Sabres Prospects 2017-2018

[rakish]

Junk science

 

In PA's voice, go on...

 

Want to talk methodology, or results? (results will make Inkman cry, I will point the finger at you)

Edited December 3, 2017 by rakish

[spndnchz]

In PA's voice, go on...

 

Want to talk methodology, or results? (results will make Inkman cry, I will point the finger at you)

But where has that finger been? ink needs to know.

[inkman]

But where has that finger been? ink needs to know.

Can I smell it?

[spndnchz]

Can I smell it?

No. This is best guess.

[rakish]

In PA's voice, go on...

 

Want to talk methodology, or results? (results will make Inkman cry, I will point the finger at you)

 

Dude

 

You don't get to call someone out, then slink away when you are asked to elaborate as if this was hockeybuzz. If this place is going to be moderated like hockeybuzz and #### behavior like this is tolerated, let me know.

 

For those of you playing at home, Tom has a Crystal Ball theory on drafting, that since you don't have a crystal ball, you don't know, and if you don't know, you're guessing, and since you are guessing, anybody can guess. Let's walk through 2014 from Mom's Basement Stakes, my drafting contest. 2016 is exactly the same, except Bratt instead of Point.

 

In 2014, at the top of the draft Tim Murray drafted

#2: Sam Reinhart

#31 Brendan Lemieux

#44 Eric Cornel

#49 Vaclav Karabecek

#61 Jonas Johansson

 

Taking my draft board, and taking the top player remaining yielded this:

#2: Reinhart

#31: Barbashev

#44: Holmstrom

#49: Glover

#61: Brayden Point

 

Under Tom's theory, I should get no credit for drafting Point, since I drafted Glover before him, and if I knew Point was going to be good, then I would have drafted him first. This is a ridiculous argument because no one has a crystal ball, what we're doing is valuing players, and the ability to value more correctly allows you to draft better.

 

After 4 year of Mom's Basement Stakes, had I drafted for the Sabres, the team would look something like this:

 

Brayden Point Eichel Jesper Bratt

xxx xxx xxx

Reinhart Barbashev (if you don't trade him) xxx

xxx xxx xxx

 

xxx xxx

Chychrun xxx

Andersson xxx

 

That's half a team, add in a few Ristos and other veterans, and with competent coaching, you're looking at a playoff team. The truth is my drafting is killing the Buffalo Sabres scouting, not only would the Sabres be considerably better, but New Jersey without Bratt and Tampa without Point would be considerably worse.

 

So in the end, I'm getting called out for junk science? no, it works, it works better than the last GM, it works better than this GM.

[inkman]

Again with the junk science. As I stated before, (in creepy PA voice) go on...

[North Buffalo]

Dude

 

You don't get to call someone out, then slink away when you are asked to elaborate as if this was hockeybuzz. If this place is going to be moderated like hockeybuzz and #### behavior like this is tolerated, let me know.

 

For those of you playing at home, Tom has a Crystal Ball theory on drafting, that since you don't have a crystal ball, you don't know, and if you don't know, you're guessing, and since you are guessing, anybody can guess. Let's walk through 2014 from Mom's Basement Stakes, my drafting contest. 2016 is exactly the same, except Bratt instead of Point.

 

In 2014, at the top of the draft Tim Murray drafted

#2: Sam Reinhart

#31 Brendan Lemieux

#44 Eric Cornel

#49 Vaclav Karabecek

#61 Jonas Johansson

 

Taking my draft board, and taking the top player remaining yielded this:

#2: Reinhart

#31: Barbashev

#44: Holmstrom

#49: Glover

#61: Brayden Point

 

Under Tom's theory, I should get no credit for drafting Point, since I drafted Glover before him, and if I knew Point was going to be good, then I would have drafted him first. This is a ridiculous argument because no one has a crystal ball, what we're doing is valuing players, and the ability to value more correctly allows you to draft better.

 

After 4 year of Mom's Basement Stakes, had I drafted for the Sabres, the team would look something like this:

 

Brayden Point Eichel Jesper Bratt

xxx xxx xxx

Reinhart Barbashev (if you don't trade him) xxx

xxx xxx xxx

 

xxx xxx

Chychrun xxx

Andersson xxx

 

That's half a team, add in a few Ristos and other veterans, and with competent coaching, you're looking at a playoff team. The truth is my drafting is killing the Buffalo Sabres scouting, not only would the Sabres be considerably better, but New Jersey without Bratt and Tampa without Point would be considerably worse.

 

So in the end, I'm getting called out for junk science? no, it works, it works better than the last GM, it works better than this GM.

Rakish hes trolling you, I appreciate your analytical attempt to stastically evaluate an inexact science and provide values to players likely success. Let ink go... you are too good at what your doing to let his provoking get to you. IMO you provide interesting perspective on a highly variable evaluation.

[tom webster]

I’m not trolling, I really think most sports analytics are junk science. Not necessarily rakish, I really don’t enough about his methods. Given the desire and the time I could debunk most of what I read. I am most amused when I hear some of my very good friends, who in the past ran away from anything related to numbers, now quote regression to means and win probability as if it was the Bible.

