Not the worst idea. Although Vancouver might think he's a top pairing defenseman and send Jake Virtanen for him.
- James_Tanner

Your constant trolling is weak

Without people trolling no one would read this garbage BTW.
- Newgod77

Interesting observation!!!

Seems every D you bash as hot garbage is deployed against the other teams top lines.



It's going to be embarrassing when the ANALytics guys tell you QOC is a big factor.

So I guess that you believe that analytics have reached there zenith and there are no more true unknowns when it comes to data?

- Pres.cup

Not at all. But forget hockey for a second - in the world (any topic, any thing) measuring and quantifying data will help you make a better decision. Why should hockey be any different?

Plus, there are zero people who study the data and don't also watch games and work to put their numbers into context. It might be the main objection of people who find stats annoying, but it's dumb and nonsensical.

Furthermore, we know for a fact (not opinion) that people over-value size, character, leadership and other intangibles.

We know about confirmation bias, recency bias and all the other things that turn general conversations about player abilities into surveys about their reputations.

We know that EA Sports has more influence on player reputations than reality.

Finally, this idea that there are two ways to go about evaluating players and "analytics is just one of the tools" has to be the ultimate dumb thing people say about stats. It suggests that watching and reviewing the data are two halves of the same whole, but they aren't.

Observation is important. If the data makes you question what you see, this is a good thing and you need to work through it in order to get an answer, but to suggest that you should somehow limit what you learn from data because it's 'just one tool' is asinine.

You wouldn't say that about anything else. Data usage should be an integral part, the largest part and the most important part of player evaluation. To say otherwise is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense.

James Tanner




Nice troll post
- Pres.cup

IF I was saying that to get a reaction, that is 'trolling' what I am actually doing here is making a joke. I know you probably can't tell the difference, and for that I am truly sorry - that must suck so bad for you.

1) I do recall Tipett sticking up for gross and pointing out that the stats will always undervalue what a guy like him brings. Pandering to the media? Maybe. Different opinion after the season? Maybe. Doesn't matter what he thinks cause Chayka doesn't like him? Maybe. But those are all just guesses and the only solid statement we have is that he likes him.

2) discounting Murphy is a huge mistake. I didn't love when they picked him so high, but he is still a young, maturing defender. A maturing player on a bad team is often going to have bad analytics.

3) I love that you defend analytics and most people on here truly are wrong and I too am sick of the "it's a tool in a large toolbox" argument. I think it's more like its the actual toolbox, and some of the tools that are part of the package include observation, etc but it's all on a foundation of analytics. That's how it is in every other sphere of life; it's how your self driving car will work on 10 years, and it's how the savvy nhl GMs are using it.

4) with that said I do think you rely too much on your hero charts. You need to add in scenario planning to your analysis. These are analytics tools that answer the question of "what if"...what if Murphy is the second pairing on the Kings..would his numbers look the same? If your answer is no, then you have to ask "why"...better d partners, more skilled offense, a selke finalist in Kopitar, better goaltending, etc etc. Also you need to add trends and projections. A player and teams growth will change and you don't put enough weight on that.

5) just for fun...I am now excited for the season since you think we'll be terrible, simply because your projections of the season are generally dead wrong. cough...gagner leads us to the playoffs...cough

Not at all. But forget hockey for a second - in the world (any topic, any thing) measuring and quantifying data will help you make a better decision. Why should hockey be any different?

Plus, there are zero people who study the data and don't also watch games and work to put their numbers into context. It might be the main objection of people who find stats annoying, but it's dumb and nonsensical.

Furthermore, we know for a fact (not opinion) that people over-value size, character, leadership and other intangibles.

We know about confirmation bias, recency bias and all the other things that turn general conversations about player abilities into surveys about their reputations.

We know that EA Sports has more influence on player reputations than reality.

Finally, this idea that there are two ways to go about evaluating players and "analytics is just one of the tools" has to be the ultimate dumb thing people say about stats. It suggests that watching and reviewing the data are two halves of the same whole, but they aren't.

Observation is important. If the data makes you question what you see, this is a good thing and you need to work through it in order to get an answer, but to suggest that you should somehow limit what you learn from data because it's 'just one tool' is asinine.

You wouldn't say that about anything else. Data usage should be an integral part, the largest part and the most important part of player evaluation. To say otherwise is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense.
- James_Tanner

People have always looked at data, it's just now there is this new made up data which is misleading people like yourself.

I do enjoy your blogs though...keep up the good work.

1) I do recall Tipett sticking up for gross and pointing out that the stats will always undervalue what a guy like him brings. Pandering to the media? Maybe. Different opinion after the season? Maybe. Doesn't matter what he thinks cause Chayka doesn't like him? Maybe. But those are all just guesses and the only solid statement we have is that he likes him.

2) discounting Murphy is a huge mistake. I didn't love when they picked him so high, but he is still a young, maturing defender. A maturing player on a bad team is often going to have bad analytics.

3) I love that you defend analytics and most people on here truly are wrong and I too am sick of the "it's a tool in a large toolbox" argument. I think it's more like its the actual toolbox, and some of the tools that are part of the package include observation, etc but it's all on a foundation of analytics. That's how it is in every other sphere of life; it's how your self driving car will work on 10 years, and it's how the savvy nhl GMs are using it.

4) with that said I do think you rely too much on your hero charts. You need to add in scenario planning to your analysis. These are analytics tools that answer the question of "what if"...what if Murphy is the second pairing on the Kings..would his numbers look the same? If your answer is no, then you have to ask "why"...better d partners, more skilled offense, a selke finalist in Kopitar, better goaltending, etc etc. Also you need to add trends and projections. A player and teams growth will change and you don't put enough weight on that.

5) just for fun...I am now excited for the season since you think we'll be terrible, simply because your projections of the season are generally dead wrong. cough...gagner leads us to the playoffs...cough
- Dahlmanyotes

Yes to #4....100%.

Yotes should really consider bringing Yandle back since the team is more suitable to winning and need some more dmen....

1) I do recall Tipett sticking up for gross and pointing out that the stats will always undervalue what a guy like him brings. Pandering to the media? Maybe. Different opinion after the season? Maybe. Doesn't matter what he thinks cause Chayka doesn't like him? Maybe. But those are all just guesses and the only solid statement we have is that he likes him.

2) discounting Murphy is a huge mistake. I didn't love when they picked him so high, but he is still a young, maturing defender. A maturing player on a bad team is often going to have bad analytics.

3) I love that you defend analytics and most people on here truly are wrong and I too am sick of the "it's a tool in a large toolbox" argument. I think it's more like its the actual toolbox, and some of the tools that are part of the package include observation, etc but it's all on a foundation of analytics. That's how it is in every other sphere of life; it's how your self driving car will work on 10 years, and it's how the savvy nhl GMs are using it.

4) with that said I do think you rely too much on your hero charts. You need to add in scenario planning to your analysis. These are analytics tools that answer the question of "what if"...what if Murphy is the second pairing on the Kings..would his numbers look the same? If your answer is no, then you have to ask "why"...better d partners, more skilled offense, a selke finalist in Kopitar, better goaltending, etc etc. Also you need to add trends and projections. A player and teams growth will change and you don't put enough weight on that.

5) just for fun...I am now excited for the season since you think we'll be terrible, simply because your projections of the season are generally dead wrong. cough...gagner leads us to the playoffs...cough
- Dahlmanyotes

Fantastic post. Makes it worthwhile to get something well thought like this.

Not at all. But forget hockey for a second - in the world (any topic, any thing) measuring and quantifying data will help you make a better decision. Why should hockey be any different?

Plus, there are zero people who study the data and don't also watch games and work to put their numbers into context. It might be the main objection of people who find stats annoying, but it's dumb and nonsensical.

Furthermore, we know for a fact (not opinion) that people over-value size, character, leadership and other intangibles.

We know about confirmation bias, recency bias and all the other things that turn general conversations about player abilities into surveys about their reputations.

We know that EA Sports has more influence on player reputations than reality.

Finally, this idea that there are two ways to go about evaluating players and "analytics is just one of the tools" has to be the ultimate dumb thing people say about stats. It suggests that watching and reviewing the data are two halves of the same whole, but they aren't.

Observation is important. If the data makes you question what you see, this is a good thing and you need to work through it in order to get an answer, but to suggest that you should somehow limit what you learn from data because it's 'just one tool' is asinine.

You wouldn't say that about anything else. Data usage should be an integral part, the largest part and the most important part of player evaluation. To say otherwise is ridiculous and doesn't even make sense.
- James_Tanner

The problem with analytics that are available to us as fans, is not the science of it. That is sound. The issue is the data. The data available is poor.

