Better pair to build around: Matthews/Marner or Petterson/Hughes?

[Dekes For Days]

If this is true, then it shouldn’t be hard to find one example of you explaining your “model” and showing proof that your “model” is more accurate.

It sure isn't hard to find. You've personally replied to my explanations and evidence hundreds of times. It's pretty ridiculous that you attack me and misrepresent my work for a year, and then expect my assistance in further misrepresenting my work. Still waiting for any evidence from you for any of your claims, a year later.

 

[beowulf]

The Vancouver duo if only because you get a top flight forward and a dman instead of two forwards.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

It sure isn't hard to find. You've personally replied to my explanations and evidence hundreds of times. It's pretty ridiculous that you attack me and misrepresent my work for a year, and then expect my assistance in further misrepresenting my work. Still waiting for any evidence from you for any of your claims, a year later.

Unlike the countless examples of you being dishonest, skewing stats and posting different stats that favor your players, which are very easy for me to find and very satisfying for me to post, it actually is hard for me to find you clearly explaining what your “model” is, or evidence that your “model” is more predictive of contracts than raw points. This is most probably because these things don’t actually exist in the first place.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Unlike the countless examples of you being dishonest, skewing stats and posting different stats that favor your players

Please stop spreading false statements and harassing me. Get back to the topic, or I'll start reporting.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Please stop spreading false statements and harassing me. Get back to the topic, or I'll start reporting.

I’m on the topic. You claimed scoring rates are what define a player’s contract. Let’s see some evidence of that.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Please stop spreading false statements and harassing me. Get back to the topic, or I'll start reporting.

LOL just show the model. It's not that hard. Why do you always resort to this petty "it's already posted" when it clearly hasn't?

Dude is trying to hold you accountable to your claim that your "model" is accurate. You'd think if your "model" was accurate, you would have no problems with showing it.

Asking for someone to provide evidence isn't attacking you.

This tells me a couple things. Either your model isn't accurate as you would like or that you don't actually have a model and are making stuff up.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You claimed scoring rates are what define a player’s contract. Let’s see some evidence of that.

I have addressed this:

Literally nobody except the people who have been directly involved in NHL contract negotiations know exactly what is used in contract determination, and how things are weighted. It's likely not exactly the same in every negotiation anyway; there are different impacting factors. None of you have shown evidence of raw points being the sole or best basis for contracts, yet you go around acting like that is all that needs to be considered, and go around attacking and trying to discredit the in-depth analysis of others, with literally no evidence, while demanding evidence of everything under the sun from everyone else.

It was asked why the contracts were what they were. I gave an accurate answer. When evaluating comparable contracts around the league over the past decade and a half, my method has provided overwhelmingly more accurate results than raw points.

I don't think there is one magic way to determine all contracts ever; that is your assumption, despite all graphs you have ever done showing you that is not the case. As I said, there are different impacting factors to varying degrees in different negotiations. You seem to think that if some nothing depth player correlates better with points, then that automatically means that every single player has to follow the exact same formula, even when considering an extremely unique situation; one of the best ES and PP producers in the cap era, for which there is overwhelming evidence, who has temporarily had abnormally restricted opportunity for production relative to his peers and comparables, for reasons entirely outside their control.

 

[Dekes For Days]

LOL just show the model.

I have. It's not complicated; not sure what you're even looking for.

Dude is trying to hold you accountable to your claim that your "model" is accurate.

If people would like to ensure that my work is accurate, production rate statistics are publicly available.

Asking for someone to provide evidence isn't attacking you.

No, making false statements about somebody and consistently harassing them in multiple threads is.

 

[My3Sons]

To me, this debate probably needs Petterson and Hughes to go through their first RFA contracts to provide anything close to an apples to apples comparison. Matthews and Marner on ELCs get looked at differently as I see it. If one or both of Petterson or Hughes demands tippy top dollar and it gets ugly before they sign their reputations might change, even if the process is run by agents. If the VAN pair sign something longer than a bridge at a semi-reasonable cap hit without much public discussion, that will probably help the way the fans look at them. In a couple of years this might be clearer than it is right now.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I have addressed this:

In order for any of that to be worth a damn, you’d need to substantiate this:

When evaluating comparable contracts around the league over the past decade and a half, my method has provided overwhelmingly more accurate results than raw points.

I’m even offering to do the work for you to try and substantiate it but I can’t do that until you clearly define what this method is.

LOL just show the model. It's not that hard. Why do you always resort to this petty "it's already posted" when it clearly hasn't?

Dude is trying to hold you accountable to your claim that your "model" is accurate. You'd think if your "model" was accurate, you would have no problems with showing it.

Asking for someone to provide evidence isn't attacking you.

This tells me a couple things. Either your model isn't accurate as you would like or that you don't actually have a model and are making stuff up.

My suspicion is that it’s a combination of the two; a clearly-defined “model” doesn’t exist because a huge part of this “model” involves subjective parameters that shift to pump the tires of Leafs players whenever necessary, and also because this poster is well-aware that if they do clearly define this model, I will prove rather quickly that points correlate more closely with contract value than their model does.

 

[Dekes For Days]

In order for any of that to be worth a damn, you’d need to substantiate this:

No, that just shows that you didn't read it. Go back and read what I quoted.

I’m even offering to do the work for you to try and substantiate it

No, you are offering to state misleading conclusions about my work through horribly manipulated irrelevant graphs, like every time before. You don't seem to understand the horrible issues with the graphs you make, even when it's pointed out to you. You're missing the entire point of what I said, in your scramble to create a "gotcha".

a clearly-defined “model” doesn’t exist because a huge part of this “model” involves subjective parameters that shift to pump the tires of Leafs players whenever necessary

This is wildly unsubstantiated and wrong. This is not what I do at all. You act like I'm putting forth some weird convoluted model, when in reality, it's just properly considering production rates, especially in circumstances/game states where it's clearly necessary. I represented it, along with the raw rates, as easier to understand numbers by converting it to points/primary points/goals in equal TOI amounts, and common TOI ratios. I explain what I'm doing pretty much every time I post it, so your whole dramatic act like I'm hiding something from you is ridiculous.

It's all hard, publicly available facts. The only place where I can have even minimal impact in any of that is the TOI ratios used, but I did not choose those TOI ratios for any Leaf-related reasons. I chose it because it was an easy round number, and it was a generally fair representation of the TOI and TOI ratios that the star level-players I was comparing tend to get. It's not even the TOI ratio that would make the Leaf players look best, and I have consistently offered to do it at other TOI ratios at request.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

I have. It's not complicated; not sure what you're even looking for.

If people would like to ensure that my work is accurate, production rate statistics are publicly available.

No, making false statements about somebody and consistently harassing them in multiple threads is.

Just post your f***ing model already. Stop acting like a victim of harassment when people are asking you to provide evidence.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

No, that just shows that you didn't read it. Go back and read what I quoted.

No, you are offering to state misleading conclusions about my work through horribly manipulated irrelevant graphs, like every time before. You don't seem to understand the horrible issues with the graphs you make, even when it's pointed out to you. You're missing the entire point of what I said, in your scramble to create a "gotcha".

This is wildly unsubstantiated and wrong. This is not what I do at all. You act like I'm putting forth some weird convoluted model, when in reality, it's just properly considering production rates, especially in circumstances/game states where it's clearly necessary. I represented it, along with the raw rates, as easier to understand numbers by converting it to points/primary points/goals in equal TOI amounts, and common TOI ratios. I explain what I'm doing pretty much every time I post it, so your whole dramatic act like I'm hiding something from you is ridiculous.

It's all hard, publicly available facts. The only place where I can have even minimal impact in any of that is the TOI ratios used, but I did not choose those TOI ratios for any Leaf-related reasons. I chose it because it was an easy round number, and it was a generally fair representation of the TOI and TOI ratios that the star level-players I was comparing tend to get. It's not even the TOI ratio that would make the Leaf players look best, and I have consistently offered to do it at other TOI ratios at request.

What I am looking to do is to run a regression to test the correlation between your “model” and cap hits, and then run a regression to test the correlation between raw points per game or per season over comparable samples and cap hits, and compare R^2 values.

What I would then do is separate the two by RFA/UFA, and for the RFAs, I’d run a multi-linear regression in order to adjust for the values of term and compare 6-year term-adjusted contract values to the results of your model and to the results of raw points per game. For the UFAs, I’d probably run a multi-linear regression for both term and for age in order to see how these things impact contract value.

Ideally, I’d look at all forwards over the entirety of the cap era in order to get a comprehensive idea of what has driven contract value over that time frame.

I’m learning R Programming as a requirement requirements for a Master’s Degree that I’ll be starting in the fall and I think that a small project like this with this kind of data set would certainly be a small and easy but fun introduction to the program.

Unfortunately, I can’t do any of this until you clearly define what your “model” is.

 

[Dekes For Days]

What I am looking to do is to run a regression to test the correlation

Yes, and this is part of the problem. Even putting aside all of your horrible methodology and manipulation in putting together these graphs, they are useless, even if done correctly. You are operating under the assumption that there is one magic formula for all contracts, and one thing that is solely considered in all instances; something we know to be false. You do these graphs so that you can falsely declare, while ignoring all context, that nothing ever matters in contract valuation other than raw points, no matter how much of an obvious outlier a situation may be. So that you can adamantly declare that anybody (or more accurately, one person specifically) who signs a contract out of your narrow viewpoint of contract valuation is "wrong", no matter the situation. Contracts don't work like that.

What I would then do is separate the two by RFA/UFA, and for the RFAs, I’d run a multi-linear regression in order to adjust for the values of term and compare 6-year term-adjusted contract values to the results of your model and to the results of raw points per game. For the UFAs, I’d probably run a multi-linear regression for both term and for age in order to see how these things impact contract value. Ideally, I’d look at all forwards over the entirety of the cap era in order to get a comprehensive idea of what has driven contract value over that time frame.

Not only does this not come close to eliminating the issues with these graphs, I have a hard time taking you seriously and believing that you would even do any of this, when for a year, you have specifically avoided doing any of these things; instead turning to methodology that leads you to horribly manipulated graphs and incorrect conclusions.

Unfortunately, I can’t do any of this until you clearly define what your “model” is.

You can do whatever you want to do. You don't need me for anything. My methodology has been laid out repeatedly, in this and countless threads, including in my previous post. You also do not have to do it about my methodology specifically. I don't ask for your permission when I do in-depth analysis to understand contract and player evaluation better. That suggests that this is not for your schoolwork ( ), or for your personal understanding, but in actuality, just further fuel for your continued harassment of me, and misrepresentation of my work and contract negotiations.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Yes, and this is part of the problem. Even putting aside all of your horrible methodology and manipulation in putting together these graphs, they are useless, even if done correctly. You are operating under the assumption that there is one magic formula for all contracts, and one thing that is solely considered in all instances; something we know to be false. You do these graphs so that you can falsely declare, while ignoring all context, that nothing ever matters in contract valuation other than raw points, no matter how much of an obvious outlier a situation may be. So that you can adamantly declare that anybody (or more accurately, one person specifically) who signs a contract out of your narrow viewpoint of contract valuation is "wrong", no matter the situation. Contracts don't work like that.

Not only does this not come close to eliminating the issues with these graphs, I have a hard time taking you seriously and believing that you would even do any of this, when for a year, you have specifically avoided doing any of these things; instead turning to methodology that leads you to horribly manipulated graphs and incorrect conclusions.

You can do whatever you want to do. You don't need me for anything. My methodology has been laid out repeatedly, in this and countless threads, including in my previous post. You also do not have to do it about my methodology specifically. I don't ask for your permission when I do in-depth analysis to understand contract and player evaluation better. That suggests that this is not for your schoolwork ( ), or for your personal understanding, but in actuality, just further fuel for your continued harassment of me, and misrepresentation of my work and contract negotiations.

First of all, nobody thinks that raw points are the only thing that matter in contract negotiations. You keep saying this, and it probably makes you feel smug and superior, but it is a complete straw man argument. What people do think is that raw points are the strongest single predictor of contract value, more so than P/60. The contract projection model created by Evolving Hockey, which you have endlessly trashed, was extremely accurate at predicting contract value, far more so than anything you’ve shown, and it takes into account more than points. However, the authors of this contract, who have done far more research than you or I, have clarified that points and TOI are historically the biggest driver of contract value, which is probably why they did an excellent job of predicting future results. (And unlike you, they treat TOI as a variable that is positively linked to contract value.)



