@Hodgy (bait posting now?)
Why would you think I am baiting you? I have continually taken issue with your statement that it would have been an "amazing projection" to project Petey would hit 100 points in his career during his half season slump at age 23. And I have provided reasons why this wouldn't have been an "amazing projection". And you have continually ignored your use of the term "amazing projection" when trying to refute me, because presumably, you realize you shouldn't have characterized it as such initially since obviously "amazing" is a very high standard to hit.
No, it's because you think being one of the top producers in your age cohort ((Draft class) you're using a relative point marker here, FYI) lends to an 80%-90% probability that those top players will hit 100 points eventually. Not true.
I never created percentages, you did. And I never cited draft class other than to note that, I think, Petey was the top offensive producing prospect for his draft year which is probably why he was a top ten pick in the NHL despite his size. My point was that, presumably, Petey - for his age group - was the top offensive producer in the NHL from years 20-22, and frankly, I think that is probably still true even if you calculate the totals mid way through his 23 year old season. This would obviously be relevant in projecting whether he would hit 100 points during his 23 year old season. Really, there shouldn't be much debate here.
Even from just a cursory look (again, as I did this a few years back), this is incorrect. I gauge it to be about 45% for the top5 early producers in each draft class (used a .70~ PPG marker).
Again, I don't really care about percentage. The statement I am holding you to is "amazing projection". I will define these terms again:
"
amazing" causing great surprise or wonder; astonishing.
"
projection" an estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present ones
So, the projection of Petey to hit 100 points in his career would need to be a "great surprise" or "astonishing" in this context.
So you thought it was, at the time of Petey's slump, and assuming he was the highest scoring player of his age cohort at that time (which I am assuming is the case here, but you can provide stats to the contrary if you wish to refute this), that it would be a "great surprise" or "astonishing" that he hits 100 points during the prime of his career when at the time of projection 8 players were, presumably, pacing to hit this mark? You realize how ridiculous that sounds. Like ya, he was playing really poorly, we all get that and no one is refuting that, but no one should have been "astonished" that he got back on track, and essentially, continued (and later, as he developed, improved upon) the type of production he already established at the NHL level. Not saying it was the
most likely event, only that it wasn't "astonishing" or a "great surprise" given everything we knew at that time.
Now add in a poor recent season performance (season blocks due to their use in analytics and model trees (no partial seasons)), a bad team, and that 45% should decline to what, 35%? 25%? Maybe closer to 35% because he had good absolute production at 20 and 21. A 35% hit rate is statistically unlikely at base. Therefore, betting on the over in that particular offseason (context) would have been amazingly bold. The team stunk.
So you think he was at a 35% change of hitting 100 points during his 23 year old slump, but yet you think
projecting him to hit 100 points during that time would have been an
amazing projection? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
100% Projection to hit 100 points = Guaranteed Result
50% Projection to hit 100 points = Is literally a coinflip, and it should be basically of no surprise if someone is correct on a coin flick
...but 35% Projection to Hit 100 points, only 15% lower than the coin flip, is an "
amazing projection".....one of great surprise, or astonishment.
I hope I am starting to get through.
You keep using 8 100 point producers but the 4 year average was 5 per year (4 on average if we are using the 5 year average).
I am using the 8 100 point producers because, presumably, there was 8 players pacing for 100 points at the time of the projection. So this was the most relevant time and reflected the increase in scoring. But even if you used a lower form, it isn't going to change whether it was an "amazing projection" because no one should be surprised that the top scoring player for his age cohort at a particular time (even if its during a bad slump) would become a top five producers in the NHL, or whatever, at a later date. Again, not a "great surprise" or "astonishing", but not necessarily the most likely or even a likely thing to happen.
Aho didn't hit 100 points.
Ya, I know. I am just saying it would come as a "great surprise" or "astonishing" to me, if Aho later hits 100 points. In fact, he's on pace to hit 98 points this year. But I guess Aho hitting 100 points this year would be a "great surprise" or "astonishing" to you, right?
Nothing else in your posts is worth debating. If you have the wrong base percentage/probability, everything else you say is meaningless. I've now explained my position thoroughly, again. You're free to conclude that it's wrong (we're talking past each other at this point).
We are not talking past each other. You are continually ignoring the crux of the debate which is your use of "amazing projection". I don't even really care about your percentages or probabilities as determining those is a hilariously difficult task, but ironically, an also hilariously, your own percentages/probabilities have contradicted your initial statement that it would have been an "amazing projection" to project Petey to hit 100 points since you seem to put the probability of him hitting 100 points during his slump at 35% and quite obviously it isn't of "great surprise" or "astonishing" if an event that is 35% likely to occurs actually does occur.
defector.com
I like that bolded line. 
