Why are you so triggered by me posting a clip that was requested by another poster?
I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.
This is completely false.
Why are you so triggered by me posting a clip that was requested by another poster?
I'm not cherry picking anything. Quite the opposite. I am speaking up against cherry picking and manipulation of statistics.
Without mcdavid, drai would be a 30 goals/60 pts guy...if that
Dude can't even drive his own line properly
Without mcdavid, drai would be a 30 goals/60 pts guy...if that
Dude can't even drive his own line properly
Bad take.Without mcdavid, drai would be a 30 goals/60 pts guy...if that
Dude can't even drive his own line properly
Sad, even for you.Without mcdavid, drai would be a 30 goals/60 pts guy...if that
Dude can't even drive his own line properly
Which means that he was drawing incorrect conclusions from an incomplete evaluation of already irrelevant sample size.That poster never specified ES or PP minutes.
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!Here's an idea! How about respond to the stat I mentioned, instead of inserting the stat you believe should be measured?
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.The fact you want to focus on ES/60 or whatever stat you decide is relevant
Your claim/conclusion based on that information that you admit to be faulty is the problem.and call the stat I was referencing "false information"
Nothing false about what I said, but good to see you have no answer or justification.This is completely false.
Here's top 10 players, point per game(at least 7 games played):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.
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.
1. You switched ES to 5v5, which makes an already laughably small sample size even smaller.Which set has the better players?
Matthews has actually had a pretty cold October.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.
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.You cherry pick a stat that boosts Matthews and dismiss any other stat
A poster asked for a clip that showed something.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.
Actually, I responded with information breaking down your claim and proving you wrong.
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.
1. You switched ES to 5v5
2. Top 10 ES P/60 since the beginning of last year: Kucherov, Marchand, McDavid, Pastrnak, Draisaitl, Marner, Crosby, Kane, Bergeron, Tavares
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.
Not false. I proved something was wrong, with evidence.False again. You saying someone is wrong doesn’t make it correct
Not incorrect. The information provided is enough to prove the claim about the correlation of ice time to production wrong.Extremely incorrect. You providing the same evidence over and over and calling it extensive doesn’t make it so.
He switched the stat entirely.you switched it from this season to this season and last.
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.Not to mention you’ve told me that you never exclusively use p60.
No. You made an incorrect claim. Period.IE. I was using an evaluation that didn't go along with what you think is the only relevant stats to measure players with.
Yeah, there is a saying. Maybe if you knew it, you wouldn't keep being so hypocritical.I think there's a famous saying that fits this. Something about a pot, a kettle, and the color black?
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.Once again, my "claim" was presented as his points per game not increasing despite an increase in ice time.
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.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.
Nope, you just have a tough time making incorrect statements and then being called out on it.Again, you seem to have a really tough time differentiating between "wrong" and "not in line with the stats you think people should use".
That is literally what you did. Literally.False information or "wrong" would be if I used points per game to prove a point, but chose a weird sample size
Raw totals are the worst, because they exclude all relevant information/context.(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.
I haven't done this at all. I've actually been very consistent.Can't be 100% certain though because you seem to jump between whatever measurement makes Matthews look the best at any given moment.
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.So in this case, suddenly points per game isn't such a great measurement. Gee, I can't fathom why that might be)
I proved something was wrong, with evidence.
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.
No, the evidence is.your opinion isn’t evidence
I provided information. Please read the thread before misrepresenting things in a conversation you don't understand and are contributing nothing to.you provided your opinion not information.
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.he provided the stat, your top 10 list was of a completely different stat
Yes, evidence is evidence. You’re opinion does not qualifyNo, evidence is.
I provided information.
Your opinion about methods is your opinion, and does not make other people’s opinions any more right or wrongHe tried to compare the two stats with a useless method
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 opinionbut changed the stat that I used.
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.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
you’ve explained your opinion multiple timesI've explained what happened multiple times.
finally a true statementYou know what happened.
I'm not sure why you're choosing to lie and misrepresent the situation
I provided relevant information, and explained the evidence and reasoning multiple times.
Lol, why is this thread still open.
something something lopsided result.
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.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?