|
Post by dannycater on Mar 24, 2024 15:08:29 GMT
I'm sorry, 48's performance v. Philly deserves a fucking healthy scratch...play Wotherspoon, Shat and Lohrei and plant this overrated piece of garbage on the bench. So sick of how little he does..all-time liability on the PK (the guy can't go 15 seconds on this specialty team before a goal goes in because of things like rushing the guy along the high boards)...Not sure why it's okay to bench 29 for eternity, bench Shat after a 3-point game (uh hello, B's need offense from the defense), and bench 6 all the time while trying to get 52 playing time...48 hit the balcony just once...Monty stop giving this guy a free pass. Sweeney you fucked up by not unloading him at trade deadline. Out of sight, out of mind as Monty is in love with him. Three players in the team finished +. Grz, Braz, and Coylz. Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Mar 24, 2024 16:00:18 GMT
Three players in the team finished +. Grz, Braz, and Coylz. Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it Once again the old outlier of +/-. Gryz with McAvoy will give you that plus. But there were many times Gryz was being outplayed. It does not matter Danny, Book has a schism whereby a 1st pairing is not really a 1st pairing but a third pairing. He would agree he is a third pairing defenseman, but does not recognize he is playing as a 1st pairing defenseman. So, he is just "amusing himself to death".
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 24, 2024 17:19:22 GMT
Three players in the team finished +. Grz, Braz, and Coylz. Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it I watch the game all the time and I see a shit ton of bad plays that are as stupid by players with fewer physical limitations, but the only player people consistently lose their shit over is Grz. Half the time, you only have to go back ten seconds to see the mistake by Marchand or Pastrnak or Geekie or Zacha has made that created a situation where Grz was at a disadvantage. They get a pass; Grz doesn't. The other half of the time, he sucks. Fact is, Grz was a + yesterday and McAvoy wasn't. I'm not he's a good player. I'm saying you cannot honestly say that he is as bad as you claim and yet he somehow consistently avoids taking minuses and is consistently on the ice when they score 5v5. Those are incompatible. The fact is the fact. It's inconvenient if you want to blame Grz more than others.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 24, 2024 17:24:53 GMT
Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it Once again the old outlier of +/-. Gryz with McAvoy will give you that plus. But there were many times Gryz was being outplayed. It does not matter Danny, Book has a schism whereby a 1st pairing is not really a 1st pairing but a third pairing. He would agree he is a third pairing defenseman, but does not recognize he is playing as a 1st pairing defenseman. So, he is just "amusing himself to death". Yeah, sorry, but I'll continue to point out that being paired with the beat defenseman has never meant being at the top of the depth chart. And I'll continue to point out that McAvoy gets better results playing with Grz than he does with any other Bruins D. Lindholm is a close second. So yeah...I see the coach making the best use of a player with limitations by putting him in a situation where for whatever reason, the results are pretty good. Nothing to do with seeing him as a top two or three D on the team. To me, if you get almost zero special teams time, you're nowhere near the top of the depth chart even if you want to call it a "first pairing".
