Eichel vs Matthews

[Sidney the Kidney]

No, I'm saying that you're intentionally misrepresenting things, as usual.

I literally copy and pasted numbers from Naturalstattrick. I'm literally presenting Matthews' totals this year versus last year. How am I "intentionally misrepresenting things"? Because suddenly the stats you use as gospel don't paint him how you want them to?

I did the EXACT same thing you did when you brought up Matthews' P/60 stats to compare to Eichel a page or two back. Copy and pasted what an advanced stat site lists as the numbers.

Matthews also saw his ES P/60 rise the last time he saw a jump in ice time, as most actually do.

Talk about small sample sizes. So it's okay to use a small sample size when it fits your narrative, but it's "intentionally misrepresenting things" when I use a 31 game sample size to compare to his last season?

Because you're intentionally choosing to look at it at this one specific time, where we have a small sample size, right after Matthews' cold streak, in the middle of a coaching change and a multitude of injuries and one of the toughest schedules in the league to date, and you're saying that that is his "2019-2020 production", and this is his base level of production for X amount of minutes.

This is a ridiculous suggestion, and you know that, but you're choosing to be intentionally ignorant to everything people keep telling you because you're out of actual arguments.

No, what's ridiculous is the fact that you like to trumpet the P/60 and other various rate stats as the be-all, but then start accusing people of manipulating or "intentionally misrepresenting" when those stats don't say what you want them to say.

At this point, I don't know what you'd consider a fair sample size since apparently this entire season is way too small to use to draw a conclusion. What about at the end of this season? Will that still be too small a sample size because it doesn't compare to his past 3 seasons?

You keep moving the goal posts when the stats you're obsessed with suddenly don't paint the picture you want. So it's actually impossible to engage in a genuine, honest discussion with you because you just start accusing people of stat manipulation or small sample sizes when you're backed into a corner.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How am I "intentionally misrepresenting things"?

Because after his ES P/60 being higher than previous years for the majority of the season, you chose the most unrepresentative point of the season to start pushing a narrative you know is untrue, by intentionally ignoring context and sample sizes that have been repeatedly pointed out to you to be critically important.

I did the EXACT same thing you did when you brought up Matthews' P/60 stats to compare to Eichel a page or two back.

I used a sample size like 4-6 times the size. That is not the exact same thing.

So it's okay to use a small sample size when it fits your narrative, but it's "intentionally misrepresenting things" when I use a 31 game sample size to compare to his last season?

Where did I use a 30-game sample size and then make claims solely based on it?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Because after his ES P/60 being higher than previous years for the majority of the season, you chose the most unrepresentative point of the season to start pushing a narrative you know is untrue, by intentionally ignoring context and sample sizes that have been repeatedly pointed out to you to be critically important.

I used a sample size like 4-6 times the size. That is not the exact same thing.

So what would you consider a fair sample size? After 82 games this season? Or are you going to complain that you can't include the games under Babcock? Do we have to wait for another 5 full seasons before we can talk about it? Will anything less than that be considered "intentionally misrepresenting"?

People can't engage you because you literally accuse people of stat manipulation if the stats don't favor Matthews. Literally every time you fall back on that when the numbers don't support your argument.

Where did I use a 30-game sample size and then make claims solely based on it?

The part I quoted? Where you said he "saw a jump in ES p/60 when he saw a jump in his ice time, as most usually do". What are you referring to if not for a small sample size at the beginning of this season when he saw his ES ice time go up?

 

[Snippit]

I have no idea what eggnog they got into, but their numbers seems to be inflated for everybody this year (they have Eichel at 17.2%), even though their previous year's numbers seem to be consistent with other sites. I'm using NaturalStatTrick, and it's a much more accurate site. Matthews is having average or slightly below average luck, despite dominating controllable metrics, while Eichel is having mind-blowing, out-of-this-world luck.


Except he hasn't this year, not that it matters all that much anyway.

Why is HockeyReference less reliable than Natural Stat Trick exactly ?

Also I’d love to hear other Toronto fans weigh in here because I don’t believe you at all about the Tavares line.

In the two games against Buffalo, Tavares without Marner drew all the tough match ups against Eichel. So yeah I’m having a hard time just taking your word for it.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Multiple people have asked you to provide proof why your original claim was true.


Instead of actually providing proof, it's just drivel. Are you going to prove your claim or not?


If it is true, SHOW ME, why it's true instead of telling me to prove it's not.




Invisible orange and purple dinosaurs exist on this earth at this very moment. Prove they don't exist. I asked first.

(This is also ironic because I've been asking you or anybody else to prove this for literally months)


Burden of proof is on you.

You still can’t prove it. Yep. You do deke around the points for days.

You’re the one who claimed I was wrong. I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to show me why.

Instead you go on these stupid dinosaur analogies and this childish repeating what I post, which just further reinforces the bigger point here:

You’re not capable in proving it. You won’t prove it. I think we’re done here, since you can’t do anything to meet my question.

 

[93LEAFS]

Why is HockeyReference less reliable than Natural Stat Trick exactly ?

Also I’d love to hear other Toronto fans weigh in here because I don’t believe you at all about the Tavares line.

In the two games against Buffalo, Tavares without Marner drew all the tough match ups against Eichel. So yeah I’m having a hard time just taking your word for it.

I checked it against NHL.com as a 3rd party, and they had the same numbers as Natural Stat Trick last week when it was about Jack Hughes. Something is off with Hockey-Reference, or the other two are tracking 6v5 as 5v5 or something.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Eichel and its not even close this season.

 

[93LEAFS]

You still can’t prove it. Yep. You do deke around the points for days.

You’re the one who claimed I was wrong. I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to show me why.

Instead you go on these stupid dinosaur analogies which just further reinforces the bigger point here:


You can’t prove it. You won’t prove it. I think we’re done here, since you can’t do anything to meet my question.

Both of you have put forth arguments without any evidence of the claim, and then are accusing each other of not putting forth evidence. It's getting pretty ridiculous. The only evidence is pointing to micro-analysis for something both have you claimed is a macro issue.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So what would you consider a fair sample size?

Ideally you'd have a couple seasons, as I've repeatedly said, but at least whole seasons are somewhat consistent in terms of circumstances, and allows enough time to at least not have ridiculousness like you have after 30 games.

Or are you going to complain that you can't include the games under Babcock?

You mean like how people exclude the first 30 games of last year to create a narrative about the Leafs?

People can't engage you because you literally accuse people of stat manipulation if the stats don't favor Matthews.

No, I accuse people of stat misrepresentation when they engage in stat misrepresentation. Though, it's not so much the stats you're misrepresenting as much as the conclusion you are fabricating by using small samples at convenient timing.

The part I quoted? Where you said he "saw a jump in ES p/60 when he saw a jump in his ice time, as most usually do". What are you referring to if not for a small sample size at the beginning of this season when he saw his ES ice time go up?

Where are the claims I am supposedly making based solely on that?

I pointed out how his ES P/60 has been higher for most of the season merely to show your cherry-picked timing, and how quickly things can change with small samples.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Why is HockeyReference less reliable than Natural Stat Trick exactly ?

I mean, believe what you want, but the numbers they are putting up are wrong. Either way, Eichel's is inflated even more on Hockey Reference than it is on NaturalStatTrick, so it's pretty irrelevant.

Also I’d love to hear other Toronto fans weigh in here because I don’t believe you at all about the Tavares line.
In the two games against Buffalo, Tavares without Marner drew all the tough match ups against Eichel. So yeah I’m having a hard time just taking your word for it.

Ah, so you saw a couple games where you think something happened (which didn't happen nearly as much as you think), so that applies to the whole year.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Both of you have put forth arguments without any evidence of the claim

Actually, I have put forth evidence about Matthews' production, which is 100% real and factual. I have had people repeatedly say that increases in ice time lead to decreases in production rate in order to discredit these factual statistics, which has never been supported by anything, and is counter to what we often see in real life. Then, it is expected that I provide proof disproving their unsupported claim? Ridiculous.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

ES P/60
2018-19 - 2.76 (15:00 per game)
2019-20 - 2.35 (15:37 per game)

PP P/60
2018-19 - 6.86 (2:34 per game)
2019-20 - 6.24 (3:06 per game)

All strengths P/60
2018-19 - 3.47 (18:33 per game)
2019-20 - 3.21 (19:54 per game)

ES PPG Raw Totals
2018-19 - 0.779
2019-20 - 0.742

Weren't we supposed to see a huge jump in production with more ice time?

[insert excuse about sample size]

Nice. Mack this year is playing less ice time than he did last season and he's looked better than ever. Better PPG and with less ice time. It's good to have the depth to have your stars play with less ice time or just have enough fire power to take the lead in games.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

In the past I’ve said Matthews, but I’m switching to Eichel. He looks like he’s taking the next step this year. Matthews is still stuck in neutral.

Matthews peaked early. He was always a more physically developed player than most at their age.

 

[spiny norman]

Lopsided result.