ffh
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2016
- 8,393
- 5,127
You know who else was an eye test guy. James tiberius Kirk. That's why you guys worked so well together. Just remember who the captain was .That is very human of you to say such a thing.
You know who else was an eye test guy. James tiberius Kirk. That's why you guys worked so well together. Just remember who the captain was .That is very human of you to say such a thing.
A higher rank does not make that person's opinions any greater than their inferiors. Ask American humans to elaborate if needed.You know who else was an eye test guy. James tiberius Kirk. That's why you guys worked so well together. Just remember who the captain was .
Michael Jordan was the GOAT , do you think a team of Michael Jordan's could win one game?We don’t need Tanev to produce offence, we want him to play his role EXACTLY how he IS playing it..... diversity is the key.
TOm Brady is GOAT but do you think a team of Tom Brady’s could win one game? Nope.
We don’t need Tanev to produce offence, we want him to play his role EXACTLY how he IS playing it..... diversity is the key.
TOm Brady is GOAT but do you think a team of Tom Brady’s could win one game? Nope.
we do need his offence and he isn't hurting his linemates offence. so therefore there is no trade off.We don't need Tanev to produce offense... but *if* he hurts his linemates' offense more than he hurts his opponents' offense, is that a good trade off?
Also, hockey roles is not at all comparable to football, except maybe during PP.
we do need his offence and he isn't hurting his linemates offence. so therefore there is no trade off.
so the guy with the most goals on the bottom 6 and part time 2nd liner is holding them all back.Uh... Okay...
Let's use just straight up goals since you are averse to what has been proven to be more effective in predicting future success...
And let's just simply look at how Tanev's linemates do with and without him, as opposed to what has been proven to be a superior method with regression methods such as RAPM which would also account for opponents, schedule, zone starts, etc.
TL;DR: let's just look at it simply...
For Tanev's linemates, the Jets score about half a goal (0.59) per hour less when they are skating with Tanev than they do without him.
the undrafted player is being asked to play against some of the best wingers in hockey on most nights and still is on pace to score between 15-20 goals. a 3rd 4th liner playing against some of the most offensively gifted players in the world on most nights and the difference according to you is .01 worse defensively. I see why Maurice likes him.^ Now for those that want more refined measures than that...
Over his career, Tanev hurts the Jets offense by about 0.12 xGoals per hour, but helps the Jets defense by about 0.11 xGoals per hour.
So over his career, the trade off has been against the Jets' favour... although not by much.
Just looking at this year, Tanev hurts the Jets offense by about 0.01 xGoals per hour, but helps the Jets defense by about 0.08 xGoals per hour.
So this season, Tanev has been far better offensively but weaker defensively. The trade off this season has been in the Jets' favour... although, again, not by much.
Thorburn was a part time second liner. Would you like him back? Where a coach chooses a play a player is irrelevant. Especially one like Maurice who has historically shown he prefers a certain type of player moving up in the lineup.so the guy with the most goals on the bottom 6 and part time 2nd liner is holding them all back.
Not sure why? Not counting ELC's, he represents pretty close to the best $1.15 M spent on any player in the NHL. He is easily worth double that and has worked his way well past 4th line usage.It’s sad when someone realistically points out the strengths and shortcomings as a player, how many people rush in to say that they are “bashing” that player. And lord help you if you try to bring in a graph or chart to illustrate your point.
I admit that I have never been and never will be a fan of Tanev’s. There is a place for him in the NHL but any minutes beyond fourth line checking minutes are beyond his capabilities. And there really isn’t anything wrong with that. It isn’t a slight. When he was signed out of college, there was a minuscule chance he’d even be a capable NHLer in any capacity but just because reasonable people don’t believe he is anything beyond a replacement level fourth liner, doesn’t mean the pitchforks need to come out.
And yes, he’s on pace for 20 goals. He’s undeniably had an extremely lucky shooting season and whoever pays for that 20 goal season expecting it again will deeply regret it from essentially moment one. A guy like Tanev has value for exactly one reason: he’s cheap. Sure, I like his hustle and energy but that’s a lot less attractive after a raise.
That’s really not the thing to take away from the post. I just feel like it’s important to state my opinion on the player when providing the reasons why.Not sure why? Not counting ELC's, he represents pretty close to the best $1.15 M spent on any player in the NHL. He is easily worth double that and has worked his way well past 4th line usage.
I'd give the Tanev detractors more credit if they weren't also the ones raving about how good Dano and Petan are. Tanev has accomplished more tangible results than either of those guys.That’s really not the thing to take away from the post. I just feel like it’s important to state my opinion on the player when providing the reasons why.
And while he has worked past fourth line usage, the argument that his destructors, such as myself, would use is that he should have remained on fourth line usage. Though no fault of his own, that would be part of the reason I would say I’m not a fan of his.
You would need to be one hell of a deep team for Tanev to be pushed back to your 4th line. I'd love for it to be the case because we would then be primed for a big time cup run.That’s really not the thing to take away from the post. I just feel like it’s important to state my opinion on the player when providing the reasons why.
And while he has worked past fourth line usage, the argument that his destructors, such as myself, would use is that he should have remained on fourth line usage. Though no fault of his own, that would be part of the reason I would say I’m not a fan of his.
It’s sad when someone realistically points out the strengths and shortcomings as a player, how many people rush in to say that they are “bashing” that player. And lord help you if you try to bring in a graph or chart to illustrate your point.
I admit that I have never been and never will be a fan of Tanev’s. There is a place for him in the NHL but any minutes beyond fourth line checking minutes are beyond his capabilities. And there really isn’t anything wrong with that. It isn’t a slight. When he was signed out of college, there was a minuscule chance he’d even be a capable NHLer in any capacity but just because reasonable people don’t believe he is anything beyond a replacement level fourth liner, doesn’t mean the pitchforks need to come out.
And yes, he’s on pace for 20 goals. He’s undeniably had an extremely lucky shooting season and whoever pays for that 20 goal season expecting it again will deeply regret it from essentially moment one. A guy like Tanev has value for exactly one reason: he’s cheap. Sure, I like his hustle and energy but that’s a lot less attractive after a raise.
So, you are of the mind set that Tanev isn’t performing well on the Jets, and we would be better off without him?We don't need Tanev to produce offense... but *if* he hurts his linemates' offense more than he hurts his opponents' offense, is that a good trade off?
Also, hockey roles is not at all comparable to football, except maybe during PP.
I think proof will be next year when other teams will pony up $ for Tanev.. The same teams that all passed on Dano for WW and the same teams that won’t offer anything more than a 7th overall pick for Petan (glad he is in the PB, I see nothing in his game I really like)I'd give the Tanev detractors more credit if they weren't also the ones raving about how good Dano and Petan are. Tanev has accomplished more tangible results than either of those guys.
The failures of Dano and/or Petan have absolutely no bearing on this issue. Despite the fact that Dano and Petan both play an entirely different game to Tanev, a reasonable argument could still be made that Tanev was afforded greater opportunity than both of them. Even if you say that Tanev is having a good year, which is fair, most people would agree that he struggled through his first couple seasons. Dano and Petan have been given opportunity, but not to the extent that even a less effective version of Tanev did.I'd give the Tanev detractors more credit if they weren't also the ones raving about how good Dano and Petan are. Tanev has accomplished more tangible results than either of those guys.
It has to do with how serious someone should take your predictions.The failures of Dano and/or Petan have absolutely no bearing on this issue. Despite the fact that Dano and Petan both play an entirely different game to Tanev, a reasonable argument could still be made that Tanev was afforded greater opportunity than both of them. Even if you say that Tanev is having a good year, which is fair, most people would agree that he struggled through his first couple seasons. Dano and Petan have been given opportunity, but not to the extent that even a less effective version of Tanev did.
Regardless, being wrong about the future success of a player does not preclude you from having an opinion on another.
I'm not sure saying that whoever pays Tanev is going to regret it is some grand and ridiculous prediction. Look, there are predictions that are ultimately wrong and there are predictions that are wrong and also ridiculous. Saying Tanev is playing in a role above his head you may disagree with but whether it's true or not, it's a reasonable argument that can at the very least be backed up with certain statistics. Using a person's previous opinions as an excuse to ignore their future ones is insane.It has to do with how serious someone should take your predictions.
If I said Laine was a bad player it doesn't matter what I have to say about any other player because then I'd just be wrong at least as far as anyone paying attention to my opinions would be. Who cares what I think bout Chariot if my starting position is Laine is bad.
I wouldn't say ignore. I'd say measure with a grain of salt. I'll still listen to their opinions but with a degree of skepticism.I'm not sure saying that whoever pays Tanev is going to regret it is some grand and ridiculous prediction. Look, there are predictions that are ultimately wrong and there are predictions that are wrong and also ridiculous. Saying Tanev is playing in a role above his head you may disagree with but whether it's true or not, it's a reasonable argument that can at the very least be backed up with certain statistics. Using a person's previous opinions as an excuse to ignore their future ones is insane.