Confirmed with Link: Matthews new deal Pt 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
17,982
8,087
First of all, I used to validate credit risk models and I know from experience that the models require calibration every 3 years or so. You cant make the claim of the veracity of a model of it has been changed and that sample size sounds like years. Smells like bs to me.

He predicted 250 contracts. This summer. Not 3 years Ago. No one is saying it’s perfect. I’m. Saying that all of the comparables fit Nylander there.

You should know that converging lines of evidence indicate a pretty fair. It seems like a pretty fair deal based on all the actual evidence. What’s the issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menzinger

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,889
9,737
The excuse is probably that Marner had seasons of 61 and 69 pts that were largely on the pp? The new model hasn’t been posted yet. But again. You are arguing that Leaf fans are selectively choosing to agree or disagree with the model based on what looks good for the leafs

So we are clear. You are saying that this independent statistician who has made a whole model just to make excuses for leaf fans? Or are you saying he is secretly a leaf fan and just decided to tell people that his model predicted 9.4 (which he didn’t have to) but then decided to make excuses?

Is he a leaf fan on this board too? If so. How is his low number for Marner fitting in at all with your argument

He posted his Marner estimate like 3 weeks ago.

I don’t know man... it really sounds like you like this model only when it tells you what you want to hear.

What I’m saying is either his model is accurate, and based on his model Matthews and Marner will be dramatically overpaid... or then model is trash.
What you CANT do is cite the model only on the cases when it tells you what you want to hear.
 

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
17,982
8,087
He posted his Marner estimate like 3 weeks ago.

I don’t know man... it really sounds like you like this model only when it tells you what you want to hear.

Edit NVM

Ya. Im done. I don’t know how the mods consistently let you do this but ok. It’s obviously a troll account. Which is fine I guess but a weird hobby.

You have repeatedly posted incorrect info about tax laws, comparables, contract law and welll pretty much everything. The mods seem to let you do this for a while. We will see how long it lasts.

Good luck with the Schtick. Hope it works out better than TWS
 

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,889
9,737
Edit NVM

Ya. Im done. I don’t know how the mods consistently let you do this but ok. It’s obviously a troll account. Which is fine I guess but a weird hobby.

You have repeatedly posted incorrect info about tax laws, comparables, contract law and welll pretty much everything. The mods seem to let you do this for a while. We will see how long it lasts.

Good luck with the Schtick. Hope it works out better than TWS
He did post his Marner estimate like 3 weeks ago.

You and I have been arguing the same topic for pages. Why do you consider me against forum rules, but not you?
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
39,875
9,713
Guys please, stop. Just accept we went overpaid WN 500k and AM about 2m over what the market suggest they be paid based on past performance over length of contract. Thats accounting for increased scoring effects due to tender equipment reductions etc.

Its 2.5m of cap we wont get back but the good news here is, well, both contracts pay lump sums of real money up front. This means we can trade them for big returns to the right teams! Carolina and Arizona.
 

Notsince67

Papi and the Lamplighters
Apr 27, 2018
15,854
11,052
Edit NVM

Ya. Im done. I don’t know how the mods consistently let you do this but ok. It’s obviously a troll account. Which is fine I guess but a weird hobby.

You have repeatedly posted incorrect info about tax laws, comparables, contract law and welll pretty much everything. The mods seem to let you do this for a while. We will see how long it lasts.

Good luck with the Schtick. Hope it works out better than TWS
He is right on this one though. Your claim is a bit disingenuous though. The margin of error that you cite is complete bull poop. Found a summarized spreadsheet and even Nylander's prediction (though close) was a .3% variance...not a .0001% variance like you claim. The variances are all over the place and I can assure you, the variances on most contract over 1MM are quite high.
 

Legion34

Registered User
Jan 24, 2006
17,982
8,087
He is right on this one though. Your claim is a bit disingenuous though. The margin of error that you cite is complete bull poop. Found a summarized spreadsheet and even Nylander's prediction (though close) was a .3% variance...not a .0001% variance like you claim. The variances are all over the place and I can assure you, the variances on most contract over 1MM are quite high.

11 k difference on a 79,500,000 cap hit is very small. I understand you are comparing the variance on 6,950,000. But the important thing is how much we spend in comparison to the cap. I could have worded that better though. Agreed

I don’t disagree that quite a few are off. I never said it was the one and only variable. There are multiple comparables that all got between 8.2 and 9 percent of the cap.

While some are off. The average is between 300-700 k difference. That’s overall pretty good.

It’s not the only thing that matters. It’s one of many converging lines that put Nylander at 6.7-7.2.

It was almost exact.
 

Notsince67

Papi and the Lamplighters
Apr 27, 2018
15,854
11,052
11 k difference on a 79,500,000 cap hit is very small. I understand you are comparing the variance on 6,950,000. But the important thing is how much we spend in comparison to the cap. I could have worded that better though. Agreed

I don’t disagree that quite a few are off. I never said it was the one and only variable. There are multiple comparables that all got between 8.2 and 9 percent of the cap.

While some are off. The average is between 300-700 k difference. That’s overall pretty good.

It’s not the only thing that matters. It’s one of many converging lines that put Nylander at 6.7-7.2.

It was almost exact.
The mean of the absolute percentage differences of predicted vs actual on the data I have shows a 20.83% variance. That's pretty big.
 

Dayjobdave

Registered User
Apr 29, 2010
3,193
1,531
Leafs got a pretty good deal on Matthews and Nylander, and they will be Leafs for years.

It will be spring soon. My first trip to HfBoards many years ago was to gain insight on our new top prospect - Luca Caputi.

Perspective....
 

Notsince67

Papi and the Lamplighters
Apr 27, 2018
15,854
11,052
L


He shows mean differences of 300k on forwards for small contracts (less
Than 1.5) and 700 for more. But again this isn’t the point

The whole point was the other poster saying it was a dramatic overpayment and the ONLY people who were arguing that Nylander would get that contract were leaf fans. And that is was an after the fact rationalization.

I showed this prediction as an independent model that has been used and published showing almost exactly the prediction. Prior to the contract.

That was the point. Not that this is the 100 percent only and accurate method. But that independent model showed it.
a 20% variance is more than the difference between the difference between the lowest of estimates to the amount he signed for. The margin of error alone doesn't convince me that 7MM is better than 6MM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->