View Single Post
12-23-2012, 12:16 PM
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,678
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Talent level matters as it relates to sustainability and impact. Poor goalies like Chris Osgood do not - generally - have a positive impact on their team. Thus, despite his numbers, he has not been invoked yet. His talent precludes him from the elite. It allows people with an eye for these type of things to draw the conclusion that "Osgood was not instrumental in his team's success" despite what the box score might say.

So, for me, it does matter. As a rule - a strange rule of thumb, I've developed, it turns out good players tend to be better than average players...not sure why it works out that way, but it does...

It means that we see stats and we want to prove them right by any means necessary so that they hold value for others as well. Great lengths are gone to, truth stretches to cover corners it was never meant to cover.

See the quote on Connell by Clancy...a good friend and a teammate saying he was the best goalie on the Senators...and look at where it goes, "cutting down angles is a talent" and "Clancy said he was the best"

Same with Tim Thomas before, 20-year-old NCAA all-star berths, being the prize pig in the 4th or 5th best circuit in an inferior league...that's how you can tell others are being set up for a hoax, because of the justifications needed...other sources, other times, noise and confusion, distraction, all to avoid digging deeper than meets-the-eye...deeper than the box score...I don't think it's in the spirit of the project, personally. But I could very well be mistaken.

I agree with the second paragraph. Though, I'm not convinced that the "voting [from this time period in question] makes no sense at all" though. In fact, in the research gathered to date, it seems quite justified so far. Connell was not considered an impact player very much throughout his career. You get the "above average to very good" feel - with some exception like the 1935 Playoffs, which seems to be a Smythe-worthy performance and believe he was given a retro Smythe for his efforts. So, for me right now, I think we're in good shape with him.

I don't have a dog in this fight, except I want forthright common sense and truth (as close as we can get to it given the parameters) to prevail. If after research, Connell looks like someone we should have at #25, then I want that. If after research, Connell looks like #41, then I want that.

By looking at stats alone, I would suggest he belongs at #1. I don't want that. That's why we're digging deeper than the box score to figure out what the deal was...strangely that brings out defensive overtones...I have my theories as to why...
Stats are pretty much facts. They are for the most part by defintion "right".

Since no one has suggested Connell belongs at #1, doesn't that indicate that everyone is merely using the factual stat as just one aspect of rating Connell?

Also, how can you call Osgood a poor goalie? Compared to who?

And again, Tim Thomas is still the only goalie in this group to win 2 Vezinas and a Conn Smythe. Hardly a hoax.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote