zeke
Well-known member
Again, you're making it seem like I'm placing much more faith in their numbers than I actually am, which is annoying.
But yes, I would absolutely use multi year samples if they were available on that site.
Leafs' Prospect/Marlies Discussion Thread!
- Thread starter hockeylover
- Start date
Again, you're making it seem like I'm placing much more faith in their numbers than I actually am, which is annoying.
But yes, I would absolutely use multi year samples if they were available on that site.
zeke
Well-known member
this conversation has long slipped into the bizarre.
why do you keep dishonestly saying that me including all toi in a player's qoc is a "sudden' thing?
(and why the heck would anyone not include all toi anyways?)
zeke
Well-known member
I did put this 2yr qoc sample together from puckIQ in response to one of the new analytics guys on twitter getting some heat for his "top-20 dman" list.
So I calculated the 2yr numbers from puckIQ for the 20dmen he listed and pointed out that (unsurprisingly) every single controversial choice he included was someone that played against soft comp (the first number is TOI and the # in brackets was that player's team rank in qoc in each of the 2yrs):
So I calculated the 2yr numbers from puckIQ for the 20dmen he listed and pointed out that (unsurprisingly) every single controversial choice he included was someone that played against soft comp (the first number is TOI and the # in brackets was that player's team rank in qoc in each of the 2yrs):
Last edited:
BeLeafer
Well-known member
Good grief, you did your calculations with their numbers.
This seems to be the refrain whenever I call into question the way you've cooked these numbers. This is truly pointless.
zeke
Well-known member
now you're going to pretend that i didn't repeatedly and from the start say that I wouldn't use these numbers literally (and that i haven't argued for years that all available qoc metrics are inadequate to say the least), and that I didnt clearly say I was doing the math specifically to show that even the "minor" difference you claimed had real impact.
and this after you've twisted words over and over again to make me seem like the one arguing dishonestly. the newest one is that I'm "cooking" numbers just by simply filtering out your "minor" usage differences. before that it was me "suddenly changing" something I never changed.
pointless indeed.
anyways, if you'd stop trying to attack me there's actually been plenty here worth discussing that you've insisted on ignoringm
BeLeafer
Well-known member
Attack you, lol!
I pointed out that there's a minor differences in toi usage by qoc among the Leafs top four this year. This was because you claimed Rielly gets "WAY more" tough usage than Muzzin. It was you that then decided to claim a big impact (which amounted to a 2.3% 'normalized' increase) and then comparing him against all the Leafs blueliners.
Pardon me for not accepting your claims at face value.
I pointed out that there's a minor differences in toi usage by qoc among the Leafs top four this year. This was because you claimed Rielly gets "WAY more" tough usage than Muzzin. It was you that then decided to claim a big impact (which amounted to a 2.3% 'normalized' increase) and then comparing him against all the Leafs blueliners.
Pardon me for not accepting your claims at face value.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
It's the zeke "playing victim" gene. You've done 0% of the attacking in this debate. It has been a very entertaining read actually.
Preston
MBow30 alt account
I would call his close-mindedness a flaw of his yeah. He has a lot of confidence in his analytical abilities, I'll give him that. For the most part he's great though. Much better than most twitter nerds. I'm a bit disappointed he isn't nerd twitter famous but I guess he's always getting banned and stuff.
zeke
Well-known member
hey, believe what you want to believe, just stop being dishonest.
Again, I told you from the start and repeatedly throughout this convo (and have said the same for years) that these (or any) qoc numbers aren't good enough to be used literally.
Then you decided to claim that something was "minor" based on nothing but your eye guesstimate, and i showed you precisely what that "minor" difference actually means in this case.
And then you started lashing out with accusations of me "suddenly" changing the numbers I look at and "cooking" numbers and all sorts of funny stuff.
I have no problem with you not believing me and agreeing with the rest of the analytics community that says qoc is "minor".
Just look at that top-20 list I posted above to see where that conclusion gets you.
Habsy
Just Walking About Aimlessly
Preston
MBow30 alt account
Zeke knows I've consistently discussed his lack of nerd twitter celebrity. You're making up things now as usual since I annoy you. His debates vs Burtch were awesome because Burtch eventually just blocked him instead of actually engaging someone who completely proved him wrong.