2014 Sabres Training Camp

[shrader]

I understand the eyes and heart but sole? What does fish have to do with hockey?

 

He's using his feet... ok, just one foot.

[MattPie]

I understand the eyes and heart but sole? What does fish have to do with hockey?

 

Not that sole, silly. Nolan is is a strong believer in pedomancy, divination based on footprints or the lines on the sole of the foot.

[Taro T]

I am easily annoyed when a business can't get customer things(in this case fans) correct. They open practice to the public, print out sheets with player names/number, then they come out in practice jerseys with neither. I stayed 15 minutes this morning and then left.

 

My advice to anyone interested in going, don't bother.

Yeah, that was rather annoying. Had to move down near the glass to be able to see the #'s on the helmets. (Eyes ain't what they used to be.)

 

Got there probably just after you left and then skipped the last 20 minutes of the 2nd session.

 

Stewart had a nice goal at the 3-on-2 end. Nothing else really stood out IMHO, (except the ridiculous amount of time it took me to figure out who most everybody was, and that there were easily 50 people watching practice and possibly close to 100) but it is only the 3rd day of camp.

 

Ennis was wearing either a huge pad protecting his lower back or a monstrous weight belt; probably the former.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Taro T

[That Aud Smell]

Ted.

 

Teddy.

 

Dude. Slagging on the usefulness of analytics is so Dave Nonis circa November 2013.

 

http://www.sportsnet...advanced-stats/

 

Seriously. You're destined for the dustbin of hockey history if you're refusing to make this stuff part of your arsenal. I get that #fancystats may not be the thing you consider first, or even second, or even whatevereth -- but they must be part of what you're processing. Absent that, you are needlessly risking a scenario in which your own personal biases (that you cannot even recognize) will cloud your ability to evaluate certain players -- and, yes, rosters -- in a comprehensive and accurate manner.

 

He's a good guy. But that's a dumb thing to have said.

Edited September 22, 2014 by That Aud Smell

[TrueBlueGED]

*deep sigh*

 

Being closed minded and/or ignorant is rarely a good approach

 

Does anyone want to argue that closed mindedness and ignorance are quality traits?

 

Ted.

 

Teddy.

 

Dude. Slagging on the usefulness of analytics is so Dave Nonis circa November 2013.

 

http://www.sportsnet...advanced-stats/

 

Seriously. You're destined for the dustbin of hockey history if you're refusing to make this stuff part of your arsenal. I get that #fancystats may not be the thing you consider first, or even second, or even whatevereth -- but they must be part of what you're processing. Absent that, you are needlessly risking a scenario in which your own personal biases (that you cannot even recognize) will cloud your ability to evaluate certain players -- and, yes, rosters -- in a comprehensive and accurate manner.

 

He's a good guy. But that's a dumb thing to have said.

 

Exactly this! If I were GM, I would ask Nolan two questions. The first is "Do you think your eyes are infallible?" If the answer is yes, then I'd fire him. If the answer is no, my follow-up question would be "If you believe your eyes can make mistakes, why are you so quick to reject something that can help you figure out when your eyes are leading you astray?"

 

I honestly think this is why many are uncomfortable with the value of analytics--they say things against the conventional wisdom now and then. By no means am I saying the statistics are always right, or that they capture everything...just that the eyes aren't always right and don't capture everything either. Good stats are another tool to use, and the rejection of them is foolish.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Hockey is played by people.

 

It is meant to be enjoyed.

 

It was that way before all this *science*.

 

Do you think anyone cared about this stuff when they watched the French Connection.

 

I say again, I love coach Nolan, and this is just one more reason.

[That Aud Smell]

Hockey is played by people.

 

It is meant to be enjoyed.

 

It was that way before all this *science*.

 

Do you think anyone cared about this stuff when they watched the French Connection.

 

I say again, I love coach Nolan, and this is just one more reason.

 

Different era. Different players. Different game. Different everything.

 

Times change. Techniques change. Strategies change. Everything changes.

 

You can bury your head in the sand, and/or clap your hands over your ears and sing LALALALALALALA(Fontaine!), if you're so inclined.

 

But the smart money is on keeping up with current best practices, and figuring out how to make them work for you.

[tom webster]

*deep sigh*

 

Being closed minded and/or ignorant is rarely a good approach

 

Does anyone want to argue that closed mindedness and ignorance are quality traits?

 

 

 

Exactly this! If I were GM, I would ask Nolan two questions. The first is "Do you think your eyes are infallible?" If the answer is yes, then I'd fire him. If the answer is no, my follow-up question would be "If you believe your eyes can make mistakes, why are you so quick to reject something that can help you figure out when your eyes are leading you astray?"

 

I honestly think this is why many are uncomfortable with the value of analytics--they say things against the conventional wisdom now and then. By no means am I saying the statistics are always right, or that they capture everything...just that the eyes aren't always right and don't capture everything either. Good stats are another tool to use, and the rejection of them is foolish.

 

One of the things that is amazing to me about guys like Nolan is that they will tell you how slight the difference is between winning and losing and yet they will not use everything at their disposable to give themselves an edge. I have made no secret of the fact that I see him as a short term answer behind the bench and this is just another reason why.

[SwampD]

Unfortunately, we see advanced stats used to try to prove that a mediocre player is actually a good one way more often than we see it showing us a player that we already knew was good, was actually good.

[TrueBlueGED]

Different era. Different players. Different game. Different everything.

 

Times change. Techniques change. Strategies change. Everything changes.

 

You can bury your head in the sand, and/or clap your hands over your ears and sing LALALALALALALA(Fontaine!), if you're so inclined.

 

But the smart money is on keeping up with current best practices, and figuring out how to make them work for you.

 

I also think there should be a distinction between fans and coaches/GMs/organizations. If a fan wants to just watch the game and let his or her passions do the analysis, I'm not going to hate on it (even if I will disagree)...or if time does not permit deeper analysis or use of newer stats, I get that. But shouldn't we expect our team to be a bit more interested in the details?

 

Unfortunately, we see advanced stats used to try to prove that a mediocre player is actually a good one way more often than we see it showing us a player that we already knew was good, was actually good.

 

That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that advanced stats are a way to more accurately define what a good player is versus what a mediocre player is. Fans' expectations for offensive output, in particular, seem to be particularly "off" in terms of reality vs. perception/belief.

[X. Benedict]

I understand the eyes and heart but sole? What does fish have to do with hockey?

 

At least he's not a heart and cod guy.

[mjd1001]

I don't like that he dismissed it so quickly. But he is the coach, he is not putting the team together.

 

I CAN be OK with it if the guys picking the players (Murray and scouting staff) are at least using it to a certain extent.

[X. Benedict]

One of the things that is amazing to me about guys like Nolan is that they will tell you how slight the difference is between winning and losing and yet they will not use everything at their disposable to give themselves an edge. I have made no secret of the fact that I see him as a short term answer behind the bench and this is just another reason why.

 

I think he stays as long as the team overachieves.

 

I'd put the over/under at 16 months.

[inkman]

Isn't it really more important that GMTM is down with analytics vs our dinosaur of a coach. Tim's buying the groceries Nolan is just making the dinner.

[X. Benedict]

Isn't it really more important that GMTM is down with analytics vs our dinosaur of a coach. Tim's buying the groceries Nolan is just making the dinner.

 

:lol:

Burgers and a little Kraft Dinner is your go to meal without much in the cupboard, but when the GMTM is buying filet mignon and finely aged Stanton cheese, we might need a new sous chef.

[darksabre]

I'll just wait here for the Ted Nolan GMTM Sabres to be worse than all of Darcy's fancystats teams. Because all the analysis in the world couldn't force those square pegs into round holes.

[...]

Do we know if Nolan eschews all stats or if he is making a general statement on advanced stats without any specific context?

 

What happens to all of the number crunching the Sabres' statistician turns out, then? Is that paper cut up and used for grocery lists?

 

I think some folks are getting their panties all wadded up over nothing.

 

 

[Johnny DangerFace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would want the GM and scouts to be down with stats and use that in player acquisitions. The coach on the other hand, not a big deal if they don't use stats.

[TrueBlueGED]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would want the GM and scouts to be down with stats and use that in player acquisitions. The coach on the other hand, not a big deal if they don't use stats.

 

What if a player is signed for excelling with certain specific usage, and then the coach puts him in a situation to fail? I'm thinking a player puts up big numbers getting a ton of power play time and matches against weak opponents (the defensive equivalent of Hodgson, for example), then the coach on the new team takes that away and makes him kill penalties and play against the Crosbys of the world. Good player turns into crappy player pretty quick. The entire organization needs to be on the same page with this stuff.

 

Do we know if Nolan eschews all stats or if he is making a general statement on advanced stats without any specific context?

 

What happens to all of the number crunching the Sabres' statistician turns out, then? Is that paper cut up and used for grocery lists?

 

I think some folks are getting their panties all wadded up over nothing.

 

Reading the entire article I got the distinct impression Nolan doesn't think stats tell him anything useful that we didn't already know, and they can't measure what he deems important. If you have Crosby on the ice you'll possess the puck better, but you don't need the stats to tell you that. He's right, of course. But what he doesn't seem to get on Crosby is an extreme example, but the great ocean of players between terrible and generational have things less clear.

 

To your second point, we just don't know. Presumably Murray and the personnel department use them, if the reporting is accurate.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

Isn't it a safe assumption that by the time this team is ready to make a move, we will have a different coach who will have a more favorable viewpoint on analytics?

 

I think Nolan is right in a sense....with a team this bad, advanced stats really don't matter one bit. Rewarding players for effort during another losing season probably has more value than figuring out which guy is the best to put on the ice against the other team's first and second line, right? Every single matchup we have this year the numbers are against us anyways.

[LabattBlue]

Why is this Nolan analytics argument cluttering up the training camp thread? :blink:

[TrueBlueGED]

Isn't it a safe assumption that by the time this team is ready to make a move, we will have a different coach who will have a more favorable viewpoint on analytics?

 

I think Nolan is right in a sense....with a team this bad, advanced stats really don't matter one bit. Rewarding players for effort during another losing season probably has more value than figuring out which guy is the best to put on the ice against the other team's first and second line, right? Every single matchup we have this year the numbers are against us anyways.

 

My response is simple: I think proper use of analytics can aid in player development. I do not buy the meme that for a team that is both young and bad, the only thing that really matters is effort.

 

Why is this Nolan analytics argument cluttering up the training camp thread? :blink:

 

Because the mention of analytics fires me up like Pegula does for PA :P

[I am Defecting]

Internalism vs Externalism. It's two different ways of constructing knowledge (epistemology). The internalist would argue that a capable mind can best determine what is true. The externalist would argue that the advanced stats would best tell us what is true. The internalist would argue that advanced stats are not capable of the nuanced and subtle decisions that the human brain is capable of. The externalist would argue that the human brain is imperfect and subject to delusions, which would be overcome by giving priority to advanced stats.

 

The best chess playing computer can analyze the possible decisions better than the best chess playing human. The millions of variations that one might encounter in a chess game are best solved by a computer, basically using advanced stats to determine the best possible move in every possible situation. Still, pawn to e4 is always pawn to e4. Ovechkin on a regular shift is sometimes happy, sometimes sad, sometimes motivated, sometimes not. There is no telling through advanced stats exactly what you'll get out of a hockey player in a given situation. Hockey is much more complex.

 

If you punch all of the raw data available into the computer that you can possibly think of, and do what the stats tell you every time, I believe that a smart unconventional coach will beat you every time. What coaching decisions will be made using advanced stats, that couldn't also be made through keen observation? Sorry, I'm rambling, but we're a long ways away from the primacy of advanced stats, because there is always, currently, a human interpreting the stats, which is no better and no different than a coach with some knowledge interpreting what he sees with his own eyes, at training camp, for example.

[That Aud Smell]

If you punch all of the raw data available into the computer that you can possibly think of, and do what the stats tell you every time, I believe that a smart unconventional coach will beat you.

 

Good post - good stuff.

 

Precisely no one is arguing that #fancystats should determine what a GM or coach should do in a given situation.

[tom webster]

Internalism vs Externalism. It's two different ways of constructing knowledge (epistemology). The internalist would argue that a capable mind can best determine what is true. The externalist would argue that the advanced stats would best tell us what is true. The internalist would argue that advanced stats are not capable of the nuanced and subtle decisions that the human brain is capable of. The externalist would argue that the human brain is imperfect and subject to delusions, which would be overcome by giving priority to advanced stats.

 

The best chess playing computer can analyze the possible decisions better than the best chess playing human. The millions of variations that one might encounter in a chess game are best solved by a computer, basically using advanced stats to determine the best possible move in every possible situation. Still, pawn to e4 is always pawn to e4. Ovechkin on a regular shift is sometimes happy, sometimes sad, sometimes motivated, sometimes not. There is no telling through advanced stats exactly what you'll get out of a hockey player in a given situation. Hockey is much more complex.

 

If you punch all of the raw data available into the computer that you can possibly think of, and do what the stats tell you every time, I believe that a smart unconventional coach will beat you every time. What coaching decisions will be made using advanced stats, that couldn't also be made through keen observation? Sorry, I'm rambling, but we're a long ways away from the primacy of advanced stats, because there is always, currently, a human interpreting the stats, which is no better and no different than a coach with some knowledge interpreting what he sees with his own eyes, at training camp, for example.

 

 

You know, I believe in the analytics movement but I love this argument. Hope you don't mind if I use it in future conversations.