[Signing] Flames sign Jacob Markstrom. (6 yrs, $6mil AAV) - Page 38 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Classic_Sniper · 01-09-2021, 01:12 PM

I wonder how long it’ll take for Markstrom to break in his new equipment. Can probably expect to see some odd goals against until then.

Vinny01 · 01-10-2021, 08:52 AM

Athletic has an article ranking all 31 starters.

Markstrom is 5th
Holtby 19th
Kostkinen 27th

Robbob · 01-10-2021, 08:57 AM

I thought Demko was going to be the starter.

Mr.Coffee · 01-10-2021, 09:00 AM

Markstrom is gonna be awesome. Vancouver messed up by not keeping him.

Enoch Root · 01-10-2021, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Athletic has an article ranking all 31 starters.

Markstrom is 5th
Holtby 19th
Kostkinen 27th

Those sound about right. I might put Holtby a little lower, and I might put Kostkinen a little higher, but they all sound about right to me.

Itse · 01-10-2021, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

um no, arbitrary means: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system", literally the opposite of what took place here.

Arbitrary means quite a few things. It also means "based on individual discretion".

Just because someone says that "these are the important numbers" doesn't make it so. This is one of the major misunderstandings of the whole fancy stats community.

Just having a system is not the same as "not arbitrary", and even further from "objective fact".

Stats like "bad goals" can by definition only be a arbitrary because "bad" has no fixed meaning and it's not a thing you can measure. You have to just make up some definition of bad, which is probably not going to be much better than someone else's definition of bad.

"Most goals scored" is not an arbitrary stat. "Best goalscorer" is.

SV% is not an arbitrary stat, "bad goals" is.

Enoch Root · 01-10-2021, 09:32 AM

Maybe they can check with you next time, before they they determine which of their 30+ statistical entries are valid, and which ones you (arbitrarily) believe are not.

Vinny01 · 01-10-2021, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Those sound about right. I might put Holtby a little lower, and I might put Kostkinen a little higher, but they all sound about right to me.

I should have also mentioned this isn’t a writers opinion and the list is complied through an anonymous GM survey.

Markstrom 5th in the league but only 3rd in the Canadian Div with Helleybuck and Price coming in at 2-3. Just to round out our division Andersen is 10th and Murray is 22nd

Enoch Root · 01-10-2021, 09:40 AM

who was #1?

Vinny01 · 01-10-2021, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

who was #1?

Vasilevskiy

BigErnSalute_16 · 01-10-2021, 09:43 AM

Vasilevskiy

Textcritic · 01-10-2021, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

Arbitrary means quite a few things. It also means "based on individual discretion".

Just because someone says that "these are the important numbers" doesn't make it so. This is one of the major misunderstandings of the whole fancy stats community.

Just having a system is not the same as "not arbitrary", and even further from "objective fact".

I think it depends entirely on tbe system employed, and on the developers. Do we even know how this particular system works?

Quote:

Stats like "bad goals" can by definition only be a arbitrary because "bad" has no fixed meaning and it's not a thing you can measure. You have to just make up some definition of bad, which is probably not going to be much better than someone else's definition of bad.

Without even knowing their definition I don't know how you can make such a claim. This depends entirely on what constitutes a bad goal, the criteria used to arrive at that definition, and the reasons for using these specific criteria. The fact is, you have no idea whether or not a "bad goal" is arbitrary because you have no idea how it has been measured. It's just a label. But I would expect given that the criteria in this case were developed by actual goalies and people who track actual goalies, then it is probably pretty reliable.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Itse · 01-10-2021, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Maybe they can check with you next time, before they they determine which of their 30+ statistical entries are valid, and which ones you (arbitrarily) believe are not.

That's kind of hilariously missing the whole point I was making

If the validity of your stats is a matter of belief, there's a problem.

Itse · 01-10-2021, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think it depends entirely on tbe system employed, and on the developers. Do we even know how this particular system works?

Without even knowing their definition I don't know how you can make such a claim. This depends entirely on what constitutes a bad goal, the criteria used to arrive at that definition, and the reasons for using these specific criteria. The fact is, you have no idea whether or not a "bad goal" is arbitrary because you have no idea how it has been measured. It's just a label. But I would expect given that the criteria in this case were developed by actual goalies and people who track actual goalies, then it is probably pretty reliable.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

The kinds of people who think "bad goals" is a good label for a stat probably shouldn't be trying to do stats.

I also think the fact these guys are claiming there's a goalie who didn't let in a single bad goal basically confirms that these people probably shouldn't try to be working with stats.

The idea that just having expertise in a field can make you proficient in statistics related to that field is also nonsense. It's not even in the ballpark of being sufficient.

Scroopy Noopers · 01-10-2021, 09:59 AM

Nothing better than looking at a body of work people have put a ton of thought and effort into, and saying “that’s dumb” having not done the work yourself. Great stuff.

Itse · 01-10-2021, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Nothing better than looking at a body of work people have put a ton of thought and effort into, and saying “that’s dumb” having not done the work yourself. Great stuff.

A lot of people put a lot of effort into Burj Al Babas too.

It still only takes one look to understand that it's dumb.

Enoch Root · 01-10-2021, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

That's kind of hilariously missing the whole point I was making

If the validity of your stats is a matter of belief, there's a problem.

And you hilariously missed the joke I was making about it

Enoch Root · 01-10-2021, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Nothing better than looking at a body of work people have put a ton of thought and effort into, and saying “that’s dumb” having not done the work yourself. Great stuff.

Especially without even attempting to see what work was actually done. And doubling down by claiming the experts that did the work don't know what they are doing.

Itse · 01-10-2021, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Especially without even attempting to see what work was actually done. And doubling down by claiming the experts that did the work don't know what they are doing.

And the only reason you are defending them is because they said Flames goalie good and you like to hear that.

Scroopy Noopers · 01-10-2021, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itse

And the only reason you are defending them is because they said Flames goalie good and you like to hear that.

Or, and this may be a big leap, some people find analytics interesting. And like to compare and contrast different data points in a game that is no where near black and white.