Sabres Signing Marcus Johansson 2 years 4.5 Million AAV

[Doohicksie]

But that's my point..... I don't look at those charts and see that.  I think it should be a banning offense to post those charts without context/explanation of what a person means when they post them.  I'm a fancy stats idiot, and as much as most of the other posters don't talk about it so bluntly, I think there are many of us fancy stats idiots on this forum.

[...]

1 minute ago, TrueBlueGED said:

If by that, I hope you don't mean at center. I like the signing a lot as a middle-six winger. That will change the moment I see him at 2C. 

I don't mean center, I just mean talent-level in the top 6.

[TrueBlueGED]

Just now, Doohickie said:

But that's my point..... I don't look at those charts and see that.  I think it should be a banning offense to post those charts without context/explanation of what a person means when they post them.  I'm a fancy stats idiot, and as much as most of the other posters don't talk about it so bluntly, I think there are many of us fancy stats idiots on this forum.

Everything in those charts has been explained multiple times, and Flagg explained the charts themselves. I really don't think it should be incumbent upon us to explain every time they're posted. 

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

But that's my point..... I don't look at those charts and see that.  I think it should be a banning offense to post those charts without context/explanation of what a person means when they post them.  I'm a fancy stats idiot, and as much as most of the other posters don't talk about it so bluntly, I think there are many of us fancy stats idiots on this forum.

So because you don't get something the rest of us can't enjoy it?

[Doohicksie]

Just now, TrueBlueGED said:

Everything in those charts has been explained multiple times, and Flagg explained the charts themselves. I really don't think it should be incumbent upon us to explain every time they're posted. 

Of course you don't.  You're not a fancy stats idiot.

Just now, WildCard said:

So because you don't get something the rest of us can't enjoy it?

We can *all* enjoy it a little more with some context.

[WildCard]

Just now, Doohickie said:

Of course you don't.  You're not a fancy stats idiot.

They're not even fancy lol it's basically a bar graph

[inkman]

7 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I don't know.  Buffalo wings are well liked throughout the country.

As long as you only call them buffalo wings outside of buffalo 

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Everything in those charts has been explained multiple times, and Flagg explained the charts themselves. I really don't think it should be incumbent upon us to explain every time they're posted. 

 

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

We can *all* enjoy it a little more with some context.

I mean True's right those have been explained before. Up is better than average, down is worse than average in that category 

[...]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

But that's my point..... I don't look at those charts and see that.  I think it should be a banning offense to post those charts without context/explanation of what a person means when they post them.  I'm a fancy stats idiot, and as much as most of the other posters don't talk about it so bluntly, I think there are many of us fancy stats idiots on this forum.

We've all been here on this forum a long ass time and have gone over, and over, and over the new metrics used to help analyze the game.  I read the sites, thought about it, and can interpret the stats that I think are important. If I can do it, so can you.  

It's like bitching about an MRI, how can an over-sized magnet help me?  The magnet-as-therapy-fad happened back in the middle of the 19th century.

[inkman]

Just now, WildCard said:

They're not even fancy lol it's basically a bar graph

I'm fairly certain doohickie gets that, it's the RAPM, TRPM crap without a legend or key to tell us what the heck they mean. Yeah yeah Google smoogle. I don't come here for homework. 

[TrueBlueGED]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Of course you don't.  You're not a fancy stats idiot.

We can *all* enjoy it a little more with some context.

Do you honestly think it's fair to require people to explain the graphs continuously? After all, not everyone will see the explanations, so it'll have to be with every post. I think that's an unfair expectation of posters. The charts are created at evolving-hockey.com, and there's an explanation there of what they are for those curious. 

[jad1]

27 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Looking at the current roster, even though he’s primarily been an LW, his best fit is probably as Sam’s replacement at RW with Jack and Jeff. He’s got the IQ and the ability to move the puck in that role.

Probably one of the factors in convincing him to sign.

So the plan is to move a 3rd line left winger to right wing on the 1st line?  That will help Jack?  

If this is the plan, this team is in serious trouble this season. 

 

[inkman]

1 minute ago, ... said:

We've all been here on this forum a long ass time and have gone over, and over, and over the new metrics used to help analyze the game.  I read the sites, thought about it, and can interpret the stats that I think are important. If I can do it, so can you.  

It's like bitching about an MRI, how can an over-sized magnet help me?  The magnet-as-therapy-fad happened back in the middle of the 19th century.

Sorry, I haven't paid enough attention to fancy stat discussions to glean any insight. I do enjoy seeing them but I don't absorb it enough to retain any knowledge of any value. This place is a respite from life, I don't use my brain here at all. Nor do I want to. 

[...]

This thread digression is brought to you by the letter "C".  For folks at home using DVRs, skip to the next page...

[Doohicksie]

If you'd posted this originally, I would have understood your point.  Yes, the banning remark was hyperbole, but a little context helps move the conversation forward for those of us who are not good at reading those charts.  That's all I was saying.

 

Quote

 

Looking at his last two seasons, he might not seem like much

 

But if you go back before that, he's a good, if not very good, addition to the forward ranks.

 

That's what I mean by adding context.

I've said my piece on this.  I'm not going to further derail the discussion by defending my view.  It's out there, do with it, react to it, as you see fit.  But now I'm done.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Doohickie

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, ... said:

The term is what saves this for me.  The guy is wildly inconsistent season to season.  He's effectively a fill-in until Cozens gets here.

Botterill still has a tonne of work to do if he's going to palpably up the average talent level of the team and he really needs to jettison the chaff.

You may or may not know, but he dealt with a couple concussions and recovery from those in 2017-18 and 2018-19.  He really hit his stride down the stretch and in the playoffs with Boston.  I’m inclined to hope that he is close to the guy from 2014-17 as opposed to 18-19.

[DarthEbriate]

I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen any chart to make me believe there's one all-powerful Fancy stat controlling everything. There's mystical plus/minus controls my destiny. It's all a lot compete level and puck luck.

[...]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

If you'd posted this originally, I would have understood your point.  Yes, the banning remark was hyperbole, but a little context helps move the conversation forward for those of us who are not good at reading those charts.  That's all I was saying.

That's what I mean by adding context.

That context is already there by just looking at the charts.   

[inkman]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

If you'd posted this originally, I would have understood your point.  Yes, the banning remark was hyperbole, but a little context helps move the conversation forward for those of us who are not good at reading those charts.  That's all I was saying.

 

That's what I mean by adding context.

Honestly, I still don't know exactly what they mean but life has taught me red=bad so I can surmize enough from that. 

[WildCard]

Just now, inkman said:

Honestly, I still don't know exactly what they mean but life has taught me red=bad so I can surmize enough from that. 

Funny enough teacher's I know stopped using red pen for that exact reason

[...]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

You may or may not know, but he dealt with a couple concussions and recovery from those in 2017-18 and 2018-19.  He really hit his stride down the stretch and in the playoffs with Boston.  I’m inclined to hope that he is close to the guy from 2014-17 as opposed to 18-19.

Yeah, that's cool.  We're the experiment.  If he "finally recovers" then we have a good player until he gets hit again.  As I said, the term is what makes this signing okay, but not really okay, but...

[WildCard]

 

[DarthEbriate]

Red is evil. Blue and green are good, and purple is Princely. Unless you're in a ship... then green is bad and red is good. Unless you're in GI Joe, then blue is bad and red is good.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just saw the news.  I’m very excited. I wanted Jbot to trade for him after Berglund went AWOL.

 

[...]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

 

Should be a huge upgrade from Thompson!