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

Does anybody want Matt Carle back?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2012, 06:45 PM
  #176
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go For It View Post
In your opinion, what are Carle's weaknesses, besides his shot?
Another weakness of his game is his physical stature. He's not a defenseman that is capable of physically taking players off the puck on a regular basis. Which is why his takeaway numbers aren't high. Nor is he a player that is capable of physically removing a player from the crease area. He has to use leverage and body positioning in puck battles. Which he does well in against larger players most of the time.

To sum up Carle as a player. He is a very solid puck moving offensive defenseman, who is reliable in his own end defensively. He is durable and will be a consistent point producer from the back end.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:16 PM
  #177
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Your woefully incorrect in stating that I've said that Carle is very good at everything and only has one weak point in his game. So correct that misrepresentation of my opinion on Carle as a player, and then we'll continue on.
Let's go through your post history and pull some quotes, then:

"Carle is very strong positionally in his own zone. "
"He actually is very good at using body position to shield the puck and move it safely."
"It's in the real World that Carle is a very good player"
"Carle is know for being reliable in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a better all around defenseman then Coburn is."
"Carle is absolutely capable of making up for a lesser player with his solid overall play. Especially at ES play. Carle is very good all around defenseman."
"They could have played Carle less minutes at any point and playerd other players more. Carle played the minutes he did, because of how good of a player he is...And if and or when he is re-signed. He will continue to play high minutes, due to how good of a player he is."
"Carle can absolutely effectively carry a pairing. He played a large part of last Season with Bourdon. Carle and Coburn, or Grossmann, would make a very good pairing. with Carle as the lead player." (whoa, sounds like a damned good #1 we've got here)
"he makes the right decision and a solid play the large majority of the time."
"Actually it's the opposite. Carle makes play after play under pressure and smartly moves the puck in transition."
"Carle does very well retrieving the puck and moving it to alleviate pressure."
"Carle is very reliable in all aspects of play in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a solid puck moving defenseman that plays solid defensively, and is reliable in his own end"
"Carle doesn't ***** the bed on anything. He's very good at retrieving the puck under pressure and making a solid outlet pass."
Carle is the top shot blocker on the team and one of the top shot blockers in the League."
"for a smaller defenseman, does quite well in the tough areas of the ice. Around the net and in the corners."
"he's a very good player."
"he is a much better player then slightly above average."
"Carle's blocked shots result from his strong positional play, and his ability to read plays. Which makes him the best shot blocker on the team, and one of the best in the League at it."
"he doesn't make mistakes very often. He is a solid and reliable defender in his own end. As well as a very good passer and playmaker on the back end."

I apologize; the post that last one came from has you saying his flaws are his shot an not initiating physical contact. So I guess he has two flaws in your book.

"he's solid in his read's ,solid in his coverages. And is a very good shot blocker. He uses body position to win puck battles, and is a very good transition player in getting the puck out the other way."
"However his quality play far, far outnumbers his mistakes. And when he's on the ice, good things happen for his team the overwhelming majority of times."
"...(stats point to) Carle being a very good 2 way NHL defenseman. Who plays big minutes, and plays in all situations. And is a reliable solid defender in his own end. "
"There is no confidence issue in Carle's game. He is an experienced player who is calm under pressure with the puck. He makes quality play after quality play under heavy pressure."
"Carle was absolutely elite in 5 on 5 play in 10/11." (what.)
"Carle has been one of the top defenseman in the League at ES play for a couple of years now. And was elite at ES play in 10/11."
"Carle remains one of the better defenseman at ES in the NHL. Carle put up elite numbers at ES in 10/11. He wasn't as good this year, but still produced very well."


I'm getting bored of this now; I assure you, there are many more examples. So...yeah. Reading through these comments, all these ringing endorsements of this play, and bearing in mind that his ONLY two flaws are apparently 1) weak shot, and 2) not initiating physical contact...you make him sound like one of the best defensemen in the league. You turn around and say "Dont get me wrong, he isn't one of the best in the NHL!" but it really doesn't ring true, because it doesn't vibe with everything else you say. Especially when you call him elite, "very solid" all around, and say he rarely makes mistakes. You claim you don't think he's the best defensemen in the game, but all your quotes and posts in his defense end up portraying him as such anyways. You make him sound like a future Hall of Famer. The sorts of praise and descriptions of his play you provide are normally reserved for good #1 defensemen.

