Yeah, but I get it from both sides. My Miller 'hate' and the way I go about trying to prove why I 'hate' Miller because it's "advanced stats" based. It gets frustrating when you bring objective data to an argument where the other person's viewpoints are entirely subjective based.
I've learned, recently, that "phenomena" and I've since begun less in trying to convince other people to change their viewpoints, and rather continue to try and explain why I believe mine are they way are. It hasn't helped the conversation.
I think you're right. Probably just best for me in the future to just not jump into the conversation when Miller is brought up.
Okay, SF, if you genuinely would like to receive less antagonism (and are genuinely confused as to why you get it in the first place), let me offer a few more/more detailed observations as to why I think you "get it" from other posters when you make these arguments. Please take them in the spirit of intending to be helpful, because I value you as a poster and do, in fact, intend to be helpful:
1) In making your proposals, you seem obsessed with dumping/acquiring specific players as opposed to looking at the team as a whole and considering any deal, involving any player, that might benefit the organization. It comes off as "what about Miller for this, what about Miller for that, what about Miller for a 6th rounder, oh for the love of God can we PLEASE just get rid of Miller?"
Personally, I would have NO problem trading Miller for the right return. But I ALSO wouldn't have a problem trading Kreider or anyone else on the team for the right return (which in Kreider's case would be higher, BTW). Were you to suggest ideas outside of dumping Miller, signing Nakladal and "firing Girardi to the moon" over and over again, I think you'd be surprised how much less "hate" you receive - INCLUDING as regards to your suggestions for those three players.
2) Apologies in advance for being harsh, but... your points on advanced stats are dogmatic to the point of being alienating. Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely appreciate the info you've shared - I've learned from it, and continue to read your posts with interest, because they've added to how I analyze players, and the game as a whole. But you, conversely, come off as dismissive, and sometimes (despite the clever memes)
disrespectful of those who don't share your views 100%. The debates you have frequently go:
"This guy is good/bad because of advanced stat X."
"Well have you considered traditional stat A or non-statistical reason 1?"
"Yeah, no, stat X says he's good/bad. Period."
(And then you frequently add humor, which I suspect is meant to deescalate, but in context can actually seem to end your point with "but I guess you're just not smart enough to see that.")
That mode of "debate" is off-putting to the point of being inflammatory, even when just sitting on the sidelines and reading it.
3) A related, but different point: you seem to believe that advanced stats are the be-all, end-all without giving any credence to other forms of analysis, the underlying reasons why those stats may be what they are, or importantly, the fact that eventually they need to translate into traditional stats for a team to win. Nakladal is a great example. He's 28, has only played 27 NHL games. During that span, his "box stats" (a term which, BTW, I'm increasingly coming to recognize as a coded sneer) were lousy - and frankly, they weren't all that great at the AHL level either.
Would I be adverse to taking a flyer on the player if he were willing to take a Clendenning-like contract? Absolutely not! In fact, your arguments on the subject have me somewhat intrigued.
But to suggest a guy who couldn't crack a North American squad for the first 27 years of his life, has only had a cup of coffee with a big club, during which time he didn't have much "traditional" impact, who hasn't yet been signed by anyone (including his own old club) is some kind of savior... I'm sorry, it just comes off on choosing to die on the analytics hill, rather than taking into account the fact that maybe, just MAYBE, he's not as good as you think he is.
I mean, to take the point to the extreme, if we were to ice a squad filled with your oft-mentioned favorites who put up great supporting numbers but don't ever actually get on the score sheet, how would we win games? Would every game be 1-0? Or would they suddenly, magically, for the first time after years of not scoring, see their "box stats" shoot up?
4) You talk a lot (recently in particular) about learning from when you are wrong. I really like this point - and if you actually backed it up,
I think it would go a long way towards earning you some slack. Indeed, it'd be the fastest, easiest way to make you seem less dogmatic. Yet, for all that you
say this about yourself, I don't think I've seen any
evidence of it to date. So, while on its face, the statement seems to be generous and open-minded, the subtext communicated is actually "I'm never wrong" (at least not on HFNYR).
Personally, just off the top of my head I was wrong about Enver Lisin, Evgeny Grachev, and Mats Zuccarello. Can you throw out some similar examples? (And before you do: I trust you see that if you name guys that fit in the context of "but that was before I discovered advanced stats", it won't help your cause, right...?)
Hope that was helpful - again, that's how it was meant!
Again, I like learning the game from this angle, and I think that all players should be looked at with a critical eye. If the Rangers front office had properly assessed Staal, Girardi, Stralman and Yandle, we wouldn't be in the current mess on D that we now face. And, I think it's important to note that Miller's year was a potential outlier. Puts the arguments in the "Miller vs. Kreider" discussion into better context.
