Quoting: Canadianape
this is the first thing I posted. yes I touched on the fact that I didn't like Projections. but as you can read the majority of what I wrote is telling him that noenof the prospects come anywhere near the comparisons he made and he is wrong to compare prospects to 1st/2nd line players and top pairing defenseman and top 5 goalies in the league. meaning I disagree with every single one of his projections
finally as I said to the other guy im done commenting on this. it is my OPINION that doing things on this website that are not even close to realistic is a waste of time however hes free to post whatever he wants but that doesn't mean he is protected from criticism for those posts
As Berg said: "You can't move the goal posts to score a goal and in this case you doing it to try to win an argument in logic."
Your entitled to your opinion. No one ever robbed you of it. But then again, criticism in the form of changing the context of the original post is an exercise in futility in its own. So what are we even talking about anymore?
There's a difference between:
"I don't agree with you on any of those projections based on X reasons.."
and
"his comment maybe ignorant but he's not wrong. comparing prospects to current players is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. I could just as easily list all the Habs prospects and say their ceiling is the equivalent of Connor Mcdavid IMO. in every single one of your examples above there is absolutely no evidence that any of those prospects come anywhere near the potential ceilings of their corresponding player. and its not a small portion that will reach that potential its like 1 in 200 especially with the majority of the guys that you listed being 1st to 2nd line players and top pairing defenseman/ top 5 NHL goalies. not even remotely realistic"
The whole problem revolves around misinterpreting the context of OP's intent with the AGM, which I for some odd reason, seemingly understood. For something that is so virtually impossible to quantify (players future projections), let's have some fun and just speculate. That's it. Not remotely realistic? He's not saying it
will be. (I mean I could get into the specifics about players like Pastrnak and McCavoy having pretty dead on projections but who cares at this point?)
Imagine it as If he's saying if any one of these players were to hit their max potential, this is what I'd hoped them to be. No one is saying they will all become these players. Even OP said "I realize only a small portion will realize their full potential." Maybe Pastrnak will be the only one to reach that potential out of the bunch, I mean he's technically ahead of where Kucherov was at the same age so its not even remotely close to being "not even remotely realistic". But maybe its only Acciari's comparable in DSP. Is it so absolutely proven that Acciari will never perform what DSP has thus far in his career? Come on.........You are misinterpreting "I think McCavoy will the next Doughty" with "I think if everything works out for McCavoy, he could be the next Doughty one day". He's on his way but will need to still improve every year to be Doughty but its not an impossibility.
So what exactly is
your argument again?.........I disagree with some of his projections also but based on what his objective was, he's no more wrong than he is right. Technically.
keepcalmandbergeron liked this.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly