Ongoing thread for Neal/Lucic discussion

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

That, or because you yourself (vis-a-vis Bingo) designed these options alongside your own opinions on *why* people shouldn’t like it. Therefore those who don’t like it might feel like none of the options actually apply to them.

...Which is why a poll constructed this way doesn’t accurately reflect anything.

Jesus ...

I put up a request for how the poll should go. Scorpion suggested something that many people liked quickly and I put it up.

So much drama on this site these days.

Why don't you give me a new one then, it will return roughly the same splits and we can move on.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

You brought it up!

Actually I think this is where things headed into the weeds ...

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

That, or because you yourself (vis-a-vis Bingo) designed these options alongside your own opinions on *why* people shouldn’t like it. Therefore those who don’t like it might feel like none of the options actually apply to them.

...Which is why a poll constructed this way doesn’t accurately reflect anything.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

The sample size is huge relative to though so the poll likely does reflect the CP population that have accounts. I suspect there isn’t really any self-selection bias in the sample vs the population.

The poll design certainly biases toward neutral because it has the closest to a factual statement as its qualifier rather than subjective statements.

I mentioned this earlier but all polls should not have the reason attached. Let the Thread be used for justification.

Well said ... representative of the web site, but maybe not the city as a whole or Calgary fandom as a whole.

Which then brings you to accuracy. Is the poll biased because most CP members are Flames fans? Or are any Flames fans of any type biased? Is it better to have educated fans voting? A Calgary Sun poll will have people that couldn't give a rip just selecting an option, but does that make a poll better?

Honestly seems like those that don't like the trade are looking for reasons to discount the fact that they're in the minority. Guess when it doubt moving the goal posts is better than other options.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well said ... representative of the web site, but maybe not the city as a whole or Calgary fandom as a whole.

Which then brings you to accuracy. Is the poll biased because most CP members are Flames fans? Or are any Flames fans of any type biased? Is it better to have educated fans voting? A Calgary Sun poll will have people that couldn't give a rip just selecting an option, but does that make a poll better?

Honestly seems like those that don't like the trade are looking for reasons to discount the fact that they're in the minority. Guess when it doubt moving the goal posts is better than other options.

I don’t think it’s moving the goal posts. About half of CP posters didn’t like this trade.

The idea that only 1/5 disliked it is a misuse of the information provided.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yes, his on ice play.
The fact the coach scratched him in the most important game of the year.
After that it was obvious Neal would not be brought back. There was no fit for him on any line we tried him on. Zero chemistry with any of our players. He didn’t show nhl caliber skating or effort. He was done, done, done. Surprised me how many thought he could rebound with us when there was zero evidence of that being a possibility based on his play last year. I mean Neal was worse for us than Raymond, Brouwer, etc. Worse than two players we bought out.

How could anyone conclude he could’ve stayed? It wasn’t a possibility

I don’t recall a single person saying there was no way Flames could bring back Neal after his putrid season. A lot of complaint for sure but don’t recall this idea being expressed once.

If it had been expressed, we all know textcritic would have written a lengthy biting response, which while expressing disappointment with Neal would have laid out all the potential reasons for hope he would be better.

I don’t believe there is any objective evidence behind the idea and it is exactly as Bingo states, an assumption which if true makes the trade easier to like.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think it’s moving the goal posts. About half of CP posters didn’t like this trade.

The idea that only 1/5 disliked it is a misuse of the information provided.

If you had up hate it and don't like it you get 21% no?

That's 1/5.

How do you get half don't like it when 48% like it, and 34% are indifferent?

Or I don't understand what you mean

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you had up hate it and don't like it you get 21% no?

That's 1/5.

How do you get half don't like it when 48% like it, and 34% are indifferent?

Or I don't understand what you mean

The indifferent don’t like it either.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t recall a single person saying there was no way Flames could bring back Neal after his putrid season. A lot of complaint for sure but don’t recall this idea being expressed once.

If it had been expressed, we all know textcritic would have written a lengthy biting response, which while expressing disappointment with Neal would have laid out all the potential reasons for hope he would be better.

I don’t believe there is any objective evidence behind the idea and it is exactly as Bingo states, an assumption which if true makes the trade easier to like.

Certainly doesn't make it a fact no.

But to take Lucic back isn't something you do if you were indifferent on getting rid of Neal.

Assumption for sure, but I think a logical one.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

That, or because you yourself (vis-a-vis Bingo) designed these options alongside your own opinions on *why* people shouldn’t like it. Therefore those who don’t like it might feel like none of the options actually apply to them.

...Which is why a poll constructed this way doesn’t accurately reflect anything.

The poll options are Iraqi Foreign Minister level stuff, forces you to choose a qualifier when you vote. Poll should have been

love
like
meh
dislike
hate

That's it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t recall a single person saying there was no way Flames could bring back Neal after his putrid season. A lot of complaint for sure but don’t recall this idea being expressed once.

If it had been expressed, we all know textcritic would have written a lengthy biting response, which while expressing disappointment with Neal would have laid out all the potential reasons for hope he would be better.

