View Single Post
Old
03-04-2010, 07:08 PM
  #260
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... It would be one thing if he was in the middle of the pack of the team in +/-, but he's not. He's at the bottom of it. I find it curious as to the fact that Jack Johnson has been hammered all season for his +/- and somehow Halpern gets a pass for his.
Well I have never gotten on Johnson purely because of the bad +/-. I am of the belief that it evens out a bit. Jack has been awful defensively at times and deserved man of those -'s, but at many others he has simply been the victim of a new pairing without cohesion or a simply retarded partner. He is also played almost as much as Doughty, but he ain't no Doughty.

As for Halpern being at the bottom of it, not really. The whole team is one big '-', save for a few special players. Vinny: -7, Malone: -5, Sczcechura: -10, Veilleux: -13, Wright: -9, Fedoruk: -7. And that's just forwards. Meszaros is -18. Halpern is -13, so technically he is tied with Veilleux, and while technically at the bottom of the forward group, is not hugely deviant. If anything, looking at the team +/- confirms that its a crappy team with a player or two with enough talent to stand out.

The other thing I hate about +/- is it does not take quality of competition into account. I know these numbers exist, but the NHL doesn't publicly keep them, and are not in any way factored into the +/- rating. Its a team statistic, and Halpern's +/- bothers me less than Johnson's, because unlike Johnson's +/-, which is not at all consistent with the overall team, Halpern's is not an aberration from the team at large.

Johnson's +/- doesn't tell me how often it was Heatley scoring on him, as opposed to Tootoo. It doesn't tell me how many of those goals went in while Ivanans was blowing his coverage. It just says a bit about the team overall and whether the player differs greatly from his team in this regard, and Halpern most certainly does not. He is slightly worse than the average on his team, which means nothing to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Where's the logic in saying he is a leader? How many points are you willing to give for "leadership" on poor to mediocre teams? And hell, I didn't say he had nothing to offer, I said he didn't have nearly as much to offer as guys who've actually had some playoff success. That's an incorrect assertion? Go ahead and break down for me where a guy who hasn't had success in the postseason has anywhere near as much to offer as someone who's won the Cup. Tell me.
I'm not totally sure what those two sentences are referring to. If you didn't say he had nothing to offer, I apologize. I read your posts as claiming that we didn't need anymore playoff leadership because OD, Scud and Willie had Cup rings. That's how it came off. If that isn't how you meant it, fine. I'm not claiming that Halpern has as much to offer as OD, Scud and Willie, simply that just because the others have MORE experience, doesn't make Halpern's superfluous. Again though, it seems that I misread your initial post and we agree here... which kind of confuses me even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... I prefer a guy who isn't hurting the team at this point who has more than an even chance to get better as he gains experience over a guy who hasn't been a good player for over two years and is well past the point where he's going to improve his game. It's a basic comparison, but do you want a 24 year old who has 25 points and is a -3 in his 91 game career -- or a 33 year old who has 33 points and is a -26 in his last 107 games? Also, how many games did Purcell get to gel with any particular line? How many games was Purcell played out of position? Obviously, he's been a disappointment scoring-wise this season; anyone can see that. So, that's it? It's time to pull the plug and install someone whose best days have been three years plus in the rear-view mirror? What purpose does it serve?
Purcell was played out of position frequently. That I will give you. It bugged me, and he should have probably spent more time on the right side. But again, I see Moller get randomly thrown on a line with Fro and Zus in the middle of a game and he gels just fine. Parse's linemates were far from consistent. He spent time on every line as well, with varying degrees of success. With Purcell, there really was never any spark between him and... well... anyone. He got a chance with everyone, atleast a few games with each, and there really no moment where you said to yourself "I can see these guys developing some chemistry."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... No ****.
Well, ****.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Aside from winning faceoffs and blocking shots, he's a negative player. I've said this twice now; I'm surprised I have to spell this out for you again.
You mean negative based on his +/- here? That's not enough proof for me. If he is blocking shots and winning face-offs on a team that sucks so bad it can't keep the puck out of the net even with those shots being blocked well and face-offs won regularly (52%), again, that just tells me he has been the victim of a team that has failed at nearly every aspect of hockey for the last two years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Parse has made more use of his minutes than Purcell. No one's arguing that; it's why Parse received more minutes. He earned them. The jury's still out on Moller; he's scored at a bit higher pace than Purcell but has been more mistake-prone. I still like Oscar, though ... and I would feel the same way if he got traded as I am with Purcell being dealt.
I would be much more upset if Moller was traded. His style of play fits into the team VERY well, while Purcell's does not. He tried adapting, like Boyle tried, but it didn't go so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Where have I said "to hell with the playoffs" anywhere here? You and I both know who has led them to the playoffs -- the nucleus of the team; Smyth, Doughty, Kopitar, Frolov, Brown, Scuderi, O'Donnell, Simmonds, Johnson, Stoll, the REAL nucleus. THAT group, the elite of the team, is going to determine success and failure this season. How does keeping the prospects on the team affect that nucleus negatively in any way? How does not wanting to trade prospects for washed-up journeymen affect the nucleus positively in any way? How does keeping the cohesion of the team intact somehow fail to improve their chances in the playoffs?
Just in that you keep talking about the future we gave up when we all admit we gave up future for now and are fine with that. I and most others have said that Purcell may very well become the player he should be on another team, but we just didn't think it was in the cards for him here. And yes, the nucleus is the major reason we are the team we are, obviously. But that doesn't mean the rest of the roster should be filled by just anybody, or by somebody who may be something in the future. If Purcell was eligible to not pass through waivers, then I would hope moreso to keep him and let him shuttle back and forth as his play goes up and down, like Parse. But that was last year for Purcell, and this was the make or break year. It was pretty clear from the outset of the season that this was his year to earn a spot on the team, and he really didn't. The utmost faith and confidence was put in him from the start of training camp, and he disappointed on the ice at every turn. He may not have been awful, but he was FAR from meeting expectations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... That's a load of **** and you know it, JDM. Are you telling me that someone can't hold management AND players accountable? I don't need to hate players on the team to be a fan of it. I don't need to make up a retarded nickname for a player in some desperate attempt to be funny about a player I don't favor. Just because someone points out legitimate reasons why a player may not be producing does not automatically mean that the player is never at fault. And on top of that, I haven't said Lombardi has been a **** GM either, he's been about average. Like the players, he has his good points and his bad points. I don't agree with the deal, but it's done. Just because I don't agree with YOU does not give you a legitimate reason to dump this sort of hyperbolic pile of ****. I expected that from the trolls, but I didn't from you.
You have developed a reputation for only arguing the players side of things. Blake, Cammy, Boyle (I think), now this. I know you didn't say that DL was **** or anything, but you have only made strong efforts to point out how Purcell was shafted and that his lack of production has to do with how he has been handled, not how he is as a player or a human being.

I don't know what you mean about the nicknames.

Resort to calling me a troll... fine. Usually the trolls are the ones spouting off the dissident opinions, but now I feel like we are having an argument in between snack time and math class. Perhaps that last bit was a bit of hyperbole. I do like to indulge myself from time to time, but I stand by my point that you have outwardly, in regards to this situation and others, only made mention of things that management or coaching have done to explain away the negative aspects of certain players. If you were to clarify some of your harsher statements with an acknowledgment of other possibilities, I probably wouldn't respond as harshly, like you did in your last post by admitting "Obviously, he's been a disappointment scoring-wise this season." Even though you went on to basically say "so what."

Let's be friends again.

JDM is offline