Player Discussion Elias Pettersson - Please, Be Civil

[Kryten]

Actually, thinking about this again, can you lay out your math?

There is a 25% chance a Western team makes the playoffs, and a 19% chance an Eastern team does. That still adds up to 44%.

maybe it adds up to a 22% chance

 

[Ernie]

21/6 means 131% chance, so more than "guaranteed" every 3 years. But every season is 7/16, 44%.

Every season has the same number of 7 Canadian teams in a 32 team league. The odds don't change to 131% at any given point.

Adding up coin flips is the fallacy. You don't "add" or "sum" odds.

I don't know what to say - I don't think I can explain it any simpler than the coin flips example. I would recommend taking a basic statistics course if you're interested in learning more.

maybe it adds up to a 22% chance

That's the odds of actually winning the cup.

Every team has a 1/32 chance. So if you sum up the Canadian teams, they would have a 7/32 chance of winning, or 22%, in any given year. That means a Canadian team should win every 4 to 5 years, on average.

 

[Kryten]

I don't know what to say - I don't think I can explain it any simpler than the coin flips example. I would recommend taking a basic statistics course if you're interested in learning more.



That's the odds of actually winning the cup.

Every team has a 1/32 chance. So if you sum up the Canadian teams, they would have a 7/32 chance of winning, or 22%, in any given year. That means a Canadian team should win every 4 to 5 years, on average.

And only 1 team from each conference makes the finals. I just dont get how a US team has a 156% chance of making the finals and a Canadian team has a 44% chance.

 

[Ernie]

And only 1 team from each conference makes the finals. I just dont get how a US team has a 156% chance of making the finals and a Canadian team has a 44% chance.

There are two spots. There is a 78% chance of a US team being in the Western spot, and there is also 78% chance of a different US team being in the Eastern spot. Conversely, there is a 22% chance of a Canadian team being in the West spot, and a 22% chance of Canadian team being in the East spot.

(though this is not technically true because there are 4 Canadian teams in the West and 3 Canadian teams in the East, but the overall odds are the same)

Anyways, I'm off to bed. I hope that this made sense at least somewhat.

 

[AzNightmare]

I don't know what to say - I don't think I can explain it any simpler than the coin flips example. I would recommend taking a basic statistics course if you're interested in learning more.

Imo... This is too elementary for a basic statistic course.. Lol.
It's literally why there is a term called Gambler's Fallacy.

You first say you're not taking any thing from previous seasons. Then you're using words like "add" and "summing". Lol.

Just because a Canadian team doesn't reach the final in year 1 doesn't increase the odds of a Canadian reaching it in the following year, and so forth. Every season is independent, just like every individual coin flip.

You're mistakenly viewing this as 1 set of 3 seasons, therefore every 3rd season should have a Canadian team's odd go up to 131% to reaching the final. Clearly this is not accurate, otherwise a ridiculous 131% would guarantee a Canadian team in the final every 3rd year, IRL.

Every season has a clean slate of the same 44% opportunity. It's why there can be long droughts of no Canadian teams, because 44% is not guaranteed, which reflects so IRL.

 

[Kryten]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

 

[Ernie]

Imo... This is too elementary for a basic statistic course.. Lol.
It's literally why there is a term called Gambler's Fallacy.

You first say you're not taking any thing from previous seasons. Then you're using words like "add" and "summing". Lol.

Just because a Canadian team doesn't reach the final in year 1 doesn't increase the odds of a Canadian reaching it in the following year, and so forth. Every season is independent, just like every individual coin flip.

You're mistakenly viewing this as 1 set of 3 seasons, therefore every 3rd season should have a Canadian team's odd go up to 131% to reaching the final. Clearly this is not accurate, otherwise a ridiculous 131% would guarantee a Canadian team in the final every 3rd year, IRL.

Every season has a clean slate of the same 44% opportunity. It's why there can be long droughts of no Canadian teams, because 44% is not guaranteed, which reflects so IRL.

Ok, I'll throw this back to you: how many times should a Canadian team appear in the finals over a ten year period?

 

[Kryten]

Ok, I'll throw this back to you: how many times should a Canadian team appear in the finals over a ten year period?

