Nico/Zacha vs. Patrick/Provorov

[Ace of Hades]

Still, absolutely nothing remotely objective to back up your statement.

Other than in this case hyping your own guy and discounting the other guy.

You keep posting, but saying nothing.

Oh look, Devil homers are talking about objective here. So amusing.

I'm not even a fan of Provorov btw.

Atleast make a case as to why Hischier is superior than a top pairing D.

 

[blinds]

No he hasn't lmao. Just because you play top pair doesn't mean you are top pair quality

Same argument applies to Nico "1C" Hischier who puts up points like a low end 2C.

 

[Colin226]

Would I have to cover Patrick’s copious medical expenses? I really don’t want to have to contribute more to my HSA.

 

[My3Sons]

The whole thing is just an opinion. There’s no objective definition of “better”. So that guy likes Provorov. Thinks he’s a 1D. It’s just an opinion. In my view Provorov regressed last year and didn’t play like a 1D. Maybe he rebounds. At the end of the day we can say what we like but it doesn’t change whatever the reality will be going forward. I’d prefer to have Hischier. I see him as a player in the Bergeron mold. So what. The only bad choice is stating your opinion as fact and being surprised when no one takes you seriously.

 

[StoneHands]

Would I have to cover Patrick’s copious medical expenses? I really don’t want to have to contribute more to my HSA.

You must have blown that HSA cash on Hischier since he's only played 6 more games than Patrick through 2 years.

 

[MartyOwns]

not sure how anyone can honestly say who is better between nico and provorov. different players, different ages, different teams, and most importantly different positions.

who is better- carey price or claude giroux?

 

[HBK27]

Oh look, Devil homers are talking about objective here. So amusing.

I'm not even a fan of Provorov btw.

Atleast make a case as to why Hischier is superior than a top pairing D.

I did make the case. Twice. You just keep ignoring those posts, just like you'll probably ignore this one.

Post #48 has the details and post #69 directed you there.

The Athletic does player by player breakdowns. While the full breakdowns for each player in the league is not available yet, they rated Nico as having a 2.7 GSAV versus a 0.9 GSAV for Provorov. So, in their projections Nico is worth 3x the amount of wins above replacement than Provorov next season. These values also place Nico as a #1C and Provorov as more of a 2nd pairing defenseman.

Completely objective source that compares the two.

You can rant all you want and label Nico a 2C, Provorov a 1D and call out other posters as a homer, but that's just a bunch of shouting and stomping your feet as you've offered absolutely nothing to backup your opinions.

I've also never called out Hischier as superior than Provorov. Said I'd prefer to have him, but I understand if people choose one over the other. I haven't watched Provorov enough to know how good he is. From what I've read on him, he was great two seasons ago but struggled last season. Some see him as a #1D, others think he's only 2nd pairing. He's still young though on probably has not stopped developing. I think he has the potential to be a #1D, but coming off a season in which he struggled I don't think you can put that label on him just yet.

There you go, neutral source that considers Hischier the better player. Third times a charm? Did I finally make the case in your eyes yet?

 

[goonybird]

Can comfortably say I'd take Hischier over the other three

 

[StoneHands]

I did make the case. Twice. You just keep ignoring those posts, just like you'll probably ignore this one.

Post #48 has the details and post #69 directed you there.

The Athletic does player by player breakdowns. While the full breakdowns for each player in the league is not available yet, they rated Nico as having a 2.7 GSAV versus a 0.9 GSAV for Provorov. So, in their projections Nico is worth 3x the amount of wins above replacement than Provorov next season. These values also place Nico as a #1C and Provorov as more of a 2nd pairing defenseman.

Completely objective source that compares the two.

You can rant all you want and label Nico a 2C, Provorov a 1D and call out other posters as a homer, but that's just a bunch of shouting and stomping your feet as you've offered absolutely nothing to backup your opinions.

I've also never called out Hischier as superior than Provorov. Said I'd prefer to have him, but I understand if people choose one over the other. I haven't watched Provorov enough to know how good he is. From what I've read on him, he was great two seasons ago but struggled last season. Some see him as a #1D, others think he's only 2nd pairing. He's still young though on probably has not stopped developing. I think he has the potential to be a #1D, but coming off a season in which he struggled I don't think you can put that label on him just yet.

There you go, neutral source that considers Hischier the better player. Third times a charm? Did I finally make the case in your eyes yet?

I stopped reading after the bolded because an appeal to authority is quite literally the absolute worst argument you can make. I honestly can't even believe people still think this kind of logical fallacy is valid in a discussion.

Here's a link to a grade school website designed to educate children about these terrible debate tactics. Take notes.
Appeal to Authority Examples

Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.
When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."

 

[goonybird]

It's not an appeal to authority, it's citing a metric and its source, which is common practice when making a claim.

 

[StoneHands]

It's not an appeal to authority, it's citing a metric and its source, which is common practice when making a claim.

32(!) "appeals to authority" in this paper confirming the existence of the Higgs boson

Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions

But yea, go ahead and call him an uneducated grade-schooler in the same breath as you messed that one up.

Also, you made a logical fallacy as well: Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia

Wherein you believe the argument is false, therefore the conclusion must also be false.

No, it's not citing a metric. It's citing a projection that a website thinks each player will achieve. If a website projects Provorov to play 26 minutes of shutdown defense and add 60 points while they project Hischier to continue chipping in 50-55 points, that's not citing a metric, that's citing someone's opinion and it's not a valid argument. That same model also says that Hischier and Giroux are essentially a wash and Hischier is MUCH better than Kopitar and Backstrom. It even says Hayes is better than Kopitar. Is this something you're really going to take seriously?

Also, where in my post did I say that the conclusion is false? I simply said it's not a valid argument to use a website's prediction of game score values to determine who the better player is. You're really reaching when you cite game score values in general and it's even worse when it's just a projection from somewhere like The Athletic.

I urge you to actually read before posting.

 

[HBK27]

No, it's not citing a metric. It's citing a projection that a website thinks each player will achieve. If a website projects Provorov to play 26 minutes of shutdown defense and add 60 points while they project Hischier to continue chipping in 50-55 points, that's not citing a metric, that's citing someone's opinion and it's not a valid argument. That same model also says that Hischier and Giroux are essentially a wash and Hischier is MUCH better than Kopitar and Backstrom. It even says Hayes is better than Kopitar. Is this something you're really going to take seriously?

Also, where in my post did I say that the conclusion is false? I simply said it's not a valid argument to use a website's prediction of game score values to determine who the better player is. You're really reaching when you cite game score values in general and it's even worse when it's just a projection from somewhere like The Athletic.

I urge you to actually read before posting.

It's not just someone's opinion from some random website. It's a highly credible site that goes into great detail on the model they are using for the projections and adds more clarity to the projections themselves within the articles, often calling out why a number may be lower or higher than expected for certain players.

I've also called out numerous times that it's also just a projection for next season, not how the player's career will unfold which is what this poll is gauging.

And zip it with the whole "appeal to authority" BS, especially since I'm not claiming anything to be true. I've stated my opinion that I personally prefer Nico, but that I understand people that would take Provorov. I've never said that Nico was the better player. It's especially hard to compare forwards to defensemen, so I thought that was an interesting metric as it is one of the few that I've seen that comes up with a comparison for players across different positions.

FWIW, here's some of the comments on both players from the team reviews:

Provorov, 22, is the team’s de facto number one defender in line for a big pay day before the season starts, but he hasn’t consistently looked the part in his short three-year career yet. There was a brief glimmer two seasons ago when paired with Shayne Gostisbehere, but that disappeared last season. Last year with Sanheim was mostly fine too, though the duo did get that outscored. In that vein, it seems that who he plays with seems to matter a ton as he’s not strong enough yet to carry a pair on his own, not while also dealing with tough competition, too (and in his defense, few players can). He’s an excellent puck-mover, but that hasn’t really translated into tangible results befitting of his pedigree just yet. For the Flyers to take the next step, they need Provorov to lead them by taking one himself. With Niskanen on his right, he has a dependable partner (and one who actually shoots right-handed unlike Gostisbehere and Sanheim), but the onus is on him now.

The trio of Hall, Nico Hischier and Kyle Palmieri is dominant when together, posting a 54 percent expected goals rate and an even more stellar 66 goal rate on the back of elite offence. Without Hall, the remaining duo is at 51 and 47 percent, respectively. He plays a huge role in their effectiveness as the primary puck-carrier and both struggled without him last year. Hischier is fine with the puck – he’s just no Hall – while Palmieri is a little more dependent, working primarily as a shooter and the defensive muscle on the line.

With Hall hopefully around for a majority of the upcoming season, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big Hischier breakout this year, especially if he stays on that top line over the shiny new toy coming in and gets a bit more power play time (which at this point is an uncertainty). He’s a proven scorer posting a 2.11 points per 60 at evens in his first two seasons, which moves closer to 2.4 when playing with Hall. Those are strong numbers and he adds further value with a projected penalty differential of 20, one of the highest marks in the league.

