Baertschi now out

[krutovsdonut]

Nobody is arguing that this won't hurt them going forward.

People are just taking note of the fact that this team is was 11th in the conference when injuries hit, in preparation for the WOE IS US WE WERE SO COMPETITIVE! PLAYOFFS! narrative that will get spun by Benning/Linden and the IMac-types in the media here.

if these details are important to you, you should get them right.

we were 8th when horvat went down and 9th when baertschi went down.

 

[MS]

if these details are important to you, you should get them right.

we were 8th when horvat went down and 9th when baertschi went down.

If you use points and not points percentage. We've played amongst the most games of any team in the league so were 'ahead' of teams that actually had better records than us.

Bartschi has currently missed 0 games and we're in 11th.

 

[krutovsdonut]

If you use points and not points percentage. We've played amongst the most games of any team in the league so were 'ahead' of teams that actually had better records than us.

on december 5th when horvat got hurt we were in 8th position on points and had a .500 record (14-14). the only team with a record over .500 behind us was calgary, and they were 3 points behind with only one game in hand.

 

[vancityluongo]

Oh yeah. Forgot about that. Double d'oh.

Oh, we have a choice. Literally anything other than that.

Actually maybe it's not a d'oh since Rodin would just be on the bench in favour of a grinder anyways.

The team is not going to fare well over this stretch. I'd take Iginla over no-name, unmemorable grinders like Dowd or Chaput.

 

[Bleach Clean]

on december 5th when horvat got hurt we were in 8th position on points

It seems you are set on absolute points and are not evaluating teams on games played. That's a mistake. The fact that other teams had not played as many games should in no way be held against them. It's not the logical way to assess the team's true ranking per their points rate. All teams play 82 games in the end.

It's likely saying Gagner is scoring as much as Eriksson, even though Eriksson has played 12 less games. While the initial statement is accurate on the face of things, it doesn't accurately represent each player's pace.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It seems you are set on absolute points and are not evaluating teams on games played. That's a mistake. The fact that other teams had not played as many games should in no way be held against them. It's not the logical way to assess the team's true ranking per their points rate. All teams play 82 games in the end.

It's likely saying Gagner is scoring as much as Eriksson, even though Eriksson has played 12 less games. While the initial statement is accurate on the face of things, it doesn't accurately represent each player's pace.

your beef is with ms. he is the one who chose to measure the team's progress that way. i was simply correcting him according to his own metric.