Player Discussion Elias Pettersson - Please, Be Civil

[poler]

Maybe if they would have they would accomplished something here as a team.

Maybe JT held him accountable and EP is just soft and sensitive? Maybe thats why the management has jumped on the "he needs to be be better and more mature" train. Maybe its ALL EP

Maybe miller got traded from New York and Tampa Bay due to locker room issues

 

[4th line culture]

Maybe miller got traded from New York and Tampa Bay due to locker room issues

Tampa is soft and doesnt know how to win tho, that's why

 

[poler]

Tampa is soft and doesnt know how to win tho, that's why

At least they won two Stanley cups and we haven’t not sure what your talking about lol

 

[4th line culture]

At least they won’t two Stanley cups and we haven’t not sure what your talking about lol

Wait what?

 

[Snauen]

Would be stupid of Van to trade Pettersson now. He is going to be on team Sweden , coached by Sam Hallam at the upcoming 4-nations. The two won the SHL together. That tourney could become a confidence booster for Pettersson and also a good opportunity for Tocchet to take some notes and learn how to better utilize his 1C.

 

[calnuck]

Maybe if they would have they would accomplished something here as a team.

Maybe JT held him accountable and EP is just soft and sensitive? Maybe thats why the management has jumped on the "he needs to be be better and more mature" train. Maybe its ALL EP

Lots of maybes in there

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

JR's implication is not speculation, it is also direct evidence. He is not refuting that the danger of trade pushed Pettersson to sign. Ergo, it was a factor.

Taken together with (vetted) insider sources and the timing of both the Lindholm (insurance) and Pettersson deals, the total evidence (direct or indirect) should allow one to safely marginalize Brisson's evidence to the contrary. Unless, one has to preserve it in order seek a stalemate (like a life preserver)...

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.

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.


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.


We don’t know that there ever was a disagreement on the extent of his injury.


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.

I'm not sure how JR implying that Pettersson signed for fear of being deal wasn't also "extremely damning" to Brisson's argument, while Pettersson is signed, but Allvin's comment about preparation is extremely damning, while Pettersson is signed?

Allvin makes the comment because he does not believe Pettersson's poor play is a result of significant injury. Pettersson has already set the precedent that the impact of injury, whether significant or not to Allvin and Tocchet, is a factor in his performance. Example:

Season end press conference: Rutherford and Allvin were asked if Petey played hurt or with an injury. They said "no."

Player's season end conference: Petey was asked the same question, the answer was "Yes"
"been dealing with Knee Tendinitis since January".

Clear evidence of a misalignment.

Speaking of a balance of probabilities, which imo you are quite suspect in ascertaining here, here are JPat and Sekeres weighing the information at hand:



At the 6:50 min mark, they start talking Pettersson. Tocchet said the doctors clear the player, and then it's up to the player, and then Pettersson doesn't play against WSH.

They've been told (insider reports) that these are not serious injuries, yet when Pettersson doesn't play for 2.5 weeks when he was only expected to miss a few days, the optics are strange.

Sekeres senses a theme between Tocchet and Pettersson as being not on the same page regarding injuries and that because he's been isolated, and alienated, that he's done bleeding for this club...

These people (including Spector) are all clueing into the probable disconnect here, why are you incapable of doing the same?

 

[Hodgy]

JR's implication is not speculation, it is also direct evidence. He is not refuting that the danger of trade pushed Pettersson to sign. Ergo, it was a factor.

Here is Patrick Johnston on it who interviewed Rutherford:

“Rutherford said he didn’t know if the possibility of a trade ignited Pettersson’s willingness to sign a new deal.”

Taken together with (vetted) insider sources and the timing of both the Lindholm (insurance) and Pettersson deals, the total evidence (direct or indirect) should allow one to safely marginalize Brisson's evidence to the contrary. Unless, one has to preserve it in order seek a stalemate (like a life preserver)...

I don’t care what your conclusion is from a debate we had like one year ago. Like, Jesus Christ man. The point is your assertion that I showed “selection bias” I totally unfounded and I have no idea why we are even discussing this because it’s not helping your argument.

I'm not sure how JR implying that Pettersson signed for fear of being deal wasn't also "extremely damning" to Brisson's argument, while Pettersson is signed, but Allvin's comment about preparation is extremely damning, while Pettersson is signed?

JR said he didn’t know. But again, who cares, that’s a one year old argument that I don’t care to continue.

And yes, it is extremely damning. You are trying to shoe horn two totally different things and trying to somehow claim I am a hypocrite….and it makes zero sense.

Allvin makes the comment because he does not believe Pettersson's poor play is a result of significant injury. Pettersson has already set the precedent that the impact of injury, whether significant or not to Allvin and Tocchet, is a factor in his performance. Example:

Season end press conference: Rutherford and Allvin were asked if Petey played hurt or with an injury. They said "no."

Player's season end conference: Petey was asked the same question, the answer was "Yes"
"been dealing with Knee Tendinitis since January".

Clear evidence of a misalignment.

Or perhaps the injury was of such a minor note that Rutherford and Allvin weren’t even aware of it?

Speaking of a balance of probabilities, which imo you are quite suspect in ascertaining here, here are JPat and Sekeres weighing the information at hand:



At the 6:50 min mark, they start talking Pettersson. Tocchet said the doctors clear the player, and then it's up to the player, and then Pettersson doesn't play against WSH.

They've been told (insider reports) that these are not serious injuries, yet when Pettersson doesn't play for 2.5 weeks when he was only expected to miss a few days, the optics are strange.

Ya, I am not sure how strange that is. On the face of it, I agree, it’s a bit weird. But Pettersson would hardly be the first player to sit one extra game after being medically cleared and I think you are making much more of this than it likely is.

Sekeres senses a theme between Tocchet and Pettersson as being not on the same page regarding injuries and that because he's been isolated, and alienated, that he's done bleeding for this club...

These people (including Spector) are all clueing into the probable disconnect here, why are you incapable of doing the same?

Seems like a lot of speculation.