 |
|
|
|
Next: Gauthier waived, Smith Captain
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 256
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:16 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?)
|
|
|
>> 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. :-)
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Sep 15, 2007
Posts: 44
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:49 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?)
|
|
|
"Chris" <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote in message
news:7mo4g3t80kvrn8u121bi7sseb63j3nt7jg@4ax.com...
> Sounds like an interesting analysis, though then you'd get caught up
> in the weighting factors, how much to weight, what are the cutoffs,
> etc.
At some point you'd have to make some arbitrary assessments and just go from
there. At least it'd be less arbitrary than 'playing in one game'. :)
If anyone actually ever does this, my suggestions for the breakdowns would
be something like
Group A= Picks 1-10
Group B= 11-20
C=21-30
D=31-50
E=51-75
F=76-100
G=101-125
H=125-end of draft.
Off the top of my head, I'd weight it:
A= 30 factor
B= 15 factor
C= 10
D= 8
E= 5
F= 3
G= 2
H= 1.
I think the weighting needs more refinement, because what I have implies a
team could land a top 10 pick by giving up three later first rounders, and
I'm not incredibly confident about that being terribly likely. Maybe a
40-20-10 step down at the first three levels? Anyway, once we found a
scale that made sense, however, all we'd have to do is multiply it out by
some uniform modifier and then widen the range incrementally to be able to
break down a specific picks 'value' within the range of 1-10. Like, the 6th
overall pick being 40% of the possible value of 15 within the range 16-30,
for instance.. so it'd be worth 21 points (base 15 + 40% of scale of 15 (6)=
21.)
At some point I think it'd make more sense to move the weighting to a pure
100 point scale to bring in an ease of percentiles, and now that I glance at
it the step down from A-E definitely need some adjusting.
HD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 04, 2003
Posts: 256
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:49 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?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:49:17 -0400, "HockeyinHD" <hidden RemoveThis @home.com>
wrote:
>
>"Chris" <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote in message
>news:7mo4g3t80kvrn8u121bi7sseb63j3nt7jg@4ax.com...
>
>> Sounds like an interesting analysis, though then you'd get caught up
>> in the weighting factors, how much to weight, what are the cutoffs,
>> etc.
>
>At some point you'd have to make some arbitrary assessments and just go from
>there. At least it'd be less arbitrary than 'playing in one game'. :)
>
>If anyone actually ever does this, my suggestions for the breakdowns would
>be something like
>
>Group A= Picks 1-10
>Group B= 11-20
>C=21-30
>D=31-50
>E=51-75
>F=76-100
>G=101-125
>H=125-end of draft.
>
>Off the top of my head, I'd weight it:
>
>A= 30 factor
>B= 15 factor
>C= 10
>D= 8
>E= 5
>F= 3
>G= 2
>H= 1.
>
>I think the weighting needs more refinement, because what I have implies a
>team could land a top 10 pick by giving up three later first rounders, and
>I'm not incredibly confident about that being terribly likely. Maybe a
>40-20-10 step down at the first three levels? Anyway, once we found a
>scale that made sense, however, all we'd have to do is multiply it out by
>some uniform modifier and then widen the range incrementally to be able to
>break down a specific picks 'value' within the range of 1-10. Like, the 6th
>overall pick being 40% of the possible value of 15 within the range 16-30,
>for instance.. so it'd be worth 21 points (base 15 + 40% of scale of 15 (6)=
>21.)
Oi vey. If someone goes through with that, I'll take a look at the
results, but I'm sure not going to do it. :-)
Of course, you're going to have an issue with your somewhat random
breakdowns and weighting factors, too.
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. 19) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:59 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?)
|
|
|
"Chris" <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote in message
news:c1t4g39o39o6clq4nusaop17cv8b23tt0o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
> <heymorons RemoveThis @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 -
>
> He put point production out there as criteria. How does that equate
> Parker to Zetterberg?
Because if you have a ton of mediocre players who merely subsist in the NHL
for a period of time you eventually outscore superior individual players by
sheer weight. For instance, I can get two Avs prospects who have scored 93
goals and 127 assists between them, while Zetterberg alone has scored 109
goals and 131 assists. In a "points only" normalization we've just now
roughly equated Henrik Zetterberg with Branko Radivojevic and Ville
Nieminen. Do you find that accurate?
> I still don't see why it's so hard to look at the picks the teams used
> on players, and see how many of those players either played in the
> NHL, played significantly in the NHL, or scored significantly in the
> NHL.
....and then say what, exactly? What conclusions do you think you could draw
from what you've proposed?
> You keep saying that the analysis needs something different, but fail
> to suggest specifically what that is. Go ahead and create some
> weights if you want, and do the analysis.
Although I touch on the weighting thing elsewhere, you'd almost have to have
different tables based on expectation. Meaning, if you're looking for a
dependable dman, a pick in the ranges of x, y, and z is more valuable to you
than a pick in the ranges a, b or c. If you're looking for a franchise
forward, a very early pick bears more fruit in that regard than ones in the
4th and later rounds. Then you simply look at the appropriate table and
figure out the assets needed to slot yourself in that position and line it
up with projections on who may be available in that range of selection.
HD. >> 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. 20) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:19 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.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191352525.087594.220850@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 2, 8:57 am, "HockeyinHD" <hid....TakeThisOut@home.com> wrote:
>> "Freedom Elz" <mediada....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1191329564.642944.141800@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > What Tom posted in indisputable, Lacroix drafted far more NHLers than
>> > Holland did.
>>
>> If that's the only factor you'll allow yourself to consider, alas.
>
> When evaluating draft prospects what the hell else matters?
Where they were picked. How many picks were made. For starters.
HD. >> 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. 21) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:20 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?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 02, 2007
Posts: 144
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:21 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 09:28:12 -0600, Chris <noone.RemoveThis@goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Why is 100 GP any kind of standard?
>>>>> Because it factors out cup-of-coffee guys, and nobody put forth anything
>>>>> better as a standard.
>>>>>
>>>> Again - see above. The GP is an absolute 7th grade comparative approach.
>>>> You need a weighed analysis - this has been said about 134 times now - GP is
>>>> a bullshit metric just about as valid as comparing/contrasting the merit of
>>>> a pick based upon the size of their sakes.
>>> GP is a great metric if your goal is merely to determine that teams
>>> with more holes in their roster draft better than good teams. Good
>>> teams don't have the luxury, or roster space, to bring up as many kids
>>> for "top level tryouts" as teams that aren't jockying for playoff
>>> position. Teams which rely on veterans, and find success doing so,
>>> also tend not to offer kids top level tryouts.
>> So, would you guys like to see something like this:
>>
>> Weight 1st round picks 1:1, 2-3rd round picks 1.5:1, 4-9th round picks
>> 2:1. Give one weighted point to players who've graduated to the NHL,
>> another weighted point to players who've played 80 games or more (one
>> full season), and another weighted point to players who've scored 100
>> or more points.
>>
>> So for example, a 1st round pick who made the NHL, played 100 games,
>> but was a scoring scrub gets 2 points. The same player who was
>> drafted in the 5th round gets 4 points, etc. Then, add up the points?
>>
>> Something like that?
>>
>> Sounds like an interesting analysis, though then you'd get caught up
>> in the weighting factors, how much to weight, what are the cutoffs,
>> etc.
>
> Sounds like an interesting project. While we're at it, let's add a
> few other factors:
>
> 1. I'd propose treating draft picks as any other form of team
> capital. Spending a draft pick on a veteran who comes in and nets 80
> points per year is a much better use of capital than using it to draft
> a guy who who nets 10 points. When determining effective use of draft
> picks, that simply has to be accounted for.
>
> 2. Weight the long-term make-up of a team's roster, as it pertains to
> stability throughout the lineup. Stable lineups allow for fewer
> call-ups and "top level tryouts" for youngsters. Unstable lineups,
> lineups that shift more from year to year, allow for more chances.
> Perhaps a multiplier based on lineup stability could be used.
>
> For instance, as Eric pointed out, the number of Red Wing call-ups
> would be seriously impacted by the fact that they used basically the
> same fourth line for the better part of a decade.
>
> Sounds like a lot of work that I don't have the time or patience for.
> Then again, unlike Tom's numbers, you could actually start to draw
> real-world conclusions about not only specific draft choices, but
> about the successful USE of draft picks.
>
> If all you could do with a draft pick was make a selection on draft
> day, Tom's chart would be a lot more applicable.
Again, the analysis I posted was not intended to be all-encompassing.
The point you seem to have missed is that my numbers analyzed teams'
success at identifying NHL-caliber talent.
-Thomas >> 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. 23) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:39 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 10:42:43 -0600, Chris <noone DeleteThis @goaway.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
><heymorons 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 -
>
>He put point production out there as criteria. How does that equate
>Parker to Zetterberg?
>
>And how in the world would you reasonably weight metrics? Talk about
>a disputable factoid. I actually don't have a huge problem with the
>idea, but if you can't agree on hard numbers (# games played, #
>players that made the NHL, # points by draftees), how in the world
>would anyone agree on soft, made up numbers, like weighted metrics?
>
>I still don't see why it's so hard to look at the picks the teams used
>on players, and see how many of those players either played in the
>NHL, played significantly in the NHL, or scored significantly in the
>NHL.
If you use points as a criteria then what happens to the defensive
defensemen and forwards?
>
>You keep saying that the analysis needs something different, but fail
>to suggest specifically what that is. Go ahead and create some
>weights if you want, and do the analysis.
>
>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. 24) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:39 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 15:39:17 -0400, xpenenyx RemoveThis @earthlink.net wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:42:43 -0600, Chris <noone RemoveThis @goaway.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
>><heymorons RemoveThis @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 -
>>
>>He put point production out there as criteria. How does that equate
>>Parker to Zetterberg?
>>
>>And how in the world would you reasonably weight metrics? Talk about
>>a disputable factoid. I actually don't have a huge problem with the
>>idea, but if you can't agree on hard numbers (# games played, #
>>players that made the NHL, # points by draftees), how in the world
>>would anyone agree on soft, made up numbers, like weighted metrics?
>>
>>I still don't see why it's so hard to look at the picks the teams used
>>on players, and see how many of those players either played in the
>>NHL, played significantly in the NHL, or scored significantly in the
>>NHL.
>
>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.
Chris >> 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. 25) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:52 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 15:21:50 -0400, Thomas <noneman.TakeThisOut@none.man> wrote:
>Again, the analysis I posted was not intended to be all-encompassing.
>The point you seem to have missed is that my numbers analyzed teams'
>success at identifying NHL-caliber talent.
Much like your other year analysis of the eight "deep defense." Who
really cares if a GM good at identifying a bunch marginal players?
>
>-Thomas >> 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. 26) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:06 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 12:18:21 -0700, Freedom Elz
<mediadawg1 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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?
Just a stab in the dark here: So that it's at least relevant?
> 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.
Along with the fairy tale that any appreciable number of people in
this newsgroup could concoct a decent research project. >> 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. 27) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:08 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?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:21:50 -0400, Thomas <noneman.DeleteThis@none.man> wrote:
>> Sounds like a lot of work that I don't have the time or patience for.
>> Then again, unlike Tom's numbers, you could actually start to draw
>> real-world conclusions about not only specific draft choices, but
>> about the successful USE of draft picks.
>>
>> If all you could do with a draft pick was make a selection on draft
>> day, Tom's chart would be a lot more applicable.
>
>Again, the analysis I posted was not intended to be all-encompassing.
>The point you seem to have missed is that my numbers analyzed teams'
>success at identifying NHL-caliber talent.
Except, of course, that you've failed on several counts; chief among
them is not realizing that what passes as "NHL-caliber talent" on one
team is stuck in a farm club on another. >> 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. 28) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:10 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 15:19:53 -0400, Thomas <noneman.TakeThisOut@none.man> wrote:
>Ken Holland has been unable to identify NHL-caliber talent. I proved it.
Leaving the fairy tale world behind for a moment, let's get on to the
interesting part:
>Wings homers want to expand the analysis a million different ways to try
>to complicate the issue, but the simple fact is that I have met all
>their challenges, refuted all their arguments, and the results are
>consistent.
Now you're interested in results? What if he's, in fact, using your
unproveable draft strategy? You remember that one. It's the one
where results don't matter.
I get the constant bashing of Holland at any cost. That's your
schtick. All I'm asking for is a little consistency. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 118
|
(Msg. 29) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:19 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?)
|
|
|
"Chris" <noone DeleteThis @goaway.com> wrote in message
news:n885g3t7c9e78fpbuna99n3v3l626lq0kp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:39:17 -0400, xpenenyx DeleteThis @earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:42:43 -0600, Chris <noone DeleteThis @goaway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 08:31:48 -0500, "Hockeyguy"
>>><heymorons 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 -
>>>
>>>He put point production out there as criteria. How does that equate
>>>Parker to Zetterberg?
>>>
>>>And how in the world would you reasonably weight metrics? Talk about
>>>a disputable factoid. I actually don't have a huge problem with the
>>>idea, but if you can't agree on hard numbers (# games played, #
>>>players that made the NHL, # points by draftees), how in the world
>>>would anyone agree on soft, made up numbers, like weighted metrics?
>>>
>>>I still don't see why it's so hard to look at the picks the teams used
>>>on players, and see how many of those players either played in the
>>>NHL, played significantly in the NHL, or scored significantly in the
>>>NHL.
>>
>>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.
>
> Chris
>
.....becuase he wasn't bright enough so he dumbed down the qualification
metic - oh boy that justifies it... >> 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. 30) Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:21 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 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. Follow the analysis to its logical conclusion and see if it
stands up. If the logical conclusion is as dumb as the day is long,
delete your friggin Excel spreadsheet and start anew. >> Stay informed about: So, let's castrate them... the FINAL WORD on the Draft |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Question for the group: Did Buffalo do the right thing? - Matching Edmonton's $7M+ per year offer for Vanek? Or should they have given him up and taken Edmonton's next 4 1st round draft picks? Chris
Avs after Sopel - ....according 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? "Possible trade here involving some of the Leafs young d-men, for Hejduk. Avs need cheap pointmen, Toronto has a lot. Could be Colaiacovo 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 "Gretzky" McGrath. Avs also signed use... |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
