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

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm fairly confident that virtually everyone posting in this thread recognises that analytics cannot completely replace first-hand professional scouting. It is pretty ridiculous for you to mount a rant against a straw-man like this here.

You're right it is. I shouldn't have, but I'm a little frustrated with the continued reliance on a junk stat that I am more than confident NHL teams do not use in more than a very passing fashion.

You seem not to understand the function and place of NHL-E in its proper employment. I think with your link to this article that you are suggesting NHL teams pay no heed to NHL-E because the draft order was substantially different than how these numbers play out. This is to be expected because NHL-E is not (and as far as I know never has been) intended to be a predictor of absolute NHL potential, only a metric by which to measure how a player's PRESENT performance will translate at the NHL level. You seem to think that NHL-E is meant to predict FUTURE potential; even in Kent Wilson's article, he has clearly indicated that this is a broad metric that functions only in conjunction with a host of other mitigating factors (Ugh, I can't believe you have me stooping to the level of defending Wilson).

I understand it is a measure of current production, but it was originally used as a measure to prove Jankowski was a bad pick with no future. You're right, no use in discussing the merit of this, and I am very sorry for making you defend Wilson, I can feel your pain. My final comment on this is I believe NHL-E, and similar stats, to all be junk science and I don't see any value in the measures. No use in tilting with this windmill any further. Excuse me while I start a new off topic thread about the validity and importance of torah code.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

NHL-E is based on ESP/G which is a reasonable indicator of a players true offensive impact, so you're basically saying rank players by ESP/G factoring in differences between leagues (something NHL-E is explicitly designed to do). Apart from dropping all defence men out of the first round I would shocked if this didn't produce good results, writ large.

Where I have a problem is when posters use this writ small as an absolute test for an individual players potential early in their development.

Ok but I would ask, who in this thread is saying that certain prospects are busts using NHL-e? Backcheck has questioned Sieloff, I'm cool on Jankowski but I don't think anyone is saying, well their NHL-e is crap in their draft +1 year therefore they're going to bust. I think people are saying that they have big questions around them. That should be totally fine.

Where some posters have gone off the deep end is by saying that all statistical analysis is "junk" because it raises questions about certain prospects.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Where some posters have gone off the deep end is by saying that all statistical analysis is "junk" because it raises questions about certain prospects.

One or two guys have done that, that's it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

...My final comment on this is I believe NHL-E, and similar stats, to all be junk science and I don't see any value in the measures...

No value??? I am not particularly enamoured by the application of NHL-E, but even I can see that it is not at all useless or "junk science" as you have unceremoniously proclaimed. Of course, it has its limits, but being limited is a far cry from being useless.

As far as Jankowski is concerned, here is where both the usefulness and limitations in employing NHL-E are fairly well pronounced. NHL-E fails in that Jankowski's developmental track is exceptionally uncharacteristic; because of the high number of mitigating factors that have and will affect his development, it is likely that NHL-E will not produce a very accurate measure of his future potential, especially when compared to other, more traditionally weaned prospects.

What NHL-E does tell us about Jankowski is that the odds are stacked heavily against him. He is a long shot. He was drafted as a long shot and remains a long-shot, but this is no slight on his potential should he overcome the odds. The Flames drafted Jankowski in large part because he was a long-shot (were he not a long shot, then there is no way he would still have been on the board at #19 where the Flames picked him). The team took a (well advised) gamble in a marginal draft year that could be a great NHL player, but has a long road, a LOT of work, and an outside chance to get there.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

...Excuse me while I start a new off topic thread about the validity and importance of torah code.

Good luck with that. You do so at your own peril.

[djsFlames]

Stats aren't the sole indicator of a player's worth/value. But typically you can't have a great or "top" player without him possessing some above average stats, at least. But even then it can be deceiving, as different leagues have different playing styles or quality of competition, and translating stats is always a crap shoot.

