Who is the Worst Member of the Buffalo Media?

[Doctor of Philhousley]

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.

Yet somehow 37% more assists. Did those result from less or more work on his passing? Paul needs to supply more details to justify characterizing players as "arrogant" or acting "like he made it". This stuff can stick with a player a long time especially for a 20 year old kid. It is the reporter's job to tell us why he has this opinion. All we have heard is anecdotal evidence that he may or may not have missed extra sessions with ROR at some point during the season. Finally, it is not just this one instance with PH, the guy doesn't put the hours in to add substance to his opinions. 

[dudacek]

You might not agree with that approach, but he didn't make anything up.

He used a pool of data akin to comparing a high school student to a post-grad.

He either deliberately set out to make his subject look bad, or he is too stupid to see the huge logical fallacy in his argument.

 

My best guess is Paul overheard Sam and Jack mocking him and is holding a grudge.

Edited April 25, 2017 by dudacek

[Randall Flagg]

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."

It's not subjective when Paul deliberately shifts goalposts around in the way that makes Samson look as bad as he can. 

 

He's pissy about where Sam is in his second year of development. To prove that Sam's second year was a disappointment, he took Sam Reinhart's G/A/PT paces and compared them to the pace of the entire career of a guys who have already fully developed. This is objectively unscientific, it's hiding a variable that shows to have an impact on the thing he's measuring, and it's hiding it on purpose because when you fix that variable, Samson doesn't rank nearly as bad as he'd like.

Paul took just ages 19/20/21 for Samson, and took everybody else's peak, and acted as if they were the same thing.

 

For a real comparison, you'd want to take the numbers in every player's third post draft season and compare it to those in Sam's, or at least use everyone's second NHL season, even though they may have come at different ages. As YSE pointed out in the other thread, when you adjust and compare the production of the first two seasons in the NHL, even allowing the guys who developed more in leagues below the NHL before starting, unlike Sam, he suddenly jumps ahead of at least 5 of the guys that Paul "ranked" above Samson doing his method, and YSE only did a few of the guys that Paul mentioned. If you look to see what those players picked 2nd overall did during their 21 year old NHL season, he'd jump ahead even more than that. I can't fathom how this is a subjectively okay approach to the argument. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[That Aud Smell]

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."

It is hogwash to say that what Hamilton did is a matter of subjective taste. Analytical methods and data have a way of limiting the relevance of such matters.

 

Hamilton's piece was misleading. No two ways about that. If intentionally so, shame on him. If unintentionally, ... welp.

[Randall Flagg]

Here's a better method: Points per game in the player's third post draft season, of players selected 2nd overall since 1998. I don't have the time to adjust for era, unfortunately. 

 

1997: Patrick Marleau: 81GP, 17G, 23A, 40 points. 0.49 points per game.

1998: David Legwand: 81GP, 13G, 28A, 41 points. 0.51 points per game.

1999: Daniel Sedin: 79GP, 9G, 23A, 32 points. 0.41 points per game. 

2000: Dany Heatley: 77GP, 41G, 48A, 89 points. 1.16 points per game. 

2001: Jason Spezza: 78GP, 22G, 33A, 55 points. 0.71 points per game.

2002: Kari Lehtonen was taken 2nd. 

2003: Eric Staal: 82GP, 30G, 40A, 70 points: 0.85 points per game. 

2004: Evgeni Malkin: 78GP, 33G, 52A, 85 points: 1.09 points per game.

2005: Bobby Ryan: 23GP, 5G, 5A, 10 points: 0.43 points per game.

2006: Jordan Staal: 82GP, 22G, 27A, 49 points: 0.60 points per game.

2007:James van Riemsdyk: 78GP, 15G, 20A, 35 points: 0.45 points per game.

2008: Doughty, doesn't count.

2009: Hedman, same.

2010: Tyler Seguin: 48 GP, 16G, 16A, 32 points: 0.67 points per game.

2011: Gabriel Landeskog: 81GP, 26G, 39A, 65 points. 0.80 points per game. This was his best season in his career, he had fewer than 35 pts this season in 72 games.

2012: Ryan Murray, D

2013: Aleksander Barkov: 66GP, 28G, 31A, 59 points: 0.89 points per game.

2014: Sam Reinhart: 79GP, 17G, 30A, 47 points. 0.59 points per game.

 

Heatley 
Malkin 

Barkov 

E. Staal 

Landeskog 

Spezza

Seguin 

J. Staal 

Reinhart

Legwand

Marleau

JVR

Ryan

Sedin

 

So Reinhart jumped 4 spots and doesn't look nearly as bad. If you average their first two NHL seasons, because Paul actually did this with Reinhart, Sam would jump ahead of Seguin and Barkov as well.

 

I shall rephrase that: Using Hamilton's preferred comparison metrics, only taking EVERY player's 2nd and 3rd post-draft seasons instead of only doing that for Samson and allowing the primes of everyone else, Samson's ranking among 2nd overall picks jumps from 13th out of 14 forwards to 7th out of 14 forwards. Nice job Hammy. 