I don’t believe there is any objective evidence behind the idea and it is exactly as Bingo states, an assumption which if true makes the trade easier to like.

I didn’t say it as strongly as I could’ve on here but here’s what I said before the trade in my reimagining the top 9 thread

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Problem? Can’t really fit Neal in

Treliving fixed the problem. Neal wasn’t a fit going forward. I couldn’t even pencil him in to my lineup on any line! He didn’t fit!

I certainly said it in harsher terms to a couple of my buddies IRL. I’m sure we can find lots of quotes where people want to buyout Neal or dump Neal after last season but I can only seem to scroll back 10 pages

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Certainly doesn't make it a fact no.

But to take Lucic back isn't something you do if you were indifferent on getting rid of Neal.

Assumption for sure, but I think a logical one.

Sure but there is a lot of distance between indifference and no other choice. Who wouldn’t have wanted Neal gone.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I didn’t say it as strongly as I could’ve on here but here’s what I said before the trade in my reimagining the top 9 thread



Treliving fixed the problem. Neal wasn’t a fit going forward. I couldn’t even pencil him in to my lineup on any line! He didn’t fit!

I certainly said it in harsher terms to a couple of my buddies IRL. I’m sure we can find lots of quotes where people want to buyout Neal or dump Neal after last season but I can only seem to scroll back 10 pages

Everyone wanted Neal gone. That’s not the point.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

The poll options are Iraqi Foreign Minister level stuff, forces you to choose a qualifier when you vote. Poll should have been

love
like
meh
dislike
hate

That's it.

Are you offering your services as the new poll custodian at Calgarypuck?

We need one clearly!

But make sure you make all of us happy when you put your first one up, otherwise it's quite a headache.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Are you offering your services as the new poll custodian at Calgarypuck?

We need one clearly!

But make sure you make all of us happy when you put your first one up, otherwise it's quite a headache.

I will take this job, I love polling.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GGG

I will take this job, I love polling.

You may want to put up numerous polls getting everyone's vote on the wording of every poll before you post the actual poll though.

Bases covered (who am I kidding)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sure but there is a lot of distance between indifference and no other choice. Who wouldn’t have wanted Neal gone.

You're getting a little fine on this aren't you?

Taking back a toxic asset means you thought you were getting rid of a toxic asset.

If you consider Neal a toxic asset isn't it easy to jump to the conclusion that they wanted him gone?

I can't dot the "i"s for you but this getting into the tiniest of differentials isn't it?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by zamler

The poll options are Iraqi Foreign Minister level stuff, forces you to choose a qualifier when you vote. Poll should have been

love
like
meh
dislike
hate

That's it.

I don’t think it really matters. People are smarter than that, aren’t they?

How many people said ‘I would have said I loved it but for a different reason so I chose that I hated it’

Highly doubt it skewed anything but I see Bingo has the new poll with unqualified options.

Man, I can’t wait until hockey starts up

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That’s the thing, Lindholm wasn’t a 45 point player. That’s just a label you put on him. Most players aren’t done developing by 23, it is foolish to judge them as finished products at that point and many made that mistake last summer.

We're back to you being categorically wrong about things. The vast majority of players do not significantly improve after age 23. Production peaks around that age and then plateaus for a couple of years before falling on average in the late 20's. Almost no one suddenly jumps 77% in point production after they've been in the year a couple of seasons. It's possible that Lindholm is an outlier, and that explanation is given more credence because it's hard to see what else could be causing it, but as a general rule, your statement above is categorically false.

[DeluxeMoustache]

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/...s-age-analysis

What does it tell us?

One thing that stands out to me is that the peak is shifted slightly from the general consensus. Hawerchuk previously found that points-per-game peaked at age 25, but it looks like points-per-minute peaks at age 24, at least for forwards.

That discrepancy isn't hard to explain -- players get less ice time early in their careers, which suppresses their per-game scoring.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I couldn't be any more transparent with my thoughts.



I've always called them assumptions not facts. So no I'm not saying it's the only option, but my assumption was that the owners didn't like the buy out (Haynes article quote below seems to back that up).







Seems to at least support my assumption to some degree.



So the next assumption in my mind proves itself. Why would he take on Lucic and a light sweetner if there were better options out there? That doesn't make sense.



He could wait it out but clearly he thought this was it.

It comes down to sink cost fallacy, imo. A quick present value analysis comparing the financials on a Neal buyout vs a Lucic acquisition favours the Neal buyout very comfortably unless Lucic can provide about 2.5m of on ice value per year for 4 years.

The beauty of the buyout is pushing the cap hit to future years where it will be deflated in a world where the has risen every year.

So I don’t buy the assertion that the owners would draw a line in the sand on a buyout when it would basically illustrate a lack of understanding in how sunk costs work.

As for why the Lucic option was chosen? I believe Tree sees value in him. He may have had other alternatives and chosen the opportunity of a Lucic rebound along with the other qualities he brings that are lacking on the rest of the roster. Again, there was no gun to his head... he sees some value in Lucic and we don’t need to pretend he didn’t.

Imo, you are making it hard to have a discussion with you right now... come across as very defensive and not open minded to considering different viewpoints.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk