GDT: 2/23 tbl @ car

[NorthStar4Canes]

See now, this is where I differ from the "I rate a player's performance on the one moment that stood out during the game" crowd, as is clearly evident from this BS post. Yes, Chad LaRose scored one of only two goals in the game. And it does sound strange to say "yeah, but that's all that he did that was noticeable", mostly because it was *very* noticeable. But the kid has anywhere from 10:00-15:00 other invisible minutes of icetime...and this isn't the first game where that is true. When you come rushing to his defense with a snappy "I told you so!", it's just myopic. There are other words to describe it that I will steer clear of...

On to other things...


Eric Staal. I'm sick of this ****. If failing to secure the icing was the only thing he did wrong, I would merely be miffed at him for that moment of laziness. But he was a lazy floater all game...misreading plays, getting out of position, and generally not playing defense. Bag skate him. Have the entire team take their showers and sit up in the stands and watch. Make an example of him, that this amount of effort is not befitting the player deemed captain of *any* team. I'm sick of the lip service...some day that boy needs to wake up and take notice of the fact that people think he's ****ing lazy, and make it his life's goal to dispel that notion.

Ryan Murphy: See? Told ya so. (hypocrisy intended)

If I were defining "myopia", I'd use your trying to frame Chad's goal as the "one moment that stood out" when he garnered points in both goals and also wound up as +2 (the teams' only) in a 5-2 loss as a perfect example. To recap: he was a +2, with 2 pts (g and a) in a 5-2 loss. This team needed a lot more of that kind of "invisibility" from others tonight, including EStaal, the target of your other harangue.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

This is exactly what went through my head when he was called out as one of two good players in the game on the Aftermath show.

Cognitive dissonance is a *****, ain't it?

 

[My Special Purpose]

0-4-0

7 goals for, 18 goals against

Against what is clearly the worst division in the league, and the one we happen to inhabit.

I'm sick and freakin' tired of losing division games.

 

[caniac315]

I always watch the games to the end, even usually watch the post show, but last night I turned it at 9:00 to watch Dr Pol stick his hand up cow and horses *****

And the inpatient cheerleader commercial doesn't help any either.

 

[bleedgreen]

Hard to be upset. I think Tampa at this point is a flat out better team, even if we're healthy. I don't blame anyone really. Murphy's mistakes are the same ones Faulk made at 19. Ellis did the best he could, he's a back up goalie. Out defense is shot but I thought sangs actually played alright. Nash and welsh both looked solid, Nash enough to warrant a longer look there. If he can play well with bowman, maybe there's a third line.

I wouldn't over analyze this one.

 

[Sasha Cares]

Jstaal has looked brutal since Skinner went down.

 

[tarheelhockey]

If I were defining "myopia", I'd use your trying to frame Chad's goal as the "one moment that stood out" when he garnered points in both goals and also wound up as +2 (the teams' only) in a 5-2 loss as a perfect example. To recap: he was a +2, with 2 pts (g and a) in a 5-2 loss. This team needed a lot more of that kind of "invisibility" from others tonight, including EStaal, the target of your other harangue.

Did you see what he actually did to get that assist? Chad, absolutely wide open down the wing on an odd-man rush, violates one of the rules you learn in pee-wee: keep your stick on the ice. Instead he tries to receive the pass with his skate, and fumbles it into the corner, a completely unforced error that killed the rush. Lucky for him, Nash was providing puck support and salvaged a scoring chance for Bowman. LaRose got the point in spite of himself.

He scored a goal, but for goodness sake he put a rebound into an empty net with 3 minutes left in a blowout loss. Imagine how hard we would laugh at Tampa if they gave one of their guys a star of the game for that play.

He was the least-used player after Welsh and Westgarth (speaking of invisible, why was Westgarth even dressed?) and was a total non-factor except for one shift where he scored a meaningless, gimme goal. What else is there to say? He wasn't terrible, just invisible.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

Did you see what he actually did to get that assist? Chad, absolutely wide open down the wing on an odd-man rush, violates one of the rules you learn in pee-wee: keep your stick on the ice. Instead he tries to receive the pass with his skate, and fumbles it into the corner, a completely unforced error that killed the rush. Lucky for him, Nash was providing puck support and salvaged a scoring chance for Bowman. LaRose got the point in spite of himself.

He scored a goal, but for goodness sake he put a rebound into an empty net with 3 minutes left in a blowout loss. Imagine how hard we would laugh at Tampa if they gave one of their guys a star of the game for that play.

He was the least-used player after Welsh and Westgarth (speaking of invisible, why was Westgarth even dressed?) and was a total non-factor except for one shift where he scored a meaningless, gimme goal. What else is there to say? He wasn't terrible, just invisible.

Downplay it all you want, try to make it seem as illegitimate as you want, the fact is his goal brought the score within 2 with close to 4 minutes left. Are you trying to tell me a hockey game is all-but-decided by that point...4 minutes to go? That's just asinine. Just because you say it's meaningless for no other reason than who scored it doesn't make it so. The clincher was TB's subsequent goal at the end of Semin's late penalty that put them at 5.

You also fail to address why he was the only +2 player in a 5-2 loss. When you get spanked with 4 ES goals and still wind up a +2, this "invisibility" and "non-factorness" you speak of must be doing something right.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

I'd bet that 99.9% of hockey games in which a team is leading by two goals with four minutes remaining result in that hockey team winning said hockey game. So yes, LaRose's goal was as meaningless as just about every Tuomo Ruutu goal.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

I'd bet that 99.9% of hockey games in which a team is leading by two goals with four minutes remaining result in that hockey team winning said hockey game. So yes, LaRose's goal was as meaningless as just about every Tuomo Ruutu goal.

Exactly the kind of loser thought process and statistics that must have been going through most of the Canes players' heads during the game, and it showed.

Of course, TB scored 2 ES goals within 18 seconds of one another just prior to that during the very same period of the same game. Apparently, TB didn't posess the same loser-mentality.

Could provide plenty of examples..even in Canes' playoff history or this season from around the League..where that guess of yours is worthless as a predictor, as is your use of it to define what a "meaningless" goal is.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

So what is a meaningless goal, then? Down by seven with less than a minute to play?

Just face it, LaRose's goal was meaningless and therefore illegitimate. It does not count. His assist was secondary and thus also illegitimate. LaRose did not score a point last night, regardless of what the official NHL "statistics" claim.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Find it funny that even in a game where LaRose was the main offensive force (as sad as that statement is), he's still getting crapped on.

If Skinner, Semin or either Staals put up those numbers last night, they'd be getting credit for "showing up" when the rest of the team didn't.

Goals are goals, points are points, regardless of who scored them. Is it that hard to give credit where credit is due? Singling out LaRose for being "invisible" when the rest of the offense wasn't exactly shining too brightly out there is just stupid.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

So what is a meaningless goal, then? Down by seven with less than a minute to play?

Just face it, LaRose's goal was meaningless and therefore illegitimate. It does not count. His assist was secondary and thus also illegitimate. LaRose did not score a point last night, regardless of what the official NHL "statistics" claim.

Quit making **** up. There has never, ever in the history of these threads been a link between Meaninglessness and Illegitimacy. They are two seperate and apart things, so all the stuff you wrote that came after that is wrong, I'm right, and the light of Chad's smile chases away your gloom.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

So what is a meaningless goal, then? Down by seven with less than a minute to play?

Just face it, LaRose's goal was meaningless and therefore illegitimate. It does not count. His assist was secondary and thus also illegitimate. LaRose did not score a point last night, regardless of what the official NHL "statistics" claim.

So just out of curiosity, does that make Stamkos' goal illegitimate as well? If, by your logic, LaRose's goal was meaningless and illegitimate, doesn't that hold true for Stamkos as well? At what point is it legitimate once again? Had the Canes gone on a tear after LaRose's goal to tie or take the lead would LaRose's goal still be illegitimate?

Or does the legitimacy of a goal have more to do with what player scored it? Whose goals are legitimate and whose are illegitimate? I don't like Ovechkin about as much as you dislike LaRose and Ruutu - can I just pretend all of his goals are illegitimate and that he'd been a plug his entire career and hand over his illegitimate Calder over to a legitimate player like Crosby?

Can somebody sit down and do legitimacy-adjusted goals against on our team? Because I have a feeling the Canes would be undefeated! Or maybe all of our games would end in scoreless ties or something.

Sorry, I just find calling goals meaningless and illegitimate meaningless and illegitimate.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Downplay it all you want, try to make it seem as illegitimate as you want,

It's more a matter of the Canes production staff up-playing it than me downplaying it.

LaRose fumbles the puck on an odd-man break, and puts a rebound into an open net, and now he's a star of the game. Are you kidding me?

the fact is his goal brought the score within 2 with close to 4 minutes left. Are you trying to tell me a hockey game is all-but-decided by that point...4 minutes to go?

There's an easy way to settle this one. Cite every NHL game that you know where a team rallied from 3 down with 4 minutes left.

That's just asinine. Just because you say it's meaningless for no other reason than who scored it doesn't make it so.

It could have been Eric Staal, Jeff Skinner, Cam Ward or Paul Maurice scoring those points. Who it was doesn't matter. The silliness of praising one quality shift in a 60-minute blowout loss is what caused me to comment.

You also fail to address why he was the only +2 player in a 5-2 loss. When you get spanked with 4 ES goals and still wind up a +2, this "invisibility" and "non-factorness" you speak of must be doing something right.

How about the fact that he only played 12 total minutes in a game that was still 1-0 after the second intermission? And that once we fell behind, E. Staal's line hardly left the ice? LaRose was on the ice for what, maybe 4-5 shifts in the third period. One of those was a goal by a linemate and the other was the one where he scored. Boom, +2. That's how the stat works, rewarding players for sitting on the bench while their team struggles.

I'm not even saying LaRose played badly or that he didn't deserve to at least be +1. But the high praise for one good shift is kind of funny to see.

 

[NorthStar4Canes]

It's more a matter of the Canes production staff up-playing it than me downplaying it.

LaRose fumbles the puck on an odd-man break, and puts a rebound into an open net, and now he's a star of the game. Are you kidding me?

There's an easy way to settle this one. Cite every NHL game that you know where a team rallied from 3 down with 4 minutes left.

It could have been Eric Staal, Jeff Skinner, Cam Ward or Paul Maurice scoring those points. Who it was doesn't matter. The silliness of praising one quality shift in a 60-minute blowout loss is what caused me to comment.

How about the fact that he only played 12 total minutes in a game that was still 1-0 after the second intermission? And that once we fell behind, E. Staal's line hardly left the ice? LaRose was on the ice for what, maybe 4-5 shifts in the third period. One of those was a goal by a linemate and the other was the one where he scored. Boom, +2. That's how the stat works, rewarding players for sitting on the bench while their team struggles.

I'm not even saying LaRose played badly or that he didn't deserve to at least be +1. But the high praise for one good shift is kind of funny to see.

Wow, so much effort put forth trying to decontruct praise for someone who actually produced (while not being a detriment) for the team in a loss just to try and make your "invisible" and "non-factor" label stick. Imagine if you critiqued all the actual poor-performances of this same game with that same effort? You know, the non-producing and horrible D performances that caused the team to lose instead of win?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Wow, so much effort put forth trying to decontruct praise for someone who actually produced (while not being a detriment) for the team in a loss just to try and make your "invisible" and "non-factor" label stick. Imagine if you critiqued all the actual poor-performances of this same game with that same effort? You know, the non-producing and horrible D performances that caused the team to lose instead of win?

Yeah, but those are actually being called out for what they are. There's not a debate over those things. The debate rests on the idea that LaRose had more than one noteworthy play in that entire game, which is what one assumes would go into a "good game" and a star performance.

To illustrate: is there any good reason to say Chad played a better game than Bowman?

 

[bleedgreen]

The human head weighs 8lbs.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

Anybody else have any solid SAT vocab words they can use to sound condescending to one another?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

So what is a meaningless goal, then? Down by seven with less than a minute to play?

Just face it, LaRose's goal was meaningless and therefore illegitimate. It does not count. His assist was secondary and thus also illegitimate. LaRose did not score a point last night, regardless of what the official NHL "statistics" claim.

I lol'ed.

 

[DaveG]

yikes, I think this one has run its course, Isles game to focus on now anyway.