Pinder is a smart guy and he is going to be a star in Canadian radio and maybe even further one day.
However, he is also way way to invested in both analytics and ignoring what he sees to form opinions, and then his pig-headedness takes over when it is pointed out how wrong he is.
He really doesn't value defensive hockey whatsoever and that was proven in spades when he finally stopped his endless chirping of Engelland after seeing exactly how valuable he was this past season. He had been told repeatedly for a couple years that Engellands contributions werent going to be found in some made up chart, but he refused entirely to listen. He would get very very smarmy about it on top of that.
Once he gets over that kind of stubborness, he will be fine though.
Let me preface this by saying I am NOT dismissive of analytics in hockey at all. Believe me, I know how valuable they are in sports but hockey is a little trickier. That said, I think most people understand that analytics give more information but are not giving the entire picture.
What I do see are people who put too much into analytics and the data really drives their perceptions. I think this data has flaws.
To put it more eloquently here is some one from MIT and the Sloan conference:
Quote:
Can Derived Hockey Statistics Accurately Value Players?
To answer the following question: “Can derived hockey statistics accurately value players?”, it will be useful to examine the reason derived baseball statistics do reasonably well at determining the value of baseball players. Baseball is played in a discrete manner with each team separately playing offense and defense. Each discrete event (i.e., pitch, hit) generates observable data available for analysis. The manner in which baseball is played creates an environment where basic statistical assumptions are not violated when data are aggregated. Therefore, derived statistics aggregated over many events can potentially provide accurate estimates of a baseball player’s contribution to winning.
Hockey is played in a continuous manner with constant flow and continuous player interactions with each team simultaneously playing offense and defense. Only some events (e.g., shots, goals) generate data that can be made available for analysis. As a result, the manner in which hockey is played creates an environment where basic statistical assumptions are violated when data are aggregated. Therefore, derived statistics are not likely to provide accurate estimates of a hockey player’s contribution to winning. Hockey managers are aware of the complex nature in which hockey data are generated and are among the first group of people to dismiss player valuations based solely on derived statistics.
It may sound like I'm bashing analytics and that's not the case at all. I just think they are not sophisticated enough to base opinions/perceptions/narratives on players the way that some do. I'm positive it will grow and improve and it will become highly illustrative.
Furthermore, I'm not interested in debating the merits of analytics mostly because I do value them and because it's been done.
Here is an example of the beginning of the sophistication I think is coming:
Quote:
Despite growing interest in quantifying and modeling the scoring dynamics within professional sports games, relative little is known about what patterns or principles, if any, cut across different sports. Using a comprehensive data set of scoring events in nearly a dozen consecutive seasons of college and professional (American) football, professional hockey, and professional basketball, we identify several common patterns in scoring dynamics. Across these sports, scoring tempo—when scoring events occur—closely follows a common Poisson process, with a sport-specific rate.
In the Morning Show he said Ferland and Hamilton in Carolina will be "miles ahead" of Lindholm and Hanifin in Calgary this season, which I think is pretty dumb.
Not only is it unlikely that they'll be anything close to 'miles ahead', but this will be the only year that there is a chance that they'll be better at all, IMO.
Hanifin (21) and Lindholm (23) have far more upside than Hamilton (25) and Ferland (26).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
In the Morning Show he said Ferland and Hamilton in Carolina will be "miles ahead" of Lindholm and Hanifin in Calgary this season, which I think is pretty dumb.
IMO Ferland will maybe get 5-10 goals without having Mony/Johnny feed him some pretty easy goals.
I can see Hamilton dropping back to getting 10-12 goals for Carolina.
I don't see those two being miles ahead of what Lindholm and Hanifin will bring to the table.
Which ties in with the comment by Loubardias that he saw something in the Flames dressing room after a loss that made a deep impression on how he regarded Hamilton.
Yeah, Pinder was being pretty irrational there. Nobody in Calgary suggested Hamilton isn't motivated to score goals. They questioned whether he's motivated to play defence. But then Pinder doesn't seem to have a grasp of the defensive side of hockey. Maybe because it can't be as tidily quantified with stats as the offensive part of the game.
But you knew right off the bat when he said Lindholm is a downgrade on Ferland that he wasn't thinking straight.
Did Pinder actually say that? I am as big of a Ferland fan as anyone around here, but that's just... wrong.
It's really interesting watching how the different sides are forming on this trade. There are a few side currents, like the people that are upset about losing Fox, but the primary dividing line in this is what you think of Hamilton.
And there are two main camps: those who think he is a star (largely populated by stat-lovers); and those who think his defensive play and/or compete level erode his value.
If you're in the former camp: bad trade. If you're in the latter: good trade.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
It's really interesting watching how the different sides are forming on this trade. There are a few side currents, like the people that are upset about losing Fox, but the primary dividing line in this is what you think of Hamilton.
And there are two main camps: those who think he is a star (largely populated by stat-lovers); and those who think his defensive play and/or compete level erode his value.
If you're in the former camp: bad trade. If you're in the latter: good trade.
Im kind of in the middle on the trade. I was no huge fan of Hamilton, because I saw his defensive deficiencies repeatedly, but also saw what he provided in the offensive zone and truly appreciated that. I also believe he was "part" of what was all to obvious on this club and that was to many guys just didnt care enough.
However I am also a very large fan of Hanifin, though he hasnt quite progressed as I thought he would since being drafted. There is just so much room to get better though and he has all the tools to do so. His skating is about as good as it gets at the NHL level, and sometimes it takes time for other facets to catch up to that part of the game I still think he will get there. After living in NC for over a decade, the Canes became very much a team I paid attention to for a long time. I started limiting that the last couple years though because they were such a gong show.
I am a huge Ferland guy...and I think the Flames are going to miss him. His size/power/shot package is hard to find, but so was he on many nights. That alone makes Lindholm an upgrade in that spot. Elias will never wow you with dangles and snipes to the top corner, but he shows up almost every night and gives an honest effort.
Losing Fox hurts but if he was needed to close the deal, and it makes all the sense in the world that was the case, then so be it. Particularly since its now clear he was never going to wear the flaming c anyhow.
This trade addressed a lot of issues with the club even if it wasnt the biggest one that still exists. That's OK. There is still 3 months til the season begins and its clear there are more moves coming.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
It's really interesting watching how the different sides are forming on this trade. There are a few side currents, like the people that are upset about losing Fox, but the primary dividing line in this is what you think of Hamilton.
And there are two main camps: those who think he is a star (largely populated by stat-lovers); and those who think his defensive play and/or compete level erode his value.
If you're in the former camp: bad trade. If you're in the latter: good trade.
Wait, what? Everyone thinks his defensive play erodes his value. The question is by how much and can we really assume he won't continue to get better?
I think Hamilton is close to a "star" but very far from perfect. To me the debate is whether Flames got enough value for Ferland AND Fox after already contributing the best player in the deal. But if I have to choose, I say good trade. I don't believe Flames were going anywhere as constructed. This trade opens up new possibilities.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Wait, what? Everyone thinks his defensive play erodes his value. The question is by how much and can we really assume he won't continue to get better?
I think Hamilton is close to a "star" but very far from perfect. To me the debate is whether Flames got enough value for Ferland AND Fox after already contributing the best player in the deal. But if I have to choose, I say good trade. I don't believe Flames were going anywhere as constructed. This trade opens up new possibilities.
There is a group that continually touts "best pairing in the NHL" based on possession stats, and talks Norris trophies.
That is a huge disconnect from the people that are far from enamored by his play in his own zone.
That's basically the two camps that are at odds over this trade.
I am not suggesting that covers everyone, or that there aren't a bunch of people in between. It's perfectly fine that you don't fall directly into one of those two camps, it's simply a general observation.
It's really interesting watching how the different sides are forming on this trade. There are a few side currents, like the people that are upset about losing Fox, but the primary dividing line in this is what you think of Hamilton.
And there are two main camps: those who think he is a star (largely populated by stat-lovers); and those who think his defensive play and/or compete level erode his value.
If you're in the former camp: bad trade. If you're in the latter: good trade.
i think saturday was a lousy day to be a flames fan.
we wake up in the morning and the hamilton personal issues are all BS, and we have a better than not chance of signing fox.
the trade happens, the return is modest based on our valuation of the assets we gave up. then we learned that the chips we had were only worth 60 cents on the dollar. so the trade is not so bad with that considered.
but finding out you got less back because your goods were damaged still sucks.
without knowing what i know now about hamilton and fox, i would never do the trade. knowing what we know now, i would do the trade. but it's still a kick in the nuts to find out we never had what we thought had in those two players.
i think saturday was a lousy day to be a flames fan.
we wake up in the morning and the hamilton personal issues are all BS, and we have a better than not chance of signing fox.
the trade happens, the return is modest based on our valuation of the assets we gave up. then we learned that the chips we had were only worth 60 cents on the dollar. so the trade is not so bad with that considered.
but finding out you got less back because your goods were damaged still sucks.
without knowing what i know now about hamilton and fox, i would never do the trade. knowing what we know now, i would do the trade. but it's still a kick in the nuts to find out we never had what we thought had in those two players.
It's a thing for any fan base. You invest in cheering and hoping for the players on your team. You cannot help but grow an attachment. This is where the over evaluation comes from. Every teams fans think that trades are all about winning the trade in a fleecing. Anything less is a horrendus error in judgement by the people who know far more than any of us do about the game and their teams needs.
What I have read lately has been kind of a cup of water in the face of a lot of people. Sobering.
I just hope once the games get played and the players who are here now are not pre-judged based on the fandom of the previous players.
These kids are going to be good. damned good. We should be excited.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
Ya know, I try to be positive for the most part. I usually try to find the silver lining when the Flames make these kind of moves, I really do.
Let’s be honest though, in general things don’t tend to fall our way most of the time. I don’t wanna say cursed - that’d be too dramatic but we sure aren’t blessed with good fortune.
I’ll hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I’d really like to see this trade work out well for us and hopefully it does. I just don’t have a ton of faith left in this organization. To say that we’ve been mediocre for a long, long time would be an overstatement. Save for one playoff run 14 years ago we’ve mostly been kinda lousy.
Left side one timer option on the PP. Net front insanity. Hand eye for days. I'm tellin ya, we got a guy thats going to elevate this team. Not by himself but this team as whole, together are going to elevate.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
The Following User Says Thank You to dammage79 For This Useful Post:
Also want to point out how fast that PP moved in Carolina last year. Holy smokes. If thats what we are in for. Happy days!
And lot of Bill Peters game to dissect in that video too. I feel like if they had goaltending none of this would be happening. And we'd be sad an stuck with Gully.
__________________ "Everybody's so desperate to look smart that nobody is having fun anymore" -Jackie Redmond
