[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

wtf?

I figured you wouldn't understand. However, it is better to demonstrate the fact rather than assume it.

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?

The conclusion you draw from it does not follow from the premises given.

Again, wtf?

Again, I figured you wouldn't understand.

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

Because there are only two goalies on a team, and one of them usually plays a significant majority of games. A #1 goalie gets more ice time than any other player on the team, and plays a more important role. Every other skater's job is fungible to some degree. If the goalie does his job poorly, that alone will make the team lose any given game.

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

I'm sorry, I thought this was a forum for hockey fans, who could be expected to know these basic things already.

You bring up the example of Carey Price, but there are many more examples of skaters who have stronger MVP seasons.

Now you're just blowing smoke. Present the examples, and the metrics by which they are adjudged to have ‘stronger MVP seasons’. Otherwise, you are simply assuming facts not in evidence.

Goaltenders are rarely considered for the Hart, and for good reason.

Right: because they already have the Vezina, and many Hart voters (rightly or wrongly) feel that the Hart should be for positional players.

We're seeing Dubnyk tear up the league right now, but doesn't that mean he's more valuable than Zach Parise?

Of course not, because he is tearing up the league right now. Even bad goalies can have hot streaks for a few games. Brian Boucher had an amazing string of consecutive shutouts, but was never more than a career backup. Dwayne Roloson was another career backup, but he had one hot streak that took his team to the Stanley Cup finals before the luck ran out.

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

Chris Osgood actually won three Stanley Cups, and has 401 regular-season wins as well. After a rough start to his career, he became a very good goalie. Niemi is a solid NHL starter. How does that argue against my point?

As for Crawford, refer to the bit above about mediocre goalies having hot streaks. If the team as a whole is strong enough, merely above-average goaltending can suffice; and Crawford was above average in that year's playoffs.

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.

Actually, you cannot assume ANYTHING about the relative values of X and Y. They are unknown values until you go looking for evidence of what their values actually are.

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

There you go with the insults again. Until you can knock it off with the personal abuse, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

This is a forum. We discuss hockey. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by pointing out that you are not discussing hockey, but being a jerk to other posters. Now it's your turn to deal with it.

Don't want to discuss? Put me on ignore.

Want to discuss? Then discuss, instead of spouting crap that only makes people want to put you on ignore.

Don't fill a thread with posts telling everybody how cool you are for not taking somebody else seriously.

I never said anything about how cool I am, directly or by implication. You can knock off lying about other posters, too.

Insults? I'm being told that people "don't take [me] seriously".

Which is not an insult.

You are the one mocking a poster seeking discussion, not unadulterated agreement on every subject.

I'm not mocking you. I am pointing out that you are being insulting to everyone who disagrees with you. In fact, you act as if it is YOU who wants unadulterated agreement on every subject; only you want everyone to agree with you, and you will use any trick from personal abuse to outright falsehood to try to extort that agreement from others.

Calling actions childish or unconducive to logical discussion is not an insult.

Sorry, ‘childish’ is indeed an insult. ‘Unconducive to logical discussion’ is merely laughable, since you frequently resort to insults and abuse yourself. (In fact, I did not even count it as an insult, as you would observe if you were in the habit of reading carefully. The three insults to which I referred were ‘groupthink’, ‘childish’, and ‘useless’. Go back and see for yourself.) It would appear that you are simply unaware of how little your own behaviour contributes to any kind of logical discussion, and when logical discussion fails to occur, you blame everyone but yourself.

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).

This is not about a single incident. This is about a pattern of rude and abusive behaviour that you have been showing on this forum for years.