HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GDT: Nashville @ Los Angeles 3/25 10:30 EST

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2006, 03:38 AM
  #51
sparkle twin
drrrty player
 
sparkle twin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to sparkle twin Send a message via AIM to sparkle twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by vopatsrash
Here's a theory: i think this team still puts too much emotional investment in the Red Wings. The last time we beat the Red Wings in Detroit in dramatic fashion, we went 3-7 in the next 10 games, beginning with 2 horrible losses on the road against Minny and CBJ. could be coincidence, but i remember hearing that they celebrated quite a bit after the detroit sweep in january and they had from Tuesday to Friday to celebrate in sunny LA after this one. Not saying they shouldn't enjoy a win, but is it possible they get a little too satisfied after beating Detroit? just a thought.
I agree with everything. Trotz said it, we aren't handling success very well. Everytime we beat them we tend to coast the next few games and get big heads and think we can beat anyone. Then we end up getting into penalty trouble because we're not as emotionally involved in those games.

And this trip. It's so obvious why they took everyone. It's not because some were about ready to come back. It's because it's the last long road trip of the year (this year has flown by fast!!) and the last chance for the entire team to be together and get some good bonding time in, in LA, before the playoffs. So they get a good win in Detroit and spend the next few days on vacation sitting in the warm California sun and relish the 3 wins in the Joe this year and kind of overlook the fact that the next few teams are just as hot and dangerous to play as us.

They took everyone on their trip to Florida back in December. And we lost those games on that trip (although that one game against the Panthers was weird in itself).

That's why I almost hope we lose on Thursday to Detroit. Almost. I really love it when we beat them. (and this is the attitude that puts so much pressure on them to win and then celebrate too long after we do win.)

sparkle twin is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 08:04 AM
  #52
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 18,921
vCash: 500
We lost those two of our last 10 games in regulation with 7 wins. We are little upset after losing back to backs on the west coast. Not a big deal. We won the season series against LA so it's not like we can beat them, they were a little up for the game because of the coaching change we were a little tired from what was a very rough stretch of games mainly on the road, a stretch we were very successful on with wins over more than a few playoff teams including Calgary and Detroit. We played a bad game and made them look good. Avery got a little over excited but that's what he does, overall, neither of these games worry me.

triggrman is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 05:00 PM
  #53
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spank303
Good grief. No one is elevating him to 'great' status. Anyone with a freaking brain in their head could understand that "another loss without Legwand" isn't to be taken literally.
Well, if you arenít elevating him to the great status, then I agree with you. Sorry I couldn't detect the sarcasm.

On a different note, I am thinking that plus/minus relates more and more to this topic. The reason why people donít put any stock into plus/minus is because it doesnít take into account the actions of the 11 other players on the ice (5 teammates, 6 opponents). It assumes there are no variables with those 11 players. Saying our record with/without player X assumes 4 TIMES as much as the plus/minus stats does, because it doesnít take into account the actions of the 40 other players on the ice. It assumes there are no variables with those 40 players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pred303
5) in games legwand has played we have given up 2.43 goals per game
6) in games legwand has not played we have given up 3.32 goals per game
So, you are implying that Legwand is responsible for single-handedly giving up 1 less GA a game. If he had such a *supernatural* effect on our GF/GA differential, he'd easily be a +40 or so, not a +2. But wait, you canít take stock in +/- because there are so many variables with the 11 other players on the ice.

------

Using a ďsample sizeĒ of 66 games in 2002, Andy Delmore was a +2. Does that change my opinion that heís a horrendous defensive defenseman? No. Similary, no matter what the stats assume, I will still think that Legwand is a good-to-great defensive center with offensive limitations. There are still at least 50 NHL scoring line centers Iíd take over him. Ideally, heíd be a great third line center for us.

We do miss him when heís out of the lineup. I think thatís as much a testament to the horrible depth we have a center. When heís out, guys like Johnson and Nichol get scoringline time, and thatís just beyond hideous. But again, at this stage in the Predators, we are better off with Legwand in the lineup than without. Iím not denying that. I just get the sense that people are trying to put him up on pedestal and elevate him to ďgreatĒ status. If thatís not the case, there is no disagreement.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 06:02 PM
  #54
Pred303
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Murfreesboro, Tn.
Country: United States
Posts: 3,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
So, you are implying that Legwand is responsible for single-handedly giving up 1 less GA a game.
no..i didn't imply crap.. i simply stated the fact that in the games he's played we've given up 2.43 goals per game (roughly half a season).. in games he's not played we've given up 3.32 goals per game (again roughly half a season).. you imply what you want, those are simply the raw numbers

Pred303 is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 07:22 PM
  #55
nine_inch_fang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to nine_inch_fang
I think the word should be infer.


As in you inferred the elevation.(which goes to the psychosomatic nature of your arguement)

nine_inch_fang is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 10:16 PM
  #56
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
On a different note, I am thinking that plus/minus relates more and more to this topic.
No, I think this is where you are wrong. You've hung your hat on this multiple times, but this is where the similarities begin and end. Yes, they involve variables. Guess what? So does almost every stat in every sport. A goal involves a half dozen variables that often function with or without the consent of the goalscorer. Big deal. The reason why this comparison falls woefully short is that you impose a level of exaggeration into our argument. Suter is the best defenseman, everyone should be like him, yadda, yadda, yadda. No one is arguing that Legwand is our MVP or best player. You are the one imposing that argument on us. We are just saying that he is very valuable to this team. And the statistics bear that out. That you refuse to own up to it as nothing more than a casual relationship between wins and Legwand is a sign of just how jaded you are in your viewpoints.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 02:24 AM
  #57
sparkle twin
drrrty player
 
sparkle twin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to sparkle twin Send a message via AIM to sparkle twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
The reason why people donít put any stock into plus/minus is because it doesnít take into account the actions of the 11 other players on the ice (5 teammates, 6 opponents). It assumes there are no variables with those 11 players. Saying our record with/without player X assumes 4 TIMES as much as the plus/minus stats does, because it doesnít take into account the actions of the 40 other players on the ice. It assumes there are no variables with those 40 players.
The thing about the +/- is that for one thing it only assumes a team scores when at even strength.

It doesn't differentiate between even strength scores and shorthanded scores, nor does it even count PP scores.

In the last game's program it has Hordichuk as +6. Meanwhile Kariya is -6. Putting so much stock into that stat, it assumes that Hordi is the better player.

When Leggy is in the lineup our record is 26-6-5. The only thing that record assumes is that when Legwand is in the lineup we have a good chance to win.

sparkle twin is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 06:07 AM
  #58
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spank303
In the last game's program it has Hordichuk as +6. Meanwhile Kariya is -6. Putting so much stock into that stat, it assumes that Hordi is the better player.
You are correct in that plus/minus doesn't take into account special teams. Legwand usually doesn't get much PK kill time, so we can deem that minimal effect. Are our PP stats noticeable better with him? I don't know. It wouldn't suprise me, being that our options at center dwindle when he's injured (esp if Perrault is out). Sillinger's additiion has helped with the depth at C. But Legwand's actions on the PP certainly aren't going to lower our GAA per game by a whole goal.

I'm not trying to argue that +/- is a good stat, I'm saying the opposite, because it fails to take into account the actions of the other 11 players on the ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
No, I think this is where you are wrong. You've hung your hat on this multiple times, but this is where the similarities begin and end. Yes, they involve variables.
I do think there's a similarity, and I'm not changing my opinion, no matter how "jaded" you think it is.

In the example that Spank mentioned above (Hordichuk +6, Karia -6)... The easy thing to do would be assume that "Hey, we have much better chance of being ahead in the this hockey game (winning) if we put Hordihcuk on the ice than we do with Kariya." While statisically that is true (and we're using a big sample size), there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 11 other people on the ice.

Similary, for these stats, it's easy to say "Hey, we have much better chance of winning the hockey game with Legwand in the lineup, than without him in the lineup." While statistically that is true, there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 40 other people on the ice.

I'm not trying to debunk the stat totally. As I've said repeatedly, we are better off with Legwand than without, especially with our center woes. But just like +/-, there are flaws in the stat, due to the fact it doens't take into account the actions of the other people on the ice. You assume they are constant, when they are not.

Make fun of it all you want, but it seems pretty logical to me.


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-28-2006 at 06:13 AM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:35 AM
  #59
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do think there's a similarity, and I'm not changing my opinion, no matter how "jaded" you think it is.

In the example that Spank mentioned above (Hordichuk +6, Karia -6)... The easy thing to do would be assume that "Hey, we have much better chance of being ahead in the this hockey game (winning) if we put Hordihcuk on the ice than we do with Kariya." While statisically that is true (and we're using a big sample size), there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 11 other people on the ice.

Similary, for these stats, it's easy to say "Hey, we have much better chance of winning the hockey game with Legwand in the lineup, than without him in the lineup." While statistically that is true, there is more behind that stat, like the actions of the 40 other people on the ice.

