HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

TRADE[FLA/VAN] Andrew Peters for Darcy Hordichuk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2010, 04:57 PM
  #251
NCPokey
Registered User
 
NCPokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I'm curious why the team I happen to cheer for just so happens to be on the positive end of this exchange? Am I just lucky? If I was a Flames fan does my team also get the same benefits more than half the time?
Thanks to the confirmation bias, yes.

NCPokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 05:02 PM
  #252
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Plus if that was actually the case, why would a coach ever put his goon out if the other team came out flat? Why give the other team an opportunity to improve their position in the game if there is actually some tangible benefit?
Teams do tell their players not to fight when playing with a lead but even if you do subscribe to this benefit you're still going to hand the other team a lift as much as you get it over the course of an 82 game season - unless you're consistently coming out of the gate flat.

Didn't somebody break down the data from fights that showed the team that won a fight scored the next goal 50% of the time? Sounds about right to me.

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 05:17 PM
  #253
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Teams do tell their players not to fight when playing with a lead but even if you do subscribe to this benefit you're still going to hand the other team a lift as much as you get it over the course of an 82 game season - unless you're consistently coming out of the gate flat.
That's what I mean though - if the effect was actually significant players would never fight because teams would never want to give the other team a lift. Why would you ever allow your designated fighter to fight if it only meant that you were going to help the other team?

Quote:
Didn't somebody break down the data from fights that showed the team that won a fight scored the next goal 50% of the time? Sounds about right to me.
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=222

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 05:51 PM
  #254
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Even if we buy into this way of thinking we're still back to 50%. When we're instigating fights on nights when the team doesn't show up we get a boost and when the other team is looking for a lift and one of the Canucks drops the gloves we lose momentum. The only way we get better than a 50/50 advantage is if the Canucks are more prone to poor starts than their opponents. In your opinion is this the case? If not, we're back to square one. Considering the Canucks start with a lead more often than not wouldn't more fights hurt the team more often than help it under your logic? Yes, yes it would.

I'm curious why the team I happen to cheer for just so happens to be on the positive end of this exchange? Am I just lucky? If I was a Flames fan does my team also get the same benefits more than half the time?

It simply doesn't add up.
it's not 50%, as this is only ONE reason. but it's still ONE reason that's been around since the beginning of hockey, more or less. really, it exists in most physical sports. I can remember starting fights playing football to get a rise out of my team, and obviously fighting in football isn't as accepted as it is in hockey.

another reason can be pure intimidation. if my biggest, baddest guy gets pummeled by your biggest, baddest guy, it's going to have an impact on both benches. don't bother with the 50% line here, as we haven't had someone that can intimidate with his gloves off for quite some time. Peters might not be that guy either, but at least he's BIG, unlike Hordy, Rypien or Glass.

another reason is releasing some pressure. plenty of times you'll see a game get chippier and chippier until both coaches send their goon over the boards to get it on. when that happens, see my second point.

another reason is the message it sends to all 23 players on the roster: everyone has a role, know yours and do it well. it's great to say you just take advantage of a goon while on the PP (and I don't buy the whole deter goons from running star player argument, cuz goons don't see the ice with star players, and never win the exchange when they do). But having a true heavyweight like Peters to do the heavy lifting (the few games a year it's needed) allows guys like Glass and Rypien to better define their roles. Unless you like seeing guys like Bolduc get hurt trying to take on guys way out of their weight class?

you said earlier that Gillis dumping Hordy for Peters somehow proved Gillis was going without a heavyweight. LOL. more like it was Gillis recognizing the heavyweight HE brought in originally wasn't doing the job. how does your theory that Gillis wants more skill and less toughness fit with him keeping Bolduc over Morrison?

Gillis has made it clear from day one that he wants a balance of speed, skill and grit. Having a knuckledragger like Peters in the quiver adds to this balance. He may not need to pull that arrow very often, but Gillis has NEVER iced a team without at least having that option. seems to mean something, even if you can't grasp what it is.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 06:12 PM
  #255
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
it's not 50%.
Let's be honest, that was a whole lot of nothing. You still didn't explain to me why your team gets a lift more than a Flames fan.

