Marner VS Fiala

[Cleatus]

I'm selling facts as facts and giving my opinions based on those facts. You lack the common decency to actually discuss what about my logic is flawed, and instead prefer to respond with emoticons because??

I honestly thought you were better than that after discussing Nylander earlier in the season (remember when he was also > Gaudreau?). But perhaps I was mistaken, you seem more like IPS than a legitimate poster at this point.

For some reason, I get the feeling that you’ll never apply these “facts” to any of your own teams prospects or players.

And what’s your deal with Johnny Gaudreau? It’s like you think he’s reading these forums and applauding you every time you defend him. Give it a rest, this is a Marner vs Fiala thread for a reason.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Your logic is that because one player showed a bigger statistical improvement in their first half of their second season, that means his ceiling is higher.. There’s so much wrong with that I don’t know where to start.

I referred to a much larger sample size than just this year.

.... so I didn’t, I just laughed. If you’re evaluating upside based on raw numbers and not actual talent and tools you can’t teach, there’s nothing for us to discuss. Last night with Marner was a good indication as to why stats aren’t everything.

Did you miss the part where I talked specifically about Fiala's other advantages? Here it is again.

Add to that the fact that Fiala is bigger, faster, and has a much better shot, and I think there is a very compelling argument that he is not only the better player today, but projects to be in the future

It's funny how you call my opinions laughable yet you were the one claiming that Nylander > Gaudreau 4 months ago while I was attempting to reason with you. How do you square that?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

For some reason, I get the feeling that you’ll never apply these “facts” to any of your own teams prospects or players.

You'd be dead wrong. About half of devils fans on this site hate me because I don't blindly pump the tired of our prospects & players. Go ahead and look at my comments on Zacha, McLeod, Hall etc.

 

[BruinLVGA]

I referred to a much larger sample size than just this year.



Did you miss the part where I talked specifically about Fiala's other advantages? Here it is again.

Add to that the fact that Fiala is bigger, faster, and has a much better shot, and I think there is a very compelling argument that he is not only the better player today, but projects to be in the future

It's funny how you call my opinions laughable yet you were the one claiming that Nylander > Gaudreau 4 months ago while I was attempting to reason with you. How do you square that?

I thought this was especially a beauty of a shot by Fiala.

 

[Cleatus]

You'd be dead wrong. About half of devils fans on this site hate me because I don't blindly pump the tired of our prospects & players. Go ahead and look at my comments on Zacha, McLeod, Hall etc.

Fair enough, I suppose I’ll wait and see how you talk about Hischier if he happens to go through a sophomore slump next season... You better still call it “trending down” if he does.

Also, stop bringing up Gaudreau in this thread. It’s off topic and just looks like whining when you do.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I thought this was especially a beauty of a shot by Fiala.

Dude is an elite shooter.

 

[sparxx87]

I referred to a much larger sample size than just this year.



Did you miss the part where I talked specifically about Fiala's other advantages? Here it is again.

Add to that the fact that Fiala is bigger, faster, and has a much better shot, and I think there is a very compelling argument that he is not only the better player today, but projects to be in the future

It's funny how you call my opinions laughable yet you were the one claiming that Nylander > Gaudreau 4 months ago while I was attempting to reason with you. How do you square that?

Bigger and better shot isn’t guaranteed to last. In my initial post, I already acknowledged Marner to be an inferior physical specimen but he isn’t necessarily finished developing. Look at some of the mass guys with similar builds have put on. He may or may not add weight, we’ll have to wait a couple years and see.

I’d still take Nylander over Gaudreau going forward, which was the question posed. Again, we’ll have to wait and see. A young player who lost his confidence for a few weeks after some bad puck luck, shouldn’t be counted out... if you’ve been watching both players play recently, you might want to consider changing your pick as well.

 

[LeafGrief]

Marner is scoring at a 14g and 54p pace.
Marner scored at a 20g 65p pace last year, a 20% increase over this year.

And you are confused as to why people are talking about regression?

Meanwhile, Fiala is scoring at a 27g 56p pace, after a rookie year where he scored at only a 24p pace. In fact, he's shown significant production improvement every year since being drafted.

As a matter of fact, I think Fiala's progression year to year shows that he's actually the one with the higher ceiling. Look at the consistent improvement he's shown:

AHL
20p in 33gp (14/15)
50p in 66gp (15/16)
19p in 22gp (16/17)

NHL
17p in 60gp (14/15, 15/16, 16/17)
35p in 51gp (17/18)

Compare that Marner's production, which has been relatively static:

OHL
126p in 63gp (14/15)
116p in 57gp (15/16)

NHL
61p in 77gp (16/17)
37p in 56gp (17/18)

Add to that the fact that Fiala is bigger, faster, and has a much better shot, and I think there is a very compelling argument that he is not only the better player today, but projects to be in the future.

Since this is still a hot topic in the thread I will address it.

Let's take a look at the logic about progression. Interestingly enough, it seems like an appeal to mathematics, which seems solid enough at first glance. But your argument appears to be that Fiala is improving and Marner is not. Therefore, being that their performances this season are roughly equal, Fiala will be the one to improve or "have the higher ceiling" in the future.

While I accept that this argument is valid, it is most definitely not sound. For anyone reading who is unfamiliar with the terms, here is a quick definition on valid vs sound: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Your argument makes sense if the premises are accepted at face value (Marner stagnating and Fiala improving into the future), but I think that neither of those are true, which makes the logic unsound and therefore faulty.

The first major issue that I take with this argument is that Marner can be seen as stagnating. The simplest look at this one is the gap between his 2nd year in the OHL and his NHL numbers. Because I'm feeling cheeky, I'll compare Marner to Sam Gagner. Gagner scored 118 points in 53 games in London, before scoring 49 points in 79 games as a rookie with the Oilers. If we are to assume Gagner as a baseline, then Marner must have improved to reach his total of 61 points in the NHL. If I put aside the cheekiness, Marner's linemates in that year were Tkachuk and Dvorak, who all scored very similar point totals in the OHL and did not put up anywhere near the NHL numbers that Marner did. I argue that your premise of Marner stagnating over four years is simply untrue, which makes your argument unsound.

The second major issue is that you argue that improvement means a higher ceiling. To refute this I will argue that hockey is not a linear mathematical model. Fiala's future is in no way a function of his past. If the guy has a higher ceiling it is because of the hockey tools that he has. It is not logical to think that because he has improved to Marner's level over the course of four years that he will surpass Marner in the future. Combined with your first premise of Marner stagnating being untrue, this makes your second premise untrue and your logic again unsound.

Your argument is unsound due to faulty premises and is therefore incorrect. If you intend to continue with this argument I would suggest that you come up with some new evidence that will make the case for your premises being true.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Since this is still a hot topic in the thread I will address it.

Let's take a look at the logic about progression. Interestingly enough, it seems like an appeal to mathematics, which seems solid enough at first glance. But your argument appears to be that Fiala is improving and Marner is not. Therefore, being that their performances this season are roughly equal, Fiala will be the one to improve or "have the higher ceiling" in the future.

While I accept that this argument is valid, it is most definitely not sound. For anyone reading who is unfamiliar with the terms, here is a quick definition on valid vs sound: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Your argument makes sense if the premises are accepted at face value (Marner stagnating and Fiala improving into the future), but I think that neither of those are true, which makes the logic unsound and therefore faulty.

The first major issue that I take with this argument is that Marner can be seen as stagnating. The simplest look at this one is the gap between his 2nd year in the OHL and his NHL numbers. Because I'm feeling cheeky, I'll compare Marner to Sam Gagner. Gagner scored 118 points in 53 games in London, before scoring 49 points in 79 games as a rookie with the Oilers. If we are to assume Gagner as a baseline, then Marner must have improved to reach his total of 61 points in the NHL. If I put aside the cheekiness, Marner's linemates in that year were Tkachuk and Dvorak, who all scored very similar point totals in the OHL and did not put up anywhere near the NHL numbers that Marner did. I argue that your premise of Marner stagnating over four years is simply untrue, which makes your argument unsound.

The second major issue is that you argue that improvement means a higher ceiling. To refute this I will argue that hockey is not a linear mathematical model. Fiala's future is in no way a function of his past. If the guy has a higher ceiling it is because of the hockey tools that he has. It is not logical to think that because he has improved to Marner's level over the course of four years that he will surpass Marner in the future. Combined with your first premise of Marner stagnating being untrue, this makes your second premise untrue and your logic again unsound.

Your argument is unsound due to faulty premises and is therefore incorrect. If you intend to continue with this argument I would suggest that you come up with some new evidence that will make the case for your premises being true.

You don't accept that Marner has been stagnating and Fiala has been improving? Because that's really all I've said. I've said nothing about definitive implications into the future, only about how those trends tend to result in different outcomes.

I see that as a pretty common general principle, but concede that it's probably worth some more research. Development is certainly not linear, nor is it the same for everyone. It wouldn't at all surprise me to see Marner end up the better player, but I think their is a very strong case for Fiala at this point.

 

[Cleatus]

Since this is still a hot topic in the thread I will address it.

Let's take a look at the logic about progression. Interestingly enough, it seems like an appeal to mathematics, which seems solid enough at first glance. But your argument appears to be that Fiala is improving and Marner is not. Therefore, being that their performances this season are roughly equal, Fiala will be the one to improve or "have the higher ceiling" in the future.

While I accept that this argument is valid, it is most definitely not sound. For anyone reading who is unfamiliar with the terms, here is a quick definition on valid vs sound: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Your argument makes sense if the premises are accepted at face value (Marner stagnating and Fiala improving into the future), but I think that neither of those are true, which makes the logic unsound and therefore faulty.

The first major issue that I take with this argument is that Marner can be seen as stagnating. The simplest look at this one is the gap between his 2nd year in the OHL and his NHL numbers. Because I'm feeling cheeky, I'll compare Marner to Sam Gagner. Gagner scored 118 points in 53 games in London, before scoring 49 points in 79 games as a rookie with the Oilers. If we are to assume Gagner as a baseline, then Marner must have improved to reach his total of 61 points in the NHL. If I put aside the cheekiness, Marner's linemates in that year were Tkachuk and Dvorak, who all scored very similar point totals in the OHL and did not put up anywhere near the NHL numbers that Marner did. I argue that your premise of Marner stagnating over four years is simply untrue, which makes your argument unsound.

The second major issue is that you argue that improvement means a higher ceiling. To refute this I will argue that hockey is not a linear mathematical model. Fiala's future is in no way a function of his past. If the guy has a higher ceiling it is because of the hockey tools that he has. It is not logical to think that because he has improved to Marner's level over the course of four years that he will surpass Marner in the future. Combined with your first premise of Marner stagnating being untrue, this makes your second premise untrue and your logic again unsound.

Your argument is unsound due to faulty premises and is therefore incorrect. If you intend to continue with this argument I would suggest that you come up with some new evidence that will make the case for your premises being true.

Now this is a great post. If Whiskeydevil even tries to counter anything said here, we know he’s not someone worth the time to debate with.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Bigger and better shot isn’t guaranteed to last. In my initial post, I already acknowledged Marner to be an inferior physical specimen but he isn’t necessarily finished developing. Look at some of the mass guys with similar builds have put on. He may or may not add weight, we’ll have to wait a couple years and see.

You think Marner will end up bigger and with a better shot than Fiala?

I’d still take Nylander over Gaudreau going forward, which was the question posed. Again, we’ll have to wait and see. A young player who lost his confidence for a few weeks after some bad puck luck, shouldn’t be counted out... if you’ve been watching both players play recently, you might want to consider changing your pick as well.

You'd be in the overwhelming minority.

 

[Cleatus]

You don't accept that Marner has been stagnating and Fiala has been improving? Because that's really all I've said. I've said nothing about definitive implications into the future, only about how those trends tend to result in different outcomes.

I see that as a pretty common general principle, but concede that it's probably worth some more research. Development is certainly not linear, nor is it the same for everyone. It wouldn't at all surprise me to see Marner end up the better player, but I think their is a very strong case for Fiala at this point.

I’ll admit that this post has a much more objective and non-definitive tone than ones you’ve made in the past. I like it too.

One thing I will say though... Marner had a rough start to the season, but he’s definitely not stagnating now. I’d say he’s flourishing, and likely learned a lot from his earlier struggles.

