Lightning Rod Hyman: the pyrrhic battle continues

[Nithoniniel]

A poster just said if I disagree with Babcock I should try to be an NHL coach.

I saw that quote, and that's not at all what he said. He said that if you think you can make better decisions than Babcock with less to work with, then you should probably be an NHL coach. It's again the difference between disagreeing with someone, and actually believing you know and understand hockey better than him.

I don't know the context of that quote though, so I can't speak to what it alluded to, but the quote itself was about just what I've said.

Give me the reason why Babcock doesn't start Kadri and Komarov 3 on 3 anymore if it's not because we want a better offensive unit to start?

Komarov isn't quite as good as he was last season. Matthews and Nylander are better and more consistent. Perhaps he trusts that his unit has shed some exuberance of youth and evaluate situations better?

There are plenty of possible explanations, and a few times that he does things different isn't proof that he did it for the reason you think. You might find that pedantic, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people take indications as proof, state opinions and believe they are facts etc.

And while you're at it why don't you prove your statement that The Matthew's line is "the best line in hockey" as I can guarantee you I can find other metrics that would disagree with the absolute statement you just made.

Difference there is that I state an opinion, I didn't claim it was a proven fact. If you want, I can provide a case for that line as the best in the league, but I would still not say that I provide proof. Evidence to that fact, yes. Not proof.

 

[IBeL34f]

Hyman's been awesome this year.

I know this isn't a fair thing to say, but I kinda feel like anyone still clamoring for him to be removed from the line is simply carrying over a bias they built up last year - Those people can't be watching the same player I've been seeing this season.

I fully expect him to pick up his offensive game over the course of the next couple years if this line stays together, and he gets fully acclimatized to the NHL and playing with the insane talent of Matthews and Nylander. He's already tied for 2nd on the team in Even Strength Points (with Nylander, Kadri and Zaitsev), even if it's only through 7 games.

 

[hotpaws]

Nope, didn't imply that all. You seem angry, I suggest you try to get over it as anger it not a good way to spend your energy. Cheers.

Sad you can't stand by what you said and have to endlesslly spin/deflect to try to shift the discussion away from the crap you constantly post .

 

[saltming]

Nope, didn't imply that all. You seem angry, I suggest you try to get over it as anger it not a good way to spend your energy. Cheers.

I've already offered him a Snickers but I don't think he ate it

 

[Nithoniniel]

Sad you can't stand by what you said and have to endlesslly spin/deflect to try to shift the discussion away from the crap you constantly post .

Or perhaps you misunderstood him? That should enter the realm of possibility here, you'd think.

 

[White Shadow]

Sad you can't stand by what you said and have to endlesslly spin/deflect to try to shift the discussion away from the crap you constantly post .

The main reason you fail to grasp the logic of Hyman on that line is your inability to understand line balancing. The posting you completely whiffed on was not only talking about spreading around the offensive weapons, but also adding a different element to the Nylander/Matthews line to make it multidimensional.

 

[White Shadow]

One Cup man, in a league where the toughest competition exists he has one Cup. Let’s relax, here there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with what the coach does. Even redwings fans hated some of his decisions. Nobody is saying they’re a better coach than Babcock, some people didn’t like one decision no need to blow so much smoke.

Was it crazy for the “arm chair” GM’s like myself to believe that a rebuild was necessary? Surely I’m an idiot compared to Burke and Nonis right seeing as they have a mountain full of information I could only dream of....

I said it was going to rain today and it did. I should be a meteorologist.

 

[hotpaws]

The main reason you fail to grasp the logic of Hyman on that line is your inability to understand line balancing. The posting you completely whiffed on was not only talking about spreading around the offensive weapons, but also adding a different element to the Nylander/Matthews line to make it multidimensional.

Another poster trying to suck and blow .

 

[Nithoniniel]

Another poster trying to suck and blow .

You do realize that you are coming across as a 10-year old now, right?

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

I saw that quote, and that's not at all what he said. He said that if you think you can make better decisions than Babcock with less to work with, then you should probably be an NHL coach. It's again the difference between disagreeing with someone, and actually believing you know and understand hockey better than him.

I don't know the context of that quote though, so I can't speak to what it alluded to, but the quote itself was about just what I've said.


Komarov isn't quite as good as he was last season. Matthews and Nylander are better and more consistent. Perhaps he trusts that his unit has shed some exuberance of youth and evaluate situations better?

There are plenty of possible explanations, and a few times that he does things different isn't proof that he did it for the reason you think. You might find that pedantic, but it's a pet peeve of mine that people take indications as proof, state opinions and believe they are facts etc.


Difference there is that I state an opinion, I didn't claim it was a proven fact. If you want, I can provide a case for that line as the best in the league, but I would still not say that I provide proof. Evidence to that fact, yes. Not proof.

1. Nope that's wrong. He said and I qoute. "If you really feel you can make a better decision than Babcock with a fraction of the information he has all I can tell you is you should get job in the NHL"

First off he didn't use the plural form of decision. He said "decision" as in one decision. Which means that if there is one thing that I can disagree on with Babcock that I may be right about and he may be wrong about I should be coaching in the NHL because I only have the fraction of information he does. Since I am not an NHL Coach clearly I will always be wrong and Babcock will always be right. Come on, I shouldn't have to explain it like this.

The Switch to Matthews and Nylander didn't just happen this year. It started last year. Kadri and Komarov were torched by Ovechkin and Tarasenko both in under 30 seconds a little more than a month apart. Don't remember seeing them out there to start overtime that much after that. Nothing has been "proven" but the examples given for other options haven't been good. Just saying there are plenty of explanations somewhere in the either doesn't really support your argument.

You're contradicting yourself here. Evidence to what fact? The fact that the Matthews line is the best line in hockey? Evidence to that fact that you think they're the best line in hockey (something we couldn't prove )? It seems you also don't know the meaning of a fact as a fact is a thing that is indisputably the case. To say the Matthews line is indisputably the best line in hockey is wrong. Maybe you can provide evidence to your claim, but evidence for that fact? Better break out that dictionary Nith.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

I said it was going to rain today and it did. I should be a meteorologist.

Well, you totally missed the point but..... funny I guess?

 

[Nithoniniel]

First off he didn't use the plural form of decision. He said "decision" as in one decision.

And you called me pedantic.

Yes, that's how you can view it. Doesn't seem to be in line with the rest of his reasoning though, does it?

Just saying there are plenty of explanations somewhere in the either doesn't really support your argument.

My argument is that a few OT's started by Matthews and Nylander isn't proof of the coaches motivations. That's all I say. It's not proof, and it shouldn't be portrayed as such. I'm not saying you are wrong, so there's no need to try to argue that you have the right conclusion. I'm sure you are. It's just not proof.

You're contradicting yourself here. Evidence to what fact? The fact that the Matthews line is the best line in hockey? Evidence to that fact that you think they're the best line in hockey (something we couldn't prove )? It seems you also don't know the meaning of a fact as a fact is a thing that is indisputably the case. To say the Matthews line is indisputably the best line in hockey is wrong. Maybe you can provide evidence to your claim, but evidence for that fact? Better break out that dictionary Nith.

Jeez. I obviously meant "Evidence to that claim."

It should be rather obvious by now I was just stating an opinion. You're arguing just to argue now, and I'm done with it.

 

[Willchel Marlynder]

And you called me pedantic.

Yes, that's how you can view it. Doesn't seem to be in line with the rest of his reasoning though, does it?


My argument is that a few OT's started by Matthews and Nylander isn't proof of the coaches motivations. That's all I say. It's not proof, and it shouldn't be portrayed as such. I'm not saying you are wrong, so there's no need to try to argue that you have the right conclusion. I'm sure you are. It's just not proof.


