Don't sleep on Mark Stone. He will score 70 points at the minimum.

[JagrBomb]

Rizzee's analysis didn't include the fact that Stone and the team's #1 centre would get injured and continue to play through it but suffer greatly both defensively and offensively. His analysis was wrong even if he doesn't hit 60-70 points. He's been a 68 point player over the last 82 games, so he is still a force and should go on a long streak to end the year.

either way you cut it, saying 50 was "optimistic" is stupid, ******ed, whatever world you want to use.

- - - Updated - - -



awful? they just took 2 out of 3 in California. Last night was bad.

are they playing .500 hockey in the last month? i own anderson so im just going by memory but i dont think they are doing too well. theyve definitely played much better hockey this season than their current stretch of games.

[Fast Tony DeNiro]

I don't see Rizzee in a hurry to bump the OEL thread. The one where you were so adamant he would only score 40. Yet he'll pass that number with 25-30 games to spare.

[RizzeeDizzee]

I don't see Rizzee in a hurry to bump the OEL thread. The one where you were so adamant he would only score 40. Yet he'll pass that number with 25-30 games to spare.

I believe I said he'd have a very hard time surprassing last season's numbers though, so not quite 40. But I'll go on record as saying I'll be happy to line up and take my lumps if that thread gets resurrected. Plus, unlike Big Ev I'd use it as an opportunity to see where my logic went wrong and learn from it, rather than being petulant and clinging to all sorts of "well, if only...." arguments.

[rataylor22]

I believe I said he'd have a very hard time surprassing last season's numbers though, so not quite 40. But I'll go on record as saying I'll be happy to line up and take my lumps if that thread gets resurrected. Plus, unlike Big Ev I'd use it as an opportunity to see where my logic went wrong and learn from it, rather than being petulant and clinging to all sorts of "well, if only...." arguments.

Where your logic CONSISTENTLY fails is that you don't use logic. You use outlier cases as disconnected anomalies and wrap them up into a common trend. Basically, your logic fails due to a basic lack of understanding in the concept of statistics. Not hockey statistics, but probability statistics.

[Big Ev]

I will take my lumps as well and pay my bet if I am wrong. No issues with that. I still don't agree with your cage match arguments whether you are right or wrong about this current season. Outside of this cold stretch there is no reason to think Stone will go the way of the players you compared him to.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Where your logic CONSISTENTLY fails is that you don't use logic. You use outlier cases as disconnected anomalies and wrap them up into a common trend. Basically, your logic fails due to a basic lack of understanding in the concept of statistics. Not hockey statistics, but probability statistics.

Ummm, CONSISTENTLY?! It says a lot about you that you'd be so active on a site which would include me as its longest current non-editing hockey writer if you think I'm consistently wrong. And let's see you put your money where your mouth is and write 3000 words of fantasy hockey content per week while being a lawyer in real life. Criticize me all you want - fine. But to say I'm consistently wrong is a big stretch, especially if you've never tried to walk in similar shoes.

I also take exception to you saying I base my views on probability. Of course I look to past examples for guidance on what's likely to happen again in the future. This makes sense in this and other contexts, like the stock market, health patterns, etc. Ever heard of actuaries? But even when I do rely on probability, it's only done to supplement my usage of hard data like ice time, scoring patterns, percentage of points, shooting percentage, etc. It's a way to look at the big picture. And the fact is that Stone IS an outlier due to his age and rookie production. Cases like his cry out for past history comparisons.

[RizzeeDizzee]

I will take my lumps as well and pay my bet if I am wrong. No issues with that. I still don't agree with your cage match arguments whether you are right or wrong about this current season. Outside of this cold stretch there is no reason to think Stone will go the way of the players you compared him to.

This I'm fine with, and it's appreciated. My goal was not to have you agree with my conclusions or comparisons or the logic behind them, but instead to show you exactly what led me to my conclusions.

As for Cage Match in general - tell me, and I'm asking this honestly, how you would write the column differently? It's one of those things that looks a lot easier than it is, as I found out quickly when I took over from Steve. Or maybe you were just talking about my Cage Match about Stone in particular, in which case you can disregard this.

[Pengwin7]

Don't we have a general forums guy that has a clever gif or picture of poop-throwing or something that will make this all stop.
It's Friday!
Can't we just do music videos or something?

Something about toilets & shutting the door would be appropriate at this stage of the thread, yes?
Maybe done in an unrecognizable language.
With some obscenities. Yes. We definitely also need some obscenaties.
Mmmhmmm...

[rataylor22]

Ummm, CONSISTENTLY?! It says a lot about you that you'd be so active on a site which would include me as its longest current non-editing writer if you think I'm consistently wrong. And let's see you put your money where your mouth is and write 3000 words of fantasy hockey content per week while being a lawyer in real life. Criticize me all you want - fine. But to say I'm consistently wrong is a big stretch, especially if you've never tried to walk in similar shoes.

I also take exception to you saying I base my views on probability. Of course I look to past examples for guidance on what's likely to happen again in the future. This makes sense in this and other contexts, like the stock market, health patterns, etc. Ever heard of actuaries? But even when I do rely on probability, it's only done to supplement my usage of hard data like ice time, scoring patterns, percentage of points, shooting percentage, etc. It's a way to look at the big picture. And the fact is that Stone IS an outlier due to his age and rookie production. Cases like his cry out for past history comparisons.

Really getting your back up here. I didn't say you're consistently wrong, I said when you are it's largely and usually do to a lack of understanding probability statistics. Which you clearly paint out in the point I have highlighted. There are no historical comparisons to outliers. That's the whole point of outlying statistical points, is they are disconnected and have no bearing on past events or future events. Each player is an "event" on the data plot. Using previous outlying events to predict future outlying events is inherently inaccurate. Cases like Mark Stone specifically cry out to IGNORE historical comparisons. And that would be true even if the game today was exactly the same as it was 15 years ago. The fact that it as changed and evolved as much as it has makes those historical cases all the more irrelevant. And understanding probability statistics would mean you would know this.

But don't say you like to hear criticism and and counter arguments so you can learn, when you clearly have no interest in that and are more then willing to get hyper-defensive as soon as any criticism is turned your direction.

[Big Ev]

This I'm fine with, and it's appreciated. My goal was not to have you agree with my conclusions or comparisons or the logic behind them, but instead to show you exactly what led me to my conclusions.

As for Cage Match in general - tell me, and I'm asking this honestly, how you would write the column differently? It's one of those things that looks a lot easier than it is, as I found out quickly when I took over from Steve. Or maybe you were just talking about my Cage Match about Stone in particular, in which case you can disregard this.

I wouldn't write it differently because I wouldn't write a stats column like that. That is just a difference of analysis, I'm not trying to say your articles are shit or wrong, I just don't really dive into the advanced stats at all. I usually rely on my eyes and knowledge to analyze players.

[RizzeeDizzee]

Really getting your back up here. I didn't say you're consistently wrong, I said when you are it's largely and usually do to a lack of understanding probability statistics. Which you clearly paint out in the point I have highlighted. There are no historical comparisons to outliers. That's the whole point of outlying statistical points, is they are disconnected and have no bearing on past events or future events. Each player is an "event" on the data plot. Using previous outlying events to predict future outlying events is inherently inaccurate. Cases like Mark Stone specifically cry out to IGNORE historical comparisons. And that would be true even if the game today was exactly the same as it was 15 years ago. The fact that it as changed and evolved as much as it has makes those historical cases all the more irrelevant. And understanding probability statistics would mean you would know this.

But don't say you like to hear criticism and and counter arguments so you can learn, when you clearly have no interest in that and are more then willing to get hyper-defensive as soon as any criticism is turned your direction.

All I have to say is go back and read what you wrote from my shoes

[RizzeeDizzee]

I wouldn't write it differently because I wouldn't write a stats column like that. That is just a difference of analysis, I'm not trying to say your articles are shit or wrong, I just don't really dive into the advanced stats at all. I usually rely on my eyes and knowledge to analyze players.

Cool, fair enough. I tend to side with numbers (in fairness - not everything I use are advanced metrics), since that way I won't let my heart cloud my head and it allows me to analyze players I'm unable to see play often enough with my own two eyes. But sometimes numbers can and do lead me astray. Case in point is Pavelski, who's proven me wrong now - twice! And OEL is well on his way to doing so.

[rataylor22]

All I have to say is go back and read what you wrote from my shoes

Your post was referring to learning from your mistakes when you are wrong and finding out where your logic failed you in those instances. So inherently, or LOGICALLY, my post responding to that post would be referring to the events when you are wrong, not every event.

- - - Updated - - -

Cool, fair enough. I tend to side with numbers (in fairness - not everything I use are advanced metrics), since that way I won't let my heart cloud my head and it allows me to analyze players I'm unable to see play often enough with my own two eyes. But sometimes numbers can and do lead me astray. Case in point is Pavelski, who's proven me wrong now - twice! And OEL is well on his way to doing so.

Also, event outliers, where you attempted to use disconnected data points to force a non-existent trend.

[iwinthings]

I wouldn't write it differently because I wouldn't write a stats column like that. That is just a difference of analysis, I'm not trying to say your articles are shit or wrong, I just don't really dive into the advanced stats at all. I usually rely on my eyes and knowledge to analyze players.

Except when you feel like it right? When discussing Karlsson you said.

he's actually better than Weber in a lot of defensive metrics

[rataylor22]

Whether it seems like it or not, and whether you like it or not, I actually am trying to help you Rick, but you've got your claws so far out in defensive attack mode that you're not even trying to recognize that. Which then leads to the obvious conclusion that even though you say you want criticism and suggestions to improve/refine your process, that is the exact opposite of what you want.