HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2016, 02:36 AM
  #101
GaryinPrague
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 132
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I do want to point out two big problems with your argument.

1) Stanley and Scheifele are not comparable AT ALL.

Scheifele was not the statistical darling, but he was still in that tier. No one uses blind numbers or suggests to use blind numbers only, so really if Jets used numbers with scouting, the numbers would just say Scheifele is in the tier but maybe not the best, then your scouts deal with things within that.

Numbers with Stanley says that Stanley was taken a couple rounds early.

Maybe not the best pick but in the wheelhouse != not the right round.

BIG difference.

2) Despite everyone talking about how Jets are masterful drafters, they would have done pretty damn well if they went by numbers instead.

a) If the Jets decided to play by blind numbers using a PCS like model, which again no one suggests, they lose Copp and Lowry, and fodder. They gain Gostisbehere, McCabe, Shore, and Bjorkstrand (which I would def rather have) and fodder.

b) If the Jets used numbers with scouting, they'd still probably have Lowry and Copp with those added four, as Lowry had a down year from the season before due to mono and Copp numbers were deflated from starting on fourth line but he'd be drafted by numbers if you did his stats with him on the top line.


I work with teams and when I start, I always say the numbers are not there to make decisions for you, but to give you information to make better decisions. Draft theory is about combining the information gained with numbers AND scouts to make the best decisions possible. They both have their strengths, and they are different strengths.

Scheifele and Stanley are different.
If you go by the PCS numbers who would we have instead of Scheifele,Trouba,Morrisey,Ehlers,Connor?

GaryinPrague is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 02:39 AM
  #102
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryinPrague View Post
If you go by the PCS numbers who would we have instead of Scheifele,Trouba,Morrisey,Ehlers,Connor?
I believe if you went blind and put no opinion on it, which no one would suggest, you would have Couturier, Forsberg, Mantha, Ehlers, Connor.
Still pretty good, even if not perfect.

Everyone of the picks was still within the tier except for Morrissey, IIRC.
Morrissey and Trouba were the best PCS D-men at their picks, IIRC... I could be wrong on Morrissey as it may have been Theodore.

Going off the top of my head as I'm in transit right now.

IMO, the further you stray from the top picks, the more things like PCS matters.

garret9 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 02:52 AM
  #103
GaryinPrague
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 132
vCash: 50
does PCS work better with forwards? or it doesn't matter

Also, who would be the best PCS LD when the jets drafted

GaryinPrague is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 02:54 AM
  #104
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
We were arguing against where statistically he would be suggested to go. Statistically speaking, Stanley is a 3rd round pick.

Stanley did have a LARGE difference in opinion on where he should go. I knew one team that had him in the third round, and another that had him later 120.

Also, Bob Mckenzie doesn't rank anyone. He asks 6-10 scouts for their own personal list, which is fewer scouts than you'd have
It's good, but it, and the other rankings you have, also would fall to the same size bias that were discussing on Stanley, if that bias is not justifiable.
Personally I rather go with a combination of consensus rankings/stats/first hand scouting reports/late riser info etc/ rather than just stats. To each his own though. I have said it from the start that Stanley may not have been the right pick. My main point all along here has been its too early to be overly negative , especially since the Jets took him at a place thats not too far off from where the current scouting establishment had him at (whether you agree with their methodologies or not).


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-29-2016 at 03:16 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 03:44 AM
  #105
Evil Little
Registered User
 
Evil Little's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,274
vCash: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Don't find any irony of being just as emotional on people being emotional over the pick?
Did you quote the wrong post? I feel like maybe you quoted the wrong post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
I love all the appeals to authority in here.
Versus appeals to age/league/size-adjusted scoring ranking models?

Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
We were arguing against where statistically he would be suggested to go. Statistically speaking, Stanley is a 3rd round pick.

Stanley did have a LARGE difference in opinion on where he should go. I knew one team that had him in the third round, and another that had him later 120.

Also, Bob Mckenzie doesn't rank anyone. He asks 6-10 scouts for their own personal list, which is fewer scouts than you'd have
It's good, but it, and the other rankings you have, also would fall to the same size bias that were discussing on Stanley, if that bias is not justifiable.
Statistically speaking, he's a third round pick.

But, (to quote myself from the last thread):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Little View Post
For someone who's often stated that PCS or other age/size/league-adjusted scoring rankings are best used in conjunction with traditional scouting methods, I would expect you to be a little slower to jump to conclusions on the Stanley pick, and a little more interested in finding out just what the Jets' scouting department sees in him. Especially since their selections last year were so strongly aligned with high PCS value--other than Appleton, a selection they made despite his relatively poor age/size/league-adjusted scoring.

It would be concerning if they selected Stanley not knowing that his age/size/league-adjusted scoring projects him poorly. Since we know that they are aware of that--based in part on your conversation with Jets' staff regarding Appleton--I find the pick absolutely tantalizing.
So...

When balancing scoring models and traditional scouting, where should he have been taken?

Evil Little is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 03:48 AM
  #106
Sweech
Alles zu seiner Zeit
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,790
vCash: 5585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Little View Post
Versus appeals to age/league/size-adjusted scoring ranking models?
Uh, is that a real question? [mod]

Not to mention it's not like myself and others here haven't watched Stanley. I own OHL season tickets, I've seen him live. This isn't all just from statistical scouting models.

Or perhaps you'd like to tell me what you noticed in your live viewings?


Last edited by YWGinYYZ: 06-29-2016 at 04:06 AM. Reason: C'mon.
Sweech is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 04:12 AM
  #107
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,128
vCash: 50
A question for those claiming an appeal to authority: do you consider the scouts for the Jets "experts" in their field? Are you considering their role in the rankings only, or are you disputing the expert nature of the other scouts and the people / pundits who assemble draft rankings? Both?

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 04:15 AM
  #108
Evil Little
Registered User
 
Evil Little's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,274
vCash: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
Uh, is that a real question?

Not to mention it's not like myself and others here haven't watched Stanley. I own OHL season tickets, I've seen him live. This isn't all just from statistical scouting models.

Or perhaps you'd like to tell me what you noticed in your live viewings?
To be clear, I'm not making reference to anyone in particular, nor especially to anyone who's actually watched him. If you have, well good for you. Smear away.

But just as many are willing to go along with whatever the Jets' scouting staff will do--about that you're very right--there are others who will blindly follow whatever the non-proprietary adjusted-scoring model du jour is.

It's analogous.

(For the record, yes--you beat me. I haven't watched him one bit. But I also haven't hazarded a guess about his ceiling or floor. Truthfully, I'm just curious as to why a team who've drafted high value scoring-model players over the last couple of years like Stanley so much. Very curious.)

Evil Little is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 04:54 AM
  #109
Jetsfareast
YOUTH MOVEMENT
 
Jetsfareast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,019
vCash: 282
Can't wait to cheer for STANLEY

This kid if he develop and become what our scouting team envision.

Jets will have lock on ALL positions from all the drafting since SCHIEFELE.

The new D CORE will be Stanley , Trouba and Morrissey in 4 years

Stanley is the nasty , crease clearing big guy
Trouba is the awesome all around , all situational D
Morrissey is the smooth skating, breakout passing, power play specialist.


GO JETS!!!!

Jetsfareast is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 05:02 AM
  #110
Sweech
Alles zu seiner Zeit
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,790
vCash: 5585
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
A question for those claiming an appeal to authority: do you consider the scouts for the Jets "experts" in their field? Are you considering their role in the rankings only, or are you disputing the expert nature of the other scouts and the people / pundits who assemble draft rankings? Both?
Any appeal that says the Jets scouts, management, or any other scouting service know better than anyone else here because of their job is by definition an appeal to authority.

Sweech is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 05:12 AM
  #111
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
Personally I rather go with a combination of consensus rankings/stats/first hand scouting reports/late riser info etc/ rather than just stats. To each his own though. I have said it from the start that Stanley may not have been the right pick. My main point all along here has been its too early to be overly negative , especially since the Jets took him at a place thats not too far off from where the current scouting establishment had him at (whether you agree with their methodologies or not).
I'm not arguing that statistics should be all that you use. There is literally not one single soul on this planet that I know of or heard of that thinks this. You are arguing an opinion that does not exist.

Your missing of my point is related to you missing how Stanley and Scheifele are not comparable situations.

Scheifele was a matter of the consensus rankings and also fan base being a bit new to it all.
Scheifele was not the statistical favourite, but that was not the issue at hand nor anyones issue.

Stanley is a matter of those viewing the fact that players who score like Stanley tend not do very well, to the very extreme degree of being comparable to the average third round selection.

It's not that statistics should be the only thing you care about.
It's a huge skepticism that there is enough to close the gap between where he was selected and what Stanley's on ice performance suggests.

And I'm not limiting performance to scoring, as I have quite a few numbers on Stanley, like zone exits, entries, possession losses, and Corsi.

garret9 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 05:14 AM
  #112
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Little View Post
Did you quote the wrong post? I feel like maybe you quoted the wrong post.



Versus appeals to age/league/size-adjusted scoring ranking models?



Statistically speaking, he's a third round pick.

But, (to quote myself from the last thread):



So...

When balancing scoring models and traditional scouting, where should he have been taken?
The answer you look for is in here:


Top: picks 1-25
Mid: picks 26-50
Low: picks 50+

Scoring: > .6 ppg (which is pretty high)

Scouts can detect things that make a player more likely to succeed. This is due to many reasons:
* size - it is actually a very, very strong indicator of whether a "non-scoring" player will be in the top vs mid vs low tier
* seeing performance that wasn't quite matching the numbers used (ex: sh% variance, QoT, etc.)
* defensive and shot-differential value that is only loosely related to a player's scoring
* the bias in amateur player evaluations persisting into pro-level player evaluations (ie: players drafted on unjust bias will still have that going for them to play in the NHL)
* etc

This is what happens. Teams note things that they feel makes a player worth more/less than their scoring numbers, with some of it being self-fulfilling bias.
They are right those things exist, and which players have them, more often than not. They are wrong more often than not to the point that the non-scoring defenders in picks 1-25 should be in the 26-51 range... and that is a big gap.


Last edited by garret9: 06-29-2016 at 06:23 AM.
garret9 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 05:57 AM
  #113
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,128
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
Any appeal that says the Jets scouts, management, or any other scouting service know better than anyone else here because of their job is by definition an appeal to authority.
Not if you consider the scouts experts in their field. The classic definition of an appeal to authority would be to state that since Maurice is an NHL level coach, any opinion he formulates and espouses regarding the likelihood of a draftee's success is correct.

Now, there is a great amount of debate regarding the veracity of scout's level of "expert" - that I'd buy. If you feel they're incorrect, then yes: I guess I could see why you see this as an appeal to authority.

Realize of course that I'm playing devils advocate here - I actually mostly side with the numbers behind Stanley, and feel that the pick was risky.

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 07:44 AM
  #114
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 6,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
A question for those claiming an appeal to authority: do you consider the scouts for the Jets "experts" in their field? Are you considering their role in the rankings only, or are you disputing the expert nature of the other scouts and the people / pundits who assemble draft rankings? Both?
I do both . I treat all scouts across all teams and third party agencies equally at about their average.

The reasoning is we never really know where individual teams have their scouting rankings.

Secondly, because in the analysis I've done of historical third party rankings (css and iss primarily) they have been far worse then blind statistical models, even within the top 10. They usually only have the top 3 right.


That's just me.

The basis for my dislike of appeals to authority is its based on an assumption that the pros are actually very good.

Some are. A lot are not. Most are not better then the string statistical models . A decent chunk are worse then the most basic models.


I like taking the appeal if authority to an extreme to point out the silliness of it.

If a police officer kills someone in the line of duty is it an open and shut case? After all, police officers are professionals. Supposed experts at determining who's a threat to the public and negating it properly.

No one would agree with that logic . Anytime that happens there is a massive third party investigation .

Why? Because we accept that professionals and experts are not infallible and putting blind trust in then would result in extremely negative consequences.

Why can't we make the jump if carrying that logic over? Especially when we already have pretty solid research that says some basic math IS more reliable then a decent chunk of so called professionals.

Obviously that's taking it to the extreme, but that is a common logical fallacy practice to see if it holds water.

Assuming experts are right because they are experts (without looking at their track records vs other decision making processes that aren't "expert driven" to bench mark) is pretty risky


There's not many businessesoutside/realms of society outside of pro sports where this would be acceptable.

Grind is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 07:49 AM
  #115
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,128
vCash: 50
Depends on your definition of appeal to authority: assuming that a Doctor of Neurology can speak on world economic issues with some reliability simply because he's great in his field is an appeal to authority. Assuming that he can speak to issues revolving around Neurology is not necessarily an appeal to authority: he is an expert.

So IMO: it comes down to your assumption regarding the expert nature of either the pundits or the scouts. Personally, I take all opinions with a grain of salt, but it's not necessarily an appeal to authority if you assume that a professional who is paid to render their opinion within their field of expertise could be correct.

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 07:59 AM
  #116
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 6,355
vCash: 500
I call agreeing with the decision if a labeled expert regardless of any knowledge of their historicak success rate regarding such decisions, blindly over proven information with a strong track record that disagrees with the experts decision, an appeal to authority.

You dont have access to information regarding the experts decision making process nor the historical success rate of that process.

You do have access to the other decision making options and their historicak success rates (which shows a general trend of being more reliable then "experts")

Thus you ignore or disregard more information that is more reliable and historically proven in favour of an opinion/decision making process that is as of yet fairly unproven (in comparison to the alternative models)

Essentially= ignoring more information and tested decision making processes in favour a non transparent decision by a unverified expert is an appeal to authority, in my eyes.


Edit = all hat being said I do look favourably upon an expert's opinion. They do know more about this then I do. If the difference was something like scheifele and couturier I'd probably be reasonably ok with that .

It's when the disconnect is in the exact same areas that historically experts have been their worst vs statistical models is why I am so sceptical.

Stanley is the epitome of the type of player/decision that models make up significant ground vs NHL scouts.