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 24, 2024 17:35:00 GMT
Three players in the team finished +. Grz, Braz, and Coylz. Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it Go back and watch that goal again and if you think it's Grz's fault and everyone else is just ducky, you should watch another sport. Grz's is trying to make the play the Bruins PK often tries to make - trap the puck carrier just inside the line so that you limit his options. He makes his move when there are 4 Bruins back to defend 3 Flyers. He should be covered for making an aggressive play. The mistake is Jake DeBrusk's. As Grz cuts off the puck carrier, instead of following the third forward down below Grz, he double teams the guy with the puck, who them bleeds it down the wall to put McAvoy and Freddy in a 3 on 2. So how the fuck is that time dor Panic at the Grzco? Oh, right. If a goal is cored against the Bruins while Grz is alive, it's his fault. Fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 24, 2024 19:13:21 GMT
Skewed Wayne Redden +/- numbers. And we know what happened to ol Wayne when he wasn't sheltered any longer by Chara. Grizz will get worked again, during the playoffs, around the net. It's a given, when a sheltered dman gets exposed. Redden had two more good years in Ottawa after Chara left. His +/- came down but relative to the team's performance. It was never a minus. He was still good enough for Sather to offer him $6.5M and the consensus for a while was that he lost his offensive step but would have remained an NHL player if he wasn't so expensive. I see so when Grzelcyk is getting outmatched and outmuscled down low its relative to team play. He'll be lucky to get anything above a veteran minimum contract next season. No one will back you that Redden wasnt shielded. And was exposed once he was relied on to shut teams down. It was the beginning of the end of Sather in New York.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 24, 2024 21:29:18 GMT
Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it Go back and watch that goal again and if you think it's Grz's fault and everyone else is just ducky, you should watch another sport. Grz's is trying to make the play the Bruins PK often tries to make - trap the puck carrier just inside the line so that you limit his options. He makes his move when there are 4 Bruins back to defend 3 Flyers. He should be covered for making an aggressive play. The mistake is Jake DeBrusk's. As Grz cuts off the puck carrier, instead of following the third forward down below Grz, he double teams the guy with the puck, who them bleeds it down the wall to put McAvoy and Freddy in a 3 on 2. So how the fuck is that time dor Panic at the Grzco? Oh, right. If a goal is cored against the Bruins while Grz is alive, it's his fault. Fuck off. Now, the language, sir, the language.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Mar 24, 2024 23:15:15 GMT
Skewed Wayne Redden +/- numbers. And we know what happened to ol Wayne when he wasn't sheltered any longer by Chara. Grizz will get worked again, during the playoffs, around the net. It's a given, when a sheltered dman gets exposed. Redden had two more good years in Ottawa after Chara left. His +/- came down but relative to the team's performance. It was never a minus. He was still good enough for Sather to offer him $6.5M and the consensus for a while was that he lost his offensive step but would have remained an NHL player if he wasn't so expensive. One thing that should be cleared up though is Sather was a dismal GM, so overpaying him and then sending Redden to the minors was par for the course. Who can forget Sather's quote when he was GM of the Oil, "If i had the Rangers payroll i'd win the Cup every year", oh ok Glen, you had your chance and didn't get 1.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 0:26:16 GMT
Redden had two more good years in Ottawa after Chara left. His +/- came down but relative to the team's performance. It was never a minus. He was still good enough for Sather to offer him $6.5M and the consensus for a while was that he lost his offensive step but would have remained an NHL player if he wasn't so expensive. I see so when Grzelcyk is getting outmatched and outmuscled down low its relative to team play. He'll be lucky to get anything above a veteran minimum contract next season. No one will back you that Redden wasnt shielded. And was exposed once he was relied on to shut teams down. It was the beginning of the end of Sather in New York. Three seasons after Chara left. And, or course, not what I said about Grz. You made a comparison. I pointed out that it doesn't apply the way you're applying it.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Mar 25, 2024 11:50:16 GMT
Watch the fucking game, he killed the B's on the PK play...jesus...the goal that he got plus on...he had zero to do with it I watch the game all the time and I see a shit ton of bad plays that are as stupid by players with fewer physical limitations, but the only player people consistently lose their shit over is Grz. Half the time, you only have to go back ten seconds to see the mistake by Marchand or Pastrnak or Geekie or Zacha has made that created a situation where Grz was at a disadvantage. They get a pass; Grz doesn't. The other half of the time, he sucks. Fact is, Grz was a + yesterday and McAvoy wasn't. I'm not he's a good player. I'm saying you cannot honestly say that he is as bad as you claim and yet he somehow consistently avoids taking minuses and is consistently on the ice when they score 5v5. Those are incompatible. The fact is the fact. It's inconvenient if you want to blame Grz more than others. Fact, McAvoy does play with other LDs especially at the end of the game. If you watch, then you know why. Gryz did make some good outlet passes without shoving the puck over to McAvoy. I think the Gryz thingy is a bit of a mirage. Yet, if one repeats the same thing over and over again then it becomes true even if it is false. That can be taken both ways.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 16:55:58 GMT
I watch the game all the time and I see a shit ton of bad plays that are as stupid by players with fewer physical limitations, but the only player people consistently lose their shit over is Grz. Half the time, you only have to go back ten seconds to see the mistake by Marchand or Pastrnak or Geekie or Zacha has made that created a situation where Grz was at a disadvantage. They get a pass; Grz doesn't. The other half of the time, he sucks. Fact is, Grz was a + yesterday and McAvoy wasn't. I'm not he's a good player. I'm saying you cannot honestly say that he is as bad as you claim and yet he somehow consistently avoids taking minuses and is consistently on the ice when they score 5v5. Those are incompatible. The fact is the fact. It's inconvenient if you want to blame Grz more than others. Fact, McAvoy does play with other LDs especially at the end of the game. If you watch, then you know why. Gryz did make some good outlet passes without shoving the puck over to McAvoy. I think the Gryz thingy is a bit of a mirage. Yet, if one repeats the same thing over and over again then it becomes true even if it is false. That can be taken both ways. Many things can be taken both ways - like the bold. I agree it's a fact. I see it as supporting the point that the coaching staff does not see Grz as a "top pairing" defenseman and put him with McAvoy because that's a way to maximize his value without hurting McAvoy's since they play off of each other well. I would also say Hmm. You mean the end of the game when the team routinely sucks at getting the puck out of the zone, making smart plays and holding leads? I agree that both sides of the Grz debate deserve heavy scrutiny. My point all along has been that the quantitative metrics and the eye test do not line up, and while it has become commonplace for people to dispute the value of certain metrics, they will hold to an eye test as an article of faith and treat a perception as a fact when questioning the validity of facts. That's my only stake in this whole Grz debate. Things like danny telling me to "watch the fucking game" as evidence of how bad Grz is and when I go back and review the play HE says is his evidence, I see a defenseman making a good read that he can trap the puck-carrier because he has numbers and position, and then because someone else doesn't read the play correctly, he looks like he's the one who made a mistake. But danny's mind was made up that this is evidence that Grz sucks because he's predisposed to think Grz sucks in all instances. I think it's a very interesting question both specifically and generally. Specifically, I think it would be good to know just exactly how valuable Grz is to the Bruins. Is he a $4M/yr D based on his value or is he a $1M/yr D or is he so unable to handle the physicality in the playoffs that he has 0 value? If I'm Sweeney, what I want my quant department to find is a way to measure is whether the plus/minus numbers are meaningful or not. As in, does Grz help McAvoy be at his best, and when his plus/minus crashes with other partners, is he also helping THEM be better than they'd be without him? Is he some sort of catalyst where he's inert on his own but you put him with the right partner and chemistry happens? Or is he what others have said - a passenger who is lucky not to be in the ECHL? Generally, I am also fascinated by him as a case study for the new hockey math. I find it hilarious that so much of the hockey world is obsessed with trying to establish metrics that show you a player's impact on the game beyond goals and assists and even secondary stats like hits or blocks. What is the underlying assumption behind the idea of counting shots/shot attempts/high-danger chances or any of the metrics that get gathered under "possession" and "underlying numbers"? I would say that the primary idea is that you can't score goals if you don't have possession, so if you have more possession than the opponent, you have a better chance of scoring more goals. Really, it's about supplementing counting goals with how often the player is in a situation where a goal might have been scored if not for the goalie or a shooting slump. These metrics don't count the player's individual shots or attempts and they don't account for the player's direct influence on the plays that produced shots - they assume that the conditions that generate "possession" are influenced by all players on the ice. You get more time in zone and likely more shot attempts if you can pressure as a 5 man unit, hold the puck in, retrieve rebounds, etc.. Is that a fair description of the new stats? If so, what a crock of crap to call plus/minus a garbage stat while the entire hockey world holds up "possession metrics". One uses a proxy metric for potential goals that can easily be skewed by just having a bunch of Craig Smiths on the ice who shoot from everywhere but without much malice. They'll take 5 or 6 gimme save shots from the perimeter, retrieve and reload without ever having a chance at a goal. The opponent may not be able to score much in that scenario, but the impact on "possession" suggests far more value than that. On the other hand, a player like Bossy would get killed in possession metrics because you give him one clean shot from anywhere and it's a goal. 1 shot v 5. Craig Smith is 5 times the player Bossy is! Why is it somehow legit to measure shots - with the same lack of direct correlation between the event and every player on the ice - but not the goals that are the actual thing "possession" is trying to establish the likelihood of? That is so bass ackwards logically that it can only have been an economist who thought it up. Or a goalie. Probably a goalie with a degree in economics.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 17:02:20 GMT
If you want a quick way to see which metric seems more likely to be telling you something, compare the top +/- players in the league to the guys with the best SAT counts. Both are easily available on NHL.com/
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 25, 2024 17:04:39 GMT
In looking through my Gryz-colored glasses, I would have to say upon further review that Gryz played well in all 3 zones v. every team in every game. I stand corrected, Gryz does not suck, he is Montyilliant!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 18:33:47 GMT
In looking through my Gryz-colored glasses, I would have to say upon further review that Gryz played well in all 3 zones v. every team in every game. I stand corrected, Gryz does not suck, he is Montyilliant! That's right. We'll call that "Twazzervision". No one is saying Grz is brilliant. What I'm saying is that people look like twazzers when they blame him for something when he made the right play and someone else effed up or when he was put in a difficult position by someone else's mistake just to support this narrative that everything he has ever done is wrong and he should be legally banned from wearing skates or holding a stick.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 25, 2024 18:43:22 GMT
Redden had two more good years in Ottawa after Chara left. His +/- came down but relative to the team's performance. It was never a minus. He was still good enough for Sather to offer him $6.5M and the consensus for a while was that he lost his offensive step but would have remained an NHL player if he wasn't so expensive. One thing that should be cleared up though is Sather was a dismal GM, so overpaying him and then sending Redden to the minors was par for the course. Who can forget Sather's quote when he was GM of the Oil, "If i had the Rangers payroll i'd win the Cup every year", oh ok Glen, you had your chance and didn't get 1. Careful what you wish for. Redden was clearly nothing without Chara to shield him.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 18:48:52 GMT
If you want a quick way to see which metric seems more likely to be telling you something, compare the top +/- players in the league to the guys with the best SAT counts. Both are easily available on NHL.com/ OK, to save you time and money...here. Top SAT% (possession) players in the NHL (Min 40 games played) Jesper Fast Jordan Staal Jack Drury Jordan Martinook Stefan Noesen Jalen Chatfield Jaccob Slavin Evan Bouchard Mattias Ekholm Brent Burns Connor McDavid Zach Hyman Dmitry Orlov Teuvo Teravainen Andrei Svechnikov Jesperi Kotkaniemi So 12 Hurricanes and 4 Oilers in the top 16. Barkov, Bratt, Kaliyev, Forsling, are the top non Canes/Oilers. So tell me...who in that is "driving possession"? And how valid is any of it in evaluating which players are good? Now plus/minus: Forsling Quinn Hughes Dylan DeMelo Filip Hronek Ekholm MacKinnon Aho Hyman McDavid Matthews Miller Bouchard Ekblad Morrissey Boeser Ehlers Toews Hintz Barkov For all that "possession" the Canes have one player in the top 45 who is on for significantly more 5v5 goals for than against. There are still some dependencies - DeMelo being near the top is similar to Grz - he plays the supporting role with Morrissey. Hronek and Hughes. Ekholm and Bouchard. But its a much lower degree - more a very successful pairing rather than what looks for all the world like a team metric. McDavid and Hyman are in about the same spots. Bouchard and Ekholm too. But the number of teams is significantly larger. Outside of a player like DeMelo, you don't see players who you wouldn't consider top tier players in the top 25. It seems to better correlate to the top players using other metrics like TOI, scoring and ... the eye test. I think it's blatantly obvious which of these things is poor at separating the performance of individuals from the performance of a team overall. Takes only a little bit of critical thinking to position plus/minus as useful in some contexts if not a be-all and end-all stat. But it's miles better than "possession."