And for the record, never mentioned a crystal ball.

Edited December 5, 2017 by tom webster

[WildCard]

I’m not trolling, I really think most sports analytics are junk science. Not necessarily rakish, I really don’t enough about his methods. Given the desire and the time I could debunk most of what I read. I am most amused when I hear some of my very good friends, who in the past ran away from anything related to numbers, now quote regression to means and win probability as if it was the Bible.

And for the record, never mentioned a crystal ball.

I really, really don't think you can debunk statistical analysis. You think entire departments built into a multi-billion dollar industry are thriving because they can pull the wool over someone's eyes?

[Sabel79]

I really, really don't think you can debunk statistical analysis. You think entire departments built into a multi-billion dollar industry are thriving because they can pull the wool over someone's eyes?

You're assuming capatilism works as you were tought.

[dudacek]

You think entire departments built into a multi-billion dollar industry are thriving because they can pull the wool over someone's eyes?

You don’t understand politics, do you? ????

Edited December 5, 2017 by dudacek

[WildCard]

You're assuming capatilism works as you were tought.

You don’t understand politics, do you?

This is not the same. I have to have a government, I do not have to have a analytical department. I, as the owner, also do not need to wait for anyone to makes changes if I believe those changes are not producing results. I, as the owner, am also much more knowledgeable and involved in my business than most people are with the Presidential election, let alone the million other ones. 

[Sabel79]

This is not the same. I have to have a government, I do not have to have a analytical department. I, as the owner, also do not need to wait for anyone to makes changes if I believe those changes are not producing results. I, as the owner, am also much more knowledgeable and involved in my business than most people are with the Presidential election, let alone the million other ones.

 

Libertarianism IS Fascism.

[dudacek]

You as an owner are spending your surplus on the new chairs the cute office manager wants instead of the copier the stuffy accounting department head wants because she smiles a lot, brings you doughnuts and laughs at your dad jokes.

[WildCard]

Libertarianism IS Fascism.

What are we even arguing here? 

 

Libertarianism, as I understand it, lends itself to an Oligarchy.

[dudacek]

(My first post had a smiley and my daughter is sitting beside me watching the Office)

[WildCard]

You as an owner are spending your surplus on the new chairs the cute office manager wants instead of the copier the stuffy accounting department head wants because she smiles a lot, brings you doughnuts and laughs at your dad jokes.

I understand what nepotism is. Owners succeed when their teams win

(My first post had a smiley and my daughter is sitting beside me watching the Office)

Fair enough :lol:

[Sabel79]

What are we even arguing here? 

 

Libertarianism, as I understand it, lends itself to an Oligarchy.

Oh hell son, an Olgaechy is what we have.

 

Libertarianism would extend that to any landowner. That is, any landowner too weak to resist the martial force of his neighbor...

 

Above and beyond that... Liberatafians love to chatter on abut thier freedoms. Funny, they are never your freedoms,

 

Eliminate government and let capital determine literally everything... sounds a bit like slavery, no?

[WildCard]

Oh hell son, an Olgaechy is what we have.

 

Libertarianism would extend that to any landowner. That is, any landowner too weak to resist the martial force of his neighbor...

 

Above and beyond that... Liberatafians love to chatter on abut thier freedoms. Funny, they are never your freedoms,

 

Eliminate government and let capital determine literally everything... sounds a bit like slavery, no?

But...what does this have to do with my post? Because I said I have to have a government? :lol:

[dudacek]

I think Libertarianism is failing in the Sabres locker room.

[Sabel79]

But...what does this have to do with my post? Because I said I have to have a government? :lol:

Give it six months.

[GASabresIUFAN]

 

 

And now, back to our topic.

Rak, I respect your work and the effort and knowledge you put into your rankings. You should hire on as the Sabres advanced stats guru.

 

However, Imho, TM and his staff were so bad, I think I could have drafted better by averaging a couple of lists from McKeens, ISS and a few others.

Edited December 5, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[tom webster]

I really, really don't think you can debunk statistical analysis. You think entire departments built into a multi-billion dollar industry are thriving because they can pull the wool over someone's eyes?

That’s not what I said. I’m talking specifically about any sports statistical analysis that gives absolutes, especially within a game situation. Stuff like rakish is doing is valuable research and I didn’t mean to make like of it. I kind of just wrapped him up in my disdain for a lot of the “Junk” I hear on the radio and see on the internet.

[rakish]

That’s not what I said. I’m talking specifically about any sports statistical analysis that gives absolutes, especially within a game situation. Stuff like rakish is doing is valuable research and I didn’t mean to make like of it. I kind of just wrapped him up in my disdain for a lot of the “Junk” I hear on the radio and see on the internet.

 

That is spot on. The Corsi people are nuts, but unfortunately, I believe Botterill is one of them, so only Kim Pegula can save us now.

[MODO Hockey]

You lost me at hello.