Why will this team not go all in?

[Dekes For Days]

weren't you the one who posted xgf to show that Matthews produces more with marner than without...

No, I posted GF/60, not xgf. We literally went over this a few posts ago...

I posted the scoring with and without to address a specific question about whether Matthews produced better with Marner or without, because you decided to post a false claim without bothering to see if you were actually correct. That is not the equivalent of cherry picking one part of the significantly smaller sample with zero context and drawing broad conclusions about a player - which is what you attempted to do.

 

[Antropovsky]

No, I posted GF/60, not xgf. We literally went over this a few posts ago...

I posted the scoring with and without to address a specific question about whether Matthews produced better with Marner or without, because you decided to post a false claim without bothering to see if you were actually correct. That is not the equivalent of cherry picking one part of the significantly smaller sample with zero context and drawing broad conclusions about a player - which is what you attempted to do.

So you think it's fair to respond and post gf/60 of Marner and Matthews away from eachother vs together without context to show how the gf/60 is higher together rather than apart.

But you don't think it's fair to respond and post Marner and Matthews individual gf/60 stats together vs apart without context.

Your trying to say now that context is needed to discuss why Marners gf/60 is lower without Matthews than Matthews is without Marner. BUT didn't think the same context was needed when you happily postes that Marner and Matthews gf/60 is better together than without?

Very interesting thought process... when the stats favored Marner you didn't think context and small sample sizes mattered...but when they don't favor him, you think the very same stats do. No, your not biased at all, not a tiny bit.

 

[Dekes For Days]

So you think it's OK to post stats of Marner and Matthews away from eachother vs together to show how they are more effective together than apart.
But you don't think it's ok to post stats to show the stats of which player has the better stats when not playing together?

I think it's okay to post a stat that's relevant to a specific claim about how production looks together vs. apart, for the purposes of specifically addressing that claim.
I don't think it's okay to draw broad conclusions about players based on cherry picking a stat from the small sample away from their main situation with no context.

 

[Antropovsky]

I think it's okay to post a stat that's relevant to a specific claim about how production looks together vs. apart, for the purposes of specifically addressing that claim.
I don't think it's okay to draw broad conclusions about players based on cherry picking a stat from the small sample away from their main situation with no context.

Both of them are specific claims that you've responded to.

It's the very same thing:

Marner and Matthews tandem stats together vs away... which you had no problem responding to.

Vs

Marner and Matthews individual stats together vs not together. Which you think is unfair to look at.

I'm sorry what is the difference?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Both of them are specific claims that you've responded to.

Let's recap...

You entered a thread that's about the team going all in, and unsurprisingly, tried to make it all about Marner. You immediately quoted multiple of my posts. You isolated the one stat (shots) he didn't have in one game in the series, while ignoring all of the other numerous positive things he did in that specific game and throughout the series. You also attempted to dismiss each of Marner's playoff points and attribute them to others.

As part of the process of putting down Marner, you made a false claim that Matthews produces better away from Marner. I addressed that specific claim, and posted Matthews' GF/60 with Marner and without - where there was a massive discrepancy - to provide evidence that your claim was not true. Then you started making false claims about the things I was doing, and throwing around accusations because I didn't simultaneously provide additional statistics that had no relevance to anything being discussed. You demanded that I do this additional research for you. I provided you the website so that you could do it yourself, because as I noted from the beginning, it was irrelevant to the discussion.

In the meantime, you incorrectly stated the statistics I had posted. I corrected you, and noted the actual statistics I posted. Then you got upset that I corrected you, and made personal attacks towards me, before again claiming that I posted a different statistic than the one I did. Eventually, without ever actually posting the statistics you supposedly looked up, you exaggerated the relatively minor discrepancy in the GF/60 of these two players in the "away from" sample, to seemingly suggest that Marner was carried. You inquired why this discrepancy existed, and when I answered why it's natural to have a discrepancy like that given the different situations that the small, mishmashed "away from" sample represented for these two players, you completely dismissed it and called it excuses.

You demanded a more in-depth explanation. I provided you an in-depth explanation of what we were seeing and why, and explained how it was bad to draw conclusions about a player based on a contextless surface level outcome, relative to another player, in the "away from" sample that represents differing situations and a tiny portion of their overall time. You then completely ignored everything I said, and tried to equate two different discussions to - in your mind - invalidate you being proven wrong with your original claim. You don't seem to realize that the original stats posted were a lot more about the together stats with a sizeable sample that were among the best in the league, than making a statement based on the away stats, and you claim that my original statistics also require context, but have failed to provide a single piece of it, let alone any context that changes the conclusion that Matthews and Marner produce better together.

As I noted before, posting a stat that's relevant to a specific claim about how production looks together vs. apart, for the purposes of specifically addressing that claim is not the same as drawing broad conclusions about players based on cherry picking and exaggerating the discrepancy in a stat from specifically the small, differing sample away from their main situation with no context. I also noted how this especially didn't really say anything about player B when player A was the reigning Hart trophy winner and one of if not the best player in the world. One would expect him to be more self-reliant than literally anybody anyway. But also, that's a far, far more intricate debate than a very simple question about whether x player produced more with y player or without.

I don't really have an interest in getting into another circular debate again where you don't even address any of the things I say. I have made myself clear. I have substantiated my position extensively, and explained it in detail to you. I don't expect you to change your mind because literally nothing has or ever will make you change your mind about Marner, so let's get back to the original question of "why will this team not go all in".

 

[Antropovsky]

Let's recap...

