The Advanced Stats Thread Episode VII: An Ode to the Sanity of Silverfish

[Machinehead]

Maybe I'm behind the times, if so I apologize.

No need, I think you're bringing up solid points.

But the poster in question is smart enough to know what he's doing and has a reputation for being contrarian for the hell of it. I don't think that's welcome.

Like I said, another poster was making the same argument right before it started, but he wasn't being derogatory and everything was fine.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

silverfish says overpay good players and underpay bad players. I like that. But allow me to add another layer.

Are they really overpayed? I mean, almost every player is overpaid if you go by the reaction to their contracts. Almost all of them.

If that's what they get now, and that's what the market dictates now, then they're not overpaid. Who's to say JVR isn't worth 7 when elite players get 10.5 minimum?

I would argue that the team cap celling isn't keeping up with these demands at all, but that's a different argument from saying the players are overpaid.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and I’ve come to settle on the idea that contracts should be announced as (and we should get accustomed to) percentage of the cap. I feel like that would standardize things when the cap ceiling and floor is continually changing

 

[silverfish]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently and I’ve come to settle on the idea that contracts should be announced as (and we should get accustomed to) percentage of the cap. I feel like that would standardize things when the cap ceiling and floor is continually changing

This would be good. I'd also like to see an index to league minimum.

But I'd like to revise my quote to: "Overpay good players, underpay depth". Don't sign bad players

Like, EK65 8x11? No hesitation.

 

[silverfish]

Loving this MSG propaganda show right now

 

[Mac n Gs]

Loving this MSG propaganda show right now

It's gonna be a puff piece about our prospects, but they need to do this for the casual fans who have never heard of these kids until two weeks ago

 

[Kakko]

It's gonna be a puff piece about our prospects, but they need to do this for the casual fans who have never heard of these kids until two weeks ago

Tbf, half of the people here hadn't heard of any of them, except maybe Kravtsov

 

[Hunter Gathers]

He didn't just disagree. He expressed sentiments against the very topic of the thread. Derailing threads is against the rules.

ROFL. Wait, so now disagreeing with a premise (and your absurd view on life) is "against the rules"? Give me a break. The irony in this portion of this post is going to go by the wayside, though.

Maybe don't question advanced stats in the advanced stats thread?

Shocking concept, I know.

"Don't question me about something I like."

But the poster in question is smart enough to know what he's doing and has a reputation for being contrarian for the hell of it. I don't think that's welcome.

Talk about projection.

 

[silverfish]

CHARACTER! Drink @Machinehead

 

[Hunter Gathers]

CHARACTER! Drink @Machinehead

I think the irony is that nearly every single person on this board believes that character and intangibles are certainly overrated. I think that there is a certain group of people that just discounts them entirely, which flies in the face of all reality.

 

[silverfish]

I think the irony is that nearly every single person on this board believes that character and intangibles are certainly overrated. I think that there is a certain group of people that just discounts them entirely, which flies in the face of all reality.

I think "Character" is a hilarious meme that I'm draining because I'm a troll account now.

 

[Mac n Gs]

"Every conversation you have with him is about playing up-tempo and puck possession."

Cool, Quinn, now let's do it.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I think "Character" is a hilarious meme that I'm draining because I'm a troll account now.

It's just a silly thing to argue about since we all know that teams (and companies, groups, or other folks in real life) do obviously value it quite a bit. We may as well just acknowledge that as a basic fact of life and set it aside since it seems absurd to even have a discussion on something like that.

 

[silverfish]

It's just a silly thing to argue about since we all know that teams (and companies, groups, or other folks in real life) do obviously value it quite a bit. We may as well just acknowledge that as a basic fact of life and set it aside since it seems absurd to even have a discussion on something like that.

Well, the discussion, before I devolved it into a meme, was around how much to actually value it, and how it becomes a problem if you are valuing character [far] more than skill. I think that's a valid enough argument to have but it basically falls to opinion. What level of skill are you willing to sacrifice for an increase in character?

Tough question to answer.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, the discussion, before I devolved it into a meme, was around how much to actually value it, and how it becomes a problem if you are valuing character more than skill. I think that's a valid enough argument to have but it basically falls to opinion. What level of skill are you willing to sacrifice for an increase in character?

Tough question to answer.

That's kind of how intangibles work, though. They are impossible to actually value. I think the ideal player is a guy with good leadership capabilities to go along with a high skill level. The bold is how you actually build a team, though. Which is kind of the point that @SnowblindNYR and I were trying to get at (which I thought was a basic understanding of how life worked). You need to be careful in constructing a group of people that are not only skilled, but have that gel and glue to hold it all together.

To me, it's impossible to actually answer since it's a nebulous question that will ebb and flow depending on the team, the make-up on the team, the age of the team, the success of the team, the maturity of the team, or any other characteristic you want to pick out of a hat.

 

[silverfish]

That's kind of how intangibles work, though. They are impossible to actually value. I think the ideal player is a guy with good leadership capabilities to go along with a high skill level. The bold is how you actually build a team, though. Which is kind of the point that @SnowblindNYR and I were trying to get at (which I thought was a basic understanding of how life worked). You need to be careful in constructing a group of people that are not only skilled, but have that gel and glue to hold it all together.

To me, it's impossible to actually answer since it's a nebulous question that will ebb and flow depending on the team, the make-up on the team, the age of the team, the success of the team, the maturity of the team, or any other characteristic you want to pick out of a hat.

Right.

Which is why I am a troll meme'ing this instead of actually talking about it. Because it's totally subjective. I don't have the patience to discuss fully subjective things on this site anymore.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Right.

Which is why I am a troll meme'ing this instead of actually talking about it. Because it's totally subjective. I don't have the patience to discuss fully subjective things on this site anymore.

Hey, at least you and I can disagree and you don't run around calling the fact that someone dares to disagree "cancer".

 

[silverfish]

Hey, at least you and I can disagree and you don't run around calling the fact that someone dares to disagree "cancer".

Well, to be totally fair, I got extremely fed up with you the other day when we were discussing Duclair. And this goes back to our character vs output conversation, so it's kind of on topic. From what I remember, you were saying that he's unproductive and has been dropped by multiple teams and has reports of off-ice issues and you'll basically avoid on any basis that isn't a league minimum two-way deal. Not that two-way really matters to Dolan's pockets, but I digress.

My counterpoint to you was that when I look at Duclair, I see a player who produces at the rate of a 2nd line player (read: He's not a 2nd liner, but he produces at the same rate that you'd expect someone who is getting 2nd line minutes to produce at), as well as driving shot attempts in the correct direction. I see a 23 year old kid who will come very cheap and has 40 point potential and I see a rebuilding team looking for NHL ready young players and I saw a fit.

What you honed in on, for some reason, as it was never brought up by me, was that the only reason I wanted to Duke back was because of some nostalgia I had because he played 18 games for us. This was obviously something that never came up in any of my posts as to why I was interested in targeting Duclair, but you kept pushing it to the point where I couldn't even bring myself to keep having the discussion with you. I mean honestly, you know me, do I like anyone that plays for this team enough to be nostalgic about a return and only want them back because they played here? That probably only happened with Jagr. But like, that's f***ing Jagr.

Now, in my younger days, I may have blown up a bit more in the thread, but instead I decided to just leave the conversation behind.

My entire point here is that, while I didn't pay a ton of attention to what you and @Machinehead were discussing here, is that sometimes, and we're all guilty of it, sometimes we hone in on a perceived argument that another poster is making rather than their actual argument. And when you're having a conversation with someone and it feels like they aren't understanding what you are saying, it gets very frustrating. Especially when they assume they know what you are saying, even when you're not saying that thing.

Does anything in this post make sense? I'm going to the bodega for a sandy so please excuse any delay in response time.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well, to be totally fair, I got extremely fed up with you the other day when we were discussing Duclair. And this goes back to our character vs output conversation, so it's kind of on topic. From what I remember, you were saying that he's unproductive and has been dropped by multiple teams and has reports of off-ice issues and you'll basically avoid on any basis that isn't a league minimum two-way deal. Not that two-way really matters to Dolan's pockets, but I digress.

My counterpoint to you was that when I look at Duclair, I see a player who produces at the rate of a 2nd line player (read: He's not a 2nd liner, but he produces at the same rate that you'd expect someone who is getting 2nd line minutes to produce at), as well as driving shot attempts in the correct direction. I see a 23 year old kid who will come very cheap and has 40 point potential and I see a rebuilding team looking for NHL ready young players and I saw a fit.

What you honed in on, for some reason, as it was never brought up by me, was that the only reason I wanted to Duke back was because of some nostalgia I had because he played 18 games for us. This was obviously something that never came up in any of my posts as to why I was interested in targeting Duclair, but you kept pushing it to the point where I couldn't even bring myself to keep having the discussion with you. I mean honestly, you know me, do I like anyone that plays for this team enough to be nostalgic about a return and only want them back because they played here? That probably only happened with Jagr. But like, that's ****ing Jagr.

Now, in my younger days, I may have blown up a bit more in the thread, but instead I decided to just leave the conversation behind.

My entire point here is that, while I didn't pay a ton of attention to what you and @Machinehead were discussing here, is that sometimes, and we're all guilty of it, sometimes we hone in on a perceived argument that another poster is making rather than their actual argument. And when you're having a conversation with someone and it feels like they aren't understanding what you are saying, it gets very frustrating. Especially when they assume they know what you are saying, even when you're not saying that thing.

Does anything in this post make sense? I'm going to the bodega for a sandy so please excuse any delay in response time.

And you can feel free to disagree with me. That's what the boards are for. I don't think it's a bad thing for us to vehemently disagree on something. I have no problem with you being for signing Duclair.

What we have to be careful with, though, is doing this whole "I want to take my toys and go home" routine. Especially when the thing being debated isn't even really up for debate as it's just a fact of life. It's like me arguing against the need for grass, or something. I don't think you've ever been guilty of that (the most I've ever said for you is that I find you to be inflexible even when you say you aren't), though. It is what it is. I have a major problem with someone daring to call me contrarian when I'm not the one saying we can't be happy with the draft, can't be happy with not signing free agents, can't be happy about the state of the team, etc. It's such incredible projection that I'm not even sure how it survived "Post Reply", frankly.

At the end of the day, you and I will vehemently disagree on here. I'll say that you're inflexible to a fault and you'll say I'm not looking at something hard enough. It's the joys of sports. While we completely disagree on a lot of things, I think your takes are at least generally reasonable and I've never seen you accuse someone of "HATING ALL STATS" just for disagreeing on the use of them in a certain area.

 

[silverfish]

And you can feel free to disagree with me. That's what the boards are for. I don't think it's a bad thing for us to vehemently disagree on something. I have no problem with you being for signing Duclair.

What we have to be careful with, though, is doing this whole "I want to take my toys and go home" routine. Especially when the thing being debated isn't even really up for debate as it's just a fact of life. It's like me arguing against the need for grass, or something. I don't think you've ever been guilty of that (the most I've ever said for you is that I find you to be inflexible even when you say you aren't), though. It is what it is. I have a major problem with someone daring to call me contrarian when I'm not the one saying we can't be happy with the draft, can't be happy with not signing free agents, can't be happy about the state of the team, etc. It's such incredible projection that I'm not even sure how it survived "Post Reply", frankly.

At the end of the day, you and I will vehemently disagree on here. I'll say that you're inflexible to a fault and you'll say I'm not looking at something hard enough. It's the joys of sports. While we completely disagree on a lot of things, I think your takes are at least generally reasonable and I've never seen you accuse someone of "HATING ALL STATS" just for disagreeing on the use of them in a certain area.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think I'm particularly inflexible. It may seem that way because I bow out of conversations at a pretty substantial rate. It's not that I'm being inflexible, but I'm just saving people time. I do try more often than not to take the time to at least finish a conversation with most of the posters here whose name I recognize. There are a lot of people who quote me though with some bullshit and I'm just like... pass. I guess that can be perceived as being inflexible but that's also me trying not to get fired as most of the time I'm on HF, I'm at work But also I hate my job so if my boss is reading this you can go ahead and fire me. Do me that favor.

I could see why you are perceived as contrarian for this exact reason. Perhaps you are responding to the things that you feel strongly about which makes it seem like you're contrarian because it's not like anyone really takes the time to respond to something that they vehemently agree with.

This post of mine reminds me of that time Trump went on a rant about how great he was at being modest.

I need to log off.

 

[SA16]

If intangibles are something that are entirely subjective and cannot be measured then I really fail to see how they should be something you look at all when trying to build a team.

