[Signing] Sens sign Stone to 1 year deal ($7.35 mil)

[Oling_Roachinen]

Right now B. Tkachuk is an 18 year old student who may or may not make the NHL team. Without a guarantee, it's easy to see why he may not be leaning towards signing with the Senators today. I mean, Belleville isn't the most sought after destination, especially for a non-Canadian.

He had indicated Boston University was a real possibility for him this year even before he was selected by the Senators. There's really no cause for concern at this point.

It only becomes a concern when he's guaranteed an NHL spot and turns them down, but that's far from happening at this point.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The stats show a relationship for picks in one sport. I used it as an example to illustrate that there is also one in hockey (I wasn't guessing anything).

Watermelons weigh several pounds. I guess you could use those as an example to illustrate that there's a 10-pound kumquat out there. But it would be invalid reasoning.

If you want to show HOW MUCH more valuable the #3 pick is over the #4 IN HOCKEY, you need numbers FROM HOCKEY. You have presented no evidence that the numerical ratios in football are the same as in hockey. The only possible evidence would be to actually show the numbers for hockey, and you have already admitted that you cannot do that.

It is a valid representation for illustrating that there is a more significant difference between top picks than between the picks after #4.

No, it is not, because the data are taken from a different population.

You can choose to agree or disagree, but trying to argue that using an example is not a valid use of statistics is pretty funny.

You are using a watermelon as an example of a kumquat.

For some reason, you feel the need to 'win' arguments.

I feel the need to call out blatantly foolish and wrong remarks, because they degrade the discussion.

I gave reasons why I think they should have kept their pick.

Your reasons depended upon an invalid use of mathematics. I pointed that out, and instead of finding data that would actually support your contention, you just got butthurt about it.

You have given reasons why you think differently. Great. That is where it should have ended - they're opinions.

Numbers are not opinions. Whether numbers measure X or Y is not an opinion. That it is invalid in mathematics to generalize about X when the numbers measure Y is not an opinion.

Your facts and methodology are wrong, and that is not a matter of opinion.

But no, you have to try and prove the other person wrong every time.

A moment ago, you were claiming that your views were factual. Now they're just opinions, and I'm hurting your wittle feels because I'm a big meanie who argues for no reason.

Gotcha.

Pathetic, really. If you can't bear to be argued with, you shouldn't argue.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

A moment ago, you were claiming that your views were factual. Now they're just opinions, and I'm hurting your wittle feels because I'm a big meanie who argues for no reason.

Gotcha.

Pathetic, really. If you can't bear to be argued with, you shouldn't argue.

[Enoch Root]

lol

thanks for proving my point for me, Jay.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

thanks for proving my point for me, Jay.

Your point was that you could use numbers from football to do a numeric analysis from hockey. I didn't prove that point, because it was obviously wrong.

I thought you said you were done; but since you obviously aren't, here's a basic lesson for you from a professional statistician:

Which brings us to today's topic: correlation. Ever since David Hume, correlation has held pride of place over causation due to the inability of inductive reasoning ever to establish causes. It establishes only a co-relation between two (or more) variables measured on the same unit. Thus, it requires:

measurements

on the same units

Neither is as simple as it sounds.

(Michael Flynn)

Your numbers from the NFL are not measurements; they are numbers on an arbitrary scale, derived by an unspecified method from measurements that you do not provide. No units are given.

For the NHL, you have provided no numbers, no measurements, and no units.

You then assert that the NFL and NHL numbers are correlated. You have established no correlation, because the very minimum you need for a correlation is two sets of measurements in the same units.

You then claim that this correlation is so very strong that you can simply take the NFL numbers as an accurate proxy for what the equivalent NHL numbers would be if they existed. You have absolutely no basis for making such a claim, and any statistician in the world would laugh at you for it.

I'll offer you a deal: You stop making fatuous arguments, and I'll stop calling you out for it. This has nothing at all with my needing to be right; this is about having an honest discussion. God forbid that any uninformed person should be misled into thinking that your argument represents a valid way of using statistics. Things are bad enough already.

[DoubleK]

For the love of God, let it go already.

[Enoch Root]

lol

The NFL numbers aren't statistics, they're a simple model. And that is how I used them, as an example, an illustration, a model, a representation. I never claimed a correlation.

But hey, don't let that stop you - keep creating arguments that you can refute. It's fun!

[Poe969]

What value would Mark Stone have, or does that not belong in this thread?

[pokerNhockey]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Your point was that you could use numbers from football to do a numeric analysis from hockey. I didn't prove that point, because it was obviously wrong.


...

This chart shows the value of NHL draft picks from the perspective of draft pick only trades from '06 - '12. i.e.: 6th = 45.9 points + 22nd = ~20 points + 28th = ~15.5 points, for a total of 81.4 would not usually be enough to trade up to 1st overall = 100 points)

Spoiler!

My source is https://www.broadstreethockey.com/20...lue-trading-up



Not a perfect equation because there are not a lot of picks only trades, but it does support the conclusion there is some level of correlation to the NFL numbers he quoted. TSN also looked at it a few years ago from the quality of player you expect to get with each pick perspective - which shows a similar curve.

I thought you said you were done; but since you obviously aren't, here's a basic lesson for you from a professional statistician:

Your numbers from the NFL are not measurements; they are numbers on an arbitrary scale, derived by an unspecified method from measurements that you do not provide. No units are given.

For the NHL, you have provided no numbers, no measurements, and no units.

You then assert that the NFL and NHL numbers are correlated. You have established no correlation, because the very minimum you need for a correlation is two sets of measurements in the same units.

The very minimum you need for a correlation is two things that seem to be associated in a way not explained by random chance. There are a lot of correlations which are not possible to measure in consistent units. For example, what consistent unit would you use to measure the correlation between heat waves and deaths? Color of a car and likelyhood of speeding tickets? (red cars get the most).

I'll offer you a deal: You stop making fatuous arguments, and I'll stop calling you out for it. This has nothing at all with my needing to be right; this is about having an honest discussion. God forbid that any uninformed person should be misled into thinking that your argument represents a valid way of using statistics. Things are bad enough already.

Fun fact for the E=NG thread:
The Oilers gave up 16 and 33 (27.1+12.5 = 39.6 ) for Reinhart
The Flames gave up 15, 42, and 57 (28.5+8+4.3 = 40.8) for Hamilton

[Oling_Roachinen]

The other issue is that not all drafts are created equal. 2015 had McDavid and Eichel going into it. That gave you two shots. In 2016 you could make the case for Matthews, Laine and Puljujarvi pulling ahead of the pack at this time in 2015. Of course Puljujarvi fell a spot and hasn't amounted to anywhere close to his peers.

But 2019 right now has Hughes, and then some really good - but I believe yet to separate themselves - prospects in Kakko, Newhook, Cozens and friends.

So if the Senators looked at it as, if they don't get Hughes which may be a 10% chance at best, who are they looking at in that top 2-5 spot and are they better than Tkachuk (who evidently they were more high on then Zadina and friends). Maybe they just decided they liked Tkachuk more at this point. Hardly unreasonable.

Add on the extra year of development, the idea that they're going into a rebuild and likely will have a plethora of talent (they hope) from the 2019 (once/if Karlson and Stone traded), 2020, 2021 drafts, that having Tkachuk from the 2018 draft will stagger the talent a bit.