This is completely false.
Draisaitl vs. Matthews
- Thread starter Khomutov
- Start date
- Status
This is completely false.
McDavidCrushedLarkin
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2016
- 4,320
- 2,413
Skolman
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2018
- 9,390
- 7,895
Which means that he was drawing incorrect conclusions from an incomplete evaluation of already irrelevant sample size.
Here's an idea! Maybe don't hide behind the discussion not being 100% exactly what you want it to be just because it disproves your unsubstantiated claim!
It doesn't matter what we focus on. You made an incorrect claim about TOI and it's relation to production. You used P/GP despite the countless flaws at looking at that stat in isolation. As I showed, the biggest part of the sample by far (ES) actually supports a modest increase in production rate with a modest increase in TOI, which is not inconsistent with what we see all the time from players. You used the minuscule sample on the PP (which is essentially like judging a player after 3-4 games) to perpetuate a myth that that has no basis.
Your claim/conclusion based on that information that you admit to be faulty is the problem.
Nothing false about what I said, but good to see you have no answer or justification.
Here's top 10 players, point per game(at least 7 games played):
David Pastrnak
Brad Marchand
Leon Draisaitl
Connor McDavid
John Carlson
Elias Pettersson
Mikko Rantanen
Jonathan Huberdeau
Nathan MacKinnon
Filip Forsberg
Here's top 10 players, 5v5 p/60(at least 7 games played):
Brad Marchand
David Pastrnak
Elias Pettersson
Michal Kempny
Nick Bonino
Brayden Point
Leon Draisaitl
Jonathan Huberdeau
Brendan Gallagher
Nick Cousins
Which set has the better players? Also btw, that Matthews ES scoring pace comparison to last season you used, it doesn't take into account that Matthews always has a hot october and will likely fall off. Heck, league scoring as a whole will fall off, significantly.
It’s easy:
-You cherry pick a stat that boosts Matthews and dismiss any other stat for two reasons. One: it doesn’t boost Matthews and Two: it goes against your agenda. So there’s the first cherry pick.
I don’t really need to get into it further because @Sidney the Kidney and @JoeThorntonsRooster already did a great enough job to poke those holes.
-Using the three year old YouTube clip is hilarious. For one, it’s even more cherry picking and so hypocritical. Remember: you’re the one who’s going on about sample sizes and what better way to show the hypocrisy than by posting a singular clip to “prove” Matthews is a good play maker. So there’s the second cherry pick.
1. You switched ES to 5v5, which makes an already laughably small sample size even smaller.
2. Top 10 ES P/60 since the beginning of last year: Kucherov, Marchand, McDavid, Pastrnak, Draisaitl, Marner, Crosby, Kane, Bergeron, Tavares.
3. Neither set is properly representative of anything on it's own over this tiny sample, especially not to make the claims that were being made.
4. Which stat has the better-looking top-10 to you over an irrelevant sample is not a proper measure of the quality of a stat.
Matthews has actually had a pretty cold October.
I didn't do this at all. I showed, using a stat, how the claim being made was untrue and being based on the manipulation of one stat over an irrelevant sample size.
It's funny how people accuse me of cherry picking because I add additional information to the conversation instead of letting you use your chosen stats in isolation.
A poster asked for a clip that showed something.
I provided a clip that showed that thing.
There was nothing cherry picked, and there was no conclusion made based on that clip, especially by me. You're just having a hissy fit because it goes against your unsubstantiated agenda, and it's quite frankly hilarious.
False again. You saying someone is wrong doesn’t make it correct
Extremely incorrect. You providing the same evidence over and over and calling it extensive doesn’t make it so.
you switched it from this season to this season and last. Not to mention you’ve told me that you never exclusively use p60.
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 55,705
- 46,616
IE. I was using an evaluation that didn't go along with what you think is the only relevant stats to measure players with.
This has to be the funniest and most ironic post I've ever seen on here. I think there's a famous saying that fits this. Something about a pot, a kettle, and the color black?
Once again, my "claim" was presented as his points per game not increasing despite an increase in ice time. You called that untrue/false information. It's not. It's literally there for anyone to look up for themselves if they don't believe me.
The fact -- ONCE AGAIN -- that you want to argue some other metric doesn't make what I presented "false" or "untrue". You can argue all you want whether points per game paints an accurate picture or not, or the validity of using that stat. But when you accuse me of being incorrect or providing false information, that's when you lose the plot since there was nothing inaccurate about what I posted, based on the metric I used.
False information or "wrong" would be if I used points per game to prove a point, but posted the wrong numbers or chose a weird sample size (ie. only half this season, omitting his good games) to try and prove that his points per game hasn't changed. I did neither. I provided his points per game for this year and last year as they FACTUALLY are. You having an issue with the validity of the stat doesn't make it "false information" or "wrong".
Again, you seem to have a really tough time differentiating between "wrong" and "not in line with the stats you think people should use".
