Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2023 Off-season

[g00n]

Offseason interviews are even more scripted than post-game interviews.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Offseason interviews are even more scripted than post-game interviews.

This….I guess some want to so badly believe the sound bites.

Some of us have been calling the incoming bounce back contract year bump for 6 months….now it’s being discussed in an interview and people are upset we’re calling a spade a spade? Weird.

He says it himself, “It is sure that we will move and play elsewhere so I try to stay focused.”

Dude knows he‘s playing for his career survival and it won’t continue here.

 

[HTFN]

I thought the same thing….

I might have been intrigued if he said, “added 10lbs, want to get stronger to go to the greasy areas to get those goals I have the physical abilities to get“…….


but nope…..we get……”lost some weight, will make me floating in the perimeter seem less corporeal and harder to hit”….

Or... he just got fat and lazy last year and felt heavy and slow. Even if he's just lost that weight by working on being better conditioned it's a positive, and better conditioning is a pretty reasonable goal for a guy who wants to move his feet more and be more involved, you have to get there with speed and energy to make plays.

Like, I have no real faith in the guy either but I think people are looking a little too hard for a problem here. Guy weighed more than Ovechkin last season, apparently, and I'd say 242 is a little high especially if you aren't a guy who uses it. You act like Mantha's talking about trying to drop to 215 and play lean as possible

 

[Ridley Simon]

I mean, agreed.

Mantha was horrible last year. I was SO Stoked when we traded for him, as he had some truly dominant stretches in Detroit.

But it didn’t ever translate. Facts are facts.

Look, we can’t get a “worse” version of Mantha, as he was nacho’d. That’s the worst. We’ve already been there.

Can it be far far better? Yes!! So whatever changes from last year — whatever the hell it is — is progress.

Am I counting on it? FAK NO! But is it plausible? Heck YES

 

[twabby]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

 

[Calicaps]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

You don't have a ton of experience in the world of work, do you?

 

[McVechkin]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

The numbers have to be part of it and they do a lot to weed out and focus the field you scout... But you can’t replace the value in a good scout that understands the sport and position and can identify who might be coachable to tweak something to get to the next level.

That said, the other part of your point is that we have no clue if Miller is good in that role or just cashing in on relationships on the game. I think he is a pretty smart individual that could succeed in the role. But who knows really.

 

[twabby]

You don't have a ton of experience in the world of work, do you?

A fact I wear as a badge of honor!

 

[HTFN]

A fact I wear as a badge of honor!

Do you honestly think there's a non-zero chance that a Vezina caliber goalie knows what to look for in NHL goaltending? Likewise an NHL All-Star in local forwards worth note?

Look, some of those are merit badges and smaller paychecks for service to the franchise/league but playing the game and knowing it come hand in hand. There's nothing wrong with a scout having played the game at the NHL level. It's arguably a plus for people who aren't completely roped into this dumb rhetoric of yours.

You can't bitch about every single one, because some are pretty good at it. GMBM won a Cup off inheriting another NHL player's team and fixing it into a winner... how has John Chayka done again? Where's Kyle Dubas' ring?

Kolzig's been a pretty okay goalie scout/development coach over his time here, wouldn't you say?

 

[RandyHolt]

I came here expecting to read that Mantha has switched to a diet mouthpiece to help keep the 10 pounds off during the season.

 

[alphabetical]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

Why do you think that Ryan miller and Thomas vanek will fail as scouts?

Both were excellent players, and they both obviously know the game a lot better than you do.

 

[Langway]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

Hired to scout...one state. Not two. Not three. One. Call 911 or something.

 

[HandsomeTom43]

That’s ok. Neither has anyone else! It’s just people posting words. We’re all having fun posting words. Don’t worry about looking for meaning or context, just post with your heart. Whatever you’re feeling at the time, let it loose. We’re all friends here.

Will do, thanks. I don’t always have time to read some of the asinine takes in here. I don’t always read your posts about Carlson since he peaked 15 years ago.

