Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Jake Sanderson (D) PART 3

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
AchtzehnBaby said:
New thread

Continued from here

Prospect Info: - Jake Sanderson (D) PART 2

Mr. Sandman, Bring me a Dream Take my hand, we're off to never-never lan... DAH :yo:
hfboards.mandatory.com hfboards.mandatory.com

Click to expand...

Sanderson is a tough prospect to judge with those kind of evaluations.

They typically underrate defensive dmen, which for the first few years of development, Sanderson very much looked like when only looking at stats. He's since added at lot of offense to his game but the skill set was always there.

I think he's going to be a stud for us, in the Slavin mold. I think he has more offensive upside, but you never know how those traits will translate.
 
AchtzehnBaby said:
I have no clue how that guy gets his rankings… must be from his ass
Click to expand...
The system has a weight on more than just 1 year so Sanderson's lower offensive numbers earlier in his development impact the prediction. Basically it's heavily biased against late bloomers or defensive minded players who don't put up big numbers. It doesn't mean anything though because as an example here is Cale Makar's D0, D1 and D2 numbers which are pretty comparable

1649363253595.png
 
Byron Bader still thinks Erik Brannstrom is going to be a star player. Judge accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aragorn
This guy is guilty of a really common academic trap. You build an opaque model that produces data that is not representative of reality, and then you fall in love with the thing and start analyzing the derived data coming out of it at par with direct observations of evidence. Results like this should be a big red flag to say "this model clearly isn't working here". But instead it's further down the rabbit hole.

At this point you're not doing analysis anymore, you're just playing with a toy you built.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613, QuagmireGiggity, Raze The Stray and 9 others
ZubMeUp said:
This guy is guilty of a really common academic trap. You build an opaque model that produces data that is not representative of reality, and then you fall in love with the thing and start analyzing the derived data coming out of it at par with direct observations of evidence. Results like this should be a big red flag to say "this model clearly isn't working here". But instead it's further down the rabbit hole.

At this point you're not doing analysis anymore, you're just playing with a toy you built.
Click to expand...
Really well put, had me laughing out loud on that one. Definitely a common trap!
 
Ouroboros said:
Byron Bader still thinks Erik Brannstrom is going to be a star player. Judge accordingly.
Click to expand...

That’s fine if he wants to get paid like a 3rd pairing dman which he would be here I’m fine with keeping him. In a ideal world him and Gus and some other high but not top quality piece get packaged out for a elite player
 
ZubMeUp said:
This guy is guilty of a really common academic trap. You build an opaque model that produces data that is not representative of reality, and then you fall in love with the thing and start analyzing the derived data coming out of it at par with direct observations of evidence. Results like this should be a big red flag to say "this model clearly isn't working here". But instead it's further down the rabbit hole.

At this point you're not doing analysis anymore, you're just playing with a toy you built.
Click to expand...
To be fair, he does recognize some of the blindspots of the model such as missing on defensive wizards, I don't think he buys into Sanderson's offense, which that model is biased towards. Heck, he basically says anything less than Slavin would be a terrible miss with a pick that high which to me suggests he undervalued Slavin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Devilish Buffoon
Micklebot said:
To be fair, he does recognize some of the blindspots of the model such as missing on defensive wizards, I don't think he buys into Sanderson's offense, which that model is biased towards. Heck, he basically says anything less than Slavin would be a terrible miss with a pick that high which to me suggests he undervalued Slavin.
Click to expand...
To be fairer still, I don't think data scientist modelling geeks can sit in front of a computer and develop models with the ability to accurately project the future of teenagers.
 
ZubMeUp said:
This guy is guilty of a really common academic trap. You build an opaque model that produces data that is not representative of reality, and then you fall in love with the thing and start analyzing the derived data coming out of it at par with direct observations of evidence. Results like this should be a big red flag to say "this model clearly isn't working here". But instead it's further down the rabbit hole.

At this point you're not doing analysis anymore, you're just playing with a toy you built.
Click to expand...
Mm no his model has been ok in the past. So he gotten some validation. He’s admitted there are some blind spots on it.

It’s just a guy on Twitter who is an hockey fan having some fun with stats and charting
 
Micklebot said:
To be fair, he does recognize some of the blindspots of the model such as missing on defensive wizards, I don't think he buys into Sanderson's offense, which that model is biased towards. Heck, he basically says anything less than Slavin would be a terrible miss with a pick that high which to me suggests he undervalued Slavin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is a good piece of context. Between 2010-2015, there's probably an average of around two guys per year who is on par with/better than Slavin per year between the 3rd & 10th slot... and most of them are F.

Marner, Draisaitl, Rantanen, Huberdeau, Werenski, Ehlers, Jones, Nurse, Lindholm, Scheifele, Couturier, Hamilton are the guys who some might consider better/on par with Slavin but personally I would take Slavin over about half of them. Only clearly superior players IMO are the first 4 forwards. When you raise the cutoff to 5, you could eliminate almost half of those guys and are left with Rantanen as the only clearly better player (imo).

If Sanderson becomes Slavin.... holy shit man, we're set. And I think most would acknowledge this, as Slavin has been between 5th-20th in Norris voting every year of his career outside of his rookie season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613
ZubMeUp said:
This guy is guilty of a really common academic trap. You build an opaque model that produces data that is not representative of reality, and then you fall in love with the thing and start analyzing the derived data coming out of it at par with direct observations of evidence. Results like this should be a big red flag to say "this model clearly isn't working here". But instead it's further down the rabbit hole.

At this point you're not doing analysis anymore, you're just playing with a toy you built.
Click to expand...

More documentation would be better, but it's still pretty clear what is going on in his model.

Nobody is treating statistical models as on par with direct observation, and let's not act like direct observation in this context is anything scientific. NHL teams directly observed Panarin not getting drafted. They also directly observed drafting Yakupov first overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NB613, guyzeur and Burrowsaurus
JD1 said:
To be fairer still, I don't think data scientist modelling geeks can sit in front of a computer and develop models with the ability to accurately project the future of teenagers.
Click to expand...
No doubt. If they could, teams would hire them instead of scouting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom