hookshott
Registered User
- Dec 13, 2016
- 570
- 367
Let's get back to talking about the Vancouver Media...in the Vancouver Media thread!
I am not ignoring it, that's a strawman.
Ok, I've never dismissed his struggles and acknowledged them.
Unless I am missing something, he increased his PPG from 20 to 21, almost hitting a point per game at 21. 22 was the weird short season and he scored 21 points in 26 games. The first half of his 23 year old season was where he really struggled, and he finished the year with 68 in 80 games, but he scored 43 points in the final 34 games. So he struggled for about the first half of the season or so, and then went on a tear.
You stated that it would be an "amazing" projection for someone to think that Petey would score 100 points in this league during his struggles at 23. In reality, Petey had scored 153 points over his first 165 games in the NHL over his 20-22 year seasons (including his 21 year old season where he essentially scored at a point per game).
So ya, even though he struggled pretty badly for the first half or so of his 23 year old season, it wouldn't be an "amazing" projection to project that he may become a 100 point player in his prime.
Many thought Petey was the most gifted offensive player in his draft year, and the advanced statistics backed that up. So we are talking about a guy, who from a production perspective, was arguably the best player at the time of his draft. And then he wins rookie of the year, and then he essentially scored at a point per game during his 21 year old season. In his 22 year old season he has a bit of a dip, but that was the weird covid shortened season, and even then, he still scores 21 in 26 games. Overall, he scores very well overall for his 20-22 year old seasons, and without doing the math or research, I am going to assume he was the highest scoring player during that time at those ages.
So ya, even though Petey was struggling for the first 50 games of his 23 year old season (at which time 8 guys were, presumably, pacing to hit 100 points) I don't think it would have been an "amazing projection" to project Petey - who was, presumably, the most productive player for his age over hte previous there seasons - to eventually hit 100 points during his prime.
- The stark difference between this year and last.
- Horvat trade
- Nobody had any idea where the team was going
- People speculated on trading Pettersson, Hughes and Demko
- Coaching situation was bad
- Now, the turn around is incredible. 5 reps at the all-star game
- Remarkable turn around
- Exciting second half, which they never thought was possible
No, I am not. It doesn't matter how you slice the data, it wasn't an "amazing projection" to project Petey to score 100 points during his first half slump of his 23 year old season.It's rhetorical (not treated as the main argument). You're parsing subsets within seasons to create selection bias.
"He MAY become a 100 point player" vs " He would be a 100+ point player". These are different statements... (possibility vs probability)
Why? Its pretty clear that the 50 or so game sample was just a blip? And anyone that made a knee jerk reaction during that period regarding Pettersson's ultimate potential was doing just that, making a knee jerk reaction.Next, just use full seasons. I'm not basing my decision on a 50 game sample, but that whole season.
Your standard is "amazing projection".Pettersson was a short range below PPG over his first two NHL seasons. His 23 year old season knocked him down a peg. Now, if at base, his 20 and 21 seasons placed him in a 40%~ cohort (to use a general number) to eventually hit 100 points (something only 5 players did on average with the most pertinent 4 season sample), then his 23 year old season knocked him down a level (let's say to 30%). At that point, it wouldn't make sense to hold to say an 90% projection of him to hit 100 points eventually. It just wouldn't have made sense. I think you're favouring his 20 and 21 year old seasons too much, and his latest 23 year old season not enough (it should be the opposite).
It doesn't have to be an assurance. "Amazing projection" is the benchmark, not total assurance.Oh I'm quite aware of what he tracked like in his draft year...
The most productive player for his age (draft class) is not in of itself an assurance on a future 100 point season.
Pettersson has outproduced those players over the relevant ages. Boeser regressed majorly after his injury. And frankly, it wouldn't be an "amazing projection" if someone thought Aho would hit 100 points and he did.Off the top of my head, I can think of Boeser and Aho being atop their relative draft class and neither has hit 100 points. It would be more about absolute value relative to the best producers all time.
I can see why you want to exit this debate because you are clearly wrong. But again, you fail to address your "amazing projection" remark. It is clear you were wrong, or you didn't actually mean "amazing projection" and erred in your use of terminology.Whatever the case, this was about a media member like Drance (who himself is well versed in advanced metrics), projecting a rebuild having more value than what Pettersson and his then team would suggest. If he didn't think the player was of that echelon, then it was fair for him to put him in the category of an Eichel (who also hasn't hit 100 points btw) and advocate for a rebuild. It was fair, not fantasy.
You have the last word. See you out there.
what did he say this time
Just trying to pull the thread back on topic.
Well hasn't made any intentionally inflammatory statements recently as far as I can tell, I'm sure he's due.
He's fully on-board the "go all in" train. I wouldn't be surprised, and it would actually be a lot of fun, if his next article is why the Canucks should trade every draft pick.
"Something... something... Dom Luszczyszyn's model!"what did he say this time
what did he say this time
Dingle Nuts Sekeres
He's owned up to getting the team wrong this year, mostly. Still thinks very very highly of the Oilers and Dom's model.
Also loves tiers and tiering everything under the sun.
I find him irritating because he’s just so holier than thou. He thinks he’s the only one in our market using analytics.
There is that aspect too, I'll admit. He displays a lot of knowledge when he speaks. Sometimes that comes across as arrogance. I just hope he doesn't dumb it down for fans looking more for a correction than to gain from his insight.
I bet he was pulling at will.I met him years ago at the bar. I would say that's an apt title.
As far as MSM guys in the VAN media market, he pretty much is the only one.I find him irritating because he’s just so holier than thou. He thinks he’s the only one in our market using analytics.
FWIW Dom's model had the highest pre-season rating of the Canucks of any public model/prognosticator...including sportsbooks betting odds.He's owned up to getting the team wrong this year, mostly. Still thinks very very highly of the Oilers and Dom's model.
Also loves tiers and tiering everything under the sun.
Dayal is great and I read literally everything he puts out. But he has more of a league-wide portfolio now.Patrick Johnston writes some very good articles on the Canucks. Jeff Paterson's weekly CanucksArmy article is quite good too. Dayal has some excellent stuff if you're more analytically inclined.