HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Leighton AWOL (update, post #153: suffered a wrenched back)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-30-2011, 12:01 PM
  #201
dingbathero
No Jam? How about PB
 
dingbathero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: St. John's, NL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,676
vCash: 500
Conklin, Lalime, Mike Smith, Biron, Auld (ALL BACKUPS - in their own right!- not much better, but better none the less than Leighton and there are folks that think Leights should be given a fair shake... JESUS..... Having said that, I would be VERY iffy on having any of them start for my NHL team - they aren't good enough.

Leights G w l SO GAA %
NHL TOTALS - 104 35 40 10 4 5696 280 4 2.95 .902

Why the **** would anyone in their right mind think that's good enough? REALLY?!


Last edited by dingbathero: 04-30-2011 at 12:06 PM.
dingbathero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:02 PM
  #202
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
You don't understand what we are saying.

THE REASON HE WAS GOOD AGAINST MTL AND BOS IS AS FOLLOWS:

MTL was thoroughly unable to take advantage of Leighton because of the play of the skaters in front of him.

Boston was a completely different offense without Krecji last year. Many of us scoffed at how panicked many Bruins fans were when he went down. By the end of the series it was plain to see that he was an important part of that offense....and even then they made Leighton look bad in Game 7.

Leighton posted 3 shutouts. Yes. Were they impressive shutouts? No. He had them handed to him. He happened to be in the perfect situation to make that happen. I am frankly more impressed by Halak's performance against Washington and Pittsburgh than I am with Leighton's 3 shutouts, because Halak did that pretty much on his own.

Leighton's performance was purely a product of the team in front of him controlling play in their zone against weak offenses, whereas Halak's performance was a product of his own work and talent.
And all this is fine. But that still does not mean they won IN SPITE OF him. I really don't think you understand what that phrase means. When you say in spite of it means, "regardless of" or something to that effect. Again, if we are talking about historical stuff and his skill level, then yeah, we lost in spite of his historical level and his skill level. But if we are talking about the way he played, then we absolutely did not win in spite of him.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:06 PM
  #203
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
And all this is fine. But that still does not mean they won IN SPITE OF him. I really don't think you understand what that phrase means. When you say in spite of it means, "regardless of" or something to that effect. Again, if we are talking about historical stuff and his skill level, then yeah, we lost in spite of his historical level and his skill level. But if we are talking about the way he played, then we absolutely did not win in spite of him.
Actually, I don't think you understand what the phrase means. You accept that Leighton isn't very good, yet argue against the statement: they won in spite of the fact that Leighton isn't very good.

It's nice that he put up nice numbers in the 8 and change games he played before the SCF, doesn't mean they weren't winning in spite of him.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:08 PM
  #204
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, so then say we won because the teams we played sucked. Don't act like Leighton was dragging the team down in those series.
They won in spite of the fact that Krajicek wasn't very good either... ya know?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:14 PM
  #205
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
And all this is fine. But that still does not mean they won IN SPITE OF him. I really don't think you understand what that phrase means. When you say in spite of it means, "regardless of" or something to that effect. Again, if we are talking about historical stuff and his skill level, then yeah, we lost in spite of his historical level and his skill level. But if we are talking about the way he played, then we absolutely did not win in spite of him.
No, you very clearly don't have the slightest idea what that phrase means.

When you have a glaring weakness in the position that has the most impact if it goes wrong, and win anyways, you are winning in spite of having that weakness.

edit: yes, thank you Jester. Excellent example.

As an alternate form, one that doesn't involve Leighton (since it's clear you aren't capable of being objective when it comes to him), the team was able to win in spite of having an awful 3rd pairing. Does that make sense?

Now plug Leighton in. The meaning stays the same.

The full statement should be, "The team was able to win, despite having a bad third pairing trying to protect a bad goalie."

However, that 3rd pairing wasn't on the ice for 60 minutes, so "The team was able to win, despite having a bad goalie" is still quite correct.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:16 PM
  #206
trobby
Registered User
 
trobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,244
vCash: 500
Sens fan here.

I'm kind of surprised at alot of the fans here.

Before last year's Regular season, Leighton had never won more than 2 regular season games in a row. Last year, he had 2 stretches where he won 4 in a row, and one stretch where he won 5. Pretty descent, but after 6 seaons of AHL style hockey, I'm surprised ANYONE is coming to his defence.

This is the NHL, you need to
(A): Stop the puck - consistently
(B): Stay healthy
(C): Be mentaly tough.

If I'm the Flyers, I give Bobrovsky another shot. He played a great 1st game, and had a horrible 12 minutes in Game 2. And because of that his season could be over? He's a young goalie, give him another shot now, because if they are waiting for next year, it's going to be on his mind all next season. Leighton and Boucher alternate bad games. They need to forget about both of them next season, and go with BOB and a Veteran backup.

- Sens fan.

trobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:28 PM
  #207
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Actually, I don't think you understand what the phrase means. You accept that Leighton isn't very good, yet argue against the statement: they won in spite of the fact that Leighton isn't very good.

It's nice that he put up nice numbers in the 8 and change games he played before the SCF, doesn't mean they weren't winning in spite of him.
But he was good in that series. That is the point I am making. Therefore, they didn't win in spite of him. If we are talking about winning in spite of the fact that he has historically been a bad goalie, then ok I agree. But the original post I was responding to wasn't saying that (or didn't seem to be at least). If that was not the case, then ok I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
They won in spite of the fact that Krajicek wasn't very good either... ya know?
That works better, but still not really true. Krajicek had ~120 minutes, 2 points, +1 in those two series. They didn't really win "in spite of" anything against Montreal. They won against Boston in spite of being down 3-0.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
No, you very clearly don't have the slightest idea what that phrase means.

When you have a glaring weakness in the position that has the most impact if it goes wrong, and win anyways, you are winning in spite of having that weakness.

edit: yes, thank you Jester. Excellent example.

As an alternate form, one that doesn't involve Leighton (since it's clear you aren't capable of being objective when it comes to him), the team was able to win in spite of having an awful 3rd pairing. Does that make sense?

Now plug Leighton in. The meaning stays the same.

The full statement should be, "The team was able to win, despite having a bad third pairing trying to protect a bad goalie."

However, that 3rd pairing wasn't on the ice for 60 minutes, so "The team was able to win, despite having a bad goalie" is still quite correct.
See the first response in this post. If we are talking about their reputations and skill not level, not the way they played in those two series, then I agree. We won in spite of having a bad third pairing and a bad goalie. But because they didn't play like that, we didn't win in spite of the way they played. Does this settle it finally?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:32 PM
  #208
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
But he was good in that series. That is the point I am making. Therefore, they didn't win in spite of him. If we are talking about winning in spite of the fact that he has historically been a bad goalie, then ok I agree. But the original post I was responding to wasn't saying that (or didn't seem to be at least). If that was not the case, then ok I agree.
He was Michael Leighton in that series. Goals didn't go past him, they did as soon someone started to take advantage of the fact that he was Michael *ing Leighton.

Quote:
That works better, but still not really true. Krajicek had ~120 minutes, 2 points, +1 in those two series. They didn't really win "in spite of" anything against Montreal. They won against Boston in spite of being down 3-0.
...honestly dude, you're stuck in yet another of your absolutely atrocious arguments.

Quote:
See the first response in this post. If we are talking about their reputations and skill not level, not the way they played in those two series, then I agree. We won in spite of having a bad third pairing and a bad goalie. But because they didn't play like that, we didn't win in spite of the way they played. Does this settle it finally?
The skill level is the *ing same across the board. Hell, Leighton played the same across the board. It isn't like he magically had a **** five-hole out of nowhere, the Hawks just started shooting for it and executing where Montreal and Boston did not.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 12:45 PM
  #209
number71*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
THe flyers are almost as bad as the Islanders with the way we go through goalies.

number71* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:03 PM
  #210
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
so if he would of won every game 6-5 or 7-6 on the way to the Cup would it be that Leighton led us to the Cup? You wont admit that Leighton faced teams that were brutal offensively? you really think Leighton would of gotten us past Pittsburgh or Washington? I think that is all everyone is trying to get at.
Boucher got us into the playoffs. He was in goal for that final game if you really want to get technical about everything.
Yes, if we won 6-5 or 7-6, bravo goalie. Patrick Roy was known for that, if Colorado put up 7 he might let in 6, but you were NOT getting 8. If Colorado put up 1, good luck getting a sniff. Roy was great because he won, period. I don't care how you win, but Leighton won. He took us to the Stanley Cup Finals. Something Nitty, Biron, Roman, Esche, etc, etc, etc were not able to do.

People make it sound like this Flyers team is just so unbelievable that we could just throw any ol' hack out there against Montreal and Boston and we win. Yet, we were down to Boston 3-0 with Boucher in net. Montreal beat MAF and Varlamov on the way to meeting us (behind two teams most believe are better than Philly). Leighton had 3 SO's against Montreal and made a number of good saves.

If people could simply give "us fanboys" the fact that Leighton deserves some credit for getting us to the finals, there would be NO DEBATE. Me, DFF, Pete, Larry and others who have defended Leighton simply do so because the folks on the other side give Leighton ALL THE BLAME FOR THE FINALS and ZERO CREDIT FOR GETTING US THERE! ****, even making the playoffs is 100% because of the Michael Leighton waiver wire claim, because he came in and took the Flyers from well out of the playoffs to back in a hunt for 4th. he gets hurt and Boucher almost took us out of the playoffs again.

I am not wishing for Leighton in the net this year. I rank Bob and Boucher ahead of Leighton. I don't want Leighton to make the team next year, I prefer we go Bob/Boucher or Vokoun/Bob.

My one and only problem with the Leighton hate is, people will not conceed that he did a good job for us last year. Despite having an excellent save percentage, GAA, W-L record, all these things mean nothing, cause I mean, look at the finals, look at the Kane goal.....forget the stats from the regular season and first two rounds, those were all because of how great the team was in front of him and how sucky the teams we were playing against. Leighton was just sitting back there stretching his legs, letting the odd puck hit him, cause anything that would have beat him would have been blocked of simply not allowed through.

Give us that and end this damn discussion. Leighton was the goalie that led us to the finals, he deserves some respect for getting us in the playoffs and taking us to the finals. He doesn't have to ever play for the Flyers again, but please don't crap all over what he did last year. I saw with my own two eyes that he played very well to get us there.

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:06 PM
  #211
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
I stopped reading when you compared Patrick Roy to Michael Leighton. You lost credibility immediately.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:18 PM
  #212
FlyerSithLord
Registered User
 
FlyerSithLord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tinicum
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyerSithLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
Yes, if we won 6-5 or 7-6, bravo goalie. Patrick Roy was known for that, if Colorado put up 7 he might let in 6, but you were NOT getting 8. If Colorado put up 1, good luck getting a sniff. Roy was great because he won, period.
Stupidest argument ever.

FlyerSithLord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:27 PM
  #213
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I stopped reading when you compared Patrick Roy to Michael Leighton. You lost credibility immediately.
LOL - Yes, cause that is what I did. You seem to confuse "compare" with "in the same sentence as". If I was comparing him to Roy, I would be somehow saying they are the same or how one is better. The guy said, what if we won 7-6, would Leighton still be a part of us getting to the finals. My answer is, yes. However, that wasn't the case.....Leighton was letting in less than 2 per game. You make me laugh. Yes, clearly I am now saying Leighton is as good as Patrick Roy, the greatest goalie of all time....lol

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:28 PM
  #214
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
I'm loving the Patrick Roy argument. Sadly, they don't have a game log for his fist cup win on hockey-reference.

2nd cup win: did not allow more than 3 goals in ANY GAME the entire playoffs.

3rd cup win: allowed 4+ goals 6 times, only won 1 of those games (allowed 4 in that game)

4th cup win: allowed 4 + goals 4 times, only won 1 of those games (allowed 4 in that game).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:33 PM
  #215
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
LOL - Yes, cause that is what I did. You seem to confuse "compare" with "in the same sentence as". If I was comparing him to Roy, I would be somehow saying they are the same or how one is better. The guy said, what if we won 7-6, would Leighton still be a part of us getting to the finals. My answer is, yes. However, that wasn't the case.....Leighton was letting in less than 2 per game. You make me laugh. Yes, clearly I am now saying Leighton is as good as Patrick Roy, the greatest goalie of all time....lol
Leighton played in 14 playoff games.

He allowed 5 goals twice.

He allowed 3 goals in the first 20 minutes of Game 5.

He allowed 4 goals in Game 6.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 01:47 PM
  #216
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
LOL - Yes, cause that is what I did. You seem to confuse "compare" with "in the same sentence as". If I was comparing him to Roy, I would be somehow saying they are the same or how one is better. The guy said, what if we won 7-6, would Leighton still be a part of us getting to the finals. My answer is, yes. However, that wasn't the case.....Leighton was letting in less than 2 per game. You make me laugh. Yes, clearly I am now saying Leighton is as good as Patrick Roy, the greatest goalie of all time....lol
Your argument was "Leighton found ways to win, just like Roy!"

You're saying he's like Roy. That would be a comparison.

I won't even go into the fact that Roy played in a competely different era with different equipment, as well as different rules, or the fact that Roy was incredibly talented.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 02:34 PM
  #217
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Your argument was "Leighton found ways to win, just like Roy!"

You're saying he's like Roy. That would be a comparison.

I won't even go into the fact that Roy played in a competely different era with different equipment, as well as different rules, or the fact that Roy was incredibly talented.
I in no way compared Leighton to Roy. If you think I did, I did not mean to, I will never, have never, nobody should ever compare the two! I apologize for causing the discussion to begin, we must never speak of it again. Fair enough? It is simply crazy talk.

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 03:06 PM
  #218
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfanatic View Post
I in no way compared Leighton to Roy. If you think I did, I did not mean to, I will never, have never, nobody should ever compare the two! I apologize for causing the discussion to begin, we must never speak of it again. Fair enough? It is simply crazy talk.
I WILL NOT LET IT DIE. I WILL CARVE IT ON YOUR TOMBSTONE.




haha, fair enough.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 03:14 PM
  #219
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobby View Post
Sens fan here.

I'm kind of surprised at alot of the fans here.

Before last year's Regular season, Leighton had never won more than 2 regular season games in a row. Last year, he had 2 stretches where he won 4 in a row, and one stretch where he won 5. Pretty descent, but after 6 seaons of AHL style hockey, I'm surprised ANYONE is coming to his defence.

This is the NHL, you need to
(A): Stop the puck - consistently
(B): Stay healthy
(C): Be mentaly tough.

If I'm the Flyers, I give Bobrovsky another shot. He played a great 1st game, and had a horrible 12 minutes in Game 2. And because of that his season could be over? He's a young goalie, give him another shot now, because if they are waiting for next year, it's going to be on his mind all next season. Leighton and Boucher alternate bad games. They need to forget about both of them next season, and go with BOB and a Veteran backup.

- Sens fan.
What most of us are saying is Leighton did not win 4 in a row or whatever, the team did. He's a horrible, horrible goalie. He's big and that's why he's had moderate, and I do mean moderate success. He is terrible positionally, his 5 hole is massive and the defense HAS to watch for the inevitable rebounds.

Bob was mentally fatigued and that's why he was pulled. I think Boosh is the go to guy right now and unless he really craps the bed, I'm fine with that.

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 03:47 PM
  #220
number71*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
Pull Boucher now...we need a new goalie - either bobrosky or leighton!

number71* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 04:01 PM
  #221
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by number71 View Post
Pull Boucher now...we need a new goalie - either bobrosky or leighton!
This is where I stopped agreeing with you.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 04:19 PM
  #222
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,204
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
He was Michael Leighton in that series. Goals didn't go past him, they did as soon someone started to take advantage of the fact that he was Michael *ing Leighton.
That didn't happen until after the series though. We are talking about Boston and Montreal. Not Chicago. In Boston and Montreal, Leighton's play was not an issue whatsoever. His reputation may have been, but his play was not. You don't win "in spite of" something that goes your way. That is not what that phrase means.



Quote:
...honestly dude, you're stuck in yet another of your absolutely atrocious arguments.
Foiled again but another great argument by you!


Quote:
The skill level is the *ing same across the board. Hell, Leighton played the same across the board. It isn't like he magically had a **** five-hole out of nowhere, the Hawks just started shooting for it and executing where Montreal and Boston did not.
Yeah I mean, the skill level that Leighton possesses didn't skyrocket up in those two series then drop off against Chicago. But against Montreal and Boston, they didn't need anything more than they got. In fact, they could have gotten less and still likely won. Which would lead a reasonable person to believe that they did not win "in spite of" Leighton. They won in spite of his reputation, yes. That is 100% true. But in anything, not just hockey, not just this situation, you don't do anything "in spite of" something that goes well.

Examples:
"I"m a millionaire in spite of the fact that I have millions of dollars." "I'm a genius in spite of the fact that I have a very high IQ." I won the Boston Marathon in spite of the fact that I ran faster than everyone else." "I'm very tired in spite of the fact that I got no sleep last night."

You say it for things that do not go in your favor, yet you are able to overcome. Examples:
"I had a great day today, in spite of the fact that the Flyers played so poorly through the first two periods of this game." "I really enjoyed the movie "Machete" in spite of the fact that the acting and the premise of the movie were ridiculous." "I'm very hungry in spite of the fact that I just ate a sandwhich and had a bag of chips."

Do you see what I am saying? Saying "in spite of" has the connotation of they had to overcome Leighton's poor play, which was not the case in Boston and Montreal's series. Regardless of how well the Flyers played in front of them and how bad Boston and Montreal were, he still played well. If he hadn't, those stats would look very different. He didn't have to be great, sure say that all you want. And he wasn't great, ok fine. But he wasn't bad. The Flyers didn't have to overcome his poor play to win that series.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 04:24 PM
  #223
DoomMF
Registered User
 
DoomMF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: I live NYC
Posts: 1,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
No, you very clearly don't have the slightest idea what that phrase means.

When you have a glaring weakness in the position that has the most impact if it goes wrong, and win anyways, you are winning in spite of having that weakness.

edit: yes, thank you Jester. Excellent example.

As an alternate form, one that doesn't involve Leighton (since it's clear you aren't capable of being objective when it comes to him), the team was able to win in spite of having an awful 3rd pairing. Does that make sense?
No, you guys don't what that phrase means or at least you're not arguing what that other dude is trying to say. You're repositioning the argument into some general "in spite of" crap.

You can't win "in spite of" something abstract like general skill level without discussing performance. Or at least you probably shouldn't since it's a worthless endeavor.

You don't win in spite of a .940+ save percentage (prior to the SCF) and whatever his GAA was. It makes no sense to say you won in spite of that.

You win in spite of poor performances not general assessment of a player's worth based on how much you love/hate them.

Leighton does suck though, but the team did not make the SCF's in spite of him.


"When you have a glaring weakness in the position that has the most impact if it goes wrong, and win anyways, you are winning in spite of having that weakness."


Under your scenario if due to injuries you start some middling AAA pitcher in a World Series game and he throws a 5 hit complete game shutout you still won in spite of him because pitching is the most important position and he was your glaring weakness.

I suppose technically your argument could be correct that they won in spite of having bad goaltenders on the team, but who really cares about that when you divorce it from performance? Nobody - well, two of you at least.

DoomMF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 04:42 PM
  #224
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
I like the implication of a 1:1 relationship between performance and production. That ain't the way it works. DFF and your argument are also divorced from the context and contingency of events.

Just because goals were not being scored does not mean goal was not just as much a problem. As said, they didn't change goalies... They played a team that exposed the problem. Caps or Pens would have exposed that problem with ease as well.

They won in spite of Leighton and due to favorable match ups.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2011, 04:58 PM
  #225
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,273
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomMF View Post
No, you guys don't what that phrase means or at least you're not arguing what that other dude is trying to say. You're repositioning the argument into some general "in spite of" crap.

You can't win "in spite of" something abstract like general skill level without discussing performance. Or at least you probably shouldn't since it's a worthless endeavor.

You don't win in spite of a .940+ save percentage (prior to the SCF) and whatever his GAA was. It makes no sense to say you won in spite of that.

You win in spite of poor performances not general assessment of a player's worth based on how much you love/hate them.

Leighton does suck though, but the team did not make the SCF's in spite of him.


"When you have a glaring weakness in the position that has the most impact if it goes wrong, and win anyways, you are winning in spite of having that weakness."


Under your scenario if due to injuries you start some middling AAA pitcher in a World Series game and he throws a 5 hit complete game shutout you still won in spite of him because pitching is the most important position and he was your glaring weakness.

I suppose technically your argument could be correct that they won in spite of having bad goaltenders on the team, but who really cares about that when you divorce it from performance? Nobody - well, two of you at least.
You're comparing NHL goaltending to MLB pitching. You do realize that makes NO sense, right?

Beef Invictus 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 02:36 AM.

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.