[News] With the 54th overall pick the Flames select RW Hunter Smith

[Hackey]

It's not. Was tongue in cheek.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I didn't know it was frowned upon to use Excel to create charts to post on forums.

It's not. It's an indication that your opinion regarding this subject is no longer being taken seriously.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

It's not. It's an indication that your opinion regarding this subject is no longer being taken seriously.

Why?

I have addressed every argument against mine.

I responded to a post that said I was wrong with some quick data that suggested I was not.

Is it not okay to have a different opinion? Shouldn't it be even more ideal to support those opinions?

So that's when my opinion is not taken seriously?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why?

I have addressed every argument against mine.

I responded to a post that said I was wrong with some quick data that suggested I was not.

Actually, you used the very same data that demonstrated that you were wrong. And you seemed incapable of recognizing that fact, or understanding the argument against your position.

This is why people don't take you seriously.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Actually, you used the very same data that demonstrated that you were wrong. And you seemed incapable of recognizing that fact, or understanding the argument against your position.

This is why people don't take you seriously.

Literally, how?

"You're wrong" without explaining why

I said in an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There is very strong correlation between the round a skater was picked and his likelihood of becoming an NHLer (or an impact player).

That relationship is not nearly as strong for goaltenders.

Explain how the very data I showed proved me wrong?

Obviously I'm not going to do it for the skaters, but the relationship between draft position and becoming a starting goaltender is not nearly as strong as the relationship between the draft position of a skater and his likelihood of becoming an "impact" NHLer.

I can guarantee that if such an example was done with skaters, the graph would show an inverse exponential relationship.

ex.



You know, it's not like I'm ricardodw. I'm not making up stats that don't make sense. This is very basic stuff that many people, besides just me, have said in the past. I post on this forum to discuss things with other fans, not to contribute to groupthink. Don't take me seriously. Fine. Either stop acting like a child or put me on ignore so you don't have to post useless quips to let people know you don't take me seriously. That is not conducive to a logical discussion.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why?

I have addressed every argument against mine.

I responded to a post that said I was wrong with some quick data that suggested I was not.

Is it not okay to have a different opinion? Shouldn't it be even more ideal to support those opinions?

So that's when my opinion is not taken seriously?

Honestly it was just a friendly joke. Wasn't trying to antagonize you or anything. It actually did make the information easier to read lol. I just disagree with its relevance a bit.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Why?

I have addressed every argument against mine.

I responded to a post that said I was wrong with some quick data that suggested I was not.

Is it not okay to have a different opinion? Shouldn't it be even more ideal to support those opinions?

So that's when my opinion is not taken seriously?

You are getting piled on a little.....we know that. Not trying to give you a complex. But just change your approach a little. If you are going to be the smart guy in the room, be a little less mechanical and high horse and a little more nuanced. There are a lot of bright people that understand analysis and argument on this board....they just don't advertise it in every post they make.

[Geeoff]

Mats Sundin must've been at least 6'5". Also, Dustin Byfuglien is pretty effective as a forward.

[dash_pinched]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

Mats Sundin must've been at least 6'5". Also, Dustin Byfuglien is pretty effective as a forward.

As is Brent Burns.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Literally, how?

"You're wrong" without explaining why

It's already been explained to you. You didn't get it.

Explain how the very data I showed proved me wrong?

Obviously I'm not going to do it for the skaters, but the relationship between draft position and becoming a starting goaltender is not nearly as strong as the relationship between the draft position of a skater and his likelihood of becoming an "impact" NHLer.

That's irrelevant. The correlation is not as strong, but it is nevertheless there. Therefore, there is still an opportunity cost in not picking a goalie until the later rounds. If the average benefit of picking a goalie in the second round is X, and the benefit of picking a goalie in the third round is 0.8X, then the opportunity cost of waiting till the third round to pick a goalie is 0.2X.

Since the correlation is stronger for skaters, there is also an opportunity cost in not picking a skater with a given pick, and deferring that to the later rounds. That opportunity cost is greater, expressed as a percentage of the average benefit from picking a skater. If the average benefit of picking a skater in the second round is Y, then the average benefit in the third might be 0.7Y, and the opportunity cost is 0.3Y.

(These numbers, you understand, are approximations. The important point is that the coefficient of X is smaller than the coefficient of Y: 0.2 < 0.3.)

From this, you conclude that the opportunity cost of not picking a skater is greater than the opportunity cost of not picking a goalie. But this does not follow unless you can assume that X and Y are equal. That is not a valid assumption. The value of a regular NHL goalie is so much greater than the value of an average NHL skater that the opportunity cost of passing up a good goalie is huge. To take an extreme case, if Montreal had passed up Carey Price at #5, there was no other player in that whole draft that could have contributed as much to their success.

In an ideal market, some buyers (i.e. teams) would overvalue particular players and some would undervalue them, but the errors would cancel out and the draft positions of both goalies and skaters would fairly reflect the opportunity cost of not drafting those particular players. However, the draft is a very non-ideal market. No two players are exactly alike, and the number of buyers is limited. So you get noticeable distortions, and the draft positions of players are loosely grouped around their fair value instead of being tightly clustered. Nevertheless, it's a good enough market that the relationship fairly holds.

You know, it's not like I'm ricardodw. I'm not making up stats that don't make sense. This is very basic stuff that many people, besides just me, have said in the past. I post on this forum to discuss things with other fans, not to contribute to groupthink.

The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of groupthink is precisely why so many of us find you obnoxious.

Don't take me seriously. Fine. Either stop acting like a child

That's two insults in one paragraph. ‘Groupthink’, and now ‘acting like a child’.

or put me on ignore so you don't have to post useless quips

Three insults.

to let people know you don't take me seriously. That is not conducive to a logical discussion.

Insulting the generality of CP posters three times in two sentences is even less conducive to logical discussion. In fact, I can't say that logical discussion is your strong point. Ad hominem abusive is not a valid method in any form of logic that I have ever heard of.

[Brendone]

So is there info re Hunter Smith amongst all this crap, or is this another thread to start avoiding?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Brendone

So is there info re Hunter Smith amongst all this crap, or is this another thread to start avoiding?

No, I think this thread has been pretty much moon'd.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

No, I think this thread has been pretty much moon'd.

Thank you, and goodnight!

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's already been explained to you. You didn't get it.

Then explain it again to me?

That's irrelevant. The correlation is not as strong, but it is nevertheless there.

wtf?

If skaters have a correlation to their draft position of 0.6 and goalies have a correlation of 0.3, that difference could be massive.
And again, with what I said originally, that the relationship is not as strong, how is that wrong?

But this does not follow unless you can assume that X and Y are equal. That is not a valid assumption. The value of a regular NHL goalie is so much greater than the value of an average NHL skater that the opportunity cost of passing up a good goalie is huge. To take an extreme case, if Montreal had passed up Carey Price at #5, there was no other player in that whole draft that could have contributed as much to their success.

Again, wtf? I never argued about the potential value of a starting goalie vs. an impact skater, so why am I being mocked? If you really want to discuss this, fine.

Why are you assuming that a goalie is unarguably more valuable than a skater? How can you?

Goalies are important obviously, but you cannot just come in here and say that a good goalie is more valuable than a good skater.

You bring up the example of Carey Price, but there are many more examples of skaters who have stronger MVP seasons. Goaltenders are rarely considered for the Hart, and for good reason. We're seeing Dubnyk tear up the league right now, but does that mean he's more valuable than Zach Parise?

This, a league where Corey Crawford, Chris Osgood, and Antti Niemi have recently led their teams to Stanley Cup Championships?

You cannot assume any of that. You can only assume that the value of x is approximately equal to y. You have no foundation to say otherwise.

The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of groupthink is precisely why so many of us find you obnoxious.

The fact that people would ask me a question and then say they aren't taking me seriously when I give a response i precisely why I find people like you childish

This is a forum. We discuss hockey. Deal with it. Don't want to discuss? Put me on ignore. Don't fill a thread with posts telling everybody how cool you are for not taking somebody else seriously.

That's two insults in one paragraph. ‘Groupthink’, and now ‘acting like a child’.

Three insults.

Insulting the generality of CP posters three times in two sentences is even less conducive to logical discussion. In fact, I can't say that logical discussion is your strong point. Ad hominem abusive is not a valid method in any form of logic that I have ever heard of.[/QUOTE]

Insults? I'm being told that people "don't take [me] seriously". You are the one mocking a poster seeking discussion, not unadulterated agreement on every subject.

Calling actions childish or unconducive to logical discussion is not an insult. Nor is it insulting the generality of CP posters (I never referred to the forum in general, so you're going to have to be more specific on that one).

[Aarongavey]

Smith could be a Hugh Jessiman or maybe better, who knows. He could be a Brian Boyle. He is one of the top 7 forwards on his junior team as a 19 year old and may make his current junior team as a 20 year old or he may be deemed to be outside the top 3 20 year olds for his team next year. There are many possibilities for this guy.

[Gaskal]

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Anaheim: Anderson (87th overall)
Arizona: Smith (161st overall)
Boston: Rask (21st overall)
Buffalo: Johnson (125th overall)
Calgary: Hiller (undrafted)
Carolina: Ward (25th overall)
Chicago: Crawford (52nd overall)
Colorado: Varlamov (23rd overall)
Columbus: Bobrovsky (undrafted)
Dallas: Lehtonen (2nd overall)
Detroit: Howard (64th overall)
Edmonton: Ben Scrivens (undrafted)
Florida: Luongo (4th overall)
Los Angeles: Quick (72nd overall)
Minnesota: Dubnyk (14th overall)
Montreal: Price (4th overall)
Nashville: Rinne (258th overall)
New Jersey: Schneider (26th overall)
New York Islanders: Halak (271st overall)
New York Rangers: Lundqvist (205th overall)
Ottawa: Anderson (73rd overall)
Philadelphia: Mason (69th overall)
Pittsburgh: Fleury (1st overall)
San Jose: Niemi (undrafted)
St. Louis: Elliot (291st overall)
Tampa Bay: Bishop (85th overall)
Toronto: Bernier (11th overall)
Vancouver: Miller (138th overall)
Washington: Holtby (93rd overall)
Winnipeg: Hutchinson (77th overall)



How does this go against what I said? 63% of starting goaltenders were selected 61st overall and beyond, or were undrafted completely. Of the 10 teams that have starting goaltenders that were drafted in the 1st round, only 3 of them were selected by their current team. You simply will not get those results with skaters.

Obviously I don't have the time, but if you were to do this with skaters, it would be a steadily declining slope from the 1st round downward.

Hence the relationship is not nearly as strong for goaltenders.

This is all well and good, but it actually tells us nothing because it doesn't consider how many goalies were selected in the various rounds. For example, if only 10 goalies were ever selected in the 1st round, then there would be a 100% success rate (which wold be pretty good). Conversely, if the same number of goalies were selected in each round, then this wouldn't look very good for drafting early (which appears to be your point and your assumption).

I ran some numbers form 1997 through 2006. I stopped in 2006 since the goalies drafted since then haven't had enough time to have played a representative number of games. For example, Bernier was drafted in 2006 and has not yet played 200 games, so it seemed unfair to continue with more recent years.

Round / number of selections / % that have played 100 games / % that have played at least 1 game / % that have never played a game:

...1 / 28 / 42.8% / 96.4% / 3.6%
...2 / 28 / 35.7% / 71.4% / 28.6%
...3 / 34 / 20.6% / 50.0% / 50.0%
4-5 / 53 / 7.8% / 31.2% / 68.8%
6-9 / 118/ 14.2% / 35.6% / 64.4%

This pretty clearly shows that if you draft a goalie in the 1st or 2nd round, you are far more likely to get an NHLer than a goalies drafted in the later rounds. Just like with players.

With each subsequent round, it becomes less likely that the goalie will play 100 games (200 games as well), less likely to play at least 1 games, and more likely to be a total bust. JUST LIKE WITH PLAYERS.

[Scornfire]

Oshawa plays a weak Plymouth team in 4 days, hopefully once that game is over and Hunter rips a few shots in the back of this net this thread *might* revert to something intelligible

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

wtf?

I figured you wouldn't understand. However, it is better to demonstrate the fact rather than assume it.

If skaters have a correlation to their draft position of 0.6 and goalies have a correlation of 0.3, that difference could be massive.
And again, with what I said originally, that the relationship is not as strong, how is that wrong?

The conclusion you draw from it does not follow from the premises given.

Again, wtf?

Again, I figured you wouldn't understand.

Why are you assuming that a goalie is unarguably more valuable than a skater?

Because there are only two goalies on a team, and one of them usually plays a significant majority of games. A #1 goalie gets more ice time than any other player on the team, and plays a more important role. Every other skater's job is fungible to some degree. If the goalie does his job poorly, that alone will make the team lose any given game.

Goalies are important obviously, but you cannot just come in here and say that a good goalie is more valuable than a good skater.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum for hockey fans, who could be expected to know these basic things already.

You bring up the example of Carey Price, but there are many more examples of skaters who have stronger MVP seasons.

Now you're just blowing smoke. Present the examples, and the metrics by which they are adjudged to have ‘stronger MVP seasons’. Otherwise, you are simply assuming facts not in evidence.

Goaltenders are rarely considered for the Hart, and for good reason.

Right: because they already have the Vezina, and many Hart voters (rightly or wrongly) feel that the Hart should be for positional players.

We're seeing Dubnyk tear up the league right now, but doesn't that mean he's more valuable than Zach Parise?

Of course not, because he is tearing up the league right now. Even bad goalies can have hot streaks for a few games. Brian Boucher had an amazing string of consecutive shutouts, but was never more than a career backup. Dwayne Roloson was another career backup, but he had one hot streak that took his team to the Stanley Cup finals before the luck ran out.

This, a league where Corey Crawford, Chris Osgood, and Antti Niemi have recently led their team to Stanley Cup Championships?

Chris Osgood actually won three Stanley Cups, and has 401 regular-season wins as well. After a rough start to his career, he became a very good goalie. Niemi is a solid NHL starter. How does that argue against my point?

As for Crawford, refer to the bit above about mediocre goalies having hot streaks. If the team as a whole is strong enough, merely above-average goaltending can suffice; and Crawford was above average in that year's playoffs.

You cannot assume any of that. You can only assume that the value of x is approximately equal to y. You have no foundation to say otherwise.

Actually, you cannot assume ANYTHING about the relative values of X and Y. They are unknown values until you go looking for evidence of what their values actually are.

The fact that people would ask me a question and then say they aren't taking me seriously when I give a response i precisely why I find people like you childish

There you go with the insults again. Until you can knock it off with the personal abuse, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

This is a forum. We discuss hockey. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by pointing out that you are not discussing hockey, but being a jerk to other posters. Now it's your turn to deal with it.

Don't want to discuss? Put me on ignore.

Want to discuss? Then discuss, instead of spouting crap that only makes people want to put you on ignore.

Don't fill a thread with posts telling everybody how cool you are for not taking somebody else seriously.

I never said anything about how cool I am, directly or by implication. You can knock off lying about other posters, too.

Insults? I'm being told that people "don't take [me] seriously".

Which is not an insult.

You are the one mocking a poster seeking discussion, not unadulterated agreement on every subject.

I'm not mocking you. I am pointing out that you are being insulting to everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, you act as if it is YOU who wants unadulterated agreement on every subject; only you want everyone to agree with you, and you will use any trick from personal abuse to outright falsehood to try to extort that agreement from others.

Calling actions childish or unconducive to logical discussion is not an insult.

Sorry, ‘childish’ is indeed an insult. ‘Unconducive to logical discussion’ is merely laughable, since you frequently resort to insults and abuse yourself. (In fact, I did not even count it as an insult, as you would observe if you were in the habit of reading carefully. The three insults to which I referred were ‘groupthink’, ‘childish’, and ‘useless’. Go back and see for yourself.) It would appear that you are simply unaware of how little your own behaviour contributes to any kind of logical discussion, and when logical discussion fails to occur, you blame everyone but yourself.

Nor is it insulting the generality of CP posters (I never referred to the forum in general, so you're going to have to be more specific on that one).

This is not about a single incident. This is about a pattern of rude and abusive behaviour that you have been showing on this forum for years.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is all well and good, but it actually tells us nothing because it doesn't consider how many goalies were selected in the various rounds. For example, if only 10 goalies were ever selected in the 1st round, then there would be a 100% success rate (which wold be pretty good). Conversely, if the same number of goalies were selected in each round, then this wouldn't look very good for drafting early (which appears to be your point and your assumption).

I ran some numbers form 1997 through 2006. I stopped in 2006 since the goalies drafted since then haven't had enough time to have played a representative number of games. For example, Bernier was drafted in 2006 and has not yet played 200 games, so it seemed unfair to continue with more recent years.

Round / number of selections / % that have played 100 games / % that have played at least 1 game / % that have never played a game:

...1 / 28 / 42.8% / 96.4% / 3.6%
...2 / 28 / 35.7% / 71.4% / 28.6%
...3 / 34 / 20.6% / 50.0% / 50.0%
4-5 / 53 / 7.8% / 31.2% / 68.8%
6-9 / 118/ 14.2% / 35.6% / 64.4%

This pretty clearly shows that if you draft a goalie in the 1st or 2nd round, you are far more likely to get an NHLer than a goalies drafted in the later rounds. Just like with players.

With each subsequent round, it becomes less likely that the goalie will play 100 games (200 games as well), less likely to play at least 1 games, and more likely to be a total bust. JUST LIKE WITH PLAYERS.

Just a few people who have done more analysis than I have and have come up with a similar conclusion, since I'm told nobody takes me seriously:

Jonathan Willis: http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...-anybody-else/
Scott Reynolds: http://www.coppernblue.com/2010/5/28...ders-1997-2005 & http://gospelofhockey.blogspot.ca/20...kents-old.html
Peter Siamandas: http://houseofpuck.com/the-opportuni...ting-a-goalie/
Kent Wilson: http://flamesnation.ca/2012/5/30/you...e-poor-gambles