That isn't remotely true. Matthews played against men as an 18 year old and may well end up that league's MVP.
- James_Tanner

dude, Laine also played against men....in a stronger league.

i still don't think laine gets picked ahead of matthews, but your justification is ridiculous. that being said, i don't think matthews is as far ahead of laine as several people claim.......this will be the whole crosby/ovechkin thing again.....one is a more complete overall player, while the other has more elite offensive upside.....but both are very close in terms of talent.

Hey if it makes you feel all smart and stuff to rip on a guy who lives in a broken down Chrysler Lebaron out back of a burned down Dominoes, then be my guest.
- James_Tanner

I'll bet the cornmeal crust and your Aquaman poster really enhance your critical thinking skills

Hey if it makes you feel all smart and stuff to rip on a guy who lives in a broken down Chrysler Lebaron out back of a burned down Dominoes, then be my guest.
- James_Tanner

It there an 8-track player with Triumph playing? Or did you go all ghetto and hack a Teddy Ruxpin?

Only on the internet kids.
- James_Tanner

You mean, "only on the internet" can someone with the grammatical skills of a seven-year-old be paid fifty cents per week to wildly misinterpret basic statistics to a dozen readers on an illegitimate hockey tabloid site?

If that's what you meant, then I suppose you're right

Tanner,

You seem to be in the habit of misapplying rules of logic and probability. You did it the other day with your coin toss analogy and are doing so again here.

You are
- devils_mike[badly] attempting to apply rules of logic and probability where human behavior is concerned.

If you'd like to talk logic, then let's do so: your premise is fundamentally flawed which makes any conclusion you draw suspect, at best.

Yes, recency bias is a real thing. So is cherry-picking evidence to support a conclusion. But your specific citations of these principles is wrong. And as someone who stated earlier that you find a lack of logic offensive - I find your consistent misuse of information offensive.

Mind if I borrow this?...another good way of saying that figures lie and liars figure.

You can deflect all you'd like, but you have yet to really address any of the concerns that I, and others, have pointed out in your arguments.

It's not a case of me disagreeing with your opinions. If that's all it were, I would have read the blog and moved on.

You are justifying conclusions with misapplied logic and concepts (which is ironic since that seemed to be the intent of this entire blog). That is with what I take issue.
- devils_mike

Your concerns are as ridiculous as those of the guy who said the same thing in an illiterate fashion, but made doubly annoying by your condescending tone. As anyone who has a tenth grade education knows, in nearly all circumstances, the person who attempts to be condescending in place of offering an actual argument is nearly always wrong.

1) Matthews was the best pick for a year, and people who use a recent tournament to try to push a narrative that their might be a different #1 pick are wrong. No 'cherry picking' here, just pointing out a ridiculous thing that basically happens every year.

2) Brian Elliot is statistically the best goalie in the NHL this year. Again, no cherry-picking here either, this is factual. The outcome of the game doesn't matter - it was a mistake before the game is even played. Again, not sure what 'human elements' your talking about as it's a pretty cut and dried situation because no matter what you think might happen, it makes sense to play the better goalie, every time.

Using the outcome (Blues won) to go back and say 'hey the coach was right' is the problem I was pointing out, since as it's a two-outcome riddle, anyone can say this half the time.

3) As for starting Fleury, this is the dumbest one of all when you consider how good Matt Murray has played in general so far and the fact that, at his peak, Fleury is was always pretty mediocre.

So, once again. I fall for the trap of defending myself to people who have no clue what they're talking about, but whatever, it's Monday morning, I'm on break and it's always kind of fun anyways.

Your concerns are as ridiculous as those of the guy who said the same thing in an illiterate fashion, but made doubly annoying by your condescending tone. As anyone who has a tenth grade education knows, in nearly all circumstances, the person who attempts to be condescending in place of offering an actual argument is nearly always wrong.

1) Matthews was the best pick for a year, and people who use a recent tournament to try to push a narrative that their might be a different #1 pick are wrong. No 'cherry picking' here, just pointing out a ridiculous thing that basically happens every year.

2) Brian Elliot is statistically the best goalie in the NHL this year. Again, no cherry-picking here either, this is factual. The outcome of the game doesn't matter - it was a mistake before the game is even played. Again, not sure what 'human elements' your talking about as it's a pretty cut and dried situation because no matter what you think might happen, it makes sense to play the better goalie, every time.