Grind is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 08:04 AM
  #117
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,128
vCash: 50
That's fine - just wanted to toss out there that I think the "appeal to authority" narrative is tossed around a fair amount, and is occasionally used as a somewhat lazy mechanism to dismiss opinions. Sometimes experts are experts, and sometimes ... well, they're not.

This is why I appreciate things like PCS, and the work that Rheged and yourself do - it allows us to formulate some of our own opinions based that are devoid of a scout's potential biases.

YWGinYYZ is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 08:14 AM
  #118
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,998
vCash: 777
Who would you have liked between Stanley and Girard? And out of the two who is more likely to become an everyday NHL player?

Joe Hallenback is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 08:16 AM
  #119
Jetsfareast
YOUTH MOVEMENT
 
Jetsfareast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,019
vCash: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by truck View Post
Lemieux isn't in the Jets group. Stanley may never be.
I never mentioned this season 😀

Jetsfareast is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 08:20 AM
  #120
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 6,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
Who would you have liked between Stanley and Girard? And out of the two who is more likely to become an everyday NHL player?
Girard.

But I wouldn't have been super excited about either at 22.

The forward quality available is where the significant disconnect was, as evidenced by our similar pretty draft mock on this board.

Grind is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 08:24 AM
  #121
DEANYOUNGBLOOD17
Registered User
 
DEANYOUNGBLOOD17's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 366
I do not like the pick because I did not like the opportunity cost of trading down and losing #36. If we would have picked Stanley at #22 I would have a wait and see attitude and and just hope things work out in the future.

How ever if we could have made the same trade of #22 and #36 and received Chyruen #16 or even Fabbro #17 ( instead of Stanley and pick #79 Green) I would have been ecstatic and thought that we totally had the the best 1 st round.

So given my above preference in action. So if either Stanley (18) or Green (79) surpass Chyruen (16) or (17) Fabbro the Jets scouts win the draft hindsight game.

If Chychrun or Fabbro are by far Superior to either Stanley and Green then they targeted the wrong D-man.

I saw the move up value in 2 of the 3 of the D men picked with the 16/17/18 picks. Instead of Stanley I would have picked 2 of 3 of these D-Men .... Johanson / Clague / Hajek.

DEANYOUNGBLOOD17 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 09:03 AM
  #122
Mortimer Snerd
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,633
vCash: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
You're having a different discussion than I am. I was simply disputing your "5th or 6th" round statement.
How is that a different discussion? The post you quote is my defense of that statement.

I could have said that Stanley should not have been drafted at all but passed over. I didn't. I said he is a long shot who should have been taken in the late rounds, like 5th or 6th. That is not 'overboard' at all. The typical success rate of players taken in those rounds matches what I think are the odds of Stanley becoming a successful pick.

Mortimer Snerd is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 09:09 AM
  #123
Mortimer Snerd
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,633
vCash: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by raideralex99 View Post
I trying to figure out what the problem is here.
Majority say Stanley is bust on the Jets HFs which I find funny, actually sad ... the kid is still learning and only the Jet HF fans are calling him down ... Wow.
Remember 2014 season when Buff got suspended during the playoff run more than half of you wanted him gone. Things change so quickly eh?
Give Stanley a break ... the poor kid is trying to become a pro with our team ... do you really think he deserves to be called a bust?
I haven't see where anyone called him a bust. I certainly haven't. He is a bad pick. It was especially bad to trade up to get him. The odds of him becoming a bust are far higher than the odds of him being a successful NHL player. But he is just starting the journey. Which he becomes is entirely unknown at this point.

It isn't about Stanley. It is about the picks that were surrendered to get Stanley.

Mortimer Snerd is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 09:27 AM
  #124
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 26,806
vCash: 500
How many very big junior defensemen in the past 15-20 years would have been first rounders based on projection models?

My concern with these models is that they are not very sensitive with large defensemen. Almost none of the best big defensemen in the NHL today would have been rated highly by production-based methods.

Has anyone actually gone back and used statistical methods to calculate the accuracy of the cohort-based projection methods for different classes of players using something like a kappa or J statistic? Seems to me that the method can't take credit for panning Boris Valabik and Jared Cowan without also owning missing out on almost every one of the top big D in the NHL (e.g. Myers and Weber and Chara).

Whileee is online now  
Old
06-29-2016, 09:27 AM
  #125
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,128
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
How is that a different discussion? The post you quote is my defense of that statement.

I could have said that Stanley should not have been drafted at all but passed over. I didn't. I said he is a long shot who should have been taken in the late rounds, like 5th or 6th. That is not 'overboard' at all. The typical success rate of players taken in those rounds matches what I think are the odds of Stanley becoming a successful pick.
Then let me simply state: as much as I thought there were better selections available / d-men that I'd have preferred, in my opinion your positioning of Stanley is wrong.

YWGinYYZ 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 03:05 AM.

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.