As far as your last few statements, you've got it backwards. Analytics aren't the most important part. They aren't the most important part for any NHL team. That's what you refuse to accept. It is but one tool that teams have available to them, but it makes up a small percentage of player evaluation. In your case, analytics are everything and dominate your blogging. All the evidence is needed is the conclusions for players such as Jake Gardiner that you come to. In many cases, analytics have led you down the wrong path.

The only thing the analytics that we have available to us can do, is tell us what happens on the ice, when a player is on or off the ice. They cannot point out how good or how bad a player is. However you can use that information as part of player evaluations.

Further more, we do not know for a fact that qualities such as intangibles, character, and leadership are over valued. This is another case, in a long, long list of cases where you've taken an opinion, and labeled it an infallible fact.

The problem with analytics that are available to us as fans, is not the science of it. That is sound. The issue is the data. The data available is poor.

As far as your last few statements, you've got it backwards. Analytics aren't the most important part. They aren't the most important part for any NHL team. That's what you refuse to accept. It is but one tool that teams have available to them, but it makes up a small percentage of player evaluation. In your case, analytics are everything and dominate your blogging. All the evidence is needed is the conclusions for players such as Jake Gardiner that you come to. In many cases, analytics have led you down the wrong path.

The only thing the analytics that we have available to us can do, is tell us what happens on the ice, when a player is on or off the ice. They cannot point out how good or how bad a player is. However you can use that information as part of player evaluations.

Further more, we do not know for a fact that qualities such as intangibles, character, and leadership are over valued. This is another case, in a long, long list of cases where you've taken an opinion, and labeled it an infallible fact.
- MJL

I will gladly defend Tanner on this, since this is simply wrong. It simply is not how data analytics works or is used in any sphere of life, including hockey. Analytics is not 1 of many tools. It is the bedrock and foundation...and when you see it as such you are able to fix the problem you stated (quality of data). You look at the world through the lens of analytics and then you test the conclusions, with a bunch of secondary tools like observation, opinion, psychology profiling, etc and where your analytics model falls short, you use your new findings to build better models. This is a daily/weekly/monthly rhythm in the "world of analytics", which is nowadays better stated as simply "the world." Analytics is the foundation ... Period!

I will gladly defend Tanner on this, since this is simply wrong. It simply is not how data analytics works or is used in any sphere of life, including hockey. Analytics is not 1 of many tools. It is the bedrock and foundation...and when you see it as such you are able to fix the problem you stated (quality of data). You look at the world through the lens of analytics and then you test the conclusions, with a bunch of secondary tools like observation, opinion, psychology profiling, etc and where your analytics model falls short, you use your new findings to build better models. This is a daily/weekly/monthly rhythm in the "world of analytics", which is nowadays better stated as simply "the world." Analytics is the foundation ... Period!
- Dahlmanyotes

Well, that's all well and good that you wish to defend Tanner, but you didn't do a good job of it. We're not talking about the "world of analytics" we're talking about the "world of the NHL"! Analytics are not, never have been, and in my opinion, likely never will be the bedrock and foundation. That is simply wrong. Maybe in the future, but now, analytics are secondary to all NHL teams....Period! There is not a single NHL team that views analytics as the bedrock of player and team evaluation. It is an important tool to use, but it is not the "bedrock". You're completely wrong about that. NHL teams want balance between traditional methods, and more recent innovations such as analytics. The new GM of your team, who has been given the moniker of "analytics guru" doesn't even believe what you state.

Well, that's all well and good that you wish to defend Tanner, but you didn't do a good job of it. We're not talking about the "world of analytics" we're talking about the "world of the NHL"! Analytics are not, never have been, and in my opinion, likely never will be the bedrock and foundation. That is simply wrong. Maybe in the future, but now, analytics are secondary to all NHL teams....Period! There is not a single NHL team that views analytics as the bedrock of player and team evaluation. It is an important tool to use, but it is not the "bedrock". You're completely wrong about that. NHL teams want balance between traditional methods, and more recent innovations such as analytics. The new GM of your team, who has been given the moniker of "analytics guru" doesn't even believe what you state.
- MJL

You're just uninformed. As the director of analytics for Intel Corp, responsible for creating solutions that are used in the NHL, NBA and NFL. I can definitively say without a doubt you are wrong. Wrong both in how analytics works in our world, and in how sports is and will continue to use analytics, and specifically how NHL GMs use analytics. Google the number one sought after job, and you will inevitably find something to do with analytics, big data or data scientist. Look at where investors are placing their money...analytics and data collecting companies. And look at where sports is trending towards...lots and lots of analytics and it will continue to expand exponentially. NHL teams will continue this trend and analytics absolutely will be the bedrock of teams..if you don't agree then go cheer for the Canucks, Avalanche or Bruins...3 teams that agree with you and will soon be perennial frustrations unless ownership steps in.[/img]

You're just uninformed. As the director of analytics for Intel Corp, responsible for creating solutions that are used in the NHL, NBA and NFL. I can definitively say without a doubt you are wrong. Wrong both in how analytics works in our world, and in how sports is and will continue to use analytics, and specifically how NHL GMs use analytics. Google the number one sought after job, and you will inevitably find something to do with analytics, big data or data scientist. Look at where investors are placing their money...analytics and data collecting companies. And look at where sports is trending towards...lots and lots of analytics and it will continue to expand exponentially. NHL teams will continue this trend and analytics absolutely will be the bedrock of teams..if you don't agree then go cheer for the Canucks, Avalanche or Bruins...3 teams that agree with you and will soon be perennial frustrations unless ownership steps in.
- Dahlmanyotes[/img]

Googling the number one sought after job in world, is completely irrelevant to how NHL teams run their hockey operations department. Nor does where investors are placing their money. None of that proves in any way shape or form, that analytics are the foundation and backbone of NHL teams and their player personell decision making. Give me something concrete and relevant to work with! I've got news for you, every single NHL team agrees with me, so again, who I cheer for, is irrelevant. They all use analytics to a degree, it is an important tool for them, but it is not the bedrock. It is supplemental, and one tool in the arsenal of NHL teams.

Here is some information and quotes from recent articles.

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/...-thats-an-understatement/

“John is among the best and brightest minds in hockey,” Drummond said in a statement. “He is knowledgeable and driven and has an incredible passion for the game. He brings an innovative approach to assessing talent and looking at player development and combined with his strong analytics expertise, we feel that he’s the right choice for the direction we want to go with our franchise.”

Chayka told reporters today at a press conference that he’s open to using “any and all tools” to help turn the Coyotes into a sustainable winner, from traditional scouting methods to statistical analysis to psychological profiling.

http://www.businessinside...mote-wiz-kid-to-gm-2016-5

"We definitely want communication and collaboration and we’re a strong believer in new trends that are emerging in sports, analytics being a part of that," LeBlanc told the media (via Yahoo Sports). "I come from the technology world. Most of the partners come from the finance world. This is a big part of our lives, and we believe in it.

"[Chayka] has absolutely been a very impressive hire. A very poised young man – mature beyond his years. He’s been an incredibly positive addition to this organization. I really got to witness it first hand when I sat in the war room in Pittsburgh for trade deadline. Just the sheer amount of knowledge he brings. But at the end of the day it’s not like it’s a new thing in sports – it’s obviously been well documented, the importance of analytics. But it’s not the be-all-end-all. I’m not sitting here saying we’re going to turn ourselves into a Wall Street firm and have 25 kids here doing numbers, but I think there’s a fine balance and that’s what we’re trying to find."


Now, I've given some direct and actual relevant information to support my opinion that analytics are not the backbone, and NHL teams want balance in the tools they use to build a team. I need something from you that is actually relevant, and on point, that shows that I'm off base and uninfomed. I'll await that.

Googling the number one sought after job in world, is completely irrelevant to how NHL teams run their hockey operations department. Nor does where investors are placing their money. None of that proves in any way shape or form, that analytics are the foundation and backbone of NHL teams and their player personell decision making. Give me something concrete and relevant to work with! I've got news for you, every single NHL team agrees with me, so again, who I cheer for, is irrelevant. They all use analytics to a degree, it is an important tool for them, but it is not the bedrock. It is supplemental, and one tool in the arsenal of NHL teams.

Here is some information and quotes from recent articles.

http://nhl.nbcsports.com/...-thats-an-understatement/

“John is among the best and brightest minds in hockey,” Drummond said in a statement. “He is knowledgeable and driven and has an incredible passion for the game. He brings an innovative approach to assessing talent and looking at player development and combined with his strong analytics expertise, we feel that he’s the right choice for the direction we want to go with our franchise.”

Chayka told reporters today at a press conference that he’s open to using “any and all tools” to help turn the Coyotes into a sustainable winner, from traditional scouting methods to statistical analysis to psychological profiling.

http://www.businessinside...mote-wiz-kid-to-gm-2016-5

"We definitely want communication and collaboration and we’re a strong believer in new trends that are emerging in sports, analytics being a part of that," LeBlanc told the media (via Yahoo Sports). "I come from the technology world. Most of the partners come from the finance world. This is a big part of our lives, and we believe in it.

"
- MJL[Chayka] has absolutely been a very impressive hire. A very poised young man – mature beyond his years. He’s been an incredibly positive addition to this organization. I really got to witness it first hand when I sat in the war room in Pittsburgh for trade deadline. Just the sheer amount of knowledge he brings. But at the end of the day it’s not like it’s a new thing in sports – it’s obviously been well documented, the importance of analytics. But it’s not the be-all-end-all. I’m not sitting here saying we’re going to turn ourselves into a Wall Street firm and have 25 kids here doing numbers, but I think there’s a fine balance and that’s what we’re trying to find."


Now, I've given some direct and actual relevant information to support my opinion that analytics are not the backbone, and NHL teams want balance in the tools they use to build a team. I need something from you that is actually relevant, and on point, that shows that I'm off base and uninfomed. I'll await that.

Providing a few blurbs from media day, specifically when the ownership is trying to justify Chayka and calm down fans like yourself that don't understand analytics is not concrete proof. My point in the Google searches is to point that big data is a revolution similar to the industrial revolution a don the Internet revolution, that is changing every sphere of life. Hockey is, and will continue to be, included in that.

Rather than be combative I will jump in to professor mode and give examples. Right. Ow every industry including sports is looking at job responsibilities and asking "why does a human need to do this" ... If the answer has anything to do with a human sense "well I have to read through" or "I listen for the" etc then analytics and big data is being used to replace that human sense. For example, if someone says "I read through these 100 page contracts to review legal issues" there is now big data software that can do that in a second and actually "read" the contract and assign risk. Taking that to the world of hockey, they will use analytics as the first filter (bedrock) in player evaluation, and then use the human eye test to determine if the numbers match what they are seeing. IF they are not matching, then they need to improve the numbers, so that the data collected more accurately describes what Tippetts human eye sees. This is an unbelievable asset because Tippett is only one person with finite time, but imagine if you could have his eyes looking at every hockey player on the planet, all at once! Analytics will unlock that, sooner than you think (< 10 years). To be clear I am not saying that is true today, BUT - and this is an important but - you will never make that future a reality without making analytics the bedrock, and using the process I described in the previous post. It all starts with analytics and you improve them day in and day out. Hope that helps.

Providing a few blurbs from media day, specifically when the ownership is trying to justify Chayka and calm down fans like yourself that don't understand analytics is not concrete proof. My point in the Google searches is to point that big data is a revolution similar to the industrial revolution a don the Internet revolution, that is changing every sphere of life. Hockey is, and will continue to be, included in that.


- Dahlmanyotes

Your offering a weak argument that ownership is trying to calm down fans, rather than offering a true representation of what their approach and thinking is. Your also wrong with the characterization that you offer of me, and other fans. With every reply, you show that you really don't have a basis for saying that I'm uninformed, nor have you successfully supported Tanner, which is what you said your original intent was. That's been a colossal failure. I don't think any hockey fan paying attention needs to google job searches, to show that analytics has been a rising trend in sports or hockey.

Rather than be combative I will jump in to professor mode and give examples. Right. Ow every industry including sports is looking at job responsibilities and asking "why does a human need to do this" ... If the answer has anything to do with a human sense "well I have to read through" or "I listen for the" etc then analytics and big data is being used to replace that human sense. For example, if someone says "I read through these 100 page contracts to review legal issues" there is now big data software that can do that in a second and actually "read" the contract and assign risk. Taking that to the world of hockey, they will use analytics as the first filter (bedrock) in player evaluation, and then use the human eye test to determine if the numbers match what they are seeing. IF they are not matching, then they need to improve the numbers, so that the data collected more accurately describes what Tippetts human eye sees. This is an unbelievable asset because Tippett is only one person with finite time, but imagine if you could have his eyes looking at every hockey player on the planet, all at once! Analytics will unlock that, sooner than you think (< 10 years). To be clear I am not saying that is true today, BUT - and this is an important but - you will never make that future a reality without making analytics the bedrock, and using the process I described in the previous post. It all starts with analytics and you improve them day in and day out. Hope that helps.
- Dahlmanyotes

I agree completely that analytics will improve, and have even had conversations with Tanner trying to explain to him the issues that the analytics that we have access to,have, and how NHL teams, are using video and software to collect much better data, and hence better numbers. I compared it to Roger Neilsen's use of video back in the 70's to try and create a more accurate plus/minus statistic. NHL teams are so far ahead of the stats that the fans have access to. Anlytics are no doubt going to play an important role now and in the future, but I doubt, due to the nature of the game, ever become the bedrock, but I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong about that, but I do know that right now, they're supplemental, and not primary.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this. I think you jumped in without testing the waters. Maybe find out what level of knowledge someone you're dealing with has, before just flat out saying their wrong and uninformed. Clearly, as I've shown, that is not the case.

