Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)

[pucka lucka]

Two things:

1) Who's doing this? I'm certainly not: I don't "support" the management team, other than to give credit or fling dung if they do well or do something stupid.
2) The definition of appeal to authority is more nuanced then you're espousing here.

no it's not more nuanced.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

A logically valid appeal to authority is based around the following syllogism:
P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.
P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
C1: P is probably correct.
In its fallacious form, it could read:
Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.
This fallacious form fails to take into account the area of expertise, as well as the possibility that those people could be wrong. Experts can be (frequently) wrong but are often in the position to update their views more readily and with better research on their side.
The following form demonstrates a further non-fallacious use of the argument from authority, focusing on why experts might assert something:
Premise 1 - P is correct.
Premise 2 - Experts will study P.
Conclusion - Experts will say P is correct.
The following is a hyper-fallacious version, and quite possibly the single most common misuse of it.
Premise 1 - Experts say P is correct.
Conclusion - P is correct.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[YWGinYYZ]

no it's not more nuanced.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

You may want to quote the other definitions that you left out. Or not: this is likely to go OT - in fact, I'll concede to keep the thread from going OT.

I will state categorically that I am not trying to support the management crew. I dislike this pick.

 

[Grind]

They are sensitive and the percentages land where the trend would be expected to fall if you didn't have information on that group. When a curve keeps falling by 2 y's for every x and after (6,5) you get (7,3) on the last data point, you don't feel as nervous about the numbers as you would if it didn't.

The n is not relatively small. Most small ns are guys who are exceptional and big like Laine. Or super young for a league like Werenski.

Most big men were lower scorers because big and high scoring is rare. They basically make it 100% but they rarely exist.

The issue with the models is they won't tell you who is the 15% vs 85% because luck and other factors play a role.

We know that scouts have some ability to identify the other factors, but we also know they overvalue those factors.

Well said.

I don't have complete faith that our group has accurately identified that 15%.

I do (which may be lost in the discussion) have complete hope that they have.

I know the analytics aren't perfect or the be all end all. But again it's because it's precisely these types of players that usually hurt scouts vs analytics as to why I am sceptical.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

An appeal to authority (argument from authority) is well defined. It's exactly what is happening here. An proclaimed expert isn't right because he's an expert. He's right if he's actually right, based on evidence. i can't believe we are actually trying to redefine logical fallacies now to support the management team.

In modern society, we appeal to authority all the time. It's often the right thing to do. Unless you are personally more qualified than the authority in question.

Do you think smoking cigarettes is unhealthy? If so, why?

Do you believe in sub-atomic particles? If so, why?

Do you believe man has been to the moon? If so, why?

Do you get vaccinations for yourself or your children? If so, why?

Answer to all the above: Appeal to authority.
* unless you are the surgeon general, a theoretical physicist, an astronaut, or a PhD in medical research.

It's fine (and good) to argue over the merits of a particular authority. But bashing the appeal to authority argument as a general principle is... weak.

 

[garret9]

I think in part is an appeal to authority -like, because people have been overstating the Jets success history outside of the top 10 picks and because they misunderstand how low consensus is between the parties and how different voices will have been behind different picks or against different picks even behind the same group of scouts.

One random example, I heard from a European scout that the Jets' Swedish scout did not want Cederholm due to his puck skills. Most people would assume that the Jets' Swedish scout would have been the one behind the pick. It can vary. This doesn't mean that Cederholm is good or bad pick. What it does mean is our assumptions on who is picked, which scouts are into it, which scouts are not, and why is really just guess work.

 

[DarthMonty]

The bolded are flat out wrong. There are ways to identify exceptions - to what degree? I don't know, but I suspect it varies from case to case.

I am sure they do have a reason to believe that he will out-perform the basic statistical ranking. Is the reasoning sound? Not sure, but there is surely a reason.

As I said here:



We know that the Jets valued Stanley higher than many teams. We also know that we don't have all of the info as to why. A lack of info doesn't mean these inputs don't exist. It also doesn’t make the inputs invalid. Actual scouting adds value. Athleticism adds value. Were these things weighted too heavily? My guess is yes, but that doesn't mean theu weren't factors. It also doesn't mean they weren't valid.

Goes to show how Winnipeg has a different scouting method than other clubs. Stanley top 10 probably wasn't that way on many draft boards.

There seems to be a premium put on improvement trajectory and what age that happens at. Perhaps their research shows that players that have a big upswing at a certain age is a good predictor of future development a la Scheifele (who's skating wasn't very good early on) where as others may prove to plateau and not exceed their draft positions.

Like Hillier said in his interview, if Stanley continues to develop at half the rate he did this past season they would be very happy with that. Lots of analytics being thrown around here which is great and all. But the Jets scouting department may have their own studies that they defer to which may make Stanley a prime candidate to potentially develop at a clip higher than most prospects.