Using the outcome (Blues won) to go back and say 'hey the coach was right' is the problem I was pointing out, since as it's a two-outcome riddle, anyone can say this half the time.

3) As for starting Fleury, this is the dumbest one of all when you consider how good Matt Murray has played in general so far and the fact that, at his peak, Fleury is was always pretty mediocre.

So, once again. I fall for the trap of defending myself to people who have no clue what they're talking about, but whatever, it's Monday morning, I'm on break and it's always kind of fun anyways.
- James_Tanner

1. Making the point that "it happens every year and is wrong, therefore if it happens this year it must wrong too" I believe is called a logical fallacy correct?

dude, Laine also played against men....in a stronger league.

i still don't think laine gets picked ahead of matthews, but your justification is ridiculous. that being said, i don't think matthews is as far ahead of laine as several people claim.......this will be the whole crosby/ovechkin thing again.....one is a more complete overall player, while the other has more elite offensive upside.....but both are very close in terms of talent.
- sensarmy_11

Pretty fair assessment.

I think being the center, from the Leafs perspective, makes him the choice.

1. Making the point that "it happens every year and is wrong, therefore if it happens this year it must wrong too" I believe is called a logical fallacy correct?
- sbroads24

Incorrect. It is simply an observation. Plus, you used quotes and misquoted me.

If I was actually saying what you wrote in quotes, then sure, you would be right. But my reasoning that Matthews is better is not predicated (at all) on the recurring narrative. Matthews is better because for a year everyone has said so, and using a small tournament to change that is the problem. Laine very well could end up better, but using his performance in one tournament is not a good reason to think so.

Pretty fair assessment.

I think being the center, from the Leafs perspective, makes him the choice.
- Aetherial

absolutely.....i think the leafs would be stupid to not take Matthews. for them he easily makes the most sense. that being said, i think the difference between him and laine in terms of talent is very very small.

Incorrect. It is simply an observation. Plus, you used quotes and misquoted me.

If I was actually saying what you wrote in quotes, then sure, you would be right. But my reasoning that Matthews is better is not predicated (at all) on the recurring narrative. Matthews is better because for a year everyone has said so, and using a small tournament to change that is the problem. Laine very well could end up better, but using his performance in one tournament is not a good reason to think so.
- James_Tanner

it's not just one tournament. Laine was probably the best player at the WJCH also....and down the stretch in the Finnish league was also probably the best player in that league (which is a stronger league than the Swiss league).

i don't think anyone is suggesting the leafs shouldn't take Matthews, but he's not a Conner McDavid. He's not the slam dunk best player in this draft, the gap between him and Laine is very very very small......if there even is a gap.

Your concerns are as ridiculous as those of the guy who said the same thing in an illiterate fashion, but made doubly annoying by your condescending tone. As anyone who has a tenth grade education knows, in nearly all circumstances, the person who attempts to be condescending in place of offering an actual argument is nearly always wrong.

So, once again. I fall for the trap of defending myself to people who have no clue what they're talking about, but whatever, it's Monday morning, I'm on break and it's always kind of fun anyways.
- James_Tanner

James,

First, I don't think I was condescending in any way. My attack on your argument construction is not the same as an attack on you.

Second, I find it perplexing that someone who writes a public blog is complaining about having to defend his arguments when called into question. That's kinda what you signed up for. I could maybe understand if I was the only one raising these questions, but I'm not.

Lastly, you are missing my entire point. I don't even disagree with some of your conclusions. What I disagree with is the how and why you are arriving at these conclusions. And yes, it matters. Reasoning matters when you use logic constructs to form an argument. If you simply said this is my opinion, it wouldn't matter. But you cannot misuse priniciples in logic and probability and expect everyone to stay quiet.

We could go back and forth on this forever. Obviously, we disagree and that's ok. But, I do think you owe the people who read your blog more professional responses in the future.

Your concerns are as ridiculous as those of the guy who said the same thing in an illiterate fashion, but made doubly annoying by your condescending tone. As anyone who has a tenth grade education knows, in nearly all circumstances, the person who attempts to be condescending in place of offering an actual argument is nearly always wrong.

1) Matthews was the best pick for a year, and people who use a recent tournament to try to push a narrative that their might be a different #1 pick are wrong. No 'cherry picking' here, just pointing out a ridiculous thing that basically happens every year.

