Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Rangers Interested in D Ben Hutton


Phil

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Assuming the idea is to bury Smith in Hartford they probably do need a depth signing.

In a perfect world Hajek and Rykov can handle it, but that’s by no means a given.

 

They should sign Claesson, then. Not this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His defensive analytics are fantastic. His offensive analytics are bad.

What are they?

 

"Analytic darlings" are pretty exclusively defined by shot share, and Hutton's are poor. I guess he could be good at defending the blueline or something, but so is Brendan Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are they?

 

"Analytic darlings" are pretty exclusively defined by shot share, and Hutton's are poor. I guess he could be good at defending the blueline or something, but so is Brendan Smith.

 

Zone entry metrics; breakups, possessions allowed. Fancystats are more than Corsi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again players are living and dying by analytics.

 

Traditional stats and the eye test have worked for 50+ years of modern era, post-expansion hockey. They still do the job well if your scouts and talent evaluators (I mean pro level guys, not for amateurs) do their jobs well.

 

Analytics don’t often paint an entirely new picture. They just fill in the existing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional stats and the eye test have worked for 50+ years of modern era, post-expansion hockey. They still do the job well if your scouts and talent evaluators (I mean pro level guys, not for amateurs) do their jobs well.

 

Analytics don’t often paint an entirely new picture. They just fill in the existing one.

 

They're not meant to paint an entirely new picture.

They're meant to be an additional set of input evaluators can use to make informed decisions, in conjunction with every other bit of information available on a player.

Making decisions solely based on analytics is a folly. "Not believing" in analytics is archaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not meant to paint an entirely new picture.

They're meant to be an additional set of input evaluators can use to make informed decisions, in conjunction with every other bit of information available on a player.

Making decisions solely based on analytics is a folly. "Not believing" in analytics is archaic.

And yet here we are on a message board where I don't think anyone even knows what this guy looks like and they're judging him based on shit like shot share.

 

I don't even know who this guy is so I don't really care, but the commentary is infuriating. no one on this board can actually say they watched this guy play extensively enough to judge if he's good or not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet here we are on a message board where I don't think anyone even knows what this guy looks like and they're judging him based on shit like shot share.

 

 

What does what he look like have to do with how he plays?

 

I know you are being facetious, but what is wrong with the community debating whether adding an NHL defensemen to the roster can help the team, using objective metrics during a time of the year when there is 0% new and relevant Rangers news to discuss. Some of your posts come off like you just like to argue for arguments sake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional stats and the eye test have worked for 50+ years of modern era, post-expansion hockey. They still do the job well if your scouts and talent evaluators (I mean pro level guys, not for amateurs) do their jobs well.

 

Analytics don’t often paint an entirely new picture. They just fill in the existing one.

 

This is interesting, because my gut was that you're completely wrong, but I've not really seen a reason to believe you are. I'm willing to bet that the hit rate on UFAs, draft picks, etc, has been significantly (statistically, not WHOA LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE) better over the last 10 years than it has been in the rest of the history of the modern NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does what he look like have to do with how he plays?

 

I know you are being facetious, but what is wrong with the community debating whether adding an NHL defensemen to the roster can help the team, using objective metrics during a time of the year when there is 0% new and relevant Rangers news to discuss. Some of your posts come off like you just like to argue for arguments sake.

OK, so just skip over them then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting, because my gut was that you're completely wrong, but I've not really seen a reason to believe you are. I'm willing to bet that the hit rate on UFAs, draft picks, etc, has been significantly (statistically, not WHOA LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE) better over the last 10 years than it has been in the rest of the history of the modern NHL.
Of course they have. Analytics help. We all know this. That's not the issue. The issue is that not many people here can honestly say they knew who this guy was without Googling him, and if they did, they certainly have only seen him play in snippets. Yet the commentary is "Why? He's terrible, look at the analytics". That's just as short sighted and closed minded as ignoring the fancy stuff.

 

But I don't want keep going and derail the thread with another analytics debated. It's just annoying that people claim they don't only look at but it's pretty evident that they do. I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...