I'm not trying to debunk the stat totally. As I've said repeatedly, we are better off with Legwand than without, especially with our center woes. But just like +/-, there are flaws in the stat, due to the fact it doens't take into account the actions of the other people on the ice. You assume they are constant, when they are not.

Make fun of it all you want, but it seems pretty logical to me.
There is a similarity, but the majority of the similarity is on such a base level that you could use many other stats and prove the exact same point you are proving now. The crux of your argument is that your are building up our argument to knock it down. You are deliberately creating an exaggeration to inflate our argument to an unsustainable level. It would be the equivalent of me taking your argument and twisting it to the point where I have you saying that Legwand is the worst Predator. And then, like I hero, I come in and knock your groundless argument down.

No one thinks Legwand is an MVP. I have yet to hear that from anyone worth respecting on these boards or any other. What they do think is that he has been given a bad rap and that it turns out, he is quite valuable to the team. You've managed to turn that into something more than it is, which is why you still feel that the Suter comparison works. Let's revisit for the sake of clarity.

Itís like saying ďIf everyone was as good as Suter, and had his same +/-, we'd have a team +/- differential of +200!Ē


But what respected poster said as much about Legwand? What you are saying about Suter implies taking a rather large leap. What we are saying about Legwand requires nothing more than common sense. We don't, as you seem to imply with your Suter argument, think Legwand is the best player on the team, and that everyone should be just like him so that we could be undefeated. That is your argument that you have created so that you could better defend your own position.

The bottom line is this: You cannot stand Legwand and refuse to acknowledge any legitimate correlation between wins and his presence. The last three seasons have worked to show that this season is not a fluke. Legwand has missed over 50 games the past three seasons. He's played over 180. That's a solid 235 game sample size. The results? In the 52 games Legwand missed, the Preds are 17-25-4-6. Over an 82 game season, that point total would approximate 69. Legwand has been in the lineup for 183 games. In those games, the Predators are 90-60-20-13. Over an 82 game season, that point total would approximate 95. At what point do you acknowledge it as anything more than mild coincidence? How much more would you like to see or are you so set in your ways that you won't open up to the idea that they are interrelated? And we aren't talking about a perfect direct relationship, but a solid direct relationship whereby a fair part of the team's success can be attributed to the presence of David Legwand.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:20 PM
  #60
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
How much more would you like to see
The WHY and HOW, not the blanket statistically generalizations.

Pred303 has already broken-down the guts with GF/GA (hey, weíre coming back to +/- again). We score more goals when Legwand is out of the lineup (which I wonít make a direct correlation to, for the same reasons). We give up way less (almost 1 GA per game). WHY AND HOW? It's not due to the PK, as he only plays as a reserve on the PK. Weíll exclude the PP, unless we think his replacement(s) are giving up an insane amount of SH goals. So, weíre down to even strength. Legwand is a +2. Assuming all factors are held constant, it suggests that his replacement(s) are approximately Ė35 in the 37 games heís missed, and thatís the reason for the disparity. Of course, thatís assuming that all factors are held constant.

I donít hate Legwand, as you say. I accepted years ago that he wasnít going to live up to his offensive hype. I accepted that he was good-to-great defensive center, but lacked true scoring center abilities. I do dislike when people try to make him into more than he is. I do dislike when people post our record with/without Legwand after every game. I do dislike when people make blanket statistically genererlazations and say ďwhat more do you need to know?Ē Itís simpleÖ why.


Last edited by dulzhok: 03-28-2006 at 01:27 PM.
dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:31 PM
  #61
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 18,921
vCash: 500
You don't dislike Legwand? Come on. We all remember the "Legwand likes weird things in bed" rant you made a few years back.

triggrman is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:42 PM
  #62
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
You don't dislike Legwand? Come on. We all remember the "Legwand likes weird things in bed" rant you made a few years back.
well, maybe I like the weird things he does in bed

Or maybe it was the lockout, and I was getting bored, and I posted a few stories I shouldn't have. I was able to restrain myself from the worst ones, though.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:43 PM
  #63
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do dislike when people make blanket statistically genererlazations and say ďwhat more do you need to know?Ē Itís simpleÖ why.
I reject your statement on the grounds that I do think there is a theoretical point of acceptance for you (provided your thoughts aren't based on your dislike of Legwand). Once that point is reached by games played, you'll actually give Legwand some credit. My question is, at what point does it become more than a mild coincidence? You claim that no such point exists. I disagree. If he played 1 million games over the course of his career and the current number held true, would you be more inclined to believe he played a larger role than you currently do?

You want to know why and we've given you the most important statistical evidence available. You say it is inconclusive, which it is. There is nothing definitive out there to prove anyone's worth, just a bunch of data that builds a picture. The question we have and one that you have been unable to answer without shifting the subject or altering our viewpoints is at what point does the sample size grow large enough that all opposing factors begin to cancel themselves out so that the biggest difference between the two sets of data is the presence (or lack thereof) of Legwand? If 1 million games are played, it would be difficult to argue that Legwand played an important role in determining wins and losses. But we shouldn't have to go that high to make moderate inferences. What would you consider a sufficient sample size so that a legitimate inference could be made?

And spare me your 'blanket generalizations' (and I can tell from your spelling that you are subconsciously calling me lazy ) argument. You have said yourself that you give Legwand some credit as being a valuable player. The rift here is not that we believe one thing, and that you believe something totally different. There is little polarity to our viewpoints. It's that we both believe the same thing (Legwand is valuable), but the degree to which we believe he's valuable is where the disconnect lies.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:47 PM
  #64
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 18,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
well, maybe I like the weird things he does in bed

Or maybe it was the lockout, and I was getting bored, and I posted a few stories I shouldn't have. I was able to restrain myself from the worst ones, though.
Wow, please don't share anymore.......

Basically I agree with, we are a better team with Legwand on it than we are when he's not. He's not an elite center, but he's the best we have.

Erat is a puck hog.

triggrman is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 01:52 PM
  #65
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman
Erat is a puck hog.
I'm not a puck hog. I just can't see anyone to pass to.

Your truly,

Martin Erat

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 02:20 PM
  #66
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Sample size is irrelevant to me. The more games, the more variables there are that we canít hold constant. Just like weíve been dealing with Walker coming in and out of the lineup all year. Later on, itís Perrault and Markov. Down the line, itíll be someone else. A flawed stat is a flawed stat. Sample size is irrelevant, just as it is with +/-. Both are stats that leave a tremendous about to read into, and have an insane number variables attached to them.

Iíve seen you taken no effort to address the GF/GA subject, but I have taken plenty of effort to address spelling mistakes. Thanks.

I do think that Legwand is valuable to the team at this point, and as I've said, we're better with him than without. But, I donít take as much stock into these stats as everyone does. The stat assumes way too much.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 02:26 PM
  #67
nine_inch_fang
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Spring Hill, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to nine_inch_fang
I will say one thing for this so called stat. I believe winning and lossing is the stat we are talking about. Time show that in reality it is the only one people will remember. Winning and lossing isn't a stat, it is everything.

nine_inch_fang is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 02:31 PM
  #68
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nine_inch_fang
I will say one thing for this so called stat. I believe winning and lossing is the stat we are talking about. Time show that in reality it is the only one people will remember. Winning and lossing isn't a stat, it is everything.
But winning and losing is a result of GF/GA.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 02:33 PM
  #69
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
Sample size is irrelevant to me. The more games, the more variables there are that we canít hold constant. Just like weíve been dealing with Walker coming in and out of the lineup all year. Later on, itís Perrault and Markov. Down the line, itíll be someone else. Sample size is irrelevant, just as it is with +/-. Both are stats that leave a tremendous about to read into, and have an insane number variables attached to them.
Must be difficult to go through life having to have the world at a constant to make any sort of conclusion. What would I like for lunch? Well at Subway, the last 6 times I had a meatball marinara and I loved it 5 out of the 6 times, but thought it was only average once. If I get one, I run the risk of those previous 5 enjoyable subs being unduly influenced by a myriad of factors such as the how clean my palate was, the sandwhich artist making my sub, the time of day, the freshness of the ingredients, how hungry I was, and exactly how attractively the women sitting two booths over is. With all these variables giving me so many excuses not to use one of man's greatest tools (inference), I think I'll just stand here at the counter until I'm told to leave.

In all seriousness, I understand your point that you don't like the amount of variables out there. Which is why I think sample size is important. But I'll leave you be on this point as I can see you are set in your ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
Iíve seen you taken no effort to address the GF/GA subject, but I have taken plenty of effort to address spelling mistakes. Thanks.
I was unaware that this was the crux of our entire conversation. I am generally not going to take every point you make and respond to it. I typically pick a few things to respond to and move on. The time it would take for me to thoroughly digest and formulate a response to every point you make would just not be worth my time or yours. Sorry.

And if it's that important, someone else will pick up on it and carry the torch for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do think that Legwand is valuable to the team at this point, and as I've said, we're better with him than without. But, I donít take as much stock into these stats as everyone does. The stat assumes way too much.
You are much closer to my side of thinking than you think and I am probably closer to your way of thinking than I actually think. It could be that Legwand is valuable only because we don't have anyone else. That the dropoff from Legwand, possibly an average player, to his replacements is so severe that it cannot help but negatively affect the team. But therein lies my point. He's not the most valuable, probably not even top 5, but I think his value is enough to warrant mention when he is both in and out of the lineup. If we had capable backups to turn to, as I think we do in other positions, his value would diminish. But we don't, and that pegs his value at a higher point. Probably higher than his skillset and contributions warrant.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 06:28 PM
  #70
muddycreek*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Hick
Country: Ireland
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Give it up smokey. Most kids today have to get finality in everything! Finality has ruined I AA football. It'll ruin I A too if we go to a playoff. Anytime you let one game dictate who wins or loses a championship, everyone is a loser! The only statistic that matters is the W/L colum and how it stacks up against everyone else. All the +/- BS is just that, rectum fodder! LOL LOL LOL I dislike Thug Ball (NBA) imensely BUT it, baseball and hockey have one thing in common; it takes many wins to win a championship. The longer a series to decide a championship, the more likely the best team is to win!

muddycreek* is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 02:47 AM
  #71
sparkle twin
drrrty player
 
sparkle twin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hendersonville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,000
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to sparkle twin Send a message via AIM to sparkle twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do dislike when people try to make him into more than he is. I do dislike when people post our record with/without Legwand after every game.
sigh.
No one is trying to make him into more than what he is.
All we're saying is our record is better with him in the lineup than without him in the lineup.

If we were, then we would say that there is no way we would ever lose with him in the lineup and we would never win with him out of the lineup.

And we could go in that direction right now and say look Legwand has been out for 3 games and we have lost 3 in a row, there is obviously a direct corelation. But no one is doing that because we all know it's not true.

We're just saying he's a valuable part of our team and we have a nice winning record with him in the lineup rather than without.

Which leads me to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I do think that Legwand is valuable to the team at this point, and as I've said, we're better with him than without.
Excuse me? Now I belive this is what we have been saying ALL ALONG. But yet, every chance you get you come on here and say that the stats aren't really true indicators of what the reality is. The reality is that you agree with those of us that think Legwand is a valuable part of our team but can't stand to give him any kind of credit so you start arguing that we're trying to make him into the #1 center in the league when we're not.

sparkle twin is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 11:07 AM
  #72
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spank303
sigh.
All we're saying is our record is better with him in the lineup than without him in the lineup.
Well, I've seen things the last week saying that'd we'd have 12 total loses if Legwand wasn't injured, and that we'd be in the lead for the Presidents Trophy. Then I see posts inferring that game's outcomes like this one would have been different with Legwand in the linuep. Some say it's sarcasm, but I sure don't get that vibe.
Quote:
Excuse me? Now I belive this is what we have been saying ALL ALONG.
I have said atleast 5 times in this thread that I feel that we are better off with Legwand than without. I don't need a stat to tell me that Legwand is a better option that Nichol. I've just been saying that implications of that stat are flawed (i.e. "we'd be #1 in the conference!").
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
You are much closer to my side of thinking than you think and I am probably closer to your way of thinking than I actually think. It could be that Legwand is valuable only because we don't have anyone else. That the dropoff from Legwand, possibly an average player, to his replacements is so severe that it cannot help but negatively affect the team. But therein lies my point. He's not the most valuable, probably not even top 5, but I think his value is enough to warrant mention when he is both in and out of the lineup. If we had capable backups to turn to, as I think we do in other positions, his value would diminish. But we don't, and that pegs his value at a higher point. Probably higher than his skillset and contributions warrant.
I pretty much agree with this.

dulzhok is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 11:12 AM
  #73
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by dulzhok
I have said atleast 5 times in this thread that I feel that we are better off with Legwand than without. I don't need a stat to tell me that Legwand is a better option that Nichol. I've just been saying that implications of that stat are flawed (i.e. "we'd be #1 in the conference!").

I pretty much agree with this.
Yeah, but you can't use that "we'd be #1 in the conference" statement as motivation because it came from Seamus. And you know he's nuts! You can hear him yelling above 329's silence all the way over in 306.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.