Wait a minute:Seems like this is a landslide. Why leave it open?
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.Hasn't necessarily shown that so far. Matthews averaged 18:33 per game last year and produced 1.07 points per game. Matthews is averaging over a minute more this season (19:40 per game) and is producing ... wait for it ... 1.07 points per game.
If increase in ice time per game results in more production, wouldn't that be showing this year with Matthews getting over a full minute more than he did last year? Wouldn't the bolded suggest that Matthews' production be higher this year due to him getting over a minute more ice time per game?
Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.And I'm sure if the opposite were true, Matthews fans wouldn't be pointing out how his offense has increased with increased ice time, right?
No, 15 games would still be a statistically insignificant sane size regardless of what happened leafs fans werent pretending Matthews was going to keep scoring 4 goals a game after his debut in 2016 ect.
And I'm sure if the opposite were true, Matthews fans wouldn't be pointing out how his offense has increased with increased ice time, right?
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.
ES P/60 last year (15:57 ice time): 2.93
ES P/60 this year (16:13 ice time): 2.96
He has seen a tiny increase in ES ice time, and has seen a tiny increase in ES P/60.
What you're judging him on is PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far.
Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.
How convenient.I'm judging him on his points per game.
You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times.I realize that for you, nothing exists other than what you deem is the true measure of a player's production.
No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.But for 99% of the fans out there, points per game is a good comparison between players.
Do you mean your echo chamber of Leaf-bashing?And those are the folks I'm conversing with
That's literally what you're doing.because you flat out refuse to see any statistical measurements as valid other than whatever ones you deem worthy, so there's very little reason to engage with you when everything that falls outside of the stats you deem worthy are just flat out dismissed.
There is nothing funny about PP production fluctuating over a tiny insignificant sample. Increased ES TOI has actually resulted in an increased ES production rate, contrary to your constant repeated unsubstantiated claims.In any case, it was just a funny observation that an increase of a minute in ice time isn't resulting in immediate dividends.
Uh, production decreases? Not necessarily. But production per 60 likely will, and there's plenty of data to support that.Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.
This is incorrect. There is no data to support this.But production per 60 likely will, and there's plenty of data to support that.
How convenient.
You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times.
No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.
Do you mean your echo chamber of Leaf-bashing?
There is nothing funny about PP production fluctuating over a tiny insignificant sample. Increased ES TOI has actually resulted in an increased ES production rate, contrary to your constant repeated unsubstantiated claims.
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something???You break things up into little quotes like this and don't even present anything.
You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.There's quite a few Leaf fans I enjoy engaging in because, even if they disagree, they acknowledge points that the other person makes while attempting to make their own points.
It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.With you, it's you're right, the other person is wrong.
No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.So wait, now you're arguing that this early season sample size DOES matter?
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something???
You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.
It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.
No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.
Uh, sorry but in Auston Matthews's case that falls within variance. I wasn't talking about a 1 player sample size.This is incorrect. There is no data to support this.
What we are actually seeing is a slight increase in ES production rate with a slight increase in ES TOI.
Why are you so triggered by me posting a clip that was requested by another poster?Keep posting that one YouTube clip of Matthews in his rookie year to prove he’s a good playmaker.
I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.Or cherry pick one set of given stats.
Neither was I. There is nothing that supports that claim.I wasn't talking about a 1 player sample size.
This is blatantly falseI'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.
You've had it pointed out countless times how stupid it is to look at sample sizes this small, yet you continue to post this nonsense. And actually, you're wrong.
ES P/60 last year (15:57 ice time): 2.93
ES P/60 this year (16:13 ice time): 2.96
He has seen a tiny increase in ES ice time, and has seen a tiny increase in ES P/60.
What you're judging him on is PP production over a laughably useless sample size for a PP that has struggled for 2/3 of the season so far.
Matthews fans aren't the ones clinging desperately to the unsubstantiated myth that production decreases with increased ice time.
I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.
The poster was wrong. He attributed it to time differences despite zero evidence of that.That poster was referring to production as a whole and not just ES production, and he was not wrong at all.
Yet there you go again, drawing conclusions and supporting people who do so.I don’t think this sample is large enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from
It's not false at all.This is blatantly false
How dare I quote things and then post my own relevant commentary or information! What is this, a message board or something???
How convenient.
You've literally argued this very thing about P/60 multiple times.
No comparison is good when you intentionally ignore valuable information.
You enjoy engaging with them (usually not actual Leaf fans) because they have the same lack of information that makes them agree with your incorrect points.
It may seem that way because I spend a lot of time correcting blatantly false things.
No, the sample size is horrible. I've already stated that multiple times. That doesn't mean you can go on to state incorrect conclusions from that sample size and then have a fit when you're corrected.
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.None of those actually refuted anything I said.
Actually, I responded with information breaking down your claim and proving you wrong. When you decided to throw a fit over that, we have had these follow-up conversations, where you are now throwing a fit over the follow-up conversations.If someone posts "Player X is better than Player Y because of their point totals", responding with "untrue" or "if one ignores context" isn't adding anything other than snark.
Everybody talks about their opinions on here as if they are fact, even when it's just things they disagree with. The difference is I provide extensive evidence.You seem to have a tough time differentiating between "false things" and "things that you disagree with".
I did say it was too small of a sample size, multiple times.Or you could have simply said "too small a sample size" if you think it's too small a sample size.
That does not suggest that at all. The sample is irrelevant. However, if we are going to post stats and make claims based on it like you did, let's post the truth.The fact you decided to actually post your numbers to argue I was wrong shows you think the data in the sample size is suggestive of some kind of conclusion, otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered looking it up.
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.
Actually, I responded with information breaking down your claim and proving you wrong. When you decided to throw a fit over that, we have had these follow-up conversations, where you are now throwing a fit over the follow-up conversations.
Everybody talks about their opinions on here as if they are fact, even when it's just things they disagree with. The difference is I provide extensive evidence.
I did say it was too small of a sample size, multiple times.
Here's an idea! Don't post things that you know are incorrect or based on faulty logic or small sample sizes, and you won't get called out.
That does not suggest that at all. The sample is irrelevant. However, if we are going to post stats and make claims based on it like you did, let's post the truth.
I identified your selective use of stats, I identified your position on the matter in previous arguments, and I identified your intentional ignoring of valuable information. All were relevant to the topic and the post I was responding to.
Here's an idea! Don't post things that you know are incorrect or based on faulty logic or small sample sizes, and you won't get called out.