View Single Post
04-24-2007, 07:19 AM
Registered User
kimzey59's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,626
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Second pairing vs. 3/4 is semantics. The way I am using it it's the same thing. Obviously defensive pairings shift around over the course of a season and even a game. It's a term of convention. If Backman is your 2d best D-man you have a subpar D at the top. If he's your 3d/4th best Dman you have him plugged in right where he should be. That's it. That's what I mean. Is that clear?
NO; it's not.
Chris Pronger played on the "2nd pairing" his entire tenure as a Blue. That didn't make him a 3/4 D man. Most NHL coaches do NOT put their two best D men on the same pairing. They split them up to spread out the talent.

Christian Backman is the kind of player you can BUILD a 2nd pairing around. That makes him somewhat more than a #3. That said; he is NOT the kind of player you can build a 1st pairing around. That makes him somewhat less than a #2. The HF grade for a player that is BETWEEN those two rankings is 7.5.
This is NOT rocket science.

What's odd about the word "metrics?" It's just a word that means what I intend it to mean - a process of measurement, the measuring conventions. And why is this controversial on this site? This is the site's convention, the nomenclature. So I use it. And why are you randomly capitalizing nouns like "Site" and "Metrics?"
I'm captializing it because the way you are using it makes it a proper noun.

When you put words in quotes, it is a sign that you do not accept that term as a valid one. That those words are inappropriate or alien somehow. I replied to that implication, that’s all.
I DON'T accept the term as a valid one; and I have reasons for not doing so. The primary reason being that there is not 1 single source grading prospects. The prospect grades on this site are done largely by the Team writers and then "accepted" by the Main Editor(the Editor can, and does, change grades but mostly just goes with what the Team writer recommends). With that kind of system there is simply too much bias in handing out grades for me to hold the "Site's Metrics" as a solid source(try telling me that Phil Kessel would have been ranked an 8.5 B out of the draft if he were a Blue or Coyote considering the relative success of their Draft selections). It can certainly be used as a guidline; but it should NOT be used in the way you're trying to use it. It simply isn't accurate enough for that

As for KGP, it's a defining part of your analysis. Look at what you're doing with Cajanek at this very moment in another thread. You always, always, always cherry pick data and situations and extrapolate those into the most optimistic scenario if it involves a Blues player or a Blues prediction. That's what you do. It's who you are and you should be yourself. It's ok - it's your niche and someone has to. But that doesn't mean the emperor has clothes either or that it shouldn't be pointed out.
IF I'm wrong I'll admit it.
But I want something a bit more substantial than an opinion to prove me wrong. IF you disagree with something I write; show me FACTS that state otherwise.

He predicted playoffs each of the last two years, and contemptuously dismissed the notion that we’d be on the low end of those playoffs. That is literally insane, and was at the time.
Look at the results Murray got out of this team after he took over and tell me I was wrong in my assesment of this team's skill level.

The ONLY thing I've been wrong about for the last 2 years is how inept Mike Kitchen was. I didn't think it was humanly possible for a Coach to do that much damage to a team. I was VERY wrong with that assumption and I'll readily admit that.

That said; my incorrect assessment of our coach does NOT invalidate my assessment of the actual team. I still fully contend that this team has had the TALENT to make the PO's each of the last 2 years. Our (insert derogatory comment) coach was the ONLY thing keeping us out.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote