Brayden Point Or Mark Scheifele

[VoluntaryDom]

No, you don't, or at least not in any meaningful way. You're stubbornly ignoring variables that don't fit your model, instead of attempting to create models that adjust for these variables. You're looking at way too few variables, whether out of laziness or out of fear that you will fail to interpret your model. You complain about small sample sizes, but here refuse to acknowledge that Point has an unsustainable on-ice sh% which in itself is a very clear sign that you should be vary of looking at his production before it normalizes.

You have all the data in the world available to you, but refuse to use it.

Right now you're also clearly talking about something you have no idea about, as your numbers about Scheifele are laughably wrong.

see

Just checked for you: please stop intentionally lying. (that or you accidentally looked at corsi). In the 2 season sample I have been using, Point has a +1.69 rel xGF% in this span, 54.52% xgf%, and 2.23 p1/60. Scheifele has brought his scoring up over the last couple weeks (havent been watching the Jets in that span so I'm assuming a hot streak which makes sense for a player as talented as him) to 1.87 p1/60, a higher end 1st line rate. He has a +2.08 rel xGF (so slightly better than Point in that area) but only a 52.97% xgf%. However the only players with a better primary scoring rate than Scheifele who have higher qot than him are MacKinnon (plays on one line team) and Dadonov (panthers overplay top-6).

 

[VoluntaryDom]

the stat where Point actually is a negative rel (corsi), Scheifele also is.

 

[Romang67]

Just checked for you: please stop intentionally lying. (that or you accidentally looked at corsi). In the 2 season sample I have been using, Point has a +1.69 rel xGF% in this span, 54.52% xgf%, and 2.23 p1/60. Scheifele has brought his scoring up over the last couple weeks (havent been watching the Jets in that span so I'm assuming a hot streak which makes sense for a player as talented as him) to 1.87 p1/60, a higher end 1st line rate. He has a +2.08 rel xGF (so slightly better than Point in that area) but only a 52.97% xgf%. However the only players with a better primary scoring rate than Scheifele who have higher qot than him are MacKinnon (plays on one line team) and Dadonov (panthers overplay top-6).

I must have misread the Rel Corsi column as Rel xGF, yes. Either way, your two-way argument goes out the window, which means that you're now looking at one variable: primary point production.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

I must have misread the Rel Corsi column as Rel xGF, yes. Either way, your two-way argument goes out the window, which means that you're now looking s at one variable: primary point production.

if you look at qot, scheifele has a lower xgf% playing with better teammates against pretty much equal competition. the two way argument still holds my friend

anyway im getting off of hf for the day. feel free to respond ill just get back to you tomorrow

 

[Romang67]

see

That post didn't acknowledge anything I said in that post.

You're still:

Stubbornly ignoring variables that don't fit your model, instead of attempting to create models that adjust for these variables

Looking at way too few variables, whether out of laziness or out of fear that you will fail to interpret your model.

Complaining about small sample sizes, but here refusing to acknowledge that Point has an unsustainable on-ice sh% which in itself is a very clear sign that you should be vary of looking at his production before it normalizes.

Having all the data in the world available to you, but refusing to use it.

You're attempting to plug something complex into a laughably simple model, either because you're looking to avoid overfitting (that's not why), or because, as I said, of laziness or fear that you'll fail to interpret your model.

 

[Romang67]

if you look at qot, scheifele has a lower xgf% playing with better teammates against pretty much equal competition. the two way argument still holds my friend

anyway im getting off of hf for the day. feel free to respond ill just get back to you tomorrow

No, I believe we're done here. I mainly respond to your posts to point out the glaring flaws in your "analysis" so people can't use you as proof that people who use numbers don't understand how to analyze them.

 

[North Cole]

I can understand someone picking Point, the easily part is what confuses me.

Why? DominicBOLTSFAN

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.