HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Bad Granlund Phenomenon Part 3

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-03-2017, 10:39 PM
  #976
nostalgicanuck
Registered User
 
nostalgicanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
he just wants an intellectually honest discussion about the player, lol. why is that so hard to understand
Well - It's something to aspire to I guess. But it's unlikely to occur on these message boards. There are always people on both sides of any issue in these threads that are incapable of meeting those standards. You could rail about people's poor arguments in just about every thread. It's good discussion to point out holes in an argument but don't be surprised when people continue on with their opinions.

Just choose to engage solely with those that you can have a reasoned argument with if you feel others don't meet your standards. Lecturing people on how to argue is pointless in a hockey forum and kind of insulting/obnoxious.

Identify those who you feel meet your standards if that is important to you and engage with them. That may not be many people, for those who are searching to debate with people who are impartial and able to separate their own pride/emotions/previously held positions from a current topic of discussion. This forum trends towards being polarized and that is not likely to change.


Last edited by nostalgicanuck: 04-03-2017 at 10:51 PM.
nostalgicanuck is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 10:42 PM
  #977
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupless44 View Post
I am one of those guys and I do understand the reasoning...Shinkaruk was farther from waiver status...seemed to be tracking well in Utica...was a first round pick etc The reasoning also has it etched in their minds that Shinkaruk was the better prospect at the time of the trade, yet the more I have looked into that I have discovered that no, not everyone around the NHL thought that. Some people had Granlund rated higher.

What the guys who will never justify the trade are missing and or refuse to accept is that the guys who work for NHL clubs and make the trade decisions do have more access to the player than looking up stats on a keyboard. They see the player in lots of live games, practises, training sessions that we don't. They have been around NHL teams and AHL teams far, far more than we have. Sometimes they assess a player based on things stats don't have 100% of the answer for.

Benning said clearly when he traded Shinkaruk, that he did not think Shinkaruk's game would work in the NHL. He made that call and acted accordingly to acquire a player he thought would be more useful to his hockey club and could in fact play a role in the NHL. Now Benning might be a guy most of us don't want as our GM, and he might have made way too many bad assessments, but on this one the facts are playing out to support that he did in fact make the right call and made a good trade. The difference between being one the of the best GMs and being one of the poorer ones is how many assessments you get right and how many you get wrong. But there is only one trade being discussed here, not Bennings overall body of work.

I hated the trade the day it was made like many others. Shinkaruk seemed like the sexier player to me at the time also. But I am not going to stubbornly hang on to the position that it is a bad trade because I didn't understand the reasoning at the time or it is against my trade principles or because I hate Benning and don't like Granlund.

Benning got this one right. I can accept that.

Yeah. This was a trade i was pretty fumed about when it happened. It felt like trading more upside for more certainty of mediocrity at best. But i can certainly admit that it's looking like an actually solid trade at this point.

No, i don't think Granlund is quite as good as his goal numbers may show this year. But i do think he's rounding into a pretty serviceable Top-9 player with decent versatility. He probably played more than he should on a bad team this year, but he did still do something decent with those minutes. That can't be entirely dismissed.

For all the "excess minutes" Granny got...he's still likely to end the season in or around the Top-100 Forwards for goal scoring this year - with a dozen games missed, and some of that time played with a gimpy wrist. I don't really expect him to repeat that performance year after year, especially if he's eventually pushed down to a lesser role on a better+deeper team. The shooting percentage will probably come down, the opportunity will scale back. But it's still nothing to scoff at. You're still only talking about maybe 100 guys who put more pucks in the net than he did this year among forwards. That's like...3 and change players per team on a 30 team basis out-goaling him.

A guy who can give you cost effective minutes with some pretty decent production and the versatility to play all three positions up front on pretty much any line, both special teams...that's a useful player and a somewhat valuable commodity. Especially when he seems to have a little bit of inexplicable chemistry with your chemistry-proof #3C like Sutter.


Shinkaruk on the other hand...the guy just continues to struggle in finding his way as a Pro. I don't think it's entirely fair to **** all over Y2K over it though. I really do think he was a top quality prospect...but something went very wrong in Shinkaruk's development. Namely, that hip injury where he never really seemed to be the same afterwards. And the timing of the whole thing just exacerbated the problem...jumping to Pros not only physically unprepared even more than the average prospect in the first place, but coming off an absolutely massive injury for a guy with his skillset who thrives on skating with loose hips on top of it. He's never really had any serious NHL utility if he can't consistently crack a Top-6 though. And more and more, it's looking like he just doesn't have the ability to do so.

That's where Granlund at least has the ability to continue rounding into a player who can be a positive contributor in the Bottom-6. And if you get something out of the deal long-term...that's better than potentially nothing.

biturbo19 is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 10:43 PM
  #978
TheWolf*
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
why would anybody preface an argument with a full accounting of their predictions? it makes perfect sense to say "i was right about x and it translates in this way" because hes trying to argue a point. seems weird to go "here is the bookkeeping of my hockey fandom"
Yeah, it seems weird in every post to list off every correct prediction you have made, but he does it. Either give a full accounting of your predictions, those that are right and wrong, or shut up about it and don't bother.

So far it has been posted here that he advocated picking Shinkaruk 9th overall instead of Horvat, wanted to trade a 1st round draft pick for Brandon Gormely (not sure if that's even how you spell that guys name), let the Sedin's walk in 2008 for Cammaleri and Gaborik.

Those are some pretty horrific positions. That said, I have more than my share of those, as do most all of us. Most all of us don't, though, boast in every second post what a genius we are because we said that "X" would happen and it did.

TheWolf* is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 10:46 PM
  #979
TheWolf*
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
he just wants an intellectually honest discussion about the player, lol. why is that so hard to understand
That's not at all what he wants. He just wants us all to recognize his genius and if we don't he posts to remind us.

TheWolf* is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 10:47 PM
  #980
nostalgicanuck
Registered User
 
nostalgicanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
Yeah. This was a trade i was pretty fumed about when it happened. It felt like trading more upside for more certainty of mediocrity at best. But i can certainly admit that it's looking like an actually solid trade at this point.

No, i don't think Granlund is quite as good as his goal numbers may show this year. But i do think he's rounding into a pretty serviceable Top-9 player with decent versatility. He probably played more than he should on a bad team this year, but he did still do something decent with those minutes. That can't be entirely dismissed.

For all the "excess minutes" Granny got...he's still likely to end the season in or around the Top-100 Forwards for goal scoring this year - with a dozen games missed, and some of that time played with a gimpy wrist. I don't really expect him to repeat that performance year after year, especially if he's eventually pushed down to a lesser role on a better+deeper team. The shooting percentage will probably come down, the opportunity will scale back. But it's still nothing to scoff at. You're still only talking about maybe 100 guys who put more pucks in the net than he did this year among forwards. That's like...3 and change players per team on a 30 team basis out-goaling him.

A guy who can give you cost effective minutes with some pretty decent production and the versatility to play all three positions up front on pretty much any line, both special teams...that's a useful player and a somewhat valuable commodity. Especially when he seems to have a little bit of inexplicable chemistry with your chemistry-proof #3C like Sutter.


Shinkaruk on the other hand...the guy just continues to struggle in finding his way as a Pro. I don't think it's entirely fair to **** all over Y2K over it though. I really do think he was a top quality prospect...but something went very wrong in Shinkaruk's development. Namely, that hip injury where he never really seemed to be the same afterwards. And the timing of the whole thing just exacerbated the problem...jumping to Pros not only physically unprepared even more than the average prospect in the first place, but coming off an absolutely massive injury for a guy with his skillset who thrives on skating with loose hips on top of it. He's never really had any serious NHL utility if he can't consistently crack a Top-6 though. And more and more, it's looking like he just doesn't have the ability to do so.

That's where Granlund at least has the ability to continue rounding into a player who can be a positive contributor in the Bottom-6. And if you get something out of the deal long-term...that's better than potentially nothing.
I think people had good reason to hate/be suspicious of the trade at the time as it followed a few terrible trades and signings. But this trade was one of the moves that worked out and one of the few players on the team that I am at least a little bit happy about as Granlund exceeded my expectations. Unfortunately, it is in the minority of moves that have worked well for the franchise under Benning/Linden and we may soon see a regime change.

nostalgicanuck is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 11:08 PM
  #981
rune74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Because doing so will lead people against a certain narrative.
I asked you point blank, you specifically if you thought at this time Granlund was better then Shrink....you didn't answer.


As to this honest debate, I don't think you have to list every reason about a player in every post, otherwise it would get rather long. I was simply making a point at this time one is CLEARLY better then the other. It's an honest assessment. To take that as my only reason or a false narrative to brush it into a way of all other reasons are wrong is ridiculous, as I never said that.