Depends which decade

 

[Nick Lang]

Actually, thinking about this again, can you lay out your math?

There is a 25% chance a Western team makes the playoffs, and a 19% chance an Eastern team does. That still adds up to 44%.

I plugged the Eastern and Western % numbers (.18) and (.25) into a probability calculator to show:

The results:

 

[CanucksSayEh]

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Miller's had 3 points in the last 2 games, how many points has Pettersson had? Where has he gone?

Oh you meant points when you said drive play.

Yes.

Miller has points in the previous 2 games.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

The Pettersson thing is so illuminating when it comes to understanding of human psychology, one's own emotional disposition, and understanding hockey. It's almost like a Venn diagram where all of that connects.

1. Understanding of human psychology: So many people here think that he should be a different person and never go through slumps or deal with injury because he's paid 11.6 million now. But guess what, if the price of eggs goes up 3x, it doesn't make the eggs 3x better. He's still just a superlatively talented human, but a human nonetheless.
Hockey players slump and go through struggles. No, Pettersson isn't a McDavid, Draisaitl, or Kucherov who puts up 3 points in a bad game. He's an upper echelon player, but not an immortal one.

2. Emotional disposition: Everyone knows people who swing wildly emotionally whether that's in how they characterize other people or their own plans. So it's "This guy is incredible" one game, and then "Trade all of them, I hate them!" The next game.
Or the person who loudly announces to everyone that they have made this or that big plan and it's going to 'change everything', and then nothing changes. Sooner or later, you ignore the proclamations until you see some changes.
I think a lot of the people who are the most harsh on Pettersson (note: this is not the same as noting when he was struggling and being frustrated by it, but nonsense like 'trade him' or 'he doesn't care' or 'he's soft'), are very emotionally mercurial. Informally, when I look at how people express themselves in post game threads, typically it's a lot of the same people going apeshit on Pettersson who are making broad proclamations about tanking, or this team sucks, or fire Tocchet. It must be an exhausting way to navigate life to feel everything so deeply and without using context to reign it in.

3. Understanding hockey: There's this hilarious false dichotomy going where Miller gets more of the time with Hughes, and hence he spends more time in the offensive zone. So then people say, 'Oh, so if Petey doesn't have the number 1 D in the league he sucks. And we paid 11.6 for ttthhhaaattt!'

But here's the thing. It's not like Petey sucks playing with Dahlin, Makar, Fox, or even Vince Dunn, or Shea Theodore, or Sean Durzi or etc etc etc. Hronek is hurt, but mostly played with Hughes. Meaning that if you aren't playing with Hughes, you're playing with, at best, Soucy and Myers. Now, I'm more bullish on Soucy than many here, and I don't loathe Myers like a lot people here do. But you have to break it down to micro skills. So, at their best they are a competent 2nd pairing when used correctly. Not an upper echelon 2nd pairing, but passable. But when it comes to passing and breaking the puck out? They can't be better than the 55th d pairing at moving the puck at the right time and hitting a forward on the tape with speed. And that's at best, they may well be closer to 75th at that particular skill.

Let me tell you as a guy who spent years and years playing forward. You are only as good as your D and their ability to break a cycle and move the puck to you. A good player can help the D, or transport the puck. But if you get stuck doing that too often, then you move the puck and it's a 2-on-3 for your wingers which turns into nothing far too often.

Petey's speed is down and his shot is down and there was a period where he looked a bit mentally conquered by the frustration of that. But he's playing a lot better lately, while still not being as fast or having the same shot.

But he's doing a lot of really good things in our zone. There have been several times I've noted where the other team has been globetrottering in our zone while one of our two bottom pairings is sucking wind, and Petey just closes in on a star with the puck and uses his insane game-reading talent, and his tenacity to win the puck from them after like 30 seconds or more in our zone.
He has had massive shot blocks, and been the guy who raced to get to a rebound seconds before a forward would have had a tap-in.

He's throwing hits in a way that we didn't even expect from him.

None of these are what it looks like when a guy quits. If you think that, you just genuinely don't understand hockey or don't watch very closely.

They are what it looks like when a guy is hurt and can't offer the dynamic 'out of nothing' offence he is accustomed to, so he finds other ways to help the team win.