(By the way, this is kind of funny because we had a discussion in the summer and I'm preeeeeettty sure you were the one carrying on about points per game should be used versus raw totals. Can't be 100% certain though because you seem to jump between whatever measurement makes Matthews look the best at any given moment. So in this case, suddenly points per game isn't such a great measurement. Gee, I can't fathom why that might be)
Not false. I proved something was wrong, with evidence.
Not incorrect. The information provided is enough to prove the claim about the correlation of ice time to production wrong.
He switched the stat entirely.
He made a crazy statement about the quality of those stats based on a top-10 list in an irrelevant sample size for any stat.
I showed him what the top 10 of that stat looks like over a slightly more reasonable sample.
You should never exclusively use any stat, especially over small samples, and especially while ignoring valuable information/context, and especially to draw incorrect conclusions that those stats say nothing about.
Maybe if you didn't intentionally leave out the final 2 points, you would know that.
No. You made an incorrect claim. Period.
To get to that incorrect claim, you used an evaluation that was based on a faulty stat over an irrelevant sample size.
I showed you how that was wrong, and now you're having a fit that I dared to bring additional information that disproved your position.
Yeah, there is a saying. Maybe if you knew it, you wouldn't keep being so hypocritical.
And you used this useless fact over a useless sample size to take shots at Leaf fans and suggest that increased ice time does not result in increased production.
Fact is, even over this useless sample we have, the overwhelmingly bigger part of that, ES, shows the exact opposite of your suggestion.
You based your entire post on the minuscule PP sample, knowing that it's useless (essentially like judging the quality of players after like 3 games) and knowing that the team as a whole has struggled on the PP for almost the whole season.
Funny thing is, he now has a higher P/GP than last year, so your entire post is useless literally 1 game later.
The actual number you posted for P/GP was correct (though not anymore). Literally everything else about your posts, and the claims and suggestions you made based on that useless information, was incorrect.
Nope, you just have a tough time making incorrect statements and then being called out on it.
That is literally what you did. Literally.
Raw totals are the worst, because they exclude all relevant information/context.
Points per game is slightly better, as it includes GP, but excludes TOI information and combines ES and PP.
Separated P/GP is better than that, as it includes GP and the breakdown of production.
Separated P/60 is better than that, as it breaks down the production and includes more accurate TOI information.
None of these are useful for drawing conclusions after 15 games. Especially when the conclusion is proven wrong by the biggest part of that sample, and no other information supports it.
Not that difficult.
I haven't done this at all. I've actually been very consistent.
You guys have literally been complaining about P/60 all summer in your anti-Leaf brigade (at least when you guys aren't busy using it), so I don't even know how you can even say this.
First off, I find it hilarious that you threw a fit over me saying "how convenient" and then you basically do the exact same thing right here.
Second, P/GP in isolation over a statistically insignificant sample has never been a great measurement to make conclusions. This has not changed.
Last edited:
False, your opinion isn’t evidence
Incorrect, you provided your opinion not information.
Blatantly false, he provided the stat, your top 10 list was of a completely different stat that fit your narrative.
No, the evidence is.
I provided information. Please read the thread before misrepresenting things in a conversation you don't understand and are contributing nothing to.
He tried to compare the two stats with a useless method, in an attempt to discredit the one stat, but changed the stat that I used. I explained the problems with using a top 10 list to determine anything in the first place, and then showed him what the top 10 list of the stat I actually used looked like over a more representative sample.
Yes, evidence is evidence. You’re opinion does not qualify
Closer, you did provide information...about your opinion and the stats you deem important
Your opinion about methods is your opinion, and does not make other people’s opinions any more right or wrong
False. He used the same stat the whole time, you are the one that changed the stat and time frame used which completely invalidates your opinion
I've explained what happened multiple times. You know what happened. It's clear and evident in the posts. I'm not sure why you're choosing to lie and misrepresent the situation, but at this point you're just rambling about something that has nothing to do with you, so I don't know what else there is to add.
I provided relevant information, and explained the evidence and reasoning multiple times. He did not use the same stat the whole time, and it was not the same stat that I was using. Please understand conversations before inserting yourself into them.
you’ve explained your opinion multiple times
finally a true statement
all I’ve stated is that your opinion is an opinion, are you saying your opinion isn’t an opinion?
You’ve provided your opinion several times and yes it is relevant, as are everyone else’s, do you not agree?
Lol, why is this thread still open.
something something lopsided result.
something something lopsided result.
- May 3, 2016
- 8,856
- 5,103
Wow the fact that this is even a question bodes well for Matthews. If people are debating who is better when L.D is playing the best hockey of his life and Matthews is playing OK, I can't wait to see this when Matthews is playing up to par.
I have provided relevant information/facts, not just opinion, and have explained why certain claims/conclusions that were made in this thread were incorrect, with evidence. Then, multiple times, I have explained the sequence of events and corrected your misrepresentations. It's there for everybody to see; they don't need you to provide incorrect commentary on something that has nothing to do with you and you don't understand. Please stop spamming the thread.
- Status