What I was really looking for is people to actually say that is a true statement. A set variable. That never happened however.

rune74 is offline  
Old
04-03-2017, 11:09 PM
  #982
rune74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
the weird thing is that some of them are lost but at least one (cupless) understands that benning is a disaster

also i'm impressed at your earlier response to what i asked!
Such a useful statement, completely a dishonest statement but who's counting those.

rune74 is offline  
Old
04-04-2017, 12:52 AM
  #983
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cupless44 View Post
I am one of those guys and I do understand the reasoning...Shinkaruk was farther from waiver status...seemed to be tracking well in Utica...was a first round pick etc The reasoning also has it etched in their minds that Shinkaruk was the better prospect at the time of the trade, yet the more I have looked into that I have discovered that no, not everyone around the NHL thought that. Some people had Granlund rated higher.

What the guys who will never justify the trade are missing and or refuse to accept is that the guys who work for NHL clubs and make the trade decisions do have more access to the player than looking up stats on a keyboard. They see the player in lots of live games, practises, training sessions that we don't. They have been around NHL teams and AHL teams far, far more than we have. Sometimes they assess a player based on things stats don't have 100% of the answer for.

Benning said clearly when he traded Shinkaruk, that he did not think Shinkaruk's game would work in the NHL. He made that call and acted accordingly to acquire a player he thought would be more useful to his hockey club and could in fact play a role in the NHL. Now Benning might be a guy most of us don't want as our GM, and he might have made way too many bad assessments, but on this one the facts are playing out to support that he did in fact make the right call and made a good trade. The difference between being one the of the best GMs and being one of the poorer ones is how many assessments you get right and how many you get wrong. But there is only one trade being discussed here, not Bennings overall body of work.

I hated the trade the day it was made like many others. Shinkaruk seemed like the sexier player to me at the time also. But I am not going to stubbornly hang on to the position that it is a bad trade because I didn't understand the reasoning at the time or it is against my trade principles or because I hate Benning and don't like Granlund.

Benning got this one right. I can accept that.
You are still missing half the argument.

You wrote the facts, but missed the conclusions from them. Like why is a younger player farther away from waiver edibility worth more.

With the way the results happened I understand your jumping to the conclusion you did, but that doesn't make it right. Poor decisions can still turn out ok.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
04-04-2017, 02:05 AM
  #984
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWolf View Post
That's not at all what he wants. He just wants us all to recognize his genius and if we don't he posts to remind us.
shareefruck?

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-04-2017, 10:19 AM
  #985
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWolf View Post
That's not at all what he wants. He just wants us all to recognize his genius and if we don't he posts to remind us.
You've gotta be kidding me.

WHAT Genius? This stuff is as basic as they come (far simpler than the advanced stats we get into that goes over my head). It's just basic decency/fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgicanuck View Post
I suggest you make a thread about the right or reasonable way to argue if that is your agenda. People will continue to argue about Grandlund when replying to you because this is the Grandlund thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nostalgicanuck View Post
Well - It's something to aspire to I guess. But it's unlikely to occur on these message boards. There are always people on both sides of any issue in these threads that are incapable of meeting those standards. You could rail about people's poor arguments in just about every thread. It's good discussion to point out holes in an argument but don't be surprised when people continue on with their opinions.

Just choose to engage solely with those that you can have a reasoned argument with if you feel others don't meet your standards. Lecturing people on how to argue is pointless in a hockey forum and kind of insulting/obnoxious.

Identify those who you feel meet your standards if that is important to you and engage with them. That may not be many people, for those who are searching to debate with people who are impartial and able to separate their own pride/emotions/previously held positions from a current topic of discussion. This forum trends towards being polarized and that is not likely to change.
Yes, you're never going to get intellectual honesty across the board, but when a poster willfully avoids it and is unwilling to address this or engage it when pointed out, that should be called out and have its feet held to the fire. Making an unrelated point about Granlund (even in a Granlund thread) when questioned about the fairness of the argument is dodging the criticism.

If it's reasonable to poke holes in someone's argument, why would it be unreasonable to poke holes in the dishonest manner in which they're arguing something? That makes no sense. There should be no more tolerance for dishonest arguments than there are for personal attacks.

What you're suggesting basically amounts to "If you don't like it, ignore it and leave it to its own devices," which is a bull**** attitude to have, IMO. That's one step removed from saying "If you don't agree with something, only converse with the bubble of people you do." If we don't even encourage people to be intellectually honest and criticize people who don't when arguing things, then we're conceding that we're all just varying degrees of trolls out to take a p*ss out of each other-- what the hell would be the point in a message board if that were the case?

Nobody can deny the pride/polarization/biases that's feeding alot of the posts on these boards (I'm susceptible to it myself and should be called out on it when the evidence is there), but **** if we're all supposed to just embrace it without any resistance.


Last edited by Shareefruck: 04-04-2017 at 10:53 AM.
Shareefruck is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 10:04 AM
  #986
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
i am not willing to re-evaluate the trade, because we havent received any new information. i am however, willing to revisit granlund in perpetuity. i'm still of the mindset that he's not a very good player, and ive stated what conditions will change my mind on that, and thus i'll say "well, i was wrong about granlund", but notice im not in here saying something like "ya i knew he was bad and he still is"? i only have a weak case as is. im not really trying hard to dispute people saying that he's a good player because he currently has had good results and a prediction is about the future.

if granlund transformed into the best player of all time tomorrow i'd still say the trade was a bad trade, and that i was catastrophically wrong about granlund as a player. how is this hard to understand?

dismissing luck and soforth (so not a realistic evaluation, for example only) my evaluation of jim benning would go from "bad trader, bad pro scout" to "bad trader, outstanding pro scout". if he keeps trading shinkaruk for granlund, and granlund becomes the best player of all time over and over, he'll eventually probably earn the right to make bad trades on hunches free of judgement, maybe
Whether or not the trade was a good idea, terrible, or somewhere in between rests entirely on probability. If you missed something in your evaluation of Granlund that lead you to the wrong conclusion about the probability of him being a good player, it'd be crazy not to revisit it. You'd just make the same mistake again next time.

Again, Shink flaming out is not additional information. That was always a distinct possibility. Even if you said "There's a good chance this guy is a 25 goal scorer in the top 6" the evaluation wouldn't be wrong enough to alter the value put on him in trade.

If you said Granlund "is a worthless, steaming pile of human excrement with no chance at being even a decent NHLer" and a year later he's just that… it's time to rethink it. Not because he's a great hockey player, but because he has made the original evaluation and subsequent probability assigned to him look silly imo.


Last edited by Scurr: 04-08-2017 at 10:15 AM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 04:06 PM
  #987
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Granlund played 200 of his 925 (22%) 5v5 minutes with the twins.

He played another 340 minutes with Louis Eriksson.

That's 740 of a possible 1850 minutes with top 6 talent. 40%.

Granlund played 50+% of his ice-time with Brandon Sutter.

Granlund played 17% (158 minutes) of his 5v5 ice-time with Jason Megna.

Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 04:25 PM
  #988
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
IMO Granlund has a reasonable chance to become a top 6 talent now. When the trade was made I gave him some hope based on his remarkable scoring rate in the AHL but he clearly had a long way to go as a player to gain traction in the NHL. The chance that he could gain his footing in the league enough to have his scoring ability play seemed minimal. 5%? 10%? Maybe 15%, certainly no more.

That changed this season imo. He showed himself as a neutral to positive possession player. His possession numbers in the minutes he played on this team are solid. He certainly made strides from the anchor we saw in limited minutes last season.

The thing with guys that show finish is, they don't have to be two-way beasts. A guy that just performs as his linemates do with finish is a valuable commodity. Granlund didn't just shoot a good number, he showed finish imo. He has a quick, smooth release that plays in the NHL.

Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 05:35 PM
  #989
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Granlund played 200 of his 925 (22%) 5v5 minutes with the twins.

He played another 340 minutes with Louis Eriksson.

That's 740 of a possible 1850 minutes with top 6 talent. 40%.
That's some weird math there. At 5-on-5 he played 340.5 minutes with Eriksson and 214.5 minutes with Henrik Sedin. Given that there was about 8-9 minutes of overlap where he played with both of those guys, that puts him at ~545 minutes which is 59% of his TOI with one of those guys. He also had 8-9 minutes with Daniel but without Henrik and another 19 minutes with Horvat (excluding time with any of the above mentioned players).

I do agree that having to play with someone like Sutter should be considered when assessing anyone, Granlund included. That said, Granlund's production was no better away from Sutter (he got 50% of his points in the 50.6% of his ice time with Sutter) so it might not have been a factor in his point total this season.

opendoor is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:03 PM
  #990
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Whether or not the trade was a good idea, terrible, or somewhere in between rests entirely on probability.
whether or not the trade has a good result rests on probability

i've already addressed the rest of your post in the past somehow without responding so i'm confused as to whether or not you read mine

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:08 PM
  #991
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
That's some weird math there. At 5-on-5 he played 340.5 minutes with Eriksson and 214.5 minutes with Henrik Sedin. Given that there was about 8-9 minutes of overlap where he played with both of those guys, that puts him at ~545 minutes which is 59% of his TOI with one of those guys. He also had 8-9 minutes with Daniel but without Henrik and another 19 minutes with Horvat (excluding time with any of the above mentioned players).
His 925 minutes of 5v5 ice-time give him 1850 minutes of forward linemates. So yes, he played 59% of his ice-time with one top 6 player but only 40% of his ice-time was with top 6 players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I do agree that having to play with someone like Sutter should be considered when assessing anyone, Granlund included. That said, Granlund's production was no better away from Sutter (he got 50% of his points in the 50.6% of his ice time with Sutter) so it might not have been a factor in his point total this season.
I don't think playing with Sutter is a big deal. I'm not someone that has been calling him a black hole, though.


Last edited by Scurr: 04-08-2017 at 06:14 PM.
Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:09 PM
  #992
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
That's some weird math there. At 5-on-5 he played 340.5 minutes with Eriksson and 214.5 minutes with Henrik Sedin. Given that there was about 8-9 minutes of overlap where he played with both of those guys, that puts him at ~545 minutes which is 59% of his TOI with one of those guys. He also had 8-9 minutes with Daniel but without Henrik and another 19 minutes with Horvat (excluding time with any of the above mentioned players).

I do agree that having to play with someone like Sutter should be considered when assessing anyone, Granlund included. That said, Granlund's production was no better away from Sutter (he got 50% of his points in the 50.6% of his ice time with Sutter) so it might not have been a factor in his point total this season.
honestly "wasn't dragged down by the black hole of sutter" would be a big deal in his favour

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:15 PM
  #993
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
let's say jim benning trades widely accepted sub-replacement player bo horvat for noted bust hunter shinkaruk. next year horvat is unchanged and shinkaruk becomes a passable third line checker. bad trade or good?

scenario two: two years ago benning trades sub-replacement no horvat for future second line finisher markus granlund. good or bad trade?

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:24 PM
  #994
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
let's say jim benning trades widely accepted sub-replacement player bo horvat for noted bust hunter shinkaruk. next year horvat is unchanged and shinkaruk becomes a passable third line checker. bad trade or good?
The result doesn't matter, probability does. At that point it's a terrible trade because there is no argument for Shinkaruk probably being the better player in the future.

Granlund is different, though. IMO his early career goal scoring pace in the AHL was enough of an indicator not to completely write off his future potential despite his NHL struggles last season. That the evaluation of the player was so off is what made the deal seem so terrible at the time. If one allows that he shows potential as a goal scorer it changes the potential outlook considerably.

Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:28 PM
  #995
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
honestly "wasn't dragged down by the black hole of sutter" would be a big deal in his favour
Yeah, you can't have it both ways.

Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:46 PM
  #996
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The result doesn't matter, probability does. At that point it's a terrible trade because there is no argument for Shinkaruk probably being the better player in the future.

Granlund is different, though. IMO his early career goal scoring pace in the AHL was enough of an indicator not to completely write off his future potential despite his NHL struggles last season. That the evaluation of the player was so off is what made the deal seem so terrible at the time. If one allows that he shows potential as a goal scorer it changes the potential outlook considerably.
you cant say "the result implies [i] got the probability wrong" and then say that you arent judging a trade based on the result. well, i guess if i said "granlund has a zero percent chance of being a better player or asset than shinkaruk at any point", you could, but im not that stupid. even i personally have a non-zero chance of being an nhl player

i can easily be wrong about shinkaruk the player. i was probably between slightly and decently wrong about granlund the player. these are independent of the trade and independent of my assessment of jim benning the trader. they pertain to verv the scout and jim benning the scout

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 06:53 PM
  #997
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 54,159
vCash: 50
Granlund's value increased as he was hurt, we lost a lot of offensive flair since he has gone down.

I think the sedin sedin granlund line could be a thing next year

Lucbourdon is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 07:02 PM
  #998
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
I should have said "40% of Granlund's linemates ice-time was filled with top 6 quality players". I think that makes sense.

Scurr is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 07:10 PM
  #999
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,998
vCash: 50
thats technically what you were trying to convey but im not sure its useful

Verviticus is offline  
Old
04-08-2017, 10:31 PM
  #1000
Scurr
Bear G
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
thats technically what you were trying to convey but im not sure its useful
The quality of his linemates is certainly important if we're going to put his production in context. It'd be convenient to leave it at "he played 17 minutes a game!" but not very instructive.

Scurr is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.