2) Brian Elliot is statistically the best goalie in the NHL this year. Again, no cherry-picking here either, this is factual. The outcome of the game doesn't matter - it was a mistake before the game is even played. Again, not sure what 'human elements' your talking about as it's a pretty cut and dried situation because no matter what you think might happen, it makes sense to play the better goalie, every time.

Using the outcome (Blues won) to go back and say 'hey the coach was right' is the problem I was pointing out, since as it's a two-outcome riddle, anyone can say this half the time.

3) As for starting Fleury, this is the dumbest one of all when you consider how good Matt Murray has played in general so far and the fact that, at his peak, Fleury is was always pretty mediocre.

So, once again. I fall for the trap of defending myself to people who have no clue what they're talking about, but whatever, it's Monday morning, I'm on break and it's always kind of fun anyways.
- James_Tanner

You thinking that Hitchcock and Sullivan don't know what they're doing and that you are somehow a better judge of roster than they are is the funniest part. Your suppossed critical thinking skills are the equivilant of coaching a hotdog down the hallway. The most amusing part of all this is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.

Your concerns are as ridiculous as those of the guy who said the same thing in an illiterate fashion, but made doubly annoying by your condescending tone. As anyone who has a tenth grade education knows, in nearly all circumstances, the person who attempts to be condescending in place of offering an actual argument is nearly always wrong.

1) Matthews was the best pick for a year, and people who use a recent tournament to try to push a narrative that their might be a different #1 pick are wrong. No 'cherry picking' here, just pointing out a ridiculous thing that basically happens every year.

2) Brian Elliot is statistically the best goalie in the NHL this year. Again, no cherry-picking here either, this is factual. The outcome of the game doesn't matter - it was a mistake before the game is even played. Again, not sure what 'human elements' your talking about as it's a pretty cut and dried situation because no matter what you think might happen, it makes sense to play the better goalie, every time.

Using the outcome (Blues won) to go back and say 'hey the coach was right' is the problem I was pointing out, since as it's a two-outcome riddle, anyone can say this half the time.

3) As for starting Fleury, this is the dumbest one of all when you consider how good Matt Murray has played in general so far and the fact that, at his peak, Fleury is was always pretty mediocre.

So, once again. I fall for the trap of defending myself to people who have no clue what they're talking about, but whatever, it's Monday morning, I'm on break and it's always kind of fun anyways.
- James_Tanner

Ahhh it is Tuesday.. Just pointing out something factual.

Also, I agree on Matthews and Flower.. Why they put him in net is way beyond me...

it's not just one tournament. Laine was probably the best player at the WJCH also....and down the stretch in the Finnish league was also probably the best player in that league (which is a stronger league than the Swiss league).

i don't think anyone is suggesting the leafs shouldn't take Matthews, but he's not a Conner McDavid. He's not the slam dunk best player in this draft, the gap between him and Laine is very very very small......if there even is a gap.
- sensarmy_11

This is maybe the problem - what authority does anyone have to say there is a small gap? For over a year, the gap has been huge, but now, suddenly, so that there can be attention/controversy/hype/something to talk about the gap is "very very small."

I'd say the gap is huge. You have a potentially generational centre, vs a winger who is likely no better than your average #1 overall pick - and that's basing that on everything I have read in the last 1.5 years.

The hype for Matthews far exceeds your average RNH, Yakupov, Johnson, Hall type draft and he is - at worst - the same kind of Tavares, Stamkos shoe-in for going #1 overall.

James,

First, I don't think I was condescending in any way. My attack on your argument construction is not the same as an attack on you.

Second, I find it perplexing that someone who writes a public blog is complaining about having to defend his arguments when called into question. That's kinda what you signed up for. I could maybe understand if I was the only one raising these questions, but I'm not.

Lastly, you are missing my entire point. I don't even disagree with some of your conclusions. What I disagree with is the how and why you are arriving at these conclusions. And yes, it matters. Reasoning matters when you use logic constructs to form an argument. If you simply said this is my opinion, it wouldn't matter. But you cannot misuse priniciples in logic and probability and expect everyone to stay quiet.

We could go back and forth on this forever. Obviously, we disagree and that's ok. But, I do think you owe the people who read your blog more professional responses in the future.
- devils_mike

Holy S#$$!

Buddy, I answer every respectful criticism I get, and tons of disrespectful ones too. I have no problem being questioned or even mocked. But Your argument is so specious that I didn't even think it was worth my time.

For instance, you said I misused the principles of probability, and yet, I did not even discuss probability, except to point out that Playoff game has but two outcomes.

You mention human behavior, again, not something I'm really discussing - except in the sense that everything we do is a behavior of sorts and we are, obviously, humans.

Finally, my reasoning was rock solid - the better statistical goalie should play the most important game. However, this wasn't even my concern; my concern was people applying the outcome of a game retrospectively to confirm their idea that they were right all along in saying the goalie should be changed.

Whether you like my take on statistics or even what constitutes 'the best goalie' is irrelevant. My reasoning that working backwards to confirm your idea in a two outcome system is stupid is pretty rock-solid.

Also, you could argue, as some have, the gap between AM and PL was never that large or that there are reasons to like PL better. That's your prerogative but really not my point. My point - don't overrate one tourny because it's fresh in your head. Again, rock solid.

Now, certainly I screw up and not all my blogs are good. Maybe you're even a nice guy who had a good point but just can't write very well - no problems. But in general, the internet is a hateful, insidious place where people twist your words and relentlessly criticize minutia, so yeah, sometimes you respond out of frustration and maybe don't give the guy the credit his concerns deserve, but whatever, it happens.

You thinking that Hitchcock and Sullivan don't know what they're doing and that you are somehow a better judge of roster than they are is the funniest part. Your suppossed critical thinking skills are the equivilant of coaching a hotdog down the hallway. The most amusing part of all this is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.
- jimi james

So you don`t think NHL coaches can make mistakes? What is the point of analysis then?

And I do think its relevant to question ridiculous hockey tropes that are not based on anything logical - such as "sparking" your team with a goalie change. No one says you have to agree with me or even that I am right, but a blog echoing the great decisions of infallible professionals is hardly interesting or necessary.

Tanner,

You seem to be in the habit of misapplying rules of logic and probability. You did it the other day with your coin toss analogy and are doing so again here.

Ok, where?

You are
- devils_mike[badly] attempting to apply rules of logic and probability where human behavior is concerned.

OK, how?

If you'd like to talk logic, then let's do so: your premise is fundamentally flawed which makes any conclusion you draw suspect, at best.

Only statements, no examples.

Yes, recency bias is a real thing. So is cherry-picking evidence to support a conclusion.

Where did this happen?.

But your specific citations of these principles is wrong. And as someone who stated earlier that you find a lack of logic offensive - I find your consistent misuse of information offensive.

Even saying you're right, which I do not believe you are, all you've done is say things in a matter which makes it seem you know better. Do you? It's not impossible but since you give no examples to back up your statements, put adjectives into (incorrect) parenthesis and end on an insulting note, it comes across as very condescending.

Long-time readers of this blog can vouch for the fact that I never shy away from criticism or fail to at least attempt to defend the things I say. In the rare case where what I am saying turns out to be wrong (i.e Connor Murphy is a good defenseman in the NHL) I am happy to change my mind.

This is maybe the problem - what authority does anyone have to say there is a small gap? For over a year, the gap has been huge, but now, suddenly, so that there can be attention/controversy/hype/something to talk about the gap is "very very small."

I'd say the gap is huge. You have a potentially generational centre, vs a winger who is likely no better than your average #1 overall pick - and that's basing that on everything I have read in the last 1.5 years.

The hype for Matthews far exceeds your average RNH, Yakupov, Johnson, Hall type draft and he is - at worst - the same kind of Tavares, Stamkos shoe-in for going #1 overall.
- James_Tanner

we're talking about 17 and 18 year old kids here.....they develop and regress at incredible rates. it's very common for players to jump and fall by huge amounts, in terms of rankings and their development, over the course of a year.

as for the hype....the ONLY reason it exceeds the guys you mentioned is because everyone knew for the entire year that the leafs would likely be the front runner for that pick. i'm not taking anything away from the kid, he's clearly going to be a great player.......but he's getting all kinds of extra hype simply because the leafs have the pick. if you don't see that then you're delusional.

will he go 1st overall........almost certainly, the leafs need a top line center in a bad way.

will this kid be as good as the guys you named (stamkos, tavares, etc) possibly.....but there are never any guarantees.

is this a slam dunk pick (like mcdavid and crosby) no (frank)ing chance in hell.