It's so exhausting reading pigheaded posts about how Miller is better because he's fighty and yelly (which of course matches the disposition of many of the commenters I spoke about earlier). And sure, Miller took a month off heroically. But that p***y Petey had the audacity to hold down the fort here and put up like 25 points in 18 games or something...you know, like a bitch.

And being clear, I'm not jumping on Miller. I think mental health is a sacred thing and it needs to be respected. But I just cannot understand the different ways they get treated.

Other than, I think, that a lot of people here have no clue what emotion looks like on a Scandinavian. And so a guy like Petey who gets quiet when he's frustrated instead of smashing his stick or slashing somebody fools these people into thinking he doesn't care.

-
One final example. I read Drance's article in the athletic on the Panthers game and he suggested that it was nice to see Miller breathing life into the Canucks again and pointed to a play where Miller slashed Tkachuk as he was going off the ice.
Except I recall that play and it was a horrendously lazy change (which Miller has done a lot in the last two games) and then a selfish slash that should have been a penalty. Which is fine, Miller is human too and players have bad moments.

But since he's fighty and yelly, he's the conquering hero when he lazily drifts off the ice or slashes someone.

And on and on it goes.

 

[JT Milker]

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Dismissive ignorance from a loud Petey hater? Looks a lot like point #2 in my post.

Appreciate your piece of performance art here. And for the record for everyone else, I didn't pay him to do this.

 

[JT Milker]

Dismissive ignorance from a loud Petey hater? Looks a lot like point #2 in my post.

Appreciate your piece of performance art here. And for the record for everyone else, I didn't pay him to do this.

Pettersson is probably my second favourite player on the Canucks after Hughes when he’s playing like himself, I think loud Petey hater is amusingly inaccurate.

And I’m still not going to read your word vomit.

 

[Bobby9]

Lol. What a tantrum.

 

[docbenton]

The Pettersson thing is so illuminating when it comes to understanding of human psychology, one's own emotional disposition, and understanding hockey. It's almost like a Venn diagram where all of that connects.

1. Understanding of human psychology: So many people here think that he should be a different person and never go through slumps or deal with injury because he's paid 11.6 million now. But guess what, if the price of eggs goes up 3x, it doesn't make the eggs 3x better. He's still just a superlatively talented human, but a human nonetheless.
Hockey players slump and go through struggles. No, Pettersson isn't a McDavid, Draisaitl, or Kucherov who puts up 3 points in a bad game. He's an upper echelon player, but not an immortal one.

2. Emotional disposition: Everyone knows people who swing wildly emotionally whether that's in how they characterize other people or their own plans. So it's "This guy is incredible" one game, and then "Trade all of them, I hate them!" The next game.
Or the person who loudly announces to everyone that they have made this or that big plan and it's going to 'change everything', and then nothing changes. Sooner or later, you ignore the proclamations until you see some changes.
I think a lot of the people who are the most harsh on Pettersson (note: this is not the same as noting when he was struggling and being frustrated by it, but nonsense like 'trade him' or 'he doesn't care' or 'he's soft'), are very emotionally mercurial. Informally, when I look at how people express themselves in post game threads, typically it's a lot of the same people going apeshit on Pettersson who are making broad proclamations about tanking, or this team sucks, or fire Tocchet. It must be an exhausting way to navigate life to feel everything so deeply and without using context to reign it in.

3. Understanding hockey: There's this hilarious false dichotomy going where Miller gets more of the time with Hughes, and hence he spends more time in the offensive zone. So then people say, 'Oh, so if Petey doesn't have the number 1 D in the league he sucks. And we paid 11.6 for ttthhhaaattt!'

But here's the thing. It's not like Petey sucks playing with Dahlin, Makar, Fox, or even Vince Dunn, or Shea Theodore, or Sean Durzi or etc etc etc. Hronek is hurt, but mostly played with Hughes. Meaning that if you aren't playing with Hughes, you're playing with, at best, Soucy and Myers. Now, I'm more bullish on Soucy than many here, and I don't loathe Myers like a lot people here do. But you have to break it down to micro skills. So, at their best they are a competent 2nd pairing when used correctly. Not an upper echelon 2nd pairing, but passable. But when it comes to passing and breaking the puck out? They can't be better than the 55th d pairing at moving the puck at the right time and hitting a forward on the tape with speed. And that's at best, they may well be closer to 75th at that particular skill.

Let me tell you as a guy who spent years and years playing forward. You are only as good as your D and their ability to break a cycle and move the puck to you. A good player can help the D, or transport the puck. But if you get stuck doing that too often, then you move the puck and it's a 2-on-3 for your wingers which turns into nothing far too often.

Petey's speed is down and his shot is down and there was a period where he looked a bit mentally conquered by the frustration of that. But he's playing a lot better lately, while still not being as fast or having the same shot.

But he's doing a lot of really good things in our zone. There have been several times I've noted where the other team has been globetrottering in our zone while one of our two bottom pairings is sucking wind, and Petey just closes in on a star with the puck and uses his insane game-reading talent, and his tenacity to win the puck from them after like 30 seconds or more in our zone.
He has had massive shot blocks, and been the guy who raced to get to a rebound seconds before a forward would have had a tap-in.

He's throwing hits in a way that we didn't even expect from him.

None of these are what it looks like when a guy quits. If you think that, you just genuinely don't understand hockey or don't watch very closely.

They are what it looks like when a guy is hurt and can't offer the dynamic 'out of nothing' offence he is accustomed to, so he finds other ways to help the team win.

It's so exhausting reading pigheaded posts about how Miller is better because he's fighty and yelly (which of course matches the disposition of many of the commenters I spoke about earlier). And sure, Miller took a month off heroically. But that p***y Petey had the audacity to hold down the fort here and put up like 25 points in 18 games or something...you know, like a bitch.

And being clear, I'm not jumping on Miller. I think mental health is a sacred thing and it needs to be respected. But I just cannot understand the different ways they get treated.

Other than, I think, that a lot of people here have no clue what emotion looks like on a Scandinavian. And so a guy like Petey who gets quiet when he's frustrated instead of smashing his stick or slashing somebody fools these people into thinking he doesn't care.

-
One final example. I read Drance's article in the athletic on the Panthers game and he suggested that it was nice to see Miller breathing life into the Canucks again and pointed to a play where Miller slashed Tkachuk as he was going off the ice.
Except I recall that play and it was a horrendously lazy change (which Miller has done a lot in the last two games) and then a selfish slash that should have been a penalty. Which is fine, Miller is human too and players have bad moments.

But since he's fighty and yelly, he's the conquering hero when he lazily drifts off the ice or slashes someone.

And on and on it goes.

It's not about any of that. People love great players. To be a great player, you either have to win battles at a high rate, or bring dynamic speed and skill, ideally both. Hockey sense alone is no longer enough in today's league (not that Pettersson is some hockey genius either). Miller brings both, so people love him. Pettersson brings neither, so people don't love him. At a basic level it's that simple.

Pettersson also seems to struggle with honest self-reflection at least some of the time, which does not endear him to the fans either. In addition to demanding the big contract.

I honestly don't think he's been particularly horrible this year, he's been equally lackluster at times in previous years. The points are not coming as easily for him this year, and people are also seeing him through a different lens because of his contract.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Petey is definitely an upper echelon player, which makes his roller-coaster career all the more fascinating to me. If you look at the tier of players he should be ranked with, none of them has the highs and lows as much as he does. Some players starts their career low and ramp up as they get accustom to the league and/or got stronger/faster. Some player start fast and then fade as the league "figures him out". Some gets injured and are never the same again. Some gets injured, have a down season, recover, and regains form.

But EP starts out blazing, winning the Calder, then kind of struggled (maybe wrist injury?), then rebound to become a 100 pt player, then injured again and is struggling again.

I really hope he bounce back again, peak Petey is so much fun to watch and, unless both him and Hughes are in top form, we are probably not going to be a very good team.

 

[Quinning]

I still think they're going to trade him now that his production has significantly improved. It might come as a shock to many, but I think management doesn't see him as a long-term asset for what he's about to make per season. They can't be comfortable having seen his disappearing act in three separate seasons. It could also solve the need for a top 4 defenceman.

I'm sure the market has improved now that he's back to solid production. Maybe I'm wrong.