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 18:49:28 GMT
One thing that should be cleared up though is Sather was a dismal GM, so overpaying him and then sending Redden to the minors was par for the course. Who can forget Sather's quote when he was GM of the Oil, "If i had the Rangers payroll i'd win the Cup every year", oh ok Glen, you had your chance and didn't get 1. Careful what you wish for. Redden was clearly nothing without Chara to shield him. How many Senators games did you watch between Chara's departure and Redden's?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 19:02:10 GMT
One thing that should be cleared up though is Sather was a dismal GM, so overpaying him and then sending Redden to the minors was par for the course. Who can forget Sather's quote when he was GM of the Oil, "If i had the Rangers payroll i'd win the Cup every year", oh ok Glen, you had your chance and didn't get 1. Careful what you wish for. Redden was clearly nothing without Chara to shield him. Never mind that the Senators made the Eastern Final in their first post-Chara season with Redden as their #1 in terms of TOI, and third in D scoring behind two offensive specialists. Or that he was again neck and neck with Phillips for tops in TOI and second in points the second year. Sather's miscalculation was that Redden could continue to produce as the league got faster and adjusted to the post-lockout rules. That, and not Chara's absence, exposed the limits of Redden's game. Once he didn't have an advantage in terms of being a little more quick and nimble, he was done as an impact player.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Mar 25, 2024 20:01:25 GMT
Fact, McAvoy does play with other LDs especially at the end of the game. If you watch, then you know why. Gryz did make some good outlet passes without shoving the puck over to McAvoy. I think the Gryz thingy is a bit of a mirage. Yet, if one repeats the same thing over and over again then it becomes true even if it is false. That can be taken both ways. Many things can be taken both ways - like the bold. I agree it's a fact. I see it as supporting the point that the coaching staff does not see Grz as a "top pairing" defenseman and put him with McAvoy because that's a way to maximize his value without hurting McAvoy's since they play off of each other well. I would also say Hmm. You mean the end of the game when the team routinely sucks at getting the puck out of the zone, making smart plays and holding leads? I agree that both sides of the Grz debate deserve heavy scrutiny. My point all along has been that the quantitative metrics and the eye test do not line up, and while it has become commonplace for people to dispute the value of certain metrics, they will hold to an eye test as an article of faith and treat a perception as a fact when questioning the validity of facts. That's my only stake in this whole Grz debate. Things like danny telling me to "watch the fucking game" as evidence of how bad Grz is and when I go back and review the play HE says is his evidence, I see a defenseman making a good read that he can trap the puck-carrier because he has numbers and position, and then because someone else doesn't read the play correctly, he looks like he's the one who made a mistake. But danny's mind was made up that this is evidence that Grz sucks because he's predisposed to think Grz sucks in all instances. I think it's a very interesting question both specifically and generally. Specifically, I think it would be good to know just exactly how valuable Grz is to the Bruins. Is he a $4M/yr D based on his value or is he a $1M/yr D or is he so unable to handle the physicality in the playoffs that he has 0 value? If I'm Sweeney, what I want my quant department to find is a way to measure is whether the plus/minus numbers are meaningful or not. As in, does Grz help McAvoy be at his best, and when his plus/minus crashes with other partners, is he also helping THEM be better than they'd be without him? Is he some sort of catalyst where he's inert on his own but you put him with the right partner and chemistry happens? Or is he what others have said - a passenger who is lucky not to be in the ECHL? Generally, I am also fascinated by him as a case study for the new hockey math. I find it hilarious that so much of the hockey world is obsessed with trying to establish metrics that show you a player's impact on the game beyond goals and assists and even secondary stats like hits or blocks. What is the underlying assumption behind the idea of counting shots/shot attempts/high-danger chances or any of the metrics that get gathered under "possession" and "underlying numbers"? I would say that the primary idea is that you can't score goals if you don't have possession, so if you have more possession than the opponent, you have a better chance of scoring more goals. Really, it's about supplementing counting goals with how often the player is in a situation where a goal might have been scored if not for the goalie or a shooting slump. These metrics don't count the player's individual shots or attempts and they don't account for the player's direct influence on the plays that produced shots - they assume that the conditions that generate "possession" are influenced by all players on the ice. You get more time in zone and likely more shot attempts if you can pressure as a 5 man unit, hold the puck in, retrieve rebounds, etc.. Is that a fair description of the new stats? If so, what a crock of crap to call plus/minus a garbage stat while the entire hockey world holds up "possession metrics". One uses a proxy metric for potential goals that can easily be skewed by just having a bunch of Craig Smiths on the ice who shoot from everywhere but without much malice. They'll take 5 or 6 gimme save shots from the perimeter, retrieve and reload without ever having a chance at a goal. The opponent may not be able to score much in that scenario, but the impact on "possession" suggests far more value than that. On the other hand, a player like Bossy would get killed in possession metrics because you give him one clean shot from anywhere and it's a goal. 1 shot v 5. Craig Smith is 5 times the player Bossy is! Why is it somehow legit to measure shots - with the same lack of direct correlation between the event and every player on the ice - but not the goals that are the actual thing "possession" is trying to establish the likelihood of? That is so bass ackwards logically that it can only have been an economist who thought it up. Or a goalie. Probably a goalie with a degree in economics. You are a firm believer in metrics or analytics. I am not. AI is just a retrieval process to most who are in the business of computing. So any attempt to find a nuance of statistics in a game played on ice with human beings albeit skilled, at a high speed no other sport can match accept formula one, then hitting a small object with a stick is beyond all current analysis. I think we can agree. Now, if you have read my crap over the years you know I don't believe in luck. There is probability always. Now that is contradictory to what I have said above. So I can agree the possession of the puck does not mean success. Shots on goal, ha, now Monty is correct on that stat. Oddly enough I don't look at quality of shots either, for the rebound shot is the key to success. My observation is chaos. Within a highly organize system of play either zone or individual, the chaos theory applies. The weird goal as a result of hitting an aluminum stanchion along the boards is not simply luck. It is where the players are located in that circumstance. If there is a thing called controlled chaos of play then it is simple geometry. A solid defensive structure with players who can recognize opportunity to create offense is catamount in my estimation. Now that is not a stat or metrics or analytics. I have defended Pasta because his role is to create offense, and his ability on offense is extraordinary. McAvoy is dominating like Hedman* when he is on his game controlling the neutral zone. Yes he is criticized for his offensive forays that end no where or end up with a two on one. What he does though is creates holes in the defensive structure of the opposition. The Bs goaltending has been excellent in every regard. Goaltending is a fickled position similar to a catcher in baseball. When a goal sees the play in front of him in a schematic fashion, wow. A human being beyond calculaitons. Chaos theory always applies, an outlier to stats. Total chaos is not what I am speaking of either. I read a lot Book generally non fiction historical analysis, I work 6 hour days of physical labor, and I maintain vigilance to the one sport I respect even as the game evolves. It is the best. You effing Canadians who can spin off reading subjects, music recollections, and spot a shit story afar; well, you got this ole faht NE yankee aghast. Your adherence to all things analytics is nothing but amusing though. Good luck with that. Science is only as good as it is presently perceived. Lastly, my brother's birthday with your recommended whiskey was excellent. We laughed a lot of Heinen. My stupid brother likes his play. Ha. * Way back in the early 2010s I was talking to a Tampa fan who was tooting his horn of what was Tampa, I think circa 2012. I said Hedman was a beast. McAvoy is of the same ilk and kind. Bruins fans don't know what they got.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 25, 2024 20:13:05 GMT
In looking through my Gryz-colored glasses, I would have to say upon further review that Gryz played well in all 3 zones v. every team in every game. I stand corrected, Gryz does not suck, he is Montyilliant! That's right. We'll call that "Twazzervision". No one is saying Grz is brilliant. What I'm saying is that people look like twazzers when they blame him for something when he made the right play and someone else effed up or when he was put in a difficult position by someone else's mistake just to support this narrative that everything he has ever done is wrong and he should be legally banned from wearing skates or holding a stick. I am for legally banning him from wearing skates. Consider the law to be called GryzScratch Bill #48
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 25, 2024 20:36:21 GMT
Careful what you wish for. Redden was clearly nothing without Chara to shield him. How many Senators games did you watch between Chara's departure and Redden's? Who did PC sign and who did Slats sign ? You can try to spin this anyway you want. The results are Redden fell apart. When you take Grzelcyk away from McAvoy he is not sheltered and facking awful. Grzelcyk does nor drive the play and crumbles during the playoffs, two-man aggressive for forchecking.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 25, 2024 20:37:59 GMT
Careful what you wish for. Redden was clearly nothing without Chara to shield him. Never mind that the Senators made the Eastern Final in their first post-Chara season with Redden as their #1 in terms of TOI, and third in D scoring behind two offensive specialists. Or that he was again neck and neck with Phillips for tops in TOI and second in points the second year. Sather's miscalculation was that Redden could continue to produce as the league got faster and adjusted to the post-lockout rules. That, and not Chara's absence, exposed the limits of Redden's game. Once he didn't have an advantage in terms of being a little more quick and nimble, he was done as an impact player. Nothing to do with the speed of the game or post-lockout NHL. Redden was never a top-pairing dman.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Mar 25, 2024 21:01:30 GMT
How many Senators games did you watch between Chara's departure and Redden's? Who did PC sign and who did Slats sign ? You can try to spin this anyway you want. The results are Redden fell apart. When you take Grzelcyk away from McAvoy he is not sheltered and facking awful. Grzelcyk does nor drive the play and crumbles during the playoffs, two-man aggressive for forchecking. The Islanders series...I keep bringing it up. He was horrific, so exposed..and really up to that point, I thought he was a decent d guy. I just figured the guy could skate and do outlets and make plays and even do a thing or two on offense. Then that series, that just turnover machine in the elimination game when if you go back you'd realize the B's were in that game, they could have extended the series, and then Gryz just handing over pucks and laying down. Ever since, I don't see much difference in his playoff performances. He gets manhandled. I see a guy who sort of just wants to play it safe. He doesn't want to make mistakes and maybe it's why he is a plus 9 this season. That and playing with McAvoy who has been offensive this season. But still, I just don't see what apparently the coaches do. I see a guy who will not perform when it counts. We already seem to have that in Lindholm, who is also afraid to make a mistake, who has turned into a defensive d man with no ability to do anything on offense...sandog, see Gryz never bothered me going back to 2019. I thought he was to that point pretty good at his job. You perform or you don't...and Lindholm arguably was a Norris Trophy candidate for 30 games to start the 22-23 season too. Where did that guy go?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Mar 25, 2024 21:11:01 GMT
I read a lot Book generally non fiction historical analysis, I work 6 hour days of physical labor, and I maintain vigilance to the one sport I respect even as the game evolves. It is the best. You effing Canadians who can spin off reading subjects, music recollections, and spot a shit story afar; well, you got this ole faht NE yankee aghast. Your adherence to all things analytics is nothing but amusing though. Good luck with that. Science is only as good as it is presently perceived. Lastly, my brother's birthday with your recommended whiskey was excellent. We laughed a lot of Heinen. My stupid brother likes his play. Ha. * Way back in the early 2010s I was talking to a Tampa fan who was tooting his horn of what was Tampa, I think circa 2012. I said Hedman was a beast. McAvoy is of the same ilk and kind. Bruins fans don't know what they got. Had to laugh at the bold. I feel like I am at constant war with the "scientism" of the quants in many spheres of life, and so often find myself in the position I am in the Grz debate. People advance a position and claim to support it with evidence. I look at the evidence and challenge it on its own terms. They then question the validity of "evidence" and re-assert their position as an absolute. I have developed a love-hate relationship with economics that amounts to the thrill spies must get from gathering intelligence on the way the enemy makes decisions. I love Goodheart's Law that says as soon as a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be effective as a measure (we used to measure how good a player was in goals; then we had a bunch of players who had to be introduced to their goaltender at the end of the year dinner and realized there's more to winning games, and maybe if guys were ONLY trying to score goals because that's what we told them mattered, they might not win many games). My favourite economist jokes: An economist, a physicist and a chemist are on a cruise when the ship goes down. They all end up on a desert island with several crates of canned food, but no way to open the cans. The physicist proposes that they start a fire and let the heat expand the cans until they pop open. They try it, but before they can get the can out, most of the food is lost to the flames. The chemist proposes that he can collect the necessary ingredients to make an acid that will eat through the metal, but when he does, the acid and melted metal both drop into the food making it too dangerous to eat. Both set about trying to refine their processes when they look over at the economist who is lounging around under a tree and watching them with an amused look. The physicist says "what are you smiling about? Do you have any better ideas?" To which the economist stands up and says with a flourish "gentlemen...we shall simply assume we have a can opener!" Two economists are out for a walk on a country road talking about behavioural economics. One of them says "to prove that people will change even deeply rooted behaviours if there is sufficient economic gain, I propose that I will give you $50K if you eat the next pile of horse shit we come across." His companion considers this and agrees, because...$50K. They come across a pile, and he eats it. As they continue down the road, the second economist says to the first that he can prove a parallel point by proposing to give the first economist back his $50K if he also eats the next pile of horseshit they find. Intrigued, the first economist agrees, and when they find a pile...down it goes. At which point the second economist says "Ok, so how is what we've just done rational? As far as I can see, as a result of this walk, neither of us is any richer and we are both just full of horseshit. To which the first economist says "Ah! But you see, my friend, you forget that the GDP just grew by $100K!"
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Mar 25, 2024 21:45:11 GMT
Who did PC sign and who did Slats sign ? You can try to spin this anyway you want. The results are Redden fell apart. When you take Grzelcyk away from McAvoy he is not sheltered and facking awful. Grzelcyk does nor drive the play and crumbles during the playoffs, two-man aggressive for forchecking. The Islanders series...I keep bringing it up. He was horrific, so exposed..and really up to that point, I thought he was a decent d guy. I just figured the guy could skate and do outlets and make plays and even do a thing or two on offense. Then that series, that just turnover machine in the elimination game when if you go back you'd realize the B's were in that game, they could have extended the series, and then Gryz just handing over pucks and laying down. Ever since, I don't see much difference in his playoff performances. He gets manhandled. I see a guy who sort of just wants to play it safe. He doesn't want to make mistakes and maybe it's why he is a plus 9 this season. That and playing with McAvoy who has been offensive this season. But still, I just don't see what apparently the coaches do. I see a guy who will not perform when it counts. We already seem to have that in Lindholm, who is also afraid to make a mistake, who has turned into a defensive d man with no ability to do anything on offense...sandog, see Gryz never bothered me going back to 2019. I thought he was to that point pretty good at his job. You perform or you don't...and Lindholm arguably was a Norris Trophy candidate for 30 games to start the 22-23 season too. Where did that guy go? 2018 against Tampa was the beginning. Grzelcyk was overwhelmed.
|
|