2016 Training camp

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Post Reply
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

Sure it is.

Flip a coin 50 times, each time having a 50% chance, and you average out to 25 tails. It's totally possible that you get zero tails, or 10, or 40... but the probability still averages out to 25.

The trouble you're having is that you've taken me saying "average out to" and you've replaced it with "guaranteed to". Oops.

So no. That is not "by my logic". Not in the slightest.

The odds were indeed based on one person's opinion, and that was the person whose opinion I was criticising for being overly optimistic. See how that works?
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Mickey107 »

Cherry Picker wrote:My official subjective odds of players becoming solid top two NHL defenseman at some point in their careers:

Edler 100%
Tanev 100%
Juolevi 75%
Hutton 50%
Gudbranson 40%
Trymakin 35%
Stecher 35%
Subban 15%
Pedan 10%
Sbisa 2%
Biega 1%

Results are accurate 13 times out of 20 with a potential error range of plus or minus 45%

So with these results as soon as we can get to a top seven of Edler, Tanev, Juolevi, Hutton, Gudbranson, Tryamkin, Stecher, the sooner we can develop the best odds of maximizing our defensive potential. So if the kids look NHL capable, keep them and start their NHL development now.
Plus or minus 45% ? LOL, that's a lot ;)
Where is Larsen?
Personally, I'd have him above Biega, but what do I know? :?
"evolution"
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by SKYO »

I wrote an entire thesis retort to lloyd with the left/right-chemistry dmen pairings- 75% completion, but it's becoming too tedious. ha

My personal hope is for the russians to succeed, so out of pettyness I'm hoping LarsEn fails mwahaha...

Nah, I'm playin' say Larsen explodes on the scene :D becoming a 30-40pt dman, Tanev can then be traded away for a 24 year old top 6 forward ideally a C/LW whose 6'1, 205lb or above, like a young Jeff Carter, the perfect 2nd line player, not too small, not gonna break your budget, adds the extra wave of attack in the playoffs.

But it's all the wait and see approach to how everything unfolds this preseason/season, good to see healthy competition this season for defense spots, not to mention the filler spots up front in Etem/Gaunce/Rodin(still not 100%)/Cassels.

But I see Biega becoming the casualty in all the dmen depth rising past him, especially as Pedan/Tramz hold mammoth size/grit/with some skill, Larsen and Stecher have the offensive ability, Sbisa with the size and contract.

Biega should pass waivers to Utica, so that's a plus for the Comets.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

Too bad. :(

I like theses, and hey, what better subject than my terrible opinions. They're pretty damn funny sometimes.

Any day now, I may disappear back into the lurking ether, and then the opportunity will be lost forever. Live without regrets, SKYO.

My opinion on Larsen is that his offensive game is there, and it's NHL-worthy. Not gonna suggest it's elite or anything like that, but it's there enough to be an asset to the team. The question is whether his all-around game can stand up. Whether he can compete physically, play positionally sound hockey, etc. That's still an unanswered question, regardless of where his offense is at. And the one damn obvious prerequisite for putting up points is playing a good enough all-around game to earn responsibility and see minutes.

That's what's impressed me about Stecher. Yeah, he's a puck-rushing defenseman, but his intangibles seem to stand out as well. We may be fooled by his "flavour of the week" status, but truth is that he doesn't have the offensive pedigree of a Larsen or even a Subban. That said, it seems like he might be helpful in every zone and also in the dressing room. Good stuff.

But no. Even if Larsen EXPLODES, that sure as hell doesn't mean "trade Tanev". In my mind, Tanev is one of the top guys in the league at his particular skillset. He's the type of player you only trade if the deal is a clear win.

I agree that Biega looks like a casualty. He's a classic jack of all trades, master of none type of player. He's a guy that a team with no defensive depth wants to fill out their chart. But in an ideal world, he's playing in the AHL or in Europe. I also agree with your point about the Comets. Probably worth paying the one way contract to have the extra depth.

Stecher actually reminds me a bit of Biega, and he may end up in a similar category. His skating seems better, and I have my fingers crossed for much more. But lets not go trading Subban. ;)
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Mickey107 »

I think the only reason there might be rumblings from some of us to trade Subban is that probably by next year, he and his people may well be asking for a trade and, in a way, I understand that...
"evolution"
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

What makes you think that, Micky?

Why him more than any other 21 year old?

He's never been a guy that's highly-rated enough to get a Hodgson-like sense of entitlement. He seems to be a hard worker, good teammate, etc.

And while we may have depth in defensive prospects, we still have spots available on the team. It's not a situation where there's no potential for rookies to make the club.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see any justification for that fear. Is it because of who his brother is?
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26183
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

micky107 wrote: ...Subban...he and his people...
Lol
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Mickey107 »

Lloyd Braun wrote:What makes you think that, Micky?

Why him more than any other 21 year old?

He's never been a guy that's highly-rated enough to get a Hodgson-like sense of entitlement. He seems to be a hard worker, good teammate, etc.

And while we may have depth in defensive prospects, we still have spots available on the team. It's not a situation where there's no potential for rookies to make the club.

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see any justification for that fear. Is it because of who his brother is?
Very much so. Also his burning desire to make the NHL and, once again, pressure from his people, partly because of who his brother is. I can see some less educated hockey markets trying to sell him to their fans...
"evolution"
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

Every prospect that's worth anything has a burning desire to make the NHL.

And sorry if I'm not going to make the jump that this kid, who seems like a really good kid and good teammate, who has always seemed humble in every interview he's ever done, might want out just because he happens to have a successful older brother.

That's a pretty damn big leap, IMO. Worthy of Evel Knievel. :?
User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Aaronp18 »

Lloyd Braun wrote:Sure it is.

Flip a coin 50 times, each time having a 50% chance, and you average out to 25 tails. It's totally possible that you get zero tails, or 10, or 40... but the probability still averages out to 25.

The trouble you're having is that you've taken me saying "average out to" and you've replaced it with "guaranteed to". Oops.

So no. That is not "by my logic". Not in the slightest.

The odds were indeed based on one person's opinion, and that was the person whose opinion I was criticising for being overly optimistic. See how that works?
I know what you're getting at, and my saying guaranteed to average out still doesn't make how you arrived at that number correct. There are a ton of other factors involved that determine whether or not these players will become top pairing defenseman. Not the least of which being that when we currently have a top pairing it's impossible for the others to be in the top pairing.

Adding percentages together then dividing them by 100 is a tad simplistic. What are the variables, are we talking about in the current season or at some point in their career? How long do they need to play in the top pairing for them to be considered a top pairing defenseman?

Really, considering our current top pairing into the scenario skews all results anyways. Which I actually didn't think you were doing. If we're going to do that we should be considering all the sub 1% probability dmen as well.

Really, I can see 4-5 of that group being on the top pairing at some point in their career considering 2 of them are already there. There's injuries, career length, contract length, RD/LD positional need, etc.

Anyways, carry on carrying on.
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

Of course it's simplistic. Why should it not be simplistic? I'm not looking to do any complex math on this here hockey thread.

But alright, captain nitpick. As long as you understand that I was never suggesting anything about either guarantees or impossibilities, nor was I falling into the trap of a gambler's fallacy, we can all rest easy. Whew! :lol: :thumbs:
User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4670
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Aaronp18 »

Lloyd Braun wrote:Why should it not be simplistic?
Well, because unlike a coin toss it's not a black and white outcome as to whether or not a player is a top pairing dman or not.
Lloyd Braun
CC Veteran
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Lloyd Braun »

Yet that was the premise of the post I was replying to.

Cherry Picker's post listed percentage probabilities of a particular outcome. There was some discussion about where those percentages fell, with DBM suggesting it was strange that Tryamkin was ranked lower than Gudbranson. In part, I was replying to DBM's post by suggesting that neither player was particularly likely to be a top pairing defenseman, and that the percentages were quite high in general. I made a joke about how I'm usually the optimistic one, considering I have a history of sometimes giving more "benefit of the doubt" than is warranted with people like Gillis. It was somewhat self-deprecating.

There really isn't all that much to this story. Your statistical methodology nit-picks seem out of place... but oh well. :drink:
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42955
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by Strangelove »

Cherry Picker wrote:My official subjective odds of players becoming solid top two NHL defenseman at some point in their careers:

Edler 100%
Tanev 100%
Juolevi 75%
Hutton 50%
Gudbranson 40%
Trymakin 35%
Stecher 35%
Subban 15%
Pedan 10%
Sbisa 2%
Biega 1%

Results are accurate 13 times out of 20 with a potential error range of plus or minus 45%
Aaronp18 wrote: Not to mention those odds were simply cherry picked based on one person's opinion and not really any factual content.
LOL

Subban and his people would put his odds at 100%.

You're right Aaron, it's not a "black and white" issue.

No matter what Larsen does, don't trade Subban for at least a year, because depth matters.

Lol, the uproar this Cherry Picker has caused...
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: 2016 Training camp

Post by SKYO »

Lloyd Braun wrote:My opinion on Larsen is that his offensive game is there, and it's NHL-worthy. Not gonna suggest it's elite or anything like that, but it's there enough to be an asset to the team. The question is whether his all-around game can stand up. Whether he can compete physically, play positionally sound hockey, etc. That's still an unanswered question, regardless of where his offense is at. And the one damn obvious prerequisite for putting up points is playing a good enough all-around game to earn responsibility and see minutes.

That's what's impressed me about Stecher. Yeah, he's a puck-rushing defenseman, but his intangibles seem to stand out as well. We may be fooled by his "flavour of the week" status, but truth is that he doesn't have the offensive pedigree of a Larsen or even a Subban. That said, it seems like he might be helpful in every zone and also in the dressing room. Good stuff.
Either way I'm hoping one of these depth QB types emerges to play a successful season with the team, as Hutton alone even if develops further, is not enough offensive dmen punch to get the team into the playoffs, team needs much more points from the D this season.

Should be a good race between Larsen and Stecher this preseason.
Lloyd Braun wrote:But no. Even if Larsen EXPLODES, that sure as hell doesn't mean "trade Tanev". In my mind, Tanev is one of the top guys in the league at his particular skillset. He's the type of player you only trade if the deal is a clear win.
LoL it's my lone wolf preference, only due to Tanev's reckless style of play, I'm hoping he'll learn and adjust to anticipate hits when he retrieves pucks in his zone with age/time.

If Tanev can walk the walk with all his talk about practicing shooting more this season, then his stock will only go up!

Pedan and Gaunce getting some props from Benning today.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
Post Reply