 

[LeafGrief]

You don't accept that Marner has been stagnating and Fiala has been improving? Because that's really all I've said. I've said nothing about definitive implications into the future, only about how those trends tend to result in different outcomes.

I see that as a pretty common general principle, but concede that it's probably worth some more research. Development is certainly not linear, nor is it the same for everyone. It wouldn't at all surprise me to see Marner end up the better player, but I think their is a very strong case for Fiala at this point.

No, I don't accept that Marner has been stagnating and outlined my case in the post you quoted. I reject the idea that a player scoring 61 points in the NHL as a rookie is not an improvement over their prior season in junior (or the AHL). I supported this with the numbers of his linemates from that same junior year who scored similar points and are also very good players. Furthermore, if I were to accept the argument of four years of stagnation at face value, that would mean that you're telling me that Marner would have put up 60 points in the NHL in 14/15. I do not believe he would have, therefore I must think that he has improved over the last four years. I might accept the premise that he hasn't improved from last year to this year and would probably enjoy a discussion on that. But no, I will not accept that as stagnating.

I absolutely agree that Fiala has improved.

 

[The List Of Jericho]

The poll is asking who has been better this year. Marner has comfortably proven this, based on his play this year compared to Fiala? Seriously. On what basis have you arrived to this conclusion?

How'd you like that 5 point game last night? He's also killing it lately and looks like he'll best even last year's numbers.

 

[Cleatus]

No, I don't accept that Marner has been stagnating and outlined my case in the post you quoted. I reject the idea that a player scoring 61 points in the NHL as a rookie is not an improvement over their prior season in junior (or the AHL). I supported this with the numbers of his linemates from that same junior year who scored similar points and are also very good players. Furthermore, if I were to accept the argument of four years of stagnation at face value, that would mean that you're telling me that Marner would have put up 60 points in the NHL in 14/15. I do not believe he would have, therefore I must think that he has improved over the last four years. I might accept the premise that he hasn't improved from last year to this year and would probably enjoy a discussion on that. But no, I will not accept that as stagnating.

I absolutely agree that Fiala has improved.

Another question I have for him about his player progression theory... If Marner continues to dominate the rest of the year and finishes with more than 61 points, would 62 or more points automatically place him back in the “trending up” category, therefore, increasing the height of his ceiling?

 

[sparxx87]

You think Marner will end up bigger and with a better shot than Fiala?


You'd be in the overwhelming minority.

Not bigger, it’ll be difficult for him to add 20 lbs but you’re already seeing his shot get a lot better. If he can maintain his shifty/elusiveness with an additional ~10 lbs he’ll be even better.

Marner does far more things you can’t teach. That’s what makes him different than most.


Again, I couldn’t care less what the HF masses think. If Donald Trump can win an election, polls mean very little to me.

 

[Ainec]

i knew this thread would be a trainwreck when it was made

hence no posts in the first 24 hours

 

[Holymakinaw]

How'd you like that 5 point game last night? He's also killing it lately and looks like he'll best even last year's numbers.

But some have jumped the gun and proclaimed him to be "regressing by 20% from last year". LOL.

His point production is identical to last year. And ahead of Fiala.

 

[Yamazaki]

Since this is still a hot topic in the thread I will address it.

Let's take a look at the logic about progression. Interestingly enough, it seems like an appeal to mathematics, which seems solid enough at first glance. But your argument appears to be that Fiala is improving and Marner is not. Therefore, being that their performances this season are roughly equal, Fiala will be the one to improve or "have the higher ceiling" in the future.

While I accept that this argument is valid, it is most definitely not sound. For anyone reading who is unfamiliar with the terms, here is a quick definition on valid vs sound: "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." Validity and Soundness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Your argument makes sense if the premises are accepted at face value (Marner stagnating and Fiala improving into the future), but I think that neither of those are true, which makes the logic unsound and therefore faulty.

The first major issue that I take with this argument is that Marner can be seen as stagnating. The simplest look at this one is the gap between his 2nd year in the OHL and his NHL numbers. Because I'm feeling cheeky, I'll compare Marner to Sam Gagner. Gagner scored 118 points in 53 games in London, before scoring 49 points in 79 games as a rookie with the Oilers. If we are to assume Gagner as a baseline, then Marner must have improved to reach his total of 61 points in the NHL. If I put aside the cheekiness, Marner's linemates in that year were Tkachuk and Dvorak, who all scored very similar point totals in the OHL and did not put up anywhere near the NHL numbers that Marner did. I argue that your premise of Marner stagnating over four years is simply untrue, which makes your argument unsound.

The second major issue is that you argue that improvement means a higher ceiling. To refute this I will argue that hockey is not a linear mathematical model. Fiala's future is in no way a function of his past. If the guy has a higher ceiling it is because of the hockey tools that he has. It is not logical to think that because he has improved to Marner's level over the course of four years that he will surpass Marner in the future. Combined with your first premise of Marner stagnating being untrue, this makes your second premise untrue and your logic again unsound.

Your argument is unsound due to faulty premises and is therefore incorrect. If you intend to continue with this argument I would suggest that you come up with some new evidence that will make the case for your premises being true.

Ouch.... I have to respect the fact you dismantled his argument with a mature response.

 

[eternalbedhead]

God, people are willing to crown and dethrone kings so quickly. Like 30-40 games means much in terms of player progression and career arcs.

It's a good poll that warrants debate, but it and most of its discussion are typical of this forum: an up and coming, newer (and usually younger, though not in this case) player who's having a strong first half of a rookie/sophomore season vs. an established, high-reputation player who is stagnating or outright regressing, even though such anomalies tend to be momentary.

Recency bias at its finest.

As for the question itself, I went Fiala -- from my limited viewings of both players, Fiala has been better this year. But I still think Marner has the higher ceiling and a reasonable shot at hitting it. Not as a slight to Fiala, but I love Marner as a player, and I need more than 50 games of stagnation to change my mind on that.

 

[Halla]

God, people are willing to crown and dethrone kings so quickly. Like 30-40 games means much in terms of player progression and career arcs.

It's a good poll that warrants debate, but it and most of its discussion are typical of this forum: an up and coming, newer (and usually younger, though not in this case) player who's having a strong first half of a rookie/sophomore season vs. an established, high-reputation player who is stagnating or outright regressing, even though such anomalies tend to be momentary.

Recency bias at its finest.

As for the question itself, I went Fiala -- from my limited viewings of both players, Fiala has been better this year. But I still think Marner has the higher ceiling and a reasonable shot at hitting it. Not as a slight to Fiala, but I love Marner as a player, and I need more than 50 games of stagnation to change my mind on that.

but its not a recency bias. the recence bias was picking fiala when they both had similar point totals.
Marner absolutely destroyed Fiala as rookies with 61-16 pts. If there was any recency bias, it was in favor of fiala.

Marner has a 0.77ppg vs 0.47ppg for Fiala. This poll should have been a landslide but a leaf is involved so hf board prevails again

 

[The Winter Soldier]

“Also had a good game”? Okay... ya their last games were on the same level

How'd you like that 5 point game last night? He's also killing it lately and looks like he'll best even last year's numbers.

Then Fiala has had the better and more consistent year. The poll is not asking who had one better statistical night did it?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Dude is an elite shooter.

Yes, he is.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

but its not a recency bias. the recence bias was picking fiala when they both had similar point totals.
Marner absolutely destroyed Fiala as rookies with 61-16 pts. If there was any recency bias, it was in favor of fiala.

Marner has a 0.77ppg vs 0.47ppg for Fiala. This poll should have been a landslide but a leaf is involved so hf board prevails again

Fiala is just starting to break out, so not sure if comparing rookie season totals makes all that much sense.

To the extent Marner has proven he's not a fluke, it's valid. But otherwise I don't think being a better rookie has any meaningful relevance to players who are comparable as sophomores.

 

[Holymakinaw]

Fiala is just starting to break out, so not sure if comparing rookie season totals makes all that much sense.

To the extent Marner has proven he's not a fluke, it's valid. But otherwise I don't think being a better rookie has any meaningful relevance to players who are comparable as sophomores.

Well......Marner destroyed Fiala in their rookie seasons, AND he's beating him in their sophomore seasons. How many times does the guy have to beat the other guy before people start being fair and unbiased about them? More than two times? Shall we circle back to this thread at this time next year, when Marner is beating him for the 3rd time, to REALLY discuss it's meaningful relevance?