Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Again, the stats say this, but watching the player play sure didn't. Hamilton was a good player last year, and his shot is elite. But suggesting he was a monster is laughable.
My original point was that stats guys hate the trade because they love Hamilton. And people that rely on watching him play are far less enamored with him. And you refuted that with another stat calling him a monster.
Yes, he is a stats darling. But the Flames will not miss him defensively IMO.
|
I thought you were saying you don't need to rely on the culture change narrative to justify the trade because the flaws in Hamilton's game are capable of justifying the trade all by themselves. That's why I responded with a metric to show that I disagree.
I used a metric because I think it's a bad idea to rely on my eyes and memories in evaluating players. I miss most of the game because it is not caught on camera. Even with respect to what is caught on camera, I only pay attention to some of it at any one time. Even with respect to what I see, my memory is flawed and is incorrect much of the time (especially because my especially strong biases about hockey warp them). I don't think I am alone in this. Eyewitness evidence is the undisputed #1 cause of wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system. Eyewitnesses are overly confident about what they remember. That is why I don't rely on watching the games and remembering them in evaluating players.
By monster, I meant that Hamilton is a really good player, not physically tough or dominant.