Confirmed with Link: Logan Stanley 2 years 1.25 million

[Buffdog]

Holy fk man.... you're good for a laugh. You've turned into the biggest gaslighted on this forum.

Okay sure jfresh is 'just a guy on twitter'... but somehow you have deep insight into the flaws of statistics... at least I concede to guys that actually analyze stats for a living.

Believe Stanley is a good dman if you want - or don't I guess... your posts are such garbled bullshit now that it really is hard to tell

Show me where I said Stanley was a good Dman

All I said was that he's comparable to Kovacevic

 

[Jet]

I was not a fan of the Stanley pick and think there have been a significant opportunity cost to keeping him...but the comparison to Chiarot is interesting.

At Stanley's current age (26), Chiarot was given a similar contract by the Jets, but by the the age of 28 he walked into a $10M+ contract with the Canadians as a UFA and played a big role in their SC run.

Comparing Stanley to Chara was always a pipe dream and even Chiarot is quite a reach, but stranger things have happened...

Yeah my dream of him becoming Chara was definitely reaching for the stars.

And your post adds something? Piss off.

Stanley is what he is and he is clearly not Ben Chiarot.

It adds something if it stokes you to actually contribute.

Next time I'll just report the post as it violates hf boards rules (as mine likely did)

 

[Jet]

The answer is zero. Zero playoff rounds won as a result of those trades.

And spots were blocked for Heinola, Stanley, Kovacevic, Chisholm because of the Dillon and Schmidt trades.

You can't predict the future, though.

In hindsight (and probably foresight) Schmidt was a bad acquisition, but I think Chevy was forced out of his comfort zone after the mass exodus of defenseman and his inability to respond to it quickly. I think he overcorrected - but I guess he was banking on getting Vegas Schmidt not Vancouver Schmidt.

I think Dillon was a really good move - he improved the team, and we can hardly blame him for us not winning playoff rounds.

 

[Jet]

Models base their outcomes on how they weigh their inputs, which is based on the opinion of the person who designed the model. Those aren't useful in assessing the value of a player, and they aren't used in things like arbitration hearings. But they sure as shit come in handy when a guy like you wants to win an internet argument

Besides, you didn't say that Stanley had worse outcomes in models. You said statistics. You were wrong.

Had you said "there's a random dude on Twitter that made a model that shows that Kovy is better", I would have responded to THAT with the response it deserved:

View attachment 893186

Thank you!

I'm not a data scientist by any means but I don't know why people can't grasp this concept.

In science, purity of data and environmental control is critical in getting accurate results.

 

[Jet]

Holy fk man.... you're good for a laugh. You've turned into the biggest gaslighted on this forum.

Okay sure jfresh is 'just a guy on twitter'... but somehow you have deep insight into the flaws of statistics... at least I concede to guys that actually analyze stats for a living.

Believe Stanley is a good dman if you want - or don't I guess... your posts are such garbled bullshit now that it really is hard to tell

Ahhh the old appeal to power argument.

You call his posts garbled bullshit yet you insist on saying he thinks that Stanley is a good defenseman, which he never said.

This is why letting random internet guys create models to assess player quality is completely flawed. Bias is the enemy of truth.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Ah the death of expertise raises its head on HFJets

Fortunately we have posters here that watch each NHL game twice to assess as comprensively what a well constructed and tested model will tell us.

When you see anomolies, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Buffdog]

Ah the death of expertise raises its head on HFJets

Fortunately we have posters here that watch each NHL game twice to assess as comprensively what a well constructed and tested model will tell us.

When you see anomolies, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Are you implying JFresh is an expert?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

 

[Flair Hay]

Are you implying JFresh is an expert?

I used to think these dudes were all know it all dummies that couldn't form an opinion against what the stats said to save their life.

Now that I've had the chance to work and learn in a more corporate environment at a fortune 500 company doing problem solving for different types of problems...

Most of the "self made" analytic gurus are extremely advanced and effective problem solvers beyond. Far beyond what our business would consider normal.

And over the years the data has gotten more tested compared to 10 years ago. And there seems to be a more general understanding of the limitations.

