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

[CapitalsCupReality]

Determine the tactics based on personnel ... how refreshing!

“we have many slow guys, we’re trying to design a gimmick/system around them so we don’t mostly suck again”….

I’m skeptical that such a thing exists….I guess we will see.

 

[g00n]

Yeah I thought that was the devil to most here. Speed and youth rather than compensating for Teh Oldz.

 

[YippieKaey]

“we have many slow guys, we’re trying to design a gimmick/system around them so we don’t mostly suck again”….

I’m skeptical that such a thing exists….I guess we will see.

That's kind of what happened naturally when injuries led to a lot of youth in the lineup. The proverbial gimmick is letting fresh young and hungry legs do their thing.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

That's kind of what happened naturally when injuries led to a lot of youth in the lineup. The proverbial gimmick is letting fresh young and hungry legs do their thing.

Maybe some will be ready this year to be more than slightly swifter warm bodies…actual production.

 

[HTFN]

Yeah I thought that was the devil to most here. Speed and youth rather than compensating for Teh Oldz.

really failing to see how these are opposing takes when the point is to get the old folks to play with pace, and maybe not massively under-utilizing players by forcing that whole "you don't play until you play my way" power game like they did with Mantha?

I mean if they can even just get Carlson to stop creeping up to the puck with just enough time to make a play they'll already be better for it. That dude loves to slow way down on loose pucks and it drives me insane.

 

[Portable Mink]

Caps just need 1 elite speed and finish guy. That was enough back in Vrana days to change the dynamic of the team.

Makes opposition wonder when he’s on the ice and they sit back a little in general.

I’d love for us to get Marco Rossi.

 

[g00n]

Caps just need 1 elite speed and finish guy. That was enough back in Vrana days to change the dynamic of the team.

Makes opposition wonder when he’s on the ice and they sit back a little in general.

I’d love for us to get Marco Rossi.

Vrana was the fastest guy but Kuzy and even Burakovsky could get loose.

Maybe 2 guys so the opposition never knows when a breakaway artist is going to be on the ice. If one just finishes a shift they know he's probably not coming back out for a shift or two at least. But if you have a guy that's a little rested he might jump out on a quick change after another line's skipped shift.

Then if the rest of the team can play "up-tempo" with puck movement and decision making the entire team speed dynamic looks a lot more threatening.

 

[kicksavedave]

I mean, when SC says "we're going to make a couple changes in the defensive zone" he could mean anything. Like ditching man to man and going zone. He basically referred to all three zones and said "we're going to make a few changes" which tells us, pretty much, nothing. Are the changes major, like ditching Lavi's system entirely, or minor, which means keeping Lavi's system and just tinkering around the edges? SC could be a politician if he wanted, he's got that gift of saying a lot of words without really telling you anything.

 

[Jags]

Again the question shouldn’t be whether a single number can represent everything perfectly (it can’t). The question should be does the single number do a better job than the status quo?

Yeah, that's not what the question should be either. The question should be aren't we quibbling too much about the balance between numbers and human experience?

You're postulating that it's 20% this plus 80% that or vice versa or some other combo. The bottom line is that you need agile, experienced hockey minds AND you need to know the numbers. How you weigh those things is the secret sauce.

And here's the thing: That perspective is 100% nonsense and 0% reality. The balance of experience versus numbers is not ever a thing that anyone actually quantifies in the real world.

"You know, we only relied on numbers 28% last year. Let's up it to 37% this year and see what happens," said no one, ever.

You have your brain trust, some of whom are numbers guys to varying extents. How thet interact is a human exercise that you couldn't measure if you tried.

Whatever the level of denial, the one constant in all of this is people. We're talking about humans, not numbers on a spreadsheet, Spock. The digits don't tell the whole story and probably never will.

100%. And while fancy stats are complicated, it's not rocket science to see how applicable they are versus the amount of human interaction they're trying to measure.

Baseball? No sweat. 10 to 13 people playing at a time, each play is only a few seconds and play stops after each one.

Basketball? Okay, sure. 10 players at once, continuous play, few substitutions.

Football? Maybe. 22 players at once, all doing VERY different things. No continuous play, but way less rigidly structured than baseball.

Hockey? Continuous play, and literally 38 different players can play between each stoppage in almost any combination. And it's lower-scoring than those other sports, so measuring "what works" offensively and defensively requires WAY more study. Good luck with that. Sounds like a recipe for alcoholism to me.

