Mo Rielly - "Our Norris Trophy Candidate"

[Mr Hockey]

I'd say the people around here interested enough to look at the nerd numbers also sound to me from their posting that they watch more games and more closely too.

The people who hate the nerd numbers, from their postings sound to me like they don't ever watch other teams play, and even when watching the leafs don't notice much more than what's happening immediately around the puck. Their takes seem dependent on what the broadcast chooses to show replays about, for the most part.

some people opinions seem to be based just off the nerd numbers too ...

 

[Bluelines]

Aside from Reilly having top of the line skating ability. It ends there. Reilly on the PP with that talent, shows his confusion, hesitate and average hockey IQ. Reilly can not disguise his passes and is not a confident hockey player overall. He is the #3 or #4 dman on this team and currently the most over rated player on the Leafs. I would not sign him. Reilly will show again his warts in the playoffs.

Ouch, a little harsh there.

Rielly is not an elite #1 but he could be a good #1 on half the teams in the league. I tend to gravitate towards defenders who are solid defenders. Guys Karlsson and Subban never really had much attraction for me, I can appreciate their elite talents but their defensive lapses were too much for me to overlook. In the end if I was to pick a team of 6 elite shut down defenders or a team of 6 Subban's in his Norris year, I pick the 6 elite shut down defenders. As long as your defenders can limit shots to the net, have active sticks, keep the slot clear, shut down passing lanes and move the puck out of their own end to an attacking forward, I'm happy. Brodie is probably the closest defender on our team that meets that description.

With that said my own personal bias would put Brodie #1, Rielly #2, Muzzin #3.

 

[Stephen]

Seems like an accurate summary

Not sure I agree with that. Seems like the thesis is generally premised on the idea that “This Leaf Is Better” based on this set of numbers and then we are taken down a rabbit hole which doesn’t compute with what you’d see in a live game.

For example, we wouldn’t get too far discussing Girard vs Rielly on the finer points of puck control along the blueline in a PP but you might get a points pace quote.

 

[Gallagbi]

Not sure I agree with that. Seems like the thesis is generally premised on the idea that “This Leaf Is Better” based on this set of numbers and then we are taken down a rabbit hole which doesn’t compute with what you’d see in a live game.

Seems like the rabbit hole ends up leading to a few common questions which is basically

1. Lack of conversion - is that goaltending or players.
2. How does that compare to the league - which is usually a numbers v. Highly anecdotal
3. How many saves are we getting - is it enough compared to the quality of chances.

Truthfully id argue a lot of what's said without backup is simply bias. I try to balance what I see and not rely purely on numbers (which is why I show clips or name situations rather than just stats), but thats also a challenge.

If nothing else, a numbers based argument at least has some history and backup. It's very rare to see stats without at least some tie to the league as a comparison. It's extremely common to see things like "we don't generate enough chances to score" or "no goalie makes those types of saves" and a lot of those (I won't say all) don't hold up when you expand the sample

 

[Gary Nylund]

It's funny that you think your opinion on the Big Name Dmen comes from you watching them instead of just from their reputation.

You should watch players like Pelech, Toews, and Girard, Fox more. Fantastic dmen that should be in the Norris convo.

Come to think of it, you should watch the likes of Hedman, Jones, Carlson, etc in their own end more closely too.

Actually he told me to watch more, yet you didnt have any issue with him.

Nice deflection LOL. If you don't want to answer, why not just say no to begin with?

But here's my question for you:

If you don't believe in the numbers, and don't watch non-Leafs games, how can you make any actual conclusions or have opinions on any team including the Leafs? How they do and perform is relative, and some of that will be outside the division itself.

We all have opinions, I base mine one what I see, what I hear, what I read etc., the same way we all do I guess.

As far as actual conclusions go, I guess I'd say I don't make many., especially when it comes to comparing teams outside our division.

What does is mean when you say "believe in numbers". Numbers are just numbers, what's not to believe? I just know that numbers almost always need more numbers for context and jumping to conclusions without that context isn't smart.

Zeke's post showing xGF% or whatever it was is a good example of what I'm talking about. He posted one set of raw numbers for only 10 players, no other numbers for context and not even one sentence to say what he thinks these numbers add to the conversation. So I believe the numbers but what do they tell us, what do they add to the conversation (if anything) is another story. It seems like he's suggesting that Rielly is one of the best Dmen in the league (from the context of the discussion) but who knows? The only thing I know for sure is that without other numbers to provide context, those numbers don't mean a whole lot (and he has an annoying habit of bombarding the forum with raw numbers he copies from somewhere without context and without adding a comment to say what the numbers add to the discussion).

 

[Bluelines]

Nice deflection LOL. If you don't want to answer, why not just say no to begin with?



We all have opinions, I base mine one what I see, what I hear, what I read etc., the same way we all do I guess.

As far as actual conclusions go, I guess I'd say I don't make many., especially when it comes to comparing teams outside our division.

What does is mean when you say "believe in numbers". Numbers are just numbers, what's not to believe? I just know that numbers almost always need more numbers for context and jumping to conclusions without that context isn't smart.

Zeke's post showing xGF% or whatever it was is a good example of what I'm talking about. He posted one set of raw numbers for only 10 players, no other numbers for context and not even one sentence to say what he thinks these numbers add to the conversation. So I believe the numbers but what do they tell us, what do they add to the conversation (if anything) is another story. It seems like he's suggesting that Rielly is one of the best Dmen in the league (from the context of the discussion) but who knows? The only thing I know for sure is that without other numbers to provide context, those numbers don't mean a whole lot (and he has an annoying habit of bombarding the forum with raw numbers he copies from somewhere without context and without adding a comment to say what the numbers add to the discussion).

Great post.

 

[Gallagbi]

As far as actual conclusions go, I guess I'd say I don't make many., especially when it comes to comparing teams outside our division.

So do you think you're holding your own opinion to the same standard you do with those who are supported by numbers? Seems like you want the numbers to be all encompassing and/or perfect for lack of a better word, but are fine using your own bias and sources without that same expectation?

What does is mean when you say "believe in numbers". Numbers are just numbers, what's not to believe? I just know that numbers almost always need more numbers for context and jumping to conclusions without that context isn't smart.

So do you provide that additional context in your own assumption? Think of your position on Fred, are you comparing his play vs. the average and the difficulty in saves? Are you tracking? If not, how do you reconcile?

Zeke's post showing xGF% or whatever it was is a good example of what I'm talking about. He posted one set of raw numbers for only 10 players, no other numbers for context and not even one sentence to say what he thinks these numbers add to the conversation. So I believe the numbers but what do they tell us, what do they add to the conversation (if anything) is another story. It seems like he's suggesting that Rielly is one of the best Dmen in the league (from the context of the discussion) but who knows? The only thing I know for sure is that without other numbers to provide context, those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

Would you ask me for the same detailed analysis if I say Girard is a great defender? @Stephen made a great comparison of Girard and Letang above - did you ask what part of their skating? Did you ask for the context of splits and how their lap times compare? Did you ask if he's talking about speed or style? Agility or straight line? Did you ask the number of games he watched or how Letangs skating has taken a hit the past few years?

Did you ask Hot Pockets the same type of questions you asked Zeke about comparisons and context? Looks like he brought up the "watch the games point".

Point being I rarely, if ever, see those challenges between people who primarily rely on their eyes. I do see a lot of "well there are other factors" comments when a stat is posted though.

Just seems like a huge double standard to me.

 

[Stephen]

Seems like the rabbit hole ends up leading to a few common questions which is basically

1. Lack of conversion - is that goaltending or players.
2. How does that compare to the league - which is usually a numbers v. Highly anecdotal
3. How many saves are we getting - is it enough compared to the quality of chances.

Truthfully id argue a lot of what's said without backup is simply bias. I try to balance what I see and not rely purely on numbers (which is why I show clips or name situations rather than just stats), but thats also a challenge.

If nothing else, a numbers based argument at least has some history and backup. It's very rare to see stats without at least some tie to the league as a comparison. It's extremely common to see things like "we don't generate enough chances to score" or "no goalie makes those types of saves" and a lot of those (I won't say all) don't hold up when you expand the sample

For me, I try to describe a player as a snap shot in time, so good, bad, ugly and then reference previous snap shots, so you get a crude cartoon, and then throw in a little future projection as a trajectory.

I also love the management angle and future planning so the resource management and allocation aspects of the game are fun. So generally I love the Leafs but I’m very comfortable coming down hard on players if I think they’re not living up to the bargain and damaging the overall health of the program.

So I see other trend which I’d categorize as setting up favourable statistical comparisons between Leaf players and other players and the insight is often the Leaf player is better, and the conclusion that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. But sometimes the grass is a lot greener on the other side, and downplaying that is no good.

 

[Gallagbi]

For me, I try to describe a player as a snap shot in time, so good, bad, ugly and then reference previous snap shots, so you get a crude cartoon, and then throw in a little future projection as a trajectory.

I also love the management angle and future planning so the resource management and allocation aspects of the game are fun. So generally I love the Leafs but I’m very comfortable coming down hard on players if I think they’re not living up to the bargain and damaging the overall health of the program.

So I see other trend which I’d categorize as setting up favourable statistical comparisons between Leaf players and other players and the insight is often the Leaf player is better, and the conclusion that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. But sometimes the grass is a lot greener on the other side, and downplaying that is no good.

I'd say we see posts on both sides that are doom and gloom statistically.

We see bad goalie stats currently, we saw bad chance numbers in Babcock's last days. We've seen responses with P% v. Total points, shootout wins/losses, etc..

Id say there is generally a balance there, but right now we're a pretty good team (likely top 5-7 IMO) so we should see stats that back it up. When we weren't as strong, we'd see worse numbers from some of the same people.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So do you think you're holding your own opinion to the same standard you do with those who are supported by numbers? Seems like you want the numbers to be all encompassing and/or perfect for lack of a better word, but are fine using your own bias and sources without that same expectation?

It's hard for me to comment without knowing which opinions you're talking about. Is there a specific opinion I've stated that you'd like to ask about? If so, fire away and I'll try to answer (it would be ideal if you could quote me so nothing gets lost to interpretation).

I'm not sure numbers are ever all encompassing. In most cases raw numbers aren't worth much but the more context you add (which can be more numbers) the better they get. I'm not sure numbers are ever all encompassing but with enough context I think they can be pretty decent.

So do you provide that additional context in your own assumption? Think of your position on Fred, are you comparing his play vs. the average and the difficulty in saves? Are you tracking? If not, how do you reconcile?

What's your issue with my position on Fred? I think most of the people agree that overall, he's been below average for quite some time now. Do you disagree? If almost all of us agree, what is there to reconcile?

I would add that raw data for one single stat never tells the whole story but for goalies, if the sample size is big enough then SV% is really good. I'd say that over a full season, if you took every goalie with say 40 starts and ordered by SV%, that would be a pretty accurate ranking for how they played during that time. At least I can't think of a single stat for skaters that comes anywhere close to that. JMHO.

Would you ask me for the same detailed analysis if I say Girard is a great defender? @Stephen made a great comparison of Girard and Letang above - did you ask what part of their skating? Did you ask for the context of splits and how their lap times compare? Did you ask if he's talking about speed or style? Agility or straight line? Did you ask the number of games he watched or how Letangs skating has taken a hit the past few years?

Did you ask Hot Pockets the same type of questions you asked Zeke about comparisons and context? Looks like he brought up the "watch the games point".

Point being I rarely, if ever, see those challenges between people who primarily rely on their eyes. I do see a lot of "well there are other factors" comments when a stat is posted though.

Just seems like a huge double standard to me.

I rarely get involved in discussions comparing players and as far as Girard vs Letang, I really don't care.

I'm interested in what people think. Doesn't matter if it's about what they see or what they think about numbers. There have been some discussions about stats that I've followed with great interest. What I roll my eyes at is then someone buts into a discussion with a post consisting of nothing more than copy-pasted numbers without saying what they believe those numbers add to the conversation. That's why I sometimes ask for clarification though I guess I shouldn't bother asking Zeke any more - usually he responds with sarcastic BS or he just ignores/deflects the question.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Id say there is generally a balance there, but right now we're a pretty good team (likely top 5-7 IMO) so we should see stats that back it up. When we weren't as strong, we'd see worse numbers from some of the same people.

Just curious, what are you basing this on?

Not saying you're wrong, just curious. I see that the top 12 teams by PTS% are pretty closely bunched and I'd have no idea how to order them myself.

