Prospect Info: Quinton Byfield (2nd Overall 2020 Draft) Discussion part II

[2-4 Slashin]

Absolutely. Unless the kid takes off like a rocket, T-Mac should be kept as far from the kids as possible. Because of this tendency I see in our coach, I think Vilardis first nhl record goal, ended up hurting him under this coaching staff

 

[Statto]

This explains precisely why Arty's ice time on the PP is low. It's not lousy deployment, it's efficient deployment.

McJesus and Drai have 20 fewer shifts than Arty, yet nearly twice his ice time. It also strongly suggests that we have two really good powerplay units. The 2nd gets deployed against a weaker PK unit and they are feasting on that. Arty's average PP shift is around 50 seconds - compared to around 2 minutes with a lot of those guys on the list.

If there is one thing I wouldn't change it's how Arty is used on the PP, it's been damn near perfect. His ES time could use some bumping up, but he's gotta find someone he meshes with.

It’s not how I read the numbers at all.

It isn’t efficient because the 1st unit frequently gets 90 seconds plus and it’s a single long shift, rather than 2x 45 second shifts (which would be very different). So its not great deployment because short shifts work better for this team from what I’ve seen, regardless of situation. Its different if you’ve got complete puck control and dominate on the PP like Edmonton. You can get then away with it to some degree but the way we play is absolutely dependent on intensity so favours short shifts, especially with the ages of the two mainstays of the unit. The second unit comes on plays sharper and with more intensity, they also play the systeam differently - with what looks like consistent buy in.

That’s what I see on the ice and it’s also how I interpret the numbers.

 

[unicornpig]

This explains precisely why Arty's ice time on the PP is low. It's not lousy deployment, it's efficient deployment.

McJesus and Drai have 20 fewer shifts than Arty, yet nearly twice his ice time. It also strongly suggests that we have two really good powerplay units. The 2nd gets deployed against a weaker PK unit and they are feasting on that. Arty's average PP shift is around 50 seconds - compared to around 2 minutes with a lot of those guys on the list.

If there is one thing I wouldn't change it's how Arty is used on the PP, it's been damn near perfect. His ES time could use some bumping up, but he's gotta find someone he meshes with.

we only have one

 

[Fishhead]

It’s not how I read the numbers at all.

It isn’t efficient because the 1st unit frequently gets 90 seconds plus and it’s a single long shift, rather than 2x 45 second shifts (which would be very different). So its not great deployment because short shifts work better for this team from what I’ve seen, regardless of situation. Its different if you’ve got complete puck control and dominate on the PP like Edmonton. You can get then away with it to some degree but the way we play is absolutely dependent on intensity so favours short shifts, especially with the ages of the two mainstays of the unit. The second unit comes on plays sharper and with more intensity, they also play the systeam differently - with what looks like consistent buy in.

That’s what I see on the ice and it’s also how I interpret the numbers.

It could be interpreted that way as well. I don't know if it's a minute and a half, but they definitely are out there a minute plus. Our first unit does hold possession well, they just don't shoot well. How much of it is the 2nd unit being sharper/better? Well, when they go out there first they struggle a lot more than if they come in halfway through. We tend to score a lot of goals right after the PP is ended as well, so there is that.

Like you said, shorter shifts are the key. I'd like to see the two units roll over quicker as well. Although I wouldn't change much with how it's working right now.

 

[bland]

Statistics being misunderstood? You don't say.


The reality is that the Kings PP is better with Kaliyev and no, he doesn't get as much time as the less productive unit. That's what matters, not a collection of data from all situations over the course of a season that doesn't have any predictive impact at all.

A statistical compilation provides an average, not an expectation. To over simplify, if a dude scores 6 goals for 3 months in a row it is reasonable to expect 6 in the 4th month. But if he scores 12 then 1 then 5, no, it doesn't mean that you can expect 6 in the 4th month.

 

[BringTheReign]

Kaliyev is going to score 20+ power play goals each season for the next 10 years and it's going to be awesome.

 

[Fishhead]

Statistics can be misunderstood if one doesn't understand the context or what they are looking at, but usually it's just because they can be interpreted in different ways. For people who live in a more black and white world, where they believe there is this way and that way only with nothing in between, or those who believe there is one right way to do things, they aren't going to be as useful. It's very easy to find exceptions to most stats, so if it doesn't support it's easy to write it off as a faulty stat.

