You do see the irony here right? You're accusing me of a strawman fallacy, but if I agree with you because you said so and not because I actually believe it, that too is a logical fallacy ( appeal to authority, although i use authority ostensibly here).

And fwiw, this isnt an example of a strawman argument. It's a disagreement. I'm reading numbers that tell me the players you mentioned aren't moving the needle as much as the canucks shooting percentage and save % are. You obviously don't agree with that. Thus the disagreement.

Maybe not
But i also don’t think we need Dahlin to have a “top pairing quality” partner
What we need to bring in- imo- is just a solid “top4” stay at home type to play with Power

A straw man is the refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. I argued your discussion wasn't in good faith because you were discrediting the points as to why the players weren't good without providing examples, you simply excluded them because you had no other fallback and without suggesting how the players were worse for pro scouting, and again you argued that mine should be disqualified because yours were. That's a strawman.

Returning to the topic at hand, the Canucks pro scouting is good. I've given you a list of players and the reasons why they're good. Now, please provide reasons as to why the players aren't good pro scouting compared to the rest of the league.

Additionally, the Athletic Staff believed the Canucks did the best this offseason with their pro scouting.

I literally provided data in the form of expected goals above replacement and expected wins above replacement. You chose to ignore this. I dont know why. But thats a disagreement, not a strawman. I didnt exclude your points because I had no fallback. I simply don't agree based on the data I have at hand. This is a disagreement.

But since you asked nicely here is my reasoning, one more time, with feeling.

None of the players you mentioned are among the leaders in expected goals above replacment for the canucks. Goals above replacement is a metric that attempts to assign a total value to each player, which represents how much that player contributed to their team in a single number ( source: evolvingwild). XGAR attempts to capture in a single metric what the players expected value is. That is, how much would they have contributed. Its an attempt to isolate for shooting luck essentially. That way players who create a ton of chances for teammates who can't bury them aren't unfairly punished, for example.

The fact that most of the players you mentioned dont rank inside the top 10 (lafferty being the exception at 10th) indicates that they aren't the primary drivers of on ice impact for the canucks. This isn't to say that they are all bad. Just that, if you are looking for the primary reason for why this team is currently performing really well, it's probably not because of the guys whose total on ice impact isn't in the top half of their own lineup.

Additionally, Blueger, Joshua, Suter and Hoglander are shooting between 20-23% at 5v5 this year. That seems very high, almost unsustainably so. Almost like they're quite lucky to have scored at the rate that they have.

You mentioned Hronek so Ill touch on that too. I'm personally not a big believer in evaluating total defensive value by point totals. point totals are by nature team driven and while its conceivable that a d-man who scores lots of points is adding value offensively, it doesn't quite capture how the defender...well, defends, right? Hronek is 3rd last on the canucks in expected goals above replacement, largely because his expected defensive goals above replacement are well into the negatives. This generally isn't indicative of a good d-man since their primary directive is to well, defend. If you disagree with that assessment thats fine. I know plenty of people who think that position's primary directive should be driving offense. And there's certainly an argument for it. But again, that would be a disagreement, not a strawman.

As for your athletic article linked. I do not have a subscription, so I cannot read it and form an opinion on it one way or another. Because i can't simply just take your word that it definitively proves the canucks are excellent at pro scouting. That would be appealing to authority, a logical fallacy much like the strawman.

References

Hume, D. (2004). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Courier Corporation.


Wild, E. (n.d.-a). Goals above replacement. https://evolving-hockey.com/glossary/goals-above-replacement/#:~:text=Goals%20Above%20Replacement%20(GAR%2C%20WAR,play%20within%20a%20given%20sport.