Even if I agree with every word in your post it still doesn't point to the Canucks getting a lift more than half the time from a fight. The fact the Canucks play with the lead more than they trail simply flushes the entire basis of your first point down the toilet.

As for Peters, we'll see. As of right now he's not a top 12 forward on this team. Nor top 13, or 14. I'll say it again - Darcy Hordichuk being moved for Andrew Peters in no way, shape or form should lead anyone to believe Mike Gillis wants a nuclear deterent on his roster. Even with Vigneault's notorious affinity for toughness Peters isn't anywhere near this team, nor in the press box.

Mike Gillis wanted his team to have the physical capabilities to play in front of their own net, their opponents and along the boards. Nothing he's done this offseason has made them better suited for dropping the gloves - quite the contrary actually.

There's something to be said for being difficult to play against. Just don't convince me a fight will benefit my team more than half the time - it simply won't.

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 06:47 PM
  #256
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Didn't somebody break down the data from fights that showed the team that won a fight scored the next goal 50% of the time? Sounds about right to me.
this is logically irrelevant. A causes B only when C occurs means nothing. A can cause B even if C never happens.

look at it this way, do you agree a big save or a big hit can fire up a team? does that only hold true if the team scores the next goal? or how about scoring a goal? surely you agree that fires up a team, no? or is it again only a case of it firing up a team when they also score the next goal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel;28201493[QUOTE
]Let's be honest, that was a whole lot of nothing. You still didn't explain to me why your team gets a lift more than a Flames fan.

Even if I agree with every word in your post it still doesn't point to the Canucks getting a lift more than half the time from a fight. The fact the Canucks play with the lead more than they trail simply flushes the entire basis of your first point down the toilet.
I'm going to have to assume you've never played any sort of organized team sport, especially one that involves some sort of physical nature?

because if you had, you'd have a better grasp of a pretty basic rule: worry about your play not your opponents.

a non-fighting example is when people on this board say it's a bad idea to hit Iginla because it "might wake him up". While I agree it's a bad idea to give a disinterested Iginla a face-wash in a scrum, I strongly disagreeing with not finishing a check because you are afraid of the result. first you pass up a hit on Iginla, then you start passing up on other hits, next thing you know you lose because you are playing a passive, timid game. same rationale: what matters is what it does to your bench, not theirs.

and your point about the Nucks scoring first more often than not falls flat on two fronts: first, only by predicting the future can you know how you will start any given game; second, it's equally possible to score first but start the second period flat, or third, etc.

Quote:
As for Peters, we'll see. As of right now he's not a top 12 forward on this team. Nor top 13, or 14. I'll say it again - Darcy Hordichuk being moved for Andrew Peters in no way, shape or form should lead anyone to believe Mike Gillis wants a nuclear deterent on his roster. Even with Vigneault's notorious affinity for toughness Peters isn't anywhere near this team, nor in the press box.
first, I don't agree with the term "deterrent". I agree completely that they deter nothing or nobody.

but I do disagree that Peters "isn't anywhere near this team". he's a phone call and an airplane ride away. the important point being, if Gillis and AV feel we have a need for him, he's only a day away.

Quote:
Mike Gillis wanted his team to have the physical capabilities to play in front of their own net, their opponents and along the boards. Nothing he's done this offseason has made them better suited for dropping the gloves - quite the contrary actually.

There's something to be said for being difficult to play against. Just don't convince me a fight will benefit my team more than half the time - it simply won't.
and how often will a fight be a detriment to your team? more or less frequently than it will be a benefit?

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 06:55 PM
  #257
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
You say the pure goon is a dieing breed. Let's check the facts. Which teams have a pure goons

Philly - Shelly
Boston - Thornton/McGratton
Chicago - John Scott
Pittsburg - Eric Goddard
Toronto - Orr
Minny - Staubitz
Rangers - Boogaard
Ottawa - Carkner
Washington D. J. King
Anahiem - Parros/Sutton et. al.
Buffalo - McCormick
Dallas - Barch
Carolina - Dwyer
Phoenix - Bissonette
Nashville - Belak
Atlanta - Boulton
NYI - Konopka/Rechlicz
Edmonton - MacIntyre
Florida - Hordichuk
St Louis - Janssen
Colorado - Koci
Calgary - Ivanians

And lots of these team have tertiary toughness as well.
Half the guys on that list can be handled by Rypien and Glass.

The Western Conference list of pure heavyweights would be :

1) Ivanans - 3 minute/game guy, likely out injured for a long time.
2) MacIntyre - 3 minute/game guy.
3) Koci - 3 minute/game guy.
4) Belak - 3 minute/game guy.
5) Parros - little better player, can play a regular shift.
6) Scott - 5 minute/game guy.

It's a damned small list of guys that are going to be healthy scratches 40 times each this season aside from Parros.

Those guys simply aren't going to have any impact against us. They'll be healthy scratches most of the time, or play 3-4 minutes against our 4th line.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
To say there are two or three goons in our conference is flat out wrong. You use Detroit as if it were the norm and it obviously isn't. They don't carry a recognized goon right now. But they tired. They brought in Downey during the pre-season but he got clobbered by Boulerice. Moreover, the way the Ducks went after them tonite I bet they will soon be looking for someone. You can't have Datysuk fighting every game or people like Sutton laying people out with no response.
Datsyuk has fought once ever, and Sutton lays people out no matter who is in the lineup.

Again, what is your response to the fact that Hordichuk was in the lineup when Boogaard hit Mitchell and when Bolduc fought Scott? Why didn't his presence 'deter' these things from happening?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
To think we reached some golden age where goonery is some distant memory is rubbish. Last year, we saw as many fights, as many cheap shots and as much thuggery as we have ever seen. There are as many goons in the game (and they are bigger and stronger) as we have ever seen . Look at the list. The fact that Rangers were willing to pay big money to Boogaard (so they wouldn't have to see their star Gaborik duking it out with Carcillo any more) is testimony to the continued recognition of the value and need for goons.
20 years ago, every team had a goon and most teams had 2. Fighting isn't down, but the days of the 6'5" goon are dying.

What we're seeing is a move toward smaller tough players who can actually play a bit, and who can hold the vast majority of the opposition's tough players accountable, instead of just 1 guy who never plays anyway. Guys like Konopka, Rypien, Asham, Barch, Thornton can take a regular shift on a 4th line, can't really fight heavyweights well, but can fight everyone else on an opposition roster.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Can't you at least try to see the utility of Peters to the team. Why be so extreme or so categorical in your dismissal of his worth. Hopefully Rypein or Glass can handle all the rough stuff. But it might well be they get punched out by others on the list. Do you really want to see Rypien going with Koci or MacIntyre??? Can't you see the value of having someone like Peters (a true heavyweight) in the bull pen. Doesn't he provide some insurance if we need toughness.
No, I don't want to see Rypien going with Koci or MacIntyre. I see no need to do anything about a player that bad in an opposition lineup aside from score when he's on the ice. Those guys aren't going to do anything in their 3 minutes of icetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Peters is little different than many on the above list. To say he is now useless because goons are going out of date defies the reality that nearly every team has at least one goon. Using the one example of Detroit as proof is simply overwhelmed by the number of teams that have goons and feel the need for them
Right now we have no evidence that Peters is anything other than a contract we had to take back in the trade to even out things re: the 50-contract limit. The guy isn't even going to our minor-league team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
As to other points.

You were way over- board on your criticisms of Brown and never recognized the type of player he was. It's isn't like he went to Anahiem and became, overnight, a different player. He had the potential to be what he is (a serviceable 4th liner and PK guy) when he was here.
My frustration with Brown was with the situation, not the player.

At the time, we were carrying 5 no-skill 4th liners on the squad, and cut Wellwood. We basically left ourselves in the position where we had no backup if a top-9 player was hurt.

No, I didn't think Brown was very good. He had an awful camp and didn't make the team on merit. We needed other assets on the roster at the time more than we needed him.

And time definitely proved me correct on that one as Wellwood was re-added to the team in place of Brown and was one of our best players down the stretch and in the playoffs that year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Odjick never makes into the league if he can't fight. He was not a good hockey player. Proof of this was that he was benched during a good part of the playoff run in '94 after his best season in the league. If he was that good wouldn't he have been used at this critical time. There is no way he could have made it just as a player. He had to goon it up to get employment in the NHL. I think it is beyond obvious that Odjick chief role was to protect Bure. And just like then we still have Goddards riding shot gun for the Crosbys. To say this isn't so just seems absurd to me.
Odjick took too many stupid penalties to be useful in the playoffs.

This was at about the point where the enforcer role went from being a bully who ran around trying to intimidate everyone on the ice to a guy who plays 3 minutes and minds his own business aside from a staged fight with the other goon.

You can't play the way Odjick did anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder View Post
The guys you wanna deter from playing like cheap *******s are guys like cooke, ruutu, steve ott, sean avery. They dont fight heavyweights, nor anyone for that matter. They turtle. You counteract them through physical checking and being hard int he corners, not by having a 240 lb punching bag, pathetically tryign to catch up with them, to convince them to fight and take a 2 min unsportsmanlike when they politely decline.

We've had boogard in our division forever and I was sad to see him go because he is so terrible and intimidates nobody. Hordichuk did nothing to make opponents shy away. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Arguing with goon advocates is reminiscent of arguing religion with a fundamentalist. Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, their own logic supports their own logic and is an unbreakable circle that supports itself and evidence to the contrary is simply evidence that somehow is just 'wrong'
Absolutely spot on.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 06:59 PM
  #258
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
this is logically irrelevant. A causes B only when C occurs means nothing. A can cause B even if C never happens.

look at it this way, do you agree a big save or a big hit can fire up a team? does that only hold true if the team scores the next goal? or how about scoring a goal? surely you agree that fires up a team, no? or is it again only a case of it firing up a team when they also score the next goal?
Uh, that's the whole point. If A causes B but B doesn't actually cause C which is the end result you want, then causing B is irrelevant. If 'firing up the team' doesn't actually result in the team performing better in terms of actually helping them win the game, then what does it accomplish?

The fact is that there is a negligible difference between how a team that is down performs when a player wins a fight and when no one fights at all. If firing up a team actually mattered then that wouldn't be the case.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 07:13 PM
  #259
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Uh, that's the whole point. If A causes B but B doesn't actually cause C which is the end result you want, then causing B is irrelevant. If 'firing up the team' doesn't actually result in the team performing better in terms of actually helping them win the game, then what does it accomplish?

The fact is that there is a negligible difference between how a team that is down performs when a player wins a fight and when no one fights at all. If firing up a team actually mattered then that wouldn't be the case.
for a guy as into stats and math as you are, you're sure assaulting logic here.

you do understand it's 100% possible to achieve your objective of "firing up your team" and not have it result in a goal, right? or to fire up your team, and still have a goal scored against you.

and you're using "winning the fight" as the important factor, which is again faulty logic. Who cares who wins the fight? you can go out and lose the fight and still accomplish your goal of firing your team up.

do you have a stat that measures whether a team's play improves after a fight--win or lose? because that's what's relevant here, not whether the winning team scores the next goal.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 07:21 PM
  #260
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
and how often will a fight be a detriment to your team? more or less frequently than it will be a benefit?
I would say a fight would benefit my team as often as it hindered it - in terms of getting an emotional lift.

If a fight helps fire up a team that is trailing and playing poorly more than it helps the team that 'showed up' wouldn't that mean elite teams that play with a lead more often than not are giving their opponents more 'lifts' than they're receiving? I would really like an answer to this specific question.

I like Glass and Rypien in the lineup for a few different reasons - I just don't think the act of fighting is better than an even money proposition as to whether or not it will benefit my team.

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 07:27 PM
  #261
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
for a guy as into stats and math as you are, you're sure assaulting logic here.

you do understand it's 100% possible to achieve your objective of "firing up your team" and not have it result in a goal, right? or to fire up your team, and still have a goal scored against you.
Of course in any one instance. But if on average you aren't materially improving your goal differential compared to a team that doesn't fight in that exact same situation, then what's the point of firing up your team?

Quote:
and you're using "winning the fight" as the important factor, which is again faulty logic. Who cares who wins the fight? you can go out and lose the fight and still accomplish your goal of firing your team up.

do you have a stat that measures whether a team's play improves after a fight--win or lose? because that's what's relevant here, not whether the winning team scores the next goal.
If it doesn't improve after they win a fight, then why would it improve when you combine data for fights that are wins, losses, and draws? The situation where someone wins a fight when their team is down is stacked most in favour of the 'firing up the team' concept.

If the result was different and significant that would mean that their was a substantially greater boost (like 100 times greater to be meaningful) from losing or drawing a fight than from winning it, which is absurd.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2010, 07:51 PM
  #262
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
do you have a stat that measures whether a team's play improves after a fight--win or lose? because that's what's relevant here, not whether the winning team scores the next goal.
Which team? The team I cheer for or the team my brother cheers for?

The fact there are 2 players in the fight and 2 teams on the ice seems to be lost in your reasoning.

I'm still waiting for an answer that will put this whole debate to rest - stop ducking it.

Do elite teams that play with a lead more often than trail still get this 'lift' more than 50% of the time?

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 02:47 AM
  #263
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Article in the Sun outlines this issue - whatever side you are on.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...248/story.html

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 03:56 AM
  #264
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Article in the Sun outlines this issue - whatever side you are on.

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...248/story.html
How does that article 'outline the issue whatever side you're on?'

It's a bunch of chest-thumping from an Edmonton reporter with a hard-on for his goon that just rehashes the same no-sense cliches that the pro-goon crowd always spout. 'Nuclear deterrent'. 'Protecting stars'. All that BS.

MacIntyre only had an impact on the Calgary game because Calgary had a player willing to oblige him in a meaningless late-game staged fight.

If Ivanans isn't there ... what exactly is MacIntyre's impact on that game? He did absolutely nothing but lumber around looking terrible in his 5 minutes of icetime.

All having an inferior fighter like Hordichuk in the lineup does is give MacIntyre the opportunity to look good instead of being stapled to the bench.

The notion that Steve MacIntyre will have any effect on how an Edmonton-Vancouver game develops is ridiculous. Everyone on our team knows they won't have to fight him if they don't want to. And there's no way he's doing anything to our stars because he'll never be on the ice at the same time.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 04:56 AM
  #265
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
It outlines the issue because it points out that the Canucks enter the season (unlike practically every other team in the League) without a goon

Whether you think this is right or not Cole leaves up to you. He's just making the point. Why you have to attack him for making it, makes no sense. And going on some hyperbolic rant about Cole (who now writes for the Vancouver Sun), such as him having a hard on for MacIntyre, makes even less sense.

Read the article. He suggests, at points in the article that maybe going without a goon is the best policy. Isn't that your position? Going off off-cocked hardly helps your argument.

IN the end it is a point worth making and that's all Cole is doing. Are you suggesting we can't even talk about the issue?

Might note for those saying that the Ivanians stick to the face of Paajarvi (accidental or not) was not a factor in MacIntyre scrape with Ivanians is shown wrong by MacIntyre's comment. He is quoted here as saying

"When [Paajarvi] gets a stick in the face, you've got to make sure youu go out and say 'Hey. you have to be accountable."

Where IMO Cole might be wrong is not to recognizing that the Canucks do have a goon but he is is now playing in the AHL - namely Andrew Peters.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:19 AM
  #266
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Might note for those saying that the Ivanians stick to the face of Paajarvi (accidental or not) was not a factor in MacIntyre scrape with Ivanians is shown wrong by MacIntyre's comment. He is quoted here as saying

"When [Paajarvi] gets a stick in the face, you've got to make sure youu go out and say 'Hey. you have to be accountable."
I'm glad you brought it up because I was about to - what a complete crock of ****. There were 3 minutes left in the game and Ivanans went after McIntyre, not the other way around. Mac wanted no part of the fight and even tried to turn away but Ivanans persisted until Mac obliged. Now the fight happened because Ivanans "had to be accountable"? Laughable - and anyone who watched the game knows it.

Another gem in there by Cole where he talks about the single biggest reason the Canucks fell to the Hawks was their lack of 'nuclear deterent' to deal with Byfuglien? I was hoping it was sarcasm but it doesn't appear so. Is he forgetting game 3 where Shane O'Brien(a guy more than capable of taking Byfuglien out) went out of his way to target Byfuglien and crosschecked him repeatedly until the referee was forced to put the Canucks shorthanded twice? O'Brien did everything he could to get an answer from Buff but to no avail - other than to put a lethal Hawk team on the PP against the Canucks abysmal PK.

Cam Cole is an old man - expecting him to stop parotting what he's been told for the better part of 5 decades simply isn't realistic. I don't blame the guy but don't try and pass off some of that BS on me.

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 11:25 AM
  #267
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZyggZagg View Post
You have a logic problem when it comes to your posts.
Not worth the time.


Last edited by LostMyGlasses*: 10-10-2010 at 11:37 AM.
LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 12:50 PM
  #268
bpoulsen
Registered User
 
bpoulsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Glostrup
Country: Denmark
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to bpoulsen
If you look at Florida's GDT here on HF Boards, Bernier is placed on the 4th line with Hordichuk for tonight's game....

bpoulsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2010, 05:20 PM
  #269
Agent007
Registered User
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I'm glad you brought it up because I was about to - what a complete crock of ****. There were 3 minutes left in the game and Ivanans went after McIntyre, not the other way around. Mac wanted no part of the fight and even tried to turn away but Ivanans persisted until Mac obliged. Now the fight happened because Ivanans "had to be accountable"? Laughable - and anyone who watched the game knows it.

Another gem in there by Cole where he talks about the single biggest reason the Canucks fell to the Hawks was their lack of 'nuclear deterent' to deal with Byfuglien? I was hoping it was sarcasm but it doesn't appear so. Is he forgetting game 3 where Shane O'Brien(a guy more than capable of taking Byfuglien out) went out of his way to target Byfuglien and crosschecked him repeatedly until the referee was forced to put the Canucks shorthanded twice? O'Brien did everything he could to get an answer from Buff but to no avail - other than to put a lethal Hawk team on the PP against the Canucks abysmal PK.

Cam Cole is an old man - expecting him to stop parotting what he's been told for the better part of 5 decades simply isn't realistic. I don't blame the guy but don't try and pass off some of that BS on me.
Or maybe orcatown is Cam Cole

Agent007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 02:09 PM
  #270
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Of course in any one instance. But if on average you aren't materially improving your goal differential compared to a team that doesn't fight in that exact same situation, then what's the point of firing up your team?



If it doesn't improve after they win a fight, then why would it improve when you combine data for fights that are wins, losses, and draws? The situation where someone wins a fight when their team is down is stacked most in favour of the 'firing up the team' concept.

If the result was different and significant that would mean that their was a substantially greater boost (like 100 times greater to be meaningful) from losing or drawing a fight than from winning it, which is absurd.
again, you're saying that "scoring the next goal" = "improves energy", a position I reject. As I asked earlier, does a big save/big hit only improve energy if that team scores the next goal?

simple question, pick A or B: after a fight, total energy in the building (fans, both teams) is A) increased B) decreased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Which team? The team I cheer for or the team my brother cheers for?

The fact there are 2 players in the fight and 2 teams on the ice seems to be lost in your reasoning.

I'm still waiting for an answer that will put this whole debate to rest - stop ducking it.

Do elite teams that play with a lead more often than trail still get this 'lift' more than 50% of the time?
lol at ducking. you're using your advanced selective reading technique again. I've already addressed this point, but you conveniently skimmed past it.

again, in a team sport you focus on YOUR play, not that of the opposition. it's the whole initiate vs react concept.

so now you don't duck the multiple choice question I posed above. does a fight increase total energy in a building or not, generally speaking?

if it does increase energy levels, which I maintain it does, and since you worry only about YOUR play and not about the play of the other bench (pretty basic concept that shouldn't be disputed imo) you're 50% stuff is just silly.

here's another question that you've ducked a few times already in this thread: why do these 3-5 minute/game players still exist in today's NHL? when rosters went from 21 players to 20 it was said these players were going to be extinct in short order. didn't happen. When the salary cap came in, it was said these players were going to be extinct. Not only hasn't it happened, but you see Boogard get a 4yr/$1.6m deal. sure, Sather's an idiot, but that doesn't explain why multiple teams feel it necessary to keep guys on their roster that play 1 shift a period and score once every couple of seasons or so. don't duck this, explain it please.


ps to pits, re-reading my earlier reply to you, it may have come off as a bit sarcastic and disrespectful. that wasn't my intention and I apologies if you took it that way.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 02:10 PM
  #271
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
again, you're saying that "scoring the next goal" = "improves energy", a position I reject. As I asked earlier, does a big save/big hit only improve energy if that team scores the next goal?

simple question, pick A or B: after a fight, total energy in the building (fans, both teams) is A) increased B) decreased.
I'm not disagreeing with that point. The argument I'm making is that improving energy is irrelevant if it's not improving your chance of winning, and that only happens if it affects your goal differential.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 02:23 PM
  #272
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
again, you're saying that "scoring the next goal" = "improves energy", a position I reject. As I asked earlier, does a big save/big hit only improve energy if that team scores the next goal?

simple question, pick A or B: after a fight, total energy in the building (fans, both teams) is A) increased B) decreased.



lol at ducking. you're using your advanced selective reading technique again. I've already addressed this point, but you conveniently skimmed past it.

again, in a team sport you focus on YOUR play, not that of the opposition. it's the whole initiate vs react concept.

so now you don't duck the multiple choice question I posed above. does a fight increase total energy in a building or not, generally speaking?

if it does increase energy levels, which I maintain it does, and since you worry only about YOUR play and not about the play of the other bench (pretty basic concept that shouldn't be disputed imo) you're 50% stuff is just silly.

here's another question that you've ducked a few times already in this thread: why do these 3-5 minute/game players still exist in today's NHL? when rosters went from 21 players to 20 it was said these players were going to be extinct in short order. didn't happen. When the salary cap came in, it was said these players were going to be extinct. Not only hasn't it happened, but you see Boogard get a 4yr/$1.6m deal. sure, Sather's an idiot, but that doesn't explain why multiple teams feel it necessary to keep guys on their roster that play 1 shift a period and score once every couple of seasons or so. don't duck this, explain it please.


ps to pits, re-reading my earlier reply to you, it may have come off as a bit sarcastic and disrespectful. that wasn't my intention and I apologies if you took it that way.


You ducked it again. You get nothing from me until you answer the question. Do that and I'll answer yours.

Drop the Sopel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 03:23 PM
  #273
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I'm not disagreeing with that point. The argument I'm making is that improving energy is irrelevant if it's not improving your chance of winning, and that only happens if it affects your goal differential.
but how can improving your energy ever be irrelevant to winning? your theory is that having "less energy" can give you a better chance of winning a hockey game. that theory cannot be applied to the realities of a physical game like hockey, no matter who scores the next goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post


You ducked it again. You get nothing from me until you answer the question. Do that and I'll answer yours.
lol, okay. spell out your question, I must be missing it.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 04:18 PM
  #274
xtr3m
Registered User
 
xtr3m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
A good fight can help waking up the local fans at the stadium. That's pretty much all I can think of.

xtr3m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2010, 04:25 PM
  #275
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,307
vCash: 50
Just so you guys know, the Dwyer on Carolina is not a fighter. It's Patrick Dwyer, a young player who's never been in a scrap.

You were probably thinking of Gordie Dwyer, who was Canucks property for a bit if I remember correctly.

stevecanuck16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.