Point I'm trying to make is if NHL clubs are like the environment I'm familiar with, staffed by smart, regular people that do a good job, make a good living and go home to their families... these online guys are likely just as good and could be even better as whole analytic departments working for teams.

Coaches aren't statisticians nor can they be predictable robots. To me, you can get a pretty good idea of what a player is made up of and how they can best be utilized from these profiles. You can lump them into buckets accurately and once you are within 10-20% it's too close to call.

If a guy is bottom 10% in these models it's because they suck and not because the data is wrong. If the data is off its likely they could be bottom 30% in which case they still kinda suck....

That's my take anyway, it's so complicated and nuanced a topic it will never get consensus anyway.

Are you implying JFresh is an expert?

I used to think these dudes were all know it all dummies that couldn't form an opinion against what the stats said to save their life.

Now that I've had the chance to work and learn in a more corporate environment at a fortune 500 company doing problem solving for different types of problems...

Most of the "self made" analytic gurus are extremely advanced and effective problem solvers beyond. Far beyond what our business would consider normal.

And over the years the data has gotten more tested compared to 10 years ago. And there seems to be a more general understanding of the limitations.

Point I'm trying to make is if NHL clubs are like the environment I'm familiar with, staffed by smart, regular people that do a good job, make a good living and go home to their families... these online guys are likely just as good and could be even better as whole analytic departments working for teams.

Coaches aren't statisticians nor can they be predictable robots. To me, you can get a pretty good idea of what a player is made up of and how they can best be utilized from these profiles. You can lump them into buckets accurately and once you are within 10-20% it's too close to call.

If a guy is bottom 10% in these models it's because they suck and not because the data is wrong. If the data is off its likely they could be bottom 30% in which case they still kinda suck....

That's my take anyway, it's so complicated and nuanced a topic it will never get consensus anyway.

 

[ps241]

You can't predict the future, though.

In hindsight (and probably foresight) Schmidt was a bad acquisition, but I think Chevy was forced out of his comfort zone after the mass exodus of defenseman and his inability to respond to it quickly. I think he overcorrected - but I guess he was banking on getting Vegas Schmidt not Vancouver Schmidt.

I think Dillon was a really good move - he improved the team, and we can hardly blame him for us not winning playoff rounds.

Buff hitting the wall and retiring unannounced really set us back. Subtracting our then franchise D man as we were purging D depth for cap reasons was a death blow to the D core which was only saved by Vezinabuyck

 

[Buffdog]

I used to think these dudes were all know it all dummies that couldn't form an opinion against what the stats said to save their life.

Now that I've had the chance to work and learn in a more corporate environment at a fortune 500 company doing problem solving for different types of problems...

Most of the "self made" analytic gurus are extremely advanced and effective problem solvers beyond. Far beyond what our business would consider normal.

And over the years the data has gotten more tested compared to 10 years ago. And there seems to be a more general understanding of the limitations.

Point I'm trying to make is if NHL clubs are like the environment I'm familiar with, staffed by smart, regular people that do a good job, make a good living and go home to their families... these online guys are likely just as good and could be even better as whole analytic departments working for teams.

Coaches aren't statisticians nor can they be predictable robots. To me, you can get a pretty good idea of what a player is made up of and how they can best be utilized from these profiles. You can lump them into buckets accurately and once you are within 10-20% it's too close to call.

If a guy is bottom 10% in these models it's because they suck and not because the data is wrong. If the data is off its likely they could be bottom 30% in which case they still kinda suck....

That's my take anyway, it's so complicated and nuanced a topic it will never get consensus anyway.


I used to think these dudes were all know it all dummies that couldn't form an opinion against what the stats said to save their life.

Now that I've had the chance to work and learn in a more corporate environment at a fortune 500 company doing problem solving for different types of problems...

Most of the "self made" analytic gurus are extremely advanced and effective problem solvers beyond. Far beyond what our business would consider normal.

And over the years the data has gotten more tested compared to 10 years ago. And there seems to be a more general understanding of the limitations.