"Impatience is an argument with reality"

I think this goes beyond just impatence

It does, and the person you're arguing with is just going to see "reality" as "the status quo" and view it as the opposition, not just a thing that exists. That argument's a hamster wheel, y'know?

Of course he's playing to get a new contract, everyone does! Who cares if he says it out loud? Grow up!

I'm grown. I promise. But I read that quote and see a fundamental lack of judgement and self-awareness. It's a special level of stupid that I don't want rubbing off on the youngsters.

You own a business and a guy you're paying six million dollars a year admits that he hasn't been trying very hard. You don't care? And then he goes out in public and tells people that, hey, these guys will pay you six mil and you don't have to do shit! You don't care about that either?

Can I come work for you, please?

 

[twabby]

100%. And while fancy stats are complicated, it's not rocket science to see how applicable they are versus the amount of human interaction they're trying to measure.

Baseball? No sweat. 10 to 13 people playing at a time, each play is only a few seconds and play stops after each one.

Basketball? Okay, sure. 10 players at once, continuous play, few substitutions.

Football? Maybe. 22 players at once, all doing VERY different things. No continuous play, but way less rigidly structured than baseball.

Hockey? Continuous play, and literally 38 different players can play between each stoppage in almost any combination. And it's lower-scoring than those other sports, so measuring "what works" offensively and defensively requires WAY more study. Good luck with that. Sounds like a recipe for alcoholism to me.

All you're saying is hockey is more difficult to model than baseball and basketball. I agree!

But this says nothing about hockey models performing better or worse than the status quo. Perhaps hockey is also difficult for eyeballs to judge given the complexities of the game?

 

[Lou Sassole]

Ooh… off… line?

I don’t know if robots can do that

Yeah, that's not what the question should be either. The question should be aren't we quibbling too much about the balance between numbers and human experience?

You're postulating that it's 20% this plus 80% that or vice versa or some other combo. The bottom line is that you need agile, experienced hockey minds AND you need to know the numbers. How you weigh those things is the secret sauce.

And here's the thing: That perspective is 100% nonsense and 0% reality. The balance of experience versus numbers is not ever a thing that anyone actually quantifies in the real world.

"You know, we only relied on numbers 28% last year. Let's up it to 37% this year and see what happens," said no one, ever.

You have your brain trust, some of whom are numbers guys to varying extents. How thet interact is a human exercise that you couldn't measure if you tried.



100%. And while fancy stats are complicated, it's not rocket science to see how applicable they are versus the amount of human interaction they're trying to measure.

Baseball? No sweat. 10 to 13 people playing at a time, each play is only a few seconds and play stops after each one.

Basketball? Okay, sure. 10 players at once, continuous play, few substitutions.

Football? Maybe. 22 players at once, all doing VERY different things. No continuous play, but way less rigidly structured than baseball.

Hockey? Continuous play, and literally 38 different players can play between each stoppage in almost any combination. And it's lower-scoring than those other sports, so measuring "what works" offensively and defensively requires WAY more study. Good luck with that. Sounds like a recipe for alcoholism to me.




It does, and the person you're arguing with is just going to see "reality" as "the status quo" and view it as the opposition, not just a thing that exists. That argument's a hamster wheel, y'know?



I'm grown. I promise. But I read that quote and see a fundamental lack of judgement and self-awareness. It's a special level of stupid that I don't want rubbing off on the youngsters.

You own a business and a guy you're paying six million dollars a year admits that he hasn't been trying very hard. You don't care? And then he goes out in public and tells people that, hey, these guys will pay you six mil and you don't have to do shit! You don't care about that either?

Can I come work for you, please?

Great post, it baffles me when people hold up baseball analytics, as evidence for hockey and football analytics. Baseball is so fundamentally different than those 2 sports, especially hockey.

 

[twabby]

Yeah, that's not what the question should be either. The question should be aren't we quibbling too much about the balance between numbers and human experience?

You're postulating that it's 20% this plus 80% that or vice versa or some other combo. The bottom line is that you need agile, experienced hockey minds AND you need to know the numbers. How you weigh those things is the secret sauce.

And here's the thing: That perspective is 100% nonsense and 0% reality. The balance of experience versus numbers is not ever a thing that anyone actually quantifies in the real world.

"You know, we only relied on numbers 28% last year. Let's up it to 37% this year and see what happens," said no one, ever.

You have your brain trust, some of whom are numbers guys to varying extents. How thet interact is a human exercise that you couldn't measure if you tried.

All I'm saying is the current weights stink in comparison to just telling the amateur scouting staff to go home and collect a paycheck for doing nothing. Asking for the exact weights is silly because the objective is to improve as much as feasible, not to find the perfect solution. The former is doable, the latter is impossible.

 

[Stan Galiev]

Who would you guys rather have on our 4th line next to Dowd? AJF or NAK? Pros and Cons to both? Posing the question bc NAK probably wouldn’t have been claimed if AJF was kept on the team instead of sent to waivers.

 

[Jags]

All I'm saying is the current weights stink in comparison to just telling the amateur scouting staff to go home and collect a paycheck for doing nothing.

Well, that's not ALL you're saying. You're also saying that you know what the status quo is and that it doesn't work well when, in fact, you have no idea what the status quo is because literally every team embraces analytics to varying extents. You're assuming they don't, or that they not doing it right or enough.

You're arguing against something you can't even really define because you've closed your mind to the idea that any group of people who has seen the stats you have and reached different conclusions must be doing something wrong or relying on something antiquated.

You accidentally put some hubris where your humility should be.

 

[twabby]

Well, that's not ALL you're saying. You're also saying that you know what the status quo is and that it doesn't work well when, in fact, you have no idea what the status quo is because literally every team embraces analytics to varying extents. You're assuming they don't, or that they not doing it right or enough.

You're arguing against something you can't even really define because you've closed your mind to the idea that any group of people who has seen the stats you have and reached different conclusions must be doing something wrong or relying on something antiquated.

You accidentally put some hubris where your humility should be.

The status quo is who was actually drafted. These are the results of the decision-making process, whatever it might be. The results of the current decision-making process are demonstrably worse than if teams just sorted by adjusted points and made their selections that way. I don't need to know the inner-workings of the status quo to know who was drafted at what spot.

I have no interest or ability in figuring out what is actually the ideal decision-making process, I just know that there is an alternative that is better. Teams should use this better alternative and let the scouts go home and play The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom until such a time where the inclusion of scouts beats this alternative that does not involve the use of scouts.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You just don’t get it……probably because you admittingly don’t want to figure it out, but the right evaluation process uses both analytics AND the eye test/interviews.

 

[twabby]

You just don’t get it……probably because you admitting don’t want to figure it out, but the right evaluation process uses both analytics AND the eye test/interviews.

That's like saying π is somewhere between 3 and 100. Technically true, but one is a much better estimate than the other.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

That's like saying π is somewhere between 3 and 100. Technically true, but one is a much better estimate than the other.

If sorting a spreadsheet made anyone a NHL draft guru…..there would already be more of them in charge….

 

[Ridley Simon]

Yeah, that's not what the question should be either. The question should be aren't we quibbling too much about the balance between numbers and human experience?

You're postulating that it's 20% this plus 80% that or vice versa or some other combo. The bottom line is that you need agile, experienced hockey minds AND you need to know the numbers. How you weigh those things is the secret sauce.

And here's the thing: That perspective is 100% nonsense and 0% reality. The balance of experience versus numbers is not ever a thing that anyone actually quantifies in the real world.

"You know, we only relied on numbers 28% last year. Let's up it to 37% this year and see what happens," said no one, ever.

You have your brain trust, some of whom are numbers guys to varying extents. How thet interact is a human exercise that you couldn't measure if you tried.



100%. And while fancy stats are complicated, it's not rocket science to see how applicable they are versus the amount of human interaction they're trying to measure.

Baseball? No sweat. 10 to 13 people playing at a time, each play is only a few seconds and play stops after each one.

Basketball? Okay, sure. 10 players at once, continuous play, few substitutions.

Football? Maybe. 22 players at once, all doing VERY different things. No continuous play, but way less rigidly structured than baseball.

Hockey? Continuous play, and literally 38 different players can play between each stoppage in almost any combination. And it's lower-scoring than those other sports, so measuring "what works" offensively and defensively requires WAY more study. Good luck with that. Sounds like a recipe for alcoholism to me.




It does, and the person you're arguing with is just going to see "reality" as "the status quo" and view it as the opposition, not just a thing that exists. That argument's a hamster wheel, y'know?



I'm grown. I promise. But I read that quote and see a fundamental lack of judgement and self-awareness. It's a special level of stupid that I don't want rubbing off on the youngsters.

You own a business and a guy you're paying six million dollars a year admits that he hasn't been trying very hard. You don't care? And then he goes out in public and tells people that, hey, these guys will pay you six mil and you don't have to do shit! You don't care about that either?

Can I come work for you, please?

Hey!

Don’t pick on us alcoholics?? Seriously dude. Pick on the homeless or the destitute or the pill pumpers. Leave us alcoholics alone!

 

[BiPolar Caps]

It seems the Capitals rarely offer PTOs. The last ones that I have are goalie Craig Anderson in 2020, Alex Chiasson in 2017, Matt Hendricks in 2010 and Scott Gomez was even offered one with Hershey in 2016. Now Anderson, Chiasson and Hendricks all received contracts with the Capitals as a result of their PTO, but who am I missing and what players came in on a player try out with the Capitals but ended up not getting a contract?

 

[twabby]

If sorting a spreadsheet made anyone a NHL draft guru…..there would already be more of them in charge….

I think you vastly underestimate the institutional inertia that pervades NHL franchises. Why else do the same coaches and GMs get recycled throughout the league, for instance?

 

[kicksavedave]

If sorting a spreadsheet made anyone a NHL draft guru…..there would already be more of them in charge….

Well, if any scout or GM was having success (vs the prior method) by just sorting a spreadsheet, I'm sure the first thing they would do is Tweet to the whole world about how easy it just got. /S

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I think you vastly underestimate the institutional inertia that pervades NHL franchises. Why else do the same coaches and GMs get recycled throughout the league, for instance?

And I think you grandiosely overestimate it…..because it’s “The Man”…..

Previously employed/experienced employees get new jobs in their respective fields all over the world in every profession.

Why you are hyper-focused on hockey guys, where the candidate skillsets are very highly specialized and the pool of qualified NHL- level candidates is very very small?

Yours is the pinnacle of arrogance on this particular subject IMO.

Well, if any scout or GM was having success (vs the prior method) by just sorting a spreadsheet, I'm sure the first thing they would do is Tweet to the whole world about how easy it just got. /S

For sure….they’re all just doing that and it’s the secret sauce nobody discusses!

 

[kicksavedave]

For sure….they’re all just doing that and it’s the secret sauce nobody discusses!

If there was a much easier way for me to do my job that required much less work and improved my performance, I'm not sure I would be telling my boss about it either

I do think the point about institutional change being a slow beast is fair. Baseball teams didn't copy Billy Beane instantly, they adopted over time. The real question I would love to know, that we'll likely never ever know, is which NHL teams are at the top of weighting analytics vs at the bottom, so we can compare their results with data.

Twabby's point being that there is data that says a certain analytical method appears to be better than league wide current results, shouldn't be dismissed just because we don't know the weights any teams are using. And organizational fit can never really be answered by raw stats, so scouting and human interactions are always going to be a part of the whole process.

 

[HTFN]

If there was a much easier way for me to do my job that required much less work and improved my performance, I'm not sure I would be telling my boss about it either

I do think the point about institutional change being a slow beast is fair. Baseball teams didn't copy Billy Beane instantly, they adopted over time. The real question I would love to know, that we'll likely never ever know, is which NHL teams are at the top of weighting analytics vs at the bottom, so we can compare their results with data.

Twabby's point being that there is data that says a certain analytical method appears to be better than league wide current results, shouldn't be dismissed just because we don't know the weights any teams are using. And organizational fit can never really be answered by raw stats, so scouting and human interactions are always going to be a part of the whole process.

But part of their argument is that the bad teams are all just not using them enough.

There's no room for, say, a team using analytics a whole lot but having a bad/different model and not seeing the results twabby is advocating for... A different statistician could value a different stat and make a compelling enough case that they take the "wrong" player, but the framework of twabby's argument would blame old-head hockey scouts or somebody else getting in the way because it's a flawed perspective with no available insight for us to refute the claim.

Usually in situations like these twabby would have the burden of proof, but it's never proven that these picks fail due to archaic scouting practices... it's asserted pretty arrogantly that all the failures must be due to archaic scouting practices because they failed. We need to know the balances teams are coming in with if we want to take this argument seriously, or else it's just cherry picking and reverse engineering the position to suit the premise.

Shit, we were just talking about this a few pages ago. Building backwards from the conclusion is bad science, but there's no room in this discussion for there to be another conclusion for some people. Even when statistics fail, they're just "not perfect yet" but still infallibly better than anything humans do... that's zealotry, not open discussion.