U20 tournament - Junior Evaluation Camp (Sieloff, Gillies, Monahan, Poirier & Janko)

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Parallex

In abundance though (as you put it) what other asset does he have "in abundance" other then that?

Leadership and intensity come to mind. He works hard, makes pretty decent decisions with the puck and seems like he was running around a bit less than he did in the past at the scrimmages in Calgary. I'd like to see more offense (who wouldn't) but I like where he's at so far. Why not take Weisbrods opinion over mine though, he seems pretty happy as well.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/...754/story.html

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Why not take Weisbrods opinion over mine though, he seems pretty happy as well.

Weisbrod didn't really mention anything in that articule other then physicality (Which I've acknowledged he has in abundance).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Weisbrod didn't really mention anything in that articule other then physicality (Which I've acknowledged he has in abundance).

Well I think the point is that no one is really expecting Sieloff to do much of anything offensively. If Sieloff gets 0 points the entire time he is a Flame, but is a defensive stalwart that is feared by opponents, would that be a negative in your eyes?

I personally couldn't care less what Sieloffs offensive totals are. And I understand the sentiment that if he was NHL calibre he would point up points purely from seeing the game better. I get that. But it's not necessarily the case. Maybe 95% the time Sieloff is changing when leaving the defensive zone and doesn't get many ozone starts. There's nothing wrong with specializing in defense.

On the flip side, everyone could be creaming themselves over a prospect scoring at a ridiculous clip in the Dub, but then shows little to nothing at the NHL in terms of positional awareness and is a bust at the highest level. It has happened many times.

[chopper89]

He's Denis Gauthier 2.0- and I mean that as a compliment! Fun player to watch as long as the big hits happen more often than the defensive breakdowns. Granted this is based on very limited viewing, and online scouting reports- but I think we're getting a heart and soul type of hitting dman that the Flames fans will love, and every other teams fans will hate.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well I think the point is that no one is really expecting Sieloff to do much of anything offensively. If Sieloff gets 0 points the entire time he is a Flame, but is a defensive stalwart that is feared by opponents, would that be a negative in your eyes?

I don't think you understand my concerns, my concerns aren't that he won't provide offense... to be honest I expect very little should he make it. And I would be happy if he could be a defensive stalwart shuttin' down other teams top guys.

My concern is that even guys like Regehr and Sarich (which is basically what you realistically hope Sieloff becomes nah?), had enough all around skill to put up decent (if not overwhelming) point totals in the CHL. They had the hockey IQ and could Skate, Shoot, Pass, Stickhandle well enough to do it... if Sieloff can't do those things (which are pretty much basic hockey skills regardless of whether your playing forward or D) well enough to produce decently at the CHL level then I have to question whether he has the "tools" to be a player of NHL calibre even just as a defensive stalwart. Defensive Stalwarts still need to have NHL calibre basic skills.

I mean, if his tools are near NHL calibre why doesn't Sieloff produce any offensive numbers of note against players in a league that is essentually two tiers below? Legit question, I want to know.

My concern isn't that he won't be good offensively it's that he won't be good defensively and that the Flames staff may be blinded by his propensity to hit people and are overlooking what may be flaws.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He is going to be a long time NHLer IMO, regardless of what some half baked blogging analysis suggests. Its amazing how many people focus on one statistic to determine what a player will be moving forward.

Stats aren't perfect. But they're more reliable than wishful thinking.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Stats aren't perfect. But they're more reliable than wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? LOL...good one.

If you think all i am basing my opinion on is rainbows and unicorns...then knock yourself out.

[Tinordi]

Stats coldly eliminate wishful thinking. Which is why stats are universally a better heuristic for prediction that human bias which is too context dependent for predictive use.

Daniel Kahneman:

Orley Ashenfelter has offered a compelling demonstration of the power of simple statistics to outdo world-renowned experts. Ashenfelter wanted to predict the future value of fine Bordeaux wines from information available in the year they are made.

Ashenfelter converted that conventional knowledge into a statistical formula that predicts the price of a wine - for a particular property and at a particular age - by three features of the weather: <<Age of prospect>> the average temperature over the summer growing season, <<Point production of prospect>> the amount of rain at harvest-time, <<point production of linemates>> and the total rainfall during the previous winter. His formula provides accurate price forecasts years and even decades into the future. Indeed, his formula forecasts future prices much more accurately than the current prices of young wines do.

Ashenfelter’s formula is extremely accurate - the correlation between his predictions and actual prices is above .90.

Why are experts inferior to algorithms? One reason, which Meehl suspected, is that experts try to be clever, think outside the box, and consider complex combinations of features in making their predictions. Complexity may work in the odd case, but more often than not it reduces validity. Simple combinations of features are better.

Human decision makers are inferior to a prediction formula even when they are given the score suggested by the formula! They feel that they can overrule the formula because they have additional information.

There are few circumstances under which it is a good idea to substitute judgment for a formula. In a famous thought experiment, he described a formula that predicts whether a particular person will go to the movies tonight and noted that it is proper to disregard the formula if information is received that the individual broke a leg today. The name “broken-leg rule” has stuck. The point, of course, is that broken legs are very rare - as well as decisive.

To maximize predictive accuracy, final decisions should be left to formulas, especially in low-validity environments.

http://sivers.org/book/ThinkingFastAndSlow

[transplant99]

LOL^^^^^....hahahaha.

Thats as goofy as anything ever posted here.

Some nerd in some place can predict wine prices by rainfall averages...therefore Seiloff wont be a player.

Hahahah...seriously that's got me laughing.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Nope. You are confusing the talent of the individual vs the talent of the GM in trying to get as much talent on that team per $ spent.

What I'm saying is that the BPA - as in the player that should be drafted - is the guy who will provide the most cap value to the team that drafted him, not the guy who will actually go on to have the best overall career. A player can provide cap value by excelling while still on an ELC, or by excelling before he becomes arbitration-eligible, or excelling during restricted years. A GM can create cap value through negotiating a good contract, but what I'm interested in for BPA is the cap value that is provided by the player, i.e. the amount by which the player outperforms the cap hit he would have with an average GM.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL^^^^^....hahahaha.

Thats as goofy as anything ever posted here.

Some nerd in some place can predict wine prices by rainfall averages...therefore Seiloff wont be a player.

Hahahah...seriously that's got me laughing.

I think you'd do better by understanding the point instead of laughing at it.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think you'd do better by understanding the point instead of laughing at it.

You should be happy he actually read it.

[The Yen Man]

Meh, at the end of the day, you can throw all the stats you want at me, and I'll still choose to be optimistic about Sieloff and the rest of our prospects. Sure, you may call it wishful thinking, but I just find it so much easier to enjoy the ride rather than be pessimistic about it. If he busts, he busts. He won't be the first, and he definitely won't be the last.

[dammage79]

^^ I share this outlook as well. Stats provide a history Of other players development and are no better at predicting the future of an individual than reading tea leaves in my eyes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by dammage79

^^ I share this outlook as well. Stats provide a history Of other players development and are no better at predicting the future of an individual than reading tea leaves in my eyes.

Depends on weather trends and rainfall totals when those tea leaves are harvested...no?

[kehatch]

I think Sieloff's point totals do have some bearing on his projection. Not because we are trying to forecast the number of points he will get in the NHL. But because it provides you with some insight on his puck skills, vision, hockey sense, etc. Even guys like Regehr and Warrener were putting up superior numbers at the junior levels.

But I think people are going way over the top on this one. Although it is a flag it isn't definitive. The scouting reports haven't highlighted vision or hockey sense as negative areas and all reports are that his puck skills are improving dramatically.

[Table 5]

I don't think past stats are the final-word about the future either, but I do they can be an extremely powerful tool in your toolbox (remember Nate Silver?). More often that not, whether its sports or wine or politics, they can lead to some pretty amazing insights. Trying to draft and develop hockey players seems pretty random as is....I think teams would be foolish to ignore statistics and only stick to their gut. At the end of the day, I hope the Flames do a bit of both...but I'd like to think that they lean towards the math side of the equation.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Meh, at the end of the day, you can throw all the stats you want at me, and I'll still choose to be optimistic about Sieloff and the rest of our prospects. Sure, you may call it wishful thinking, but I just find it so much easier to enjoy the ride rather than be pessimistic about it. If he busts, he busts. He won't be the first, and he definitely won't be the last.

Why does everyone who doesn't believe all these prospects are sure things suddenly become pessimists? Kind of irritating. What is wrong with questioning these ambiguous platitudes with statistics and insight? A pessimist would use the opposite of the optimists wishful thinking and base it on a negative view. Can't we be skeptical? What is wrong with questioning these? Why the hell should we ignore it when discussing our prospects?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by dammage79

^^ I share this outlook as well. Stats provide a history Of other players development and are no better at predicting the future of an individual than reading tea leaves in my eyes.

Except that they're more accurate? They do give you probability, and that's something you can choose to ignore or not. It doesn't change the fact that it does indeed give probability for success

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Except that they're more accurate? They do give you probability, and that's something you can choose to ignore or not. It doesn't change the fact that it does indeed give probability for success

Each to their own. Pessimists or optimists can spend all the time they want looking into stats and crunching the numbers. I don't ignore them per se, more just find the experience sullies my enjoyment of watching the game and lessens the joy one would get out of watching a player defy the odds or break out into a dominant player. Same with the flip side, dilutes the negative impact of watching a player pull a Patrick Stefan or the disappointment of watching Daigle bust. Advanced stats are cool and all but I don't bank on them to fulfill my joy of hockey.

It's like trying to write the story before it happens. I just like to watch it happen without data blurring my view.