Who is the Worst Member of the Buffalo Media?

[That Aud Smell]

That's not my point. Their job is to "tell it like it is," as they see it. And that offends many fans, who bristle at the "outside" criticism, while they rip the team all they want among friends. Just human nature.

 

It does not offend me when columnists criticize my favourite team(s). It just doesn't.

 

What irritates me is when columnists offer takes that are lazy, uninformed, derivative, repetitive, and the like.

 

It's much the same here. I'm never offended when people here criticize a player or team that I like. I do get my hackles up, though, when people have takes that are ... well, see the litany above. 

 

You're writing for a different audience. The general public really isn't up for advanced analytics. Paul thinks Reinhart regressed, is behind other second picks and got lazy. He made his case. I don't know what you want, a 10,000 word, illustrated treatise?

 

What role does analytics have in this? None.

 

This isn't above some advanced math, PA. Hamilton literally employed a line of thought that was both dumb and illogical. Fundamentally so.

 

He didn't make his case. That's literally the point. That article, even if you ignored the evidence used, is written pretty terribly. 

 

And reasoned just as poorly.

 

Semantics. He presented his case.

 

I think I can well understand that Hamilton has a take to communicate here -- he thinks Reinhart regressed because of complacency and arrogance.

 

Fine. If he just wanted to Tweet that, or words to that effect, that'd be fine.

 

But when you try to back-fill that take with turbl reasoning, you're going to get called out for it.

 

Hamilton's article didn't need analytics; Baker's didn't and was a good point. Vogl doesn't use analytics, and I've never seen Friedman drool over them in any of his articles. So maybe stop harping on us all being some high browed ass-hats because we like stats. His article sucked because he took what was easily identified as a 3rd graders logic to manipulate numbers to prove a point. 

 

Didn't need them, and certainly didn't employ them. The analysis in that piece was a steaming pile of shite. He's a guy for whom I used to have a lot of respect. Not so much anymore. 

[Randall Flagg]

So, we're done? To be honest, I just skimmed it. I promise, baby.

 

To your point about the ROR practices, what is the source for that? If Reinhart attended those practices every time or almost every time they were held, I'd look at Hamilton's opinion much differently. Hammy's at every practice, home and away. How do you think he got that so wrong?

A tweet from someone that I read on hfboards, it might have even been Paul Hamilton to be honest. That Reinhart was at a ROR practice after the coaches let him do them again, I mean. Hamilton was right that Samson wasn't at a ROR practice during the 11 game 19 day stretch - maybe because he was resting because there were 11 games in 19 days, you know? Almost all of the team wasn't at those practices during that time, I'm sure, so the singling out of Reinhart was bizarre, especially when many Sabres players saw production decreases this season while Samson didn't. And Hamilton never checked the gym or anything, he never said that Reinhart definitely went home to booze and watch video games. He was comfortable building a narrative against Samson's character on ONLY that information. It was weak. It's tough to believe a professional whatever he is would do that. 

[Doctor of Philhousley]

This is cropping up wayyyyy too much. How smart some of you think you are. How analytics always has the correct answer and everyone else is dumb and lazy. It's not a matter of a computer spitting out the answer. We have a human here with eyes, a human who goes to all the practices and noticed that Reinhart started skipping the O'Reilly practices (Flagg's contention notwithstanding). People are going to put at least as much stock in that as Nearsighted Lopsided Fenwick on Jewish Holidays.

This is not about fancy stats, but rather Hamilton not putting the time in to provide a fair comparison to support his position. My expectation is that an article from a professional will have more thought, effort, and expertise than your veteran posters on SS. "In his second season, Reinhart participated in very few of the extra workouts and his attitude changed too. He acted like he had made it and became pretty arrogant in his demeanor and in interviews." Does Paul even provide an example of his "arrogant demeanor"? We the audience have no clue what our reporter is referring to in regards to these interviews. The reporter is also assuming Sam is being arrogant rather than masking another emotion. Perhaps Sam is tired of answering the same question in his interviews? Or maybe he is frustrated with losing? 

[Stoner]

It's much the same here. I'm never offended when people here criticize a player or team that I like. I do get my hackles up, though, when people have takes that are ... well, see the litany above. 

You apply the same standard here? What do you think this place is? Are we all working on hockey theses or is it a pointless time-waster that doesn't always demand homework?

[That Aud Smell]

To your point about the ROR practices, what is the source for that? If Reinhart attended those practices every time or almost every time they were held, I'd look at Hamilton's opinion much differently. Hammy's at every practice, home and away. How do you think he got that so wrong?

 

I actually think an article I would have respected would have read, in essence, as follows:

 

"Anyone who thinks Reinhart didn't regress this year is fooling themselves. Yes, he had more points. But how many of those extra assists were accumulated on the power play? His 5v5 scoring all but disappeared for long stretches of time. Spending time in that locker room, I can tell you: His attitude changed. He walked around the place like he'd "made it" and had nothing left to prove. I know I have no quotes showing that, but you can tell a lot from a guy's body language. He started taking short-cuts, too. Remember when he was such a surprise net-front presence in his rookie year? Well, that's because he had devoted himself to those O'Reilly Practices, and put the work in. He didn't do as much of that this season, and even stopped going for a long while. The result? He didn't score nearly as many goals as a result of taking a position in the front of the net. And I know people assume he's the consummate professional because of his family pedigree and all, but, I'll tell you: When word came that someone was getting suspended for a game because of a violation a team rule, my first guess was Reinhart. And his response in the aftermath didn't do him any favours either -- he was all but rolling his eyes when he gave that "sorry, not sorry" statement. The guy needs to grow up, realize he hasn't yet proved anything in this league, and get back to work. If he doesn't? He's apt to be one of the bigger busts the Sabres have ever drafted."

[Stoner]

A tweet from someone that I read on hfboards, it might have even been Paul Hamilton to be honest. That Reinhart was at a ROR practice after the coaches let him do them again, I mean. Hamilton was right that Samson wasn't at a ROR practice during the 11 game 19 day stretch - maybe because he was resting because there were 11 games in 19 days, you know? Almost all of the team wasn't at those practices during that time, I'm sure, so the singling out of Reinhart was bizarre, especially when many Sabres players saw production decreases this season while Samson didn't. And Hamilton never checked the gym or anything, he never said that Reinhart definitely went home to booze and watch video games. He was comfortable building a narrative against Samson's character on ONLY that information. It was weak. It's tough to believe a professional whatever he is would do that. 

I thought there weren't any ROR practices during the busy stretch?

[That Aud Smell]

I'm not even sure I'd vehemently disagree with the imagined "power take" above.

[Stoner]

I actually think an article I would have respected would have read, in essence, as follows:

 

"Anyone who thinks Reinhart didn't regress this year is fooling themselves. Yes, he had more points. But how many of those extra assists were accumulated on the power play? His 5v5 scoring all but disappeared for long stretches of time. Spending time in that locker room, I can tell you: His attitude changed. He walked around the place like he'd "made it" and had nothing left to prove. I know I have no quotes showing that, but you can tell a lot from a guy's body language. He started taking short-cuts, too. Remember when he was such a surprise net-front presence in his rookie year? Well, that's because he had devoted himself to those O'Reilly Practices, and put the work in. He didn't do as much of that this season, and even stopped going for a long while. The result? He didn't score nearly as many goals as a result of taking a position in the front of the net. And I know people assume he's the consummate professional because of his family pedigree and all, but, I'll tell you: When word came that someone was getting suspended for a game because of a violation a team rule, my first guess was Reinhart. And his response in the aftermath didn't do him any favours either -- he was all but rolling his eyes when he gave that "sorry, not sorry" statement. The guy needs to grow up, realize he hasn't yet proved anything in this league, and get back to work. If he doesn't? He's apt to be one of the bigger busts the Sabres have ever drafted."

Meh.

[Randall Flagg]

I thought there weren't any ROR practices during the busy stretch?

The coaches stopped them, but I'm almost positive that when Paul mentioned during the season that he didn't see Reinhart there, it was in the midst of that. I can go try and scour for the date to be sure. 

 

This does line up like a classic case of groupthink - How dare he criticize our darling Samson, let's all trash him. But even if he was 1000% right about Samson's workouts, his character argument is pathetic, and when you add that number comparison which I think is bad enough to call dishonest and disgusting, I think the "groupthink" is either correct, or the instinct to naturally come to his defense is in fact the side of this discussion that needs to be scrutinized. 

[WildCard]

You apply the same standard here? What do you think this place is? Are we all working on hockey theses or is it a pointless time-waster that doesn't always demand homework?

This is the point though. Our media writes worse stuff than people do for fun. That's embarrassing 

[Eleven]

I actually think an article I would have respected would have read, in essence, as follows:

 

"Anyone who thinks Reinhart didn't regress this year is fooling themselves. Yes, he had more points. But how many of those extra assists were accumulated on the power play? His 5v5 scoring all but disappeared for long stretches of time. Spending time in that locker room, I can tell you: His attitude changed. He walked around the place like he'd "made it" and had nothing left to prove. I know I have no quotes showing that, but you can tell a lot from a guy's body language. He started taking short-cuts, too. Remember when he was such a surprise net-front presence in his rookie year? Well, that's because he had devoted himself to those O'Reilly Practices, and put the work in. He didn't do as much of that this season, and even stopped going for a long while. The result? He didn't score nearly as many goals as a result of taking a position in the front of the net. And I know people assume he's the consummate professional because of his family pedigree and all, but, I'll tell you: When word came that someone was getting suspended for a game because of a violation a team rule, my first guess was Reinhart. And his response in the aftermath didn't do him any favours either -- he was all but rolling his eyes when he gave that "sorry, not sorry" statement. The guy needs to grow up, realize he hasn't yet proved anything in this league, and get back to work. If he doesn't? He's apt to be one of the bigger busts the Sabres have ever drafted."

 

Well done, although I think the conclusion is too strong.

[That Aud Smell]

Meh.

 

You loved it.

 

Well done, although I think the conclusion is too strong.

 

Thanks - I tried to plausibly adopt an over-the-top click bait tone at the end.

 

And, in all seriousness: I was one of those fans who did *not* care at all for Reinhart's tone and words following his suspension.

[Stoner]

The coaches stopped them, but I'm almost positive that when Paul mentioned during the season that he didn't see Reinhart there, it was in the midst of that. I can go try and scour for the date to be sure. 

 

This does line up like a classic case of groupthink - How dare he criticize our darling Samson, let's all trash him. But even if he was 1000% right about Samson's workouts, his character argument is pathetic, and when you add that number comparison which I think is bad enough to call dishonest and disgusting, I think the "groupthink" is either correct, or the instinct to naturally come to his defense is in fact the side of this discussion that needs to be scrutinized. 

I think what a lot of people underestimate is how much these media people see and hear in the lockerroom and when they are otherwise around the team. Paul has been around a long time and I don't believe he makes stuff up. A lot of what the reporters are privy to is kept off the record. But it seems like guys like Harrington and Hamilton have their panties in a wad and are ready to sing like canaries.

The coaches stopped them, but I'm almost positive that when Paul mentioned during the season that he didn't see Reinhart there, it was in the midst of that. I can go try and scour for the date to be sure. 

Now I'm really confused. Paul reported that Sam wasn't at a practice that didn't take place?

[LGR4GM]

Semantics. He presented his case.

 

"Over an 82-game span, Reinhart has averaged 20 goals and 25 assists for 45 points" followed by " In 1998, Nashville selected... David Legwand. He averaged 16 goals and 28 assists for 44 points over an 82-game span."  David Legwand played in 152 games in his first 2 pro years. He had 69 points and 26goals. The math then is (69/152)x82 = 37.22pts so his very first set of numbers is wrong. 

 

"The lack of extra work showed as his goals went from 23 to 17. He did increase his assist total from 19 to 30, and overall had five extra points." This is a very poorly worded sentence. He claims one thing and then uses stats that demonstrate the very opposite. Reinhart's goal totals went down by 26% but his assists went up by 37% which therefore means the lack of extra work did not show, he produced more offense by about 12%. 

 

He then goes on to list all the forwards taken 2nd overall since 1997. He gives their average numbers in an 82 game span. He does not define the 82 game span to be their first 2 pro seasons. I will however do that math. I will start with 2001

Jason Spezza 111 games, 76 points = Hamilton 77pts. my math 56pts

Eric Staal 163 games, 131 points = Hamilton 69pts, my math 65pts

Evgeni Malkin 160 games, 191 points = Hamilton 97pts, my math 98pts

Bobby Ryan 145 games, 121 points = Hamilton 58pts, my math 68pts

Jordan Staal 163 games, 70 points = Hamilton 47pts, my math 35pts

James VanR 153 games, 75 points = Hamilton 53pts, my math 40pts

Tyler Seguin 155 games, 89 points = Hamilton 69pts, my math 47pts

Gabirel Landeskog 118 games, 69 points = Hamilton 54pts, my math 48pts

Aleksander Barkov 125 games, 60 points = Hamilton 56pts, my math 39pts

 

In conclusion: Hamilton used fake math or random seasons to calculate his numbers. Did he use the same age seasons? Did he use the highest seasons? What did he do? I can't tell as the reader without going further. He presents a list of wrong numbers and then says they prove his point. They only prove he either can't do math or he cheated the numbers to try and prove his point. Either way, it is a sham of an article and even if it praised Reinhart for being the greatest thing ever it would a garbage article. 

 

[That Aud Smell]

I think what a lot of people underestimate is how much these media people see and hear in the lockerroom and when they are otherwise around the team. Paul has been around a long time and I don't believe he makes stuff up. A lot of what the reporters are privy to is kept off the record. 

 

Don't disagree. Which is why I would have had more respect for the imagine rant above.

 

It's clear Hamilton thinks Reinhart needs to come to Jesus. I'm talking myself into thinking there's something to that.

[Randall Flagg]

I think what a lot of people underestimate is how much these media people see and hear in the lockerroom and when they are otherwise around the team. Paul has been around a long time and I don't believe he makes stuff up. A lot of what the reporters are privy to is kept off the record. But it seems like guys like Harrington and Hamilton have their panties in a wad and are ready to sing like canaries.

Now I'm really confused. Paul reported that Sam wasn't at a practice that didn't take place?

My memory says that ROR practices didn't halt the second that stretch started - they went on for a while and then Bylsma said to stop. Perhaps 3 games in, or something. But I swear that Paul mentioned Reinhart wasn't there on a day during that stretch. 

 

There might be something to the idea that Samson has some maturing to do, and actually I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case, being a second year pro, and he had better get on that, and we had better get coaching and management in place that will help him with that. Paul's numbers just piss me right off.

 

And then, when he reported that whole Jack not signing thing, slipping it in at the end of the article, giving no mention of who the source was or when Jack had said that or anything like it, and editing information into the article later without marking down that he did it, and then later the next day casually mentioning that it wasn't said then, but at some point earlier in the season. Sure, maybe he has some value from being near the players a lot but the way he acts is bordering on downright unprofessional more and more often and I don't think it's worth any real character analysis we could possibly get because of the we have to sift through and ponder about before we get to that analysis.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[LGR4GM]

I think what a lot of people underestimate is how much these media people see and hear in the lockerroom and when they are otherwise around the team. Paul has been around a long time and I don't believe he makes stuff up. A lot of what the reporters are privy to is kept off the record. But it seems like guys like Harrington and Hamilton have their panties in a wad and are ready to sing like canaries.

 

He literally just made stuff up. Do the math yourself if you do not believe me. 

 

Almost like Reinhart and Eichel in particular didn't bow down and show enough reverence to them so the "gloves are off"?

Edited April 25, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Stoner]

He literally just made stuff up. Do the math yourself if you do not believe me. 

 

Almost like Reinhart and Eichel in particular didn't bow down and show enough reverence to them so the "gloves are off"?

You and Terry need to compare notes on what making up/fabricating means.

[LGR4GM]

You and Terry need to compare notes on what making up/fabricating means.

Do his numbers match mine? Where did they come from then? How did he arrive at them?

 

Are you saying I don't know what 'making up' means or are you calling me a liar? I noticed your reply completely ignored my other post.

Edited April 25, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Stoner]

Do his numbers match mine? Where did they come from then? How did he arrive at them?

 

Are saying I don't know making up means or are you calling me a liar? I noticed your reply completely ignored my other post.

He didn't make up anything. He took career averages and you took first 82 games (or first two seasons, I guess). Hamilton's mistake was not clearly defining "82-game span." Couldn't help but notice Eichel's "82-game span" holds up pretty well so far. Guess we're throwing that one out the window eh?

[LGR4GM]

He didn't make up anything. He took career averages and you took first 82 games (or first two seasons, I guess). Hamilton's mistake was not clearly defining "82-game span." Couldn't help but notice Eichel's "82-game span" holds up pretty well so far. Guess we're throwing that one out the window eh?

We're not talking about Eichel. Why would you take and compare nhl averages to a player with less games then basically everyone else on the list? There's no reason to do it. It doesn't make sense to use that. Some of those players have more than 10 seasons. Also most players don't even hit their prime years til later. Why take what could be Sams worst two years and compare to other players best?

[Stoner]

From PH's recent column - "The lack of extra work showed as his goals went from 23 to 17. He did increase his assist total from 19 to 30, and overall had five extra points."

 

So "lack of extra effort" apparently results in less goals and more assists per year. Paul if you're out there, this does not count as doing your homework or as you like to put it "extra effort". How does Sam compare to Draisaitl or other players his draft year? You may want to take a look at Flagg's analysis. Personally, I do not care if you criticize or praise my local team. Just give me some data to back up your opinion.  

Totally out of context, Doc. Paul's point was that the lack of extra work in ROR Practice, where they must have worked on tips and screens, resulted in fewer such goals this season.

We're not talking about Eichel. Why would you take and compare nhl averages to a player with less games then basically everyone else on the list? There's no reason to do it. It doesn't make sense to use that. Some of those players have more than 10 seasons. Also most players don't even hit their prime years til later. Why take what could be Sams worst two years and compare to other players best?

You might not agree with that approach, but he didn't make anything up. Why do we look at Eichel's place on that list and salivate, thinking he could be one of the elites of the last 20 years? Why isn't is his sample size too small? Who's to say he can keep up that pace? Could be a flash in the pan.

[LGR4GM]

You might not agree with that approach, but he didn't make anything up. Why do we look at Eichel's place on that list and salivate, thinking he could be one of the elites of the last 20 years? Why isn't is his sample size too small? Who's to say he can keep up that pace? Could be a flash in the pan.

We are not talking about Jack Eichel, we are talking about Paul Hamilton's piece on Samson Reinhart.

 

Hamilton did makes things up. He claimed that Sam Reinhart was the 2nd worse player drafted 2nd overall since David Legwand in 1998. That isn't true. I literally just used a better statistical measure to prove that was not true. His approach was absolute garbage. 

[Stoner]

We are not talking about Jack Eichel, we are talking about Paul Hamilton's piece on Samson Reinhart.

 

Hamilton did makes things up. He claimed that Sam Reinhart was the 2nd worse player drafted 2nd overall since David Legwand in 1998. That isn't true. I literally just used a better statistical measure to prove that was not true. His approach was absolute garbage. 

Paul came up with a statistical measure that says he is the second worst. You might not like it. It's not about "truth." It's all very subjective. For the record, I think your method is better. And I thought that's what Hammy was saying when he wrote "82-game span."

[LGR4GM]

Paul came up with a statistical measure that says he is the second worst. You might not like it. It's not about "truth." It's all very subjective. For the record, I think your method is better. And I thought that's what Hammy was saying when he wrote "82-game span."

Fine I'll give you this much, Paul Hamilton was misleading and dishonest with his use of statistics. Dishonest in that those statistics were used to mislead people about Sam Reinhart which I am saying was his purpose.