So when articles praise them, you and a few others like them..but when negative ones are posted they are authors trying to get clicks? When advanced stats are posted that reflect badly, they are cherry picked? But when stats are posted that appear to reflect well on Marner, then you like them?
I don't really care about articles by hockey media personalities in general, good or bad. They're pretty much all narrative-driven for clicks, because that's their job. Get views.
So you think that the numerous articles written about Marner by professional news sources are intentionally critical of his performance and "cherry pick" what you think are few bad advanced stats just because negative articles get more clicks than positive? So your saying these professionals lack ethics and integrity?
See below, I can tell you this though, usually those guys understand the game, unless of course the long slow decline into oldtimers disease came upon them prematurely.
Exactly
Don't mean anything is too harsh, probably more accurate to say don't mean much IMO. I'll grade him the same way I grade everyone else, mostly on how they do in the playoffs. Let's hope this is the year that Marner doesn't run out of gas after 86 games, that would help a lot!Mitch 2 assists in St Louis so far, too bad they don't mean anything
Make that 3Mitch 2 assists in St Louis so far, too bad they don't mean anything
It’s like that all the time. Of course they count
Yup... Lol everytime I see he's picked up points I go to the highlights to see the quality of points. Today was not abnormal, a pp primary assist to Matthews on the PP, a secondary assist at even strength (incredible effort by Knies on the goal) and an empty net assist. That's the Marner special right there lol.
And some peeps thinks that is somehow without value.
When he was struggling early I said no reason to worry, he'll no doubt get his points by the time the season's over, probably between 90 and 110. I also said I don't even care if I'm wrong and he only gets 70 points, just bring it in the playoffs, and not the just first 4 games either.
Your post is essentially just an example of the appeal to authority fallacy. There is no conspiracy theory, and while many media personalities do thrive on negativity as the easiest way to drive engagement, not every article about Marner is negative. You just choose to post those ones. I don't care about these articles, positive or negative. Their job is to craft an engaging narrative, not be correct. Most hockey media members don't understand advanced statistics, let alone these obscure microstats they're forced to fall back on when everything else contradicts their position. They're not using them properly. They're not looking at the context behind anything. They're not taking the full picture. They're just trying to find anything that, on the surface level, sounds good for their story. That's why the arguments in those articles fell apart with about 5 minutes of looking a bit deeper.
I assume this is some attempt at a gotcha, but even aside from the fact that writing articles and voting on hockey awards are very different things, and even aside from the fact that industry consensus is very different from some guy said a thing, I have also been outspoken about how ridiculous media-voting on awards is.
