Quoting: mokumboi
Heh. You accuse me of a whopper fallacy, and then proceed to use pretty much every fallacy known to mankind in your diatribe. That's adoooorable.
First off, I never said you had to watch every Buch game. There's a ton of space between always and never. I asked how many. And seeing as how you wasted all that effort to completely dodge the simple and polite question, I'm guessing that number is suuuuper low. I mean, the only two ways to somehow imagine that Rust and Rakell are better players than Buch are to 1) not actually have seen him play or 2) ingest enough cocaine to kill a decent sized adult moose. Seeing as how you're still alive, it has to be #1.
Secondly, you posted exactly one objective data stat: rebounds created. The other five are NOT objective at all. And not only are those analytic stats FULLY subjective, they're not even individual stats. Let's be 1000000% clear on this: analytics are NOT objective data. That anyone could ever imagine they were is gobsmacking.
Finally, the point was if you never watch a player, how are you gonna sit there and spout all these myopic viewpoints as declarations of fact solely from reading analytic stats. That's just a great way to be woefully wrong a lot.
But since you love simplistic stats so much, here's one for ya: Buch has topped Guentzel in P/60 the last two seasons, both overall and at 5v5.
I used every fallacy? Wow, that's amazing that I fit so many into such little text.
Let's be clear, your question was simple but not polite. It's intent was to say how great he looks on the ice and that those "silly" advanced stats mean nothing. Let's also be clear that instead of countering my stats you instead decided to dodge that argument for another with little to no merit, "the eye test".
Now you've decided to become even more hostile. Extending words and bringing in obsurd notions of drug use.
So the stats aren't objective? So there isn't a calculation that can be done by outside parties to come to the same number and conclusion? You know, like all objective facts. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it subjective.
How am I going to judge stats if I never watched a player? The same way I can speak to my local community about helping the homeless situation without ever having been homeless. Because I have the right to look at facts and think for myself.
But you don't want to talk about that, do you slick? You want to tell me how great a guy looks on the ice and how he is worth 15 1st round picks. That's great! Your opinion is certainly allowed and encouraged on a forum such as this. But your opinion is not represented by facts. Don't pretend that it is.
As for the only actual facts your brought to the table, Bush has more points per 60 than Guentzel. Let's look at 5v5 numbers.
Bush this year: 2.51
Bush last year; 2.46
Guentzel this year: 1.86
Guentzel last year: 2.48
So he had more points per 60 this year but not last year. I wonder why... oh yeah I know, he shot 20%. If you put him back into his normal shooting percentage than those points per 60 becomes 1.97
Hmm. So he has similar scoring numbers to Guentzel, similar defensive numbers to Guentzel. But he doesn't draw penalties, hit people, take the puck away, or play 75+ games per season. Sounds like Guentzel is better to me.
But, again, you don't want to talk about numbers or facts. You want to be right. Well be a King in your own head and leave me alone unless you have data.
AnonymousSensFan and Jakobie liked this.
Reply
Neighbours,
CapFriendly
CapFriendly