Edmonton Oilers

[metaldude26]

[QUOTE=JimmyCanuck;1432812][QUOTE=metaldude26;1432728]Yeah that's not a proper conclusion from those results. Never mind the fact that a ~20 person sample isn't something to make conclusions from but you also can't intuit that a player is 20% better than another because 20% of polled individuals prefer that player. You want to determine how much better one player is than another then that's a different poll.[QUOTE]

That poll is all we have to work with at this point.

[QUOTE=metaldude26;1432728]The only conclusion I'm drawing from this is that Methot is deemed to be a better player by some but not enough to draw any further conclusion.

Fair enough. The limited evidence we have suggests Methot is the better player according to 60% of those who participated. And if Methot's considered the better player, chances are he gets the better contract. If you can show me evidence otherwise, let me know.

I guess we'll see what Petry signs for in the Summer, but I doubt it will be a Methot type deal and chances are it's around 4m/year at most.

The point of the whole discussion was whether or not there is value in Petry signing for similar money. I still haven't seen any evidence to point to otherwise.

[JimmyCanuck]

The point of the whole discussion was whether or not there is value in Petry signing for similar money. I still haven't seen any evidence to point to otherwise.

Like I said above, the poll indicates Methot is the better player, that's all that we have to work with. Better player = better contract.

What evidence is there to suggest that Petry will sign for equal to or more money that Methot.

Seriously, let's throw a $100 bet down on this. I'm not one to wager a real money bet with someone I don't know, but you seem like a reasonable guy who would pay up. I'm that confident Methot will be seen by GMs in the NHL as having more value. Even MacTavish won't give Petry 4.9m/year.

Let me know if you're up for a wager.

[metaldude26]

Like I said above, the poll indicates Methot is the better player, that's all that we have to work with. Better player = better contract.

What evidence is there to suggest that Petry will sign for equal to or more money that Methot.

Seriously, let's throw a $100 bet down on this. I'm not one to wager a real money bet with someone I don't know, but you seem like a reasonable guy who would pay up. I'm that confident Methot will be seen by GMs in the NHL as having more value. Even MacTavish won't give Petry 4.9m/year.

Let me know if you're up for a wager.

The poll also indicates that not everyone thinks that Methot is the better player so you can't actually conclude that he is the better player nor that he definitely deserves a better contract and you certainly cannot conclude to what degree he deserves a better contract if you could even reach that point, which again, as a logical argument you cannot based on this data. You've proven nothing beyond the fact that of a small sample of individuals slightly more prefer Methot. That sample isn't even as large as the number of GMs in the league so one could argue that if that sample is representative (which it isn't but if you are going to use it then so will I) then there are enough GMs out there who would also prefer Methot over Petry and give him more or similar money.

No, I will not bet you. No, this is also not evidence for your argument and any attempt to use it as such is ridiculous so don't go there.

[JimmyCanuck]

The poll also indicates that not everyone thinks that Methot is the better player so you can't actually conclude that he is the better player nor that he definitely deserves a better contract and you certainly cannot conclude to what degree he deserves a better contract if you could even reach that point, which again, as a logical argument you cannot based on this data. You've proven nothing beyond the fact that of a small sample of individuals slightly more prefer Methot. That sample isn't even as large as the number of GMs in the league so one could argue that if that sample is representative (which it isn't but if you are going to use it then so will I) then there are enough GMs out there who would also prefer Methot over Petry and give him more or similar money.

No, I will not bet you. No, this is also not evidence for your argument and any attempt to use it as such is ridiculous so don't go there.

You're scared.

Their career numbers suggest Petry is slightly better offensively and Methot is much better defensively. You know Methot is more proven in this league, but you're not admitting it. The fact that Methot just signed the contract he did, and there is clear uncertainty around Petry signing for similar dollars says a lot.

The piece that baffles me is how little credit is given to those who voted on that poll. THe Commish guy basically said it's a bunch of guys voting that have no clue and you're basically giving little credit as well to the 19 people who voted.

I guess we will see what Petry signs for in a few months to put this to rest.

[metaldude26]

You're scared.

Their career numbers suggest Petry is slightly better offensively and Methot is much better defensively. You know Methot is more proven in this league, but you're not admitting it. The fact that Methot just signed the contract he did, and there is clear uncertainty around Petry signing for similar dollars says a lot.

The piece that baffles me is how little credit is given to those who voted on that poll. THe Commish guy basically said it's a bunch of guys voting that have no clue and you're basically giving little credit as well to the 19 people who voted.

I guess we will see what Petry signs for in a few months to put this to rest.

Scared? Maybe or I'm just being rational. You're being obtuse.

What the guy signs for and what it would be reasonable for him to sign for are two different things. My argument has always been that it would be reasonable for Edmonton to pay a similar amount to what Methot got because there is very little difference between the two players. My argument is also that Edmonton is foolish to not even engage Petry in talks to see what it would take.

The reality is, if I bet $100 and Petry signs for $4.5 million annually then I wouldn't be wrong based on my argument that he is a similar player to Methot and got paid a similar amount but I would "lose" the bet. If Petry decides to sign with a contender for cheap, a sort of sweet-heart deal similar to what Ehrhoff signed for a short period to try to win and or goose his value even higher for the next time around. I'd also be exposed to injury, potentially unforeseen market changes, etc. I'm not betting you that Petry is definitively the better player and will absolutely get MORE money or even the exact same money because that's not my argument.

You are trying to turn to black and white an argument that's a million shades of grey. You're trying to spin a small sample poll with only two options A or B that was entirely inconclusive and use it as an argument that a certain player is such and such degrees better than another. That's not what the poll asked! That's not a conclusion you can derive! That's completely illogical! You don't know whether those polled preferred Methot by a little or a lot. You also don't know if those polled who preferred Petry preferred him by a little or a lot. You're concluding things beyond your realm of information.

My issue here is that you are not thinking critically. You want a black and white solution. It's not there. Don't force it. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. "Let's bet!" "Start a poll!" These are petty attempts to win an argument rather than an actual assessment of the situation.

[JimmyCanuck]

Scared? Maybe or I'm just being rational. You're being obtuse.

Loved Shawshank Redemption. One of the best!

What the guy signs for and what it would be reasonable for him to sign for are two different things. My argument has always been that it would be reasonable for Edmonton to pay a similar amount to what Methot got because there is very little difference between the two players.

Methot is a proven shutdown top pairing Dman. Petry is at best a top 4 Dman. I wish we could ask all 30 NHL GMs so they could put this debate out of its misery.

The reality is, if I bet $100 and Petry signs for $4.5 million annually then I wouldn't be wrong based on my argument that he is a similar player to Methot and got paid a similar amount but I would "lose" the bet.

Don't worry about avoiding the bet. No one thinks any less of you. You're blowing the wager offer out of proportion. Heck, I would have taken the bet at 4.5m/year as the cutoff, cause Petry isn't going to get that kind of cash either.

If Petry decides to sign with a contender for cheap, a sort of sweet-heart deal similar to what Ehrhoff signed for a short period to try to win and or goose his value even higher for the next time around. I'd also be exposed to injury, potentially unforeseen market changes, etc. I'm not betting you that Petry is definitively the better player and will absolutely get MORE money or even the exact same money because that's not my argument.

You are trying to turn to black and white an argument that's a million shades of grey. You're trying to spin a small sample poll with only two options A or B that was entirely inconclusive and use it as an argument that a certain player is such and such degrees better than another. That's not what the poll asked! That's not a conclusion you can derive! That's completely illogical! You don't know whether those polled preferred Methot by a little or a lot. You also don't know if those polled who preferred Petry preferred him by a little or a lot. You're concluding things beyond your realm of information.

My issue here is that you are not thinking critically. You want a black and white solution. It's not there. Don't force it. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. "Let's bet!" "Start a poll!" These are petty attempts to win an argument rather than an actual assessment of the situation.

You're trying to keep this 'grey' forever so you don't have to take a stance. If he signs for 'cheap' somewhere for a year, well then we re-evaluate our debate then. See how I called it a debate and you defined it as an argument. We're not arguing - at least it doesn't seem like it. If you feel like we're arguing, you should stop posting.

Anyway, if Petry signs a three or four year deal somewhere this Summer - well that probably gives us an idea that similar logic was used in Petry's signing as it was in MEthot's signing. Similar length in a deal gives us a better indicator of how the team that signed him views him in terms of contract value. Obviously it won't give us a "perfect statistical indication" but nonetheless it will say something that might be substantial enough to pull you out of the 'grey zone'.

[Axeman33]

You're scared.

Their career numbers suggest Petry is slightly better offensively and Methot is much better defensively. You know Methot is more proven in this league, but you're not admitting it. The fact that Methot just signed the contract he did, and there is clear uncertainty around Petry signing for similar dollars says a lot.

The piece that baffles me is how little credit is given to those who voted on that poll. THe Commish guy basically said it's a bunch of guys voting that have no clue and you're basically giving little credit as well to the 19 people who voted.

I guess we will see what Petry signs for in a few months to put this to rest.

