Prospect Info: Caps Top Prospects General Discussion Thread Vol. 2 - 2021-22

[CapitalsCupReality]

“Proven results”….

 

[Langway]

“Proven results”….

Or your money back.

(All sales final.)

 

[Roshi]

NHLe has proven results over the current methods that most teams use. If that makes me arrogant then fine, I'm arrogant because I prefer the method that is better.

I'd be less concerned about figuring out why NHLe isn't perfect, as everyone here is doing, and more concerned about why scouts who do it 352 days a year are even worse.

Im not concerned figuring out anything. What you and hivemind are saying is that NHL scouts are some baboons out of forest who dont even know what advanced stats are.

What do you mean by proven results? Retrorespective of drafts from decade ago or what? Scouts did not have the tools they have now back then so how can you compare that?

 

[Hivemind]

Im not concerned figuring out anything. What you and hivemind are saying is that NHL scouts are some baboons out of forest who dont even know what advanced stats are.

What do you mean by proven results? Retrorespective of drafts from decade ago or what? Scouts did not have the tools they have now back then so how can you compare that?

Once again, I'm not particularly in-line with Twabby on the specifics of this topic - I'm only lashing out against the idea that rejecting scouts is equivalent to rejecting expertise in general (such as doctors).

If you want me to put it another way - I think there's a lot of scouts out there who are like investment "experts" who don't end up beating the market. I think it's perfectly fine for the general public to call out Jim Cramer and his ilk when these purported experts don't exceed the market based on their investment tips. Similarly, it's fine to call out scouts who are losing to NHLe or whatever other metrics you want to observe. Personally, I don't think that means to throw all of scouting in the bin, but I do think that the Appeals to Authority when it comes to scouting expertise may often be misplaced.

 

[twabby]

Im not concerned figuring out anything. What you and hivemind are saying is that NHL scouts are some baboons out of forest who dont even know what advanced stats are.

What do you mean by proven results? Retrorespective of drafts from decade ago or what? Scouts did not have the tools they have now back then so how can you compare that?

They didn't have point totals? It's literally just point totals with a league and age adjustment.

 

[Calicaps]

Once again, I'm not particularly in-line with Twabby on the specifics of this topic - I'm only lashing out against the idea that rejecting scouts is equivalent to rejecting expertise in general (such as doctors).

If you want me to put it another way - I think there's a lot of scouts out there who are like investment "experts" who don't end up beating the market. I think it's perfectly fine for the general public to call out Jim Cramer and his ilk when these purported experts don't exceed the market based on their investment tips. Similarly, it's fine to call out scouts who are losing to NHLe or whatever other metrics you want to observe. Personally, I don't think that means to throw all of scouting in the bin, but I do think that the Appeals to Authority when it comes to scouting expertise may often be misplaced.

To me, it's of a piece, even if not a perfect alignment. If you (not you, personally) don't accept the value of experience and knowledge then how much value will you place even on the evaluation of someone's preparation and skill as made by other people. By which I mean, if you're a doctor, you've been trained and deemed worthy, not by an algorithm, but by other people using their experience and knowledge. You've gone through an internship and people with more experience and knowledge have said, "this one's good enough for X, but that one's excellent and gets the fancy fellowship." That's not objective analytics. That's human expertise.

 

[HTFN]

NHLe has proven results over the current methods that most teams use. If that makes me arrogant then fine, I'm arrogant because I prefer the method that is better.

I'd be less concerned about figuring out why NHLe isn't perfect, as everyone here is doing, and more concerned about why scouts who do it 352 days a year are even worse.

I noticed you ignored every post about this that required you to prove anything, sat out for a day or so, and then started saying it again.

The poster who did your legwork for you also pointed out the Capitals outperform NHLe with a very small analytics department, you haven't addressed that at all.

 

[Hivemind]

To me, it's of a piece, even if not a perfect alignment. If you (not you, personally) don't accept the value of experience and knowledge then how much value will you place even on the evaluation of someone's preparation and skill as made by other people. By which I mean, if you're a doctor, you've been trained and deemed worthy, not by an algorithm, but by other people using their experience and knowledge. You've gone through an internship and people with more experience and knowledge have said, "this one's good enough for X, but that one's excellent and gets the fancy fellowship." That's not objective analytics. That's human expertise.

I don't think simply being hired is a great barometer of qualification in many fields. As terrifying as it may sound (and trust me, it's even more terrifying to me) - I'm considered an expert in my particular field. There's three people in the entire federal government (and maybe 10-15 in the entire US) who have more expertise on this exact topic than I do. I've literally been given the title of SME (Subject Matter Expert) on particular panels/conferences/discussions. I've been credited as author of official documents. Yet, I know when I was given this role, I was very far from an expert at the time. Fake it 'til you make it.

Practicing medicine is built upon a massive foundation of objective observation and filtering. Rigorous schooling and testing of individuals (and yes, some of those are by "algorithm"). Peer reviewed analysis of research and data. Not to mention it's still standard practice to get second (or third) opinions on major medical decisions. I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of medicine (that's a whole nuanced topic of its own that goes way beyond a hockey board), but the exact reason why it's being selected as an example of expertise is proof-enough that it is a field that is truly set apart by its pre-requisite qualifications. Not every field has the same level of rigor.

When the laymen outperform the experts in a field, it's worth examining which of those experts are truly experts (in conjunction with the environment and filtering processes those expert opinions go thru). Would you want to take the financial advice of an "expert" (who was hired by others with human expertise) who gets beaten by the market? Of course not.

 

[HTFN]

To me, it's of a piece, even if not a perfect alignment. If you (not you, personally) don't accept the value of experience and knowledge then how much value will you place even on the evaluation of someone's preparation and skill as made by other people. By which I mean, if you're a doctor, you've been trained and deemed worthy, not by an algorithm, but by other people using their experience and knowledge. You've gone through an internship and people with more experience and knowledge have said, "this one's good enough for X, but that one's excellent and gets the fancy fellowship." That's not objective analytics. That's human expertise.

We've also kind of just mostly survived a period of time where people ignored real doctors to take horse medicine because the A-to-B argument "made sense" in ways they didn't get from their doctor.

Scouting isn't easy, and I'm sorry it can't all be cooked into one perfect number, but this is to responsible statistic use what eating horse medicine is to real health care.

 

[HTFN]

When the laymen outperform the experts in a field, it's worth examining which of those experts are truly experts (in conjunction with the environment and filtering processes those expert opinions go thru). Would you want to take the financial advice of an "expert" (who was hired by others with human expertise) who gets beaten by the market? Of course not.

Twabby has yet to prove that the failures are a result of trusting the "experts". Yeah, it's fair to say that plenty probably are, but until we know which teams are drafting based on old methods and which are drafting based on their own stats or algorithms it's not even clear which departments are being outperformed. This is an evolving facet of the game, there are new models and "perfect" stats every few years. People used to think CORSI was the best way to measure impact on the game, for f***'s sake, there's no way every team has been doing it the same over the last 15 years.

The way this argument is framed, virtually everybody who whiffs on a pick missed because they didn't stat hard enough, but there's no room accounting for teams that just did it wrong. If we accept the idea that all but 4 teams draft worse than sorting by NHLe, it doesn't instantly mean that all that data is rejecting analytics because it's losing to a new one.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

They didn't have point totals? It's literally just point totals with a league and age adjustment.

The model is the tool to analyze and weight the data, and it didn’t exist, correct?

 

[twabby]

The model is the tool to analyze and weight the data, and it didn’t exist, correct?

Nerds in their parents’ basements can discover this model with a budget of $50 (a few cases of Mountain Dew: Code Red). I certainly think it’s reasonable to expect NHL teams with multimillion dollar scouting budgets to be a few steps ahead of said nerds.

 

[HTFN]

Nerds in their parents’ basements can discover this model with a budget of $50 (a few cases of Mountain Dew: Code Red). I certainly think it’s reasonable to expect NHL teams with multimillion dollar scouting budgets to be a few steps ahead of said nerds.

Then why did none of the nerds get to it years ago? Those nerds fall in love with new stats and different models every few years, because this is still in its infancy, and the game ebbs and flows with it. Why didn't you discover it, bud? You've been in this game long enough, right? You would have had so much more money to spend on NFTs

Seriously, just think it through to its conclusion for one second. Once again your argument really boils down to "they should've been better" with no idea what was even going on (and absolutely zero application of context, only hindsight).

 

[Hivemind]

Twabby has yet to prove that the failures are a result of trusting the "experts".

Then continue to converse with Twabby about that. Not sure why you're coming at me. I'm simply stating that people who claim that distrusting NHL scouts is an equivalent to distrusting all human expertise is a rather absurd stretch to make.

We've also kind of just mostly survived a period of time where people ignored real doctors to take horse medicine because the A-to-B argument "made sense" in ways they didn't get from their doctor.

Scouting isn't easy, and I'm sorry it can't all be cooked into one perfect number, but this is to responsible statistic use what eating horse medicine is to real health care.

Case-in-point here. This is a ridiculous leap to make that thinking someone isn't great at drafting is equivalent to taking horse medicine.

To say it again, there's a reason why doctors keep getting used as the example here. Because we (we meaning reasonable folks) know that doctors are, indeed, experts who go thru substantial, multi-year training and vetting processes. We know that medical science is peer reviewed. But not every profession is that way.

You can't be sued for malpractice as a scout. Scouting work doesn't get peer reviewed (as it would be very much against the competitive nature of the league to aide your opponent's scouting department). You don't have to be licensed by the state to practice scouting.

Once again, I'm not with Twabby in the opinion that scouting is useless. I am with him to say that claims that him doubting scouting doesn't automatically mean he doubts all expertise. It's a silly reach of an argument to make.

I mean, just be honest for a second here, you're equating someone wanting to trust statistics with being anti-science. Come on.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

How are the scouts gonna judge the prospects at the showcase without nerdy stat sheets?? It’s going to be pure hockey and talent evaluation.

 

[HTFN]

Then continue to converse with Twabby about that. Not sure why you're coming at me. I'm simply stating that people who claim that distrusting NHL scouts is an equivalent to distrusting all human expertise is a rather absurd stretch to make.

Case-in-point here. This is a ridiculous leap to make that thinking someone isn't great at drafting is equivalent to taking horse medicine.

To say it again, there's a reason why doctors keep getting used as the example here. Because we (we meaning reasonable folks) know that doctors are, indeed, experts who go thru substantial, multi-year training and vetting processes. We know that medical science is peer reviewed. But not every profession is that way.

You can't be sued for malpractice as a scout. Scouting work doesn't get peer reviewed (as it would be very much against the competitive nature of the league to aide your opponent's scouting department). You don't have to be licensed by the state to practice scouting.

Once again, I'm not with Twabby in the opinion that scouting is useless. I am with him to say that claims that him doubting scouting doesn't automatically mean he doubts all expertise. It's a silly reach of an argument to make.

I mean, just be honest for a second here, you're equating someone wanting to trust statistics with being anti-science. Come on.

Nobody’s saying doubting scouts gets you there automatically.

The way they phrase their argument does.

 

[twabby]

I do want to clarify that I don’t think scouting is useless. It’s just that given a choice between the current methods which certainly involve weighing scouting heavily and NHLe alone I’d take NHLe. I think scouting could certainly be useful in breaking ties for instance, but right now scouting is likely weighed far too heavily and I still wince when I see prospect rankings and justifications for dropping a player include “10-2 skating instead of the ideal 10:15-1:45” or “compete level isn’t great.”

 

[HTFN]

I do want to clarify that I don’t think scouting is useless. It’s just that given a choice between the current methods which certainly involve weighing scouting heavily and NHLe alone I’d take NHLe. I think scouting could certainly be useful in breaking ties for instance, but right now scouting is likely weighed far too heavily and I still wince when I see prospect rankings and justifications for dropping a player include “10-2 skating instead of the ideal 10:15-1:45” or “compete level isn’t great.”

This is a thing you made up.

10 and 2 skating means his toes aren't pointed forward and his edges are already set a lot of the time. You were told this and decided to be coy instead.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

 

[racingmoose]

How are the scouts gonna judge the prospects at the showcase without nerdy stat sheets?? It’s going to be pure hockey and talent evaluation.

Good comment. Some may not realize that it isn't uncommon to watch players and their many tendencies without knowing any advanced stats. While stats can help and also point toward players to take a look at, scouting the many non stats related qualities without one's observation being clouded by the stats can be very beneficial.

 

[YippieKaey]

I wish hockey would start soon.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

I wish hockey would start soon.

14 days until rookie camp, 19 until training camp.

 

[searle]

i don’t get why the analytics argument rages on….

 

[FourQuarters]

14 days until rookie camp, 19 until training camp.

Kelowna Rockets' broadcaster said Cristall will head to Washington for camp next Monday. Do they have some off-ice session before beginning of the camp?

 

[searle]

Kelowna Rockets' broadcaster said Cristall will head to Washington for camp next Monday. Do they have some off-ice session before beginning of the camp?

I think I read somewhere that you’re now allowed a couple of pre-pre-season sessions lead by coaches - but might be wrong