Oh true. The Holmgren haters have been subdued lately. I like the ones who can predict the futureSome say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
Oh true. The Holmgren haters have been subdued lately. I like the ones who can predict the futureSome say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
Hey, I'm counted with the "Holmgren haters" and I've never bashed the 3rd pairing. And honestly, I don't recall seeing many of the other haters bash them either.
I'll speak for the rest of us here when we say, we don't hate the 3rd pairing at all. We hate that $7 million was thrown at the 5th, 6th, and 7th (more like 8th) defenseman.
In summary, I love our 3rd. They rival most 2nd pairings, and are crucial for this team. I'd argue though, If other teams spent $5.3 million on their 3rd pairing, I'd bet theirs would be just as good. In fact, are there any other 3rd pairings that cost that much?
It is much easier to have a good +/- on the 3rd pairing as you play easier matchups. Preissing was +40, and now isnt in the NHL.
However, Meszaros and O'D have been great and I dont see why they cant keep it up
How someone cannot understand the correlation between a good +/- and being on a good team... and a bad +/- and being on a bad team is a good question.
They should end the year with a good +/-, especially if we continue to get the goaltending that we have to this point. However, the +50s they're on pace for seem to be a bit of a stretch... especially given that this isn't a one line team situation. Even if we have a STELLAR regular season from start to finish, you're probably looking at a team GDIF of around +82... to pull in a +58 (what O'Donnell was on pace for last I checked) out of that would be ridiculous. Both have gotten a bit lucky to this point in the season, and that's where the out of whack numbers are coming from.
Oh true. The Holmgren haters have been subdued lately. I like the ones who can predict the futureSome say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
...same reason it's a safe bet the dude hitting .420 at the end of April isn't going to keep it up.
It's funny how when you go from $1.5M to $5.3M you see an uptick in production. Our 3rd pairing is an absurd 3rd pairing... don't mean Meszaros is earning his pay.
How someone cannot understand the correlation between a good +/- and being on a good team... and a bad +/- and being on a bad team is a good question.
They should end the year with a good +/-, especially if we continue to get the goaltending that we have to this point. However, the +50s they're on pace for seem to be a bit of a stretch... especially given that this isn't a one line team situation. Even if we have a STELLAR regular season from start to finish, you're probably looking at a team GDIF of around +82... to pull in a +58 (what O'Donnell was on pace for last I checked) out of that would be ridiculous. Both have gotten a bit lucky to this point in the season, and that's where the out of whack numbers are coming from.
I hear you Jester, but are you implying you don't think they are good, or just that they aren't as good as +/- indicates? Because I think they've been very good. I love having a 3rd pairing that doesn't cause heart attacks. (It's the dollars that are the cause of my hesitance.)
I hear you Jester, but are you implying you don't think they are good, or just that they aren't as good as +/- indicates? Because I think they've been very good. I love having a 3rd pairing that doesn't cause heart attacks. (It's the dollars that are the cause of my hesitance.)
They're not +58 good.
The other day, O'Donnell's GAON/60 was at 0.40. That is an absurd number. It's risen above 1 in the last week.
I'm also going to go ahead and predict that Mike Richards won't remain one of our worst even strength defensive players by the end of the year (currently, the only F with a higher GAON/60 rate is Carcillo -- the only minus player on the team).
Our 5 best players statistically on D at 5 on 5:
1) Bartulis: 0.00 GAON/60 in 3 games.
2) O'Donnell: 1.01 GAON/60 in 25 games.
3) JVR: 1.19 GAON/60 in 21 games.
4) Briere: 1.38 GAON/60 in 22 games.
5) Meszaros: 1.46 GAON/60 in 24 games.
Briere is the only player in that group to play against a + QUALCOMP.
EDIT: For further perspective. Last year, only one D posted below a 1.50 GAON/60 playing 12+ minutes a night (Mark Fistric against a really weak -0.085 QUALCOMP). The best +/- last year was Jeff Schultz at +50, who posted a 1.61 GAON/60 for Washington last year, and benefited from 4.23 GFON/60.
Oh true. The Holmgren haters have been subdued lately. I like the ones who can predict the futureSome say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
Get used to it HP49. They will criticize the colour of Homer's tie at the Cup parade....
Why do you all have to be so extreme (as a "hater" or an "apologist")?
If anyone has anything negative to say about Homer, they are a hater? Do I no longer like the Flyers? I'm going to be upset that we are good (even though I, along with most "haters" all knew we would be)?
What a lot of people criticizing us "haters" don't realize is that, all of the points we've been making still stand. They don't go away because we are good (like we all knew we would be). The performance of the team as a whole has nothing to do with our reservations with Holmgren.
And THAT...is a fundamental difference in opinion, can we stop making it a right or wrong thing? Some people think the fact that we are a great team expunges Holmgren of any wrongdoings. Some people think that even though we are a good team, it doesn't make up for any wrongdoings, because there is always room for improvement.
Why do you all have to be so extreme (as a "hater" or an "apologist")?
If anyone has anything negative to say about Homer, they are a hater? Do I no longer like the Flyers? I'm going to be upset that we are good (even though I, along with most "haters" all knew we would be)?
What a lot of people criticizing us "haters" don't realize is that, all of the points we've been making still stand. They don't go away because we are good (like we all knew we would be). The performance of the team as a whole has nothing to do with our reservations with Holmgren.
And THAT...is a fundamental difference in opinion, can we stop making it a right or wrong thing? Some people think the fact that we are a great team expunges Holmgren of any wrongdoings. Some people think that even though we are a good team, it doesn't make up for any wrongdoings, because there is always room for improvement.
Not singling anyone out or anything, but some opinions are smarter then others and thus more valid then others. Not all opinions are created equal in reality.
Not singling anyone out or anything, but some opinions are smarter then others and thus more valid then others. Not all opinions are created equal in reality.
I don't know about that...an opinion is an opinion. It only becomes an issue when either 1) someone presents an opinion as fact and fails to recognize doing so or 2) people recognize facts as opinion. That's where conflict arises.
I won't single anyone out either, but if I'm thinking of who you're thinking of, I personally, tend to think they are extremely factual, and rarely present opinions as such.
9 times out of 10, I'd argue it comes down to the "fundamental difference in opinion" I mentioned before. I seem to make my same arguments over and over again and feel like I'm talking to a wall. And I'm sure people debating with me feel the same way.
I hear you Jester, but are you implying you don't think they are good, or just that they aren't as good as +/- indicates? Because I think they've been very good. I love having a 3rd pairing that doesn't cause heart attacks. (It's the dollars that are the cause of my hesitance.)
The 3rd pairing is Also going against teams lesser skilled forwards most times. They are playing well. As they should going against 3rd and 4th line players.
Would like to see odonnel get some rest though and get bart some playing time.
I don't know about that...an opinion is an opinion. It only becomes an issue when either 1) someone presents an opinion as fact and fails to recognize doing so or 2) people recognize facts as opinion. That's where conflict arises.
This is obviously an extreme example (just because it's easier to think of one this way), but if someone was of the opinion that the entire world is just one small grain under, say, Jester's finger-nail then you wouldn't think that's a crazy illegitimate opinion?
Or scientoligists? You don't think their opinion on religious matters are stupid enough to the point where you personally discount their opinion on the matter?
If someone thought Claude Giroux is going to be as good as Crosby you wouldn't call them crazy or think less of their opinion?
Quote:
I won't single anyone out either, but if I'm thinking of who you're thinking of, I personally, tend to think they are extremely factual, and rarely present opinions as such.
Like I said, I'm not thinking of any single person here. Granted, I have a mental list of certain posters that I don't think much of (in terms of their opinion) and vice versa, but I'm not gonna get anywhere near into that.
Quote:
9 times out of 10, I'd argue it comes down to the "fundamental difference in opinion" I mentioned before. I seem to make my same arguments over and over again and feel like I'm talking to a wall. And I'm sure people debating with me feel the same way.
Debates do tend to get people entrenched into their original point of view, granted, but it really depends on who you're talking to. For instance, I try to keep an open mind and although I don't always post to tell a person when he's swayed my opinion, my opinion does tend to get swayed by any convincing argument.
I assume this "GM of the Year" is for calendar year 2010 and not for the current 2010-11 season. If not, then the person that gives it out is related to the person that thinks it's ok to pick the Flyers' "Check of the Game" before the second period is even over.
I assume this "GM of the Year" is for calendar year 2010 and not for the current 2010-11 season. If not, then the person that gives it out is related to the person that thinks it's ok to pick the Flyers' "Check of the Game" before the second period is even over.
You gotta get the sponsors in while people are still watching!
Do you think that automatically makes him a bad GM ? Coach Lavy certainly had a hand in Mike coming to the Flyers as well i should think?Leighton carried a pretty good load for us when the chips were down late last season.
I know, that was sarcasm, shoulda used one of these . I am one of the few people who think Homer has done a great job with this team. I've been supporting him pretty much since the beginning.
I hear you Jester, but are you implying you don't think they are good, or just that they aren't as good as +/- indicates? Because I think they've been very good. I love having a 3rd pairing that doesn't cause heart attacks. (It's the dollars that are the cause of my hesitance.)
No Jester just implies that they are not good but rather lucky.
Oh true. The Holmgren haters have been subdued lately. I like the ones who can predict the futureSome say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
The 3rd pairing is Also going against teams lesser skilled forwards most times. They are playing well. As they should going against 3rd and 4th line players.
Would like to see odonnel get some rest though and get bart some playing time.
For a long stretch they were getting 20min TOI/game and still playing well. It's tough to hide a pairing from anyone when you're giving them 20 minutes a night. Which is not to say that I don't think you have a point there, but perhaps I think it is over stated.
I think you actually said "where" credit is "do" (not when). And I think he is highlighting the whole do vs. due thing.
[/super anal grammar nazi]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeypete49
No Jester just implies that they are not good but rather lucky.
I think he came right out and said that they are not as good as their admittedly outstanding numbers, which they are lucky to have. Not that they weren't good, or they were succeeding entirely on luck.
Last edited by Giroux tha Damaja: 11-29-2010 at 08:17 PM.
No Jester just implies that they are not good but rather lucky.
Please find a quote where I implied they weren't good... I mean, I realize not allowing reading comprehension to get in the way of a good story is fun and all, but don't let the simple concepts evade you.
I mean, I guess you think Nodl is going to end the year with a 30.0 shooting %?
Please find a quote where I implied they weren't good... I mean, I realize not allowing reading comprehension to get in the way of a good story is fun and all, but don't let the simple concepts evade you.
I mean, I guess you think Nodl is going to end the year with a 30.0 shooting %?
I'm with Jester here.
Saying that he just thinks we are "lucky" is taking it to, as I've already touched on, an extreme.
Jester seems to me, to be a numbers guy. Regression to the mean is a real thing. I can't recall reading anything he's written and taking away that he's implying luck.
The ONLY thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, I can recall him declaring lucky is the Bob situation. And I would agree. Signing a 22 year old goalie prospect and having him run away with the starter's job in his first season in North America I think is lucky. It wasn't intended for him to do this. Everyone thought he'd need AHL time. If you don't think that's luck, so be it...but I certainly think it is.
And please don't turn that last paragraph into a bash on Homer. He gets all the praise in the world for signing a great goalie prospect. But I won't praise him for being forced to rely on that rookie goalie prospect. I will certainly continue to enjoy the Bob ride though.
Saying that he just thinks we are "lucky" is taking it to, as I've already touched on, an extreme.
Jester seems to me, to be a numbers guy. Regression to the mean is a real thing. I can't recall reading anything he's written and taking away that he's implying luck.
The ONLY thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, I can recall him declaring lucky is the Bob situation. And I would agree. Signing a 22 year old goalie prospect and having him run away with the starter's job in his first season in North America I think is lucky. It wasn't intended for him to do this. Everyone thought he'd need AHL time. If you don't think that's luck, so be it...but I certainly think it is.
And please don't turn that last paragraph into a bash on Homer. He gets all the praise in the world for signing a great goalie prospect. But I won't praise him for being forced to rely on that rookie goalie prospect. I will certainly continue to enjoy the Bob ride though.
Bob is luck from Holmgren's perspective... he had no intention of Bob playing in the NHL to start the year, and Bob almost certainly would be backstopping that terrible AHL squad if Leighton's back hadn't blown up (of course, if we were getting .900 goaltending and Bob was posting a .930+ in the AHL, he might be here by now...). Certainly gets credit for signing a prospect... but I've always said I love his scouting eye.
What I find remarkable is the inability of some to grasp that some paces are unsustainable (both good and bad). Players have runs of both good and bad luck and it affects their production rates. O'Donnell and Meszaros, for example, have gotten quite lucky this year in when goals are finding their way past the goalies. Carle--who I'm not a huge fan of--has been unlucky defensively, IMO (worst GAON/60 on the team at 2.69), but also quite lucky the other way (3.74 GFON/60). Last year his numbers were 2.15 GAON and 2.90 GFON...
Based on watching him, I wouldn't have suspected Carle was getting burned that badly defensively without looking at the numbers.
And regression to mean is absolutely real, and far too many don't seem to grasp this conceptually.
Some say on one hand that our 3rd pairing on defense will falter the rest of the season. That on a good team a + is easy to accomplish. How was our 3rd pairing last year? Teams seemed to feast on them when they got out on the ice. Cracks me up that they cannot give credit where credit is do.
. I am one of the few people who think Homer has done a great job with this team. I've been supporting him pretty much since the beginning.