Jeez. I obviously meant "Evidence to that claim."

It should be rather obvious by now I was just stating an opinion. You're arguing just to argue now, and I'm done with it.

Just going off by what the man/lady said nothing more nothing less. That last part was more of a joke lighten up, we're all Leaf fans at the end of the day. Anyway, this argument seems more to do with proofs than hockey related. We'll just have to agree to disagree on certain issues.

 

[IPS]

Babcock could throw Matthews out there with Ben Smith and Matt Martin and people would still bend over backwards to defend him and say he made the correct lineup decision.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Just going off by what the man/lady said nothing more nothing less. That last part was more of a joke lighten up, we're all Leaf fans at the end of the day. Anyway, this argument seems more to do with proofs than hockey related. We'll just have to agree to disagree on certain issues.

Yeah, I just realized the bolded part. Sorry about that.

Babcock could throw Matthews out there with Ben Smith and Matt Martin and people would still bend over backwards to defend him and say he made the correct lineup decision.

Yes, thinking that the arguably best line in hockey should stick together, and we shouldn't move a guy who is pacing to be top 10 in non-PP scoring is almost the same as thinking it would be OK to put one of the best players in the world on the fourth line.

This is the argument when there are no more arguments.

 

[hotpaws]

You do realize that you are coming across as a 10-year old now, right?

so i'm a 10 year old child due the fact i believe Mathews and Nylander don't need Hyman to form a dominant line ?

the funny thing as i said before is people actually think Babs believes Hyman is a unique talent and that's why he's he plays on the line he does and the minutes he does , when the fact is Babs would have latched on to any unskilled energy player just like he did in Detroit if Hyman wasn't on the team

 

[Nithoniniel]

so i'm a 10 year old child due the fact i believe Mathews and Nylander don't need Hyman to form a dominant line ?

Nope, it was not based on your arguments because you provided none, just a childish outburst. All I'm saying, you're not exactly strengthening your case if that's what you show people.

 

[RLF]

Nope, it was not based on your arguments because you provided none, just a childish outburst. All I'm saying, you're not exactly strengthening your case if that's what you show people.

Some need to be right no matter what.

 

[hotpaws]

Nope, it was not based on your arguments because you provided none, just a childish outburst. All I'm saying, you're not exactly strengthening your case if that's what you show people.

What childish outburst ?

my argument ,which i'll repeat again, is Mathews/Nylander don't need Hyman to form a dominant line

you either agree or disagree

 

[Thread The Needle]

Babcock could throw Matthews out there with Ben Smith and Matt Martin and people would still bend over backwards to defend him and say he made the correct lineup decision.

Maybe some people will. But, he hasn't, so they can't defend him. So you can take that hypothetical and...you know.

 

[RLF]

What childish outburst ?

my argument ,which i'll repeat again, is Mathews/Nylander don't need Hyman to form a dominant line

you either agree or disagree

Your quote

"The line works because Mathews and Nylander are elite level talents who have kicked it up another level and would produce with anyone , Hyman's simply a hard working passenger. (so basically you are saying all Hyman's points this year are because Matthews and Nylander are playing even better than last year...has nothing to do with Hyman)

Brown has already shown he can do what Hyman does but with a much higher skill level and iq . It's not easy to make the Bozak/JVR combo look somewhat competent defensively but he has , albeit in a small sample size ." (And Brown is way better...nothing has changed, we get it)

So, what you keep arguing is that the line would be better without Hyman and he is "simply a hard working passenger", not that they don't need him to be dominant. Hyman could put up 60 pts this year while being defensively responsible and you will still say Brown would have done the same or better. If someone says it's about balancing lines and moving Hyman down doesn't create that...you come back with, so you're saying Hyman doesn't belong, so let's move him out and bring in Leivo or Kapenan etc. If they don't want to argue because they know it is useless...you attack them. So yes, childish outbursts. You seem obsessed with convincing everyone Hyman doesn't belong on the top line, and if they don't agree, you attack them. If no one can convince you that he is contributing to the line, kind of make sense that you won't convince them he doesn't belong...especially when he is currently producing points on top of his hard work.​

