I was only being condescending because you started your original post off with - "Let's work through this, for the slow..." No reason to try and play the sarcastic victim card.
The burden of proof is not on me, this is the same circular logic religious people fall back on. You made the assertion Stone's production would probably improve, change the word from probably to maybe and we will agree. It's nowhere near definitive enough to make a positive assertion - "probably". Furthermore, it's impossible for me to prove non-existence.
I can draw a larger conclusion from Hall's 75 minutes with McDavid than you can from Stone's 0 minutes with McDavid, yes?
Again, your logic makes no sense. So the sample size was too small, but if found a larger sample size it wouldn't matter, because sometimes the 'inductive' argument doesn't work. Still, the burden is on me to find a list of players to disprove the argument, that still works when disproved because it's expected that sometimes the argument fails. Yeah...no.
Thread was asking which player is better, so if Stone's production increased by 5 points (proving your argument correct) he's still too far behind Draisaitl offensively. Sounds like your argument switched gears at the end and is now reliant on Stone playing the same distribution of minutes if he were on McDavid's wing. Too many what-ifs, too much speculation.
I am not playing the victim card. I said I love sarcasm. How can someone say they love sarcasm while playing the victim card? I would never play the victim card. Anecdotally, I have argued that ad hominems should be used in arguments; it makes it fun. If someone is throwing insults, I know they are engaged. That being said, I probably was not super clear in my previous post, so hopefully, I can be more clear this time.
Sure, Stone has never played with McDavid, but if most players improve playing with McDavid, it stands to reason that it is probably the case that Stone would as well. If most players did not improve playing with Mcdavid, then it would probably not be the case. If it was about even, then it would be maybe. This is not very hard. You need to show the probably is not the case. You have failed to do so.
I'll pull the data on wowy...
Player/ with 97/ overall (so the number would be worse if it was a without)
drait/ 3.35/ 2.45
hopkins/ 3.18/ 1.76
Maroon/ 2.6/ 1.8
Lucic/ 2.3/ 1.19
Kassian/ 2.9/ 1.31
Rattie/ 3.12/ 1.52
Pulj/ 2.59/ 1.08
Cagiula/ 3.96/ 1.34
Hall/ whatever he doesn't improve in a 75 minute sample, but let's assume they played 200 minutes, and there was no improvement
Even if we include the fake 200 minute sample of Hall, 8/9 forwards that played 200 minutes with McDavid over the past two years saw massive spikes in scoring rates, but you seem to think that using one example over a 75 minute sample, where all predictive metrics saw a spike, suggests that it is not probably the case that Stone would improve; it is only a maybe to you. In other words, you think it is 50/50. I think it is at least above a 51% chance that McDavid improves Stone's production rate. Generally, to show an inductive argument as weak, you need to show the probability statement is wrong or too strong. Providing one counter to the many that show X to be true, does not make a probability statement about X incorrect or too strong. For example, If 75% of males own a truck, and Tom is male, Tom probably owns a truck. The fact that you can point to a guy that does not have a truck does nothing to diminish the probability claim. Now, if you found 80% of guys did not have a truck, that would diminish the probability claim.
Let me ask you this. Here is a bet: 5 dollars if Mcdavid does not improve Stone's production, and 5 dollars if he does. Are you indifferent to this bet? In other words, if I was standing in front of you, would you allow me to place your five dollars on either option? If not, at what ratio would you be indifferent? Is it 1/9, 2/8 etc. Whatever your answer is, that is your degree of belief that Stone would see an improvement. For example, I'd be indifferent at about 8.5, so my degree of belief is that there is about an 85% chance that Stone would see an increase in production if he played with Mcdavid in comparison to past/present situations. If I was offered the bet at 1.5/8.5, I would let you place my money on either option. If you are indifferent at 5 dollars on each, then I guess you truly do think that it is a "maybe" and not a "probably". Since we can, potentially, never see these two play together, we can use hypothetical betting ratios, and we can tease out a degree of belief; this is basic decision theory.
Unless I formulated something wrong previously, this is not a circular argument. To be clear, most people do not know what a circular argument is, so I just want to make sure we are on the same page. This is not to be condescending, so to be clear, it occurs when someone asserts what they set out to conclude. In other words, your conclusion is in your premise.
That did not happen here, but just in case it did, I will re-formulate. If I did provide a logically fallacious argument, that is totally my bad. I'm sorry about that.
P1: McDavid is a top offensive player
P2: Stone does not play with a top offensive
P3: Mcdavid improves every forwards scoring rate he has played with at least 200 minutes
C: Therefore, Stone would probably see a spike in production playing alongside McDavid.
The conclusion is not stated anywhere in the premise, and now you can clearly see where I am getting the probably from. Now, if most players did not improve playing with McDavid, I would not make the claim I did. If it was a near 50/50 split or minor changes, I would switch my claim to maybe.
Side note: Also, your five-point increase makes no sense. Even without McDavid, if Stone played equal minutes to Draisaitl, he probably adds another 14 points.
1433.97-1184.82=ES time difference= 249.15/60*2.00 (stone scored at a 2.23 rate, but I'll assume a drop because of fatigue) = about 8.
271.42-192.3= PP time difference = 79.12/60*6 (scored at an actual 6.24 rate) = about 6
8+6 = 14 + your generous 5= 19
Now Stone is at 92 points. 105 vs 92 doesn't seem like a huge gap, especially when one player is a Selke level player, and once we regress Draisaitl's insane 20% shooting to his normal 12-13%, the entire offensive gap, in terms of points, is basically gone. This makes sense to me because if Draisiatl was truly that much of a better player (offensive or otherwise) he would produce better on-ice results than Stone; however, he cannot do that while playing with better teammates on a better team. There is a reason why Stone runs consistently better shot, goal, and expected goal results, both raw and relative, and WAR/GAR models. The simple answer is because Stone is better. The dumb answer is to double down on a single variable
In any event, I know you will not agree with my adjustments, or someone will say "well Draisaitl actually did it" or "Stone would score even less than two points per 60", so keep all your points, forget the what ifs and the speculation.
I'll take the guy who is superior in every metric except points based metrics. You can keep the guy who is worse in everything except points based metrics.