 

[FooteBahl]

I can't wait to bump this in 6 months

 

[Harhis]

I could be, but I'd rather overrated a 2 way #1C than a 2nd pairing defenceman and a 3rd line C

Ok let's say Provorov has not proven to be 1D yet, but in what world Hichier has proven to be 1C.

 

[goonybird]

No, it's not citing a metric. It's citing a projection that a website thinks each player will achieve. If a website projects Provorov to play 26 minutes of shutdown defense and add 60 points while they project Hischier to continue chipping in 50-55 points, that's not citing a metric, that's citing someone's opinion and it's not a valid argument. That same model also says that Hischier and Giroux are essentially a wash and Hischier is MUCH better than Kopitar and Backstrom. It even says Hayes is better than Kopitar. Is this something you're really going to take seriously?

Also, where in my post did I say that the conclusion is false? I simply said it's not a valid argument to use a website's prediction of game score values to determine who the better player is. You're really reaching when you cite game score values in general and it's even worse when it's just a projection from somewhere like The Athletic.

I urge you to actually read before posting.

You are falling all over yourself trying to spin your way out of that snarky comment. He is citing analysis, and he's being up-front giving you the source.

You can attack the source and their rationale all you want but you can't call him an uneducated grade-schooler because you messed up and made a false claim of an argument of authority.

 

[StoneHands]

You are falling all over yourself. He is citing analysis, and he's being up-front giving you the source.

You can attack the source and their rationale all you want but you can't make the claim that it's an argument from authority and then call him an uneducated grade-schooler after you made that false claim.

What are you even talking about? The website he cited is a writers opinion about player projections. That is the definition of appeal to authority. Why is this hard for you to understand that you cannot in any way accurately project game score values (wins above replacement) before a season even starts? It would be one thing if he cited a source saying that Hischier was better than Provorov last season and they used game score values as his rationale but that's not what he's doing. He's using someone else's opinion for this season to try to say one player is better than another which is in fact an appeal to authority.

 

[StoneHands]

Ok let's say Provor has not proven to be 1D yet, but in what world Hichier has proven to be 1C.

Haven't you seen The Athletic's player projections for this season? Kopitar is a 1C and The Athletic says Hischier is going to be WAY better than him this season. In fact, he's going to be just as good as Giroux.

 

[Morgs]

I'd take Philly, but Hischier is the clear best player.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

meant to click "too close to call" but accidentally picked the Flyers' pair. Neither Hischier nor Provorov have proven themselves to be a #1C/#1D yet, Hischier is on track though, and Provorov looked to be on track 2 seasons ago, young d-men are volatile and hard to predict. Zacha is the worst player here and Nolan has been a big let down so far but i could see him really improving this year. So its a tie for me

 

[goonybird]

What are you even talking about? The website he cited is a writers opinion about player projections. That is the definition of appeal to authority. Why is this hard for you to understand that you cannot in any way accurately project game score values (wins above replacement) before a season even starts? It would be one thing if he cited a source saying that Hischier was better than Provorov last season and they used game score values as his rationale but that's not what he's doing. He's using someone else's opinion for this season to try to say one player is better than another which is in fact an appeal to authority.

That's not an appeal to authority. He citing data authored by writers, not using their authority to prop up his opinion.

I get that you probably don't like being disagreed with, and that you definitely don't like being called wrong but you are wrong on that accusation.

From your GrADe SChOoL leVEl link: 'Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."'

The data may be unconvincing, flawed, or poorly applicable to this debate, but it's not an appeal to authority to cite someone's work.

 

[StoneHands]

From your GrADe SChOoL leVEl link: 'Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."'

Zero evidence was presented because you can't present evidence for statistics from a season that has not yet started. The argument does rely on the credibility of the authority as it assumes that the authors projections are correct.

I'm moving on with my day.

 

[Emperoreddy]

You are falling all over yourself trying to spin your way out of that snarky comment. He is citing analysis, and he's being up-front giving you the source.

You can attack the source and their rationale all you want but you can't call him an uneducated grade-schooler because you messed up and made a false claim of an argument of authority.

He is actually using an example of the Fallacy Fallacy.

 

[goonybird]

Zero evidence was presented because you can't present evidence for statistics from a season that has not yet started. The argument does rely on the credibility of the authority as it assumes that the authors projections are correct.

