Player Discussion: Winnipeg Jets Defense

[RustyCat]

So what happens when Fleury returns? Does he take Stanley’s spot?

Yeah makes you wonder as Fleury played pretty well. I wouldnt be surprised to see Chevy move Stanley to VAN for a guy like Deharnais. Play him on the right side and invest in Heinola on the left side, make Fleury the 7D

 

[Buffdog]

So what happens when Fleury returns? Does he take Stanley’s spot?

That's what we're all hoping for. Ultimately think Chevy upgrades that sopt (3LD) at some point

 

[10Ducky10]

I thought Fleury was healthy already?

 

[Whileee]

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...

I like statistical approaches to hockey analysis but I can say unequivocally that the level of "peer review" and expert discourse about hockey-related models doesn't come close to most scientific fields. There isn't nearly as much transparent scrutiny of data quality and methods as you would see in most research fields. Moreover, many of the hockey stats folks make a living from their own proprietary models. I don't object to that at all, but it does tend to create a level of defensiveness and brittleness that can stifle healthy discourse. Add in that some rely on revenue from the sports gambling enterprise, and things get even murkier.

That said, I find most of the public modelers and data scientists in hockey to be very sharp and engaging. They can be overly dismissive, but that's a feature of social media, generally. I would note that there is also a large contingent of hard core "anti-stats" folks that add to the rancour by dismissing useful statistical insights out of hand.

Balance is hard to find, but overall I think that the introduction of statistical insights has been a great addition for the engaged fan.

 

[Jet]

I like statistical approaches to hockey analysis but I can say unequivocally that the level of "peer review" and expert discourse about hockey-related models doesn't come close to most scientific fields. There isn't nearly as much transparent scrutiny of data quality and methods as you would see in most research fields. Moreover, many of the hockey stats folks make a living from their own proprietary models. I don't object to that at all, but it does tend to create a level of defensiveness and brittleness that can stifle healthy discourse. Add in that some rely on revenue from the sports gambling enterprise, and things get even murkier.

That said, I find most of the public modelers and data scientists in hockey to be very sharp and engaging. They can be overly dismissive, but that's a feature of social media, generally. I would note that there is also a large contingent of hard core "anti-stats" folks that add to the rancour by dismissing useful statistical insights out of hand.

Balance is hard to find, but overall I think that the introduction of statistical insights has been a great addition for the engaged fan.

This right here.