It was all about the same topic: how you evaluate a player. If you didn't follow it's your bad, not mine. And I told that I will not argue about stats. Advanced stats are only good when combined with a qualitative assessment. Otherwise it's called the Arizona Coyotes and both know how that movie ended for the nerd.

Yeah that's my friend Jared. He gets hooked up on a computer and watches games on a spreadsheet.

Saw some of his tweets once on the trending page. I would never dare post on twitter but he's one of those with the wild takes

He should change his handle to chapGPTfromLondon. The guy blasts Savard for his stats and then proposes a trade for a 6th. And when you tell him that he should consider someone else then he comes back on Savard.

Savard for a 6th is a good twitter post. Twitter agrees with him and his takes between drag queen story hour and flying saucers shot down.

You cant even argue about "quality assessment" because you keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic, and your attempts are "he plays a lot, he provides a lot, he does things out there" without a lick of actual assessment.
But sure, i bet you think you've got that quality down.
Also lol, no one who knows anything about stats for a second thought that the ex coyotes gm actually knew or used stats.

Imagine thinking a trade two years ago means a player is good now? You'd have to be some kind of dummy to think that. I mean, people who pay attention to hockey and watch the games know that players do this wild thing called aging.
They also know that trade cost =/= quality. You should do a quick google search on "bad trades" and learn something

Aww muffin, you follow me on twitter? How sweet

You guys just love making up stories, no wonder you want to believe savard is still good

He was the Billy Bean of hockey

Anyhow, what do I know about hockey. I just watch games on TV and I don't look at stats.

Get go the stats for the Habs-Islanders game on Feb 11. I remember seeing something on Twitter where, purely based on analytics, Savard was the worst player for that Habs in that game. But in that game Savard was a beast blocking shots and shots after shots, sacrificing his body for the team and preventing dangerous plays. Everyone was saying: oh wow! Everyone except Billy Beane I suppose. So if that's how you make your assessment of a player, it's flawed. Completely flawed. And since all of your existence is based on advanced stats, defending analytics becomes a matter of life or death for your psyche. I don't want to trouble you more than you currently are so I'll leave it here.

He said "Renaissance season". I guess your numbers didn't get that one. You should consider improving the methodology of your models for blocked shots. You'll then see that you'd be better off spending $3.5m on Savard than on Kerfoot. And no, we wouldn't do Savard for Kerfoot and a 6th. Or you can give it a try and publish an ACGM and see how others will react.

Just leave him be. His entire existence is to get his posts retweeted by Jfresh, whos entire existence is trying to hold the elevators at junior games for any scout that ever shared a glance with Kyle Dubas. Things like facts dont matter when you have a calculator off hand and can push numbers into it which will predict everything in life.

No, he really wasn't. He was a snake oil salesman and the coyotes fell for it. But you wouldn't know that since you dont understand stats at all and refuse to learn new things that challange your preconceived notions and thats scary.

Here's a stats tip for you, a player can play very very very hard, block a 100 shots and throw a million hits and still have a terrible game.
You know why savard was bad that game? Because in spite of you seeing him sacrifice his body, when he was on the ice the puck was in his end for scoring chance and shot after scoring chance and shot.
He could not get the puck, he could not clear the puck, he could not take the puck off the other team ans they caved him in.
Players who are good defensively get the puck out of the dangerous areas. Players who are bad at it chase the puck and have to block shots constantly.
You might as well say a guy who takea 10 shots a game but ends the year with less than 20 goals is a great offensive player

Except kerfoot is actually good defensively. You should consider finding a measure of success for a defensive player that isnt getting hemmed in their own zone and never getting the puck

Is jFresh the guy who publishes a bar chart of every player after a game on Twitter? If so then he's the one who posted my reference to Twitter in my previous post. He had Savard ranked at the bottom after having played once of his best game of the season.

I don't like to be *challanged", you're right

HOW CAN HE CLEAR A PUCK THAT LANDS ON HIS BLOODY CHEST??

But thank you for exposing all the flaws of the model. I rest my case.

But thank you for exposing all the flaws of the model. I rest my case.

Here's another fun tip for you. If you watch the games, you can follow the play and see how he failed to clear a puck or couldnt stop a guy with the puck and that will lead up to him having to block all those shots.
You see, plays dont happen in a vacuum and when you are bad defensively, like savard,you are generally the reason you have to keep blocking shots over and over

Oh dear. If you dont understand stats, you should really avoid using phrases from stats. It makes you look like you know even less

So for you, stat models have no flaws at all?

Like a Gaussian distribution for you is flawless?

What a weird attempt to duck out of that. Just because you dont understand something doesn't mean it's a flaw, it simply means you dont understand something.
And you yourself have stated many times that you do not understand stats, so maybe you shouldn't try to get snippy about it because then you go saying silly things like a guy blocking a shot with his chest means stats are wrong

I studied stats, I know what they’re made of and that’s why I’m critical of stats. They’re a tool to support a decision, not a tool to make decisions. Especially not when you’re building a team aiming to reach the SC final.

You know what else they dont use to make decisions? The opinions of fans who watch the games on tv.
But they do actually use the stats, they'll never use your opinion

Ah bon