Point I'm trying to make is if NHL clubs are like the environment I'm familiar with, staffed by smart, regular people that do a good job, make a good living and go home to their families... these online guys are likely just as good and could be even better as whole analytic departments working for teams.

Coaches aren't statisticians nor can they be predictable robots. To me, you can get a pretty good idea of what a player is made up of and how they can best be utilized from these profiles. You can lump them into buckets accurately and once you are within 10-20% it's too close to call.

If a guy is bottom 10% in these models it's because they suck and not because the data is wrong. If the data is off its likely they could be bottom 30% in which case they still kinda suck....

That's my take anyway, it's so complicated and nuanced a topic it will never get consensus anyway.

Good reply

Again, for rhe record, I didn't say that JFresh or anyone else is useless and should be ignored altogether. I'm sure what he does has value

I'm just saying that his charts can't be the end-all-be-all in player evaluation like the poster I was having a back and forth with was implying

Stats, eye test, models... they ALL have value when trying to assess a player's strengths and weaknesses, and how they compare to other players

 

[Gil Fisher]

Are you implying JFresh is an expert?

relatively speaking? yes.

It's a full-time job for him. The things he puts out passes the sniff test 80-90% of the time, so i'm fine relying on it for my amateur opinions on here. Model says Stanley is not good? Passes the eye test. Model says Pionk is bad? Passes the eye test. Model says Morrissey is great offensively and Demelo is good defensively? Passes the eye test. Model says Samber is a decent defenseman? Passes the eye test. Model says Kovacevic is a decent defenseman? Haven't had eyes on him, but I'm inclined to believe it with a caveat that there are anomolies.

I'm just saying that his charts can't be the end-all-be-all in player evaluation like the poster I was having a back and forth with was implying

I don't think it's even worth mentioning if it's only one poster (not sure if you mean maukkis or me). Almost no one would say player cards are the be all and end all of player evaluation.

 

[Buffdog]

relatively speaking? yes.

It's a full-time job for him. The things he puts out passes the sniff test 80-90% of the time, so i'm fine relying on it for my amateur opinions on here. Model says Stanley is not good? Passes the eye test. Model says Pionk is bad? Passes the eye test. Model says Morrissey is great offensively and Demelo is good defensively? Passes the eye test. Model says Samber is a decent defenseman? Passes the eye test. Model says Kovacevic is a decent defenseman? Haven't had eyes on him, but I'm inclined to believe it with a caveat that there are anomolies.


I don't think it's even worth mentioning if it's only one poster (not sure if you mean maukkis or me). Almost no one would say player cards are the be all and end all of player evaluation.

It wasn't maukkis

Again, I'm not debating your first paragraph. But that wasn't the discussion that I was having with @WolfHouse that spawned all this bullshit

As for your first paragraph, I agree. But we also don't necessarily need charts to know that JoMo is good and Stanley is bad. They *may* come in handy when they DON'T match the eye test, as they might provide some insight as to why someone who appears to be having an impact (positive OR nevative) isn't statistically doing so

All I said was that both Stanley and Kova are bottom pairing Dmen (at best) with similar value. His position was that Kovacevic has way more value. And yes, he used the charts as his only argument (after he claimed that Kova had better "advanced stats", which I pointed out was false"

 

[Flair Hay]

The way I remember it the wording was that Kovacevic and Stanley were "not comparable"

To me that is saying:
-one guy played 3rd pair minutes and was around league average defenseman results wise
-one guy played 3rd pair minutes and was worse than most defenseman in the league results wise

I can see why he would say they are "not comparable" even if there usage has been somewhat similar. One is solid and one is not solid. That's a fair assessment from these player cards imo.

It does seem like we kept the wrong big defenseman so far. Maybe Big Stan can prove his doubters wrong. Zadarov sure wasn't a $5M player 5 years ago. I thought he sucked pretty bad but I can't remember how he would compare with Stanley.

 

[Buffdog]

The way I remember it the wording was that Kovacevic and Stanley were "not comparable"

To me that is saying:
-one guy played 3rd pair minutes and was around league average defenseman results wise
-one guy played 3rd pair minutes and was worse than most defenseman in the league results wise

I can see why he would say they are "not comparable" even if there usage has been somewhat similar. One is solid and one is not solid. That's a fair assessment from these player cards imo.

It does seem like we kept the wrong big defenseman so far. Maybe Big Stan can prove his doubters wrong. Zadarov sure wasn't a $5M player 5 years ago. I thought he sucked pretty bad but I can't remember how he would compare with Stanley.

What "results" are you talking about? JFresh charts? Those aren't results, they're models

 

[MelikeJets]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Buffdog]

Can't we all just get along?

We're all getting along, just not agreeing - which is 100% fine

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Slow off season - we are talking about Stanley again.

The Jets are trying to make news and generate excitement with news about replacement level players. While our Central competition gets better, we talk about guys like Stanley, Coghlan, Shaw and Gustaffson. Oh, and the piece of work who won't sign here, Rutty McGhorseshit.

Oh well.

 

[Stumbledore]

Another day, another pissing contest....

 

[ps241]

Can't we all just get along?

Debate is a good thing.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

He is neither bad nor good but he is serviceable. This contract actually makes him more tradeable as well since teams will know what they are going to be paying.

It hardly moves the needle or really deserves massive discussion at this point IMO. I mean if they slot in the top 4 for sure discuss away but I think he is in the press box unless Heinola shits the bed.

 

[jokesondee]

Stanley sucks
/end of debate

 

[Al Camino]

He wont be top 6 guys….its ok

I fear history says he will be. They just can't quit him.

 

[WolfHouse]

Ahhh the old appeal to power argument.

You call his posts garbled bullshit yet you insist on saying he thinks that Stanley is a good defenseman, which he never said.

This is why letting random internet guys create models to assess player quality is completely flawed. Bias is the enemy of truth.

No idiots are the enemy of the truth.

Both of you are conveniently twisting any arguments in an extreme manner - like oh 'you ONLY trust a random internet dude' - and acting as if you guys aren't LESS informed than said random internet dude

There's a lot of shots at Garret on here, JFresh, etc... anyone knows that you take a holistic approach to data - look at various models, look at the basic statistics and then make an informed decision. Models already do that and the guys who make them are always careful to point out their potential flaws.

When someone uses ANY example that doesn't agree with you - both you and @Buffdog portray it like we are worshipping this one and ONLY ONE form of data.

I hate to break it to you guys - but we all watch the same games and see the same players, their actions form our bias - models and statistics exist to either confirm or reject this bias based on an array of data.

Neither of you - nor I - spend significant time analyzing data. When someone quotes a model or statistics, your only answer is to take things to an extreme example in order to refute that data... like @Buffdog arguing that I said 'statistics' instead model - when they serve the same purpose.

The level of banality that this board has reached makes me think its time for a break...

Here's your facts to end this ridiculousness
The Jets are stuck in a sunk-cost fallacy with Stanley - the odds of him emerging are almost zero
We are paying him twice what a 7th Dman should be making - in that sense he's using $$ that could go towards another asset
Nothing shows that he's an effective PKer - eye test or stats
He has only played extremely sheltered minutes - leaving our top 4 with a heavier workload
His stats this year were elevated by the Samberg effect
He was fatally exposed in the playoffs
He is slow and does not read lanes well
He has a long reach

Good luck with the Stan fan club... you're going to need it.

 

[JetsFan815]

For a guy who constantly bitches about the misuse of fancy stats.. you sure do you're share of it

Oh and here's your answers once you start complaining about how this isn't a holistic picture of the player...
2022 JFreshHockey NHL Player Card Explainer

I will concede that Stanley's card likely has a bounce back for the 2023-24 season - but I can also guarantee that bounce doesn't reach Kova's slump.

Not only JFresh... pretty much every other model (HockeyViz, EvolvingWild) shows Kovacevic as a solid d-man who is atleast a good bottom pairing d-man and potentially even more. Any Jets fans who dismiss what he is as a player must have a concentrated supply of copium. Kovacevic for me is a pretty good litmus test to differentiate between those Jets fans who are objective and those who are homers.

I am not fully convinced about Chisholm yet but Kovacevic is pretty much undeniable at this point.