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, 04:45 PM
  #276
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
In the World of Pro Hockey, when a GM puts a team together, drafts players, signs free agents, trades players. Aren't the results of those moves always speculative? So what is the GM basing those moves on, what reasons does he have for making those moves? What the player has done in the past. So one can reasonably say, although with some speculation. That upgrading a position can produce better results for his team in the future.

Of course. That is the expectancy. But reality is far more complicated. We know that the best roster doesn't always win. The GM deals in a speculative world, but he knows that the players perform in a real one. The relationship between these two things is not necessarily a simple one.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:47 PM
  #277
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I don't think I am late to the party. You missed the point I made.
I must have missed your point because to me it looks like you are saying trading a player is based on speculation, which I don't think anyone is arguing. Speculating about what could have been vs. what actually happened is an exercise in futility. Speculating about will happen is completely different.

If you are not saying what I think you are, could you explain it a little more? Because it seems like from your post that you are talking about speculating about the future.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:51 PM
  #278
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I don't think I am late to the party. You missed the point I made.

In post #266, you are echoing the argument that BI made in post #189 and #212 and which was adressed by myself in post #197 and #215 and by DFF elsewhere. So either you were late to the party or you missed points that were already made elsewhere.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:52 PM
  #279
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I must have missed your point because to me it looks like you are saying trading a player is based on speculation, which I don't think anyone is arguing. Speculating about what could have been vs. what actually happened is an exercise in futility. Speculating about will happen is completely different.

If you are not saying what I think you are, could you explain it a little more? Because it seems like from your post that you are talking about speculating about the future.
I'm saying exactly what I said. And I also don't think it's a stretch to say that a Goalie who has been a better player over his career, and has been a full time NHL Goalie, would make all the saves that a journeyman AHL Goalie would make. Sure there's some speculation there, but it's not an outrageous thought. The bottom line is that no GM knows for sure what the outcome is going to be in making any personell move. But they obviously make it because they feel it's going to make the team better.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 04:57 PM
  #280
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I'm saying exactly what I said. And I also don't think it's a stretch to say that a Goalie who has been a better player over his career, and has been a full time NHL Goalie, would make all the saves that a journeyman AHL Goalie would make. Sure there's some speculation there, but it's not an outrageous thought. The bottom line is that no GM knows for sure what the outcome is going to be in making any personell move. But they obviously make it because they feel it's going to make the team better.

No one is saying that it necessarily outrageous (on the face of it, at least). But it is still essentially fiction. It may be a "realistic fiction," but a fiction nonetheless, and therefore not on equal footing with reality. And when we are talking about past events, there is an actual reality against which to compare results. An actually reality in which Michael Leighton helps backstop the Flyers to the 2010 SCF.


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 10-12-2011 at 05:05 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:02 PM
  #281
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I'm saying exactly what I said.
This is what you said:

Quote:
In the World of Pro Hockey, when a GM puts a team together, drafts players, signs free agents, trades players. Aren't the results of those moves always speculative? So what is the GM basing those moves on, what reasons does he have for making those moves? What the player has done in the past. So one can reasonably say, although with some speculation. That upgrading a position can produce better results for his team in the future.
It looks like you are talking about speculating about future results using past performance. No one is saying that can't be done or shouldn't be done. We are saying it is different than speculating about a different player in a different situation versus what actually happened. Reality always trumps speculation. Yes, it is definitely possible that Roloson would have been the difference maker and Flyers would have won it all. But it is just as speculative to say that they wouldn't even have made the playoffs that season. Since we have actual results, they win.


Quote:
And I also don't think it's a stretch to say that a Goalie who has been a better player over his career, and has been a full time NHL Goalie, would make all the saves that a journeyman AHL Goalie would make. Sure there's some speculation there, but it's not an outrageous thought.
Again, a little late to the party. Look back at the earlier posts. No one is saying Leighton unequivocally did a better job that Roloson would have done or that Leighton is better. Only that it is impossible to know what Roloson would have done. Great goalies make mistakes all the time and bad goalies win games all the time. Because Leighton makes a save that Roloson or even Patrick Roy wouldn't have made, doesn't mean he is better. Maybe its luck. Maybe during that shot Roloson looks away for one for second. It is speculative and therefore is not worth a damn when compared to actual results.

For instance look back at my Umberger example. He's a good player, for sure. He had ten goals in the 2008 playoffs. Does that mean swap him for OV and he would have had 20? Of course not. Maybe he would have. But maybe he would have had 5. or 9. or 10. or 11. or 40. It's too speculative to know. Just like it is too speculative to know whether or not Roloson would have done better.

Quote:
The bottom line is that no GM knows for sure what the outcome is going to be in making any personell move. But they obviously make it because they feel it's going to make the team better.
No one is disputing that.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:09 PM
  #282
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
For instance look back at my Umberger example. He's a good player, for sure. He had ten goals in the 2008 playoffs. Does that mean swap him for OV and he would have had 20? Of course not. Maybe he would have. But maybe he would have had 5. or 9. or 10. or 11. or 40. It's too speculative to know. Just like it is too speculative to know whether or not Roloson would have done better.

This may be a bit nuanced, but I would go even further. "It is speculative in nature, therefore you can't know."

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:15 PM
  #283
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
This may be a bit nuanced, but I would go even further. "It is speculative in nature, therefore you can't know."
Oh definitely. The problem is that no one seems to understand what we are saying to begin with, and if they do they are ignoring it for some reason as if speculative results of what could have happened can in any way be compared to actual results that did happen.

Anyone could easily make the exact same argument that with Roloson this team doesn't make the playoffs and it would have exactly the same amount merit (to a rational person). Yes, Roloson is better than Leighton, but anything can happen. Different players play differently in different situations. Everyone seems to think that it is as simple as putting Roloson in exactly the same position as Leighton and since Roloson is better he therefore would have made the saves Leighton did not. I really don't think I need to explain why that is not the case, but I am sure someone will respond to this as if what I am saying is absurd. Haha.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:30 PM
  #284
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
No one is saying that it necessarily outrageous (on the face of it, at least). But it is still essentially fiction. It may be a "realistic fiction," but a fiction nonetheless, and therefore not on equal footing with reality. And when we are talking about past events, there is an actual reality against which to compare results. An actually reality in which Michael Leighton helps backstop the Flyers to the 2010 SCF.
It's not fiction at all. What makes one Goalie considered better than another? The fact that he's better at stopping the puck! So therefore it really isn't a stretch at all to make that leap. Are you telling me that it's fiction that Claude Giroux is going to score more points than Scott Hartnell is, this Season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This is what you said:
I'm aware of exactly what I said. You missed the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
It looks like you are talking about speculating about future results using past performance. No one is saying that can't be done or shouldn't be done. We are saying it is different than speculating about a different player in a different situation versus what actually happened. Reality always trumps speculation. Yes, it is definitely possible that Roloson would have been the difference maker and Flyers would have won it all. But it is just as speculative to say that they wouldn't even have made the playoffs that season. Since we have actual results, they win.
Here's where your missing the point. It isn't likely that a team would miss the playoffs with a better Goalie replacing one they had in a Season where they made the playoffs. Especially when that Goalie is a career Minor Leaguer for the most part. Your so busy talking about reality, that you forget to be realistic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Again, a little late to the party. Look back at the earlier posts. No one is saying Leighton unequivocally did a better job that Roloson would have done or that Leighton is better. Only that it is impossible to know what Roloson would have done. Great goalies make mistakes all the time and bad goalies win games all the time. Because Leighton makes a save that Roloson or even Patrick Roy wouldn't have made, doesn't mean he is better. Maybe its luck. Maybe during that shot Roloson looks away for one for second. It is speculative and therefore is not worth a damn when compared to actual results.
First of all dispense with the late to the party nonsense. This is an open forum where anyone is free to comment. My replies are based on posts that I read. I don't need to look back at earlier posts. It absolutely is worth a dam. You miss the boat. Why would a GM go out and get a better Goalie then, if it's impossible to know what a Goalie would have done. And here's the point your missing that Invictus is 100% correct about. And that's over a full Season, or even a full playoff Season, odds are the better Goalie will outplay the lesser Goalie. And it's not a stretch to say that the better Goalie would make the saves that a lesser Goalie would make. And you come to that conclusion based on actual results. Again where you miss the boat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
For instance look back at my Umberger example. He's a good player, for sure. He had ten goals in the 2008 playoffs. Does that mean swap him for OV and he would have had 20? Of course not. Maybe he would have. But maybe he would have had 5. or 9. or 10. or 11. or 40. It's too speculative to know. Just like it is too speculative to know whether or not Roloson would have done better.



No one is disputing that.
It's not speculative to know that Ovechkin is a better player than Umberger. You missing what the whole objective of a GM is, and that's to put as good a team as he can on the ice. So a GM doesn't know for sure that Roloson would have done better, so why make the move? Your entire premise makes no sense. It has no bearing on the sport, or how a team is put together, or how a GM decides what moves to make. So what's the point? All I'm reading is a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what is speculation and what isn't. Your entire point is irrelevant.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:47 PM
  #285
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Oh definitely. The problem is that no one seems to understand what we are saying to begin with, and if they do they are ignoring it for some reason as if speculative results of what could have happened can in any way be compared to actual results that did happen.

Anyone could easily make the exact same argument that with Roloson this team doesn't make the playoffs and it would have exactly the same amount merit (to a rational person). Yes, Roloson is better than Leighton, but anything can happen. Different players play differently in different situations. Everyone seems to think that it is as simple as putting Roloson in exactly the same position as Leighton and since Roloson is better he therefore would have made the saves Leighton did not. I really don't think I need to explain why that is not the case, but I am sure someone will respond to this as if what I am saying is absurd. Haha.
Because their argument is based on a boatload of (in their mind) unchallenged assumptions.

Since they are so keen on entering an alternate reality based on speculation, there are just so many ways to poke holes in it. For instance: the notion that better talent must lead to better results (for example, Dwayne Roloson will make all of the saves that Michael Leighton will, and more).

We have Team Yellow, and they play in a reality where all specific individual outcomes are based on true talent. Over the next 16 games, they will score exactly 3 goals in every game (who knows why -- it is just random and unexplained). Team Yellow has Goalie A and Goalie B on their roster.

Goalie A: 2.5 GAA, .917 SV%

Goalie B: 2.75 GAA, .908 SV%

Goalie A starts 8 games to completion and faces 30 shots every game and his goals allowed in 60 minutes distribute as follows:
2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3

Goalie B starts 8 games to completion faces 30 shots (of the same quality as Goal A) every game and his goals allowed in 60 minutes distribute as follows: 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2

Goalie A will go .500, while Goalie B goes .625.

Obviously I had to use some pretty ridiculous limits to illustrate this example, but is just a demonstration of how what we expect (that a better goalie behind an equal quality defense getting the same offensive support will win more games) does not necessarily hold true over a certain number of games.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:50 PM
  #286
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It's not fiction at all. What makes one Goalie considered better than another? The fact that he's better at stopping the puck! So therefore it really isn't a stretch at all to make that leap. Are you telling me that it's fiction that Claude Giroux is going to score more points than Scott Hartnell is, this Season?

What Roloson would have done as the Flyers goalie in 2010 is fiction. If you can't accept that self-obvious premise, there is no point in going forward from there.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:53 PM
  #287
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Because their argument is based on a boatload of (in their mind) unchallenged assumptions.

Since they are so keen on entering an alternate reality based on speculation, there are just so many ways to poke holes in it. For instance: the notion that better talent must lead to better results (for example, Dwayne Roloson will make all of the saves that Michael Leighton will, and more).

We have Team Yellow, and they play in a reality where all specific individual outcomes are based on true talent. Over the next 16 games, they will score exactly 3 goals in every game (who knows why -- it is just random and unexplained). Team Yellow has Goalie A and Goalie B on their roster.

Goalie A: 2.5 GAA, .917 SV%

Goalie B: 2.75 GAA, .908 SV%

Goalie A starts 8 games to completion and faces 30 shots every game and his goals allowed in 60 minutes distribute as follows:
2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3

Goalie B starts 8 games to completion faces 30 shots (of the same quality as Goal A) every game and his goals allowed in 60 minutes distribute as follows: 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2

Goalie A will go .500, while Goalie B goes .625.

Obviously I had to use some pretty ridiculous limits to illustrate this example, but is just a demonstration of how what we expect (that a better goalie behind an equal quality defense getting the same offensive support will win more games) does not necessarily hold true over a certain number of games.
So your using a totally made up and invented fantasy scenario to show how the realistic thought that a better Goalie will outplay a lesser Goalie isn't realistic? I see. LOL

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:53 PM
  #288
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I'm aware of exactly what I said. You missed the point.
Then please tell me what the point of that was because this is like the 100th time I have witnessed you in an argument where you write something and people respond and then you just say that that isn't what you said without explaining it in any way to clarify.


Quote:
Here's where your missing the point. It isn't likely that a team would miss the playoffs with a better Goalie replacing one they had in a Season where they made the playoffs. Especially when that Goalie is a career Minor Leaguer for the most part. Your so busy talking about reality, that you forget to be realistic.
You are clearly not understanding the point. Yes, it is more likely that a team would do better with a better goalie. But more likely doesn't mean it is guaranteed. That is why you can't say player X would have done better because you can't know. I could say the same player would have done worse. It is all speculation.


[/quote]First of all dispense with the late to the party nonsense. This is an open forum where anyone is free to comment. My replies are based on posts that I read. I don't need to look back at earlier posts.[/quote]

Well come on man, I just had the same discussion an hour before this. It's not like I was ignoring you, I told you exactly where to look so I didn't have to get back into this. Which I am now doing anyway.


Quote:
It absolutely is worth a dam. You miss the boat. Why would a GM go out and get a better Goalie then, if it's impossible to know what a Goalie would have done. And here's the point your missing that Invictus is 100% correct about. And that's over a full Season, or even a full playoff Season, odds are the better Goalie will outplay the lesser Goalie.
This is where we must not be connecting. I am saying that this is perfectly fine and expected (to speculate future results based on past performance). That is basically all the GM can do. You want to sign a guy based on his past performance, be my guest. That is what you do. But you want to speculate on what could have happened vs. something that DID happen, it just doesn't fly. You can speculate all you want, and that is totally fair to do, but don't act like those speculations are fact, when they 100% are not.

Quote:
And it's not a stretch to say that the better Goalie would make the saves that a lesser Goalie would make. And you come to that conclusion based on actual results. Again where you miss the boat.
I am not and have not been saying that Roloson WOULD NOT HAVE made the saves. I am saying that he MAY NOT HAVE which is why it is speculative. Yes, he certainly could have. Hell he could have allowed us to sweep our way through the playoffs. He is much, much better than Leighton. But I have seen Wayne Gretzky miss on wide open nets. I have seen Patrick Roy let in a softie. These things happen to the best of all time. Roloson may have great games in games Leighton had bad ones. He may have had bad ones when Leighton had great ones. It is not a 1-1 switch.

Quote:
It's not speculative to know that Ovechkin is a better player than Umberger. You missing what the whole objective of a GM is, and that's to put as good a team as he can on the ice. So a GM doesn't know for sure that Roloson would have done better, so why make the move? Your entire premise makes no sense. It has no bearing on the sport, or how a team is put together, or how a GM decides what moves to make. So what's the point? All I'm reading is a bunch of mumbo jumbo about what is speculation and what isn't. Your entire point is irrelevant.
Once again, this was addressed earlier. See post #211.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:54 PM
  #289
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
What Roloson would have done as the Flyers goalie in 2010 is fiction. If you can't accept that self-obvious premise, there is no point in going forward from there.
Is it fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season? If both players play the relatively same amount of games?

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:54 PM
  #290
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So your using a totally made up and invented fantasy scenario to show how the realistic thought that a better Goalie will outplay a lesser Goalie isn't realistic? I see. LOL
Haha. I love the irony of this post. So his fantasy situation is not as good as yours???

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 05:56 PM
  #291
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Is it fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season? If both players play the relatively same amount of games?
At this point, YES!

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:01 PM
  #292
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So your using a totally made up and invented fantasy scenario to show how the realistic thought that a better Goalie will outplay a lesser Goalie isn't realistic? I see. LOL

You're not following me. I never said that it wasn't realistic, I said it wasn't real. There is a big difference there, which you are failing to grasp. Furthermore, I didn't say that it was unrealistic to expect the better goalie to outplay the inferior one; I was illustrating how it does not necessarily lead to better results, which is just one of the many assumptions underlying this proposed Dwayne Roloson non-reality of 2010.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:05 PM
  #293
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
At this point, YES!

So you're also saying that every single VUKOTA projection system won't be 100% accurate this year (haven't they always been in the past?) or that Las Vegas won't correctly predict the Stanley Cup champion, as they have for the past 50 years?


Note: I am not attacking the VUKOTA projection system. They surely understand that there is enough randomness in reality that their projection system will never come close to 100%.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:05 PM
  #294
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Then please tell me what the point of that was because this is like the 100th time I have witnessed you in an argument where you write something and people respond and then you just say that that isn't what you said without explaining it in any way to clarify.

I absolutely have clarified my opinion in plain English.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
You are clearly not understanding the point. Yes, it is more likely that a team would do better with a better goalie. But more likely doesn't mean it is guaranteed. That is why you can't say player X would have done better because you can't know. I could say the same player would have done worse. It is all speculation.

What I understand is that your point is flawed. There is no guarantee, there never is. So what is the point in saying that's it's not guaranteed? That has no bearing on making a move for a team by a GM. A player is considered a better player for a reason. That is the reality that you make the move on. And that's based on past known results. That comes into play in the decision making. Your premise that it's not a guarantee, doesn't come into play.






Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This is where we must not be connecting. I am saying that this is perfectly fine and expected (to speculate future results based on past performance). That is basically all the GM can do. You want to sign a guy based on his past performance, be my guest. That is what you do. But you want to speculate on what could have happened vs. something that DID happen, it just doesn't fly. You can speculate all you want, and that is totally fair to do, but don't act like those speculations are fact, when they 100% are not.
What is a fact is that one player is a better player than another. That is the only relevant fact that a GM should consider


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I am not and have not been saying that Roloson WOULD NOT HAVE made the saves. I am saying that he MAY NOT HAVE which is why it is speculative. Yes, he certainly could have. Hell he could have allowed us to sweep our way through the playoffs. He is much, much better than Leighton. But I have seen Wayne Gretzky miss on wide open nets. I have seen Patrick Roy let in a softie. These things happen to the best of all time. Roloson may have great games in games Leighton had bad ones. He may have had bad ones when Leighton had great ones. It is not a 1-1 switch.
And he may get hit by a car on the way to the rink, so he can't play. You take all the known facts and make an educated decision. You don't not sign a better player because he "may not" make the save. Because he may not play better. You sign a player to replace a player simply because he is better. That's all that's relevant.

This nonsense that this isn't a fact and that's it's fiction couldn't be more irrelevant to the reality of how player decisions are made. You premise is irrelevant.



Once again, this was addressed earlier. See post #211.[/QUOTE]

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:05 PM
  #295
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Here's a similar parallel, though using a different sport as an example.

Imagine if you will, the Phillies in the playoffs against the Cardinals but without Cliff Lee, having passed on him for some reason in December. How many people would be saying right now that the Phillies would have won that series with Cliff Lee? Probably a ton. But sometimes, even the best players don't make the difference they are expected to make.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:06 PM
  #296
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
At this point, YES!
Then were done here. Because you don't get it.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:07 PM
  #297
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I absolutely have clarified my opinion in plain English.
Haha. Ok, by saying that over and over again I guess it clarifies your point.



Quote:
What I understand is that your point is flawed. There is no guarantee, there never is. So what is the point in saying that's it's not guaranteed? That has no bearing on making a move for a team by a GM. A player is considered a better player for a reason. That is the reality that you make the move on. And that's based on past known results. That comes into play in the decision making. Your premise that it's not a guarantee, doesn't come into play.








What is a fact is that one player is a better player than another. That is the only relevant fact that a GM should consider




And he may get hit by a car on the way to the rink, so he can't play. You take all the known facts and make an educated decision. You don't not sign a better player because he "may not" make the save. Because he may not play better. You sign a player to replace a player simply because he is better. That's all that's relevant.

This nonsense that this isn't a fact and that's it's fiction couldn't be more irrelevant to the reality of how player decisions are made. You premise is irrelevant.
Yeah, I guess you're right. You win. Let's move on.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:07 PM
  #298
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Here's a similar parallel, though using a different sport as an example.

Imagine if you will, the Phillies in the playoffs against the Cardinals but without Cliff Lee, having passed on him for some reason in December. How many people would be saying right now that the Phillies would have won that series with Cliff Lee? Probably a ton. But sometimes, even the best players don't make the difference they are expected to make.
So why sign Cliff Lee then if even the best players don't make the difference they are expected to make? Your missing the point.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:08 PM
  #299
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So why sign Cliff Lee then if even the best players don't make the difference they are expected to make? Your missing the point.
Haha. Yup. This is way over my head I suppose.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 06:09 PM
  #300
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,551
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
So you're also saying that every single VUKOTA projection system won't be 100% accurate this year (haven't they always been in the past?) or that Las Vegas won't correctly predict the Stanley Cup champion, as they have for the past 50 years?


Note: I am not attacking the VUKOTA projection system. They surely understand that there is enough randomness in reality that their projection system will never come close to 100%.
Lol, we just don't get this I guess. I have already conceded, I suggest you do the same. This guy has it all figured out already.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   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 03:28 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.