HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Do we give Holmgren enough credit?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2011, 01:54 PM
  #201
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Did you see the guy play? The team dragged him along. They won despite him, not because of him. Boucher was having success as well until he got injured. The turning point in the Boston series was Gagne's return and Krecji's injury, not MFL.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:02 PM
  #202
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Did you see the guy play? The team dragged him along. They won despite him, not because of him. Boucher was having success as well until he got injured. The turning point in the Boston series was Gagne's return and Krecji's injury, not MFL.

Alright, I see that there's no logical answer to your counterfactual narrative, because none of it is based on logical assumptions about the nature of reality.

To put it very simply: you do not have a crystal ball. You do not have a special ability to see how events would have unfolded in the past, changing this variable or that. It's very easy grant yourself a self-superior analytical perspective when you believe you have access to this type of crystal ball, but the truth about reality is that you have no access to such a crystal ball.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:04 PM
  #203
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,843
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
I can't think of any saves that Leighton made that a better goalie like Roloson wouldn't have. Hell, his most impressive save (the one used in the history will be made video) was a glove save most goalies would consider routine. It was also probably going wide.
Really? So every goalie better than Leighton would have made every single save he made? No goalies make mistakes? They don't misplay pucks? I'm not talking about Leighton making great saves, just saves in general. Leighton probably made some saves Patrick Roy wouldn't have made. Sometimes the puck just goes in. Maybe on a screen Leighton was looking at the right place while Roloson would not have been able to see it. This is the speculation i am talking about that you don't seem to understand. Like I said before, it isn't as simple as putting Roloson in the shoes of Leighton and saying well he is better they would have won. It is not a 1-1 switch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
1. That's illogical. Leighton was a successful goalie in the regular season and the Boston series. You have no grounds to say he had nothing to do with what happened.
2. Even if Leighton really had "nothing to do with" the Flyers succes that year, there is no way of knowing whether or not Hypothetical Dwayne Roloson would have had comparatively more to do with that same amount of success, OR if that same amount of success even would have occurred with Hypothetical Dwayne Roloson on the roster.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I have been saying but apparently we are the crazy who would rather go with real actual facts and results instead of 100% speculative ones. Everyone knows speculation is more valuable and a better indication than actual results. How dumb are we?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:06 PM
  #204
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Good god. I give up.

No BETTER goalie clearly would have avoided the many mistakes that Leighton made. Homer is a genius who should be living on top of a mountain dispensing knowledge to those who know less than him, which is approximately every human who has, or ever will, live. I'm a fool for questioning everything he does that looks stupid, because even though it seems moronic it's actually so intelligent that mere mortals can't understand it.

edit: on top of that, we should never ever change out our players who are bad for better players...cause hey, who knows if the better player will actually better?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:16 PM
  #205
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Good god. I give up.

No BETTER goalie clearly would have avoided the many mistakes that Leighton made. Homer is a genius who should be living on top of a mountain dispensing knowledge to those who know less than him, which is approximately every human who has, or ever will, live. I'm a fool for questioning everything he does that looks stupid, because even though it seems moronic it's actually so intelligent that mere mortals can't understand it.
Suggestion: act like a grown-up and resist the selfish temptation to resort to red herrings and put words in other people's mouths.

I think I (and DFF) made our positions very clear. We can't know what would have happened, so there is no grounds to replace reality with speculation. Of course there are many valid ways to question past decision-making, but the counterfactual narrative with given end results is not one of them. We are objecting to the basis on which you and others are advancing a specific argument.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:17 PM
  #206
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
All I know is, in terms of the Goaltender position. The Flyers have a much better chance of winning with Bryzgalov in net, then they do with Leighton.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:22 PM
  #207
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
edit: on top of that, we should never ever change out our players who are bad for better players...cause hey, who knows if the better player will actually better?
I already addressed this. Any and all expectations about the future are by their nature speculative. The problem with the counterfactual narrative presented in this thread is that it assumes a speculative claim is really something other than that which it is; that speculation can somehow be put on par with reality.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:23 PM
  #208
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,284
vCash: 500
You guys are over complicating the issue in order to weasel into another holmgren defense.

Yes, it's impossible to say how exact circumstances would have unfolded with a different goalie, however that is not really the point.

The point is that you ice the best possible tram and by doing so you increase your chances of winning. The biggest place for potential improvement was goaltender and this weakness 1) was identified by many people early in the season and 2) unsurprisingly manifested itself against the best teams

To justify this failure to ice the best possible team because exact events would have transpired differently is a horribly lame argument

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:25 PM
  #209
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I already addressed this. Any and all expectations about the future are by their nature speculative. The problem with the counterfactual narrative presented in this thread is that it assumes a speculative claim is really something other than that which it is; that speculation can somehow be put on par with reality.
Do I truly need to dig up Leighton's stats and compare them to Roloson's stats to show you that Roloson is a better goalie, and therefore more likely to have success than Leighton?

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:27 PM
  #210
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 11,007
vCash: 500
The goaltending situation we've had to endure under Clarke and Holmgren was a major transgression that cannot be defended..period.

Doubling down on Leighton after his finals debacle is also indefensible..period! Having said this...looks like we've finally addressed the problem and now we can look forward.

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:38 PM
  #211
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,843
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Do I truly need to dig up Leighton's stats and compare them to Roloson's stats to show you that Roloson is a better goalie, and therefore more likely to have success than Leighton?
More likely is not a guarantee that erases what actually happened. Yes, Roloson is a better goalie. That is not in question. But better goalies do not always lead to better results. Just because Leighton missed puck A doesn't mean Roloson would have saved it. That isn't how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
You guys are over complicating the issue in order to weasel into another holmgren defense.

Yes, it's impossible to say how exact circumstances would have unfolded with a different goalie, however that is not really the point.

The point is that you ice the best possible tram and by doing so you increase your chances of winning. The biggest place for potential improvement was goaltender and this weakness 1) was identified by many people early in the season and 2) unsurprisingly manifested itself against the best teams

To justify this failure to ice the best possible team because exact events would have transpired differently is a horribly lame argument
This is a much better argument, however I do not necessarily agree with it for reasons that I exhausted last year and do not wish to get back into because it was me vs. the world (essentially that Leighton was playing well enough to the point where it wasn't necessary to go after a goalie at that point). Just as a heads up I will not be responding to anything in reference to that argument because I did it for basically an entire season and no one on here agreed with me and I don't feel like doing that all over again. Haha.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:40 PM
  #212
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
So if we had the opportunity to change out Shelley for Ovechkin last year, using your logic, we have absolutely no way of knowing if OV would have performed any better. After all, we have no way to tell if Ovechkin would have been any good in that situation.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:45 PM
  #213
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Do I truly need to dig up Leighton's stats and compare them to Roloson's stats to show you that Roloson is a better goalie, and therefore more likely to have success than Leighton?

None of that is contested. And if you have been construing that to be the case, then you truly do not understand what I have been saying.

Here is an exercise:

At the trade deadline last year, let's say the Flyers chances of making the playoffs, advancing beyond the 1st round, beyond the second round, beyond the ECF and then putting up a competitive showing in the SCF were 8% and that the odds of winning it all were ~4%.

And let's say that if the Flyers would have swung the trade for Roloson (now knowing -- partially in hindsight --- that Roloson still had some good goaltending left in the tank) that it would have raised their chances of a competitive SCF showing to 12% and their odds of a winning it all to 6%. This is probably good enough reason to sacrifice a 2nd round pick and justifies the trade.

Those are just guesses (edit: assumption was that we are looking forward from Trade Deadline Day 2010). What we DO know is that the odds of the Flyers putting up a good showing in the SCF -- thanks to a series of perhaps improbable events -- would eventually rise to 100%, while the odds of winning the Cup would eventually dwindle to 0% (after reaching a high water mark after Game 4).

Now suppose we enter the counterfactual reality of the Dwayne Roloson Flyers. The chances are that the expectancy for the Flyers to put up a good showing in the SCF and winning the Cup both eventually dwindle to 0%. Is this a valid referendum on the trade? No. At the point in time which the trade would have been made, it increases the Flyers Cup expectancy. However, that Cup expectancy is still low, and very likely to dwindle to 0% by the time the season is over. Just because a result (particularly an unlikely one) was achieved in one reality, does not mean that the same is expected to hold true for the other reality. That is the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 10-12-2011 at 02:54 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:50 PM
  #214
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Fact: We scored enough goals to win

Fact: Our goaltender did not make enough saves to win.

Holmgren then ignored these facts and did nothing to address the problem. He did get amazingly lucky when Bob broke out.
If you honestly thought that getting a goalie, lets say roloson, would have made a huge diffrence last year you are wrong. The team played horrible at the end of the year for whatever reason.

It honetly looked like most of the team checked out other than JVR , Roo, and briere. Pronger was hurt, kimmo was playing horrible. Carle was getting beat left and right, and O donnell was wearing down. MEz and COburn were bringing it but that was it.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:51 PM
  #215
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
So if we had the opportunity to change out Shelley for Ovechkin last year, using your logic, we have absolutely no way of knowing if OV would have performed any better. After all, we have no way to tell if Ovechkin would have been any good in that situation.

No, you can not have any knowledge of it, speaking today, by the nature of it being counterfactual.

This is the same thing I have been saying about the Roloson-Leighton point. Of course, by saying you do not have knowledge of it, this does not mean that I favor Shelley to Ovechkin, but using your logic, you have been inferring that point.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 02:54 PM
  #216
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
If you honestly thought that getting a goalie, lets say roloson, would have made a huge diffrence last year you are wrong. The team played horrible at the end of the year for whatever reason.

It honetly looked like most of the team checked out other than JVR , Roo, and briere. Pronger was hurt, kimmo was playing horrible. Carle was getting beat left and right, and O donnell was wearing down. MEz and COburn were bringing it but that was it.
We aren't talking about last year

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
No, you can not have any knowledge of it, speaking today, by the nature of it being counterfactual.

This is the same thing I have been saying about the Roloson-Leighton point. Of course, by saying you do not have knowledge of it, this does not mean that I favor Shelley to Ovechkin, but using your logic, you have been inferring that point.
Seriously?


Are you one of the Holmgren die-hards? You're really, really reaching.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:06 PM
  #217
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,843
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
So if we had the opportunity to change out Shelley for Ovechkin last year, using your logic, we have absolutely no way of knowing if OV would have performed any better. After all, we have no way to tell if Ovechkin would have been any good in that situation.
Not whether or not he would have performed better, but whether or not it would have mattered. Ovechkin can score 50 goals but be on a losing team.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:08 PM
  #218
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Not whether or not he would have performed better, but whether or not it would have mattered. Ovechkin can score 50 goals but be on a losing team.
What matters is that Holmgren could have made the team better, and he didn't. Then in the offseason, he could have improved the position and didn't.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:09 PM
  #219
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
We aren't talking about last year



Seriously?


Are you one of the Holmgren die-hards? You're really, really reaching.

You're really, really not reading what I am saying.

Yes, I am serious.

No, I am not a "Holmgren die-hard". I just believe in fair criticism and logical argument.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:13 PM
  #220
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
We aren't talking about last year



Seriously?


Are you one of the Holmgren die-hards? You're really, really reaching.
my bad didnt realize you were talking about the SCF year.

If we had roloson we could have won the SCF. But you have to remember that year was such a fluke. But that would have just been another temporary fix. Also roloson wasnt exactly playing lights out.

Listen we made it all the way to game 6 with MFL. Had carter been able to put that puck home at the end of game 6 then we would be in game 7 where we dont know what could have happened.

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:13 PM
  #221
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,770
vCash: 500
stefan legein and a 6th for future considerations....genius

Jtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:14 PM
  #222
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 40,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
You're really, really not reading what I am saying.

Yes, I am serious.

No, I am not a "Holmgren die-hard". I just believe in fair criticism and logical argument.
I don't think you're getting what I've been trying to argue either. Roloson is better than Leighton. Roloson would have given the team more of a chance to win than Leighton, based on every single metric and statistical fact you can dig up. Based on these stats, there is zero reason to believe that Roloson would have fared worse than Leighton, and every reason to believe he would have done better.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:16 PM
  #223
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 111,739
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It's not that simple. It's perfectly possible that a Dwayne Roloson-led Flyers team would have fallen to Boston in the 2nd round or even completely failed to qualify for the playoffs.
Anything is possible. However, with Roloson, we likely wouldn't have had Boucher's horrible goaltending when Leighton got hurt, just as we likely wouldn't have went down 3-0 to begin with. It's only speculative what would have happened had other things happen, but there was no shortage of message board geniuses who turned out to be right when the other shoe dropped on Michael Leighton in the Finals. I'm just going on the assumption that Roloson would have been better than Boucher or Leighton, because in 2009 he already was. And probably still is.

Things may or may not have happened, but at some point the moment of truth has to be in play, or else you're basically saying "well, it didn't happen, so there's no point in talking about it. Otherwise, it's like a movie where you can't just say "what if this guy did this" because then you don't have a story.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:17 PM
  #224
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jtown View Post
stefan legein and a 6th for future considerations....genius
Is this sarcasm?

You shouldn't care much about Legein or a 6th rounder at this point.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 03:21 PM
  #225
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 11,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Is this sarcasm?

You shouldn't care much about Legein or a 6th rounder at this point.
That is my impression of a typical holmgren hater. I dont care much about this transaction

Jtown 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 04:27 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.