You entered a thread that's about the team going all in, and unsurprisingly, tried to make it all about Marner. You immediately quoted multiple of my posts. You isolated the one stat (shots) he didn't have in one game in the series, while ignoring all of the other numerous positive things he did in that specific game and throughout the series. You also attempted to dismiss each of Marner's playoff points and attribute them to others.

As part of the process of putting down Marner, you made a false claim that Matthews produces better away from Marner. I addressed that specific claim, and posted Matthews' GF/60 with Marner and without - where there was a massive discrepancy - to provide evidence that your claim was not true. Then you started making false claims about the things I was doing, and throwing around accusations because I didn't simultaneously provide additional statistics that had no relevance to anything being discussed. You demanded that I do this additional research for you. I provided you the website so that you could do it yourself, because as I noted from the beginning, it was irrelevant to the discussion.

In the meantime, you incorrectly stated the statistics I had posted. I corrected you, and noted the actual statistics I posted. Then you got upset that I corrected you, and made personal attacks towards me, before again claiming that I posted a different statistic than the one I did. Eventually, without ever actually posting the statistics you supposedly looked up, you exaggerated the relatively minor discrepancy in the GF/60 of these two players in the "away from" sample, to seemingly suggest that Marner was carried. You inquired why this discrepancy existed, and when I answered why it's natural to have a discrepancy like that given the different situations that the small, mishmashed "away from" sample represented for these two players, you completely dismissed it and called it excuses.

You demanded a more in-depth explanation. I provided you an in-depth explanation of what we were seeing and why, and explained how it was bad to draw conclusions about a player based on a contextless surface level outcome, relative to another player, in the "away from" sample that represents differing situations and a tiny portion of their overall time. You then completely ignored everything I said, and tried to equate two different discussions to - in your mind - invalidate you being proven wrong with your original claim. You don't seem to realize that the original stats posted were a lot more about the together stats with a sizeable sample that were among the best in the league, than making a statement based on the away stats, and you claim that my original statistics also require context, but have failed to provide a single piece of it, let alone any context that changes the conclusion that Matthews and Marner produce better together.

As I noted before, posting a stat that's relevant to a specific claim about how production looks together vs. apart, for the purposes of specifically addressing that claim is not the same as drawing broad conclusions about players based on cherry picking and exaggerating the discrepancy in a stat from specifically the small, differing sample away from their main situation with no context. I also noted how this especially didn't really say anything about player B when player A was the reigning Hart trophy winner and one of if not the best player in the world. One would expect him to be more self-reliant than literally anybody anyway. But also, that's a far, far more intricate debate than a very simple question about whether x player produced more with y player or without.

I don't really have an interest in getting into another circular debate again where you don't even address any of the things I say. I have made myself clear. I have substantiated my position extensively, and explained it in detail to you. I don't expect you to change your mind because literally nothing has or ever will make you change your mind about Marner, so let's get back to the original question of "why will this team not go all in".

This line is gold "substantiated my position extensively"

You posted just one stat: gf/60. When asked to post further stats, you spent pages refusing to and still haven't posted the requested stats.

Do you think the two stats you posted tells the entire story in a complex team game? Additionally, you yourself say that I said "produces".... which is a very broad term that could mean ALOT. Yet you have tied it to one stat - gf/60 and refuse to discuss any further than that. Have I been under a rock, does "produces" in the NHL now mean "gf/60" only? Or is this you "cherry picking" a stat and then straw manning me to it?

Let me put aside 35 minutes in my calendar so I can prepare to read your next post. Or could you do me a big favor and cut the fluff and keep to just the important hockey stuff?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Do you think the two stats you posted tells the entire story in a complex team game?

Of course not. However, a stat that shows the production of a player with and without another player does address the specific question of what the production of a player with and without another player is.

Additionally, you yourself say that I said "produces".... which is a very broad term that could mean ALOT. Yet you have tied it to one stat - gf/60 and refuse to discuss any further than that.

GF/60 was the most relevant stat to look at, and I haven't refused to discuss it. You haven't at any point provided contrary statistics or even indicated that you were referring to anything else. You're only now pretending that you meant some other mysterious thing all along because your other arguments were dismantled.

 

[Antropovsky]

Of course not. However, a stat that shows the production of a player with and without another player does address the specific question of what the production of a player with and without another player is.

GF/60 was the most relevant stat to look at, and I haven't refused to discuss it. You haven't at any point provided contrary statistics or even indicated that you were referring to anything else. You're only now pretending that you meant some other mysterious thing all along because your other arguments were dismantled.

So it is the one most relevant stat to look at? Damn... it's that cut and dry huh. Jeez why do NHL teams bother hiring teams of analytics department? Why are there so many other stats examined? How to some players slip through cracks and become successful after traded? I mean this one stat, as you have explained it, clearly is a crystal ball to a players success.

Look forward to your expert response. What a breakthrough!!!

 

[Dekes For Days]

So it is the one most relevant stat to look at? Damn... it's that cut and dry huh. Jeez why do NHL teams bother hiring teams of analytics department? Why are there so many other stats examined? How to some players slip through cracks and become successful after traded? I mean this one stat, as you have explained it, clearly is a crystal ball to a players success.

Nobody said that it's the only stat we ever need to look at for all things, or that it's some crystal ball to a player's success, or anything close to anything you just said. It was just the most relevant stat to address the specific question of how the production of a player with and without another player compared. Funny how you take such issue with it, and yet here you are still making pointless sarcastic remarks instead of posting this secret, mysterious stat that supports your claim and you actually meant all along but just didn't bother to mention for days.