Welcome back to the board.

Welcome back to the board.

Only XGMJB thought Berglund and Sobotka were middle-6. I did not see anyone who watched the Blues claim that they were anything other than low-level players -- 3rd or maybe 4th line for Berglund and healthy scratch for Sobotka. ROR territory is a passable roster player, a piece of roster flotsam or jetsam, a mediocre prospect, and a couple of magic beans.

Why would it be bad? Most of what a player does on the ice can be quantified; most of the rest can be found with evidence. (I am not saying that everything useful about a player has been quantified.) Using more analytics means we don't acquire Vladimir Sobotka, Cody Eakin,et al.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Glad to read that. Best to you and your family.

Might this imply that the Sabres have a trade for one or more of The Tank Trio where they might like the players coming, but they are badly overpaid but on short-term contracts?

For the record: I want to keep Eichel and Reinhart long-term if possible.

I was just commenting that he looked more in command of his hockey knowledge and understanding than some coaches I have seen. The fact that he has been getting interviewed about hockey coaching and analysis by TSN, SportsNet, etc. going back a few years is an indication that he's not a clueless oaf. It says nothing about the hire except that he probably won't be Rolston or Krueger level. Yes, that's a low bar to clear, but the Sabres have managed not to clear it twice in the 2010's.

I wonder how much trading one of Reinhart or Eichel makes sweetens the pot for the other. If someone lands Reinhart, do their rivals say, "dag nab it, now I have to seriously add to my offer for Eichel or I will get left in the dust." (Not that they would use something out of a 1930's Bosko cartoon.)

I think that neck is a big deal and that he has partially rehabbed it. I think he waits.

I know. To make it truly ironic, I am in IT. I hate my cell phone, Twitter, and most social media. I am for paper ballots and manual counting only without voting machines. (OK, that's because of 2017 DefCon where the attendees hacked every voting machine there in under 5 minutes.) Compared to most people, I am positively a luddite. Compared to IT people, I am in the stone age.

My friend was employee 75 at Twitter. He laughed out loud for about 15 seconds when I said that I am "aggressively ignorant" of Twitter. I don't just ignore Twitter -- I go out of my way to avoid its contents and reprocussions.

I suspect we are back where, being "a big, physical kid" trumps everything else. Which is hilarious given the charts shown on how the somewhat undersized players comparatively overperform their draft position.

Speaking as someone who has still only at about 85% of his cardiovascular endurance from having COVID, I second this. And I got it in January 2020 before anyone knew what the heck it was. I was treating it as a flu-bronchitis combination until I heard that it was a new virus.

I have found a few older videos of him on YouTube. It seems like he just was ready for the gig.

You forgot knees too. I assume it is from the contortions they do to stop that frozen block of vulcanised rubber.

Assuming that Eichel and Reinhart are gone, I think we should look for 2 high-quality defencive possession centres to anchor the bottom 6; assuming that you call Asplund-Mittlestadt-Thompson and Skinner-Cozens-Ruotsalainen the top 6 offencively. I want the next 2 lines to be able to hold their own against the top line of the top teams defencively so that the Sabres can be in games and these guys will have the most room to succeed.

Welcome to the board.

It was just a joke about predictions and how we should not take them too seriously. Whenever I get wound up about things, I have all sorts of aphorisms to try and keep my head oriented properly. I was tempted to make a prediction and then that quote popped into my head.

After reading all the predictions here, I am reminded of a very old joke: Prognostication is very difficult, especially when it is about the future. Therefore, he who lives by the crystal ball soon learns to eat ground glass.

That was the Tyler Myers pick.

Oh, man, I hope not. Someone here, @Brawndo I think, pointed out that Ristolainen is one of TP's favourites.