Popularity polls are not "studies".
Comparing a series of player polls, coaching and GM polls and sports-writer rankings to a "popularity contest" is a ridiculous statement and you know it. Auston Matthews is not rated where he is by other NHL players because they "like" him. He doesn't beat out Jones on every single list I have seen from all three of these groups because "aw shucks' he is just such a better guy", it is because he is seen as the more valuble player by a consensus of players, GMs coaches and hockey analysts... you know the people whose opinions on this
actually matter in the real world.
Indeed, for someone who derides expert polls as "popularity contests" I find it strange that you would make a post like this:
...so HF polls matter but hockey expert polls don't. Gotcha.
Funny how your opinion on the value of expert poles and rankings seems to fluctuate when they affirm your own beliefs.
Quit being so ****ing obtuse. My contention is not that they're wrong, my contention is that you cannot draw such a sweeping conclusion from that data because it is insufficiently precise and insufficiently robust.
Ah, cursing someone out, the mark of a truly skilled debater. Go back to my original comment you will see this:
Jones wouldn’t fetch Matthews and Werenski isn’t going to fetch Marner, at least not without a susbstantial add, the values are just too far off in favour of the Jackets.
When the consensus of coaches, players, GMs and sportswriters all agree that Matthews is more valuble then Jones then yes, that statement is accurate.
You may not believe this, but you are not one of the people who has an impact on how NHL players are valued, and the blunt truth is that Matthews is indeed seen as a more valuble player than Jones is by every group of professionals that matters and there is reliable evidence from multiple sources to back this up and
by your own admission, no counter-evidence.
no, my point is that those opinions are not sufficiently lucid and/or explicit to support YOUR opinion that there is a wide gulf between the players. I'm not debating that they have Matthews ahead of Jones. That's obvious. That's been obvious from the start. It's the magnitude that you keep asserting - that Matthews is a class ahead - that is unverifiable. That is it. Stop trying to strawman my counterpoint as though it proves anything.
Again. Your "evidence" is not evidence of your claim of substantial difference.
Why wouldn't they be "lucid"? What do you think all the NHL players coaches GMs and sportswriters were drunk when they wrote those articles and filled out those polls? As to explicit, well they explicitly rank Matthews ahead of Jones, in building a franchise around (#3 to unranked), best player write now (#8, #10 vs #30 and 32, a difference of 21 places... which is hard to argue is not "substantial) and in best player in the future (6 votes vs 1). All these results gathered from all these groups favor Matthews over Jones and not by small margins. You can argue all these people with a huge amount of real-world experience are wrong in their views and you are right, but you cannot argue that the bulk of the educated hockey world has a different view then you do.
Now, if you want to have a debate based on your own observations, that can be done. But you seem to be trying to Appeal To Authority your way into legitimacy with ranked lists that give no indication as to the difference between the ranked. You can't just count "number of places in the list", because they're unequal.
Nope, just an appeal to evidence to back up my original statement: That any 1-for1 Matthews for Jones would be impossible because Matthews is substantially more valuble then Jones. This is backed up by virtually every source of people who could possibly have an impact on player valuations reaching the same consensus. You can argue with me as much as you want, but you can't change the facts on the ground.
Here's a helpful illustrative example: let's assume the existence of some kind of Hypothetical Player Value Rating where Connor McDavid == 100 and someone like, I dunno, the ghost of Chris Kunitz is 1 or something. Let's say Matthews is #8 on the list of rankings at 98.95, and Jones is #32 on the list of rankings at 97.24. There would be, legitimately, 24 players in between them with rankings between 98.95 and 97.24. But those two numbers are still very close, so you could legitimately say that they're similar in value (and probably also similar to those other 24 players), or at least that a debate could be had based on how that Hypothetical Player Value Rating is calculated (maybe it overly favors forwards and thus unduly benefits Matthews, or maybe it really likes individual trophy votes and so is biased in Jones' favor, or G-d only knows what else). You cannot tell this from a simple ordered list. Therefore those lists are not able to adequately determine such differences of magnitude. You can do it in an extremely broad fashion - one can reasonably safely conclude, for example, that Matthews is a substantially better player than, say, Ryan Strome, and there's also going to be a substantial rank order difference there - but there's nothing precise enough to draw definite conclusions when they start getting closer. So we're going to have to go by our own observations. Thus, a debate.
(And that's before we even get into the idea that "player value" is a fiction to begin with, since players are not fungible assets...)
