[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It's already been explained to you. You didn't get it.

Then explain it again to me?

That's irrelevant. The correlation is not as strong, but it is nevertheless there.

wtf?

If skaters have a correlation to their draft position of 0.6 and goalies have a correlation of 0.3, that difference could be massive.
And again, with what I said originally, that the relationship is not as strong, how is that wrong?

But this does not follow unless you can assume that X and Y are equal. That is not a valid assumption. The value of a regular NHL goalie is so much greater than the value of an average NHL skater that the opportunity cost of passing up a good goalie is huge. To take an extreme case, if Montreal had passed up Carey Price at #5, there was no other player in that whole draft that could have contributed as much to their success.

Again, wtf? I never argued about the potential value of a starting goalie vs. an impact skater, so why am I being mocked? If you really want to discuss this, fine.

Why are you assuming that a goalie is unarguably more valuable than a skater? How can you?

Goalies are important obviously, but you cannot just come in here and say that a good goalie is more valuable than a good skater.

You bring up the example of Carey Price, but there are many more examples of skaters who have stronger MVP seasons. Goaltenders are rarely considered for the Hart, and for good reason. We're seeing Dubnyk tear up the league right now, but does that mean he's more valuable than Zach Parise?

This, a league where Corey Crawford, Chris Osgood, and Antti Niemi have recently led their teams to Stanley Cup Championships?

You cannot assume any of that. You can only assume that the value of x is approximately equal to y. You have no foundation to say otherwise.

The fact that you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of groupthink is precisely why so many of us find you obnoxious.

The fact that people would ask me a question and then say they aren't taking me seriously when I give a response i precisely why I find people like you childish

This is a forum. We discuss hockey. Deal with it. Don't want to discuss? Put me on ignore. Don't fill a thread with posts telling everybody how cool you are for not taking somebody else seriously.

That's two insults in one paragraph. ‘Groupthink’, and now ‘acting like a child’.

Three insults.

Insulting the generality of CP posters three times in two sentences is even less conducive to logical discussion. In fact, I can't say that logical discussion is your strong point. Ad hominem abusive is not a valid method in any form of logic that I have ever heard of.[/QUOTE]

Insults? I'm being told that people "don't take [me] seriously". You are the one mocking a poster seeking discussion, not unadulterated agreement on every subject.

Calling actions childish or unconducive to logical discussion is not an insult. Nor is it insulting the generality of CP posters (I never referred to the forum in general, so you're going to have to be more specific on that one).