There are lots of numbers and things that are considered with decision models. I fully expect that the Jets scouting department is no different here. And very much think that their decision model is what highlighted Logan Stanley as being a guy that they would fall in love with according to this model. Same way they did with Scheifele. Not predicting success here. But that pick worked out nicely.

Scouts make a lot of mistakes, evidently. When the originators of PCS discovered they could outdraft half the teams in the league just by drafting the highest scoring CHL forward on the board, it really makes me question the expertise of scouting staffs and GMs around the league.

Additionally, unlike a neurosurgeon, who's had more than a decade of education and training - and who would've been academically top-tier even before devoting all that time to their craft - scouts are a collection of...dudes who played some hockey and spend a lot of time around the game? I might value a hockey loving neurosurgeon's opinion on Logan Stanley over a random NHL scout...

As Puckatron alluded to above, reading the Stanley threads is a full time job.

What hasn't been mentioned too much through all these posts is character. I'm not at all certain that the Jets have modeling in effect for drafting, or whether or not they pay attention to advanced stats, but every level of the organization is concerned about character.

I know this to be true - I worked for TNSE or at their behest for almost a decade. They really do look for good character - players and support personnel who work harder and better, who respect the team and company, who strive to put in extra community effort and such.

Is it possible that Stanley impressed the heck out of the coaches and management with his character/personality scores? Enough to persuade the team that he was worthwhile taking a flyer on? I suspect his character played a large part in the team making a deal to draft him. He strikes me as a guy who will commit to the team in the same manner as Scheifele.

 

[pucka lucka]

In modern society, we appeal to authority all the time. It's often the right thing to do. Unless you are personally more qualified than the authority in question.

Do you think smoking cigarettes is unhealthy? If so, why?

Do you believe in sub-atomic particles? If so, why?

Do you believe man has been to the moon? If so, why?

Do you get vaccinations for yourself or your children? If so, why?

Answer to all the above: Appeal to authority.
* unless you are the surgeon general, a theoretical physicist, an astronaut, or a PhD in medical research.

It's fine (and good) to argue over the merits of a particular authority. But bashing the appeal to authority argument as a general principle is... weak.

No clue what you think this demonstrates. It appears that you fundamentally don't understand what an appeal to authority is. None of those things are an appeal to authority. Like at all.

 

[garret9]

In the end, Jets saw something that wasn't his scoring, enough that they valued him at the very least a 13-14 pick given what they traded to move up.

I will state that my opinion on the matter is that they overvalued that something, and history indicates that scouts tend to be.

I will point out that looking at the group of Stanleys, there have been a very low percentage of those that have made it. When you look at those individuals who did succeed and match with Stanley within PCS, they have a low percentage of quality players... In fact, I didn't hit a "quality" success until I stretched the variables out out enough to hit Methot.

Stanley may end up an exception. The Jets think he is.

I don't think he is and I haven't seen any evidence yet other than people disagreeing that he is not.

 

[garret9]

As Puckatron alluded to above, reading the Stanley threads is a full time job.

What hasn't been mentioned too much through all these posts is character. I'm not at all certain that the Jets have modeling in effect for drafting, or whether or not they pay attention to advanced stats, but every level of the organization is concerned about character.

I know this to be true - I worked for TNSE or at their behest for almost a decade. They really do look for good character - players and support personnel who work harder and better, who respect the team and company, who strive to put in extra community effort and such.

Is it possible that Stanley impressed the heck out of the coaches and management with his character/personality scores? Enough to persuade the team that he was worthwhile taking a flyer on? I suspect his character played a large part in the team making a deal to draft him. He strikes me as a guy who will commit to the team in the same manner as Scheifele.

As of this moment, I do not believe the Jets amateur scouting uses any sort of qualitative or quantitative modeling beyond scouts making their lists and debating over players.

 

[Gm0ney]

In modern society, we appeal to authority all the time. It's often the right thing to do. Unless you are personally more qualified than the authority in question.

Do you think smoking cigarettes is unhealthy? If so, why?

Do you believe in sub-atomic particles? If so, why?

Do you believe man has been to the moon? If so, why?

Do you get vaccinations for yourself or your children? If so, why?

Answer to all the above: Appeal to authority.
* unless you are the surgeon general, a theoretical physicist, an astronaut, or a PhD in medical research.

It's fine (and good) to argue over the merits of a particular authority. But bashing the appeal to authority argument as a general principle is... weak.

What? No...you're way off here.

The reason we think cigarette smoking is unhealthy is because there's a mountain of evidence that says so (mortality and cancer stats, animal experiments, etc.). It's not just because the Surgeon General or Health Canada says so.