The amount of his contract doesn't determine whether he's a better player or not. A lot of things go into determining contract amounts.

Here's an example off the top of my head. Last year, Ryan Johansen signed a three year deal with a cap hit of $4M while Dave Bolland signed a five year deal with a cap hit of $5.5M. Does this mean Dave Bolland is a better player than Ryan Johansen? Again, your theory about one player being better than another is flawed. By the way, you still have yet to tell me a good reason why you think Methot is a better player than Petry. The only argument you have placed is he was considered for Team Canada and now you have a poll that says a small percentage of Dobber forum members prefer him. I am sorry, but I still haven't seen any proof that would sway me to believe that he is (in your words) "way better".

When you get some sort of information that sells me on that, let me know. Until then, you really have the same thing others do, an opinion and nothing more. Simply circumstantial evidence at best and we all know how well that stands up.

[metaldude26]

Loved Shawshank Redemption. One of the best!



Methot is a proven shutdown top pairing Dman. Petry is at best a top 4 Dman. I wish we could ask all 30 NHL GMs so they could put this debate out of its misery.



Don't worry about avoiding the bet. No one thinks any less of you. You're blowing the wager offer out of proportion. Heck, I would have taken the bet at 4.5m/year as the cutoff, cause Petry isn't going to get that kind of cash either.



You're trying to keep this 'grey' forever so you don't have to take a stance. If he signs for 'cheap' somewhere for a year, well then we re-evaluate our debate then. See how I called it a debate and you defined it as an argument. We're not arguing - at least it doesn't seem like it. If you feel like we're arguing, you should stop posting.

Anyway, if Petry signs a three or four year deal somewhere this Summer - well that probably gives us an idea that similar logic was used in Petry's signing as it was in MEthot's signing. Similar length in a deal gives us a better indicator of how the team that signed him views him in terms of contract value. Obviously it won't give us a "perfect statistical indication" but nonetheless it will say something that might be substantial enough to pull you out of the 'grey zone'.

Wait so you calling it a debate when I've called it an argument makes yours more valid? Those are synonyms.

[Bomm Bastic]

I think JC is misinterpreting your use of "argument" as quarrel rather than the Socratic definition.

...and if contract is truly indicative of talent then get Cody Hodgson on your rosters!

[JimmyCanuck]

I think JC is misinterpreting your use of "argument" as quarrel rather than the Socratic definition.

...and if contract is truly indicative of talent then get Cody Hodgson on your rosters!

Not misinterpreting the use of the word argument, mainly the metal dude seemed mad and I don't want to see anyone get mad here. As for your Hodgson comment, anyone can cite Hodgson's contract or Clarkson's contract and make your point. Try and do better here - add something constructive to the debate.

In terms of the discussion. Axemen and metal haven't given a very good argument showing why petry is as valuable as methot. They just keep saying "you haven't provided evidence showing methot is better". That seems to be their comeback every time.

-methot just signed a nice deal, one that arguably petry will be very lucky to see in his lifetime.
-yzerman and company clearly think highly of methot, enough to consider him as a high end shutdown d-man who almost cracked the best national team on the planet. Do people really believe any nhl gm would view petry as high end or elite in any way? Doubtful.
-a poll (albeit with a small sample size) where forum members here think methot is the better own in real life.

[Axeman33]

I never once said Methot is better than Petry, nor did I say Petry was better than Methot. You were the one who came out and said Methot was "way better" than Petry and I questioned you after you posting it, looking for something that justifies that comment. You still haven't been able to validate it or convince me of it so I find it hard to believe one way or the other.

Let me know when you have something that validates it.

[JimmyCanuck]

I never once said Methot is better than Petry, nor did I say Petry was better than Methot. You were the one who came out and said Methot was "way better" than Petry and I questioned you after you posting it, looking for something that justifies that comment. You still haven't been able to validate it or convince me of it so I find it hard to believe one way or the other.

Let me know when you have something that validates it.

Actually spoke with a couple of gentlemen who work for an NHL team in their scouting department about this last night - guys I know through work. Even showed them this thread. Needless to say they found it entertaining and said guys like you should stick to assessing fantasy hockey rather than the real life version.

They said that Methot is an elite shutdown Dman, that it takes a player of his caliber to complement a player like Karlsson. Basically Methot is operating on his own on the defensive end half of the time, that he always has himself positioned properly, that he has to be positionally sound and is a big reason why the Sens don't get torched at times because of the risks Karlsson take. They said Methot could complement any blue liner in the league and has more of an offensive skill set than people realize - that folks don't get to see that side of him due to his role as a shutdown guy.

They basically said Methot is more proven and is the guy they would want. They said Petry is a decent player and an NHL regular going forward, and acknowledged that both play different roles per say, but they couldn't see Petry ever fetching more dollars or more demand in general on the open market at any point in time.

I wish I could source them personally, but they wouldn't appreciate that.

[metaldude26]

Not misinterpreting the use of the word argument, mainly the metal dude seemed mad and I don't want to see anyone get mad here. As for your Hodgson comment, anyone can cite Hodgson's contract or Clarkson's contract and make your point. Try and do better here - add something constructive to the debate.

In terms of the discussion. Axemen and metal haven't given a very good argument showing why petry is as valuable as methot. They just keep saying "you haven't provided evidence showing methot is better". That seems to be their comeback every time.

-methot just signed a nice deal, one that arguably petry will be very lucky to see in his lifetime.
-yzerman and company clearly think highly of methot, enough to consider him as a high end shutdown d-man who almost cracked the best national team on the planet. Do people really believe any nhl gm would view petry as high end or elite in any way? Doubtful.
-a poll (albeit with a small sample size) where forum members here think methot is the better own in real life.

No it's your use of poor evidence as solid evidence that I take issue with not mad just frustrated that you seem to think you've actually supported your stance with this stuff when you haven't. You are making leaps of logic that are unsubstantiated by whatever methods you have used and are resorting to pathetic school yard tactics in order to game the "debate". Reality is neither side has shown explicit evidence for one being better but again, that misrepresents my argument here since I'm not saying Petry is definitively better just that it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to earn as much. I'd love to simply agree to disagree but you keep trying to pass a poll of ~20 (that no one in their right mind would interpret as definitive) not only as definitive but also using it to somehow measure just how much better than Petry Methot is. That's not what that poll proves (if anything). All you've demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding for how to use statistics to develop any kind of cogent thesis.

[JimmyCanuck]

No it's your use of poor evidence as solid evidence that I take issue with not mad just frustrated that you seem to think you've actually supported your stance with this stuff when you haven't. You are making leaps of logic that are unsubstantiated by whatever methods you have used and are resorting to pathetic school yard tactics in order to game the "debate". Reality is neither side has shown explicit evidence for one being better but again, that misrepresents my argument here since I'm not saying Petry is definitively better just that it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to earn as much. I'd love to simply agree to disagree but you keep trying to pass a poll of ~20 (that no one in their right mind would interpret as definitive) not only as definitive but also using it to somehow measure just how much better than Petry Methot is. That's not what that poll proves (if anything). All you've demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding for how to use statistics to develop any kind of cogent thesis.

Read my last post responding to Axemen. Some things are not measurable, like a player being more positionally sound like Methot is versus Petry. Methot's ability to read the game defensively is elite - but how does one measure that? At this time we can't say Petry is 'elite' in any way. How do you 'measure' the fact that some of the best people in the country at assessing NHL talent (Yzerman/Holland etc) hold Methot in high regard. The fact that you overlook Methot's consideration for the best team assembled so far this century is naive.

I would point to plus/minus (a borderline) useful stat - but you will just blame how horrific the Oilers are rather than putting anything on Petry, which would be fair since the Oilers have been terrible.

You haven't provided any solid evidence from your end, so how can you resort to that argument when assessing the evidence I have provided. How can you call the evidence I've provided 'pathetic' without acknowledging that your attempts to provide proof have been pathetic.

Agreeing to disagree is probably the best way to go here. Let's just do that.

[metaldude26]

Read my last post responding to Axemen. Some things are not measurable, like a player being more positionally sound like Methot is versus Petry. Methot's ability to read the game defensively is elite - but how does one measure that? At this time we can't say Petry is 'elite' in any way. How do you 'measure' the fact that some of the best people in the country at assessing NHL talent (Yzerman/Holland etc) hold Methot in high regard. The fact that you overlook Methot's consideration for the best team assembled so far this century is naive.

I would point to plus/minus (a borderline) useful stat - but you will just blame how horrific the Oilers are rather than putting anything on Petry, which would be fair since the Oilers have been terrible.

You haven't provided any solid evidence from your end, so how can you resort to that argument when assessing the evidence I have provided. Agreeing to disagree is probably the best way to go here.

It is because you haven't brought forth any VALID evidence thus far either. So the lack of evidence on my part is irrelevant. I don't care so much about the debate so much as I care about the faulty use of bad evidence. You come up with something cogent and we can all consider it. So far it's just a few dudes with a difference of opinion but one grasping at phantoms to try to prove his.