Byron Bader is another one that just sticks to his analytics.
The problem is if their model didn’t turn out accurate, the model isn’t the problem, it’s simply that the player is an exceptional case. There really isn’t a learning process to it.
Oh yeah 100%, we're already seeing that with Slafkovsky where it's getting treated like some absolute bolt from the blue that an ultra toolsy 6'3 230lb skilled forward has progressed while he's still a teenager.
The thing about Slafkovsky too is that it's not even like he was some wild crazy pick just from a statwatching perspective, it's just that for whatever reason everyone decided that half of his games didn't count. 10 points in 31 Liiga games was all that got discussed, when in reality his numbers were 33P in 64 games between Liiga/Playoffs/Worlds/Olympics during that season.
He went first overall based on a 29P in 43 game stretch from the Olympics in February through the Worlds in May, but only a handful of those games show up in the regular season point totals that dominated discussion about this player and go into the calculations for the NHLe models.
Like, one of the more popular player card posters posted this in December:
I still wish some people here paid more attention to analytics on here, if for no other reason that it frames just how far the team has to go to be competitive and helps identify what the team is actually doing well and what it isn't.
There are analytics and then there are Byron Bader charts though.
There is absolutely value in the xG and microstat based metrics used to evaluate NHL players using NHL data, and in the team-based metrics used for the NHL, but these Byron Bader charts are literally just regular season points and an adjustment for age/NHLe. They're barely any more useful than just looking up the raw points and a player's birthday on hockeydb.