NO, you just don't understand what logical fallacies are, or how they work.

However, I was wrong about Gardiner, I didn't realize one of his 30 point seasons was in the minors during the lockout. Big deal. Y'all still shut up quick about zone starts and QOC though.
- James_Tanner

Sam Woo Jr.

But I hope you know it's all an act. Absolutely no one could be so vapid.
- habman75

It works for sure. Not many blogs are getting 175+ comments in the middle of July. But I do believe he loves his own brand a little too much. Especially when he alludes to Jamie Benn being overpaid because he's not "Defensively reliable." Jamie Benn Led the Stars in takeaways, hits, blocked shots and shorthanded points. So I don't buy that narrative for a minute.

I think his point was around... why would Gardiner make the jump (because of the 1% room for error).... but the other players ahead of him wouldn't?... so the argument of the 1% room for error would apply to all the players.. thus keeping him at 61st.

Which is "okay".. definitely top 4... with arguments for top 2.
- kneughter

The point isn't to move Gardiner up and no one else. The point is that players 29 through 61 have so little difference in their competition that it is a meaningless difference. It's not cherry picking, it's discounting anyone else.

It's unbelievable that this needs to be explained.

The frigging hilarious part is that QOC doesn't explain anything away in the first place and I only included it because I knew if I didn't people would complain. However, I was naive for thinking anyone here actually wanted a real conversation - you guys just want to insult people and troll the blog.

Further hilarious is that while you continue to pretend that QOC or Zone Starts matter, you fail to address that they only matter when they suit the argument of trying to explain away a player who's reputation is being superseded by the statistical analysis.
- James_Tanner

I didn't troll...I asked a legitimate question how a "top 60" d-man gets bumped up to top 30 b/c of margin for error, yet those other 30ish players don't jump into the top 30 you placed Gardiner. I may not be a math major but 60ish players can't all be top 30ish players. Further, I'm not discounting the small difference in the numbers, but when looking at many of the analytics the differences are minuscule yet in this case your argument is the minuscule difference is actually non-existent due to margin for error yet in other arguments the margin for error (or minuscule difference) isn't even mentioned.


Also, it isn't just "reputation". Gardiner isn't even top pair on his (frank)ing team. So either your argument is you know more than the Leafs brass OR there is some underlying "reason" for his analytics numbers showing up higher than his level of play on the ice.

I don't disagree that zone starts are minor in the grand scheme, however they do "matter". Just watch a game and see how coaches deploy certain players in the "tough" situations (d-zone etc). Do they have a big affect on analytics? Small IMO. Where you and I fully disagree is on QoC, especially when it comes to home/road splits. But hey I have presented evidence to you using your analytics that there is a home/road difference but in true hypocrite fashion you didn't

actually change your mind when confronted with new information

.

minus: people implying that "All Lives Matter" is racist. I was at a Desiigner concert and one of the opening Hip Hop guys who was black told the crowd that all lives matter. Yes it undermines the Black Lives Matter movement that doesn't make it racist. BLM is a stupid movement and are only increasing racial tensions in the States.

I agree with you on Benn though.
- flamminghead

It's all about No Lives Matter: We're all equally worthless.

I already know about Rinne.
Tampa and Pittsburgh will be a middle-of-the-pack team or a cup favorite?
- SimmerDown17

Well Tampa was done last year when Yzerman made the worst non-move in the history of the NHL not trading Drouin for peanuts.

In related news, I remember seeing a post about "destroying credibility"

No I didn't miss the point at all, you're missing it. It is a virtual guarantee that if someone replied to a statement that Tanner made in that manner, without a shadow of a doubt, Tanner would've dodged the actual topic of the conversation, and accused the poster of making an appeal to authority. Pretty simple.
- MJL

ur not sharp

You're ability to complain about inconsistencies while offering absolutely nothing original or interesting to a conversation is second to none.

You said (and I am paraphrasing here) "your argument is so full of holes it would be easy to destroy it" and then you complained about something that is basically semantics and didn't even have one good point.

Pathetic.
- James_Tanner

your

This is your argument: Instead of learning or at least questioning what I assumed to be true, I'm just basically going to say "I know you are, but what am I" to everything you said. I won't say why, I'll just say it's dumb because.


In school, this is called Pee-Wee Hermaning and it is not an approach that warrants much response.
- James_Tanner

What?


All this time I thought Pee-Wee Hermaning was getting caught taking a number 3 in a public place

I didn't troll...I asked a legitimate question how a "top 60" d-man gets bumped up to top 30 b/c of margin for error, yet those other 30ish players don't jump into the top 30 you placed Gardiner. I may not be a math major but 60ish players can't all be top 30ish players. Further, I'm not discounting the small difference in the numbers, but when looking at many of the analytics the differences are minuscule yet in this case your argument is the minuscule difference is actually non-existent due to margin for error yet in other arguments the margin for error (or minuscule difference) isn't even mentioned.