I'm moving on with my day.

Economists use projections for fiscal years that have yet to happen. Citing "economists" as support can be an argument from authority, but citing the numbers they used is not - even if they're wrong.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

I would suggest if you do your Masters or PhD please don't use Wikipedia as a source...

 

[HBK27]

What are you even talking about? The website he cited is a writers opinion about player projections. That is the definition of appeal to authority. Why is this hard for you to understand that you cannot in any way accurately project game score values (wins above replacement) before a season even starts? It would be one thing if he cited a source saying that Hischier was better than Provorov last season and they used game score values as his rationale but that's not what he's doing. He's using someone else's opinion for this season to try to say one player is better than another which is in fact an appeal to authority.

Your lame "appeal to authority" argument has been completely shredded, which is why you conveniently chose not to respond to my post calling you out on it. Yet, you're so stubborn you keep pressing on with it. Can't just admit when you're wrong, huh?

It's also not just a "writers opinion" on player projections, but projections based off a model that is presented in great detail. Maybe you don't agree with how it comes up with player values, but there is a crystal clear methodology behind it, it's data-driven and just some guy spitballin' numbers. The projections are all based on actual performance over the past 3 seasons and adjusted for age and usage. So, saying that I should've cited a source on the performance of the two players from last year is a poor argument, considering these projections incorporate that information and more (which works in Provorov's favor, given his strong '17-'18 season).

Saying that you "cannot in any way accurately project game score values before a season even starts" is also incorrect. Of course the model is not going to perfectly nail any scores and there could be some large variances in individual player actual versus projected results, but for the most part these are fairly accurate. Unless you're seeking perfection, to just dismiss them altogether is ridiculous. I'm sure there's some technical term for that, which I'll leave up to you. It's like saying that since meteorologist don't always nail the forecast, that we shouldn't listen to anything they say since you can't accurately predict the forecast...regardless that they're often correct more times than not. Doesn't mean that Nico will definitely be the better player next season, but according to this ONE model it's more likely he will.

And from the FAQ (shown below) on these projections, it addresses that these are not the be all end all way to compare players or that player X having a higher score than player Y means he's better. If you actually take the time to read it (instead of pulling another "I stopped reading at..." tirade), you can see it actually offers some insight into why Provorov's score is lower than expected and Nico's is higher.

I posted that to get a conversation going as I thought it was interesting, not to claim that "Nico is better than Provorov and here's why..." which is something you are completely hung up on and completely wrong about. Instead of calling out what I did or did not post to your liking, why don't you try to add some actual insight to the debate instead of just trying to stir things up.

What goes into those projections?

The projections are entirely at the player level and are based on an all-in-one stat I created a little over a year ago called Game Score. It combines all the basic box score stats into one number to measure a player’s value. As one season isn’t really enough to get a good read on a player, I use the last three seasons instead. The seasons were weighted by recency using a multi-variate regression and the results of that are regressed to the mean based on the repeatability of each component and the size of each player’s sample. There’s also an age adjustment as we expect players to get better as they move towards their prime and worse as they move away from it. Lastly, there’s a small adjustment for usage.

2018-19 Edit: The final output is then turned into a win value above replacement level, that I’ve dubbed GSVA, or Game Score Value Added.

Why is this player who is obviously better rated worse than this other player who I don’t like as much?

Game Score, like any stat, isn’t perfect. Especially not with current data. There’s a number of reasons a player can be rated higher, but understanding the weights of each input help uncover why. The two player types that are generally underrated are defensive defencemen (Niklas Hjalmarsson, Marc-Edouard Vlasic) and playmakers (Nicklas Backstrom, Ryan Johansen) while the players that are overrated are point-scoring defensemen (Kevin Shattenkirk, Dougie Hamilton) and shooters (Viktor Arvidsson, Max Pacioretty). The win values are also based on efficiency, so players who do well in a short period of time look better (David Pastrnak, Matthew Tkachuk) as do players who play with other good players. Allocating credit properly is an interesting problem in hockey, and while I do think Game Score does a decent job of it, there are some instances where it may look off.

Do you honestly think Player X is better than Player Y?

Just because a model says this doesn’t make it true, even if I built it. It’s not infallible — I already told you I’m not all-knowing. I don’t agree with every single thing it spits out, but there are many times where it makes me reconsider my feelings about specific players. If the model is showing that Player X is better than Player Y, there is probably a reason for it and it’s an opportunity to dig deeper. It may be wrong, but it creates dialogue and discussion worth having about a player.