And, again, there is a wealth of empirical evidence that drawing insight going forward from these games is a waste of time.
Just so we are clear, empirical evidence implies that if 10 people looking at the evidence will all draw the same conclusions. When you are taking about Jaromir Jagr's preseason and then using historical pre-season information, that is not empirical. The data you would give would not be able to pindown whether the pre-season of Jaromir Jagr in 2011 draws insight into his success in the 2011 season. I could just as easily give "empirical evidence" showing how the pre-season success will lead to future success (For every Jon Sim there is a 100 examples of good pre-seasons ending in excellent regular seasons). All Jagr has showed is, he looks good, he is skating well, his in great shape and able to play on the small surface. Your empirical evidence doesn't disprove that.
If the evidence was empirical, then there would be no point in discussing, as the data would clearly show the answer. This is only valid in dealing with facts.
Just so we are clear, empirical evidence implies that if 10 people looking at the evidence will all draw the same conclusions. When you are taking about Jaromir Jagr's preseason and then using historical pre-season information, that is not empirical. The data you would give would not be able to pindown whether the pre-season of Jaromir Jagr in 2011 draws insight into his success in the 2011 season. I could just as easily give "empirical evidence" showing how the pre-season success will lead to future success (For every Jon Sim there is a 100 examples of good pre-seasons ending in excellent regular seasons). All Jagr has showed is, he looks good, he is skating well, his in great shape and able to play on the small surface. Your empirical evidence doesn't disprove that.
No, empirical evidence suggests that there is irrefutable fact based information that suggests that the preseason is a waste of time if you're drawing conclusions from it.
As to the second bolded comment... that would be a comically stupid argument to trot out. There's a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are terrible... and there are a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are awesome (this ignores the guys that have terrible preseasons but are awesome)... preseason means a lot!
Actually, that empirically supports my argument that you can't draw strong conclusions from the preseason. It can go either way, and does so with regularity. I think Jagr is going to have a good season, I don't think Read is going to lead in the NHL in scoring.
Quote:
If the evidence was empirical, then there would be no point in discussing, as the data would clearly show the answer. This is only valid in dealing with facts.
People debate empirically untrue claims on here all the friggin time, dude.
And, again, there is a wealth of empirical evidence that drawing insight going forward from these games is a waste of time.
I guess Bob shouldn't have made the team last year based on his "body of work" in practice and the preseason games given your line of reasoning?
How else are you supposed to gain insight into a rookie goalie so that he can surpass two career backups or at least one career backup given the other one was injured and just garbage anyway? If we didn't have Bob in that first half until he got worn down we probably wouldn't have made the playoffs. We could have just used empirical evidence that rookie goalies should start in the AHL since it's a WASTE OF TIME to see if the guy can actually play at the NHL level.
What exactly is this Giroux < Richards/Carter nonsense all about? He isn't a shutdown center, he is our #1 center for 3.5 million a year, other teams will be trying to shut him down, and good luck with that. He was an all-star last year and he will be again this year.
Carter is an excellent two way player with a lethal shot and top level speed. He is not a smart player and lacks vision on the ice, his shot is lethal but is known to be inaccurate and many times he misses the net causing problems the other way. He is good on the PP but not great and his long stick makes him a good PK'er, but again, not great. He is very good defensively and his speed, size and long stick make him a tough matchup for most centers in the NHL.
Richards is an excellent two way player and a true shutdown center with toughness, a will to win, an excellent checker, better offensively than he gets credit for (easy 30-30 guy). He is a top player in the NHL and brings so much to the table. Richards is one of the best two way forwards in the NHL and will flourish in LA.
Giroux is an offensively gifted player with vision comparable to anyone in the NHL. For a smaller player he wins many battles along the walls and in the corners. He keeps himself in better shape than most and is extemely durable, his offseason workouts are well known. Giroux is not known for his two way game but has made a commitment to improving and does not appear "weak" in this area. He competes hard, plays hard and should lead the FLyers in scoring again this year with 82+ points expected. He is not known for his physical game, but he is tougher than you would expect.
Best player of the three in areas:
Vision=Giroux
Toughness=Richards
Goal Scoring=Carter
Speed=Carter
Quickness=Giroux
Defensive=Richards
Offensive=Giroux
PP=Giroux
PK=Richards
Were you watching the same game? Where did Jagr look average on the 5-on-5? He set up numeour scoring chances for his teammates 5-on-5. Almost everytime he stepped on the ice last night he created scoring chances. Did you not watch him set up that goal? That was 5-on-5, he didn't look too average then.