Wild, E. (n.d.-b). Xgar Skater stats. https://evolving-hockey.com/stats/skater_xgar/?_inputs_&xgar_sk_team=%22All%22&xgar_sk_pos=%22All%22&xgar_sk_base=%22Replacement%22&xgar_sk_type=%22Totals%22&xgar_sk_col=%22Basic%22&xgar_sk_info=%22No%22&xgar_sk_status=%22All%22&xgar_sk_range=%22Seasons%22&xgar_sk_season=%2220232024%22&xgar_sk_span=%22Regular%22&xgar_sk_group=%22Team%2C+Season%22&xgar_sk_dft_yr=%22All%22&xgar_sk_age1=%2217%22&xgar_sk_age2=%2250%22&xgar_sk_players=%5B%22Dakota+Joshua%22%2C%22Teddy+Blueger%22%2C%22Filip+Hronek%22%2C%22Nils+Hoglander%22%2C%22Carson+Soucy%22%5D&xgar_sk_toi_all=%2250%22&xgar_sk_toi_ev=%220%22&xgar_sk_toi_pp=%220%22&xgar_sk_toi_sh=%220%22

Ya of course their led by their top players. They identified and built a strong supporting cast around them. If you can't see that then that's on you.

Lmao right!

"I don't care about half of your roster" hahaha what a clown that guy is.

Also "your bottom/middle 6 players are not top 10 in the league at expected goals for so they're obviously not going anything helpful" lmfao show me a team with a middle/bottom 6 full of top 10 players.

i mean...yeah i dont care about the bottom half of your roster lol. Do you care about the bottom half of anyone else's roster? This really isnt the own you think it is lol.

That's fine. Likewise, if you cant see that most of the success that you attribute to their depth is simply the result of them shooting out of their minds at 5v5, that's on you.

Lol ya I do care about the bottom half of a roster especially when the original conversation is about pro scouting and how they've identified good players.

The difference between teams like the Sabres and the Canucks isn't at the top of the lineup. Sabres have the star talent to be a good team. They haven't figured out the buy in part (which comes from coaching and organizational alignment) nor have they been able to identify complimentary pieces to that star talent.

Yes Canucks are over performing but even when it regresses they have built a solid foundation (largely due to pro scouting) and will still be a good team.

Your argument that the supporting cast has only attributed to 3 xGAR or whatever it is (GAR is super flawed still btw) also means nothing unless you compare it to the league average for supporting players.

The difference between the Sabres and Canucks is that Dahlin is half the player he was last year and the canucks shooters are all shooting like twice as well as the Sabres lol. The rest is competent goaltending vs two guys who should be in the AHL. The differences are entirely at the top of the lineup. The canucks are getting about the same underlying impact from their bottom half of the roster as most teams.

Edit: And Tage being injured for 10 and playing another 10 games hurt. Thats probably a factor too.

Why are you comparing the xGAR vs. other Canucks and not vs. the rest of the League? If you look at xGAR for Blueger, he's 304th at 5v5 out of 537th. On an average NHL team, that's the 9th best forward. The fact that he's ranked 14th among forwards in Vancouver is a boon. That just further proves the superior pro-scouting.

As for Hronek's xGAR, he's 39th in the league, and 3rd behind Hughes and Soucy on the Canucks. It's very disingenuous to exclude the league and rather point to how they rank on the team when the whole team is playing well, and they're all playing well compared to the league.

By contrast to Blueger, Hoglander, and Suter having high Sh%; Garland, Hronek, Kuzmenko, and Mikheyev are all shooting well below their career averages, also unsustainably so. It all balances out.

To make it easier for you since you don't have a TA subscription:

"The club’s offseason bets have hit across the board. Teddy Blueger and Pius Suter have brought two-way stability to the center position, Casey DeSmith has stabilized the team’s goaltending depth, Sam Lafferty has scored 10 goals and been given extended looks in the top six, and Ian Cole and Carson Soucy have been big parts of the Canucks’ evolution into a genuinely solid defensive team with a hulking blue line." - Thomas Drance, The Althletic

Because Im not debating whether guys like blueger are good players. Im not disputing their individual value relative to the rest of the league. Im disputing the notion that scouts batted 1.000 on their moves and that these guys, whose underlying numbers arent among the top half of their own team, are the reason why the Canucks are sizzling this year and not because in part they are shooting at a monster and unsustainable rate 5v5.

Furthermore, it doesn't "all balance out" just cause some guys are shooting worse than before and other guys are shooting better. The degree to which they are shooting worse or better matters. The canucks 5v5 sh% is around 12.5%, tops in the league, like 5% better than the kings. In fact, it is currently the highest shooting percentage at 5v5 since natural stat trick started recording them back in 2008. Are we saying this isnt a huge luck driven factor?

