View Single Post
03-29-2006, 11:07 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by spank303
All we're saying is our record is better with him in the lineup than without him in the lineup.
Well, I've seen things the last week saying that'd we'd have 12 total loses if Legwand wasn't injured, and that we'd be in the lead for the Presidents Trophy. Then I see posts inferring that game's outcomes like this one would have been different with Legwand in the linuep. Some say it's sarcasm, but I sure don't get that vibe.
Excuse me? Now I belive this is what we have been saying ALL ALONG.
I have said atleast 5 times in this thread that I feel that we are better off with Legwand than without. I don't need a stat to tell me that Legwand is a better option that Nichol. I've just been saying that implications of that stat are flawed (i.e. "we'd be #1 in the conference!").
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
You are much closer to my side of thinking than you think and I am probably closer to your way of thinking than I actually think. It could be that Legwand is valuable only because we don't have anyone else. That the dropoff from Legwand, possibly an average player, to his replacements is so severe that it cannot help but negatively affect the team. But therein lies my point. He's not the most valuable, probably not even top 5, but I think his value is enough to warrant mention when he is both in and out of the lineup. If we had capable backups to turn to, as I think we do in other positions, his value would diminish. But we don't, and that pegs his value at a higher point. Probably higher than his skillset and contributions warrant.
I pretty much agree with this.

dulzhok is offline