F Chris Kreider (2009, 19th overall, NY Rangers) II -"What's the big deal," you ask?
View Single Post
12-31-2012, 10:04 AM
And the winner is...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Watauga, TX
Originally Posted by
I don't know, maybe the fact that it's not just people on HF saying that his upside is higher than what you make it out to be?
Because again, those people always get it right.
Maybe it's the fact that you clearly and blatantly overlook the most important part of his professional career to date and say it's such a small sample size, but yet in the same notion judge him on a relatively close sample size (29 games to 18 is such a massive gap...)
Im judging him more on his lack of production over his 114 game college career than anything else.
Or maybe it's the fact that your argument is one gigantic hypocritical mass of regurgitated subjective opinion that I don't need much of a psychoanalysis to see that you're clearly tired of seeing the name "Kreider" on your computer's screen.
Subjective? Please. You cant a couple lines later say my opinion is stats driven, but then say its subjective. You cant have it both ways.
And again, what you ignore and continue to ignore as seen here is the jump from the NCAA with NO AHL TIME straight to the NHL into the NHL PLAYOFFS.
Nope, not ignoring anything. Just not massively overvaluing a 32 point pace over an 18 game sample size. The way some of you guys talk, you would think he came into the playoffs and put up a point a game.
Ok, put your team's best prospect with a 50-man roster filler that was an unsigned UFA out of college and an unsigned goon on a line with 3rd line minutes and see how he produces.
Again, the crappy team argument would have a little validity if he wasnt his teams 11th leading scorer.
29 games in a controlled environment isn't a small sample size? We never said he was the next coming of Crosby or someone like that (bernmeister aside, but he's been chastised by all Ranger posters for that) but you stating that you're "not overvaluing small sample sizes" is asinine at best when you're turning around and using his AHL stats as the be-all, end-all barometer and the focal point of your argument
Of course its a small sample size. Its a slightly larger sample size than his 32 point pace NHL playoffs performance. But its not the be-all end-all of my argument. His mediocre production over 114 college games is fr more important.
No, your arguments aren't history nor odds driven. Your arguments are purely stats driven and the same principles you apply to your arguments you leave out of the other side of the story. You say you can't use a small sample size to evaluate a player, then in turn you use his AHL stats to do so.
Yes, they are history and odds driven. History and the odds show that players that dont produce that much in juniors and college go on to produce not that much at the highest level in the world. Its wishful thinking expecting to be him the exception and not the rule.
You want to keep ignoring the fact that you've contradicted almost everything you've said? Fine by me. I see no further point in arguing with you. It's beating a dead horse. GWOW has pointed that out as well.
Your boy GWOW has repeated the same garbage points and BS excuses. repeating BS doesnt suddenly make him any more correct.
This whole thread is typical HF. You say something that isnt glowing about a teams prospect, and of course the "defend them to the death" mindset immediately takes over. Guess what, not everyone's top prospect is going to be a 1st or 2nd line caliber player.
View Public Profile
Visit Chaos's homepage!
Find More Posts by Chaos