An exception and example of this currently I believe is Granlund. I actually never took the time to look into his stats for the past year, but watching him in camp, he was head and shoulders above half the guys with the way he played. And it only takes some observing to see that he has a deadly-fast and accurate shot. A goal-scorer's touch. This is why I can see his numbers inflating in the A, and him making the team in the near future. I didn't know until someone pointed out his very average numbers in the finnish leagues that his production wasn't all that eye popping, but by my observations alone over that week, I could tell that he has the skills and shot to be a big producer in NHL someday with continued development. So because of this, I'm throwing his past production "woes" out of the equation.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by New Era

Excuse me while I start a new off topic thread about the validity and importance of torah code.

I wonder how it compares in those areas to Youtube scouting?

Originally Posted by New Era

Based on some YouTube scouting he [Monahan] reminds me of Brendan Morrow. Not a great skater, doesn't have great hands, but finds himself in the right places to score. Appears to be a really good garbage man. Of recent picks, he reminds me of Nemisz. Quality junior player but with mobility issues that could keep him from being effective in the NHL. He's supposedly got character and is very coach able but his physical tools may not translate to the next level.

If they are thinking of picking a player with skating issues I would prefer they picked a kid with serious puck skills or with an uncanny knack for scoring off the rush. You can live with a poor skater if he is awesome in other areas, but if a player's biggest ability requires him to get into the greasy areas to be successful, and he can't get to those areas with regularity because of his skating, then you have a problem. I see a problem with Monahan. I think he has Greg Nemisz stench all over him.

Hopefully the Torah code outlook isn't as bleak as the Youtube scouting outlook.

Originally Posted by New Era

Anti-intellectual? Just the opposite. Just because someone plays around with a spreadsheet and manipulates numbers does not make them an intellectual. An intellectual is someone who exercises critical thinking skills. I do not see any application of critical thinking skills to punching numbers into a spreadsheet and believing that they are a representation of the complex systems that make up a team sport where the majority of the play is considered chaos and unmeasurable to analytics. What about philosophy and psychology, both huge factors in sports today? How are these humanistic factors measured? These are actually the greatest factors that separate players and allow them to succeed at the elite level, yet they aren't considered in the models. Thinking you can replace the experience of a scout, and the understanding of the human experience that a scout brings, with a spreadsheet is anti-intellectual. I wish some of these stats nerds would apply some critical thinking skills to their projects and recognize that much of what makes a hockey player a hockey player is not measurable on spreadsheet or able to be modeled in a lab. Stats tell only half the story, and that's a false equivalency as stats don't tell 1/10th of the story, and much more attention should be paid to qualitative data from people with actual expertise in the subject matter.

I don't think you know what anti-intellectual means.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

I wonder how it compares in those areas to Youtube scouting?

I don't know, how does it compare to your climatology studies?

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

I've calculated the 1981-2010 climate statistics for Alberta's five largest cities. Maybe some of you are interested in how they compare with the 1971-2000 stats. You can find them here.

Note: Temperatures in Celsius, precipitation and rainfall in mm, and snowfall in cm. Medicine Hat and Lethbridge are missing 2007-2010 precipitation data.

Source: Environment Canada's historical weather statistics (http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/c.../canada_e.html)

Climate change solved with excel! Out of curiosity, what was your point of this study? More importantly, did the Climate-E tell you how these temperatures translated to Australia?

I don't think you know what anti-intellectual means.

I'll run it through a spreadsheet and see what it says. In the mean time, look up pseudo-intellectual and look in the mirror.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

I do not see any application of critical thinking skills to punching numbers into a spreadsheet and believing that they are a representation of the complex systems that make up a team sport where the majority of the play is considered chaos and unmeasurable to analytics. What about philosophy and psychology, both huge factors in sports today? How are these humanistic factors measured? These are actually the greatest factors that separate players and allow them to succeed at the elite level, yet they aren't considered in the models. Thinking you can replace the experience of a scout, and the understanding of the human experience that a scout brings, with a spreadsheet is anti-intellectual.

If "philosophy and psychology" are huge factors at the NHL level, wouldn't they also be factors at other levels of hockey that are still very, very high? That's how NHL-E takes them into account (and weighs them against other factors). But hey, if you can find prospect ratings on "philosophy and psychology" and use them to improve the model, that would be great!

In fact, the beauty of NHL-E is precisely that we don't need to know what makes a good hockey player for it to work. If the correlation between draft year NHL-E and career output is strong enough, then you'd be dumb not to use it. You don't need to know anything at all about hockey to test how well the model works. You can treat it as a black box.

======================

Originally Posted by djsFlames

An exception and example of this currently I believe is Granlund. I actually never took the time to look into his stats for the past year, but watching him in camp, he was head and shoulders above half the guys with the way he played. And it only takes some observing to see that he has a deadly-fast and accurate shot. A goal-scorer's touch. This is why I can see his numbers inflating in the A, and him making the team in the near future. I didn't know until someone pointed out his very average numbers in the finnish leagues that his production wasn't all that eye popping, but by my observations alone over that week, I could tell that he has the skills and shot to be a big producer in NHL someday with continued development. So because of this, I'm throwing his past production "woes" out of the equation.

Granlund may have a goal-scorer's touch, but low NHL-E would indicate that some other aspect of his game is holding him back. The question is what is that aspect and why would things be different for him in the NHL? Without that answer, you are likely overrating him because of his shot, underestimating the weakness of other areas of his game, and NHL-E is a good reality check for that.

[indes]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't know, how does it compare to your climatology studies?



Climate change solved with excel! Out of curiosity, what was your point of this study? More importantly, did the Climate-E tell you how these temperatures translated to Australia?



I'll run it through a spreadsheet and see what it says. In the mean time, look up pseudo-intellectual and look in the mirror.

Lol umadbro?

I might just be a "pseudo-intellectual" myself but I fail to see the correlation of him calling out your awesome you tube scouting and his non hockey related posts.

Just give it a rest this post is such a reach and a completely pathetic attempt to deflect.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't know, how does it compare to your climatology studies?

I guess we'll see. Actually, those numbers I got are very close to the official ones, which EC released just recently!

Originally Posted by New Era

Climate change solved with excel! Out of curiosity, what was your point of this study?

The "study" was just curiosity about what the updated averages should be, as EC was sloooooooow to release them.

Originally Posted by New Era

More importantly, did the Climate-E tell you how these temperatures translated to Australia?

Well, I assume they're much colder, but other than that...

Originally Posted by New Era

I'll run it through a spreadsheet and see what it says. In the mean time, look up pseudo-intellectual and look in the mirror.

Is step 3 to smash the mirror with a sledgehammer?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SebC

If "philosophy and psychology" are huge factors at the NHL level, wouldn't they also be factors at other levels of hockey that are still very, very high? That's how NHL-E takes them into account (and weighs them against other factors). But hey, if you can find prospect ratings on "philosophy and psychology" and use them to improve the model, that would be great!

Can we agree that a offensive philosophy is going to increase scoring and a defensive philosophy is going to decrease scoring? Can we agree that team philosophy is going to have some effect on a player's ability to produce points? Can we agree that a player's psychological strength is going to have an impact on his scoring? Can we also agree that a player's psychological strength may be tested by the conditions under which his team is managed? Now, can we agree that these factors, which are not measurable by NHL-E can have a significant affect on outcomes?

In fact, the beauty of NHL-E is precisely that we don't need to know what makes a good hockey player for it to work. If the correlation between draft year NHL-E and career output is strong enough, then you'd be dumb not to use it. You don't need to know anything at all about hockey to test how well the model works. You can treat it as a black box.

Yet the whole method is reliant on the classification of league strength for the measure to be considered accurate, no?

Originally Posted by indes

I might just be a "pseudo-intellectual" myself but I fail to see the correlation of him calling out your awesome you tube scouting and his non hockey related posts.

Just give it a rest this post is such a reach and a completely pathetic attempt to deflect.

No deflection intended. My intent was to take a completely unrelated post to the subject being discussed and inject it, without context, into the mix to show how ridiculous that is. My post featuring the youtube scouting was from a thread filled with video and comments on specific players. I owned the fact that the observation was culled from unreliable youtube footage, so I don't see the relevance in this thread, unless Day Tripper is trying to say NHL-E is as unreliable as youtube scouting forays.

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Is step 3 to smash the mirror with a sledgehammer?

Missed the point, but still well played sir.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by New Era

No deflection intended. My intent was to take a completely unrelated post to the subject being discussed and inject it, without context, into the mix to show how ridiculous that is. My post featuring the youtube scouting was from a thread filled with video and comments on specific players. I owned the fact that the observation was culled from unreliable youtube footage, so I don't see the relevance in this thread, unless Day Tripper is trying to say NHL-E is as unreliable as youtube scouting forays.

You compared stats to Torah code, which is about as silly as comparing scouting to watching highlight reels on Youtube and making conclusions based on them.

[sun]

Can you guys just whip 'em out already?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by sun

Can you guys just whip 'em out already?

Only if you can show us a correlation between penis size and being right on the internet.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yet the whole method is reliant on the classification of league strength for the measure to be considered accurate, no?

The relative league strengths are empirically determined from observable data. They're not arbitrary assumptions.

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we agree that a offensive philosophy is going to increase scoring and a defensive philosophy is going to decrease scoring?

For a team, sure. For an individual, less clear (e.g. a less offensively-talented player might receive more minutes with a defensive-minded coach, and thus score more).

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we agree that team philosophy is going to have some effect on a player's ability to produce points?

Yes, but having the size and direction of the effect would be better.

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we agree that a player's psychological strength is going to have an impact on his scoring?

Yes. But it would do that both at the NHL level and at lower levels. Thus, NHL-E accounts for psychological strength.

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we also agree that a player's psychological strength may be tested by the conditions under which his team is managed?

Sure.

Originally Posted by New Era

Now, can we agree that these factors, which are not measurable by NHL-E can have a significant affect on outcomes?

No, because things like phychological strength are captured in NHL (though perhaps not weighted properly). But I will agree that there are factors not captured by NHL-E (that are reflected as "error" in the model). The thing is, we can tell how big factors captured by NHL-E are vs. factors not captured by NHL-E by looking at the predictive value of NHL-E. So, if NHL-E explains 75% of a player's career PPG, then all the factors it doesn't capture, combined, can only explain 25%. And if those other factors can't be used predictively, then their supposed effects might not really exist at all (and that 25% is just "luck", or factors that we haven't identified or figured out how to measure yet). The NHL-E to career PPG correlation is a strong one, which means that the factors that NHL-E doesn't capture must have relatively weak effects.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by SebC

Only if you can show us a correlation between penis size and being right on the internet.

That's the Mikey Ratio

[Fighting Banana Slug]

/end thread. I had to re-read the thread title to see what the hell was being discussed.

[Vulcan]

In another thread they are discussing the Flames chances next season and a common argument is if their goalies come through, we could do well. I don't know if anyone's ever done this with goalies but for laughs why not.

Okay using the KHL equivalency of .83 and Ramo's GAA of 2.00 that would translate to a NHL GAA of 2.41. This would put him at 18th place last season amongst NHL goalies which is respectable and keep the Flames in many games.

Of course his save percentage would drop from .929 to .771.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by New Era

Can we agree that a offensive philosophy is going to increase scoring and a defensive philosophy is going to decrease scoring? Can we agree that team philosophy is going to have some effect on a player's ability to produce points? Can we agree that a player's psychological strength is going to have an impact on his scoring? Can we also agree that a player's psychological strength may be tested by the conditions under which his team is managed? Now, can we agree that these factors, which are not measurable by NHL-E can have a significant affect on outcomes?

Yup, agree with all of this. What you don't realize is that with enough data points in the set, these effects should be averaged out. If there are 10 players playing in an offensive system increasing their scoring, and 10 players playing in a defensive system decreasing their scoring, these effects should (very roughly) cancel out. With a lot of data points, you get even more accurate results.