Shane Pinto vs Nils Hoglander

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

This is Hoglander AINEC. Not even heard of the other guy

No directed at you, and kind of on a tangent, but this post a good representation of the prevalent issue in our society today. "Def this! Because I don't know the alternative nor do I wish to make the effort."

 

[Ace of Hades]

Why becuse he is being compared to Hoglander??Pinto is a fantastic prospect much like he is,shouldnt be any shame in people saying they like him better

No, because there are plenty of posts that are saying Pinto will be much better and a posts that have Hoglander having third line upside. Makes no sense.

 

[topshelf15]

No, because there are plenty of posts that are saying Pinto will be much better and a posts that have Hoglander having third line upside. Makes no sense.

We really need to stop with these prospect polls IMHO no one knows how many will turn out until they have played at least 300 nhl games

 

[Bankerguy]

Anti Canuck sentiment here, take off the BIAS and go with the guy who actually produced at a 40 point pace (50 game sample)

Hoglander should win this until something comes up that proves this is not the correct choice.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Anti Canuck sentiment here, take off the BIAS and go with the guy who actually produced at a 40 point pace (50 game sample)

Hoglander should win this until something comes up that proves this is not the correct choice.

Why is that? If you want to use pace.

Hoglander 27 points in 56 games = 39.5 point pace
Pinto 7 points in 12 games = 47.8 points pace

Not seeing the anti-Canuck sentiment your referring to.
Sure Hog played 42 more games, there is no bias.
Plus he’s winning 2:1

 

[Xspyrit]

Why is that? If you want to use pace.

Hoglander 27 points in 56 games = 39.5 point pace
Pinto 7 points in 12 games = 47.8 points pace

Not seeing the anti-Canuck sentiment your referring to.
Sure Hog played 42 more games, there is no bias.
Plus he’s winning 2:1

Hoglander was also playing 3 more minutes per game on average

But these comparisons are kinda useless since "proven in the NHL" is such a huge factor for most voters. Gotta find players who have a similar experience because not enough people are projecting. Like these pre-draft ranking "sources", all they do is analyze stats... that's not projecting

If you watched Pinto enough in the NCAA, WJC and NHL, then you could have an idea of the player he should/could become. That's how you could decide to take him over the other. Doesn't mean the other guy is going to be crap whatsoever, so no need to take it personnal like some do.

If the question is "who is more proven", then yeah it's Hoglander duh but that,s pretty boring because you don't need to ask the question.

 

[Bankerguy]

Why is that? If you want to use pace.

Hoglander 27 points in 56 games = 39.5 point pace
Pinto 7 points in 12 games = 47.8 points pace

Not seeing the anti-Canuck sentiment your referring to.
Sure Hog played 42 more games, there is no bias.
Plus he’s winning 2:1

As my original post stated the choice should obvious when you have one player demonstrating pretty much top 6 offensive numbers over a 50 game sample.
Nothing can be prorated with any level of significant confidence on a 12 game sample size, hence my original post remains valid.

 

[Golden_Jet]

As my original post stated the choice should obvious when you have one player demonstrating pretty much top 6 offensive numbers over a 50 game sample.
Nothing can be prorated with any level of significant confidence on a 12 game sample size, hence my original post remains valid.

Lol, no it’s not obvious.
There is no significant confidence in. 50 game career either, that’s why it’s not obvious.

 

[Xspyrit]

As my original post stated the choice should obvious when you have one player demonstrating pretty much top 6 offensive numbers over a 50 game sample.
Nothing can be prorated with any level of significant confidence on a 12 game sample size, hence my original post remains valid.

A 10 y/o would be able to look at stats

Can you project though? It's much more difficult than reading a stat line. Anyone can do that

 

[Bankerguy]

Lol, no it’s not obvious.
There is no significant confidence in. 50 game career either, that’s why it’s not obvious.

Yes but now you're comparing Hoglanders production to some generality. (50 games relative to a career average of 300? or something else you did not define), this is intellectually disingenuous because I was comparing it to Pinto's. You changed the reference frame to fit your narrative.
A 50 game sample size is much more statistically reliable than 12. Period. Hence Hoglander is the obvious choice based on what has been demonstrated so far.

 

[Bankerguy]

A 10 y/o would be able to look at stats

Can you project though? It's much more difficult than reading a stat line. Anyone can do that

Projecting players is difficult and professional scouts and player-development staff build careers doing so.
No one on HF except for a few would be qualified to do so.
The Casual fan can only look at stats and prorate based on that with sample size defining the standard deviation and level of confidence metrics.
If a casual fan has "a take" on something that goes against the stats, he is either a fool, or one in a thousand who could probably make a legit career out of it with an NHL organization. Which do you claim to be?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yes but now you're comparing Hoglanders production to some generality. (50 games relative to a career average of 300? or something else you did not define), this is intellectually disingenuous because I was comparing it to Pinto's. You changed the reference frame to fit your narrative.
A 50 game sample size is much more statistically reliable than 12. Period. Hence Hoglander is the obvious choice based on what has been demonstrated so far.

and Hoglander -4 in 56 games
Pinto +6 (tied for team lead.) in 12 games as second line centre,
So I’ll take the centre over the winger.

 

[Bankerguy]

and Hoglander -4 in 56 games
Pinto +6 (tied for team lead.) in 12 games as second line centre,
So I’ll take the centre over the winger.

And with that same logic you'd take Leafs centerman Adam Brooks as he was a +4 and plays Center too....
You just never cease to amaze us with your deft ability to wield logic and demonstrate the very pinnacle of rationale responses and reason. We are truly lukcy to have you here a part of HF blessing us with your insights.

 

[Samsquanch]

Pinto is a huge unknown right now in many ways.

One the one hand, he was a freak in college hockey and won both the MVP and Selke equivalent trophies in his conference. Hes a supremely gifted, multi-sport athlete that was very late committing to hockey. And very, very dedicated to his craft and getting better (is the type who watches an unhealthy amount of video away from the rink on the players hes trying to emulate).

And in his first 12 games with the Sens, he looked incredible; like almost too good to be true. And he plays exactly the style of play the Sens are aiming for. And he and Stutzle looked brilliant together.

But on the other hand, like I already said, it almost feels too good to be true. I dont blame anyone for not being convinced yet, Im not either tbh. I need to see more. Feel free to choose Hoglander here my peeps, I'd prefer Pinto to lose this poll this off-season... There is nothing wrong with him continuing to fly under the radar for the time being.

Cant speak for Hoglander much, but holy crap Pinto has the potential to be a BEAST of a player some day if he keeps on the same trajectory. Like a very legit #1C thats a mix of play style between Bergeron and O'Reilly. Similar players and development level at the time of the draft for these 3 guys too, and went around the same spot.

Wouldnt consider trading him for anything tbh, not in a trade the other side would ever consider to be a fair deal anyways...

 

[Golden_Jet]

And with that same logic you'd take Leafs centerman Adam Brooks as he was a +4 and plays Center too....
You just never cease to amaze us with your deft ability to wield logic and demonstrate the very pinnacle of rationale responses and reason. We are truly lukcy to have you here a part of HF blessing us with your insights.

Likewise , especially with your obsession over a poll , and your significantly obvious player. Who cares when it’s not obvious. Later.

 

[Xspyrit]

Projecting players is difficult and professional scouts and player-development staff build careers doing so.
No one on HF except for a few would be qualified to do so.
The Casual fan can only look at stats and prorate based on that with sample size defining the standard deviation and level of confidence metrics.
If a casual fan has "a take" on something that goes against the stats, he is either a fool, or one in a thousand who could probably make a legit career out of it with an NHL organization. Which do you claim to be?

Yes it's difficult but it's very possible. Of course, people doing it professionally have a lot more time and resources to do it better and yield better results.

Who knows how many people on HF would be qualified to do so? There's a lot of knowledgeable people on this site and many with a great "understanding of the game" (can't comment on "the eye for the game" obviously). There's even people with scouting and pro playing experience.

Yes most people will be "casual" because there's only a certain amount of time you can invest into it. Most people work, spend a lot of time on social medias, video games, drinking, family, etc. I don't do any of that (or at least anymore) outside of family stuff. I don't really work much because I have been good at "projecting" stocks, crypto, real estate and even hockey cards. I also haven't been following any other sport (outside of World Cup/Euro) so had a lot of time to invest in hockey as it has been my main interest through the last 3 decades, playing, watching, researching.

I still consider myself closer to a casual fan than a pro obviously but I would say an amateur with extensive experience. I have been projecting players correctly (and uncorrectly) for a long time; not talking about obvious high end picks but guys like Duncan Keith, Keith Yandle or Erik Karlsson for example. Speaking of EK, I bought pretty much all his valuable rookie cards on Ebay when they were made available. Eventually sold most of them, made 30 K$ profit in the process (and still have several valuable ones). I was pretty confident the guy was going to be damn good so I threw a lot of money in him. I did that with several players. Sometimes I was wrong, sometimes injuries derailed the player, sometimes I did very well.

You can take me as a fool if you want and I don't know if I could have made a legit career out of it. I was an executive in sales/management at 28 y/o so who knows? Hard to know if you never tried.

Anyway, not sure why it derailed to this but all I am saying is if you are trying to project a player, your evaluation can't just stop at "sample size". These players both had a development curve before that.

 

[Sting]

At the beginning of the year I would have said Hoglander. He didn't disappoint in his first NHL season either - I think he has the opportunity to be a great top 6 option.

Pinto we've seen less of between the two players...but what we have seen from him in the NHL thus far...the guy is an absolute fiend on the puck. This was a 20 year old zipping around the ice and overpowering full blown NHLers.

He put up solid numbers in a small sample while not having a ton to work with re: linemates.

I feel Hoglander has more upside due to pure talent, but Pinto is in my opinion a lot more likely to carve out a good career as a #2C.

 

[Benttheknee]

As my original post stated the choice should obvious when you have one player demonstrating pretty much top 6 offensive numbers over a 50 game sample.
Nothing can be prorated with any level of significant confidence on a 12 game sample size, hence my original post remains valid.

If the choice is obvious, the poll is stupid. I chose too close to call, so it isn't obvious to everybody.

 

[elitepete]

Easily Hoglander.