09-12-2017, 07:14 AM
|
#181
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Lot of interesting things here. Right off the bat, one of the inherent issues of analyzing spreadsheets. How does our 93 point projection under this model both "view us as an above average team" and put us 20th out of 31 teams? These are mutually exclusive claims. His analysis of the forwards I think struggles a little because it seems to be looking only at last year to determine its player values, and that will depress both Gaudreau and Monahan, who struggled under the weight of new contracts. Likewise, the model ridiculously punishes Lazar for an injury plagued season, but at the same time, hard to make any call at all on what value he will provide. That said, it also inflates Backlund, who needs to prove that last year wasn't a one-off.
The model kills us due to goaltending, which is hard to argue at this point. At the same time, the model doesn't seem to take into account the fact that Smith and Lack will be playing behind one of the best defences in the league. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 08:05 AM
|
#182
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Lot of interesting things here. Right off the bat, one of the inherent issues of analyzing spreadsheets. How does our 93 point projection under this model both "view us as an above average team" and put us 20th out of 31 teams? These are mutually exclusive claims. His analysis of the forwards I think struggles a little because it seems to be looking only at last year to determine its player values, and that will depress both Gaudreau and Monahan, who struggled under the weight of new contracts. Likewise, the model ridiculously punishes Lazar for an injury plagued season, but at the same time, hard to make any call at all on what value he will provide. That said, it also inflates Backlund, who needs to prove that last year wasn't a one-off.
The model kills us due to goaltending, which is hard to argue at this point. At the same time, the model doesn't seem to take into account the fact that Smith and Lack will be playing behind one of the best defences in the league. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
Different ways to calculate averages - 93 points may be higher than the league average.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 08:07 AM
|
#183
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Have to agree with the author for the most part. Except for one glaring omission. He compares Mike Smith and Brian Elliott over 'recent' seasons, which sort of makes sense. However, he doesn't mention the fact that Arizona and St. Louis were at complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
Arizona shots against over the last 3 seasons were 34.1, 31, and 33.2.
St. Louis shots against over the same period, 27.2, 29.7, and 28.4.
If you average that out it works out to be a difference of 4.4 shots per game, or 360 shots per season. I'm no stats expert but I think that's a significant difference. Seems like it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison as the two teams were so different. How would Brian Elliott have fared playing for the Coyotes, or vice versa?
I for one think Smith will be way better than what Elliott gave us last year. Call it a hunch.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 08:40 AM
|
#184
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Flames fan in Seattle
|
I'm going to be getting annoyed over the season with all those links I can't read, aren't I?
__________________
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FBI For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 08:50 AM
|
#185
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
Different ways to calculate averages - 93 points may be higher than the league average.
|
The mean average last year was 91.1 points but the median was 94. 20th place was 87 points, so it seems their model is also predicting that the standings tighten up. Nonetheless, the statements remain mutually exclusive, though you do explain why he created the discrepancy - he's claiming the Flames would still be above average relative to last year, but below average this year. So the conclusion we can draw from this article is that the writer expects the Flames to regress relative to the rest of the league.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 08:52 AM
|
#186
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Paradise
|
Ya not sure why people are posting links. If you have a subscriptions its pretty easy to find the article
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:00 AM
|
#187
|
Franchise Player
|
Judging by the author's comments in the comments section, it looks like the Athletic is predicting the Oilers to finish behind the Flames.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:20 AM
|
#188
|
In the Sin Bin
|
That is an impossibility if he expects this model to retain any sort of credibility. He's already got the Kings and Coyotes behind us as well, so if he places Edmonton seventh (!) then that also means either Vancouver or Las Vegas are predicted to be third.
Neither of those is likely, so I'm not sure what he's getting at with that comment.