What's happening here is that some people are arguing that there's good evidence (historic comparables, stats, watching video) that Stanley is a bad pick. Some others are countering that with the assertion that we should trust the Jets scouts - i.e. it's a good pick because the Jets scouts said so. That's the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

No clue what you think this demonstrates. It appears that you fundamentally don't understand what an appeal to authority is. None of those things are an appeal to authority. Like at all.

All of them are perfect examples of appeal to authority. Scientists are an authority just as much as scouts are an authority. It's just that, for scientists, we generally trust the authority.

The interesting conversation here is whether to trust the Jets' scouts as a good authority on drafting. Or, whether we should trust analytics as a better authority in the case of Logan Stanley.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Getting a little too "meta" here.

edit:
@Gm0ney: If you have personally studied all that mountain of evidence on cigarette smoking, or better yet, conducted the experiments yourself, I will grant that you are not appealing to authority. And I'm not talking about reading some internet article fluff piece (that's an authority, too). If you haven't, then you (like almost everyone else), are appealing to authority.

Just because an authority uses evidence (and almost all of them do), doesn't make them not an authority. Unless we have studied the evidence ourselves, we are appealing to that authority.

 

[ps241]

Hillier and Zinger did and were the loudest proponents for Stanley and Cederholm.

Again, I also add that
1. Stanley has bad numbers aside from scoring
2. my opinion is that his eye test isn't good either

First bolded is a concern for m, not a huge concern but it is a concern. Comeau was Hillier's boss last year and would he have singed off on the same pick? We drafted two kids this year who were kind of the big physical low scoring D men types? Second bolded was why I had the concern, I read the numbers on Stanley after my viewings and they supported my concern for a guy I thought was not very good by my eye test.

Either way I am cheering for him now that he is ours so up at em Logan.....or is that down at em?

 

[pucka lucka]

All of them are perfect examples of appeal to authority. Scientists are an authority just as much as scouts are an authority. It's just that, for scientists, we generally trust the authority.

The interesting conversation here is whether to trust the Jets' scouts as a good authority on drafting. Or, whether we should trust analytics as a better authority in the case of Logan Stanley.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Getting a little too "meta" here.

edit:
@Gm0ney: If you have personally studied all that mountain of evidence on cigarette smoking, or better yet, conducted the experiments yourself, I will grant that you are not appealing to authority. And I'm not talking about reading some internet article fluff piece (that's an authority, too). If you haven't, then you (like almost everyone else), are appealing to authority.

Just because an authority uses evidence (and almost all of them do), doesn't make them not an authority. Unless we have studied the evidence ourselves, we are appealing to that authority.

No we aren't you are totally wrong. I've supplied the definition. This is not what it means. You are talking about trusting experts who have mountains of peer reviewed evidence to support them.

 

[garret9]

Oh well. What's done is done.

I will now exit from this thread, and I will hope and cheer that Stanley proves my worries wrong.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Hillier and Zinger did and were the loudest proponents for Stanley and Cederholm.

This is some juicy gossip. Is Hillier considered old school? Zinger too?

 

[Whileee]

Hillier and Zinger did and were the loudest proponents for Stanley and Cederholm.

Evidence?

Before the draft Hillier said clearly that they expected they would be able to land a player they had ranked in the #15-17 range at #22. After the draft he said that they targeted Laine and Stanley. Sounds like Stanley was the guy that they had at #15-17.

Has either Hillier or Zinger stated that they had Stanley rated top-10? I haven't seen that. If so, that's more scary than anything.

 

[Whileee]

What? No...you're way off here.

The reason we think cigarette smoking is unhealthy is because there's a mountain of evidence that says so (mortality and cancer stats, animal experiments, etc.). It's not just because the Surgeon General or Health Canada says so.

What's happening here is that some people are arguing that there's good evidence (historic comparables, stats, watching video) that Stanley is a bad pick. Some others are countering that with the assertion that we should trust the Jets scouts - i.e. it's a good pick because the Jets scouts said so. That's the appeal to authority fallacy.

Others are arguing that the models might have constraints with respect to players like Stanley. I'm not sure why that's such a contentious position.

 

[JetsUK]

Having navigated this thread hoping to learn something about Logan Stanley the hockey player, I find myself wondering why big defensemen don't succeed more regularly or proportionately?

Is there some developmental subset of reasons? Does it have to do with body mechanics and the relationship between height and ice surface, etc? Is there a bias towards big d as shutdown and not playmaking D, and therefore a developmental trend to match? Is there an ideal size for NHL D? Are there actual reasons beyond the relatively small group of above 6.5 hockey players?