this kid will be a very good hockey player.....but he's not a generational talent. we're not talking OV, crosby, mcdavid here. a lot of people are already saying he'll be better than eichel....but everything i've read (from 'experts") says that if he'd been available last year he 100% goes after mcdavid and eichel....and maybe even after strome and marner.

he'll go first..........but i think if you had a team picking first who didn't need a center as much as toronto, this wouldn't be the slam dunk pick you seem to think it is. for example, had edmonton or buffalo had the 1st pick i'd be willing to bet anything that Laine is going #1 overall (or they trade the pick)

So you don`t think NHL coaches can make mistakes? What is the point of analysis then?

And I do think its relevant to question ridiculous hockey tropes that are not based on anything logical - such as "sparking" your team with a goalie change. No one says you have to agree with me or even that I am right, but a blog echoing the great decisions of infallible professionals is hardly interesting or necessary.
- James_Tanner

Analysis without informed direct knowledge is an uninformed waste of time and nothing but self grandiosing foolishness.

Do you not actually think that the NHL coach weighed the fatigue and/or possible injury to his starting hot goaltender against his rested current and capable backup?

Give your (frank)ing head a shake

This is maybe the problem - what authority does anyone have to say there is a small gap? For over a year, the gap has been huge, but now, suddenly, so that there can be attention/controversy/hype/something to talk about the gap is "very very small."

I'd say the gap is huge. You have a potentially generational centre, vs a winger who is likely no better than your average #1 overall pick - and that's basing that on everything I have read in the last 1.5 years.

The hype for Matthews far exceeds your average RNH, Yakupov, Johnson, Hall type draft and he is - at worst - the same kind of Tavares, Stamkos shoe-in for going #1 overall.
- James_Tanner

A year ago Chychrun was supposed to be a bona-fide top 3 pick. He's fallen to 10 or 12 in some rankings. Players improve or regress. Laine has blown up. Heck 6 months ago JP was considered better than Laine

Talk about click bait. If you had watched even one second of game three in the StL v. SJ series, you'd know that Elliot's performance had been declining. He was fighting the puck on nearly every shot and his reactions post to post were nowhere near normal.

He is tired from playing so many games back-to-back. Changing to Allen is not a significant downgrade between the pipes, so giving Elliot rest when you've lost two games in a row and had been outplayed is not a bad move to 1) hold all of the players accountable for losing and 2) to give Elliot a well needed rest.
- eggsegan

To my eye, and I see the Blues more than most "dispassionate" observers, you don't lose much one way or the other going back and forth between Allen and Elliott, whichever one is dialed in. It really is a legit 1A/1B tandem, unlike most others around the league.

If matchups are evened out over time; and players who make it to the NHL don't have the same psychology as every other human; then teams would, over time, have the same record at home as they do on the road. Home ice advantage includes getting the last change, is negated by the first of your usual arguments. And having the support of the fans, negated by your concept that players don't need a spark.

Since we know teams have statistically significant better results at home, we've proven your logic false.
- Antilles

It's been proven that officials actually have a significant role in teams performing better at home, across all sports.

Finally, my reasoning was rock solid - the better statistical goalie should play the most important game. However, this wasn't even my concern; my concern was people applying the outcome of a game retrospectively to confirm their idea that they were right all along in saying the goalie should be changed.


- James_Tanner

The above is completely false. it's just another example of your over reliance on statistics. If it's all about stats, anyone could coach, just give me a spread sheet. If the better statistical goalie is hurt, not playing well, or whatever, than the coach should go with the player that he feels at the time, gives him the best chance to win. A coach certainly won't always be right, but that's what they get paid for. To make the tough decisions. It's really a shame how the game is all about stats for you. There is so much more to it.

So you don`t think NHL coaches can make mistakes? What is the point of analysis then?

And I do think its relevant to question ridiculous hockey tropes that are not based on anything logical - such as "sparking" your team with a goalie change. No one says you have to agree with me or even that I am right, but a blog echoing the great decisions of infallible professionals is hardly interesting or necessary.
- James_Tanner

It's coach speak, and cliches that coaches will give to the media when asked about a decision. You're making too much of that. Most of the time, it's just a gut decision, based on intuition. Ever heard of it? One of the strongest decision makers a human has is his intuition. But that can't be measured on a spread sheet.