Don't sleep on Mark Stone. He will score 70 points at the minimum.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Who needs to shake who's dick?

I will admit that I'm not always on Big Ev's side when it comes to Ottawa stuff but I'm on your side with this one, and as much as history gives us players to compare talent against Rizzee don't you think we should be able to agree that there will be someone at some point who will add a new variable to the records? Right? Now I do agree that the comparable players don't give a strong recommendation but the list is small and someone is bound to break the mould. Stone looks to me to be as strong of a candidate as any.

Using this argument, should I bet on red at the roulette wheel after it's been black 17 times in a row? I realize that "history will repeat itself" logic ends up being wrong from time to time, but my point is that if we base decisions on past comparisons instead of personal feeling or observations, we'll likely be wrong less often. And in this case 15 years of "data" seemed persuasive to me. If Stone scores 70 points and is a star I'll be happy for him and those who own him - I just wanted to stand behind numbers because I believe that's the path toward winning leagues more often.

[Mr. Guru]

I guess that all depends on who's making the decisions and how good of an eye they have.

[Big Ev]

Using this argument, should I bet on red at the roulette wheel after it's been black 17 times in a row? I realize that "history will repeat itself" logic ends up being wrong from time to time, but my point is that if we base decisions on past comparisons instead of personal feeling or observations, we'll likely be wrong less often. And in this case 15 years of "data" seemed persuasive to me. If Stone scores 70 points and is a star I'll be happy for him and those who own him - I just wanted to stand behind numbers because I believe that's the path toward winning leagues more often.

I think betting against Stone would be like betting on red after black has won 17 times in a row. There is no solid data from the past to predict anything here. The solid data is looking at the player and his statistical history and his current talent and opportunity. He already has four points in two games, playing 20 mins a night, on a top line with a top ten offense around him. The only way he doesn't repeat what he did last year is if he gets hurt, and all signs are pointing to him getting more than his rookie year because under Dave Cameron he was almost a point per game player. He's a star in the league in my opinion, not because I am a fan of the senators but because i know the player very well. Star at every level he's played at and has proven his worth in the league. You're taking too much of a stance on the rookie age thing. It doesn't matter in this case.

[Nikerato]

Your goal of using numbers to gauge player value is perfectly logical and reasonable.

Your methodology is sometimes debatable.

In Stone's case, your comparable players are derived from an incomplete analysis that's giving you a skewed expectation for Stone as a player. That said, I won't get into what a complete analysis should look like. For a different perspective though, you can look at Volman's Historical Projections. Using a different formula, he has Doug Gilmore, Bobby Clarke, Jaromir Jagr, and Jakub Voracek as his high end comparable players/seasons; all of whom achieved over or near PPG for their respective seasons. Therefore, someone else has used a different method for deriving comparable players and came up with much more potentially favourable outcomes. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong here, but like I said before, it's debatable.

There are so many variables (stats and numbers) to look at that are positives for Stone as a player. I just don't see how you can be such a proponent of data analytics, and yet ignore other methodologies and conclusions when it comes to looking at Stone from various statistical perspectives.

[ztking]

giphy.gifgiphy.gif

[hockeymanG23]

Using this argument, should I bet on red at the roulette wheel after it's been black 17 times in a row? I realize that "history will repeat itself" logic ends up being wrong from time to time, but my point is that if we base decisions on past comparisons instead of personal feeling or observations, we'll likely be wrong less often. And in this case 15 years of "data" seemed persuasive to me. If Stone scores 70 points and is a star I'll be happy for him and those who own him - I just wanted to stand behind numbers because I believe that's the path toward winning leagues more often.

Better bet red cause that roulette wheel is due for some regression to the mean

I agree that there is a huge benefit to tracking trends etc over just going off of gut instincts and the eye test, though I believe that the biggest benefits come from a combination of the two, especially when the comparable group could be referred to as a small sample size. I also agree that there are benefits to tracking the trends of a group, though I also believe that its important to look at any given individual in that group as an individual case since any group, large or small, will have an outlier that deviates from the norm.

I'd compare this Stone argument to another belief that some people have towards athletes in that when someone gets close to 30 or over in age that its time to write them off. The sample size to support this line of thinking is substantial, and for a large part its true. A good portion of players have a quick prime in their mid to late 20s and then drop off in production. Its been happening for DECADES even to athletes who were able to put up elite numbers for a good period of time. I think you would agree though that its not fair to paint all 30+ players with the same brush since we do know that a small percentage carry on to be highly productive even in their late 30s, but we can often tell which players will continue to do well through a combination of many facets falling under an analysis of data and observation.

Now there a certainly things working against Stone.

1.His peer group doesn't have a great track record, but its only what? 7 players or so? If it was a group of 10,000 with consistent results then I'd lend a lot more credence to the idea he will trend down. His sample group here is small though.

2. High shooting percentage. Ya, that has to come down, even elite shooters are around what, 12-13%? This is bound to regress, though there are the odd cases who've managed high career S% by just being in the right place at the right time.

Some things going for him

1. His past history does show that he has been a key contributor at every level. On a case by case basis can any of his peers make that claim? Not all of them can.

2. He has the opportunity. By his play he went from the bottom 6 a year ago and earned top line minutes and so far he's still proving that he deserves to getting those prime minutes and line mates.

I know its only two points for each but I don't have all day here and my post is already ending up longer than I wanted it too be.

I do have to say, there have been good points made by posters on this thread to support a more data based approach and others supporting the eye test, and while both have merits on their own I have to say that when used together it's my opinion that a bigger picture can come into focus. So far the only major knock on Stone has been past comparable players though I personally see that as a small thing while I see a lot of positives in his past production in addition to his current and future opportunities.

On a side note its pretty cool to see a thread pop up like this one with tons of differing input and keep from getting derailed in some way, props to all on that! lol

[Big Ev]

This is a sample of what I have been referring to. Vision and hockey sense.

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CRXCPa8WoAAXbvk.mp4

[2sticks1puck]

I called Stone as a 70 point player early last year. Now I believe that unless scoring stays down league-wide, 70 will be about where his floor is. He will be a perennial star, and he is already Ottawa's best forward.

We just have to keep his arms away from Hacksaw PK Subban.

[Hoopo]

Using this argument, should I bet on red at the roulette wheel after it's been black 17 times in a row?

Not clear what you're trying to say here. Picking red on that basis would be the gambler's fallacy and picking black on that basis is also fallacious. Assuming anything other than 50/50 in that scenario is flawed. Also hockey players are very far from random numbers.

[rataylor22]

Using this argument, should I bet on red at the roulette wheel after it's been black 17 times in a row? I realize that "history will repeat itself" logic ends up being wrong from time to time, but my point is that if we base decisions on past comparisons instead of personal feeling or observations, we'll likely be wrong less often. And in this case 15 years of "data" seemed persuasive to me. If Stone scores 70 points and is a star I'll be happy for him and those who own him - I just wanted to stand behind numbers because I believe that's the path toward winning leagues more often.

48.65, 48.65, 2.70. Those are the odds of spinning black, red, and zero on a standard roulette wheel, EVERY SINGLE TIME, regardless of what the previous spin came out as.

So your argument against Stone and using previous historic examples to predict future performance is to reference a game of random chance where each spin is independent of the previous spin and the next spin. Wow what an argument. You should stop Rizz, you're making yourself look really, REALLY bad now, like you actually don't have any idea what your talking about. Spinning black 17 times in a row MIGHT make you change how you bet, but it DOESN'T change or affect the outcome of the spin you're betting on. Just like 7 disconnected data points over 15 years MIGHT affect how you perceive Mark Stone, but in actuality provides ZERO basis for judgement on what Mark Stone actually will do because 7 DISCONNECTED DATA POINTS IS NOT A TREND.

THANK YOU so much for making MY point and absolutely CRUSHING your point. Bad look for you, but I'll take it.

[Mr. Guru]

[2014olympicgold]

I think we have a bit of confusion based on probability and “odds”

Roughly the probability halves from one spin to the next.



The following chart highlights the probabilities of the same colour appearing over a certain number of spins of the roulette wheel.

Number of Spins	Ratio	Percentage
1	1.06 to 1	48.6%
2	3.23 to 1	23.7%
3	7.69 to 1	11.5%
4	16.9 to 1	5.6%
5	35.7 to 1	2.73%
6	74.4 to 1	1.33%
7	154 to 1	0.65%
8	318 to 1	0.31%
9	654 to 1	0.15%
10	1,346 to 1	0.074%
15	49,423 to 1	0.0020%
20	1,813,778 to 1	0.000055%

[rataylor22]

I think we have a bit of confusion based on probability and “odds”

In the context of this thread, that's #Semantics.

Treat each spin as an independent event, which it is.

[Hoopo]

There's no confusion, 2014olympicgold. The odds of coming up black 20 consecutive times may be 0.00055% before you ever spin, but even if black has come up 20 times already the odds of the next spin being red are still only 48.6%.

Here, this should explain it

[2014olympicgold]

Odds vs probability are different. But it doesn’t matter at all in this. I was being a bit of a stickler there. I dunno, it was early for me, might have read it wrong. But every I said is pretty much moot to the base of the argument.