 

[twabby]

Do you honestly think there's a non-zero chance that a Vezina caliber goalie knows what to look for in NHL goaltending? Likewise an NHL All-Star in local forwards worth note?

I think playing and scouting is probably a much different skillset, yeah.

The timing is just funny is all. I’m being asked to believe NHL scouting is decently robust and then I see a dude hires his bros to be his scouts.

 

[g00n]

I think playing and scouting is probably a much different skillset, yeah.

The timing is just funny is all. I’m being asked to believe NHL scouting is decently robust and then I see a dude hires his bros to be his scouts.

The problem isn't them it's you.

You believe every hire should be based entirely on a double blind resume search conducted by a third party arbitrator and judged by a computer program created by a fancy stat blogger.

Why? Because you have a profound and persistent distrust of anything related to "experience" or what you perceive as an "old boys network", even if such things are merely based on appearances.

In the real world networking is how ~70% of jobs are filled. Some of that is going to be "nepotism" and some is just going to be the product of overlapping industry experience.

You can't remove that from the equation or else the only people hired would need to be found outside the industry entirely, which gets more and more impossible and counterproductive as turnover increases.

Despite all the anti-expert "I'm an amateur Google research genius" sentiment from underqualified and overconfident critics, there are still a lot of jobs that require training, personal experience, and specialized knowledge that can't be gleaned from internet-supplied theory.

 

[Random schmoe]

The qualification for being a professional hockey scout is apparently “being buddies with the GM” instead of, you know, demonstrable scouting success.

And I’m the crazy one for trusting the numbers over these bozos???

Impossible to prove "demonstrative scouting success" or failure for an individual until actual demonstrated scouting experience has occurred.

 

[Random schmoe]

Why do statistical models for performance and projections regularly change over time? Because after being used for several years flaws and or improvements are identified that may make them better. These are principles that are driven by human cognition. Why shouldn't human cognition towards other analytic methodology be given the same leeway?

 

[Hivemind]

Impossible to prove "demonstrative scouting success" or failure for an individual until actual demonstrated scouting experience has occurred.

I think the point here is that NHL teams (theoretically the cream of the crop) are hiring people straight into scouting roles based on past relationships, rather than individuals who have worked as scouts at lower levels in different leagues (such as, say, the CHL). We expect our coaches to work their way up thru lesser roles, why is the standard different for scouts?

(This is more of a general re-phrasing of the principle than one based on the specifics here, where it can be argued that the limited responsibilities here are a lesser role)

 

[Random schmoe]

I think the point here is that NHL teams (theoretically the cream of the crop) are hiring people straight into scouting roles based on past relationships, rather than individuals who have worked as scouts at lower levels in different leagues (such as, say, the CHL). We expect our coaches to work their way up thru lesser roles, why is the standard different for scouts?

(This is more of a general re-phrasing of the principle than one based on the specifics here, where it can be argued that the limited responsibilities here are a lesser role)

I don't disagree the principles / questions that you raise.

But that's not what was stated in the post I replied to.

(Though for the record, Vanek and Miller may very well have at some point 'proven' they have an aptitude for scouting, either through an interview or unpaid work to date.)

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Are we really complaining about people getting jobs as a scout? It’s like one of the worst jobs in NHL you have to go around random ass places watching kids play hockey.

Ryan Miller was one of the best American goalies of our generation. I’m sure he has connections and knows all the up and coming prospects .

Thomas Vanek was a good NHL player if he wants to scout I’m sure he will be good at it.

 

[twabby]

Are we really complaining about people getting jobs as a scout? It’s like one of the worst jobs in NHL you have to go around random ass places watching kids play hockey.

Ryan Miller was one of the best American goalies of our generation. I’m sure he has connections and knows all the up and coming prospects .

Thomas Vanek was a good NHL player if he wants to scout I’m sure he will be good at it.

I’m just saying let’s not pretend scouting is some really rigorous process that must be better than some nerds with spreadsheets. Especially when actual data indicates the opposite. As you mentioned these are dudes who do a thankless job and probably don’t even get paid that well. But then shouldn’t we expect a half-assed job in return?

I mean it’s fine if this is how teams want to operate. I get it, there’s nothing wrong with giving some buddies some jobs if it makes people happy. Nothing has to be optimized. There’s a moral element to not automating jobs out of existence as well, and I’m very sympathetic to those discussions.

But then let’s frame the discussion in those terms at least, rather than saying statistical models don’t yield better drafting results because Thomas Vanek surely knows how to scout, just as the cerebral minds of Wayne Gretzky and Adam Oates surely must be excellent NHL head coaches.

 

[twabby]

Why do statistical models for performance and projections regularly change over time? Because after being used for several years flaws and or improvements are identified that may make them better. These are principles that are driven by human cognition. Why shouldn't human cognition towards other analytic methodology be given the same leeway?

I’m not saying to stop scouting necessarily. Maybe scouts will get better than glorified point totals in the future, at which point scouts should be used as the primary source for decision making if results are what a team is interested in.

I’m just saying right now they aren’t better than glorified point totals if pure results are what you’re interested in.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I’m just saying let’s not pretend scouting is some really rigorous process that must be better than some nerds with spreadsheets. Especially when actual data indicates the opposite. As you mentioned these are dudes who do a thankless job and probably don’t even get paid that well. But then shouldn’t we expect a half-assed job in return?

I mean it’s fine if this is how teams want to operate. I get it, there’s nothing wrong with giving some buddies some jobs if it makes people happy. Nothing has to be optimized. There’s a moral element to not automating jobs out of existence as well, and I’m very sympathetic to those discussions.

But then let’s frame the discussion in those terms at least, rather than saying statistical models don’t yield better drafting results because Thomas Vanek surely knows how to scout, just as the cerebral minds of Wayne Gretzky and Adam Oates surely must be excellent NHL head coaches.

Those aren’t the same things, and you know it.

Good players generally can tell other good players. That’s been true in sports forever. As one that succeeds, you can better “see and understand” what succeeds as having not only been there yourself, but literally lived with it most of your life.

That said, that doesn’t mean they’d be good employees, nor that they would able to take that knowledge and use it to better the organization.

Coaching is an entirely different thing. In most all sports (save football), it seems that most great players don’t make great coaches (NBA, NHL, MLB). That says nothing to do w spotting talent (though one Mike Jordan…..best ever….couldn’t do it to save his life; while Larry Bird seemed to be able to do it very well, and Magic Johnson is mixed in the NBA).

Yzerman and Sakic — 2 of the better players of their generation, make really good talent gatherers…… but that’s not the same job.

Talent awareness and coaching.

 

[RedRocking]

I’m not saying to stop scouting necessarily. Maybe scouts will get better than glorified point totals in the future, at which point scouts should be used as the primary source for decision making if results are what a team is interested in.

I’m just saying right now they aren’t better than glorified point totals if pure results are what you’re interested in.

I was thinking about that article you posted the other day, and did some digging around. I found something that I think you will like.

This guy took the ‘07-15 drafts and compared what the teams did vs what the NHLe model would have picked (ranked by likelihood of becoming a star). He then used cumulative WAR of each team’s draftees to compare who did better: the teams vs NHLe. He found only four teams beat the model. One of which happened to be our Caps.

I think aggregating WAR over 7 seasons (after being drafted) and then by multiple players might not necessarily be the best way to judge performance. But, I figured you’d be interested and would have a better idea whether the methodology and analysis are sound.

 

[Random schmoe]

I’m not saying to stop scouting necessarily. Maybe scouts will get better than glorified point totals in the future, at which point scouts should be used as the primary source for decision making if results are what a team is interested in.

I’m just saying right now they aren’t better than glorified point totals if pure results are what you’re interested in.

You're moving the goal posts now. You suggested that former players get jobs based on being buddies with the GM instead of demonstrative scouting success. But you can't prove that. And because you can't prove it you're saying something different.

And what exactly is your definition of "pure results"? If you're going to state a fact based on comparison of data than the data points being compared need to be defined and discrete.