 

 When you factor in a guy like Jordan Staal playing on a team that scored 63 more goals than the Sabres did this year, and him only putting up 2 more points in his respective season, it's tough to really get on Sam's case statistically like Paul tries to do. Effort, character stuff? Fine, if you really bring evidence to the table that supports it. But his dishonesty with the numbers 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[SDS]

For those fighting the good fight, you may want to consider that some people may lack the mathematical comfort to appreciate Paul's pile of horseshit for what it is. I doubt Paul understands it either and that's why he wrote it.

[WildCard]

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."

Come on, this is such ###### 

 

Our reporters aren't 'about the truth'? What do they even get paid for then? And you wonder why this thread exists, and keep saying 'this is old'. Stats aren't subjective

Edited April 25, 2017 by WildCard

[Randall Flagg]

Paul first mentioned Reinhart missing ROR's practice February 10th, which was after game 5 of the 11 game/19 day stretch. So the team was looking at 6 games in the next 9 days, and Sam wasn't at ROR's practice. Gimme a fuggin break Paul. 

At least at the time he mentioned that he doesn't get to see the work they put in at the gym or anything. Now that the season is over, that kind of precaution when speaking can be tossed away. 

[Randall Flagg]

And Paul said that Reinhart was at the practice 3/30. Either just before or just after he was benched a game, so he had the energy to put in the extra on-ice time. FWIW - Reinhart spent a big chunk of his rookie year working on his shot. The stuff that I personally want to see Sam working on, strength and speed, will not get built up with extra time on the ice. Since Paul can't say, and admitted (not in this scathing article but months ago) that he doesn't know how hard Sam is working off the ice, I am not worried at all about Sam's effort. His roommate is a freaking gym rat, not Matt Moulson with the ice cream freezer. 

 

There's a good chance Sam just has a better grasp on what he needs to be doing throughout the season to best prepare himself physically for games, and that this method involves less EXTRA time on the ice.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[Stoner]

For those fighting the good fight, you may want to consider that some people may lack the mathematical comfort to appreciate Paul's pile of horseshit for what it is. I doubt Paul understands it either and that's why he wrote it.

It's not about math. The issue is the logic of the statistics he chose to use. Shouldn't you be at work in the Naval Observatory working on a new brain for that spook Terry Pegula?

Look, Paul is old school and he's a radio dude. No one reads WGR's site and if I had to guess, Paul was shocked when his Eichel tidbit, buried in a story, got some much attention. I wouldn't blame someone in his 50s (just guessing) for not understanding the social media and new media environment. He would also probably be shocked that anyone is debating his Reinhart blurb on a message board.

 

He's a fixture. He's always been tough on the team, and that makes him unpopular at times. I think for the most part he knows his stuff. He's not a great interviewer, but he is a great play by play guy and he should be in Dan Dunleavy's seat.

 

Most of all, he's a provocateur. Mission accomplished, Hammy.

[That Aud Smell]

That is some thin sauce in defence of Hamilton:

 

It's not that his math is bad, it's his utter lack of rational logic that was at play here. He's an old radio guy. He never thought anyone would read it. He doesn't know what message boards are. He doesn't know how to conduct an interview.

 

And now I want Chris Farley to come back to life and read the post above with air quotes.

[Neo]

My problem with the article is not that he didn't recognize that he did the math wrong, it's that he didn't recognize that he did the wrong math.

 

Teachers say "show your work" to diagnose just this.

[Stoner]

My problem with the article is not that he didn't recognize that he did the math wrong, it's that he didn't recognize that he did the wrong math.

 

Teachers say "show your work" to diagnose just this.

I didn't check the work, but as far as I know, the math was correct.

That is some thin sauce in defence of Hamilton:

 

It's not that his math is bad, it's his utter lack of rational logic that was at play here. He's an old radio guy. He never thought anyone would read it. He doesn't know what message boards are. He doesn't know how to conduct an interview.

 

And now I want Chris Farley to come back to life and read the post above with air quotes.

OK. If we were married, I'd be just about ready to put a comforter on the couch.

[nfreeman]

 

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.

 

This is it in a nutshell.  The value he adds with his insights that he gains from being around the team is completely obliterated by dishonest writing.

 

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."

 

OK.  Do you or do you not think he was bein intentionally misleading by presenting the stats the way he did?

 

"An 82-game span."

 

The imprecision, IMHO, is completely intentional, and dishonest.

 

It is hogwash to say that what Hamilton did is a matter of subjective taste. Analytical methods and data have a way of limiting the relevance of such matters.

 

Hamilton's piece was misleading. No two ways about that. If intentionally so, shame on him. If unintentionally, ... welp.

 

Yes, except that it's almost impossible to believe it wasn't intentional.

 

It's not about math. The issue is the logic of the statistics he chose to use. Shouldn't you be at work in the Naval Observatory working on a new brain for that spook Terry Pegula?

Look, Paul is old school and he's a radio dude. No one reads WGR's site and if I had to guess, Paul was shocked when his Eichel tidbit, buried in a story, got some much attention. I wouldn't blame someone in his 50s (just guessing) for not understanding the social media and new media environment. He would also probably be shocked that anyone is debating his Reinhart blurb on a message board.

 

He's a fixture. He's always been tough on the team, and that makes him unpopular at times. I think for the most part he knows his stuff. He's not a great interviewer, but he is a great play by play guy and he should be in Dan Dunleavy's seat.

 

Most of all, he's a provocateur. Mission accomplished, Hammy.

 

Which is it?  Did he think no one read his stuff anyway, or was he trying to create a stir?

 

It's pretty clear to me that Hammy, like most other journos, is well aware that hot takes = more clicks = career advancement for sports journalists.  He just hasn't figured out how to issue hot takes that aren't transparently false and easily disproved.

[That Aud Smell]

If we were married, I'd be just about ready to put a comforter on the couch.

Wait a second: *IF*?!

[Taro T]

It's funny, because you know how you've been running around saying things get old? Claiming we only hate negative writers about our teams gets old too. Murphy is a well known homer and people don't like him either

  

That's a great point.  I can't stand his show because he is completely unable to criticize the Bills.  I can't stand Gleason and Sullivan (or rather I couldn't--I haven't read either in years) because they are completely unable to be anything but miserable.

And Sal Maiorano is typically negative about the Bills but is a very good read. Wish he covered the Sabres. Negativity & all.

[Neo]

I didn't check the work, but as far as I know, the math was correct.

PA, your observation regarding my language is correct. To editors!

 

He did the wrong math right.

[Ripper]

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

 

Pollock wrote an article on how he couldn't criticize the Bills-Sabres owners.  Then he proceeds to criticize through the thoughts of other writers.  Come on man. 

Be careful defending Whaley over that press conference. It's a trigger for some people.

But what is their job?

 

I recently had a twitter exchange with Jay Skurski about his story saying the Bills cap guy Overdorf sucks and should be fired. His argument was because the Bills lost Hogan and Gillislee to the Patriots, Overdorf must be mismanaging the cap.

 

I asked him to be more specific. Why is the cap mismanaged? What contract was a mistake? How much falls on Overdorf when Whaley is signing the players? All I get back is look at the results.

 

I left it there because I didn't want to get into an argument but doesn't that strike you as pretty lazy?

 

Thanks for the warning Promo.  

 

Good on you for calling out Skurski.

[WildCard]

Be careful defending Whaley over that press conference. It's a trigger for some people.

But what is their job?

 

I recently had a twitter exchange with Jay Skurski about his story saying the Bills cap guy Overdorf sucks and should be fired. His argument was because the Bills lost Hogan and Gillislee to the Patriots, Overdorf must be mismanaging the cap.

 

I asked him to be more specific. Why is the cap mismanaged? What contract was a mistake? How much falls on Overdorf when Whaley is signing the players? All I get back is look at the results.

 

I left it there because I didn't want to get into an argument but doesn't that strike you as pretty lazy?

The Gillieslee deal, if I have this right, was a massive cap mistake. We offered $1.2m, and got a 5th round pick in return. If we had offered $2m, we would have gotten a 2nd round pick. 

[nfreeman]

I think only PTR would cite the Bills losing Hogan as support for the Bills FO. 

[That Aud Smell]

The Gillieslee deal, if I have this right, was a massive cap mistake. We offered $1.2m, and got a 5th round pick in return. If we had offered $2m, we would have gotten a 2nd round pick. 

 

effin' A.

[TheAud]

The Gillieslee deal, if I have this right, was a massive cap mistake. We offered $1.2m, and got a 5th round pick in return. If we had offered $2m, we would have gotten a 2nd round pick. 

Maybe not. If it's a 2nd round tender the Pats don't make the offer at all.

 

So it's Gillislee at $2M, playing for the Bills

vs. 

$1.2M in additional cap space and a late 5th round pick. 

 

It all depends on your perspective of how well Gillislee will perform relative to his replacement in Buffalo (like J. Williams) and subsequent RB's they will pick up on the cheap, and what's the value of having the extra pick (in this case, Bills need more young, quality players badly) 

 

Personally I liked TD Mike and hate to see him go but it's not at all obvious this is a "massive cap mistake" and may or may not end up being a good or bad move. (Like I said, I don't like it but it's defensible)

[WildCard]

Maybe not. If it's a 2nd round tender the Pats don't make the offer at all.

 

So it's Gillislee at $2M, playing for the Bills

vs. 

$1.2M in additional cap space and a late 5th round pick. 

 

It all depends on your perspective of how well Gillislee will perform relative to his replacement in Buffalo (like J. Williams) and subsequent RB's they will pick up on the cheap, and what's the value of having the extra pick (in this case, Bills need more young, quality players badly) 

 

Personally I liked TD Mike and hate to see him go but it's not at all obvious this is a "massive cap mistake" and may or may not end up being a good or bad move. (Like I said, I don't like it but it's defensible)

$800k should never affect your cap space.

[woods-racer]

$800k should never affect your cap space.

 

No, but 5 of those bad moves do.

 

10 makes for a bad team for a long time.

 

Falling in love with your own players and over paying them is not good. 

[WildCard]

No, but 5 of those bad moves do.

 

10 makes for a bad team for a long time.

 

Falling in love with your own players and over paying them is not good. 

I have a hard time believing this situation comes up a lot