 

[zeke]

Nice deflection LOL. If you don't want to answer, why not just say no to begin with?

Ok I've watched 7gms each.

Now I'm sure that satisfies your honest good faith question.

Zeke's post showing xGF% or whatever it was is a good example of what I'm talking about. He posted one set of raw numbers for only 10 players, no other numbers for context and not even one sentence to say what he thinks these numbers add to the conversation. So I believe the numbers but what do they tell us, what do they add to the conversation (if anything) is another story. It seems like he's suggesting that Rielly is one of the best Dmen in the league (from the context of the discussion) but who knows? The only thing I know for sure is that without other numbers to provide context, those numbers don't mean a whole lot (and he has an annoying habit of bombarding the forum with raw numbers he copies from somewhere without context and without adding a comment to say what the numbers add to the discussion).

I actually gave you all the context you needed in the posts immediately prior to that post.

And I know you read them, so you have exactly the context you need, but you choose to ignore it, as usual.

But we both know you are only bringing up "context" in order to dismiss the numbers, not in order to understand them. Once I give you context, you will jump to the next reason to dismiss them. This happens every time, without fail.

This is what you do - and then you will oh so innocently wonder why my responses to you don't play your game.

 

[Gallagbi]

Just curious, what are you basing this on?

Not saying you're wrong, just curious. I see that the top 12 teams by PTS% are pretty closely bunched and I'd have no idea how to order them myself.

Overall P%, current record, ROW, xGF%, GF%, my personal viewing and general bias.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

For me you want to be considered for a Norris trophy as best dman in hockey then you have to be able to do it all ... same as a Hart trophy ... problem is non-hockey people voting and their perceptions ...to me if you have not played at minimum in O/Q/W then you should not have a vote ... it is why I would never ever ever give McJesus da Hart (almost zero defense) ... same reason why Karlsson and Subban should never ever ever win da Norris ... these are 1 dimensional players ... to win da Hart you must be great offensively first and foremost, defensively and carry your team when your team needs it most importantly ... to win a Norris you must be a top defensive player first and foremost who your team puts on ice to lockdown games, then you must contribute on PK, then you must contribute offensively 5on5 and lastly on PP ... to me really only a few guys qualify Doughty, Hedman, Petro, Josi and Jones ... Gio has dropped out ... after that there are some kids who may enter dance at some point .. but guys like Rielly, Carlson, Karlsen, Letang (less so), Subban etc are nice to have on a team if you can afford luxury but they are not pure defenders first and foremost (and like Rielly did last game quite frankly just lose you games you should have won)

 

[Antropovsky]

Was incredibly impressed with Tanev when we played Calgary. He would’ve been a great pickup for Rielly partner too. Would love to have both Tanev and Brodie.

 

[Gallagbi]

It's hard for me to comment without knowing which opinions you're talking about. Is there a specific opinion I've stated that you'd like to ask about? If so, fire away and I'll try to answer (it would be ideal if you could quote me so nothing gets lost to interpretation).

I'm not sure numbers are ever all encompassing. In most cases raw numbers aren't worth much but the more context you add (which can be more numbers) the better they get. I'm not sure numbers are ever all encompassing but with enough context I think they can be pretty decent.

What's your issue with my position on Fred? I think most of the people agree that overall, he's been below average for quite some time now. Do you disagree? If almost all of us agree, what is there to reconcile?

I would add that raw data for one single stat never tells the whole story but for goalies, if the sample size is big enough then SV% is really good. I'd say that over a full season, if you took every goalie with say 40 starts and ordered by SV%, that would be a pretty accurate ranking for how they played during that time. At least I can't think of a single stat for skaters that comes anywhere close to that. JMHO.

We can start with Fred here if you like. "Below average" - can we expand on that? Where would you put him and what's the impact been to this team in the standings because of it? How long is "quite some time now"? Where does he go from here and where do we go as a team, I know you've mentioned trade previously to improve our goaltending.

I rarely get involved in discussions comparing players and as far as Girard vs Letang, I really don't care.

Isn't this whole discussion based around Morgan Rielly and how he compares vs. other top D?

I'm interested in what people think. Doesn't matter if it's about what they see or what they think about numbers. There have been some discussions about stats that I've followed with great interest. What I roll my eyes at is then someone buts into a discussion with a post consisting of nothing more than copy-pasted numbers without saying what they believe those numbers add to the conversation. That's why I sometimes ask for clarification though I guess I shouldn't bother asking Zeke any more - usually he responds with sarcastic BS or he just ignores/deflects the question.

I've watched you chase Zeke frequently and I know he provided you with a significant amount of numbers in the last thread I saw you asking. I also notice a double standard of your expectations between him and many of the other posters commenting, where you choose not to question. It's nothing to be ashamed of, I question those I don't agree with much more frequently than I comment on something I do agree with, but let's call it that rather than pretending it is a less comprehensive comparison than others are using. There's plenty of "Marner is great, you're an idiot" posts that go without a response, so let's not pretend it is just the lack of context. I'd also say the stats are available - if I post the team's HDCF, you can bet I'm talking about chances. If I post xGA, you can bet I'm talking about defensive play.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I actually gave you all the context you needed in the posts immediately prior to that post.

And I know you read them, so you have exactly the context you need, but you choose to ignore it, as usual.

But we both know you are only bringing up "context" in order to dismiss the numbers, not in order to understand them. Once I give you context, you will jump to the next reason to dismiss them. This happens every time, without fail.

This is what you do - and then you will oh so innocently wonder why my responses to you don't play your game.

What a bunch of crap.

You post tons of numbers here all the time, you are completely inconsistent with what numbers you post to compare teams/players and whenever you're called on it, you either ignore, deflect or say some BS like "oh sometimes I post old school numbers because that's what you guys like". And god forbid anyone else should post those same "old school numbers", then you'll mock them for being so meaningless. Maybe you'll develop some intellectual honesty some day but until then, I will try to remember not to direct any questions your way so spam away.

Overall P%, current record, ROW, xGF%, GF%, my personal viewing and general bias.

I mostly go by PTS% and goal differential plus whatever I know about how healthy teams have been. I'd say that if you consider xGF% then should also look at SV% but whatever (just an observation, not trying to be a nit).

 

[zeke]

What a bunch of crap.

You post tons of numbers here all the time, you are completely inconsistent with what numbers you post to compare teams/players and whenever you're called on it, you either ignore, deflect or say some BS like "oh sometimes I post old school numbers because that's what you guys like". And god forbid anyone else should post those same "old school numbers", then you'll mock them for being so meaningless. Maybe you'll develop some intellectual honesty some day but until then, I will try to remember not to direct any questions your way so spam away.



I mostly go by PTS% and goal differential plus whatever I know about how healthy teams have been. I'd say that if you consider xGF% then should also look at SV% but whatever (just an observation, not trying to be a nit).

The context was there. You ignored it. As usual.

 

[Gary Nylund]

We can start with Fred here if you like. "Below average" - can we expand on that? Where would you put him and what's the impact been to this team in the standings because of it? How long is "quite some time now"? Where does he go from here and where do we go as a team, I know you've mentioned trade previously to improve our goaltending.

Like I said, SV% is really good so take the goalies with a good number of starts, order by that and that's about where I'd put him.

Quite some time now - since the beginning of last season (except he was good in the playoffs).

Where does he go from here - ask Dubas but I'd be surprised if he was part of our team next season.

Where do we go as a team - how the hell should I know, I can't tell the future.

Isn't this whole discussion based around Morgan Rielly and how he compares vs. other top D?

Sure and I'm interested to read what people think. When people copy paste numbers I might ask for clarification (like what are you saying these number tell us) but I guess I'll stop making that mistake and ignore those posts in the future.

I've watched you chase Zeke frequently and I know he provided you with a significant amount of numbers in the last thread I saw you asking. I also notice a double standard of your expectations between him and many of the other posters commenting, where you choose not to question. It's nothing to be ashamed of, I question those I don't agree with much more frequently than I comment on something I do agree with, but let's call it that rather than pretending it is a less comprehensive comparison than others are using. There's plenty of "Marner is great, you're an idiot" posts that go without a response, so let's not pretend it is just the lack of context. I'd also say the stats are available - if I post the team's HDCF, you can bet I'm talking about chances. If I post xGA, you can bet I'm talking about defensive play.

I'm interested in what people think, not stats that are copy/pasted without context. Zeke used to give honest answers sometimes when I asked him for some clarification, lately as a rule he no longer does that. He also has attributed several statements to me I've never made so ... I don't think there's much else to say here.

I question other posters quite frequently, that doesn't mean I have time to comment on every post I don't agree with so sure, sometimes I let posts like "Marner is great, you're an idiot" pass without comment.

You've spent a lot of time questioning me over the last couple of days - am I the only poster you disagree with or are you perhaps not the one who should be talking about double standards?

I believe I've tried to answer all your questions in good faith, would you agree with that?

 

[Bluelines]

Was incredibly impressed with Tanev when we played Calgary. He would’ve been a great pickup for Rielly partner too. Would love to have both Tanev and Brodie.

He was really solid in the last few games vs us, he would be a nice partner for Muz.

 

[Gallagbi]

Quite some time now - since the beginning of last season (except he was good in the playoffs).

Did you look at save% out of curiosity?

Where does he go from here - ask Dubas but I'd be surprised if he was part of our team next season.

Where do we go as a team - how the hell should I know, I can't tell the future.

I'm asking for your opinion, on the only team you watch. Where would you go right now with our goaltending?

*Last post on it for me, don't want to derail too much, but am interested to hear your response.

I question other posters quite frequently, that doesn't mean I have time to comment on every post I don't agree with so sure, sometimes I let posts like "Marner is great, you're an idiot" pass without comment.

You asked two people how many games they watch and excluded the person who brought the topic up. It was highlighted and you didn't ask them.

You've spent a lot of time questioning me over the last couple of days - am I the only poster you disagree with or are you perhaps not the one who should be talking about double standards?

Oh I'm hella biased right now and pretty much in general when it comes to responses. I see you chasing someone asking for answers that I don't believe you provide yourself and am calling it out.

Where I try not to be bias is in my own standards of what I expect from others and me. Disagreements are fine, but I'm finding it interesting how often some people want to dismiss numbers and aren't willing to dissect on-ice play or compare vs. the league.

Fred and goals against in general was a real obvious one to see those come out for many people. Chances and last playoffs was another great one. I expect we'll see some soon on our PP if production continues to struggle.b

I believe I've tried to answer all your questions in good faith, would you agree with that?

Truthfully? I think you're engaged in a guarded rather than open conversation. Maybe I'm the same, who knows

 

[Gary Nylund]

I hope you don't mind if I respond in red, I'm busier today than normal and I don't want to spend too much time on this with copy pasting the post into pieces.

Did you look at save% out of curiosity?

I do from time to time but haven't looked lately. I know Freddies' been bad though.

I'm asking for your opinion, on the only team you watch. Where would you go right now with our goaltending?

*Last post on it for me, don't want to derail too much, but am interested to hear your response.

It's hard to say for sure, it depends on what Freddie's condition is. What is the injury? What are the odds he recovers? How long has he been playing hurt etc.? More than likely though ,I think it makes sense to look into getting a new goalie now, one that could be a part of our team longer than just this season. I have no idea of course who's available and at what cost so not sure how realistic that is but I'd think with the expansion draft coming up, it might be possible to shake something loose.

You asked two people how many games they watch and excluded the person who brought the topic up. It was highlighted and you didn't ask them.

IIRC he didn't make any claims, he just said something like "you should watch games more" which I took as a general comment that some people rely too much on stats and too little on what they can see while watching. I agree with that, some people do indeed do that so I had no reason to question him.

Yogi Berra once said something like "sometimes you can see a lot by just watching". I agree with that too.

Oh I'm hella biased right now and pretty much in general when it comes to responses. I see you chasing someone asking for answers that I don't believe you provide yourself and am calling it out.

Where I try not to be bias is in my own standards of what I expect from others and me. Disagreements are fine, but I'm finding it interesting how often some people want to dismiss numbers and aren't willing to dissect on-ice play or compare vs. the league.

We're all biased. Some people rely too much on numbers, some rely too much on the eye test. And I don't need to back up claims that I haven't made.

Fred and goals against in general was a real obvious one to see those come out for many people. Chances and last playoffs was another great one. I expect we'll see some soon on our PP if production continues to struggle.b

I asked you this question:
You've spent a lot of time questioning me over the last couple of days - am I the only poster you disagree with or are you perhaps not the one who should be talking about double standards?

Unless I missed it, you didn't answer. And to be clear, you're asking why I'm asking more questions of Zeke then I am of other people so that's why I'm asking you the same thing. And if Zeke would give me a direct answer instead of deflecting, there would be a lot less back and forth with him but don't worry, I'm done asking him anything so you can rest easy.

Truthfully? I think you're engaged in a guarded rather than open conversation. Maybe I'm the same, who knows

I'm pretty sure I've answered every question you've directed at me (and there have been quite a number of them) and I have definitely done so honestly and in good faith. I'm sorry if you don't believe that to be the case.

 

[Gallagbi]

I hope you don't mind if I respond in red, I'm busier today than normal and I don't want to spend too much time on this with copy pasting the post into pieces.

No worries, my afternoon cleared up a bit. I just find the quoting easier, but whatever works

IIRC he didn't make any claims, he just said something like "you should watch games more" which I took as a general comment that some people rely too much on stats and too little on what they can see while watching. I agree with that, some people do indeed do that so I had no reason to question him.

Yogi Berra once said something like "sometimes you can see a lot by just watching". I agree with that too.

Actually his post was "those are clearly the 10 best and most influential defenders in the league. They’d go 1 to 10 for defensemen in a league wide redraft."

Then he justified with watch the games, etc.

I'd think that would lack the clarity and content you're concerned about with those who just post a number, no?

I asked you this question:
You've spent a lot of time questioning me over the last couple of days - am I the only poster you disagree with or are you perhaps not the one who should be talking about double standards?

Unless I missed it, you didn't answer. And to be clear, you're asking why I'm asking more questions of Zeke then I am of other people so that's why I'm asking you the same thing. And if Zeke would give me a direct answer instead of deflecting, there would be a lot less back and forth with him but don't worry, I'm done asking him anything so you can rest easy.

Apologies, I thought it was clear from the one above this about "hella bias"

I see you targeting people, Zeke specifically in this thread, with what I view as a double standard. I tend to respond more to active posters, especially when I see that. That's my bias. I've done it in your favour (remember those Kadri days?) and now towards you for the stats piece.

There are certain people, at certain times, that will draw far more attention to me.

I'm fully aware of it, my intent isn't to clarify, educate and ideally enlighten (either myself or them) in every circumstances for a post I disagree with. It's generally to kill time and have good discussions on subjects im either trying to understand or have an opinion on.

Now if you said you disagreed with a person and specified some reasons why, I'd likely ignore it or challenge it. Instead, you seem to be chasing arguments with a specific poster because they "lack context", but only for them and not others.

 

[Gary Nylund]

d most influential defenders in the league. They’d go 1 to 10 for defensemen in a league wide redraft."

I see you targeting people, Zeke specifically in this thread, with what I view as a double standard. I tend to respond more to active posters, especially when I see that. That's my bias. I've done it in your favour (remember those Kadri days?) and now towards you for the stats piece.

Sorry to be brief but I'm a bit rushed ATM.

That comment about 1 to 10 was obvious sarcasm. At least that's the way I understood it, I'd be shocked if I was wrong. Did you really not understand that to be sarcasm?

My point is that you're targeting me ITT so you shouldn't be one to complain about targeting.

I don't remember exactly who said exactly what about Kadri, that was years ago. I just remember who the biggest hater was, he's now on my extremely short ignore list.

 

[Gallagbi]

Sorry to be brief but I'm a bit rushed ATM.

That comment about 1 to 10 was obvious sarcasm. At least that's the way I understood it, I'd be shocked if I was wrong. Did you really not understand that to be sarcasm?

I understood him as making a point that others don't watch enough hockey to form a valid opinion.

Seems like you agreed, then questioned me and Zeke about the amount we watch.

My point is that you're targeting me ITT so you shouldn't be one to complain about targeting.

Actually my issue is your double standard. You want significant proof and backup for numbers, but are willing to form your opinion on admittedly limited (or non existent) viewing.

I'm sure @zeke is a big boy and can handle himself. I know I can. Call it what it is though and don't pretend you're on some truth hunt to ensure the board is providing adequate backup and substance for their opinion.