Your offering a weak argument that ownership is trying to calm down fans, rather than offering a true representation of what their approach and thinking is. Your also wrong with the characterization that you offer of me, and other fans. With every reply, you show that you really don't have a basis for saying that I'm uninformed, nor have you successfully supported Tanner, which is what you said your original intent was. That's been a colossal failure. I don't think any hockey fan paying attention needs to google job searches, to show that analytics has been a rising trend in sports or hockey.




I agree completely that analytics will improve, and have even had conversations with Tanner trying to explain to him the issues that the analytics that we have access to,have, and how NHL teams, are using video and software to collect much better data, and hence better numbers. I compared it to Roger Neilsen's use of video back in the 70's to try and create a more accurate plus/minus statistic. NHL teams are so far ahead of the stats that the fans have access to. Anlytics are no doubt going to play an important role now and in the future, but I doubt, due to the nature of the game, ever become the bedrock, but I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong about that, but I do know that right now, they're supplemental, and not primary.

Lastly, I'll leave you with this. I think you jumped in without testing the waters. Maybe find out what level of knowledge someone you're dealing with has, before just flat out saying their wrong and uninformed. Clearly, as I've shown, that is not the case.
- MJL

I don't even know what to say. You and I 100% agree on just about everything, except for my claim that "analytics is the bedrock." That terminology clearly makes you uncomfortable, which is why I make the claim that you are uninformed on the process of analytics. Are you actively involved in any professional model building for predictive or evaluative purposes? If you are, then you know that the process you described has analytics as the bedrock. If you have two teams...one that says "analytics is one of many tools I use" and the other that says "it's the bedrock of my organization, and improving them is my daily task" then you inevitably arrive at different results. They start out the exact same "my analytics are inaccurate, so I only use it occasionally to help support decisions." But that is where team 1 eternally stays. Team 2 on the other hand says "today my analytics package is accurate 30% of the time...what can we do to get it to 31%...52%...83%...etc" . By making analytics the foundation, it doesn't mean it's all they rely on, especially when accuracy is low. But it does mean that it the lens through which they see all of their operations, predictions, and evaluations. The goal is to have Tippett object to the analytics model less and less each day, until one day the package almost always says exactly what Tippett would have said. This is general analytics theory, and it lines up with some of what you have touched on, and it lines up with exactly what I think the coyotes are doing. By elevating Tippett and openly stating that he is developing the blueprint for the team and the players in those roles, and then Chayka is responsible for executing that plan. finding, evaluating and projecting the players that Tippett wants gets easier and easier as the BEDROCK analytics process takes its course.

I don't even know what to say. You and I 100% agree on just about everything, except for my claim that "analytics is the bedrock." That terminology clearly makes you uncomfortable, which is why I make the claim that you are uninformed on the process of analytics. Are you actively involved in any professional model building for predictive or evaluative purposes? If you are, then you know that the process you described has analytics as the bedrock. If you have two teams...one that says "analytics is one of many tools I use" and the other that says "it's the bedrock of my organization, and improving them is my daily task" then you inevitably arrive at different results. They start out the exact same "my analytics are inaccurate, so I only use it occasionally to help support decisions." But that is where team 1 eternally stays. Team 2 on the other hand says "today my analytics package is accurate 30% of the time...what can we do to get it to 31%...52%...83%...etc" . By making analytics the foundation, it doesn't mean it's all they rely on, especially when accuracy is low. But it does mean that it the lens through which they see all of their operations, predictions, and evaluations. The goal is to have Tippett object to the analytics model less and less each day, until one day the package almost always says exactly what Tippett would have said. This is general analytics theory, and it lines up with some of what you have touched on, and it lines up with exactly what I think the coyotes are doing. By elevating Tippett and openly stating that he is developing the blueprint for the team and the players in those roles, and then Chayka is responsible for executing that plan. finding, evaluating and projecting the players that Tippett wants gets easier and easier as the BEDROCK analytics process takes its course.
- Dahlmanyotes

Again, you're wrong that it makes me uncomfortable. It has zero to do with my comfort level, and everything to do with just how it is, in the NHL, and how teams use analytics. They use it as a supplemental tool, but it is not the primary tool.
I understand what you're trying to point out, but you're still wrong that I'm uninformed. There is no team that states that analytics are the bedrock, that's the point. I said it in my very first reply to you, and have said it multiple times. Analytics are supplemental, not primary.
Trust me, the goal of NHL teams is not to eliminate the human element, more and more until they get to the point of not needing it, and analytics become the holy grail. The goal of NHL teams is to get better, and find an edge. They'll use whatever tool helps them do that. Analytics is just one of them, but not the best one, or the only one.

Again, you're wrong that it makes me uncomfortable. It has zero to do with my comfort level, and everything to do with just how it is, in the NHL, and how teams use analytics. They use it as a supplemental tool, but it is not the primary tool.
I understand what you're trying to point out, but you're still wrong that I'm uninformed. There is no team that states that analytics are the bedrock, that's the point. I said it in my very first reply to you, and have said it multiple times. Analytics are supplemental, not primary.
Trust me, the goal of NHL teams is not to eliminate the human element, more and more until they get to the point of not needing it, and analytics become the holy grail. The goal of NHL teams is to get better, and find an edge. They'll use whatever tool helps them do that. Analytics is just one of them, but not the best one, or the only one.
- MJL

Haha...it's like talking to a wall, that just wants to be right without thinking through it. What greater competitive advantage could possibly be out there than a predictive model that knows the value of every player and combination of the pool leads most to a cup. Even things like nutrition, psychology tests, and all the other "tools" you refer to will be part of the bedrock analytics package. If you still can't see it, there isn't much else I can say. Hopefully you pick up a book or something and study/learn what projections are for the next five years in this realm. All these other "tools" you mention will inevitably be part of a predictive model. Best of luck to you and your quest for truth.

Haha...it's like talking to a wall, that just wants to be right without thinking through it. What greater competitive advantage could possibly be out there than a predictive model that knows the value of every player and combination of the pool leads most to a cup. Even things like nutrition, psychology tests, and all the other "tools" you refer to will be part of the bedrock analytics package. If you still can't see it, there isn't much else I can say. Hopefully you pick up a book or something and study/learn what projections are for the next five years in this realm. All these other "tools" you mention will inevitably be part of a predictive model. Best of luck to you and your quest for truth.
- Dahlmanyotes

That predictive model does not exist now, at least not to the degree where it makes the analytics the "bedrock". What don't you get. That's like saying wouldn't it be great to have a car that never breaks down, or never needs maintenance or new tires. Maybe that is theoretically possible, but it doesn't exist right now.
It seems you have a disconnect on what the conversation actually is about, perhaps a review is in order. Analytics, right now, are supplemental. I've said that I think four times now. You haven't offered anything concrete, to show that is not the case, other than what you view as theoretical and part of the future.
Or to google job searches. So if you're now going to get to the insult part, simply because you can't fulfill your objective, for me the conversation will be over. Best of luck to you also

That predictive model does not exist now, at least not to the degree where it makes the analytics the "bedrock". What don't you get. That's like saying wouldn't it be great to have a car that never breaks down, or never needs maintenance or new tires. Maybe that is theoretically possible, but it doesn't exist right now.
It seems you have a disconnect on what the conversation actually is about, perhaps a review is in order. Analytics, right now, are supplemental. I've said that I think four times now. You haven't offered anything concrete, to show that is not the case, other than what you view as theoretical and part of the future.
Or to google job searches. So if you're now going to get to the insult part, simply because you can't fulfill your objective, for me the conversation will be over. Best of luck to you also
- MJL

Ugh...seriously just read through our conversation a few times and just let it sink in a bit. I have said in every response it doesn't exist now. What I have tried to show you is that just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean analytics shouldnt be the bedrock. Because the analytics process is what creates that package. If you wait to stumble in it, you'll be a late adopter and the bottom feeder of the league. Making it a bedrock today, measuring it daily and improving daily (the definition of the analytics and data modeling process) is what leads to better and better results, eventually culminating in a championship caliber team. I recommend reading something like "Against the Gods: the history of risk" to better understand this, and get some insight into the minds of guys like Chayka or Leblanc. Also maybe watch a movie like "The Big Short" ... In this situation you are like the big banks saying "it's never going to happen" while I am Christian bale with specific insight and a great model, that allows me to swipe all your money

But if you don't care for that kind of study, Jim Benning likely has room on his staff for a forward thinking person such as yourself only kidding

Ugh...seriously just read through our conversation a few times and just let it sink in a bit. I have said in every response it doesn't exist now. What I have tried to show you is that just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean analytics shouldnt be the bedrock. Because the analytics process is what creates that package. If you wait to stumble in it, you'll be a late adopter and the bottom feeder of the league. Making it a bedrock today, measuring it daily and improving daily (the definition of the analytics and data modeling process) is what leads to better and better results, eventually culminating in a championship caliber team. I recommend reading something like "Against the Gods: the history of risk" to better understand this, and get some insight into the minds of guys like Chayka or Leblanc. Also maybe watch a movie like "The Big Short" ... In this situation you are like the big banks saying "it's never going to happen" while I am Christian bale with specific insight and a great model, that allows me to swipe all your money
- Dahlmanyotes

Uugh, if you read back on your own posts, what you'll see is that you're now trying to move the conversation away to more of talking about the future, rather than the present reality, or what it should be, while telling me I'm uninformed. You've been nothing but wrong about that. I've had countless conversations with others talking about how NHL teams have improved data collection, and how hopefully, technology in the future will exist so that the fans have better numbers available to them. You're simply wrong in stating that I'm uninformed on the subject. Where we differ is that I don't think it's ever going to get to the point where analytics are the main method of player evaluation and team building. Like I said earlier, I may be wrong about that.
I don't need any of your recommendations on what to read, what I need from you is for you to simply realize that hey, you were wrong to state that I'm uninformed, and that you continue to do so.
You don't have specific insight, you're just offering what you think is the vision of the future, while I'm discussing the current reality. For some reason, you can't grasp that. Let that sink in a bit. You haven't swiped squat! YOu haven't been able to get through the door of the bank! Weak analogies, and reading and google suggestions that are irrelevant to the sport of hockey is all you've offered. It's been fun though.

Uugh, if you read back on your own posts, what you'll see is that you're now trying to move the conversation away to more of talking about the future, rather than the present reality, or what it should be, while telling me I'm uninformed. You've been nothing but wrong about that. I've had countless conversations with others talking about how NHL teams have improved data collection, and how hopefully, technology in the future will exist so that the fans have better numbers available to them. You're simply wrong in stating that I'm uninformed on the subject. Where we differ is that I don't think it's ever going to get to the point where analytics are the main method of player evaluation and team building. Like I said earlier, I may be wrong about that.
I don't need any of your recommendations on what to read, what I need from you is for you to simply realize that hey, you were wrong to state that I'm uninformed, and that you continue to do so.
You don't have specific insight, you're just offering what you think is the vision of the future, while I'm discussing the current reality. For some reason, you can't grasp that. Let that sink in a bit. You haven't swiped squat! Weak analogies, and reading and google suggestions that are irrelevant to the sport of hockey is all you've offered. It's been fun though.
- MJL

Good anecdotal argument about your "countless discussions" with friends. Because you talked with a buddy, that makes you credible. Every single post you have focused on the "uninformed" comment...clearly your feelings and/or pride were hurt by this. So I apologize...you are very very well informed on all things and you are 100% right, and there is nothing for you to learn on this subject. As an expert in the field of analytics with a Masters degree in the field I am wrong, and concede the argument rooted in your convos with your buddy.

Good anecdotal argument about your "countless discussions" with friends. Because you talked with a buddy, that makes you credible. Every single post you have focused on the "uninformed" comment...clearly your feelings and/or pride were hurt by this. So I apologize...you are very very well informed on all things and you are 100% right, and there is nothing for you to learn on this subject. As an expert in the field of analytics with a Masters degree in the field I am wrong, and concede the argument rooted in your convos with your buddy.
- Dahlmanyotes

It wasn't with buddies, it was in countless conversations online about the subject of analytics, with people I've never met. You've assumed that incorrectly. You're such an expert on analytics that you have to now resort to not even talking about the subject, but rather to talking about me. My feelings or pride were not hurt, I laughed about it. It's simply about the following. You claimed I was uninformed. You're entitled to that opinion, but I'm going to force you to back up that opinion. For someone that claims to be an expert, your responses to show that I was uninformed were weak. I've given you ample opportunity to back up your opinion. The conversation is now degrading away from the topic, to the point where it's not productive.