Last edited by Resolute 14; 09-12-2017 at 09:23 AM.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:25 AM
|
#189
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Actually, wait. He's already got Vegas 7th, Phoenix 6th, LA 5th and Calgary 4th. So if that comment has any actual meaning, he's predicting Edmonton to finish 8th? Yeah, that's not happening.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:27 AM
|
#190
|
Franchise Player
|
Looks like I'm just misinterpreting his comment then. He could mean then that the Oilers finish 1 spot ahead.
His reply to an Oilers fan comment saying he's happy the Flames are predicted to miss the playoffs: "Uh, please don't come back tomorrow and see who's next (sorry) ((i promise there's a reasonable explanation))"
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 09:28 AM
|
#191
|
In the Sin Bin
|
I don't blame you. That's the most reasonable interpretation of that comment. Unless he inexplicably saw "Oilers fan" and read "Canucks fan".
Also: Forcing people to use real names in the comments is a hell no.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:19 AM
|
#192
|
Franchise Player
|
Pronman placed Puljujarvi above Monahan on his top 100 players under 25 list.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:25 AM
|
#193
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
Well, you're in luck....
|
How so? I guess the reason for my statement was initially I thought I would only be able to read articles for local based sports teams. Being there is only one team that matters to me in Calgary, I figured it wouldnt be worth the cost.
Hence, I was going to sign up to the Toronto subscription instead or another city with more than one major pro sports team. Now since others have mentioned I would have access to all the articles from all cities, I would just choose whichever city is the cheapest.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:25 AM
|
#194
|
Resident Videologist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Pronman placed Puljujarvi above Monahan on his top 100 players under 25 list.
|
Hahaha, Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:40 AM
|
#195
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Pronman placed Puljujarvi above Monahan on his top 100 players under 25 list.
|
It's called projection. Or do you actually think Puljujarvi will be a complete bust? Puljujarvi was considered not far behind Laine and Matthews in his draft and those two look like superstars. Plenty of time for Puljujarvi to turn out.
If he wasn't using projection then Bennett shouldn't be on the list.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 10:54 AM
|
#196
|
Franchise Player
|
Obviously it's a projection. I'm not an idiot. I defend Pronman as much as anyone on this forum but Puljujarvi just finished off a really really poor season. I don't see the justification behind putting him ahead of many players on this list.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:00 AM
|
#197
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by soulchoice
How so? I guess the reason for my statement was initially I thought I would only be able to read articles for local based sports teams. Being there is only one team that matters to me in Calgary, I figured it wouldnt be worth the cost.
Hence, I was going to sign up to the Toronto subscription instead or another city with more than one major pro sports team. Now since others have mentioned I would have access to all the articles from all cities, I would just choose whichever city is the cheapest.
|
My post was to do with the absence of anything Stampeders related.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:01 AM
|
#198
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Obviously it's a projection. I'm not an idiot. I defend Pronman as much as anyone on this forum but Puljujarvi just finished off a really really poor season. I don't see the justification behind putting him ahead of many players on this list.
|
It was a poor NHL season for sure, but he had a great AHL season as an 18 year old. Albeit, only playing 39 games (0.72 pts/gm). Very similar to Nylander's 18 year old season.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:13 AM
|
#199
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SW Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
It's called projection. Or do you actually think Puljujarvi will be a complete bust? Puljujarvi was considered not far behind Laine and Matthews in his draft and those two look like superstars. Plenty of time for Puljujarvi to turn out.
If he wasn't using projection then Bennett shouldn't be on the list.
|
A complete bust? Pretty sure the Oilers would be over the moon if Pulijujarvi is a guy who scores 27-31 goals and ~60 points a year. That's not a bust.
Pronman is huge on skill but you have to balance out with smarts/hockey sense.
|
|
|
09-12-2017, 11:17 AM
|
#200
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
It was a poor NHL season for sure, but he had a great AHL season as an 18 year old. Albeit, only playing 39 games (0.72 pts/gm). Very similar to Nylander's 18 year old season.
|
Puljujarvi also got worse as the AHL season went on, to the point where he was being a healthy scratch.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 AM.
|
|