Because it is factually wrong and not a single person in the hockey community (by community I mean NHL) would agree with it

He was really good. But not that good

Something that is a fact, cannot be factually wrong, and using the "NHL community" is a useless argument given that it's still in the stone age mentally.

Stop denying facts

I agree with it

These are not facts. They’re skewed models which are inaccurate. Keep living in your spreadsheet bubble. I don’t care what any of you say. It’s like talking to a brick wall

In what way are they skewed? Just because they show a different result from what you would want, doesn't make the model wrong.

You saying "I don't care what any of you say" and then saying "It's like talking to a brick wall" the next f*cking sentence is pretty rich.

The results are clearly wrong. They make absolutely no sense when the art Ross winner is being compared to a third liner. Go watch some hockey and come talk to me

What if your art ross winner is one of the worst defensive players in the league

What makes them skewed?

Again, awards and points mean nothing. Your beloved Art Ross winner had one of the worst defensive seasons ever and was being compared to someone who wasn't utterly dogsh*t defensively. Get a pair of eyes and come talk to me.

Don’t even bother man. Like I get it. When I first got into analytics it sucked to find out that Kyle Connor, Scheifele, and some of my other favourite players aren’t as good as I thought. That’s the way it is though. These stats have been tracked for 1000’s of hours dating all the way back to 2007. No point in arguing with people who think points and scoring one highlight reel goal a season makes you one of the best in the league

Good point. But Im interested in what he says to defend his point

#NichuskinForHart

#StillWaitingForYouToExplainHowTheStatsAreSkewed

Have any of you guys ever taken a university level stat class in your life? There is something called OUTLIERS! Not every set of statistic models is perfect and there is a range of error in EVERY SINGLE STATS MODEL! Whether you are tracking inventory for a company or looking at these useless stats, there are going to be outliers in the data and this useless argument completely proves my point. The range of error on these models is extremely high and you guys just don’t understand that.

Points don't matter, goals for do, and the things that lead to goals (getting good chances, not being out for good chances against) matter

Again, it's not wrong because it produces a different result from what you want or expected.

Then how does almost every model point to the same stuff

You don’t even understand how data models work lmfao. You just see the higher numbers and think “OUUU BIG NUMBER MEAN GOOD”.

The NHL teams have their own models which aren’t available to the public and I’m sure are much more accurate than what you find on the internet.

You still have yet to explain how the stats are skewed. You just see an odd conclusion and start crying like a 3 year old.

I don’t follow these models nor do I want to. Every stat model has a standard deviation of error. Based on real life results these models clearly have a high one

You look at points and think "OUUU BIG NUMBER MEAN GOOD"

There is a variance yes, but for the most part it doesn't really change much, they're is roughly a 100% chance that a guy like Nuke is a positive defensive player (and like 75% that he's 2 STD's above average) and probably 85% he's above average overall... Drai is about the same, 20% chance at being positive defensively 85% offensively, but does have a larger range