Speculation: What top 4D could Anders Lee return?

Status
Not open for further replies.

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
He hit a career high in goals sure but can only get worse because opposing fans who don't watch or understand his game say so.

Therefore, he is in decline.
thats what gets me, when even otherwise intelligent posters like Easton blues who i really respected before this, goes out of his way, to basically make a clearly bogus argument to knock Lee like He did.

you can knock him all you like about him not scoring points, because his job isnt to set up teammates, his job is to score goals in front of the net. he may be a one trick pony, but that one trick (scoring goals) is pretty damn important.
 

AvatarAang

Registered User
Jan 21, 2018
2,379
4,517
no one is giving up a legit top 4D for Lee when there's no proof he can survive a full season without Tavares on the roster and still put up the same numbers,

good chance he regresses a bit, and at that point would you rather pay the insane prices Isles fans are asking for or just sign someone like JVR for free and likely cheaper once you factor in Lee's raise next season.

Also pretty funny that the same people who demand a massive return for Lee are the same ones that constantly remind everyone that Karlsson is a rental because he is unsigned and only has a year left.

I don't think anyone including the Isles feel Lee is a 40G scorer going forward. this is a pointless thread. the isles will re-sign Lee and even if he puts up 30G 20A seasons they will be happy with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loyaltotheend

Jester9881

Registered User
May 16, 2006
14,350
3,460
Long Island NY
Fourth time:

For those making the argument that Lee's SH% is not sustainable, are you saying he's been "lucky" for the past 163 games?

I'm just going to keep asking this question
 

Brock Radunske

안양종합운동장 빙상장
Aug 8, 2012
16,787
4,701
Realistically, the best comparable for this type of player with that type of production getting traded is James Neal when he was in Pittsburgh.

James Neal - 24-26 years
80 gp 40 g 81 pts
40 gp 20 g 36 pts
59 gp 27 g 61 pts

Anders Lee - 25-27 years
80 gp 15 g 36 pts
81 gp 34 g 52 pts
82 gp 40 g 62 pts

So now that his comparable* has been established, the question is....who has an available Hornqvist-level player?








*(despite Neal having much better #s)

No bites on this logic, eh?
Doesn't fit the narrative, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loyaltotheend

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,519
46,242
No bites on this logic, eh?
Doesn't fit the narrative, I guess.

Not sure Lee and Neal are comparable since they play vastly different styles, even if they both scored 40 goals one season.

I mean, I guess they're comparable in the sense they're both complimentary wingers who won't drive offense on their own. But I think a team looking for a player that plays like Lee doesn't necessarily want a player that plays like Neal, or vice versa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordNeverLose

Szechwan

Registered User
Sep 13, 2006
5,654
4,966
Lee strikes me as a guy in the perfect situation, for some reason I really don't see him repeating this production anywhere other than Long Island.

Really like him as a player, and he has huge value, but his situation reminds me a bit of Burrows at his peak. He isn't usually responsible for creating the offense himself, but he's an integral part of finishing it, and one of the best net-front presences in the game.

I think Isles could do pretty well if they put him on the market, there are a lot of GMs out there that love his play style-- I just think he'll get paid a ton of money and struggle to live up to his contract moving forward, Ladd style.
 

Brock Radunske

안양종합운동장 빙상장
Aug 8, 2012
16,787
4,701
Not sure Lee and Neal are comparable since they play vastly different styles, even if they both scored 40 goals one season.

I mean, I guess they're comparable in the sense they're both complimentary wingers who won't drive offense on their own. But I think a team looking for a player that plays like Lee doesn't necessarily want a player that plays like Neal, or vice versa.

Stylistically, no but age and production is very close.
I guess my point is that he'll return something a lot closer to Neal than all the bonkers expectations in this thread.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Fourth time:

For those making the argument that Lee's SH% is not sustainable, are you saying he's been "lucky" for the past 163 games?

I'm just going to keep asking this question
I'll bite, even though none of my questions ever seem to get answered.

The argument that Lee's shot percentage from the last two years is unlikely to be sustained is based upon (in simplified form) regression to the mean. Essentially, that's the principle that an extreme measurement tends to be closer to average on a subsequent measurement. Note the bolded key words, which cannot be ignored or discarded, as people who do not fully understand this principle so often casually do.

Point by point:

"Extreme measurement:" Is a sustained shooting percentage north of 17.8% extreme? Clearly it is, both from a historical perspective and from a current one. It is very difficult to sustain a shooting percentage that high. If you accept that it is, then it is subject to regression. If one doesn't accept that it is, then I'd argue that one needs to build an empirical argument to that effect. I have yet to see one put forth, or to discover one myself, and I'd wager I've delved far more deeply into the numbers than most here.

"Average:" What is average is open to debate. Forwards have averaged a shooting percentage around 10.8% the last decade or so....a nice big picture reference, but probably not the best we can do here. Lee has averaged 14.6% for his career, or 35% better than the "average" forward, and I'd use that number over the previous one. The majority of prolific scorers are above average for their careers...usually in the 11.5% to 14.5% range (especially so among currently active players). Lee's current average is in line with that range, which seems pretty reasonable given his accomplishments.

Whatever number you choose to accept, it's going to be below the 18.5% Lee has averaged the last two years, because I have yet any reasonable justification for establishing an "average" (or, put another way, a baseline) that high. That is easily verified by the fact that no active players are doing so, and that it has been a notably rare event historically. I've already posted those numbers, so I won't rehash them all here.

"Tends to be closer:" Not a guarantee. It could go up next year, and the year after that, the year after that, and every year for the rest of his career. Does anyone actually want to wager that possibility will come to pass, though? It's (much) more likely to regress than to stay where it is, or to go up...no guarantees, just cold, hard probability.

This isn't just hypothetical...there have been a number of studies looking at NHL shooting percentage regression. It's a real, documented, significant thing. And this is all before taking into account the fact that shooting percentages tend to decline as one ages (another studied and well-documented phenomenon).

So, you ask if he's been "lucky" the last 163 games, and the answer is "yes" in the sense that he's riding a wave that can be reasonably expected to recede to some degree.

That said, almost every established player has seasons where they significantly outperform expectations (call them "career years," or whatever), and corresponding seasons where they notably under-perform...both of which can usually be tied to some underlying statistic outliers. By that same token, I'd say that Lee was "unlucky" two years ago when he shot 8.2%, and at the time I would have said that Lee's future shooting percentages were much more likely to increase than decrease....and they did.

"Luck" (or variance) is quantifiably baked into the game, as it is with most team sports, since even perfectly average players do not produce a perfectly average season every time out. They have highs and lows that average to, well, average. These highs and lows are to be expected for every player, whether average or not, so this is not a rationalization to minimize any given player's accomplishments. It's just something of a contextual reality that should not be ignored when trying to anticipate what is likely to happen in the future.

Here's some food for thought: If one truly thinks that Lee's sustainable baseline moving forward is 18.5%, then it follows that he's just as likely to come in above that number next year as he is to come in below it. How many people would take the over if given a choice between the two at even odds?

I'm guessing the betting would skew heavily towards the under if people were forced to put money on it, and for good reason. Only 3 players out of 117 qualifiers who played 60+ games and scored 20+ goals had a shooting percentage above 18.5% this year. The year before that, 6 out of 95 (none of whom repeated the feat this year). The year before that only 5 out of 104...again, none of whom repeated the feat in the next two years. The year before that 2 out of 90...none of whom repeated the feat in the next three years. Just 1 out of 97 the year before that, once again with no repeats in the subsequent years.

That's a 3% success rate over the last 5 years, with zero repeat success stories at any point during that span. I stopped there, but you should get the idea by now. Betting on a repeat performance of 18.5% (assuming 60+ games played and 20+ goals scored, which seems pretty reasonable) is just not a smart bet and you don't need an advanced degree in mathematics to figure that out.
 

