|
Related Topics:
| Question for the group: Did Buffalo do the right thing? - Matching $7M+ per year offer for Vanek? Or should they have given him up and taken next 4 1st round draft picks? Chris
Avs after Sopel - to Eklund. -Thomas
The bar has been set - Crosby signed for $8.7M per season. 28 goal guys are going to be getting $6M per year soon. Chris
Bullshit Eklund Rumour - I had to laugh at this one... Are The Leaves Changing Early this Year? trade here involving some of the Leafs young d-men, for Hejduk. Avs need cheap pointmen, Toronto has a lot. Could be and Jay Harrison. Toronto needs to move..
Avs sign one of the Wings' best "prospects" - Avs signed Matt Hussey today. 5gp with the Wings last year. 3rd leading scorer of the Grand Rapids Griffins last year. Scored nearly 3x as many points last season as 06-07 NHL Hart Trophy finalist Evan McGrath. Avs also signed useless scrub..
|
|
|
Next: Gauthier waived, Smith Captain
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 83
|
(Msg. 31) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>sports>hockey>nhl>det-redwings, others (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:16:12 -0600, Chris <noone.TakeThisOut@goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, I think you guys are getting all hot and bothered over a
>>> "research project" which is not only short-sighted, but poorly
>>> constructed.
>>
>>And yet, not one of you has put up anything better to date.
>
>I thought it was OK also.
>
>That said, I wouldn't mind looking at the results of something someone
>else wants to put up. I don't expect to see it though. :-)
Actually, if it ever led to a full analysis of player procurement, I
think that would definitely be worth reading. Were it a report that
treated draft picks for what they are, a form of capital to be spent
of exchanged, that would be just dandy.
We could also leave out the blatant agendas and leaps of reason, but
that might be asking too much.
I also will most definitely not be taking up that project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 117
|
(Msg. 32) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:38 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Freedom Elz" <mediadawg1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191352701.793362.210060@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 2, 9:31 am, "Hockeyguy" <heymor... DeleteThis @whatever.net> wrote:
>> > What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
>> > Holland did.
>>
>> > End of story.
>>
>> Ya the end of a story written by someone with a seventh grade education.
>> THE ANALYSIS NEEDS WEIGHTED METRICS AS HIS ANALYSIS IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
>> Under his analysis 1st round pick Scott "Fucking" Parker is equal to
>> Zetterberg - even your neighbors dog knows this is a joke.
>
>
>> To work it must
>> be compared and contrasted and tested on various combinations of data
>> points - he doesn't know how to do that either.
>
> It does why? So Holland won't look as bad?
>
>
> I have not seen your
>> resident loudmouth respond to my (or anyone's) explanation of need for
>> relative worth on evaluation criteria....probably never will. End of
>> story - end of his fairy tale seem more appropriate.
>
> I agree the fairy tale of Holland being a draft genius has been
> skewered
> once and for all.
>
Look - not picking a fight, great that you love the avs, get it - no
problem. Not attacking you personally - but the analysis is flawed and a
number of people have pointed out the flaws. When you do random
comparative tests and if it fails once it fails completely - that is how it
works here in reality world.
It is OK - doesn't mean you can't love your team, country, whatever.
Anyone with at least a Jr. College education in mathematics can see it.
And if you have the boat load of matrix algebra courses and Calculus (well
sorry, we are not doing integration on trig equations here) or Six Sigma or
even comparative analysis workshops the flaws jump out at you. Understand
if you do not have a strong math background it is harder to grasp the
errors - kind of like trying to understand what someone is saying when you
do not speak French. And the lack of a solid math background is not a knock
on anyone - some get it and some dont]'t - no reflection on the person.
What we can all be happy about is that the guy who put this slop out for
consumption is not involved in the design/analysis discipline in the
aerospace industry. Especially with me flying home on Thurday....
It is OK to be wrong and this model is....it isn't the end of the world.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 144
|
(Msg. 33) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
WalkinDude wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:16:12 -0600, Chris <noone.TakeThisOut@goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, I think you guys are getting all hot and bothered over a
>>>> "research project" which is not only short-sighted, but poorly
>>>> constructed.
>>> And yet, not one of you has put up anything better to date.
>> I thought it was OK also.
>>
>> That said, I wouldn't mind looking at the results of something someone
>> else wants to put up. I don't expect to see it though. :-)
>
> Actually, if it ever led to a full analysis of player procurement, I
> think that would definitely be worth reading. Were it a report that
> treated draft picks for what they are, a form of capital to be spent
> of exchanged, that would be just dandy.
>
> We could also leave out the blatant agendas and leaps of reason, but
> that might be asking too much.
>
> I also will most definitely not be taking up that project.
Of course not.
You have never contributed anything to the groups. You just criticize
those that do.
-Thomas >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 144
|
(Msg. 34) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:07 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
WalkinDude wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:52:44 -0700, Freedom Elz
> <mediadawg1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Let me put it another way. In Tom's world, Lacroix gets POSITIVE
> CREDIT for blowing a first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Why?
> Because he suited for NHL games.
>
> 'Nuff said. You get credit for Nedorost, your research project has to
> be judged a failure.
I will explain this one more time.
If you go back and re-read my first couple posts about this, I said
quite clearly and plainly that the more relevant number is the 100gp.
Nobody here has made the argument that picking a guy who plays one game
makes you better at the draft than anyone else. Nobody. Not me, not my
analysis, not anyone who has posted to the thread.
You're the one putting those words in my mouth. I hope you realize that.
I hope you're just being a disrespectful prick, and not a completely
delusional prick.
Nedorost didn't play 100 NHL games, thus, he's not taken into
consideration in the more relevant 100gp criteria.
-Thomas >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 144
|
(Msg. 35) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:08 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
HockeyinHD wrote:
> "Freedom Elz" <mediadawg1.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1191352451.281834.181800@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Look at what he originally posted and the context that he framed it
>> within,
>> not one of you guys have been able to contradict any of it.
>
> Really?
Yes. Really.
Not successfully, anyway.
-Thomas >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 144
|
(Msg. 36) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
WalkinDude wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:14:11 -0700, Freedom Elz
> <mediadawg1.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Considering the Thomas and I have been at each other's throats this
>>>> year more often than we have been in agreement I don't see how you can make
>>>> that claim.
>>> In my defense, I haven't been here much.
>>>
>>> Oh, and it was a joke.
>>>
>>>> Seriously, look at what he put up and not one of you could discredit
>>>> anything that
>>>> he posted. The best you guys could come up with were references to the
>>>> Statue
>>>> of Liberty play and pointing to Zetterberg and Datsyuk as examples of
>>>> Holland's genius.
>>> Actually, I think you guys are getting all hot and bothered over a
>>> "research project" which is not only short-sighted, but poorly
>>> constructed.
>> And yet, not one of you has put up anything better to date. The simple
>> fact is that he took you all to hurt school on this one.
>
> I told him how to do it. He's the one with the excess free time and
> love for Excel. I had to teach Lotus in college. I freaking hate
> spreadsheets.
>
>>> Let me put it another way. In Tom's world, Lacroix gets POSITIVE
>>> CREDIT for blowing a first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Why?
>>> Because he suited for NHL games.
>> And Holland didn't blow the Wallin pick?
>
> Exactly. And what's the major difference here, Elz? I would never,
> ever, ever design a "system" which rewarded Holland for that pick.
> Yet, that's exactly what Tom has done.
>
>>> 'Nuff said. You get credit for Nedorost, your research project has to
>>> be judged a failure.
>>>
>>> Hey, I think math is fun, too. I just find it more enjoyable and
>>> constructive to back it up with some actual thought
>> Look at what he originally posted and the context that he framed it
>> within, not one of you guys have been able to contradict any of it.
>
> It's been refuted a hundred times, each better than the last.
>
> Again, it isn't the numbers. It's the fact that he's trying to draw
> conclusions from a simple-minded run of numbers without the proper
> context.
>
> Here's a topical hypothetical (though it isn't terribly hypothetical)
> for ya. Let's say Colorado trades one first round pick for Ray
> Bourque and uses another first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Let's
> suppose, for shits and giggles, that the first rounder traded for
> Bourque goes on to play 200 games on a fourth line in Boston and racks
> up 34 points in his illustrious career.
>
> Any analysis which rewards the latter and punishes the former is
> idiotic.
Wow. That's great.
What does it have to do with our discussion?
Vrbata didn't play 100 games, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" for that. The
pick was not made by Colorado, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" or
"punished" for it.
The thing you don't seem to get here is that a pick isn't a player until
that player is selected. How on Earth could you give Lacroix credit for
a pick that another team made? Lacroix didn't identify the player that
Boston selected.
And you think *my* logic is flawed.
-Thomas >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 117
|
(Msg. 37) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:42 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> If you go back and re-read my first couple posts about this, I said
> quite clearly and plainly that the more relevant number is the 100gp.
>
GP is a nonsense metric so therefore 100 GP is equally worthless. Trust me
or not but I was a math major - I mean you no ill will - you are completely
missing it and you have shown nothing to says you do understand what we are
talking about. Frankly it does matter a rats ass to any one of us who you
think is better. The longer you try to modify/tweak that GP measurement and
argue it's validity the dumber it makes you look. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 151
|
(Msg. 38) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Thomas" <noneman RemoveThis @none.man> wrote in message
news:1MednStQZf3bTZ_anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
> WalkinDude wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:14:11 -0700, Freedom Elz
>> <mediadawg1 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Considering the Thomas and I have been at each other's throats this
>>>>> year more often than we have been in agreement I don't see how you can
>>>>> make
>>>>> that claim.
>>>> In my defense, I haven't been here much.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and it was a joke.
>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, look at what he put up and not one of you could discredit
>>>>> anything that
>>>>> he posted. The best you guys could come up with were references to the
>>>>> Statue
>>>>> of Liberty play and pointing to Zetterberg and Datsyuk as examples of
>>>>> Holland's genius.
>>>> Actually, I think you guys are getting all hot and bothered over a
>>>> "research project" which is not only short-sighted, but poorly
>>>> constructed.
>>> And yet, not one of you has put up anything better to date. The simple
>>> fact is that he took you all to hurt school on this one.
>>
>> I told him how to do it. He's the one with the excess free time and
>> love for Excel. I had to teach Lotus in college. I freaking hate
>> spreadsheets.
>>
>>>> Let me put it another way. In Tom's world, Lacroix gets POSITIVE
>>>> CREDIT for blowing a first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Why?
>>>> Because he suited for NHL games.
>>> And Holland didn't blow the Wallin pick?
>>
>> Exactly. And what's the major difference here, Elz? I would never,
>> ever, ever design a "system" which rewarded Holland for that pick.
>> Yet, that's exactly what Tom has done.
>>
>>>> 'Nuff said. You get credit for Nedorost, your research project has to
>>>> be judged a failure.
>>>>
>>>> Hey, I think math is fun, too. I just find it more enjoyable and
>>>> constructive to back it up with some actual thought
>>> Look at what he originally posted and the context that he framed it
>>> within, not one of you guys have been able to contradict any of it.
>>
>> It's been refuted a hundred times, each better than the last. Again, it
>> isn't the numbers. It's the fact that he's trying to draw
>> conclusions from a simple-minded run of numbers without the proper
>> context.
>>
>> Here's a topical hypothetical (though it isn't terribly hypothetical)
>> for ya. Let's say Colorado trades one first round pick for Ray
>> Bourque and uses another first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Let's
>> suppose, for shits and giggles, that the first rounder traded for
>> Bourque goes on to play 200 games on a fourth line in Boston and racks
>> up 34 points in his illustrious career.
>>
>> Any analysis which rewards the latter and punishes the former is
>> idiotic.
>
> Wow. That's great.
>
> What does it have to do with our discussion?
>
> Vrbata didn't play 100 games, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" for that. The
> pick was not made by Colorado, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" or "punished"
> for it.
>
> The thing you don't seem to get here is that a pick isn't a player until
> that player is selected. How on Earth could you give Lacroix credit for a
> pick that another team made? Lacroix didn't identify the player that
> Boston selected.
>
> And you think *my* logic is flawed.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying he knows your logic is flawed >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 83
|
(Msg. 39) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:12:04 -0400, Thomas <noneman.RemoveThis@none.man> wrote:
>> Here's a topical hypothetical (though it isn't terribly hypothetical)
>> for ya. Let's say Colorado trades one first round pick for Ray
>> Bourque and uses another first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Let's
>> suppose, for shits and giggles, that the first rounder traded for
>> Bourque goes on to play 200 games on a fourth line in Boston and racks
>> up 34 points in his illustrious career.
>>
>> Any analysis which rewards the latter and punishes the former is
>> idiotic.
>
>Wow. That's great.
>
>What does it have to do with our discussion?
>
>Vrbata didn't play 100 games, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" for that. The
>pick was not made by Colorado, so Lacroix is not "rewarded" or
>"punished" for it.
I must not have noticed the last time you moved the bar in response to
the most recent negative press your "analysis" received.
>The thing you don't seem to get here is that a pick isn't a player until
>that player is selected. How on Earth could you give Lacroix credit for
>a pick that another team made? Lacroix didn't identify the player that
>Boston selected.
