some players will take less to play in florida. they have a slight advantage and with them being good makes it appealing.
- hello it's me 2050

No state income tax is another plus

Of course the evidence is there. The lower ppg % when having seasons where he was injured. It's an obvious reason. His ice time doesn't have to be lower for the injury and the recovery to have an effect on his ppg. The evidence is there, you just want to ignore which is another regular tactic of yours. Followed by an unsubstantiated claim by you that your position is not debatable. Followed up by insults.




You have zero data to support this. You're just trying to introduce facts not in evidence. There are plenty of examples of LBI injuries lingering. Very common with knee injuries. Claude Giroux took a full season to rebound from his hip issue before he was able to return to his high level of play. Groin by the way, is a LBI. LOL




That Point did not benefit from Kucherov is not my position. Of course he did. It worked the other way also.
- MJL

That is your hypothesis, not the evidence.

And yes about Giroux but you are claiming 4 seasons over 5 years not a single isolated dip. Usually, when players have had lingering issues that are chronic but not emergent, they have off-season surgery. The seasons preceding and subsequent recovery are often down seasons.

Point has had 1 major surgery it seems. Hip, in May 2019. An issue that apparently he has struggled with since his 2nd year. While playing with that issue, he has managed to have a great season in 18-19, right before the surgery. And for 2 years after that, he had (by his high standards), meh seasons.

The causality between injury and performance is simply not there in the stats.

That is your hypothesis, not the evidence.



- PT21

Incorrect. It is evidence of my position. It's reasonable. You just refuse to see it not based on the merit but due to who is offering it.

And yes about Giroux but you are claiming 4 seasons over 5 years not a single isolated dip. Usually, when players have had lingering issues that are chronic but not emergent, they have off-season surgery. The seasons preceding and subsequent recovery are often down seasons.


- PT21

I'm claiming injury as a possible reason for his point production to take a dip in seasons where he has missed games. A player does not have to have surgery for an injury to have affected him in season. Not every injury requires surgery.

Point has had 1 major surgery it seems. Hip, in May 2019. An issue that apparently he has struggled with since his 2nd year. While playing with that issue, he has managed to have a great season in 18-19, right before the surgery. And for 2 years after that, he had (by his high standards), meh seasons.

The causality between injury and performance is simply not there in the stats.
- PT21

It absolutely is there.

Looking at the seasons after his first two development seasons. In games during seasons when he has been healthy. He has averaged 1.10 ppg. In seasons where he has missed significant games due to injury, he has averaged .86 ppg. A significant drop. It is ignorant to excuse that as a factor.

Incorrect. It is evidence of my position. It's reasonable. You just refuse to see it not based on the merit but due to who is offering it.



I'm claiming injury as a possible reason for his point production to take a dip in seasons where he has missed games. A player does not have to have surgery for an injury to have affected him in season. Not every injury requires surgery.




It absolutely is there.

Looking at the seasons after his first two development seasons. In games during seasons when he has been healthy. He has averaged 1.10 ppg. In seasons where he has missed significant games due to injury, he has averaged .86 ppg. A significant drop. It is ignorant to excuse that as a factor.
- MJL

No, it is because what appears reasonable has to be justified statistically. Especially where there is a competing hypothesis (ice time with NK) which shows much stronger correlation with ppg.

And the reason you found the second bold is because you chose the first 2 weak years to be arbitrarily "developmental" while preserving the 3rd. My original sample set excluded the first but consistently included the second so you shifted the data set.

And you ignored the fact that the season in which he has his (tied) best ppg occurs exactly in the season when he should have been the most hobbled by injury.

Ok I think I have exhausted this topic. The only thing that would be served by continuing would be feeding your pathologies.

No, it is because what appears reasonable has to be justified statistically. Especially where there is a competing hypothesis (ice time with NK) which shows much stronger correlation


- PT21

You failed to document how that correlation is stronger. It's just another example of how you want to anoint something as being such without proving it. You also fail to take into consideration that I have not dismissed ice time with Kucherov as a factor.

And the reason you found the second bold is because you chose the first 2 weak years to be arbitrarily "developmental" while preserving the 3rd. My original sample set excluded the first but consistently included the second so you shifted the data set.


- PT21

It's common place for a young player to be an ascending player in the first few years. Especially with a later draft pick like Point. It's not arbitrary at all. It's simply part of a fair analysis to not skew the data due to the player obviously not being close to full development. I find that to be reasonable.

And you ignored the fact that the season in which he has his (tied) best ppg occurs exactly in the season when he should have been the most hobbled by injury.


- PT21

LOL. The season where he had his highest point totals, he played a full 82 games and did not miss a single game due to injury. With my premise being that injury was the cause of his ppg totals to dip in certain years. You have provided zero evidence that he should've been hobbled by injury in the 22/23 NHL season

Here is his injury report for his career. As you can see, during the 22/23 season, there is one notation for a injury issue and that was during the playoffs.

Ok I think I have exhausted this topic. The only thing that would be served by continuing would be feeding your pathologies.
- PT21

This is your standard fall back position when you have been outmaneuvered. You have not made an intelligent arguement. Your pathological need to resort to insults, shows your lack of intelligence. Happy to prove that again. You'll respond further.

You failed to document how that correlation is stronger.

You have provided zero evidence that he should've been hobbled by injury in the 22/23 NHL season. Here is his injury report for his career. As you can see, during the 22/23 season, there is one notation for a injury issue and that was during the playoffs.


This is your standard fall back position when you have been outmaneuvered. You have not made an intelligent arguement. Your pathological need to resort to insults, shows your lack of intelligence. Happy to prove that again. You'll respond further.
- MJL

Actually the correlation is more nuances. I mispoke. It is stronger in one direction but not by a huge margin. I will show in the next post.

The insults are warranted btw. I am fine with you disagreeing and would welcome a debate. But for anyone following this: Just look at the number of errors/inconsistencies you have made within the space of a few hours

1. Look at your definition of healthy. You brought up the example of Giroux playing hurt, even though he did not miss any games and his TOI did not dip below average. So, you suggest a player could be playing hurt even if he dresses and plays high mins. Fine.

But right after saying that, and after I tell you (and you can check) that Point was laboring throughout the 18-19 season and had bilateral hip surgery after that seaon, you choose to include that season as healthy. Why? because it was convenient for you to include his high ppg that season asa hralthy one (thus contradiucting your Giroux example).

2. You came up with averages for healthy and unhealthy seasons that are wrong because you are sloppy. You forgot/overlooked that the 20-21 was a 56 game season. Point played every game that season. Counting that season as healthy by your standard (no games missed, only 1 notation for injury), we get the 18-19, 20-21, 22-23, and 23-24 seasons as healthy, and the 19-20 and 21-22 as unhealthy. Those unhealthy seasons have 132 games and 122 points, leading to an average of 0.92 not 0.86. This will make a difference (next post).

3. Your "developmental years" choose to stop right when he has a breakout season. Thus the 3rd year, where he played with hip tears, is neither developmental nor unhealthy. But the 2nd year, where had a low ppg is developmental. *smile*

4. The 19-20 season, where he missed 4 games out of 70 (but was fully healthy when the season stopped due to Covid) is treated as unhealthy but the 18-19 season, where he missed 3 games (out of 82) and was on the verge of hip surgery is healthy. In other words, he might have ended up missing just 1 more game that season than the 18-19 season yet the two are on different sides of the healthy-unhealthy divide.

5. I did not say a single word about the '22-23 season yet you seem to assume I am claiming something about it. Which means you have gotten confused again.

I understand you find me insulting etc. But the problem is, you have created an echo chamber of your own which you are too scared to leave, because you are terrified that what guys like I say is what the external, objective truth is.

You failed to document how that correlation is stronger.
- MJL

I will use your data set of post-"developmental years" and your classification of healthy and unhealthy.

There are 6 seasons. He has played 430 games and scored 447 points. This means a 1.04 ppg. When healthy (according to you), that rises to 1.1, when unhealthy, it falls to 0.9 (I am rounding the numbers to your benefit to produce a swing of 10% above/below average when healthy/unhealthy).

Now look at the Kucherov example. Kucherov did not play the 19-20 season. In the other 5 seasons, his average TOI with Point was 16 mins. The seasons the TOI with Point was much less are 18-19, 19-20 and 21-22. 19-20 is a virtual tie and indeed, the PPG that season is Point's yearly average. The 22-23 and 23-24 are much higher.

The years when he has a lower than average playing time with NK thus have 201 games. They result in 198 points. Right around his career average. When his playing time with NK rises, his ppg rises to 1.135, a 13.5% swing, slightly higher than his healthy swing.

Cheers.

Actually the correlation is more nuances. I mispoke. It is stronger in one direction but not by a huge margin. I will show in the next post.

The insults are warranted btw. I am fine with you disagreeing and would welcome a debate. But for anyone following this: Just look at the number of errors/inconsistencies you have made within the space of a few hours

1. Look at your definition of healthy. You brought up the example of Giroux playing hurt, even though he did not miss any games and his TOI did not dip below average. So, you suggest a player could be playing hurt even if he dresses and plays high mins. Fine.


- PT21

This is a common tactic of yours that shows your lack of credibility. It is well documented in that season that Giroux struggled in his recovery from his surgery. A player does not have to miss games in order to not be healthy. Giroux put up 58 points that season due to his struggles with his recovery. It's not a coincidence that next season, when fully recovered and fully gained his strength back, he put up a career best 102 points and led the NHL in assists. Was a top 5 Hart trophy vote getter

Your comments there are not intelligent and absent of fact.

But right after saying that, and after I tell you (and you can check) that Point was laboring throughout the 18-19 season and had bilateral hip surgery after that seaon, you choose to include that season as healthy. Why? because it was convenient for you to include his high ppg that season asa hralthy one (thus contradiucting your Giroux example).


- PT21

My position was that when Point was healthy enough to not miss a significant number of games played, he produced at a higher level than he did when he missed a significant number of games played due to injury. That nuance escapes you. You're also trying to correlate an injury with one player versus another. Not every player recovers or is effected in the same level. Brayden Pont was clearly not laboring during the 18-19 season as he scored 41 goals and 92 points. In comparison to Giroux putting up 58 points in the season discussed for him. You're ignoring the facts and trying to assign one situation with one player to another. Again, that is not intelligent.

2. You came up with averages for healthy and unhealthy seasons that are wrong because you are sloppy. You forgot/overlooked that the 20-21 was a 56 game season. Point played every game that season. Counting that season as healthy by your standard (no games missed, only 1 notation for injury), we get the 18-19, 20-21, 22-23, and 23-24 seasons as healthy, and the 19-20 and 21-22 as unhealthy. Those unhealthy seasons have 132 games and 122 points, leading to an average of 0.92 not 0.86. This will make a difference (next post).


- PT21

Doesn't effect the point

3. Your "developmental years" choose to stop right when he has a breakout season. Thus the 3rd year, where he played with hip tears, is neither developmental nor unhealthy. But the 2nd year, where had a low ppg is developmental. *smile*


- PT21

Obvious to anyone that the first few years of a player that is not a superstar that steps right into the league as a star, that the first number of seasons are development years. It is fair not to count them as to not skew the data. As his lower point totals in those year can be explained by the player not being fully developed as a player. rather than being a question of health or injury. When a player breaks out in a season and puts up 92 points. One can generally assumed that the player has reached a level past development stages of play. All of that is not just common sense but standard hockey analysis. Again, your comments are not intelligent.

4. The 19-20 season, where he missed 4 games out of 70 (but was fully healthy when the season stopped due to Covid) is treated as unhealthy but the 18-19 season, where he missed 3 games (out of 82) and was on the verge of hip surgery is healthy. In other words, he might have ended up missing just 1 more game that season than the 18-19 season yet the two are on different sides of the healthy-unhealthy divide.


- PT21

I mistakenly didn't consider that and took note of that when you previously mentioned that. Doesn't change the premise.

5. I did not say a single word about the '22-23 season yet you seem to assume I am claiming something about it. Which means you have gotten confused again.

I understand you find me insulting etc. But the problem is, you have created an echo chamber of your own which you are too scared to leave, because you are terrified that what guys like I say is what the external, objective truth is.
- PT21

Not hockey related and honestly, you have no value as a human being. You're someone who has publicly posted that people of color who refused to get vaccinated, should not be allowed to live in society. You attempted to use the death of my Father against me. You've claimed repeatedly that I have mental issues. Any decent human being if they felt they were dealing with someone with mental issues, would avoid interaction.

Here is the true external objective truth. You are not intelligent. You are a programmed puppet who has been indoctrinated and taught what to think. You have no ability to think for yourself. You've tried to pass yourself off as an elite and a scholar when in reality you have been exposed as I have described. On top of that, you have questionable moral values and ethics. Leaving you without standing and unworthy to sit in judgement of anyone. That is how you are viewed. I'm proud of the fact that I have exposed you as such. These insults are warranted based on your behavior and your statements.

Like I said previously. You can't help but respond. Your pathological need prevents you from not responding.

This is a common tactic of yours that shows your lack of credibility. It is well documented in that season that Giroux struggled in his recovery from his surgery. A player does not have to miss games in order to not be healthy. Giroux put up 58 points that season due to his struggles with his recovery. It's not a coincidence that next season, when fully recovered and fully gained his strength back, he put up a career best 102 points and led the NHL in assists. Was a top 5 Hart trophy vote getter

Your comments there are not intelligent and absent of fact.



My position was that when Point was healthy enough to not miss a significant number of games played, he produced at a higher level than he did when he missed a significant number of games played due to injury. That nuance escapes you. You're also trying to correlate an injury with one player versus another. Not every player recovers or is effected in the same level. Brayden Pont was clearly not laboring during the 18-19 season as he scored 41 goals and 92 points. In comparison to Giroux putting up 58 points in the season discussed for him. You're ignoring the facts and trying to assign one situation with one player to another. Again, that is not intelligent.




Doesn't effect the point



Obvious to anyone that the first few years of a player that is not a superstar that steps right into the league as a star, that the first number of seasons are development years. It is fair not to count them as to not skew the data. As his lower point totals in those year can be explained by the player not being fully developed as a player. rather than being a question of health or injury. When a player breaks out in a season and puts up 92 points. One can generally assumed that the player has reached a level past development stages of play. All of that is not just common sense but standard hockey analysis. Again, your comments are not intelligent.



I mistakenly didn't consider that and took note of that when you previously mentioned that. Doesn't change the premise.



Not hockey related and honestly, you have no value as a human being. You're someone who has publicly posted that people of color who refused to get vaccinated, should not be allowed to live in society. You attempted to use the death of my Father against me. You've claimed repeatedly that I have mental issues. Any decent human being if they felt they were dealing with someone with mental issues, would avoid interaction.

Here is the true external objective truth. You are not intelligent. You are a programmed puppet who has been indoctrinated and taught what to think. You have no ability to think for yourself. You've tried to pass yourself off as an elite and a scholar when in reality you have been exposed as I have described. On top of that, you have questionable moral values and ethics. Leaving you without standing and unworthy to sit in judgement of anyone. That is how you are viewed. I'm proud of the fact that I have exposed you as such. These insults are warranted based on your behavior and your statements.

Like I said previously. You can't help but respond. Your pathological need prevents you from not responding.
- MJL

I will ignore the rambling disintegration of logic regarding the Point issue above. Suffice to say all those "mistakes" you made, if corrected, would drastically bridge the ppg gap between Point's "injured" and "uninjured" seasons.

1. First bold. No I haven't. Or anything remotely similar to that. It was a canard invented by a piece of trash who posts here. Should you be able to post such a link, I will make a $1k donation to any charity of your choosing within a day or two, whenever I log in next and see it. I also offered to beat the living daylight out of the same individual if he dared to meet me in public and say that kinda stuff to my face, and I am humbly extending the same offer to you.

2. If by using the "death of your father against you", you mean express condolences on the demise, urge you to take notice of the mental illness in your family, be cognizant of the fact that such traits are hereditary, and that on a scale of 0-10 of warning signs, you are at 12, then yes, I am guilty as charged of exressing caution for your well being. Should you again be able to prove otherwise, my above offer about the donation also stands.

I don't understand why you keep thinking that me "responding" is some sort of weakness. There are large span of many months over years when I didn't, compared to you responding constantly to anything I say. It depends on my mood, honestly.

I understand your degeneration has descended to a level where you are just a shameless trolling piece of trash, but two can play that game.

MJL you are a pedophile.

I know you will respond. You just can't help yourself.

My guess:you watched the beginning of the following story:

1. A close loss in game 6 at home for Sixers
or
2. A blowout loss in game 7 away.
- PT21

*cough*