I do not know where you got your Hronek number from. He's 229th this year in expected goals above replacement. He's in the negatives.

What are you even talking about? Your logic makes no sense.

"I'm not disputing their... value relative to the rest of the league."

If you're not comparing them to other players in their same position, what can you possibly compare it to?

Obviously, Blueger isn't on the same level as Elias Pettersson or JT Miller. Who on earth would think that? That's not realistic. However, he is better than any other 3rd line center in the league right now. That's good pro scouting.

Yeah, Hronek isn't on par with the defender who was talented enough to not give up any 5v5 goals for their first 10 games in a Canuck uniform. He's still 39th in the league. He'd be a #1 on most teams in the league and was had for a 1st + 2nd.

Why would you discount a high Sh% and not say it's because of pro-scouting? High Sh% is a good thing, the fact that all three forwards (Blueger, Lafferty, Suter) are shooting at career-high rates is a good thing, something you can attribute to good pro scouting.

Please, provide me examples of bad pro-scouting. Which player brought on has been a complete failure in the last two seasons?

First bolded has been my whole point lol. The additions arent the needle movers. Their best guys are playing well, and their not best guys are shooting at an insane number. If they were shooting at a normal number, the canucks wouldnt be nearly this good.

2nd bolded, Because its an insane sky rocketed number that is totally unsustainable lol. What logical basis is there to assume that these guys shooting in the low 20 %'s is a result of genius scouting and not luck? It doesn't make sense.

I still dont know where you are getting 39th from. He's literally 229th this year in expected goals above replacement, unless i misunderstood and you are talking about a different year?

Brother this isn't a class for credit, Ive already done way more than is considered reasonable in terms of responding to this. I'm not doing any more research on a team i dont care about unless you can offer me a salary or university approved credits to help me graduate ahead of schedule lmao.

We completely disagree with each other and im fine with that, but spare me the strawman nonsense. you dont like what i have to say. You don't agree with my viewpoints. Those arent strawmans, they are disagreements.

Edit: you're clearly of the opinion that the shooting percentage is sustainable and directly a result of great scouting. I don't agree with that at all, that's the crux of the disagreement here. I don't see the connection personally.

My guy:

The Canucks have a 55 goal differential.

Blueger has 6 goals. If Blueger was scoring at his career Sh% he'd have 3 goals.

That's a 52 goal differential.

Lafferty has 10 goals. If he was scoring at his career Sh%, he'd have 5 goals.

That's a 47 goal differential.

Boeser has 27 goals. If he was scoring at his career Sh%, he'd have 16 goals.

That's a 38 goal differential.

Do you know where that puts Vancouver? 2nd in the league in goal differential, behind the 42-goal dif. Winnipeg Jets.

Just admit the Canucks pro scouting is good my guy.

You conveniently left out the other players you mentioned earlier. Joshua, Suter, Hoglander, Brings it down considerably more.

Also for like the third time. You telling me to admit that canucks pro scouting is good because you said so is literally the same kind of fallacy you incorrectly accused me of.

Also your math on some of those examples is a little off but thats hardly the point now.

Yes, and I left out all the players scoring below their career Sh%, too.

Again, all you're saying is "Your wrong." without actually proving it.

Looking at yourself in the mirror? Buddy, you're exactly right. You know none of your points have stuck. All the Canuck players are playing above league average. That's the goal of a pro-scout, get players who are going to perform well together. Pointing to the career highs and xGAR being above league average, I'd say that's pretty good!

If you say so pal

Let's recap.

You've only provided xGAR vs. team and increased Sh% to back up your point. When you compare it to xGAR vs. League, the Canucks are far higher. Increased Sh% across the board shows good pro-scouting. If the career Sh% was down, we'd be saying the pro-scouting is bad. Each of my points has had numbers that back up my point that you haven't been able to refute. Please, instead of arguing saying 'you're wrong,' back up your point with facts and logic.

if you say so pal

The fact that you're not comparing guys to league comparables is absolute insanity and complete invalidates your arguments.

"Canucks scouting is bad because the players they brought in aren't as good as their top players" is an asinine argument.

That's literally not what I said. If you're going to quote someone, at least get it right. Especially if you want to call their argument asinine, tends to carry more weight.

It's paraphrasing but is essentially what you said.