With that being said, there does not have to be one magic formula for determining contract value, and nobody is saying that there is one magic formula, or that those which exist are magic or perfect. However, if one method of determining contract value is extremely accurate as you’ve claimed, and more importantly if it is superior to another as you’ve also claimed, then it should have a higher correlation to actual contract value. If it doesn’t have a higher correlation, it’s probably not superior.

You keep saying “graphs”, but those graphs are just a nice visual way to display how two variables correlate. Simple graphs depicting the correlation between an x variable and y variable through R^2 and posting each variable on a graph are extremely common and extremely useful for conveying information.

You have not laid out your methodology in this thread even once. You have simply said that you have a “model”, and not clearly defined it whatsoever. You are being intentionally vague because you have dedicated thousands of internet posts to telling people that you understand contract value better than they do, and that your “model” is the best, and you are absolutely terrified of what will come to light when the results of your “model” are actually held up to scrutiny.

Until you actually clearly provide the methodology behind your “model” so that it can be held up to such scrutiny, every single time you make a post on the NHL Talk board or the Trade Rumors/FA Talk board which states that forward contract value is primarily driven by per-minute scoring rate, I will respond to remind you, and to tell everybody else involved, that you have never substantiated the results of your “model” or even laid out the methodology behind it so that it can be held up to scrutiny, and that your claims that scoring rate has been the primary driver of contract value over the past decade and a half have never been proven or even supported by any evidence, and ask you to clearly define your “model” for scoring rate so that it can be held up to scrutiny. If you believe that this is harassment, then you can feel free to report me, but my understanding of the rules is that as long as I address the content of the post (which I have done throughout this thread, and which I intend to do going forward) that I am addressing, then there is no issue with my response, and I only plan to address the content of your posts.

We are now done here.

 

[Steven Toast]

Dekes for Days is indeed an apt name. He states that he has a model, and dekes around showing it for days!

 

[Rowlet]

took the Vancouver duo because it includes a #1C and a #1D

 

[flying v 604]

When your team comes out with a player that actually achieves something, I might sing their praises.

But your current 55-65 point "franchise" guys just ain't enough, Cuz.

55-65 point D? Petey has been pretty much a ppg player over his first 2 seasons.
What I find hilarious is certain leaf fans claiming Petey has had better linemates his entire career.
1st off, in his rookie season, he started on a line with Louie Ericksson and Goldy with a D pair of Derick Pouliot and MDZ.
This season he had much better linemates but it should be mentioned that before Miller was paired with EP he was never once a PPG game player or even a 1st line player, is it not fair to say maybe Petey had a bigger impact on Miller? Also in the Brief 10 games Toffoli played with Petey, he had his best 10 game stretch of his career.
I think AM is a fantastic Goal scoring centre, there's a reason he went 1st overall. However, Petey has been better defensively who has never been called lazy by his own fanbase where as AM is constantly shit on by Leaf faithful for being invisible when he's not scoring.
As For Hughes. Anyone who watched the Nucks on a regular basis could easily see the impact he had on this team. I am a huge fan of Petey and I honestly thought it would be hard for anyone to have the type of impact he had in his rookie season. Well Hughes arguably was doing it a season later. Even with the top forwards our PP still sucked the first 8 games of the season until Q was inserted on PP1 and everything changed, hell even 5on5 the ice was substantially tilted in our favour when Q was on the ice. The fact that people question his defensive game when he was literally used as a shut down pair with Tanev who largely because of Quinn's ability to skate the puck out of trouble had his healthiest and productive season.
One thing that should be brought up is the attitudes these kids have. AM and MM have shown some pretty big flaws not only by bending Dubas over but even how they are perceived by their own fanbase based on how they carry themselves off the ice.
Quinn and Petey are part of a young core that are far more mature than that of the frat boy mentality that resides in Leaf land. Let's be honest, the Leafs are a team of individuals who act like they are the cock of the walk who seem to care more about social media than being leaders in their communities.

 

[flying v 604]

This is not true. Please do not post misrepresentations of my position.

Marner was top 5 in voting for this meaningless trophy, and it was in a way more competitive year than this year; one of the strongest rookie years in recent history, featuring countless current stars.

All you do is cherry-pick while refusing to concede a point after your argument is proved wrong. Even the biggest homer can see Quinn has had a far better rookie season than Marner. Quinn was doing things that haven't been done by a rookie D in 40 years. He was possibly having one of the best rookie seasons for a D since Orr FFS. If Makar wasn't also lights out, this would have been the easiest Calder choice I've ever seen. Was Marner having that impact is rookie season? As for the 7 months big deal, they both had the exact same amount of developmental year's before they started their pro careers. It's not like one had a full season more before they turned pro. I don't even consider using that in the Makar- Quinn debate who are both rookies but Makar had 1 full season of development since he was drafted a year earlier.

 

[flying v 604]

There are not enough facepalms to accurately reflect the ridiculousness of this statement.

It's sad that someone has to resort to lying. Petey has scored 28 goals in 67 and 68 games. Ironically that poster has claimed that AM is a 50 goal player based on a full season but Petey is a 20 something goal scorer even tho if held to the same standard as he affords AM, he would be closer to a 35 goal scorer. But hey, this is HF where using the same variables doesn't apply unless it proves your point. Kind of like how some of these people say Marner and Quinn should be judged the same even tho ones a forward and ones a D.

 

[Dekes For Days]

First of all, nobody thinks that raw points are the only thing that matter in contract negotiations.

That's literally what you've been saying and arguing this whole time. If you didn't believe this, you would have had no problem with me pointing out how production rates change the picture of the Leaf contracts considerably, and wouldn't have butt in with attacks and misleading and false claims when I answered the individual's question.

What people do think is that raw points are the strongest single predictor of contract value, more so than P/60.

Something that you have never once proven at all, and even if true, is entirely irrelevant in situations like this.

The contract projection model created by Evolving Hockey, which you have endlessly trashed, was extremely accurate at predicting contract value

It was not accurate at predicting contract value. It was actually wildly inaccurate.

This is a cherry picked tweet, that says nothing about the effectiveness or usefulness of production rates. All this person stated is that "we know that points are a very poor way to measure player value". Yet you endlessly cling to it. Except when you're doing your own player evaluations using horrible frankenstein metrics; then suddenly per 60 statistics are okay.

However, if one method of determining contract value is extremely accurate as you’ve claimed, and more importantly if it is superior to another as you’ve also claimed, then it should have a higher correlation to actual contract value. If it doesn’t have a higher correlation, it’s probably not superior.

I am pretty confident that my methodolgy, tested accurately, would produce more accurate results, at the very least among the types of players and contracts we have been discussing this whole time. However, we run into two main problems.

1. I don't trust you to effectively test this methodology. Nobody should. You have extreme bias, and for a year, have not only endlessly attacked me and my work with zero evidence or justification, but twisted and manipulated both statistics and these specific graphs to fit your argument, not reality. You have given advanced statistics a horrible reputation around here, making everybody else's work harder.

2. It doesn't matter. Even if it was possible to test accurately using your graphs (it's not), and even if you did it completely accurately (you wouldn't), and even if you got slightly higher correlation with points, then it makes no difference. You would use it to declare that raw points are all that matters, and P/60 is invalid in all instances for the purposes of contract valuation. That is wrong. You would use it to declare that anybody who signs a contract outside of your narrow view of contract valuation to be wrong. That is wrong. Reality is, there are many things considered in contract valuation. Production is the main piece, but high correlation with points would mean that the conditions for points are relatively consistent to produce results in the sample you took of players getting contracts; it would not mean that other forms of production are not utilized when raw points are wildly ineffective at capturing offensive ability due to forces outside of their control.

As usual, you would be in control of what you do and do not show. If you got results that support my conclusion, you would choose to just never post them like you have in the past, and continue making the same false claims that you have been making for a year. If you got results that supported your conclusion, then you would misrepresent what those findings mean in relation to contract valuation and the usefulness of other factors or forms of production, like you are already doing with absolutely zero evidence at all.

You keep saying “graphs”, but those graphs are just a nice visual way to display how two variables correlate.

No, they are not. They are useless. You are not adjusting for any factors like term, age, status, situations for production, or literally anything else. You put 1 year contracts for nothing depth 30 year olds, up against 7-year UFA superstar contracts, up against post-ELC bridges, over a few month sample of signings, using single year production. And then you put one graph that represents less than half of production up against one that represents way more information. It's so dishonest. You enter so many issues into the comparison by throwing it all up together on a graph, and while you may have nice clusters with unimportant contracts at the bottom, literally all of your graphs have shown a lack of close correlation at the top. Because as you get closer to the top, those players become more important, and they gain more leverage over situations where they are unfairly represented by one singular measure.

You have not laid out your methodology in this thread even once.

I have. Multiple times. I will even post it again for you:

You act like I'm putting forth some weird convoluted model, when in reality, it's just properly considering production rates, especially in circumstances/game states where it's clearly necessary. I represented it, along with the raw rates, as easier to understand numbers by converting it to points/primary points/goals in equal TOI amounts, and common TOI ratios. I explain what I'm doing pretty much every time I post it, so your whole dramatic act like I'm hiding something from you is ridiculous.

It is not complicated. It is properly considering production rates. That's it.

You seem to have issue with the points/primary points/goals numbers created. That is merely a helpful visualization, combining ES and PP and putting everybody at equal TOI, using common TOI ratios. I have consistently offered to do this at different TOI ratios for people, and have when looking at more direct comparisons between two players.

Once again, you act like there is something being hidden from you. There isn't. Once again, you don't need to test my methodology specifically anyway. That suggests that this is not for your schoolwork, or for your personal understanding of contracts, but in actuality, just further fuel for your continued harassment of me, and misrepresentation of my work and contract negotiations.

you are absolutely terrified of what will come to light when the results of your “model” are actually held up to scrutiny.

This is false. I don't care what you do, and I am very confident in my methodology. You are clearly fabricating some scenario where you can claim that I am somehow preventing you from doing this work; likely because you've done it already and realize how my methodology correlates better with the players being discussed. This is an easy way to blame the lack of results on me, now that you have walked yourself into a corner.

Until you actually clearly provide the methodology behind your “model” so that it can be held up to such scrutiny, every single time you make a post on the NHL Talk board or the Trade Rumors/FA Talk board which states that forward contract value is primarily driven by per-minute scoring rate, I will respond to remind you, and to tell everybody else involved, that you have never substantiated the results of your “model”

So, you're admitting that you're going to harass me and lie about me and my work at every opportunity? Cool, I'm sure that the administrators will be interested in that.

I will likely respond with the fact that you have never once provided evidence to support points being the sole driver of contract value, despite your continued insistence that that is the only thing that needs to be considered, and all else can be ignored. You have never held it up to scrutiny. You have never done accurate measures or tests on it. Why not start there?

 

[Dekes For Days]

What I find hilarious is certain leaf fans claiming Petey has had better linemates his entire career.

What was suggested is that he had better linemates than Matthews/Marner over the first 2 years of their respective careers, which is true, and what was being discussed at the time. Not currently. Pettersson is a very good player and I have said that constantly; even rating him 5th among under 25 forwards in another thread.

Let's be honest, the Leafs are a team of individuals who act like they are the cock of the walk who seem to care more about social media than being leaders in their communities.

This is wildly inaccurate.

All you do is cherry-pick while refusing to concede a point after your argument is proved wrong.

I have not cherry picked anything, and nothing I have posted has been proven wrong.

Was Marner having that impact is rookie season?

Yes.

 

[Dache]

That's literally what you've been saying and arguing this whole time. If you didn't believe this, you would have had no problem with me pointing out how production rates change the picture of the Leaf contracts considerably, and wouldn't have butt in with attacks and misleading and false claims when I answered the individual's question.

Something that you have never once proven at all, and even if true, is entirely irrelevant in situations like this.

It was not accurate at predicting contract value. It was actually wildly inaccurate.

This is a cherry picked tweet, that says nothing about the effectiveness or usefulness of production rates. All this person stated is that "we know that points are a very poor way to measure player value". Yet you endlessly cling to it. Except when you're doing your own player evaluations using horrible frankenstein metrics; then suddenly per 60 statistics are okay.

I am pretty confident that my methodolgy, tested accurately, would produce more accurate results, at the very least among the types of players and contracts we have been discussing this whole time. However, we run into two main problems.

1. I don't trust you to effectively test this methodology. Nobody should. You have extreme bias, and for a year, have not only endlessly attacked me and my work with zero evidence or justification, but twisted and manipulated both statistics and these specific graphs to fit your argument, not reality. You have given advanced statistics a horrible reputation around here, making everybody else's work harder.

2. It doesn't matter. Even if it was possible to test accurately using your graphs (it's not), and even if you did it completely accurately (you wouldn't), and even if you got slightly higher correlation with points, then it makes no difference. You would use it to declare that raw points are all that matters, and P/60 is invalid in all instances for the purposes of contract valuation. That is wrong. You would use it to declare that anybody who signs a contract outside of your narrow view of contract valuation to be wrong. That is wrong. Reality is, there are many things considered in contract valuation. Production is the main piece, but high correlation with points would mean that the conditions for points are relatively consistent to produce results in the sample you took of players getting contracts; it would not mean that other forms of production are not utilized when raw points are wildly ineffective at capturing offensive ability due to forces outside of their control.

As usual, you would be in control of what you do and do not show. If you got results that support my conclusion, you would choose to just never post them like you have in the past, and continue making the same false claims that you have been making for a year. If you got results that supported your conclusion, then you would misrepresent what those findings mean in relation to contract valuation and the usefulness of other factors or forms of production, like you are already doing with absolutely zero evidence at all.

No, they are not. They are useless. You are not adjusting for any factors like term, age, status, situations for production, or literally anything else. You put 1 year contracts for nothing depth 30 year olds, up against 7-year UFA superstar contracts, up against post-ELC bridges, over a few month sample of signings, using single year production. And then you put one graph that represents less than half of production up against one that represents way more information. It's so dishonest. You enter so many issues into the comparison by throwing it all up together on a graph, and while you may have nice clusters with unimportant contracts at the bottom, literally all of your graphs have shown a lack of close correlation at the top. Because as you get closer to the top, those players become more important, and they gain more leverage over situations where they are unfairly represented by one singular measure.

I have. Multiple times. I will even post it again for you:

It is not complicated. It is properly considering production rates. That's it.

You seem to have issue with the points/primary points/goals numbers created. That is merely a helpful visualization, combining ES and PP and putting everybody at equal TOI, using common TOI ratios. I have consistently offered to do this at different TOI ratios for people, and have when looking at more direct comparisons between two players.

Once again, you act like there is something being hidden from you. There isn't. Once again, you don't need to test my methodology specifically anyway. That suggests that this is not for your schoolwork, or for your personal understanding of contracts, but in actuality, just further fuel for your continued harassment of me, and misrepresentation of my work and contract negotiations.

This is false. I don't care what you do, and I am very confident in my methodology. You are clearly fabricating some scenario where you can claim that I am somehow preventing you from doing this work; likely because you've done it already and realize how my methodology correlates better with the players being discussed. This is an easy way to blame the lack of results on me, now that you have walked yourself into a corner.

So, you're admitting that you're going to harass me and lie about me and my work at every opportunity? Cool, I'm sure that the administrators will be interested in that.

I will likely respond with the fact that you have never once provided evidence to support points being the sole driver of contract value, despite your continued insistence that that is the only thing that needs to be considered, and all else can be ignored. You have never held it up to scrutiny. You have never done accurate measures or tests on it. Why not start there?

Please stop clogging entire threads with these overblown posts.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Can’t be wrong when you don’t post your work.

Next level thinking

 

[Dekes For Days]

Please stop clogging entire threads with these overblown posts.

Then please stop responding to my posts, analysis, and explanations with unsubstantiated claims and misrepresentations. All I had done was answer somebody's question with an in-depth and accurate analysis. I am not the only one involved in this discussion, and I am not the one extending it.

Can’t be wrong when you don’t post your work.

I have posted all of my work, and explained it extensively. If you don't understand it at this point, that is your issue.