NO. What I did was prevent that from happening. You have no idea.
Yeah, Patrick Laine has a bad Corsi - but NO ONE is evaluating him just based on that. However, even if they were, they'd know that Laine would have to sustain an 80's level shooting-percentage just to be a positive net benifit to his team.

The only people using single numbers and making crazy assumptions based on one stat or another are the people who make preposterous statements to debunk things.


- James_Tanner

What do you think my statement in my post of saying there is a better argument to be made was about James? Unfortunately, you didn't make that argument then, you just replied with a ridiculous extreme and rare weather event. The poster wasn't really evaluating the players, it was more about the stat.

I literally do not care what you think though. You can accuse me of doing what I am speaking out against, but I was very clear: listening to other people does not mean listening to everyone and everything. You have a horrible misunderstanding of how this stuff is used, and you constantly use intellectually dishonest misleading arguments to go against things I say. Therefore, there is no point arguing with you. We are not two equally informed people having a debate. I am informed, you are either not informed or intentionally trolling and there is just no point in arguing with you, or people like you. I cannot address every whacked out idea, but I think I've shown way more patience in dealing with honest misunderstandings than I need to anyways.


- James_Tanner

This is your fallback position James. Whenever someone confronts you with a reasonable retort, you make straw man arguments. My personal opinion is that you're badly informed on the use of analytics and how to apply them.

I'm not even saying my way is 100% right. I'm just saying when I choose to listen to people who make good arguments that may help me evolve and or change my mind, one of those people will not be you. No offense.
- James_Tanner

That's what you don't understand. Your blog basically said my way is 100% right, and criticized others who don't think the same way. You said that those not using your methods are just "guessing". The issue is that when your presented with a counter opinion, your world is crushed. Like a kid who finds out there is no Santa Clause.

You cannot offend me.

NO. What I did was prevent that from happening. You have no idea.
Yeah, Patrick Laine has a bad Corsi - but NO ONE is evaluating him just based on that. However, even if they were, they'd know that Laine would have to sustain an 80's level shooting-percentage just to be a positive net benifit to his team.

The only people using single numbers and making crazy assumptions based on one stat or another are the people who make preposterous statements to debunk things.

I literally do not care what you think though. You can accuse me of doing what I am speaking out against, but I was very clear: listening to other people does not mean listening to everyone and everything. You have a horrible misunderstanding of how this stuff is used, and you constantly use intellectually dishonest misleading arguments to go against things I say. Therefore, there is no point arguing with you. We are not two equally informed people having a debate. I am informed, you are either not informed or intentionally trolling and there is just no point in arguing with you, or people like you. I cannot address every whacked out idea, but I think I've shown way more patience in dealing with honest misunderstandings than I need to anyways.

I'm not even saying my way is 100% right. I'm just saying when I choose to listen to people who make good arguments that may help me evolve and or change my mind, one of those people will not be you. No offense.
- James_Tanner

Using hyperbole in an analogy and intentionally twisting what I am saying isn't fooling anyone.

I wasn't evaluating Patrick Laine on Corsi.

I was evaluating corsi based on the way it ranks players and it is pretty (frank)ing bad.

But I am sure when the dust settles, you will pull out your favourite stat and use it to tell us all about how player A is better than player B or why some GM made a horrible decision. I just enjoy using your own numbers to show how stupid your use of these stats is.

NO. What I did was prevent that from happening. You have no idea.
Yeah, Patrick Laine has a bad Corsi - but NO ONE is evaluating him just based on that. However, even if they were, they'd know that Laine would have to sustain an 80's level shooting-percentage just to be a positive net benifit to his team.

The only people using single numbers and making crazy assumptions based on one stat or another are the people who make preposterous statements to debunk things.

I literally do not care what you think though. You can accuse me of doing what I am speaking out against, but I was very clear: listening to other people does not mean listening to everyone and everything. You have a horrible misunderstanding of how this stuff is used, and you constantly use intellectually dishonest misleading arguments to go against things I say. Therefore, there is no point arguing with you. We are not two equally informed people having a debate. I am informed, you are either not informed or intentionally trolling and there is just no point in arguing with you, or people like you. I cannot address every whacked out idea, but I think I've shown way more patience in dealing with honest misunderstandings than I need to anyways.

I'm not even saying my way is 100% right. I'm just saying when I choose to listen to people who make good arguments that may help me evolve and or change my mind, one of those people will not be you. No offense.
- James_Tanner

MJL isn't a troll. And he certainly isn't misinformed. You're simply frustrated because he's far more intelligent than you, which renders you incapable of countering his extremely logical and well-balanced arguments in any meaningful way. So you do what you always do when outmatched - you give up, refuse to admit your mistake, and hurl insults. It's your calling card

I think we can all learn something from this comment section.

Um, excuse me, sir. I think you missed me. I was in line when that gentleman got here.

What do you think my statement in my post of saying there is a better argument to be made was about James? Unfortunately, you didn't make that argument then, you just replied with a ridiculous extreme and rare weather event. The poster wasn't really evaluating the players, it was more about the stat.



This is your fallback position James. Whenever someone confronts you with a reasonable retort, you make straw man arguments. My personal opinion is that you're badly informed on the use of analytics and how to apply them.





That's what you don't understand. Your blog basically said my way is 100% right, and criticized others who don't think the same way. You said that those not using your methods are just "guessing". The issue is that when your presented with a counter opinion, your world is crushed. Like a kid who finds out there is no Santa Clause.


You cannot offend me.
- MJL

That's a lot of effort for trolling. I am starting to think you aren't being ironic at all. As to the bolded, we both know that isn't true.

Some observations: 1) you heard some smart kids talking about straw-man arguments, but you don't actually know what one is. 2) All of your arguments are anecdotal and you make terrible false equivalencies. 3) This is boring. Please do some reading before trying to argue with me again.

That's a lot of effort for trolling. I am starting to think you aren't being ironic at all. As to the bolded, we both know that isn't true.

Some observations: 1) you heard some smart kids talking about straw-man arguments, but you don't actually know what one is. 2) All of your arguments are anecdotal and you make terrible false equivalencies. 3) This is boring. Please do some reading before trying to argue with me again.
- James_Tanner

Youre entire comment sections are usually pretty boring.

That's a lot of effort for trolling. I am starting to think you aren't being ironic at all. As to the bolded, we both know that isn't true.

Some observations: 1) you heard some smart kids talking about straw-man arguments, but you don't actually know what one is. 2) All of your arguments are anecdotal and you make terrible false equivalencies. 3) This is boring. Please do some reading before trying to argue with me again.
- James_Tanner

Still haven't offended me. I used that term because I know instead of discussing the actual topic, you would deflect away from it, and go this route.

Not sure how my main point of the best way to evaluate players is to use all the tools available, including analytics, rather than just focusing on analytics alone, is anecdotal and filled with false equivalencies. Since that's what NHL teams actually do.

In order for you to be actually arguing with me, one you would need to actually be addressing the topic, and two, actually making a valid point and offering a rebuttal that makes some sense. Throwing around a bunch of fancy terms and words doesn't get it done.


Lastly, I want to talk hockey. Let me know when you're ready.

Still haven't offended me. I used that term because I know instead of actually discussing the actual topic, you would deflect away from it, and go this route. Whenever you use a logical fallacy, and are called out on it, you respond that your the only one who knows what it is. If you have to tell people how smart you are, you're probably not that smart. Hope I haven't offended you

Not sure how my main point of the best way to evaluate players is to use all the tools available, including analytics, rather than just focusing on analytics alone, is anecdotal and filled with false equivalencies. Since that's what NHL teams actually do.

In order for you to be actually arguing with me, one you would need to actually be addressing the topic, and two, actually making a valid point and offering a rebuttal that makes some sense. Throwing around a bunch of fancy terms and words doesn't get it done.


Lastly, I want to talk hockey. Let me know when you're ready.
- MJL

Nice job. I think you have done everything you can to engage Tanner into a logical discussion of the points you laid out previously, but sadly, he will not engage, he will deflect.

That's a lot of effort for trolling. I am starting to think you aren't being ironic at all. As to the bolded, we both know that isn't true.

Some observations: 1) you heard some smart kids talking about straw-man arguments, but you don't actually know what one is. 2) All of your arguments are anecdotal and you make terrible false equivalencies. 3) This is boring. Please do some reading before trying to argue with me again.
- James_Tanner

Trolling?

You are the master of pot vs. kettle

Still haven't offended me. I used that term because I know instead of discussing the actual topic, you would deflect away from it, and go this route.

Not sure how my main point of the best way to evaluate players is to use all the tools available, including analytics, rather than just focusing on analytics alone, is anecdotal and filled with false equivalencies. Since that's what NHL teams actually do.

In order for you to be actually arguing with me, one you would need to actually be addressing the topic, and two, actually making a valid point and offering a rebuttal that makes some sense. Throwing around a bunch of fancy terms and words doesn't get it done.


Lastly, I want to talk hockey. Let me know when you're ready.
- MJL

Don't forget ridiculous analogies that seem to be his only ammunition when his own numbers fail him.

Disappointing.

Disappointing.
- Tonybere

Wrong thread bruh

Wrong thread bruh


- Mordecai

Get the rink fixed up or did it get wrecked the last couple days?

T E N S I O N

Wrong thread bruh


- Mordecai

Not sure what you mean. I found Tanner's responses and lack thereof to be quite disappointing.