Edit: My point here is, I don't really know what you're trying to communicate. You claim to believe one thing, but then your posts indicate another, especially when taken as a whole body of work.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 06-20-2012 at 07:31 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:28 PM
  #178
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 13,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Let's go through your post history and pull some quotes, then:

"Carle is very strong positionally in his own zone. "
"He actually is very good at using body position to shield the puck and move it safely."
"It's in the real World that Carle is a very good player"
"Carle is know for being reliable in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a better all around defenseman then Coburn is."
"Carle is absolutely capable of making up for a lesser player with his solid overall play. Especially at ES play. Carle is very good all around defenseman."
"They could have played Carle less minutes at any point and playerd other players more. Carle played the minutes he did, because of how good of a player he is...And if and or when he is re-signed. He will continue to play high minutes, due to how good of a player he is."
"Carle can absolutely effectively carry a pairing. He played a large part of last Season with Bourdon. Carle and Coburn, or Grossmann, would make a very good pairing. with Carle as the lead player." (whoa, sounds like a damned good #1 we've got here)
"he makes the right decision and a solid play the large majority of the time."
"Actually it's the opposite. Carle makes play after play under pressure and smartly moves the puck in transition."
"Carle does very well retrieving the puck and moving it to alleviate pressure."
"Carle is very reliable in all aspects of play in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a solid puck moving defenseman that plays solid defensively, and is reliable in his own end"
"Carle doesn't ***** the bed on anything. He's very good at retrieving the puck under pressure and making a solid outlet pass."
Carle is the top shot blocker on the team and one of the top shot blockers in the League."
"for a smaller defenseman, does quite well in the tough areas of the ice. Around the net and in the corners."
"he's a very good player."
"he is a much better player then slightly above average."
"Carle's blocked shots result from his strong positional play, and his ability to read plays. Which makes him the best shot blocker on the team, and one of the best in the League at it."
"he doesn't make mistakes very often. He is a solid and reliable defender in his own end. As well as a very good passer and playmaker on the back end."

I apologize; the post that last one came from has you saying his flaws are his shot an not initiating physical contact. So I guess he has two flaws in your book.

"he's solid in his read's ,solid in his coverages. And is a very good shot blocker. He uses body position to win puck battles, and is a very good transition player in getting the puck out the other way."
"However his quality play far, far outnumbers his mistakes. And when he's on the ice, good things happen for his team the overwhelming majority of times."
"...(stats point to) Carle being a very good 2 way NHL defenseman. Who plays big minutes, and plays in all situations. And is a reliable solid defender in his own end. "
"There is no confidence issue in Carle's game. He is an experienced player who is calm under pressure with the puck. He makes quality play after quality play under heavy pressure."
"Carle was absolutely elite in 5 on 5 play in 10/11." (what.)
"Carle has been one of the top defenseman in the League at ES play for a couple of years now. And was elite at ES play in 10/11."
"Carle remains one of the better defenseman at ES in the NHL. Carle put up elite numbers at ES in 10/11. He wasn't as good this year, but still produced very well."


I'm getting bored of this now; I assure you, there are many more examples. So...yeah. Reading through these comments, all these ringing endorsements of this play, and bearing in mind that his ONLY two flaws are apparently 1) weak shot, and 2) not initiating physical contact...you make him sound like one of the best defensemen in the league. You turn around and say "Dont get me wrong, he isn't one of the best in the NHL!" but it really doesn't ring true, because it doesn't vibe with everything else you say. Especially when you call him elite, "very solid" all around, and say he rarely makes mistakes. You claim you don't think he's the best defensemen in the game, but all your quotes and posts in his defense end up portraying him as such anyways. You make him sound like a future Hall of Famer. The sorts of praise and descriptions of his play you provide are normally reserved for good #1 defensemen.
you should forward this to NSH. maybe we can get Webber or Suter strait up on trade for Carle..




LOL

Flyerfan4life is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:30 PM
  #179
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan4life View Post
you should forward this to NSH. maybe we can get Webber or Suter strait up on trade for Carle..




LOL
I'd guess Weber and a 3rd, maybe a second.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:35 PM
  #180
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Let's go through your post history and pull some quotes, then:

"Carle is very strong positionally in his own zone. "
"He actually is very good at using body position to shield the puck and move it safely."
"It's in the real World that Carle is a very good player"
"Carle is know for being reliable in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a better all around defenseman then Coburn is."
"Carle is absolutely capable of making up for a lesser player with his solid overall play. Especially at ES play. Carle is very good all around defenseman."
"They could have played Carle less minutes at any point and playerd other players more. Carle played the minutes he did, because of how good of a player he is...And if and or when he is re-signed. He will continue to play high minutes, due to how good of a player he is."
"Carle can absolutely effectively carry a pairing. He played a large part of last Season with Bourdon. Carle and Coburn, or Grossmann, would make a very good pairing. with Carle as the lead player." (whoa, sounds like a damned good #1 we've got here)
"he makes the right decision and a solid play the large majority of the time."
"Actually it's the opposite. Carle makes play after play under pressure and smartly moves the puck in transition."
"Carle does very well retrieving the puck and moving it to alleviate pressure."
"Carle is very reliable in all aspects of play in the defensive zone."
"Carle is a solid puck moving defenseman that plays solid defensively, and is reliable in his own end"
"Carle doesn't ***** the bed on anything. He's very good at retrieving the puck under pressure and making a solid outlet pass."
Carle is the top shot blocker on the team and one of the top shot blockers in the League."
"for a smaller defenseman, does quite well in the tough areas of the ice. Around the net and in the corners."
"he's a very good player."
"he is a much better player then slightly above average."
"Carle's blocked shots result from his strong positional play, and his ability to read plays. Which makes him the best shot blocker on the team, and one of the best in the League at it."
"he doesn't make mistakes very often. He is a solid and reliable defender in his own end. As well as a very good passer and playmaker on the back end."

I apologize; the post that last one came from has you saying his flaws are his shot an not initiating physical contact. So I guess he has two flaws in your book.

"he's solid in his read's ,solid in his coverages. And is a very good shot blocker. He uses body position to win puck battles, and is a very good transition player in getting the puck out the other way."
"However his quality play far, far outnumbers his mistakes. And when he's on the ice, good things happen for his team the overwhelming majority of times."
"...(stats point to) Carle being a very good 2 way NHL defenseman. Who plays big minutes, and plays in all situations. And is a reliable solid defender in his own end. "
"There is no confidence issue in Carle's game. He is an experienced player who is calm under pressure with the puck. He makes quality play after quality play under heavy pressure."
"Carle was absolutely elite in 5 on 5 play in 10/11." (what.)
"Carle has been one of the top defenseman in the League at ES play for a couple of years now. And was elite at ES play in 10/11."
"Carle remains one of the better defenseman at ES in the NHL. Carle put up elite numbers at ES in 10/11. He wasn't as good this year, but still produced very well."


I'm getting bored of this now; I assure you, there are many more examples. So...yeah. Reading through these comments, all these ringing endorsements of this play, and bearing in mind that his ONLY two flaws are apparently 1) weak shot, and 2) not initiating physical contact...you make him sound like one of the best defensemen in the league. You turn around and say "Dont get me wrong, he isn't one of the best in the NHL!" but it really doesn't ring true, because it doesn't vibe with everything else you say. Especially when you call him elite, "very solid" all around, and say he rarely makes mistakes. You claim you don't think he's the best defensemen in the game, but all your quotes and posts in his defense end up portraying him as such anyways. You make him sound like a future Hall of Famer. The sorts of praise and descriptions of his play you provide are normally reserved for good #1 defensemen.
Thanks for re-posting all of those statements I've made. All of them are absolutely correct. It is your hang up that leads you to beleive that I think he is a Hall of Fame player.

There is a buzz word there, that I've used. And that's very good. Hall of Fame player are far more then very good. They are great players, who play at that level over a wide range of time. And accomplish great things such as high all time individual stats such as Norris Trophies, Stanley Cups, point totals etc. Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand the difference between very good and great?

I didn't call Carle Elite. I said he has been elite in 5 on 5 play in the 10/11 Season. Not that he was an Elite player overall. Are you telling me that you can't make that distinction?

Carle is a sound all around player, who doesn't make a lot of mistakes. If he did make a lot of mistakes, he wouldn't be playing 23 minutes a game.

But I noticed you left out the numerous comments I've made where I've stated that Carle is not mistake free, and is not perfect. That's not surprising.

I can't do anything about your misreading my comments and thinking that I'm saying that Carle is a Hall of Fame player. That's not my issues and is really your problem.

I know what Carle is as a player. And I've provided the facts over months of time here, to back up my opinion.

I'm still waiting for the facts from you and the other Carle detractors to back up your opinion.

I also have provided numerous sources over months of time on here, such as articles written by credible sources on the player, all of the statistical metrics available on the player. That back up my opinion on the player

I'm sitll waiting for some factual data from you and the other Carle detractors, that supports your opinion of Carle as a player.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:39 PM
  #181
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
"Carle was absolutely elite in 5 on 5 play in 10/11." (what.)
Nice touch here with the (what)

I'll provide for you the facts. Matt Carle led all NHL defenseman in Even Strength points in the 10/11 Season. He also led the entire NHL, not just defenseman, in Plus games in the 10/11 Season. So tell me how he's wasn't Elite in ES play that Season? Provide some facts to dispel that. I'll be waiting.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:41 PM
  #182
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Did you watch him play? Elite is Pronger, Chara, Lidstrom, Weber. Those guys are elite. Carle was on their level 5v5? Really?

You know, using stats without context is a good way to embarrass yourself. That is what you're doing here.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:48 PM
  #183
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Did you watch him play? Elite is Pronger, Chara, Lidstrom, Weber. Those guys are elite. Carle was on their level 5v5? Really?

You know, using stats without context is a good way to embarrass yourself. That is what you're doing here.
Yes, in ES play during the 10/11 Season. Carle was an elite player. A good way of embarrassing yourself is ignoring the facts. If you think that means that I'm saying that Carle is as good as Pronger, Chara, Lidstrom, or Weber. Nothing I can do about that. That is your issue, not mine.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:50 PM
  #184
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Yes, in ES play during the 10/11 Season. Carle was an elite player. A good way of embarrassing yourself is ignoring the facts. If you think that means that I'm saying that Carle is as good as Pronger, Chara, Lidstrom, or Weber. Nothing I can do about that. That is your issue, not mine.
+/- is a terrible comparison tool across teams. Within a team, it can be effective. The fact that you based this opinion largely on assists (boosted thanks to the offense and it's dominance for half the season) and +/- sinks your theory immediately. If he was so elite, why wasn't he in the Norris discussion?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:56 PM
  #185
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
+/- is a terrible comparison tool across teams. Within a team, it can be effective. The fact that you based this opinion largely on assists (boosted thanks to the offense and it's dominance for half the season) and +/ sinks your theory immediately. If he was so elite, why wasn't he in the Norris discussion?
It doesn't sink my theory. If you want to place some arbitrary theory to try and discredit the facts that I offer to support my opinion. Largely because you don't have facts to counter my opinion. Not my problem. The facts are the facts. And I know Carle had nothing to do with the team's offense. He just got assists by being there. Nothing to do with his passing and playmaking ability from the backend.

Carle wasn't in the Norris discussion because he's not a Norris Trophy caliber player. What are we talking about here? ES play. Which is but one aspect of play. What is the description of what the Norris Trophy is for?

"The James Norris Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position"

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 07:59 PM
  #186
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It doesn't sink my theory. If you want to place some arbitrary theory to try and discredit the facts that I offer to support my opinion. Largely because you don't have facts to counter my opinion. Not my problem. The facts are the facts. And I know Carle had nothing to do with the team's offense. He just got assists by being there. Nothing to do with his passing and playmaking ability from the backend.

Carle wasn't in the Norris discussion because he's not a Norris Trophy caliber player. What are we talking about here? ES play. Which is but one aspect of play. What is the description of what the Norris Trophy is for?

"The James Norris Memorial Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position"
There is rarely 1 defenseman who is clearly dominant in all areas of the ice, yet someone gets the award every year. If Carle was as elite at 5v5 as you claim, he would have had a very noticeable impact on games (since 5v5 is the majority of game time) and he would have been discussed as an elite defenseman. The fact is, he had no such impact and he didn't stand out as an outstanding or elite player.

Seriously. You are pointing at assists and +/- to claim he's elite 5v5 . Why is it none of your vaunted media members were singing his praises? How is it that nobody at all, anywhere, noticed this show of force?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:07 PM
  #187
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
There is rarely 1 defenseman who is clearly dominant in all areas of the ice, yet someone gets the award every year. If Carle was as elite at 5v5 as you claim, he would have had a very noticeable impact on games (since 5v5 is the majority of game time) and he would have been discussed as an elite defenseman. The fact is, he had no such impact and he didn't stand out as an outstanding or elite player.

Seriously. You are pointing at assists and +/- to claim he's elite 5v5 . Why is it none of your vaunted media members were singing his praises? How is it that nobody at all, anywhere, noticed this show of force?
You must have overlooked this, because this was posted before in the Carle discussions. But I understand why you would want to block it out from your memory, as it proves with factual data, how wrong you are about Carle. And it gives factual data on the impact that Carle had on games in the 10/11 Season. You'll notice a difference between you and I. When you challenge me to provide a credible source to back my opinion up. I bring it! Not respond with more fantasy!

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...ee-agency-2012

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:27 PM
  #188
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 13,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
You must have overlooked this, because this was posted before in the Carle discussions. But I understand why you would want to block it out from your memory, as it proves with factual data, how wrong you are about Carle. And it gives factual data on the impact that Carle had on games in the 10/11 Season. You'll notice a difference between you and I. When you challenge me to provide a credible source to back my opinion up. I bring it! Not respond with more fantasy!

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...ee-agency-2012

Haha, dont you find it funny that basicly ALL the comments on the link you provided are of the negative ??? only the article author (who claims his bias at teh start of teh article) is a Carlefanboy.

Flyerfan4life is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 08:54 PM
  #189
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
You must have overlooked this, because this was posted before in the Carle discussions. But I understand why you would want to block it out from your memory, as it proves with factual data, how wrong you are about Carle. And it gives factual data on the impact that Carle had on games in the 10/11 Season. You'll notice a difference between you and I. When you challenge me to provide a credible source to back my opinion up. I bring it! Not respond with more fantasy!

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...ee-agency-2012
Misused statistics =/= factual data
Opinion articles =/= factual data.

as Flyerfan pointed out, this guy readily admits his bias in the first sentence, and thus completely disqualifies his entire article from serious consideration. If somebody wrote an article about German concentration camps and started it with "I like the Nazis. I like them a lot." it would be impossible to consider it a balanced, unbiased opinion. If your "proof" is an article written by a guy who's clearly trying to vindicate a favorite player however he can, you don't have any real proof.

Edit: It's also hilarious that this guy and you are the only people around who are looking at that season and saying "elite!" Why didn't anybody at the time comment on it? Oh right. Because when you put those numbers in context and actually watch how he was playing it was clear he's not elite in any way.

BSH is far from an unbiased, factual source. Like I said, opinions aren't facts.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 06-20-2012 at 09:13 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:11 PM
  #190
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Misused statistics =/= factual data
Opinion articles =/= factual data.

as Flyerfan pointed out, this guy readily admits his bias in the first sentence, and thus completely disqualifies his entire article from serious consideration. If somebody wrote an article about German concentration camps and started it with "I like the Nazis. I like them a lot." it would be impossible to consider it a balanced, unbiased opinion. If your "proof" is an article written by a guy who's clearly trying to vindicate a favorite player however he can, you don't have any real proof.
Seriously? C'mon dude. The article give irrefutable evidence of the facts. He doesn't admit he's biased. He admits he likes Matt Carle as a player because he's a good player. He's not clearly trying to vindicate anything. He gives the facts. Facts from an independent and respectable website. He didn't just offer opinion. He offered cold hard facts. Of which you can't refute. So ignore whatever opinion he gave, and just take the facts into consideration. Whatever way you do it, the result is the same! And that's that Carle is a very good player.
This is a very weak response by you. There's nothing you can do about the facts offered in the article. You can hold on to your fantasy viewpoint of Carle as a player that isn't reality. Or you can accept the facts. It's your choice. But that is irrefutable evidence that you and the other Carle bashers, are ridiculously wrong. And this is nothing new. Nothing that hasn't been offered before.

Again, there are no facts that you can offer to support your opinion on Carle as a player. There are no facts that you can offer, to refute the author's conclusion in the article.

You can just ignore it and attempt to discredit it. But that would be futile, and just further prove both the incompetence of assessing a player, and clear bias borne from who knows what. But certainly not from the facts.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:14 PM
  #191
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
BSH has indicated a VERY strong bias for certain players, like Boucher and Carle. He's biased. It's a crap source, because there's an agenda there. They're cherry picking numbers and ignoring on-ice performance to vindicate a player they have a hard-on for. They're known for this sort of crap.

I don't need to "attempt" to discredit it. Anybody who can think critically discredits it automatically. Shall we look back at their articles extolling Boucher? How did that work out? How does that help their credibility? (Answer: it hurts it.)

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:31 PM
  #192
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
BSH has indicated a VERY strong bias for certain players, like Boucher and Carle. He's biased. It's a crap source, because there's an agenda there. They're cherry picking numbers and ignoring on-ice performance to vindicate a player they have a hard-on for. They're known for this sort of crap.

I don't need to "attempt" to discredit it. Anybody who can think critically discredits it automatically. Shall we look back at their articles extolling Boucher? How did that work out? How does that help their credibility? (Answer: it hurts it.)
The facts are from behindthenet. That is not a crap source. You cannot refute them. It's not ignoring on ice performance. It's looking directly at on ice performance. Those numbers don't lie. And you can't change what they say. They aren't cherry picking anything.

Just accept that you're wrong and deal with it.

The author wrote a very intelligent, and very well thought out article, using factual information to support his conclusion. Something that you have yet to accomplish with regards to Carle.

If you want to talk about being known for this sort of crap. It's the Carle detractors that are known for this sort of crap, on this forum. And that is ignoring the facts.

I again challenge you and any other Carle detractor to step up and provide some facts to support your opinion. You won't do it. Because you can't do it. Because you're all wrong! But you'll offer some kind of BS excuse such as your doing here. To try, with try being the key word, to discredit the facts. You'll be unsuccessful.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:56 PM
  #193
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Here is an article that argues the earth is flat:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Well, hell. If it's in an article how could it EVER be wrong?


If opinion articles are now somehow fact, here. I'll write one real quick.

PHILADELPHIA- It's been a long offseason so far for the Philadelphia Flyers. With Kimmo Timonen aging and Chris Pronger unlikely to play this coming season, Paul Holmgren has a tough situation to address on defense. There are few options available via free agency who could fill either's spot; Ryan Suter is the most likely to meet those lofty standards, but Detroit has 20 million dollars of cap room and just lost hall of fame defenseman Nik Lidstrom to retirement. It is looking increasingly unlikely that the Flyers can land Suter.

So what options remain? Besides Suter, the best option under 35 is Matt Carle. He played 23 minutes a game last season out of necessity to fill in for an injured Timonen and absent Pronger, and put up 38 points in the process. With the limited options available on the market, Carle could potentially command 5 million dollars or more on a team that feels they could use his services.

So, is Carle the answer to the Flyers defensive doldrums? The answer is no. Despite his production, Carle is overrated. He is known to commit unforced turnovers, many of which have ended up in the back of the net. In fact, he led his team in turnovers last season and was 25th among NHL defensemen in that category. He routinely yields before rushing forwards, allowing them a clear drive at the net. His lack of physicality commonly allows attackers to sneak past him along the boards or camp out in front of the crease. His positional play is often suspect, allowing opponents easy access to inside lanes. On top of that, he has shown in the past that he is easily overwhelmed while facing top competition, a decidedly undesirable trait in a supposedly elite defenseman. Additionally, his wrist shot is woefully weak and his slap shot is all but nonexistent.

What does this all mean? It means that Carle is being overrated by those with such fervent faith in his abilities, and is not an adequate solution for the team from Broad Street. While it is easy to overvalue such a lacking player when the market is so thin, fans should hope that the Flyers don't fall into that trap so easily. Overpaying an overrated player is a move the Flyers must avoid to help them long-term. Let's hope they choose wisely.

©2012 Beefsociated Press

Well, look at that. I wrote an opinion article. This means my opinion is now fact, and cannot be considered wrong.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:08 PM
  #194
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Here is an article that argues the earth is flat:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Well, hell. If it's in an article how could it EVER be wrong?


If opinion articles are now somehow fact, here. I'll write one real quick.

PHILADELPHIA- It's been a long offseason so far for the Philadelphia Flyers. With Kimmo Timonen aging and Chris Pronger unlikely to play this coming season, Paul Holmgren has a tough situation to address on defense. There are few options available via free agency who could fill either's spot; Ryan Suter is the most likely to meet those lofty standards, but Detroit has 20 million dollars of cap room and just lost hall of fame defenseman Nik Lidstrom to retirement. It is looking increasingly unlikely that the Flyers can land Suter.

So what options remain? Besides Suter, the best option under 35 is Matt Carle. He played 23 minutes a game last season out of necessity to fill in for an injured Timonen and absent Pronger, and put up 38 points in the process. With the limited options available on the market, Carle could potentially command 5 million dollars or more on a team that feels they could use his services.

So, is Carle the answer to the Flyers defensive doldrums? The answer is no. Despite his production, Carle is overrated. He is known to commit unforced turnovers, many of which have ended up in the back of the net. In fact, he led his team in turnovers last season and was 25th among NHL defensemen in that category. He routinely yields before rushing forwards, allowing them a clear drive at the net. His lack of physicality commonly allows attackers to sneak past him along the boards or camp out in front of the crease. His positional play is often suspect, allowing opponents easy access to inside lanes. On top of that, he has shown in the past that he is easily overwhelmed while facing top competition, a decidedly undesirable trait in a supposedly elite defenseman. Additionally, his wrist shot is woefully weak and his slap shot is all but nonexistent.

What does this all mean? It means that Carle is being overrated by those with such fervent faith in his abilities, and is not an adequate solution for the team from Broad Street. While it is easy to overvalue such a lacking player when the market is so thin, fans should hope that the Flyers don't fall into that trap so easily. Overpaying an overrated player is a move the Flyers must avoid to help them long-term. Let's hope they choose wisely.

©2012 Beefsociated Press

Well, look at that. I wrote an opinion article. This means my opinion is now fact, and cannot be considered wrong.
Incorrect. You did not do what the article I posted did. And that is to provide factual data to support your conclusions. You offered no factual evidence to support that Carle is overrated. Nor did you offer any factual data to support that many of Carle's turnovers end up in the back of the net.
To sum it up, your opinion article has zero substance to it. So therefore, it is just an opinion. No different from all the other posts you made.

The article I posted gives irrefutable evidence that you're wrong about Carle as a player. And you can write all the opinion articles you want to. Make all the false statements you want to. They have zero weight behind them. It's not going to change. The facts are the facts.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some facts that support your opinion. I've been waiting for months for it.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:10 PM
  #195
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
I've been giving you facts since last offseason. MANY people have been giving you facts. You just ignore them because they don't mesh with your own insanely conceited opinion.

There's an opinion article. Opinion articles are factual. Right?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:24 PM
  #196
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,565
vCash: 500
Some Carle stats, and how they compare to his partner. Top, mid, or bottom in parenthesis is where his number ranks relative to the rest of the defenseman on the team.

2011-2012 Season

Common Linemate: Bourdon

Carle: 2.50 GA/60 (mid), .028 QoC (mid), 2.58 GF/60 (bottom), .08 +/- /60(bottom)

Bourdon: 2.34 GA/60 (mid), .019 QoC (mid), 2.61 GF/60 (mid), .27 +/- /60 (top)

**Bourdon better in every category.

2010-2011 Season

Common Linemate: Pronger

Carle: 2.33 GA/60 (mid), -.021 QoC (mid), 3.50 GF/60 (top), 1.17 +/- /60 (top)

Pronger: 2.28 GA/60 (mid), -.003 QoC (mid), 3.06 GF/60 (mid), .78 +/- /60 (mid)

**Carle did better than Pronger offensively, but worse defensively.

2009-2010 Season

Common Linemate: Pronger

Carle: 2.15 GA/60 (top), .081 QoC (top), 2.90 GF/60 (top), .76 +/- /60 (top)

Pronger: 1.96 GA/60 (top), .102 QoC (top), 2.59 GF/60 (top), .63 +/- /60 (top)

**So Pronger again better in the defensive categories, but with larger separation. Carle better in offensive categories again, but closer this time. Not shockingly, this is also Carle's most top performances in a season relative to his peers. Pronger was dominant this season.

2008-2009 season is a little odd. Carle was tied for second in GA/60 with 2 other players, and he was last in GF/60. So I'm not sure you can take anything out of that season. The prior year when he was in SJ he was bad in everything basically, but again I don't think you can take anything out of that as he was still young in these years.


When I look at those stats, I see a guy who was really good when Pronger was his common linemate, and average when he wasn't. Just looking at the goals for/against numbers, he was outperformed by his rookie defensive partner last year.

I still see what I saw before I looked into the stats. A guy that is always going to be a complimentary player. A #4 dman who can play second fiddle on either of the top or second pairing, play well in that role, but can't be the guy to carry a real dominant pairing.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:26 PM
  #197
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
You should write an article about that.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:27 PM
  #198
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I've been giving you facts since last offseason. MANY people have been giving you facts. You just ignore them because they don't mesh with your own insanely conceited opinion.

There's an opinion article. Opinion articles are factual. Right?
What facts? You haven't offered any. You've ignored all the facts concerning Carle. My opinion isn't insanely conceited. My opinion is based on irrefutable facts!

Opinion articles such as yours that aren't based on the facts, aren't factual. Opinion articles based on the facts such as the one I offered, are.

As I said before, ignore the opinions that the author offers, and just take the facts from it. Either way the conclusion is the same. And that's that Carle is a very good player.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an intelligent guy. But something is blinding you here. Because you're making yourself look foolish here. I really don't have the desire to embarrass you any further here.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:30 PM
  #199
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Some Carle stats, and how they compare to his partner. Top, mid, or bottom in parenthesis is where his number ranks relative to the rest of the defenseman on the team.

2011-2012 Season

Common Linemate: Bourdon

Carle: 2.50 GA/60 (mid), .028 QoC (mid), 2.58 GF/60 (bottom), .08 +/- /60(bottom)

Bourdon: 2.34 GA/60 (mid), .019 QoC (mid), 2.61 GF/60 (mid), .27 +/- /60 (top)

**Bourdon better in every category.

2010-2011 Season

Common Linemate: Pronger

Carle: 2.33 GA/60 (mid), -.021 QoC (mid), 3.50 GF/60 (top), 1.17 +/- /60 (top)

Pronger: 2.28 GA/60 (mid), -.003 QoC (mid), 3.06 GF/60 (mid), .78 +/- /60 (mid)

**Carle did better than Pronger offensively, but worse defensively.

2009-2010 Season

Common Linemate: Pronger

Carle: 2.15 GA/60 (top), .081 QoC (top), 2.90 GF/60 (top), .76 +/- /60 (top)

Pronger: 1.96 GA/60 (top), .102 QoC (top), 2.59 GF/60 (top), .63 +/- /60 (top)

**So Pronger again better in the defensive categories, but with larger separation. Carle better in offensive categories again, but closer this time. Not shockingly, this is also Carle's most top performances in a season relative to his peers. Pronger was dominant this season.

2008-2009 season is a little odd. Carle was tied for second in GA/60 with 2 other players, and he was last in GF/60. So I'm not sure you can take anything out of that season. The prior year when he was in SJ he was bad in everything basically, but again I don't think you can take anything out of that as he was still young in these years.


When I look at those stats, I see a guy who was really good when Pronger was his common linemate, and average when he wasn't. Just looking at the goals for/against numbers, he was outperformed by his rookie defensive partner last year.

I still see what I saw before I looked into the stats. A guy that is always going to be a complimentary player. A #4 dman who can play second fiddle on either of the top or second pairing, play well in that role, but can't be the guy to carry a real dominant pairing.

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...arle#storyjump

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:36 PM
  #200
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
What facts? You haven't offered any. You've ignored all the facts concerning Carle. My opinion isn't insanely conceited. My opinion is based on irrefutable facts!

Opinion articles such as yours that aren't based on the facts, aren't factual. Opinion articles based on the facts such as the one I offered, are.

As I said before, ignore the opinions that the author offers, and just take the facts from it. Either way the conclusion is the same. And that's that Carle is a very good player.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an intelligent guy. But something is blinding you here. Because you're making yourself look foolish here. I really don't have the desire to embarrass you any further here.
I've given you stats; last offseason I threw stats at you left and right, several people did. When we did that you ignored them, so I've long since given up on that as a waste of time. I've given you real life examples. Real life is pretty factual, right? Almost as factual as an article? You've ignored them in favor of stats and opinions that mesh with your own. You're hopeless. Arguing this with you is an utter waste of time, because you refuse to see anything that's inconvenient to your divine vision of Carle. You're too closed minded to consider that anybody else could POSSIBLY have a valid obserervation...unless it's in an article, because that somehow makes opinions official and valid. You argue through attrition; you repeat the same thing repeatedly, ignoring or dismissing any stats, examples or facts that go against what you believe, until everyone else has left the discussion.

Well, I'm not falling into that trap anymore. Im done. You're wrong, you overrate Carle, he's really not that great. Godpseed to the next brave soul that dares level the slightest criticism of Carle's flaws without a tome of articles to back it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Disproves nothing he claimed. You seem to think opinion articles written on websites with clear biases to certain players are magical or something, but that doesn't mean they're actually correct.

See, this is what I mean. He just used stats to prove a point. All you have is an article written by someone else? That's pretty weak.

Beef Invictus 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 05:40 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.