 

[hotpaws]

Your quote

"The line works because Mathews and Nylander are elite level talents who have kicked it up another level and would produce with anyone , Hyman's simply a hard working passenger. (so basically you are saying all Hyman's points this year are because Matthews and Nylander are playing even better than last year...has nothing to do with Hyman)

Brown has already shown he can do what Hyman does but with a much higher skill level and iq . It's not easy to make the Bozak/JVR combo look somewhat competent defensively but he has , albeit in a small sample size ." (And Brown is way better...nothing has changed, we get it)

So, what you keep arguing is that the line would be better without Hyman and he is "simply a hard working passenger", not that they don't need him to be dominant. Hyman could put up 60 pts this year while being defensively responsible and you will still say Brown would have done the same or better. If someone says it's about balancing lines and moving Hyman down doesn't create that...you come back with, so you're saying Hyman doesn't belong, so let's move him out and bring in Leivo or Kapenan etc. If they don't want to argue because they know it is useless...you attack them. So yes, childish outbursts. You seem obsessed with convincing everyone Hyman doesn't belong on the top line, and if they don't agree, you attack them. If no one can convince you that he is contributing to the line, kind of make sense that you won't convince them he doesn't belong...especially when he is currently producing points on top of his hard work.​

yet another poster who refuses to answer a simple yes or no question and instead writes a novel to shift the discussion

 

[Mess]

What childish outburst ?

my argument ,which i'll repeat again, is Mathews/Nylander don't need Hyman to form a dominant line

you either agree or disagree

Its hard to prove a negative and easy to prove a positive via the evidence.

The Hyman -- Matthews -- Nylander is a dominant line "AS IS" right now offensively and defensively.

The trio has combined for 11 goals 11 assists for 21 points in 6 games and are a +26 +/- combined. Both offensively and defensive among the best in the NHL.

Do you even have a single game evidence since Matthews entered the NHL where Hyman hasn't been on his line to prove your theory?

So you're debating theoretical results vs. disputing actual positive results.

I guess the real question is why do fans like yourself feel the need to prove that theory when both team and line are sailing along just fine?

 

[CanadasTeam]

Its hard to prove a negative and easy to prove a positive via the evidence.

The Hyman -- Matthews -- Nylander is a dominant line "AS IS" right now offensively and defensively.

The trio has combined for 11 goals 11 assists for 21 points in 6 games and are a +26 +/- combined. Both offensively and defensive among the best in the NHL.

Do you even have a single game evidence since Matthews entered the NHL where Hyman hasn't been on his line to prove your theory?

So you're debating theoretical results vs. disputing actual positive results.

I guess the real question is why do fans like yourself feel the need to prove that theory when both team and line are sailing along just fine?

Now, by the powers vested in you... please lock up this f***ing thread.

 

[hotpaws]

Its hard to prove a negative and easy to prove a positive via the evidence.

The Hyman -- Matthews -- Nylander is a dominant line "AS IS" right now offensively and defensively.

The trio has combined for 11 goals 11 assists for 21 points in 6 games and are a +26 +/- combined. Both offensively and defensive among the best in the NHL.

Do you even have a single game evidence since Matthews entered the NHL where Hyman hasn't been on his line to prove your theory?

So you're debating theoretical results vs. disputing actual positive results.

I guess the real question is why do fans like yourself feel the need to prove that theory when both team and line are sailing along just fine?

the team was sailing along just fine yet Babs still flipped Marner and Brown even though he didn't have one single game to prove that his theory of flipping them would work instead of destroying 2 lines by trying to improve 1

also why another long winded reply when a simple yes or no will suffice?