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
Stylistically, no but age and production is very close.
I guess my point is that he'll return something a lot closer to Neal than all the bonkers expectations in this thread.
.
Brock you missed the point. Easton whole argument of statistical variance is flawed and deliberately so. He used statistical measures for all players. Which while they may be true for the aggregate, or the whole are wholly inaccurate for a subset.

That's why I told him off. He knew his argument was deliberately misleading. He designed it to be so, by ignoring all evidence that others have about style of play. If he had used that subset in his analysis, his conclusions would have been entirely different but he chose to be overly broad for a reason. To Mislead.
 
Last edited:

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
Stylistically, no but age and production is very close.
I guess my point is that he'll return something a lot closer to Neal than all the bonkers expectations in this thread.
Brock you're one of the most savvy of leaf fans. So I'm honestly surprised you're making the same mistake Easton blues made. No Lee does not drive the offense, it's a fair point, I won't dispute that. But he is not expected too. Limit your viewing of him to the style of player he is. That is the only way you can fairly evaluate him. That was why Easton was so wrong. He used metrics that in no way had anything to do with his game. In basketball do you judge point guards by blocked shots or assists? Do you evaluate Centers by steals or by rebounds and blocked shots? You know the answer. If you use the wrong metrics you can't fairly evaluate the player. That's all I'm saying.

Lee doesn't play the style of game that typical forwards play. So if you want to evaluate him fairly, compare him to players who play the same style. It's not as if the end result of his style isn't one of the most important aspects of the game. Aren't scoring goals, and preventing goals the two most important aspects of any hockey game?

Lee's style isn't dependent on Tavares, because no matter who his center is, his game isn't going to change, he's still going to do his dirty work within 5- 10 feet of the net, using his size and bulk to outmuscle defenders and forwards to redirect the puck, that's his game. That's his style. Now if you want to say as he ages he may physically wear down, that is a valid concern. And one no one can predict.

But this crap about using metrics that you evaluate typical forwards by has to stop, they are no more as relevant to Lee as are teets on a donkey. Looking At Lee and Expecting him to ever put up 50 assists is never gonna happen. He's too busy fighting for and keeping his position in close and distracting Goalies and defenders, to ever be an assist magnet. So why judge him on that. That's not in his job description, and it never was.

The only people who do that are people like Easton who are predisposed to knocking him by using metrics that may apply to most forwards. But really have no bearing on Lee because he's not that kind of forward. Lee is an old fashioned power forward. Not finesse one like Tarasenko, who idiots try to sell as a power forward in today's game, Tarasenko is no more a power forward than I am a ballarina.

Judge Lee on who he is, and what he is, not by forwards who play a totally different game. Easton deliberately tried to obscure Lee's contribution by using metrics that Lee doesn't even use. And what's worse WAS NEVER EVEN EXPECTED TO. That's dishonest.

do you judge pitchers by how many homers they HIT. If course not. Only an idiot would do so. So judge Lee on what He does and is meant to do. Not on what isn't even in his job description, and you can't do that if you don't consider his style of play.

Comparing him to Forwards who play a Different game is just as stupid as judging a pitcher based on how he hits.
 
Last edited:

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
.
Brock you missed the point. Easton whole argument of statistical variance is flawed and deliberately so. He used statistical measures for all players. Which while they may be true for the aggregate, or the whole are wholly inaccurate for a subset.

That's why I told him off. He knew his argument was deliberately misleading. He designed it to be so, by ignoring all evidence that others have about style of play. If he had used that subset in his analysis, his conclusions would have been entirely different but he chose to be overly broad for a reason. To Mislead.
Still on about this, eh? If only continually parroting something could make it so...

Still waiting on your superior data. Still waiting on you to address all the numerous inconsistencies in your own arguments and criticisms that I highlighted.

I at least had the courtesy to respond to your criticisms and misunderstandings about mine. All you seem capable of contributing to the conversation at this point is the ability to create straw-men on my behalf, and then knock them down to "prove" how terribly wrong and biased I am.
 
