Gonna try the fancy formatting, my first time though so hopefully it works or this is gonna be a mess.
So it's irrelevant that he is the lowest in the league in ES scoring when he gets some of the lowest opportunities in the league to be put in scoring positions? You don't think there's any correlation between those two stats? To quote a poster earlier in this thread: "do you even math"?
I would never deny that there's a correlation because there definitely is, however there's no excuse for production that low no matter what. MacArthur gets 48.5% offensive zone starts. He scores goals at a 700% better rate at EV than Milo. Is 10% zone starts really the difference between them? You're clearly forgetting Michalek had many chances in the top 6 early in the season and couldn't get anything going. He was on the second line for a while at the start and got demoted, there's no other way around it... He sealed his own fate. So yeah, I'll ask again... Do you even math?
Eh, it's not like I never said Michalek wasn't slumping, or that I somehow disagreed with this statement in earlier posts when it was brought up. Now who is putting words into other posters mouths? Eh? Yes?
"
So wait... you're saying you want to replace the guy who is being exclusively used defensivelybecause he's good at it with a guy who is now so slow that he is a defensive liability every time he takes a shift, because the bad defensive guy might score the same number of goals as the good defensive guy, while being a tenth as good defensively?"
This is the post I was referring to. After the bolded literally none of that is my opinion... all that tenth as good crap is just more of your hyperbole. What I actually said in my original post was that Bertuzzi could replace the offensive production and someone like Condra could play the defensive role. We need guys that can pot goals, defensive guys are dime a dozen. If you can't see that I don't know what to say.
This board has existed for a long time before you got here, How is it weird that I point out an irony? Just because you're too new to "get it", it means it's weird?
Also, if you're going to be that way, then I guess I do not give a rat's arse who you are either. I'm glad this friendship is getting off on the right foot.
Yeah, it was really cringey that you tried to pull rank on an internet message board. Maybe I can carry your equipment to the rink? You know, some rookie hazing or something since you're one of the grizzled vets of the message board? I only addressed it cause you were the first person to bring it up. Don't get upset when I call you out on being weird.
It was a comparison, chief. You said that a player who is among the leaders in neutral & defensive zone starts "wasn't being used defensively". I countered that it was like saying that a guy with a bunch of goals "wasn't a goal scorer", and that a goalie who stopped a bunch of pucks "wasn't a puck stopper". How is that hyperbole?
I pointed out why it's hyperbole. Because I pointed out a guy getting 3/8 of his starts in the offensive zone isn't being used "exclusively defensively". You compared that to saying a goal scorer having to be "goal per game" or a goalie having to be ".980% save" to be a goal stopper. If you can't see why that's hyperbole you're a lost cause.
Regression affects more than offensive numbers. Bertuzzi was basically only a PP weapon, because he can't get up and down the ice anymore. Want to talk about being bad at even strength? Bert was one of the worst defensive players in the league last year. I mean, for example, the guy had the 8th worst on ice Sv% when he was on the ice of all full-time (40+ games) players, and that's just one metric we have.
He had a 12 goal pace last year while getting the 3rd most PP time amongst forwards on the Red Wings, and being defensively incompetent. How is that a good pace? You want your 1st unit PP winger to score 12 a year as an offensive specialist? How is that even moderately impressive?
I'll repeat this once again since you're still ignoring it. The guy is gonna be able to at least match Michalek's production for 1/4 of the price on a zero risk contract. How is this not a win-win?
If Grant gets called up this season, assuming Michalek is still on the roster, I'll leave a $100 standing bet with you that Michalek out-produces him at ES. Easy money, I'm betting on a guy who is statistically due for an upswing, and you're betting on a guy to come in and basically have a career stretch of games.
Any time you want to take me up on this bet, just let me know.
I'm super glad you pointed this out. Cause yeah, based on Grant's production last season he would be doubling Michalek's EV p/60 this year as well. Keep ignoring the facts though it's worked out well for you this far!
YOU should tell me what I said THAT doesn't MAKE sense, so I CAN clarify it FOR you, at least WITHIN the CONTEXT that it makes sense TO me.
So witty! Top banter!
So I'm going to say this one more time, in big old BOLD LETTERS followed by some italics, just so we're clear, because I think there are people who think that I'm some way condoning that Michalek has been worth the money we're paying him this year so far:
1) I am NOT saying Michalek is worth $4mil/ year
2) I am NOT saying Michalek's current offensive production is acceptable
3) I am NOT saying that he is in any way so valuable that he should be exempt from the trading
Then what's the argument? Those three things are more than reason enough to support my stance. I'm not even sure, after accepting those three points that you can have any other conclusion on Michalek unless you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