For those with a healthy dose of grey who believes there are different ways to see things and where realities aren't always mutually exclusive, they tend to say a lot more. The biggest problem with sports stats is they aren't "icing on the cake" like when applied to science, business, etc. They are predictory, just not to the extent of say, a scientific study.

There are still people out there who think something like Corsi is useless, for example, when for about 6 or 7 years it was the #1 predictor of playoff success. The correlation between the top 16 playoff teams and Corsi was close to 1:1. Cup winners were generally top 10 or top 5. It still is a very strong predictor, but because correlation is closer to 85% now some pundits grab onto that 15% and hold on for dear life.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Statistics can be misunderstood if one doesn't understand the context or what they are looking at, but usually it's just because they can be interpreted in different ways. For people who live in a more black and white world, where they believe there is this way and that way only with nothing in between, or those who believe there is one right way to do things, they aren't going to be as useful. It's very easy to find exceptions to most stats, so if it doesn't support it's easy to write it off as a faulty stat.

For those with a healthy dose of grey who believes there are different ways to see things and where realities aren't always mutually exclusive, they tend to say a lot more. The biggest problem with sports stats is they aren't "icing on the cake" like when applied to science, business, etc. They are predictory, just not to the extent of say, a scientific study.

There are still people out there who think something like Corsi is useless, for example, when for about 6 or 7 years it was the #1 predictor of playoff success. The correlation between the top 16 playoff teams and Corsi was close to 1:1. Cup winners were generally top 10 or top 5. It still is a very strong predictor, but because correlation is closer to 85% now some pundits grab onto that 15% and hold on for dear life.

Much like xGF% (even public models) over the course of a full season has close to a 1:1 relationship with the top 16 playoff teams lately. It’s clearly measuring something important out on the ice that reflects itself in the final standings over the course of a year. I admit that I don’t understand the position that seems to permeate some discussions that stats are useless if they’re not 100% predictive at all times.

 

[bmr]

Kaliyev is going to score 20+ power play goals each season for the next 10 years and it's going to be awesome.

Getting Kaliyev in that 2019 draft year was a gift and it makes the sting of Turcotte hurt a lot less. We basically got three 1st rounders.

 

[tbrown33]

Our first unit does hold possession well, they just don't shoot well.

Not really. Any NHL PP unit can pass it slowly around the perimeter without ever trying to get the puck to high danger areas. Every PK in the league will just let you do that. That's what the Kopitar unit does.

 

[johnjm22]

Remember that Byfield turned 20 just a few months ago.

7g, 10pts, in 10gp in the AHL directly after coming off being sick, and being this young, is very good. It's not amazing, but very very good.

I hope the Kings let him get comfortable, and let him get into a groove down in the AHL and don't yank him out of it right away. Let him ripen on the vine.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Not really. Any NHL PP unit can pass it slowly around the perimeter without ever trying to get the puck to high danger areas. Every PK in the league will just let you do that. That's what the Kopitar unit does.

Yep. These are most telling to me: Kaliyev unit is generating way more shot attempts and scoring chances per 60 minutes of ice time, and that unit is blowing away Kopitar’s units in points per 60.

 

[bland]

Statistics can be misunderstood if one doesn't understand the context or what they are looking at, but usually it's just because they can be interpreted in different ways. For people who live in a more black and white world, where they believe there is this way and that way only with nothing in between, or those who believe there is one right way to do things, they aren't going to be as useful. It's very easy to find exceptions to most stats, so if it doesn't support it's easy to write it off as a faulty stat.

For those with a healthy dose of grey who believes there are different ways to see things and where realities aren't always mutually exclusive, they tend to say a lot more. The biggest problem with sports stats is they aren't "icing on the cake" like when applied to science, business, etc. They are predictory, just not to the extent of say, a scientific study.

There are still people out there who think something like Corsi is useless, for example, when for about 6 or 7 years it was the #1 predictor of playoff success. The correlation between the top 16 playoff teams and Corsi was close to 1:1. Cup winners were generally top 10 or top 5. It still is a very strong predictor, but because correlation is closer to 85% now some pundits grab onto that 15% and hold on for dear life.

Totally incorrect. Stats ARE the black and white thinking. They are merely a numerical compilation, nothing more, nothing less. No nuance, strictly open to interpretation.

The fallacy is that the numbers from one team to another, one line, one player, have equal value when used to compare and contrast as evidence. Hockey has the greatest variance of events on all of sports - players come and go during live play and leave impact on active play even from the bench. The sheer amount of data necessary to get an accurate picture of events requires far - FAR more study than the few generalized calculations folks use to develop opinions.

That simply isn't so. No two teams play the same, line combinations change, situations change - the numbers on hand do not include the situational variances.

Expected goals, Corsi, all ridiculous. Good hockey teams score more goals, allow fewer and generally show a greater sense of control and consistency than poor teams. The problem is that the thinking became "if we improve our Corsi or xG, we will be better". Corsi is a product of playing a certain style of hockey - its value is next to nothing because other teams with different roster makeups different goals and different coaching styles can accomish the exact same results while playing wildly different brands of hockey that spike differing types of statistical numerations.

Our light-thinking general manager just embarrasingly said that the Kings need to get their expected goals against numbers to more closely match the actual goals against. That is such bullcrap. The Kings need to defend better - ALL stats are products of play, not indicators. The goaltending here has been poor, defending even worse. The roster makeup isn't going to be reflected in the data.

Stats are a crutch, thats it. Something to lean on for support.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Totally incorrect. Stats ARE the black and white thinking. They are merely a numerical compilation, nothing more, nothing less. No nuance, strictly open to interpretation.

The fallacy is that the numbers from one team to another, one line, one player, have equal value when used to compare and contrast as evidence. Hockey has the greatest variance of events on all of sports - players come and go during live play and leave impact on active play even from the bench. The sheer amount of data necessary to get an accurate picture of events requires far - FAR more study than the few generalized calculations folks use to develop opinions.

That simply isn't so. No two teams play the same, line combinations change, situations change - the numbers on hand do not include the situational variances.

Expected goals, Corsi, all ridiculous. Good hockey teams score more goals, allow fewer and generally show a greater sense of control and consistency than poor teams. The problem is that the thinking became "if we improve our Corsi or xG, we will be better". Corsi is a product of playing a certain style of hockey - its value is next to nothing because other teams with different roster makeups different goals and different coaching styles can accomish the exact same results while playing wildly different brands of hockey that spike differing types of statistical numerations.

Our light-thinking general manager just embarrasingly said that the Kings need to get their expected goals against numbers to more closely match the actual goals against. That is such bullcrap. The Kings need to defend better - ALL stats are products of play, not indicators. The goaltending here has been poor, defending even worse. The roster makeup isn't going to be reflected in the data.

Stats are a crutch, thats it. Something to lean on for support.

We probably shouldn’t even count goals, keep score, award points to teams, or anything, really. What’s the point?

 

[lumbergh]

Statistics can be misunderstood if one doesn't understand the context or what they are looking at, but usually it's just because they can be interpreted in different ways. For people who live in a more black and white world, where they believe there is this way and that way only with nothing in between, or those who believe there is one right way to do things, they aren't going to be as useful. It's very easy to find exceptions to most stats, so if it doesn't support it's easy to write it off as a faulty stat.

For those with a healthy dose of grey who believes there are different ways to see things and where realities aren't always mutually exclusive, they tend to say a lot more. The biggest problem with sports stats is they aren't "icing on the cake" like when applied to science, business, etc. They are predictory, just not to the extent of say, a scientific study.

There are still people out there who think something like Corsi is useless, for example, when for about 6 or 7 years it was the #1 predictor of playoff success. The correlation between the top 16 playoff teams and Corsi was close to 1:1. Cup winners were generally top 10 or top 5. It still is a very strong predictor, but because correlation is closer to 85% now some pundits grab onto that 15% and hold on for dear life.

Much like xGF% (even public models) over the course of a full season has close to a 1:1 relationship with the top 16 playoff teams lately. It’s clearly measuring something important out on the ice that reflects itself in the final standings over the course of a year. I admit that I don’t understand the position that seems to permeate some discussions that stats are useless if they’re not 100% predictive at all times.

I'm not saying Corsi is useless, but it's one of the worst of the "advanced stats" at correlation with point% and playoff success. Depending on the season, you're looking at a low to medium correlation. Not a single Stanley Cup Champion in the past 5 Cup Finals finished the regular season in the top 6 in CorsiFor%.

xGF% correlation with point% has gotten better over time, as models have improved, but the best correlation has been PDO. Last season was the first time xGF% had a better correlation with point% than PDO on Natural Stat Trick.

