Thread: Proposal: Calgary - Edmonton
View Single Post
01-09-2013, 10:26 AM
Registered User
Eskimo44's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,233
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Iggy-4-50 View Post
Considering the team has finished 30th,30th and 29th the last 3 years I suspect the momentum shift lasted about 30 seconds.
You know the team was winning the games at evens when Smid was out there, right? I'll break it down for you and others:

Smid is still fairly young. It's pretty obvious that he broke out last season (and partially in the latter half of the year before). At the end of the day Smid was doing very well, winning the game inside the game. Despite facing the toughest competition on the team and a tough ZS Ladi Smid was a plus player. +/- has it's faults but typically it's due to the unfairness in accounting for role, Smid's +/- is outstanding still despite the fact he had a very tough role. Smid was an ace on the PK. He's an elite defensive dman at this point and he brings the intangiables Bouwmeester doesn't. Smid's breakout season also correlated with a 30 goal improvment in goals against and the teams plus minus improved from -76 in 10-11 to -27 in 11-12 (not that he gets credit for it all). There is certainly a littany of evidence that Smid had a monster season last year as a defensive dman.

BTW in terms of offense Smid and Bouwmeester had the same number of goals and Bouwmeester only had 5 more points at even strength than him. Bouwmeester added another 10 on the PP, and although it's a bonus i don't think teams are picking him up for the PP, he's a mediocre PP player and the Oil have Petry, Whitney, and Schultz, Potter to play those minutes. IMO the small offensive advantage isn't worth as much as the defensive/intangiable advantage Smid has.

That btw is called making an argument supported by facts (not really directed at the poster i'm quoting in particular). Believe it or not bringing up straw men like Johnson, using emoticons like , ect... it's not really a valid argument.

Eskimo44 is online now   Reply With Quote