This is only regarding one aspect, quality of competition. The difference between the players was minuscule, so instead of saying he was 61st, and having people say "that's not very good" I simply pointed out that the difference between 30-60 was not very much. I don't even think QOC even really matters all that much in the big picture because it's very, very hard to get favorable matchups for players, but I was only overcoming an objection, which was that his numbers were only good because he played easy competition , which clearly is false. I don't really see how this is difficult to understand.

Also, it isn't just "reputation". Gardiner isn't even top pair on his (frank)ing team. So either your argument is you know more than the Leafs brass OR there is some underlying "reason" for his analytics numbers showing up higher than his level of play on the ice.

But why is Morgan Rielly/ Hunwick called the "top pair" when they basically face the same competition and play the same amount of minutes? So this objection is overcome as well/.


I don't disagree that zone starts are minor in the grand scheme, however they do "matter". Just watch a game and see how coaches deploy certain players in the "tough" situations (d-zone etc). Do they have a big affect on analytics? Small IMO. Where you and I fully disagree is on QoC, especially when it comes to home/road splits. But hey I have presented evidence to you using your analytics that there is a home/road difference but in true hypocrite fashion you didn't .
- uf1910

What?


All this time I thought Pee-Wee Hermaning was getting caught taking a number 3 in a public place





- poohcrumbs

ur not sharp
- McSavioursPupil

Nope, just right!

- James_Tanner

This is only regarding one aspect, quality of competition. The difference between the players was minuscule, so instead of saying he was 61st, and having people say "that's not very good" I simply pointed out that the difference between 30-60 was not very much. I don't even think QOC even really matters all that much in the big picture because it's very, very hard to get favorable matchups for players, but I was only overcoming an objection, which was that his numbers were only good because he played easy competition , which clearly is false. I don't really see how this is difficult to understand.

For the bold...I have presented DIRECT (frank)ing evidence that there are differences in matchups and resulting analytics for players based on home/road splits. Yet here you are still arguing that these differences don't exist. All the while completely ignoring that favorable matchups are "easier" to get with home teams getting last change.

Also, to counter this. I have seen you repeatedly (even in this thread) talk about Kane and his favorable matchups (Malkin as well). About all I can add to this is ummmm, hypocrisy much?

Nope, just illiterate
- MJL

Fixed that

Fixed that


- McSavioursPupil

Still missing the point by miles and miles.

You can't defend that trade. Players like Taylor Hall don't grown on trees. I'm even more mad that you virtually gave him away to one of our competitors. I watch Devils games. Larsson is a slug. He's a defensive equivalent of Josh Bailey or Nail YakuBust. Your GM should have been committed to a psych ward after making a deal like this.

You can't defend that trade. Players like Taylor Hall don't grown on trees. I'm even more mad that you virtually gave him away to one of our competitors. I watch Devils games. Larsson is a slug. He's a defensive equivalent of Josh Bailey or Nail YakuBust. Your GM should have been committed to a psych ward after making a deal like this.
- BringNYIhome

Larsson is good. What games are you watching? Larsson isn't Taylor Hall equivalent good.

Still missing the point by miles and miles.
- MJL

*pats your head*

yes yes of course.

*pats your head*

yes yes of course.
- McSavioursPupil

Let me know when you actually figure it out. Get personal all you want.

Let me know when you actually figure it out. Get personal all you want.

- MJL

I got it figured out.

The logical fallacy you used was incorrect, that is all.

It is just like you, simple.

I got it figured out.

The logical fallacy you used was incorrect, that is all.

It is just like you, simple.
- McSavioursPupil

Thanks for reinforcing that you completely missed the point. The actual logical fallacy is irrelevant. The fact that you need to get personal, says it all. I have not made one personal remark to you. Your position is so strong, that you need to do so.

You can't defend that trade. Players like Taylor Hall don't grown on trees. I'm even more mad that you virtually gave him away to one of our competitors. I watch Devils games. Larsson is a slug. He's a defensive equivalent of Josh Bailey or Nail YakuBust. Your GM should have been committed to a psych ward after making a deal like this.
- BringNYIhome

Not a very Intelligent hockey fan.

Larsson is good. What games are you watching? Larsson isn't Taylor Hall equivalent good.
- tomburton99

Intelligent Hockey fan.

Intelligent Hockey fan.
- Jeropotato

You can't defend that trade. Players like Taylor Hall don't grown on trees. I'm even more mad that you virtually gave him away to one of our competitors. I watch Devils games. Larsson is a slug. He's a defensive equivalent of Josh Bailey or Nail YakuBust. Your GM should have been committed to a psych ward after making a deal like this.
- BringNYIhome

Would you be happier if we got a fair trade of Eberle for Hamonic?