Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[Jet]

I wonder where this question is going.

In statistics, data gathering and cleanliness is the single most important thing, so it's not an out of line question to ask.

I'm sure the professional statistician has no understanding of confirmation bias.

And? Criminals often know what they are doing is a crime and it doesn't prevent them from doing it.

I like Garret - I miss him on these boards, but that doesn't mean his methodology is scientifically sound or peer reviewed (peer being an actual data scientist).

Who crowned him as the 'professional statistician'? Is it simply the product of him working and earning money in that role? If I called myself a doctor and started treating patients because I watched youtube videos, would that make me a doctor?

Hockey advanced stats are still in their infancy. There are a lot of people pushing a lot of 'their' metrics, some gimmicky and some not. There are tons of questions with these metrics:

• How are they compiled?
• How are they interpreted?
• How are they weighted or used in calculations?
• What is the background of the people doing this work?
• Are they subjective or objective?
• How likely is there to be bias?

I keep bringing this stuff up but those who use statistics as the bible or foundation of their understanding of hockey and players ignore the questions, it's almost like a cult.

I think what is happening in a lot of cases is that the NHL and teams use their own metrics and advanced stats to make determinations, and couple that with what they are seeing and hard outcomes. Those metrics are usually not what we see, and they aren't shared with the public.

That's why you see a lot of team and coaching moves that don't align with the advanced stats Garret, JFresh, whomever else are promoting.

I'm not saying that these stats are dereft of accuracy or value, but there are a TON of question marks, and when the stats don't match an experienced eye, it can call it in to question. Of course, eye test is very prone to bias as well.

In my profession, I see statistics compiled, bent, and manipulated to tell a story all the time. That's why you need a scientific method and peer review if you want accuracy.

I think if it was a pick that would have had to be announced as part of the trade. Future considerations I think is much softer than that and we will likely never know what it was.

I don't think that's true - at least not from what I've read (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think disclosure is necessary, though it would be written in the contract.

 

[voyageur]

Used puck bag?

Maybe the Jets had to buy some Callaway golf balls for the boys in the trade.

 

[voyageur]

In statistics, data gathering and cleanliness is the single most important thing, so it's not an out of line question to ask.

And? Criminals often know what they are doing is a crime and it doesn't prevent them from doing it.

I like Garret - I miss him on these boards, but that doesn't mean his methodology is scientifically sound or peer reviewed (peer being an actual data scientist).

Who crowned him as the 'professional statistician'? Is it simply the product of him working and earning money in that role? If I called myself a doctor and started treating patients because I watched youtube videos, would that make me a doctor?

Hockey advanced stats are still in their infancy. There are a lot of people pushing a lot of 'their' metrics, some gimmicky and some not. There are tons of questions with these metrics:

• How are they compiled?
• How are they interpreted?
• How are they weighted or used in calculations?
• What is the background of the people doing this work?
• Are they subjective or objective?
• How likely is there to be bias?

I keep bringing this stuff up but those who use statistics as the bible or foundation of their understanding of hockey and players ignore the questions, it's almost like a cult.

I think what is happening in a lot of cases is that the NHL and teams use their own metrics and advanced stats to make determinations, and couple that with what they are seeing and hard outcomes. Those metrics are usually not what we see, and they aren't shared with the public.

That's why you see a lot of team and coaching moves that don't align with the advanced stats Garret, JFresh, whomever else are promoting.

I'm not saying that these stats are dereft of accuracy or value, but there are a TON of question marks, and when the stats don't match an experienced eye, it can call it in to question. Of course, eye test is very prone to bias as well.

In my profession, I see statistics compiled, bent, and manipulated to tell a story all the time. That's why you need a scientific method and peer review if you want accuracy.


I don't think that's true - at least not from what I've read (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think disclosure is necessary, though it would be written in the contract.

I just went through this talking about Lindgren. The stats said he was ok with Fox, worse without him. Which is fine, but dig deeper. How bad was the Trouba effect. It was bad. Fox was better without Lindgren, but the player replacing him was a better player. The last stat you see is Lindgren is really good with Schneider. This was very similar to arguments used against Pionk last year. That he was worse away from Dillon, but the results with Samberg were kind of glossed over. In the end the Jets chose to follow the analytics of that pairing, which was the Jets best d-pairing to start the year. I always ask questions about stats, even when Garret was on here he was crusading against Pionk, but he had some stats at his disposal that showed that Pionk was an effective puck mover, they weren't stats he provided in his original argument. Sometimes you have to dig deeper. Sometimes the stats work, where Garret's crusade against Mark Stuart probably helped the Jets turn a corner by buying him out. His anti-Stanley stance may still hold water. But the picture is so wide in the stats that I am sure that they are not as isolated as statisticians try to make them. In hockey every single player has an impact on the stats. Where you start from has an impact on the stats. What the score is has an impact on the stats.

I became real skeptical of stats when the government was locking people down based on stats, which if you did quick math meant that 0.01% of the population posed a legitimate public health risk, and the number of beds available was a direct result of government policy that closed two emergency care facilities.

 

[WolfHouse]

Used puck bag?

Logan stanleys jock

 

[WolfHouse]

In statistics, data gathering and cleanliness is the single most important thing, so it's not an out of line question to ask.

And? Criminals often know what they are doing is a crime and it doesn't prevent them from doing it.

I like Garret - I miss him on these boards, but that doesn't mean his methodology is scientifically sound or peer reviewed (peer being an actual data scientist).

Who crowned him as the 'professional statistician'? Is it simply the product of him working and earning money in that role? If I called myself a doctor and started treating patients because I watched youtube videos, would that make me a doctor?

Hockey advanced stats are still in their infancy. There are a lot of people pushing a lot of 'their' metrics, some gimmicky and some not. There are tons of questions with these metrics:

• How are they compiled?
• How are they interpreted?
• How are they weighted or used in calculations?
• What is the background of the people doing this work?
• Are they subjective or objective?
• How likely is there to be bias?

I keep bringing this stuff up but those who use statistics as the bible or foundation of their understanding of hockey and players ignore the questions, it's almost like a cult.

I think what is happening in a lot of cases is that the NHL and teams use their own metrics and advanced stats to make determinations, and couple that with what they are seeing and hard outcomes. Those metrics are usually not what we see, and they aren't shared with the public.

That's why you see a lot of team and coaching moves that don't align with the advanced stats Garret, JFresh, whomever else are promoting.

I'm not saying that these stats are dereft of accuracy or value, but there are a TON of question marks, and when the stats don't match an experienced eye, it can call it in to question. Of course, eye test is very prone to bias as well.

In my profession, I see statistics compiled, bent, and manipulated to tell a story all the time. That's why you need a scientific method and peer review if you want accuracy.


I don't think that's true - at least not from what I've read (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think disclosure is necessary, though it would be written in the contract.

This post is a good example of why hes not here... the guy clearly explains his models and others and goes in depth as to what the potential flaws or biases are... and then guys who clearly dont read that content make posts about how garrett thinks hes the be all end all.

Also i can tell you if you think peer review is unbiased you are mistaken... as a polar bear guide ive seen various agendas override science in that world.

Nothing is perfect but the guys making these models for hockey do not have a specific agenda except trying to make their models work.... they dont hate stan or pionk or scheif etc...

 

[KingBogo]

Used puck bag?

There is a past story of the future consideration being an equipment dryer, but not sure if that type of deal is allowed anymore. My understanding is future considerations is the minimal offer possible, because you can't trade nothing. It can be as vague as we will contact you first before we waive a player to see if you are interested. Most never come to anything and most times we have no idea what the future consideration was.