Last edited:

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
Brock you're one of the most savvy of leaf fans. So I'm honestly surprised you're making the same mistake Easton blues made. No Lee does not drive the offense, it's a fair point, I won't dispute that. But he is not expected too. Limit your viewing of him to the style of player he is. That is the only way you can fairly evaluate him. That was why Easton was so wrong. He used metrics that in no way had anything to do with his game. In basketball do you judge point guards by blocked shots or assists? Do you evaluate Centers by steals or by rebounds and blocked shots? You know the answer. If you use the wrong metrics you can't fairly evaluate the player. That's all I'm saying.

Lee doesn't play the style of game that typical forwards play. So if you want to evaluate him fairly, compare him to players who play the same style. It's not as if the end result of his style isn't one of the most important aspects of the game. Aren't scoring goals, and preventing goals the two most important aspects of any hockey game?

Lee's style isn't dependent on Tavares, because no matter who his center is, his game isn't going to change, he's still going to do his dirty work within 5- 10 feet of the net, using his size and bulk to outmuscle defenders and forwards to redirect the puck, that's his game. That's his style. Now if you want to say as he ages he may physically wear down, that is a valid concern. And one no one can predict.

But this crap about using metrics that you evaluate typical forwards by has to stop, they are no more as relevant to Lee as are teets on a donkey. Looking At Lee and Expecting him to ever put up 50 assists is never gonna happen. He's too busy fighting for and keeping his position in close and distracting Goalies and defenders, to ever be an assist magnet. So why judge him on that. That's not in his job description, and it never was.

The only people who do that are people like Easton who are predisposed to knocking him by using metrics that may apply to most forwards. But really have no bearing on Lee because he's not that kind of forward. Lee is an old fashioned power forward. Not finesse one like Tarasenko, who idiots try to sell as a power forward in today's game, Tarasenko is no more a power forward than I am a ballarina.

Judge Lee on who he is, and what he is, not by forwards who play a totally different game. Easton deliberately tried to obscure Lee's contribution by using metrics that Lee doesn't even use. And what's worse WAS NEVER EVEN EXPECTED TO. That's dishonest.

do you judge pitchers by how many homers they HIT. If course not. Only an idiot would do so. So judge Lee on what He does and is meant to do. Not on what isn't even in his job description, and you can't do that if you don't consider his style of play.

Comparing him to Forwards who play a Different game is just as stupid as judging a pitcher based on how he hits.
The primary metric I used was shooting percentage...in a discussion about the probability that he'll be able to maintain his shooting percentage. Which metric should I have focused on instead?

The only time I discussed anything else was when I talked about Tkachuk, another talented "old fashioned power forward" who played a net-front style directly comparable to Lee's, to give an example of how any "evidence" gained by cherry-picking a single comp can easily be nullified by doing the same. The only thing it was intended to "prove" was that you can't build an empirical argument on a cherry-picked one-person case study.

At this point it just sounds like you're rambling without any real understanding of what I've actually argued or posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loyaltotheend

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
The primary metric I used was shooting percentage...in a discussion about the probability that he'll be able to maintain his shooting percentage. Which metric should I have focused on instead?

The only time I discussed anything else was when I talked about Tkachuk, another talented "old fashioned power forward" who played a net-front style directly comparable to Lee's, to give an example of how any "evidence" gained by cherry-picking a single comp can easily be nullified by doing the same. The only thing it was intended to "prove" was that you can't build an empirical argument on a cherry-picked one-person case study.

At this point it just sounds like you're rambling without any real understanding of what I've actually argued or posted.
if you use shooting percentage then compare him not to the whole freaking league compare him to the same type of player

you know what you did, i dont need to explain it to you guys who work in front of the net routinely have shooting percentages in the twenties so Anders lees Shooting percentage is NOT AN OUTLIER likely to drop as you claimed

you deliberately skewered the data, thats right DELIBERATELY

how about i give you a list of ten similar players and if im right You leave this site permanently? if i cant I will,

so either admit you were wrong like an adult or agree to my terms

because trust me Ive already got the data and Ill show it once you commit yourself, I dont want you weasling out after you are forced to admit the data supports me, as you are trying to do now

you know you were wrong you just arent willing to admit it, you could have EASILY done this right the first time but you refused to listen to islander fans beside me that told you you werent considering his style of play

so either admit you were wrong or accept my terms?

because if you dont everyone on this board will never believe a thing you say again

you keep covering your butt with excuses, and trust me ill be here to remind everyone what a liar you are

net front scorer like Lee, like Tim Kerr, have consistently had seasons 0f 17% and better throughout history

you were just too LAZY TO DO THE WORK

the sad thing is its common sense, the closer you are to the goal, your shot percentage SHOULD BE HIGHER

BUT YOU DECIDED TO COMPARE HIM TO ALL PLAYERS SINCE 1967

HOW IGNORANT AND LAZY CAN YOU BE
 
Last edited:

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
if you use shooting percentage then compare him not to the whole freaking league compare him to the same type of player
You're great at telling me what I should have done. Not so great about explaining how what you describe is possible, or in actually doing it yourself.

you know what you did, i dont need to explain it to you guys who work in front of the net routinely have shooting percentages in the twenties
No, they don't.

so Anders lees Shooting percentage is NOT AN OUTLIER likely to drop as you claimed
Yes, it is.

you deliberately skewered the data
Skewed, not "skewered," and no I didn't.

how about i give you a list of ten similar players and if im right You leave this site permanently? if i cant I will,
:biglaugh:

You think hand-picking ten guys is going to prove anything? Especially after you didn't know that Tkachuk was a player every bit as comparable to Lee as Kerr? I'm looking for something a little more rigorous than that.

so either admit you were wrong like an adult or agree to my terms
Yeah, the "adult" is the one delivering childish ultimatums. Cute.

because trust me Ive already got the data
Then present it already.

you know you were wrong you just arent willing to admit it, you could have EASILY done this right the first time but you refused to listen to islander fans beside me that told you you werent considering his style of play
I did consider his "style of play." I also considered the fact that his average shot distance is greater than 20' from the net, which undermines a lot of what you're assuming about his style of play since you're routinely focused on his shooting percentage from 5-10'. If you can justify your assumptions empirically, I'm open to reconsidering my position...but you haven't done that, and I seriously doubt such a study is forthcoming. I'm not going to simply take your word for it because it's convenient to your argument, especially when I've already presented evidence to the contrary.

so either admit you were wrong or accept my terms?

because if you dont everyone on this board will never believe a thing you say again
Oh, I'm not worried about that. :eyeroll:

you keep covering your butt with excuses, and trust me ill be here to remind everyone what a liar you are
Personal attacks are not evidence.

net front scorer like Lee, like Tim Kerr, have consistently had seasons 0f 17% and better throughout history
Shifting the goalposts...17% is a far cry from 18.5%. And also, you've named a whole two people to this point in all your posts on the subject. If it has been done so consistently, you should have any problem digging up dozens of examples out of the thousands who have played this game. Don't forget that you have issues with stats from different eras when digging them up. I haven't.

you were just too LAZY TO DO THE WORK
I've done far more work than you. I invited you to contribute something substantial ages ago. Feel free to chip in any time now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loyaltotheend

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
so you accept my terms

yes or no

no weasling

yes or no

and trust me the data is actually higher than Lees

put yourself on the line here, show people you have the stones to back up your words and then Ill gladly provide the data

if you dont why should i wast my time for someone who has lied as consistently as you have

I actually love watching you dig your hole deeper and deeper

so yes or no

you know what, because I once did respect you Ill let you off the hook

here is my list of consistent net front presences who just like lee made a living working in close and who consistenly had shooting percentages above Lees

Craig Simpson
Charlie Simmer
Paul MacLean
Blaine Stoughton
Rob Brown
Tim Kerr
Ray Ferraro
Rick Middleton
Anders Lee


each one of these guys made a name for themselves up close and in tight, they could score from outside but did most of their work in tight and thus had consistently high shooting percentages
until the Physical toll on their bodies forced then to either retire early or change how they played

Blaine Staughton said by the time he retired he had "more metal and screws in him than a robot"
from the pounding he took and he was only 30, Tim Kerr said the same thing as he had five surgeries on his shoulder from all the hits he took. Simpson suffered a serious back injury that shortened his career as well

but that goes with the territory when you play that style,and Im sure each of them would say the same. and each of them had several seasons of over 20% shooting percentages. So not only is lee, not an outlier, his shooting percentage could well go higher


so next time do some real research instead of just being lazy
 
Last edited:

Jester9881

Registered User
May 16, 2006
14,350
3,460
Long Island NY
I'll bite, even though none of my questions ever seem to get answered.

The argument that Lee's shot percentage from the last two years is unlikely to be sustained is based upon (in simplified form) regression to the mean. Essentially, that's the principle that an extreme measurement tends to be closer to average on a subsequent measurement. Note the bolded key words, which cannot be ignored or discarded, as people who do not fully understand this principle so often casually do.

Point by point:

"Extreme measurement:" Is a sustained shooting percentage north of 17.8% extreme? Clearly it is, both from a historical perspective and from a current one. It is very difficult to sustain a shooting percentage that high. If you accept that it is, then it is subject to regression. If one doesn't accept that it is, then I'd argue that one needs to build an empirical argument to that effect. I have yet to see one put forth, or to discover one myself, and I'd wager I've delved far more deeply into the numbers than most here.

"Average:" What is average is open to debate. Forwards have averaged a shooting percentage around 10.8% the last decade or so....a nice big picture reference, but probably not the best we can do here. Lee has averaged 14.6% for his career, or 35% better than the "average" forward, and I'd use that number over the previous one. The majority of prolific scorers are above average for their careers...usually in the 11.5% to 14.5% range (especially so among currently active players). Lee's current average is in line with that range, which seems pretty reasonable given his accomplishments.

Whatever number you choose to accept, it's going to be below the 18.5% Lee has averaged the last two years, because I have yet any reasonable justification for establishing an "average" (or, put another way, a baseline) that high. That is easily verified by the fact that no active players are doing so, and that it has been a notably rare event historically. I've already posted those numbers, so I won't rehash them all here.

"Tends to be closer:" Not a guarantee. It could go up next year, and the year after that, the year after that, and every year for the rest of his career. Does anyone actually want to wager that possibility will come to pass, though? It's (much) more likely to regress than to stay where it is, or to go up...no guarantees, just cold, hard probability.

This isn't just hypothetical...there have been a number of studies looking at NHL shooting percentage regression. It's a real, documented, significant thing. And this is all before taking into account the fact that shooting percentages tend to decline as one ages (another studied and well-documented phenomenon).

So, you ask if he's been "lucky" the last 163 games, and the answer is "yes" in the sense that he's riding a wave that can be reasonably expected to recede to some degree.

That said, almost every established player has seasons where they significantly outperform expectations (call them "career years," or whatever), and corresponding seasons where they notably under-perform...both of which can usually be tied to some underlying statistic outliers. By that same token, I'd say that Lee was "unlucky" two years ago when he shot 8.2%, and at the time I would have said that Lee's future shooting percentages were much more likely to increase than decrease....and they did.

"Luck" (or variance) is quantifiably baked into the game, as it is with most team sports, since even perfectly average players do not produce a perfectly average season every time out. They have highs and lows that average to, well, average. These highs and lows are to be expected for every player, whether average or not, so this is not a rationalization to minimize any given player's accomplishments. It's just something of a contextual reality that should not be ignored when trying to anticipate what is likely to happen in the future.

Here's some food for thought: If one truly thinks that Lee's sustainable baseline moving forward is 18.5%, then it follows that he's just as likely to come in above that number next year as he is to come in below it. How many people would take the over if given a choice between the two at even odds?

I'm guessing the betting would skew heavily towards the under if people were forced to put money on it, and for good reason. Only 3 players out of 117 qualifiers who played 60+ games and scored 20+ goals had a shooting percentage above 18.5% this year. The year before that, 6 out of 95 (none of whom repeated the feat this year). The year before that only 5 out of 104...again, none of whom repeated the feat in the next two years. The year before that 2 out of 90...none of whom repeated the feat in the next three years. Just 1 out of 97 the year before that, once again with no repeats in the subsequent years.

That's a 3% success rate over the last 5 years, with zero repeat success stories at any point during that span. I stopped there, but you should get the idea by now. Betting on a repeat performance of 18.5% (assuming 60+ games played and 20+ goals scored, which seems pretty reasonable) is just not a smart bet and you don't need an advanced degree in mathematics to figure that out.

You could have saved us all a lot of time by just saying "Yes, I believe it was luck and he will regress"
 

Jester9881

Registered User
May 16, 2006
14,350
3,460
Long Island NY
I don't like reducing complex issues to gross over-simplifications. I prefer thorough explanations.

I'll bear your preference in mind the next time you ask me a question, though.

It's just hockey man, we're not sending a space station to mars. You know the saying, if you can't explain something simply.....

I disagree strongly with your opinion, as two full seasons is too large a sample size to be an aberration.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
so you accept my terms

yes or no

no weasling

yes or no

and trust me the data is actually higher than Lees

put yourself on the line here, show people you have the stones to back up your words and then Ill gladly provide the data

if you dont why should i wast my time for someone who has lied as consistently as you have

I actually love watching you dig your hole deeper and deeper

so yes or no
The stones to back up my words?

I invited you to a discussion. I stated a position, and addressed your criticisms of said position directly, and thoroughly.

You have not addressed any of my concerns with your positions at all, and have resorted to...whatever you want to call this. It sure isn't discussion.

You claim to be holding in the possession of data that you have previously researched and that could supposedly contribute to this discussion and support your argument. Why are you holding that information hostage instead of simply sharing it? You have a vested interest in sharing it. You've been invited to share it. Yet your sharing it is somehow dependent on my accepting some ridiculous childish demand?

Present the data and contribute, or don't. Whether or not you choose to share is on you. I'm here to discuss it anytime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loyaltotheend

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
It's just hockey man, we're not sending a space station to mars. You know the saying, if you can't explain something simply.....

I disagree strongly with your opinion, as two full seasons is too large a sample size to be an aberration.
Well, that's just factually incorrect. Two seasons is a blip on the radar of a career.

Regardless, I'm curious to hear your reasoning for why the two full years immediately preceding this most recent two, where he averaged 10.5% over 156 games, is an aberration while these last 163 games are not. It seems to me that you're simply picking and choosing which two year sample you believe more.

That's certainly a valid opinion, but it's not an empirical one. We'll just have to agree to disagree if that's the case since our approaches are incompatible.

Edit: Discussions involving math are not generally well-suited for pithy responses. More comprehensive replies would eliminate a lot of the misunderstandings and misinformation that's out there.
 

72hockey guy

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
3,802
715
see what i mean he didnt even bother to look at the players I mentioned all had multiple seasons of Shooting percentages of over 20% until either injuries or advancing age cause them to change their games

many of them had severely shortened careers because of the beatings they took Charlie Simmer suffered a broken Jaw on a crosscheck to the face in front of the net at the hands of Wilf Paiement and Paiment as I remember didnt even get penalized,

It was just what they lived with on a daily basis

believe what you want easton, at least now people know you were full of it

Anders Lee is 5th of all active NHL players in career shooting percentage ahead of Malkin Crosby and Kucherov. and yet easton says it has nothing to do with Lee's style of Play and is not sustainable....yeah right. the guy just cant admit he was wrong
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->