You completely missed the point. I'll try again in a slightly
modified format. Would it be better to:
1. Pick up Ray Bourque in exchange for a draft pick which wound up
yielding a guy who goes on to play 200 games (thus putting points
firmly in the Boston column and none in Lacroix's column)
or
2. Draft Vaclav Nedorost
In your odd world, here's what you should do, in order:
1. Hold the Bourque pick and take the guy who'll play 200 games.
That clears the bar and means you're a "good drafter".
2. Draft Nedorost. At least you'd get some points on versions 6.2
and earlier of this "system".
3. Pick up Bourque. This is NOT a good move, as it will
substantially lower your standing in the eyes of draft nerds
everywhere.
ANY system that rewards you for drafting a 4th liner instead of
dealing that pick for Ray Bourque is idiotic, plain and simple. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 83
|
(Msg. 40) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:52 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:07:52 -0400, Thomas <noneman.TakeThisOut@none.man> wrote:
>WalkinDude wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:52:44 -0700, Freedom Elz
>> <mediadawg1.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me put it another way. In Tom's world, Lacroix gets POSITIVE
>> CREDIT for blowing a first round pick on Vaclav Nedorost. Why?
>> Because he suited for NHL games.
>>
>> 'Nuff said. You get credit for Nedorost, your research project has to
>> be judged a failure.
>
>I will explain this one more time.
>
>If you go back and re-read my first couple posts about this, I said
>quite clearly and plainly that the more relevant number is the 100gp.
Why 100? Simply because it's the first number with 3 digits?
Here's a hint: As long as you're pulling all this stuff out of your
hind end, you should have just gone ahead and picked a number like 163
and then insisted it held statistical significance.
I'm glad I have a Six Sigma background. It's made this thread really
damn entertaining. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 83
|
(Msg. 41) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:53 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:04:29 -0400, Thomas <noneman.DeleteThis@none.man> wrote:
>WalkinDude wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:16:12 -0600, Chris <noone.DeleteThis@goaway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Actually, I think you guys are getting all hot and bothered over a
>>>>> "research project" which is not only short-sighted, but poorly
>>>>> constructed.
>>>> And yet, not one of you has put up anything better to date.
>>> I thought it was OK also.
>>>
>>> That said, I wouldn't mind looking at the results of something someone
>>> else wants to put up. I don't expect to see it though. :-)
>>
>> Actually, if it ever led to a full analysis of player procurement, I
>> think that would definitely be worth reading. Were it a report that
>> treated draft picks for what they are, a form of capital to be spent
>> of exchanged, that would be just dandy.
>>
>> We could also leave out the blatant agendas and leaps of reason, but
>> that might be asking too much.
>>
>> I also will most definitely not be taking up that project.
>
>Of course not.
>
>You have never contributed anything to the groups. You just criticize
>those that do.
Honestly, the victim card has never been your strongest, Tom. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 25, 2004
Posts: 177
|
(Msg. 42) Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:17 am
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:51:08 -0600, Chris <noone DeleteThis @goaway.com> wrote:
>>If you use points as a criteria then what happens to the defensive
>>defensemen and forwards?
>
>Right. This is one reason why Thomas used games played.
Maybe but I suspect that he did it because it was the easiest way.
Without looking at the actual picks I give Thomas the benefit of the
doubt that Detroit has the fewest picks that made it to the NHL. As it
has been pointed out that doesn't tell the full story. I suspect as
each new season replaces the last on the lists that will be changing.
In fact this year's rooster is made up of at least 50% Detroit picks.
OTOH according to Thomas they're all scrubs which is akin to his claim
Zetteberg was an ordinary prospect.
>
>Chris >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 256
|
(Msg. 43) Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:17 am
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:17:35 -0400, xpenenyx RemoveThis @earthlink.net wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:51:08 -0600, Chris <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>>If you use points as a criteria then what happens to the defensive
>>>defensemen and forwards?
>>
>>Right. This is one reason why Thomas used games played.
>
>Maybe but I suspect that he did it because it was the easiest way.
Sure it is. I mean, if we're trying to figure out which teams are
drafting regular NHL players, what criteria would you use?
Chris >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 15, 2007
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 44) Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:49 pm
Post subject: Re: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Thomas" <noneman DeleteThis @none.man> wrote in message
news:1MednShQZf33Up_anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@wideopenwest.com...
> HockeyinHD wrote:
>> "Freedom Elz" <mediadawg1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1191352451.281834.181800@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Look at what he originally posted and the context that he framed it
>>> within,
>>> not one of you guys have been able to contradict any of it.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes. Really.
>
> Not successfully, anyway.
Successfully according to whom?
HD. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
