You don’t trade 3 of your best prospects. And your team best players. Slavin is better than Dahlin right now, it’s fair to say Dahlin potential will be higher. Eichel is better than Aho.

Aho > Eichel, xGF GF and CF all favor Aho, Eichel is better defensively, but Aho's better at what he's paid to do. Generate chances and score goals.

Dahlin's potential is as an OFD. His defensive game will get better, but never will he get to Slavin's level. Slavin is the best Defenceman in the league in his own zone and it's a large margin making him the best at what he's paid to do by some margin. He's an elite DEFENCEman, Dahlin won't ever be that good defensively. It's far closer than you're giving it credit for. I'm not saying it's fair, not by a long shot, but it being "one of the worst trades" is just a joke

Well I’ve made points it’s bad for the Sabres. Advanced stats are good and all but I’m still taking Eichel over Aho and I don’t think I’m alone on that claim.

If "analytics" tells you that Aho > Eichel, then that's all I ever need to know (or hear from) "analytics."

Ever considered the old saying "Numbers don't lie"? When numbers tell you Aho is better than Eichel, you should question your eyes, not the numbers.

Ever heard the old saying that "There are three kinds of lies: lies; damned lies; and statistics."?

Telling a guy in Hollywood to trust the numbers rather than the evidence of my eyes is probably the funniest think you'll ever say. According to the numbers, neither "Gone With the Wind" nor "Raiders of the Lost Ark" nor "Titanic" ever showed a profit, no matter how many people I saw going into the theatres.

When the numbers tell me that Aho is better than Eichel, I'll question the intelligence of the guy assembling the numbers.

You're comparing theatre to sport? Also, when you factor in enlongated sales, of course they made a profit.

You ever heard “The old saying is that ‘figures will not lie,’ but a new saying is ‘liars will figure’. Numbers do not lie. When you take raw numbers, there's no room for deception, there's no way to manipulate them. This is why it's so much better to trust analytics than your eyes. They are cold hard facts.

When the numbers say Eichel isn't as good as Aho, you need to question your own intellegence, because base analytics are facts.

Base analytics aren't facts -- that's the fallacy at the heart of your argument. Base analytics are highly debated and highly debatable calculations attempting to provide an arithmetic expression of the respective values of players. They are nothing more than a theory; they're the very opposite of facts.

In real life, no theory is ever proven; they just become more accepted until another theory (or improved formulation) becomes even more widely accepted. Suppose we accept your understanding of what the "analytics" show and Buffalo and Carolina exchange Aho and Eichel. Now suppose Aho scores more points with Buffalo than Eichel did. Even that doesn't prove your argument, because maybe Eichel also scores more points than he scored with Buffalo, or maybe Carolina wins the Stanley Cup with Eichel (which it didn't do with Aho).

You go on believing that Aho is better than Eichel, because your analytics tell you so. I'll go on believing that Eichel is better than Aho, because my eyes tell me so.

One final thought on old sayings: if you don't know the joke whose punch line is "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?", you should look it up.

That's strictly false. Things like xGA and xGF are statistics, but the threat levels are facts. It's a simple percentage. Transition numbers are facts. Facts become statistics the more you manipulate them. This isn't debated, and those who do have no idea how analytics work. They set in stone what is happening on the ice, the definition of a fact.

The idea of calling it a theory is ludocrist. You clearly do not understand why analytics exist, how they are used or the purpose they are built to serve. I'm not saying any of this to be derogatory, a lot of people confuse the reason analytics are used with what fans use them for. However, they are microfacts that are used to quantify what your eyes see. You use the points and goals arguments, except they are more statistical and flexible than base analytics are. You see the puck go in, but what if the puck took a slight tip, indescriminantly came off someone, etc. On top of that, there's the variables of save percentages of better goaltenders spread across the division.

You go on believing your subjective variables, while I trust cold hard facts to determine who is better. In the end, I will always trust numbers over my eyes because, to go full circle, NUMBERS DON'T LIE

To use your enjoyment of old sayings “Many things are not as they seem: The worst things in life never are.” This literally says you see what you want to see. Facts are irrefutable, what your eyes see is subjective. It's why players can have such polarising effects on fan bases (Jake Gardner for example).

Well, once again, you're committing the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." You assume that analytics are facts. They are not. Until you understand that, this is going to be a pointless conversation.

Until you understand the facts analytics are based on, this is a pointless conversation.

As any logician with even elementary experience will tell you, you've just stated that facts and analytics are not the same.

I understand the facts on which analytics are based, and more willing to accept them than you are; I just don't accept certain constructs piled on top of them.

It is clear to me that you've never taken a course in epistemology, because you don't understand the term "fact."

A fact is something which is accepted, and cannot be disputed, by intelligent and reasonable people. For example, Jack Eichel recorded 78 points in 68 games this season and Sebastian Aho scored 66. What you want to do is assert that despite that discrepancy, Aho is a "better" or "more valuable" player than Eichel. Fine; that is at least a supportable theory. But the very fact (pun intended) that the accuracy and even the actual validity of analytics are disputed by a vast population of knowledgeable sports personnel (and this applies equally to baseball) means that analytics are NOT facts but unsettled theory.

I have many facts at my disposal about Eichel and Aho, including points per game over career, time on ice, faceoff percentage, shot percentage, etc., etc., etc. You insist that I accept with equal force the manipulation of those facts which you contend show that Aho is superior to Eichel. Fine; I will accept your input, but I am not going to give them the same weight as fact precisely because many people far more sophisticated than you or I disagree on how accurate analytics are. That returns us to my original, unrefuted statement: analytics are theory, not fact. I understand that you are a true believer, but so was Pope Leo, and Galileo was right.

Best guess: people on the while aren't good at deductive reasoning. Even if the Sabres trade Eichel and go full rebuild, Dahlin stays He's young enough to be reaching his prime when a full rebuild finishes (or restarts again for the 4th time...).

Eichel's points and goal tallies aren't facts. A "Fact" is something that CANNOT be denied, which isn't true with points and goal totals. This makes it clear to me you do not know what a "FACT" is. You can dispute deflections and tips, which means it's subjective. The very point of something being subjective means it's not a fact. You clearly don't understand why analytics are used, so this is a pointless conversation. I've tried to explain it, but we keep going around in circles.

You really contend that how many goals Eichel scored isn't a fact?!? Points and goal totals aren't facts?!?!? You've gone completely nuts.

You think they are? That's one of the best jokes I've ever heard. Facts are things that can't be denied, and in a game of small tips and deflections you think that goals and points are always 10% correct? Okay, this convo is over

"Facts are things that can't be denied." Exactly the point that I was trying to make.

"Analytics are facts." The argument you are making.

Analytics are widely disputed. An undeniable fact, which means that analytics are not facts.

Analytics shouldn't be widely disputed. That's the point I'm trying to make. They are just factual, and people who don't understand that really shouldn't be commenting on their validity