BINGO!

Only one of us has presented facts that a reasonable person could see and say yeah, that makes sense. Your justification for Lindholm being a 50 point player is not one of them lol, any casual hockey fan would be able to find something wrong with that, and if you don’t think Mack is a 100 point player then great, we’ll get back to that Gaudreau for Mack trade, they have the same career high in points after all. Disproving the points made by the other party and defending your own is how a debate works, but you have yet to disprove any of my points or successfully defend yours so y’know, any sort of evidence would be appreciated. The problem with your “statistical model” is you’re including meaningless data points. A data point from 8 years ago may be useful for something like weather forecasting. A data point from 8 years ago has literally no affect on the offensive production of an NHL player, and a 3 year sample size provides a significantly more accurate model. You can truncate whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the size of your model is too large. For example, if you wanted to predict average life expectancy for a human, would you go back 500 years to collect data? Probably not, because you’ll get a flawed, lower number, as nowadays thanks to modern medicine and other factors, life expectancy is significantly longer, but using a flawed, large dataset with now meaningless data points will give you an inaccurate number (and as the average life expectancy was below 30 until the late 1800s, and is now over 70, clearly those data points are meaningless but would significantly affect the average, even if you cut out the singular highest and lowest data points). Same kind of deal for the NHL, as a player matures and develops and works their way up the lineup to play with more skilled players, their old data becomes meaningless. I really don’t care about Lindholm’s production on Carolina’s 3rd line 8 years ago when he’s on Calgary’s 1st line and PP1 now. If you ever took a statistics class I’d advise going back and giving your old textbook another read, it doesn’t seem like you retained much. Defining your dataset accurately is a pretty early step to mess up on. And as for his possession numbers, I’m not even sure where you pulled stuff like 56 ozone starts from (looking at the wrong year?), but following that up with a statement like “he’s bad” doesn’t help. He had a 52.85 CF%, a 56.72 GF%, a 52.11 xG%, with a 49.63% ozone start rate at 5v5 this year. So he has a positive expected goal difference, and his actual goal difference was higher, so I’m dying to know how that’s a bad thing, especially when he started in his own end more often than the offensive zone. And making it all strengths for this year lowers the ozone start % and raises the other numbers lol.

You're just the random dude in a message board fam, just because you post on something doesn't mean I am interesting in your opinion. I don't care what you think so why would I waste my time like that.

This is a silly post for a friend, not a 'come give me your thoughts'. You've been living in your own world this whole time while I have been making fun of you.

If you weren’t interested in opinions why would you post it in a public forum? The whole point is to garner feedback. If you enjoy living in your delusional fantasy-land then good for you I guess, but none of this is realistic and you posted it publicly for thoughts to be provided as you put it. Seems like you’ve completely missed the point here, welcome to the site.

You seem to have quite the ego. That or some really weird preconceived notions about things. It might shock you that the internet is used for all kinds of things. This sites value is in its toolkit and accuracy, not for the idiots in the comment section.

You are one of an unlimited number of people who all post the same thing over and over on here. You are all easily replaceable and thus opinions are equally worthless.