EDIT: Bonus illustrative example. Let's say that, with that same Hypothetical Player Value Rating, Matthews is #8 at 98.95 and Jones is #9 at 82.43. That's a really big difference. But they're right next to eachother in the ranked list. How can we tell that there's a big gulf in "rating" there, using only the ranking order? We can't. You. Can't. Tell.
If Matthews and Jones were back to back on all these lists and it was just Matthews coming out ahead by one or two spots every time then you might have a point. The glaring issue with your statement is that Matthews and Jones are
not particularly close in any of these lists. It isn't like Matthews is ranked 9th and Jones is ranked 10th, it is more along the lines of 9th and 30th, heck for some of these rankings such as "who would you choose to build a franchise around" (which is probably the most direct "value" question I can think of" Jones isn't even ranked on the list. Suggesting that two players separated by a full
twenty or more other guys on a valuation list are essentially "not substantially" different in value is ludicrous.
You want to suggest Matthews is much better? Feel free. That's your prerogative. But your claims of objective truth are not substantiated. They're not, no matter how many popularity rankings you come up with. And asking for other popularity rankings does not constitute useful countering evidence. Your basis is fundamentally flawed.
The original comment I made is he is significantly more valuble, which by all accounts is indeed the case, as the evidence above demonstrates (and precisely zero evidence refutes... unless you have found some in the interim?).
I would definitely argue he is better as well (which does seem to be the consensus of the hockey community as well, but unlike in terms of "value" consensus expert opinion is not the be-all and end-all here), and while it is indeed hard to compare forwards to defensemen directly, at least when looking at awards both can directly compete against each other for Matthews has more Hart votes and has a Calder trophy. If you want to concede the original debate over value, I don't mind continuing to a new debate over who is "better", and how substantial the difference is.
No. No they did not. They all put Matthews ahead, but none of them gave a useful magnitude; they all suffer from the issue described above.
The magnitude is an average of about 20 positions in the rankings. That is no small gap in valuations.
No. No I did not. That is my gut feeling, but it is not the claim I am making, nor is it ever the claim I have made. I started out saying that there's a debate to be had between who's better and I have never wavered from that. You're the one jumping to conclusions and assuming that means "therefore, they're the same value". For someone who's so willing to be sanctimonious about "actual words" being used, you seem perfectly happy to turn it on me.
You can have all the "gut feelings" you want, in terms of how either of these players are valued relative to each other, the data is clear, and it can'y be hand-waved away. There is a substantial amount of evidence that Matthews is seen as more valuable by players, GMs coaches and sportswriters then Jones is, and the gap is not particularly close; Jones is either way further down all these lists or not even ranked. Until you can provide some evidence, indeed
any evidence showing this gap is narrow or nonexistent then yes, the conclusion is clear.
Inapplicable; my claim is based on pointing out the absence of evidence, and so repeated attempts to say "You have no evidence" doesn't help. No, there isn't such evidence. That's exactly my point.
Of course it is, my claim was that Matthews was significantly more valuble then Jones. You disputed this. I provided multiple reputable sources of evidence backing this claim, you have provided none. If you wish to challenge the validity of my claim
Inapplicable. Your argument has been "Matthews is substantially better than Jones". My counterargument isn't an attempt to suggest that it's other than that; my counterargument is that you have presented no data supporting the "substantially" part of that claim.
Please go back and re-read the quotes you are arguing against, apparently you need a reminder what you are actually debating against. Here I will repost the original one for you:
Jones wouldn’t fetch Matthews and Werenski isn’t going to fetch Marner, at least not without a susbstantial add, the values are just too far off in favour of the Jackets.
Repeatedly misrepresenting my statements and representing them and framing them with hyperbole; that appears to be text-book strawman.
Now you're just making **** up.
The cursing, caps locked, emoji riddled responses you deploy in place of actual reasoned arguments would suggest otherwise.
Again, my counterpoint has never changed.
Weird, because somehow you went from challenging me saying Matthews was substantially more valuble then Jones and thus a 1-1 trade would be way to lopsided in favor of the Jackets to realistically be a possibility to, subsequent to me providing evidence to back this claim switching to attacking me for apparently declaring Matthews as a "Generational Badass" compared to Jones "merely a star" and changing tracks to "degree of better-ness".
You really seem to like quoting that logical fallacy website. Well, those in glass houses...