The last 5 Cup winner all had PDO% of 1.015 or higher, ranking 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, and 3rd during the regular season. I'll say this until I'm blue in the face. PDO is really the only "advanced stat" you really need to pay attention to. Corsi can help explain some of a team's success, but it's not great. xGF% is about as good as PDO, but nobody has any idea how to calculate it or what it means, so it's not all that useful.

 

[Fishhead]

I'm not saying Corsi is useless, but it's one of the worst of the "advanced stats" at correlation with point% and playoff success. Depending on the season, you're looking at a low to medium correlation. Not a single Stanley Cup Champion in the past 5 Cup Finals finished the regular season in the top 6 in CorsiFor%.

xGF% correlation with point% has gotten better over time, as models have improved, but the best correlation has been PDO. Last season was the first time xGF% had a better correlation with point% than PDO on Natural Stat Trick.

The last 5 Cup winner all had PDO% of 1.015 or higher, ranking 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, and 3rd during the regular season. I'll say this until I'm blue in the face. PDO is really the only "advanced stat" you really need to pay attention to. Corsi can help explain some of a team's success, but it's not great. xGF% is about as good as PDO, but nobody has any idea how to calculate it or what it means, so it's not all that useful.

Things definitely change over time. Corsi was highly correlated with success about 10 years ago, but playstyle has changed. Once things opened up more because of playstyle and rule changes it became far less useful because teams weren't hanging on to the puck as long, trying to score by wearing down the opposition.

That's interesting about PDO, and it doesn't surprise me. In an open game the teams that can finish are the ones that will flourish. I'm not talking about banging in rebounds or clogging up the middle hoping for deflections, I'm talking about finishing off the rush. Shooting percentage is far more valuable than it was 10 years ago when it was more just toss it at the net. Goalies who fight through traffic and screens (Quick) aren't nearly as useful either, you need a goalie that can beat players in a more open game.

I was making $$$ hand over fist on bets when Corsi was king, I should try PDO!

 

[Fishhead]

Totally incorrect. Stats ARE the black and white thinking. They are merely a numerical compilation, nothing more, nothing less. No nuance, strictly open to interpretation.

The fallacy is that the numbers from one team to another, one line, one player, have equal value when used to compare and contrast as evidence. Hockey has the greatest variance of events on all of sports - players come and go during live play and leave impact on active play even from the bench. The sheer amount of data necessary to get an accurate picture of events requires far - FAR more study than the few generalized calculations folks use to develop opinions.

That simply isn't so. No two teams play the same, line combinations change, situations change - the numbers on hand do not include the situational variances.

Expected goals, Corsi, all ridiculous. Good hockey teams score more goals, allow fewer and generally show a greater sense of control and consistency than poor teams. The problem is that the thinking became "if we improve our Corsi or xG, we will be better". Corsi is a product of playing a certain style of hockey - its value is next to nothing because other teams with different roster makeups different goals and different coaching styles can accomish the exact same results while playing wildly different brands of hockey that spike differing types of statistical numerations.

Our light-thinking general manager just embarrasingly said that the Kings need to get their expected goals against numbers to more closely match the actual goals against. That is such bullcrap. The Kings need to defend better - ALL stats are products of play, not indicators. The goaltending here has been poor, defending even worse. The roster makeup isn't going to be reflected in the data.

Stats are a crutch, thats it. Something to lean on for support.

Stats aren't black and white, they don't have any belief. They are unbiased representations.

What you are explaining is that understanding which stat to look at in what situation is what is important.
Corsi is certainly a product of playing a certain style of hockey, and that style was dominant for several years resulting in playoff appearances for those teams who played that style. Corsi was just a representation of that, so GM's started looking at it and how to improve it. What they missed is you have to have the correct players for that type of possession style, and trying to out-corsi your opponent did nothing if you didn't have the horses - square peg, round hole and all that. That trap is the one to avoid, because Using a stat to mold your team is folly. What's important is going to change over time. By the time your team matures things may look much different, you have to be ahead of the game.

The one big stroke of genius that DL had was recognizing that relentless checking and possession play was the ticket to success in that era of the NHL. They used possession statistics to great effect, knowing exactly which type of players would fit into the machine to fill out the roster. It was also his downfall because as things shifted he was stuck with the wrong horses.

It's not the stats fault, if you use them correctly it's a huge advantage.

 

[bland]

We probably shouldn’t even count goals, keep score, award points to teams, or anything, really. What’s the point?

Nice work.

Stats aren't black and white, they don't have any belief. They are unbiased representations.

What you are explaining is that understanding which stat to look at in what situation is what is important.
Corsi is certainly a product of playing a certain style of hockey, and that style was dominant for several years resulting in playoff appearances for those teams who played that style. Corsi was just a representation of that, so GM's started looking at it and how to improve it. What they missed is you have to have the correct players for that type of possession style, and trying to out-corsi your opponent did nothing if you didn't have the horses - square peg, round hole and all that. That trap is the one to avoid, because Using a stat to mold your team is folly. What's important is going to change over time. By the time your team matures things may look much different, you have to be ahead of the game.

The one big stroke of genius that DL had was recognizing that relentless checking and possession play was the ticket to success in that era of the NHL. They used possession statistics to great effect, knowing exactly which type of players would fit into the machine to fill out the roster. It was also his downfall because as things shifted he was stuck with the wrong horses.

It's not the stats fault, if you use them correctly it's a huge advantage.

But you are over-romanticizing this era of fetishized sports statistics. Numbers ARE black and white. They offer no interpretation. The arguments based on them are virtually all mathematically faulty.

Numbers accumulated in an 8-2 out of conference game in October have the exact same statistical value as those of a 2-1 divisional game in March. No deviation there, just a collection of digits telling no story, offering no insight, no value at all. Black and white, nothing inbetween.

How many goals against have the Kings allowed specifically because Durzi is playing on the wrong side? A minimum of 8 or 9, likely in the teens. There were three the other night and two of them were singularly incompetent plays that led to two goals that were not "expected". Nothing a goalie can do about a routine shot that a lefty would have deflected into the stands 99 times out of a 100, yet the data won't reflect that.

Teams have a finite amount of resources and limited practice time. Using data that lacks relevance to make scouting and scheming decisions is an unnecessary disadvantage and when your GM openly states that you have to improve numbers instead of situations, you have to question his intelligence.

 

[Statto]

Totally incorrect. Stats ARE the black and white thinking. They are merely a numerical compilation, nothing more, nothing less. No nuance, strictly open to interpretation.

The fallacy is that the numbers from one team to another, one line, one player, have equal value when used to compare and contrast as evidence. Hockey has the greatest variance of events on all of sports - players come and go during live play and leave impact on active play even from the bench. The sheer amount of data necessary to get an accurate picture of events requires far - FAR more study than the few generalized calculations folks use to develop opinions.

That simply isn't so. No two teams play the same, line combinations change, situations change - the numbers on hand do not include the situational variances.

Expected goals, Corsi, all ridiculous. Good hockey teams score more goals, allow fewer and generally show a greater sense of control and consistency than poor teams. The problem is that the thinking became "if we improve our Corsi or xG, we will be better". Corsi is a product of playing a certain style of hockey - its value is next to nothing because other teams with different roster makeups different goals and different coaching styles can accomish the exact same results while playing wildly different brands of hockey that spike differing types of statistical numerations.

Our light-thinking general manager just embarrasingly said that the Kings need to get their expected goals against numbers to more closely match the actual goals against. That is such bullcrap. The Kings need to defend better - ALL stats are products of play, not indicators. The goaltending here has been poor, defending even worse. The roster makeup isn't going to be reflected in the data.

Stats are a crutch, thats it. Something to lean on for support.

Disagree completely with the last line. They are useful bits of information that should be used to form an objective assessment. The issue is always how they are used and if they are being used to make a point with bias or scientifically to prove or disprove a hypothesis (best analogy I can think of).