He made some passes through some very loose checking and poor defense. I'd ask what game you were watching. He wasn't strong forechecking, he wasn't strong defensively. He wasn't creating turnovers.He wasn't drivign the net. The only time he looked good was when he had the puck. There's so much more to the game. The time and space Jagr had to make plays last night is going to be drastically different once the games start meaing something. He didn't look like a player that can create his own chances, or create for others. Given time and space, he can make you plays. But he needs to be far better if he's going to dominate and score 100 points like you say he is.
I guess Bob shouldn't have made the team last year based on his "body of work" in practice and the preseason games given your line of reasoning?
How else are you supposed to gain insight into a rookie goalie so that he can surpass two career backups or at least one career backup given the other one was injured and just garbage anyway? If we didn't have Bob in that first half until he got worn down we probably wouldn't have made the playoffs. We could have just used empirical evidence that rookie goalies should start in the AHL since it's a WASTE OF TIME to see if the guy can actually play at the NHL level.
Anyway..I'm done
Jags6868?
This point is so confusing I don't even know how to address it properly.
Are you suggesting Lavy or anyone else knew the type of season Bob was going to have when they suited up in Pittsburgh? He made the team by default, and was playing better than Boucher... he got the start. Of course, we ended up having Michael *ing Leighton start a game in the playoffs, but that's a whole other story.
What exactly is this Giroux < Richards/Carter nonsense all about? He isn't a shutdown center, he is our #1 center for 3.5 million a year, other teams will be trying to shut him down, and good luck with that. He was an all-star last year and he will be again this year.
Carter is an excellent two way player with a lethal shot and top level speed. He is not a smart player and lacks vision on the ice, his shot is lethal but is known to be inaccurate and many times he misses the net causing problems the other way. He is good on the PP but not great and his long stick makes him a good PK'er, but again, not great. He is very good defensively and his speed, size and long stick make him a tough matchup for most centers in the NHL.
Richards is an excellent two way player and a true shutdown center with toughness, a will to win, an excellent checker, better offensively than he gets credit for (easy 30-30 guy). He is a top player in the NHL and brings so much to the table. Richards is one of the best two way forwards in the NHL and will flourish in LA.
Giroux is an offensively gifted player with vision comparable to anyone in the NHL. For a smaller player he wins many battles along the walls and in the corners. He keeps himself in better shape than most and is extemely durable, his offseason workouts are well known. Giroux is not known for his two way game but has made a commitment to improving and does not appear "weak" in this area. He competes hard, plays hard and should lead the FLyers in scoring again this year with 82+ points expected. He is not known for his physical game, but he is tougher than you would expect.
Best player of the three in areas:
Vision=Giroux
Toughness=Richards
Goal Scoring=Carter
Speed=Carter
Quickness=Giroux
Defensive=Richards
Offensive=Giroux
PP=Giroux
PK=Richards
Carter's shot innacurracy is far overblown. Richards shot is more innacurrate than Carter's was.
No, empirical evidence suggests that there is irrefutable fact based information that suggests that the preseason is a waste of time if you're drawing conclusions from it.
As to the second bolded comment... that would be a comically stupid argument to trot out. There's a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are terrible... and there are a bunch of guys that have awesome preseasons and are awesome (this ignores the guys that have terrible preseasons but are awesome)... preseason means a lot!
Actually, that empirically supports my argument that you can't draw strong conclusions from the preseason. It can go either way, and does so with regularity. I think Jagr is going to have a good season, I don't think Read is going to lead in the NHL in scoring.
People debate empirically untrue claims on here all the friggin time, dude.
Anyboby who "observed" Jaromir Jagr this preseason would agree that he is still a top 6 forward on most teams in the NHL. Matt Reads preseason, rookie camp, AHL 10 games suggest he is ready to make the jump into the NHL. Since there is no data for NHL regular season for these two players to use how else do you suggest we analyze their future regular season succcess? We have to look at something? You are saying the preseason is useless, so shall we keep quiet on the subject until the data in the regular season clearly shows the answer? Perhaps we shall wait until game 40 before we have a proper opinion of whether Jagr is going to have a good season or not. Sounds good.
This point is so confusing I don't even know how to address it properly.
Are you suggesting Lavy or anyone else knew the type of season Bob was going to have when they suited up in Pittsburgh? He made the team by default, and was playing better than Boucher... he got the start. Of course, we ended up having Michael *ing Leighton start a game in the playoffs, but that's a whole other story.
No your retort is evasive as usual and you can't address it properly because you never ever concede a valid point.
You conclusively say the preseason is worth NIL when it comes to drawing insight when it's clear Lavy drew insight and empirical evidence that Bob COULD perform at the NHL level which he did albeit half a season. Bob didn't make the team by default..he overtook Boosh because of his body of work in practice AND the games in the preseason. You can spin this all you want but that is how Bob became the starter.
No your retort is evasive as usual and you can't address it properly because you never ever concede a valid point.
You conclusively say the preseason is worth NIL when it comes to drawing insight when it's clear Lavy drew insight and empirical evidence that Bob COULD perform at the NHL level which he did albeit half a season. Bob didn't make the team by default..he overtook Boosh because of his body of work in practice AND the games in the preseason. You can spin this all you want but that is how Bob became the starter.
JVR also showed he was ready for the NHL in preseason a few years ago when most thought he would need a year in the AHL.
No your retort is evasive as usual and you can't address it properly because you never ever concede a valid point.
You conclusively say the preseason is worth NIL when it comes to drawing insight when it's clear Lavy drew insight and empirical evidence that Bob COULD perform at the NHL level which he did albeit half a season. Bob didn't make the team by default..he overtook Boosh because of his body of work in practice AND the games in the preseason. You can spin this all you want but that is how Bob became the starter.
If Leighton wasn't injured, Bob wouldn't have been with the team when it broke camp last year. He became the starter for Game 1 because of injury.
Was he outplaying Boucher at the time? Sure... does that mean that a handful of preseason games were indicative of the type of season he was going to have? No. Just like Boucher pitching 5 consecutive shutouts wasn't indicative of his career.
Not only is the preseason a small sample size... it's also a small sample size against a mixture of sloppy teams that haven't had a lot of practice, and non-NHL players trying to impress.
Anyboby who "observed" Jaromir Jagr this preseason would agree that he is still a top 6 forward on most teams in the NHL. Matt Reads preseason, rookie camp, AHL 10 games suggest he is ready to make the jump into the NHL. Since there is no data for NHL regular season for these two players to use how else do you suggest we analyze their future regular season succcess? We have to look at something? You are saying the preseason is useless, so shall we keep quiet on the subject until the data in the regular season clearly shows the answer? Perhaps we shall wait until game 40 before we have a proper opinion of whether Jagr is going to have a good season or not. Sounds good.
Perhaps we should file a petition with the NHL and demand that they abolish preseason games and just stick with camps?
While there are too many preseason games IMO and the majority of vets couldn't care less if it was abolished. I doubt very much that a lot of the younger players and prospects would be for it. You see how much they value it by the way they compete and their intensity level. It does matter for something even though some people don't see any added value whatsoever. I mean for a veteran team there is less relevancy but for a younger team like the Flyers it takes on more importance.
Perhaps we should file a petition with the NHL and demand that they abolish preseason games and just stick with camps?
While there are too many preseason games IMO and the majority of vets couldn't care less if it was abolished. I doubt very much that a lot of the younger players and prospects would be for it. You see how much they value it by the way they compete and their intensity level. It does matter for something even though some people don't see any added value whatsoever. I mean for a veteran team there is less relevancy but for a younger team like the Flyers it takes on more importance.
You understand that there is a significant difference between competing for roster spots, and projecting that environment into an 82 game NHL season, right?
Was he outplaying Boucher at the time? Sure... does that mean that a handful of preseason games were indicative of the type of season he was going to have? No. Just like Boucher pitching 5 consecutive shutouts wasn't indicative of his career.
Honestly, your point here is simply bizarre.
Not really...again you can use all the gerunds at the end of curse words and baseless hyperbole, feigned indignation and other rhetorical flourishes all you want but it doesn't make your OPINIONS gospel.
He outplayed Boucher and yes a handful of games against NHL competition and his body of work in practice allowed him to surpass Boucher hence why he started and did well going FORWARD. Insight was drawn from his performances and he didn't just get the job by default as you are suggesting.
It was overblown because when he did miss it had so much velocity that it would go off the boards and towards the Flyers end putting them in trouble.
This is exactly how it was overblown. Stuff like this is just made up. As if Carter was the only players missed shot that resulted in a rush the other way. Only Carter. Richards misses the net a far higher percentage of the time with his shot. Carter's missed shot percentage was well within the norm of the rest of the League of high shot producers. Completely overblown.
You understand that there is a significant difference between competing for roster spots, and projecting that environment into an 82 game NHL season, right?
Let me answer your question with a question of my own since I'm familiar with your rhetorical methods of debate...
You do understand you can gain insight into how a player can perform in a competitive environment do you not?
Not really...again you can use all the gerunds at the end of curse words and baseless hyperbole, feigned indignation and other rhetorical flourishes all you want but it doesn't make your OPINIONS gospel.
He outplayed Boucher and yes a handful of games against NHL competition and his body of work in practice allowed him to surpass Boucher hence why he started and did well going FORWARD. Insight was drawn from his performances and he didn't just get the job by default as you are suggesting.
No, he made the team by default. He won the job because Boucher isn't a *ing starting NHL goalie and Lavy knew that from his body of work. He was playing well in the preseason, and they let him start in a far from ideal situation.
However, what is fascinating is that you are attempting to change the scope of the conversation to winning jobs, which is not the same thing as projecting production. Obviously you can win a job in camp, that's true in every sport out there, but that doesn't mean that preseason production translates to regular season production in anything remotely resembling a 1:1 relationship... If Bob was going up against Henrik Lundqvist coming off a bad preseason, I can pretty much guarantee you that Lundqvist would have been starting Game 1. Just like I can pretty much guarantee you that Bryz will be our starting guy no matter how well Bob plays this preseason.
So, you aren't even challenging my position on the preseason, you're trying to alter the discussion to better suit the argument that you want to make than actually addressing the one that I made.
Let me answer your question with a question of my own since I'm familiar with your rhetorical methods of debate...
You do understand you can gain insight into how a player can perform in a competitive environment do you not?
Not all competitive environments are created equal. Just like there are a lot of AHL All-Stars that can't hack it in the NHL, AAAA baseball players, etc.
No, he made the team by default. He won the job because Boucher isn't a *ing starting NHL goalie and Lavy knew that from his body of work. He was playing well in the preseason, and they let him start in a far from ideal situation.
However, what is fascinating is that you are attempting to change the scope of the conversation to winning jobs, which is not the same thing as projecting production. Obviously you can win a job in camp, that's true in every sport out there, but that doesn't mean that preseason production translates to regular season production in anything remotely resembling a 1:1 relationship...
So, you aren't even challenging my position on the preseason, you're trying to alter the discussion to better suit the argument that you want to make than actually addressing the one that I made.
YOU are expanding/twisting the parameters of the debate with the whole preseason production vs regular season production. My argument AGAIN is that for situations like Jagr and younger players/rookies there is worth in the preseason and drawing insight nothing more and nothing less. It's not categorically worthless..as you claim.
Not all competitive environments are created equal. Just like there are a lot of AHL All-Stars that can't hack it in the NHL, AAAA baseball players, etc.
YOU are expanding/twisting the parameters of the debate with the whole preseason production vs regular season production. My argument AGAIN is that for situations like Jagr and younger players/rookies there is worth in the preseason and drawing insight nothing more and nothing less. It's not categorically worthless..as you claim.
I twisted **** dude. You started talking about Bob getting the nod last year as if it somehow had any relevance to a discussion of projecting preseason to regular season production (it didn't). A guy can impress in the preseason, and fall flat in the regular season... a guy can struggle in the preseason, and impress when the puck drops for real (as Meltzer has noted in his blogs of late, this has been Giroux's MO here).
In fact, Giroux played himself out of a job in camp and then went and tore up the AHL as a rookie. Was he a better player a few months later... maybe. Maybe he was just fully recovered from his wisdom teeth. Or, maybe, the preseason is kind of a waste of time as folks get into shape and get comfortable playing competitive games again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom
Thanks for the INSIGHT...
Hey man, I'm just waiting for Alex Giroux's monster year.
He made some passes through some very loose checking and poor defense. I'd ask what game you were watching. He wasn't strong forechecking, he wasn't strong defensively. He wasn't creating turnovers.He wasn't drivign the net. The only time he looked good was when he had the puck. There's so much more to the game. The time and space Jagr had to make plays last night is going to be drastically different once the games start meaing something. He didn't look like a player that can create his own chances, or create for others. Given time and space, he can make you plays. But he needs to be far better if he's going to dominate and score 100 points like you say he is.
Other than you, every person that watched the game would tell you that Jagr looked impressive not only on the powerplay but at evenstrength.
You're saying Jagr can't create his own chances? Are you serious? That is the funniest thing I have ever heard.