 

[Whileee]

In the end, Jets saw something that wasn't his scoring, enough that they valued him at the very least a 13-14 pick given what they traded to move up.

I will state that my opinion on the matter is that they overvalued that something, and history indicates that scouts tend to be.

I will point out that looking at the group of Stanleys, there have been a very low percentage of those that have made it. When you look at those individuals who did succeed and match with Stanley within PCS, they have a low percentage of quality players... In fact, I didn't hit a "quality" success until I stretched the variables out out enough to hit Methot.

Stanley may end up an exception. The Jets think he is.

I don't think he is and I haven't seen any evidence yet other than people disagreeing that he is not.

I certainly don't think Stanley was a good selection, partly because of the statistical analyses and partly from watching him play.

I think it is probably unwise to rely excessively on the models with this type of player, though. An accurate prediction method has both a high positive and a high negative predictive value. The inability of the models to correctly identify most of the successful big defensemen is a constraint.

Maybe we don't yet know good methods to discriminate between good and bad big defensemen (beyond scoring), but that doesn't mean that good methods can't be developed.

 

[garret9]

Evidence?

Before the draft Hillier said clearly that they expected they would be able to land a player they had ranked in the #15-17 range at #22. After the draft he said that they targeted Laine and Stanley. Sounds like Stanley was the guy that they had at #15-17.

Has either Hillier or Zinger stated that they had Stanley rated top-10? I haven't seen that. If so, that's more scary than anything.

I'm your source. It wasn't coincidental I kept talking about Stanley here. I don't say **** that I don't know to be true.

Just like the Frolik contract stuff that you kept asking about where I heard it.

I certainly don't think Stanley was a good selection, partly because of the statistical analyses and partly from watching him play.

I think it is probably unwise to rely excessively on the models with this type of player, though. An accurate prediction method has both a high positive and a high negative predictive value. The inability of the models to correctly identify most of the successful big defensemen is a constraint.

Maybe we don't yet know good methods to discriminate between good and bad big defensemen (beyond scoring), but that doesn't mean that good methods can't be developed.

No one is relying exclusively on the models.

The model though shows that a low percentage of Stanleys make it. They show a high percentage of Stanley sized players that score make it. The results are also exactly as one would predict given all the results for all the other sizeXscoring groupings.

I'm done here.

At least the Jets only made the 3rd worst decision on d-men this month. Thank you Montreal and Edmonton.

 

[Whileee]

I'm your source. It wasn't coincidental I kept talking about Stanley here. I don't say **** that I don't know to be true.

Just like the Frolik contract stuff that you kept asking about where I heard it.

No one is relying exclusively on the models.

The model though shows that a low percentage of Stanleys make it. They show a high percentage of Stanley sized players that score make it. The results are also exactly as one would predict given all the results for all the other sizeXscoring groupings.

I'm done here.

At least the Jets only made the 3rd worst decision on d-men this month. Thank you Montreal and Edmonton.

Unless you heard it from Zinger and Hillier themselves, you are not the original source. If you have a source within the Jets scouting or management team, just say that. I'm sure the Jets would be interested to know.

 

[garret9]

Unless you heard it from Zinger and Hillier themselves, you are not the original source. If you have a source within the Jets scouting or management team, just say that. I'm sure the Jets would be interested to know.

Maybe you need help.

I'm your source.

My sources, which vary, are not being outed.

Don't want to believe me, be my guest. I'm out of here. Sayonara.

 

[Whileee]

Maybe you need help.

I'm your source.

My sources, which vary, are not being outed.

Don't want to believe me, be my guest. I'm out of here. Sayonara.

Thanks. It has nothing to do with believing you. I differentiate between primary and secondary sources. I'm sure you understand. No need to get stroppy.

I think it's very significant that our head of scouting had Stanley as a top-10 pick in this draft, and not in a good way.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

I think in part is an appeal to authority -like, because people have been overstating the Jets success history outside of the top 10 picks and because they misunderstand how low consensus is between the parties and how different voices will have been behind different picks or against different picks even behind the same group of scouts.

One random example, I heard from a European scout that the Jets' Swedish scout did not want Cederholm due to his puck skills. Most people would assume that the Jets' Swedish scout would have been the one behind the pick. It can vary. This doesn't mean that Cederholm is good or bad pick. What it does mean is our assumptions on who is picked, which scouts are into it, which scouts are not, and why is really just guess work.

Conjecture isn't reality. Especially when you are getting second hand information. I talk to a lot of scouts in Brandon over the years and I have heard a lot of things and most them end up not being true.

People like to talk. They also like to make themselves look like they know what they are talking about as well.

 

[Grind]

Well seeing as mods vet these boards and people and clean up the stuff they can't verify, and Garret IS employed by teams... I'd say it's probably vetted