It's like batter vs. pitcher stats in baseball. Most people will tell you that yes, it is a real thing that some hitters may see some pitchers better, but the samples sizes are so small and skill level changes over the years that it's impossible to distinguish whether there's something real there or it's just random noise. If you use stats like "Stanton is 1 for 9 with 7 strikeouts against pitcher X" and use that to sit him that day you're just being foolish.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think I'm particularly inflexible. It may seem that way because I bow out of conversations at a pretty substantial rate. It's not that I'm being inflexible, but I'm just saving people time. I do try more often than not to take the time to at least finish a conversation with most of the posters here whose name I recognize. There are a lot of people who quote me though with some bull**** and I'm just like... pass. I guess that can be perceived as being inflexible but that's also me trying not to get fired as most of the time I'm on HF, I'm at work But also I hate my job so if my boss is reading this you can go ahead and fire me. Do me that favor.

I could see why you are perceived as contrarian for this exact reason. Perhaps you are responding to the things that you feel strongly about which makes it seem like you're contrarian because it's not like anyone really takes the time to respond to something that they vehemently agree with.

This post of mine reminds me of that time Trump went on a rant about how great he was at being modest.

I need to log off.

Hey, at least that's something you'll never see me do.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If intangibles are something that are entirely subjective and cannot be measured then I really fail to see how they should be something you look at all when trying to build a team.

It's like batter vs. pitcher stats in baseball. Most people will tell you that yes, it is a real thing that some hitters may see some pitchers better, but the samples sizes are so small and skill level changes over the years that it's impossible to distinguish whether there's something real there or it's just random noise. If you use stats like "Stanton is 1 for 9 with 7 strikeouts against pitcher X" and use that to sit him that day you're just being foolish.

Yet that's literally how life works. :shrug:

You can't build a team of people that can't at all work with each other. Just because you can't measure something on a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't have a large impact on how a team, group, company, etc. will work. As I said prior, this is what goes on every day during the typical hiring process (9/10 of that are your character and how you get along with them since your resume and background are already vetted).

It's about a balance. Like everything else.

 

[Machinehead]

And you can feel free to disagree with me. That's what the boards are for. I don't think it's a bad thing for us to vehemently disagree on something. I have no problem with you being for signing Duclair.

What we have to be careful with, though, is doing this whole "I want to take my toys and go home" routine. Especially when the thing being debated isn't even really up for debate as it's just a fact of life. It's like me arguing against the need for grass, or something. I don't think you've ever been guilty of that (the most I've ever said for you is that I find you to be inflexible even when you say you aren't), though. It is what it is. I have a major problem with someone daring to call me contrarian when I'm not the one saying we can't be happy with the draft, can't be happy with not signing free agents, can't be happy about the state of the team, etc. It's such incredible projection that I'm not even sure how it survived "Post Reply", frankly.

At the end of the day, you and I will vehemently disagree on here. I'll say that you're inflexible to a fault and you'll say I'm not looking at something hard enough. It's the joys of sports. While we completely disagree on a lot of things, I think your takes are at least generally reasonable and I've never seen you accuse someone of "HATING ALL STATS" just for disagreeing on the use of them in a certain area.

I didn't accuse you of hating all stats. I accused you of appealing to authority and falling back on "well I've seen him play."

I think you can understand that we're all sick of reading that and why some of us choose to just hide in here at this point. I wasn't upset because you disagreed. I was upset because you brought tired old arguments up that as @silverfish said, are completely subjective and lead to headaches. Call it a "safe space" or whatever if you want, but we like to be objective in here. It's a numbers thread. It exists to avoid conjecture.

I got a little fired up and I was being harsh. For that, I apologize. All I'm saying is, it would be appreciated if you set aside things like character and the opinions of GM's because we come here to NOT talk about that.

 

[Machinehead]

Also you use the S-word

 

[SA16]

Yet that's literally how life works. :shrug:

You can't build a team of people that can't at all work with each other. Just because you can't measure something on a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't have a large impact on how a team, group, company, etc. will work. As I said prior, this is what goes on every day during the typical hiring process (9/10 of that are your character and how you get along with them since your resume and background are already vetted).

It's about a balance. Like everything else.

But how do you know if the player has those intangibles before you sign them and have them on your team? If they can't be measured would you not just be better off going for the players that are the best on the ice and then when you get them in your locker room you'll see how they will mesh together? If someone really doesn't fit and is causing a problem you can always trade them away later. Obviously there are some known exceptions of players with bad reputations and such like Voynoy.