HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Robson Division Semifinals: Orillia Terriers vs Regina Pats

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2017, 09:28 PM
  #76
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
For the reasons I stated already regarding adjusting via averages, and because it drives me nuts seeing these numbers cited in ATD profiles of older players.

We do a ton of other great research for all these guys and then people go and stick in Mickey Mouse numbers that do nothing but muddy the water and take away from real finds.

But this is all beside the point here.
I just wish there was a better reason that had a chance of compelling me other than it drives you nuts...

Quote:
With how stacked that team was they could afford to play specialists and play people to their strengths (or for greatest advantage over the opposition).. so I would agree with your theory being a good possibility.
I agree that it's definitely possible, however, Savard ended up with more estimated ES TOI than Robinson just as often as the opposite happened.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 09:40 PM
  #77
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree that it's definitely possible, however, Savard ended up with more estimated ES TOI than Robinson just as often as the opposite happened.
OK.. what about PP time? If Savard and Robinson average out to roughly equivalent ES TOI, and Savard had more PK TOI, then surely Robinson got way more PP TOI? The offensive stats seem to reflect that.

I suppose it's entirely possible that Robinson was simply counted on for more of the heavy lifting offensively, leaving guys like Savard for the defensive duties. I don't think that's really an indictment on Robinson - more a tip of the cap to Savard, really.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 09:43 PM
  #78
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
For the reasons I stated already regarding adjusting via averages, and because it drives me nuts seeing these numbers cited in ATD profiles of older players.

We do a ton of other great research for all these guys and then people go and stick in Mickey Mouse numbers that do nothing but muddy the water and take away from real finds.

But this is all beside the point here.
What's wrong with adjusting via averages, anyway?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 09:54 PM
  #79
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,677
vCash: 500
Anyway, this series is pretty close but I like Dreakmur's ability to frustrate Lafleur through the neutral and defensive zone. I'm not real sure Regina can really say the same thing about Dreakmur's top line.

On the other side, I don't think Dreakmur really has a great line to match up against the Malkin line. To be honest I'm not real sure how Dreakmur got away with his second line, to me it's pretty mediocre. The offensive talent is there but there's pretty much nothing else. There's a line that is going to have real problems if they ever ice the puck IMO.

This really comes down to the big flaw of Dreakmur's 2nd line vs. his great ability to slow down Lafleur. On top of I believe Dreakmur's 1st line being able to have their way with Regina.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 10:00 PM
  #80
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
OK.. what about PP time? If Savard and Robinson average out to roughly equivalent ES TOI, and Savard had more PK TOI, then surely Robinson got way more PP TOI? The offensive stats seem to reflect that.

I suppose it's entirely possible that Robinson was simply counted on for more of the heavy lifting offensively, leaving guys like Savard for the defensive duties. I don't think that's really an indictment on Robinson - more a tip of the cap to Savard, really.
yes, that's pretty much how it went, and yes I agree it's a tip of the cap to Savard.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 10:10 PM
  #81
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Anyway, this series is pretty close but I like Dreakmur's ability to frustrate Lafleur through the neutral and defensive zone. I'm not real sure Regina can really say the same thing about Dreakmur's top line.

On the other side, I don't think Dreakmur really has a great line to match up against the Malkin line. To be honest I'm not real sure how Dreakmur got away with his second line, to me it's pretty mediocre. The offensive talent is there but there's pretty much nothing else. There's a line that is going to have real problems if they ever ice the puck IMO.

This really comes down to the big flaw of Dreakmur's 2nd line vs. his great ability to slow down Lafleur. On top of I believe Dreakmur's 1st line being able to have their way with Regina.
Recchi's far from mediocre (a 1st line talent in this draft), but yes, the other two certainly are. Patrick is a good value pick nonetheless.

In what way do you see the 1st line having its way against Regina? Against which line exactly? Against the bottom 6, for example, we have perhaps the best counter to Lindsay, a fight-fire-with-fire approach with Tocchet being the most physical forward of his era and Nolan being among the better ones of his, both with a lot of height and weight to throw his way.

If you mean against the 1st line, I'm not sure why because we've got even levels of talent on each line but Gilmour's near-elite defense is a huge bonus over anything they have. Don't forget Foyston is a center, not a RW.

If you mean against the 2nd line, yes, I agree, there'd be a big mismatch there, but if he goes for matchups like that then I'd probably get the same one, and Regina's 1st would have their way with Orillia's 2nd. Can you imagine Lynn Patrick going against Lafleur?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2017, 10:55 PM
  #82
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I just wish there was a better reason that had a chance of compelling me other than it drives you nuts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
What's wrong with adjusting via averages, anyway?
Did I just imagine the post where I explained that averages don't really apply to the subset of people selected for professional sports that well?

Like if you adjusted a hypothetical multi sport athlete from 1900 to the NHL today and the same theoretical person to the NBA today they would be different sizes.

A player adjusted to the late 90s would be slightly larger than now etc.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 02:13 AM
  #83
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Don't forget Foyston is a center, not a RW.
Foyston had success at every forward position.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 02:25 AM
  #84
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,483
vCash: 500
I have to say that I was surprised to see "adjusted size" rear its ugly head again. Not just because it's an eyesore in bios.

The size of humans absolutely has increased over time, mostly due to nutrition. But it hasn't been linear and it hasn't been evenly distributed.

Hod and Bruce Stuart would huge for their era, and would be like the largest players in this league by the "adjusted size" formula.

Contemporaries of Hod and Bruce talked about how they were so big because they were "corn fed" farm boys. Yes, there was a high degree of variability in nutrition back then, which there really isn't anymore, at least not in the industrialized world, where calories are plentiful.

The increase in average human size has not been linear, it is determined mainly by access to better nutrition than the previous generation. (People born during the Great Depression were not really bigger than their parents; size has basically plateaued for those born since the post-WW2 industrialization of agriculture and proliferation of petroleum-based fertilizers made calories cheap and plentiful).

I don't understand the need to create formulas for everything. Just say big players then would be big now and leave it at that.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 08:25 AM
  #85
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't understand the need to create formulas for everything. Just say big players then would be big now and leave it at that.
I'm with you on this one.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 10:07 AM
  #86
Johnny Engine
Moderator
 
Johnny Engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have to say that I was surprised to see "adjusted size" rear its ugly head again. Not just because it's an eyesore in bios.

The size of humans absolutely has increased over time, mostly due to nutrition. But it hasn't been linear and it hasn't been evenly distributed.

Hod and Bruce Stuart would huge for their era, and would be like the largest players in this league by the "adjusted size" formula.

Contemporaries of Hod and Bruce talked about how they were so big because they were "corn fed" farm boys. Yes, there was a high degree of variability in nutrition back then, which there really isn't anymore, at least not in the industrialized world, where calories are plentiful.

The increase in average human size has not been linear, it is determined mainly by access to better nutrition than the previous generation. (People born during the Great Depression were not really bigger than their parents; size has basically plateaued for those born since the post-WW2 industrialization of agriculture and proliferation of petroleum-based fertilizers made calories cheap and plentiful).

I don't understand the need to create formulas for everything. Just say big players then would be big now and leave it at that.
One point of contention - just because one can explain the size differences, doesn't mean the bigger players didn't have a certain amount of competitive advantage against their peers. But I don't think that's what you meant.

Their are a few sore spots with adjusted size for me.

First, the level of crudeness in the metrics we have. If we're being honest, we all admit that the metrics aren't based in hard data. But I can't help but feel that's a cop out. Either the metric is good or it isn't. Continuing to bring it up, while tacking on "but don't take it too seriously" isn't the answer.

Second, the idea of an "adjusted" quantity used to stand in for a real one smacks of half of a lie. One of the many advantages VsX and it's variants has over H-R's Adjusted Points is that they more or less do what they say they do. They explicitly state that the number will be a percentage of another, real, number. The research aspect of the ATD should promote better information, not "alternative" information, you catch my drift? It's a stone cold fact that Wayne Gretzky scored 8.3% more points than Sergei Fedorov in 93/94. It is not a fact of any kind that Gretzky scored 119 adjusted points that year, regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion.

If we want to use a metric at all (and I approve of more work being done) the best one might be a percentage over/under average, with the benchmarks set at 6 and 200 (those being satisfying round numbers, much in the same way 100 is a satisfying round number for points/82 games).

Johnny Engine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 11:25 AM
  #87
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Foyston had success at every forward position.
That's kind of a vague statement. Like saying that Frank Nighbor or Joe Malone had "success" at LW. Doesn't quantify at all what level of experience they actually have at the position.

A few games at one position in real life, regardless of success, doesn't necessarily mean a player can or should play there in the ATD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Did I just imagine the post where I explained that averages don't really apply to the subset of people selected for professional sports that well?
No, but I don't see why it's important.

Quote:
Like if you adjusted a hypothetical multi sport athlete from 1900 to the NHL today and the same theoretical person to the NBA today they would be different sizes.
but who cares? We're doing a hockey ATD, not a basketball one. We should be specifically interested in size trends among this particular subset.

Quote:
A player adjusted to the late 90s would be slightly larger than now etc.
That sounds like a problem for a person who expects the concept of adjusted size to be an exact science or thinks it already is.

It doesn't really matter what standard is used as long as they are accurate relative to eachother. We could "adjust to the late 90s" as you alluded to, or to today (which is nearly the exact same thing), or to 1950, that is inconsequential. Modern sizes "feel" better though, because that's what we know and see every day in the NHL.

(the late 90s size peak is actually what I use for adjustment. Heights are only down 0.2". If league size continues to drop beyond the five pounds that it has from the 2006 peak then as time goes on we will have a generation of smaller players which would buck the past trend of sizes always increasing, but for the most part the players from the generation that are really starting to sway the league average downwards are so young that we're not drafting them yet, so this is still a consideration for a couple of years down the road)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I have to say that I was surprised to see "adjusted size" rear its ugly head again. Not just because it's an eyesore in bios.

The size of humans absolutely has increased over time, mostly due to nutrition. But it hasn't been linear and it hasn't been evenly distributed.

Hod and Bruce Stuart would huge for their era, and would be like the largest players in this league by the "adjusted size" formula.

Contemporaries of Hod and Bruce talked about how they were so big because they were "corn fed" farm boys. Yes, there was a high degree of variability in nutrition back then, which there really isn't anymore, at least not in the industrialized world, where calories are plentiful.

The increase in average human size has not been linear, it is determined mainly by access to better nutrition than the previous generation. (People born during the Great Depression were not really bigger than their parents; size has basically plateaued for those born since the post-WW2 industrialization of agriculture and proliferation of petroleum-based fertilizers made calories cheap and plentiful).
I don't see why any of this is that important. There's no reason why one can be very interested in the average size of top level hockey players over the years and yet not interested in all in the average size of humans in general and the reasons for the differences from one generation to the next. It's enough to be aware that those differences exist in hockey and act accordingly.

by the way, at least in the NHL the size differences over the years have moved in as close to a linear fashion as can be expected:
https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/02/19...-a-brief-look/

(I know this isn't key to what you were saying, but it's inaccurate to say that the Stuarts would be "like the largest players in this league" by adjusted size. Hod would only come out to 6'5", 230. Regina has three defensemen who adjust to that size, Orillia has one, and there's a handful more out there I'm sure. Bruce was obscenely tall and would come out to a lanky 6'7" and 220, and why shouldn't he be when he was a full 2" taller than anyone significant that he played against?)

Quote:
I don't understand the need to create formulas for everything. Just say big players then would be big now and leave it at that.
I don't understand this thinking at all. Couldn't one just as easily say "I dont understand the need to create formulas for everything. Just say a good scorer then would be a good scorer now and leave it at that."? Why is that not the same thing? (actually, years ago we had guys who said things very similar to that... they went by the name of God Bless Canada, among others)

Here in the ATD community we like to dig, we like to analyze and we like to quantify. To us, it's not enough to just say that Mogilny had 1054 points and Mosienko had 698, or that Mosienko was a top-10 scorer 5 times and Mogilny only was twice. Neither compared them in a way that was fair or accurate. We said there had to be a better way to quantify this in a way that was fair. To us, it would never be enough to say "well, they were both good scorers and leave it at that."

And we have succeeded. VsX is far from perfect but now we all use it exactly in the way we should use adjusted size - As a guide, with the caveat that there is a certain margin of error attached to it. Just like VsX is only a starting shorthand from which we should then ask, "what about their linemates? what about playoffs? what about outside their best 7 years? what about per-game scoring? what about goals vs. assists bias?", Adjusted size should only be a starting shorthand from which we should ask, "how did they use their size? were they physical or soft? Were they known as being strong? were they durable? what strengths or weaknesses did this size or lack of, give them according to accounts of their play?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
One point of contention - just because one can explain the size differences, doesn't mean the bigger players didn't have a certain amount of competitive advantage against their peers. But I don't think that's what you meant.
agree.

Quote:
Their are a few sore spots with adjusted size for me.

First, the level of crudeness in the metrics we have. If we're being honest, we all admit that the metrics aren't based in hard data. But I can't help but feel that's a cop out. Either the metric is good or it isn't. Continuing to bring it up, while tacking on "but don't take it too seriously" isn't the answer.

Second, the idea of an "adjusted" quantity used to stand in for a real one smacks of half of a lie. One of the many advantages VsX and it's variants has over H-R's Adjusted Points is that they more or less do what they say they do. They explicitly state that the number will be a percentage of another, real, number. The research aspect of the ATD should promote better information, not "alternative" information, you catch my drift? It's a stone cold fact that Wayne Gretzky scored 8.3% more points than Sergei Fedorov in 93/94. It is not a fact of any kind that Gretzky scored 119 adjusted points that year, regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion.

If we want to use a metric at all (and I approve of more work being done) the best one might be a percentage over/under average, with the benchmarks set at 6 and 200 (those being satisfying round numbers, much in the same way 100 is a satisfying round number for points/82 games).
I don't think our positions are that far apart, really.

When someone says "hod Stuart's height adjusts to 6'5" they're really saying "Hod Stuart was 3-4" taller than the average player in his time"; they're just also packaging in with it the obvious fact that someone who is 3-4" taller than the average NHLer today would be about 6'5".

I agree that using percentages would be more accurate than raw numbers; however, I don't see the need for such granularity. For example, a player 4" taller than the average in 1906 is 5.9% taller than average, and a player who meets the same standard in 2006 is 5.5% taller than average. I don't see the need for such distinction - do you? With the two averages being so close together, 4" means about the same thing in both cases. I'm not sure creating the sense that we're acting like it's more accurate than it is really helps its credibility at all.

(even in weights, a player 40 pounds heavier than average in 1906 and 2006 is 19.5-23.8% above average, a small enough difference that we're probably better off just leaving it alone and saying 40 is 40)

Certainly it could be made more accurate by tweaking the cutoffs for years used and adjustments used, but then we're getting into fractions of inches, single pounds, odd cutoffs that are not easy to remember offhand, and all for accuracy gains that are minimal. My rough system, for example, was tested using the years in which players born right in between cutoffs would be 26. That's just a catch-all age that's meant to work for everyone as best as possible, but in reality some players were just starting at that age (meaning the league average was slightly higher during their career than we are assuming for them) and some others were nearly finished by that age (meaning the opposite). If we are going to start attempting to make something that perfectly explains how much bigger or smaller than average a player was in his career, it'll almost surely have to be done on a player-by-player basis.

Back to what I said at the start, I have no problem with someone saying "Hod Stuart was 3-4" taller than the average player in his time", and I'll treat him as being taller than a player like Vadnais, who was only 1-2" taller than the average player in his time, which is similar to what you all will do as well. If I take that an extra step further and say that Stuart is 2" taller than Vadnais on an adjusted basis, that really shouldn't be a problem.


Last edited by seventieslord: 04-25-2017 at 03:04 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2017, 11:38 PM
  #88
Voight
MAGA
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA > TOR
Country: United Nations
Posts: 14,613
vCash: 520
Toughest series to pick by far

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2017, 03:53 PM
  #89
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 12,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Did I just imagine the post where I explained that averages don't really apply to the subset of people selected for professional sports that well?

Like if you adjusted a hypothetical multi sport athlete from 1900 to the NHL today and the same theoretical person to the NBA today they would be different sizes.

A player adjusted to the late 90s would be slightly larger than now etc.
How did bigger guys back in the day skate in those crappy skates?

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2017, 09:37 PM
  #90
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyzombies View Post
How did bigger guys back in the day skate in those crappy skates?
Uphill and in the snow both ways.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2017, 03:36 PM
  #91
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,370
vCash: 500
Jesus Christ, dreakmur, you are relentless. You fought right till the end, while still keeping it well within the bounds of acceptable yet partisan debate. You kept me way busier than I wanted to be, and I'm just glad it's finally over, no matter the result. And I wouldn't have been the least bit ashamed to lose this series to you and the Orillia Terriers.

I hope we can do this again one day - just not in round one. Let's make sure we push for divisional alignments that make more sense next year and beyond.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2017, 04:35 PM
  #92
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,677
vCash: 500
You think it's going to be any easier against BB?

Provided BB actually shows up for this round.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:48 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.