I agree with you on how XG is used to compare teams, but for player performance it’s useful. XG, is also useful (not conclusive) in assessing if the system is working in terms of the team execution, or not. Without a doubt the Kings aren’t executing consistently and we don’t need the stats to tell us that but there are times when those sorts of numbers are incredibly helpful. The eye test is great game to game but over time it is incredibly biased and distorted. The numbers help keep those views and assessments grounded IF used right. Regardless of what is said publicly I’m sure the stats boys present the data properly, but how that’s then received I can only guess. The worst thing about most of these stats is the fans get them now and think they know how to interpret/use them - +/- is the most obvious one, but far from the only one. Genuinely I don’t think that for 1 second think +/- should be published

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Gretzky had lifetime 149 SH points in apx 1487 games and its 1 SH pt / 10 games...close to Qb's 78 career games, 22 pts....or 1 in every 5. Ok, not close. But if you factor in how many MINUTES of Shorthanded time, Gretzky did that, (not avialable to find) it may be close, compared to QB's TOI / all siutuation pts. It would probably be close to equal. So, TGO (the great one) could score the same amount of SH pts QB is currently producing in ALL his career icetime, thus far, in TOI pts.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Gretzky had lifetime 149 SH points in apx 1487 games and its 1 SH pt / 10 games...close to Qb's 78 career games, 22 pts....or 1 in every 5. Ok, not close. But if you factor in how many MINUTES of Shorthanded time, Gretzky did that, (not avialable to find) it may be close, compared to QB's TOI / all siutuation pts. It would probably be close to equal. So, TGO (the great one) could score the same amount of SH pts QB is currently producing in ALL his career icetime, thus far, in TOI pts.

I'm not sure why you're making these types of posts across three threads.

It's not much of a 'gotcha' to evaluate QB's entire career on his PPG up till age 20.

In fact, it's kind of bad faith bullshit, and I'm not used to it coming from you, which is why I'm curious what's going thru your head that you feel compelled to motherf*** the guy so much using weird, obscure lenses.

 

[MBH]

I'm not saying Corsi is useless, but it's one of the worst of the "advanced stats" at correlation with point% and playoff success. Depending on the season, you're looking at a low to medium correlation. Not a single Stanley Cup Champion in the past 5 Cup Finals finished the regular season in the top 6 in CorsiFor%.

xGF% correlation with point% has gotten better over time, as models have improved, but the best correlation has been PDO. Last season was the first time xGF% had a better correlation with point% than PDO on Natural Stat Trick.

The last 5 Cup winner all had PDO% of 1.015 or higher, ranking 6th, 1st, 1st, 6th, and 3rd during the regular season. I'll say this until I'm blue in the face. PDO is really the only "advanced stat" you really need to pay attention to. Corsi can help explain some of a team's success, but it's not great. xGF% is about as good as PDO, but nobody has any idea how to calculate it or what it means, so it's not all that useful.

How do you gameplan for PDO?
You go out and get PDO guys and hope it works?

First line
Jamie Benn-Trent Frederic-Jack Quinn
Matt Grzelcyk-Ryan McDonough

-

 

[Statto]

I'm not sure why you're making these types of posts across three threads.

It's not much of a 'gotcha' to evaluate QB's entire career on his PPG up till age 20.

In fact, it's kind of bad faith bullshit, and I'm not used to it coming from you, which is why I'm curious what's going thru your head that you feel compelled to motherf*** the guy so much using weird, obscure lenses.

I’m not sure that Gretzky is a fair stick with which to beat any player. He redefined hockey and mastered shorthand offence to the point where he and Kurri were actually more dangerous due to the extra space.

 

[MBH]

Interesting thing to me, looking at P/60...
Byfield looks ok.
9th on the team is kind of meh.
1.59 is third linish numbers.
Especiall when 1/2 is secondary assists.
Especially when Kopitar is at 2.27.
Kempe, however, is only at 1.69.

Why is Vilardi (2.02) relegated to L3?

And what happened to Arvidsson? Trevor Moore?
Moore got paid and his rate dropped to his lowest as a King.

 

[Maynard]

I'm not sure why you're making these types of posts across three threads.

It's not much of a 'gotcha' to evaluate QB's entire career on his PPG up till age 20.

In fact, it's kind of bad faith bullshit, and I'm not used to it coming from you, which is why I'm curious what's going thru your head that you feel compelled to motherf*** the guy so much using weird, obscure lenses.

I can’t be sure of this, but I think he throws 10 gallons of shit against the wall, then bookmarks his posts so that in the event he’s right about one of his posts, he can quote himself at a later date and tell us all, “Look everyone! I was right about something!”

It’s basically the message board version of jacking off in the mirror.