Your take is at odds with common sense.
Rutherford offered direct testimony, you chose Brisson's Baghdad Bob speech. You chose it over the insurance policy (Lindholm trade), the CAR rumour (Friedman, Dhaliwal), Rutherford's 'direct testimony' implying that the trade scared Pettersson, Pettersson not re-signing until the TDL etc... What evidence did you analyze? All you did was triple down on a bad take because the majority of evidence spoke against your working theory. It's the same here.
In the debate on why Pettersson signed, I preferred Brisson’s evidence on the matter over the speculation of JR or rumours. This is a logical decision since Brisson quite obviously would have a better idea as to what Pettersson was thinking than JR’s speculation, and with respect to the rumours you submitted as evidence, the presumption is the direct evidence is more reliable than rumours. Ultimately, JR’s speculation and the rumours could be correct, but there is no “selection bias” in my decision to prefer Brisson’s evidence. In fact, selection bias for evidence would presumes all of the evidence is on a usual nature and literally the whole debate we had was about what evidence to prefer.
You’ve consistently misapplied the term selection bias in the context of evidence notwithstanding my numerous explanations.
Here, Allvin said something that aligns with what you already believe (Pettersson not seriously injured enough so as to have it affect his play) and are working backwards from that presumption.
I’m not working back from that presumption. This is just your unfounded speculation. I’ve analyzed the evidence and even then have acknowledged many times that I don’t definitively know. What I have said is that on a balance of probabilities I don’t think an injury is predominantly responsible for his poor play. Of course, I could be wrong. Most posters who take issue with my posts on this subject wrongly mischaracterize my position as being more absolutely and bold than it actually is.
Therefore, anything that fits, like Allvin calling out the player, is greenlit. Anything that doesn't, like Pettersson confirming the existence of the injury when returning, is red lighted/argued away. This is not analysis, it's confirmation bias.
I am analyzing each piece of evidence and drawing my own conclusions. Your view that it’s all “confirmation bias” is a lazy way of trying to dismiss my arguments without actually addressing them. Imagine if an litigator just told the judge the other side’s argument was “confirmation bias”. lunfounded and pure speculation.
And how have I “red lit” Pettersson’s own comments? You don’t have to argue away Pettersson basically saying his knees fine and there is no pain. You can interpret Pettersson’s own comments in a number of ways, but it isn’t an unreasonable interpretation that Pettersson himself viewed the injury as “insignificant”, or as he put it, nagging.
And ditto with my analysis of Alvin’s comments.
There is a disconnect between Allvin/Tocchet and Pettersson with regards to injuries and how injuries should affect play:
- Tocchet called out Pettersson's play in the playoffs (while he was injured)
- Pettersson disclosed an injury in the year end presser (shocking management per Johnston)
- Pettersson trains around said injury, but is ready to start
- His play still isn't right
- Pettersson leaves team with injury (same or otherwise) on Dec 23rd, 2024
- Allvin calls him out for preparation while he's injured on Dec 31, 2024
- Throughout, other players have played through injures: Hughes against SJ, Miller early on.
Allvin's preperation comment aligns with Tocchet's 'everyone is dinged up' comment in the playoffs. They're both frustrated with Pettersson, and were surprised by his injury disclosure. Pettersson re-iterated the presence of the injury when coming back. Their medical staff remains highly suspect. Pettersson's play seems impaired (correlation). Based upon that information alone you have to allow room for a disconnect between parties. And if you do, then the logic holds.
Allvin’s comments went way farther than just preparation and were extremely damning. If Alvin believed Pettersson’s poor play was predominately caused by an injury or if Pettersson has expressed he had a significant injury, then why the hell would the GM who just signed him to the the largest contract in team history publicly blast and embarrass him? It makes no logical sense and you continue to not address this issue. A far more likely explanation is that Pettersson hasn’t expressed that the injury is significant and that Allvin doesn’t believe it is, and that after the team trying a number of things to try to motivate and spur Pettersson to change his ways, the GM publicly put pressure on him.
Did disagreeing on the extent of the injury prevent Tocchet from calling Pettersson out in the playoffs?
We don’t know that there ever was a disagreement on the extent of his injury.
He had already signed his 8 year agreement. No? Then why it would it prevent Allvin from doing so now? While Pettersson is injured, no less...They don't respect Pettersson's assessment of his own injuries.
It all makes sense if you assume that Pettersson hasn’t expressed that his injury is significant and that Alvin also agrees, and that the team is frustrated with all of the things Alvin stated in his interview with IMac. Your interpretation requires Alvin to behave in an entirely irrational way which is possible but unlikely.
