MS has essentially stated that the Oilers are a good team whose only issue is that they're missing Klefbom and have poor goaltending. I think I've shown otherwise.
Klefbom hasn't been especially good for a while now. Without going under the knife he'd have been just as bad this season as he was last season, so I'm going to disagree that he would have fixed their defense. I'm also not expecting him to bounce back next season after missing an entire year of hockey.
If that's so why have many of their 'bad' goaltenders bounced back the second they leave Edmonton?
Yes and? I don't really care how it started I care that your arguments are trash.
So which metrics do you, a poster who chooses to ignore points percentage to claim a team finished 9th, use?
I think this is where the disagreement is. They're basically saying they find it weird how MS, a guy who puts a lot of emphasis on 5v5 stats, is saying Edmonton was good last year when they were trash 5v5 and were carried by special teams. So by what metric would they be considered a good team according to MS? Just standings now?
I was only using the bubble thing to dispute that they were the 9th best team in the league. I brought out the stats to prove that they're actually bad.
Yes, the Oilers are bad, but we are worse. Or at least Benning (this off season) made us worse.
I'm not sure we are actually worse. On paper, we should be bottom 3 along with the Sens and Oil, but I could easily see the Flame's imploding, and I honestly think we're closer to taking that spot than the other two teams. The other thing is that more than any team in the division the Oilers are completely f***ed if either star misses games. We'd have a bad time if we lost Pettersson or Hughes but the Oil...
I think people are objecting because you're using a lone fact, the team's place in the standings, while ignoring far more relevant facts that you have a history of citing when it's more convenient to whatever argument you're trying to make, such as 5V5 goal differential, as well as vaguely suggesting the presence of two superstars on the team makes it harder to judge their performance without supplying an argument as to why this is the case.
I want us to win, of course, but know it’s better to be last than in the middle. The middle equals mediocre, which is crap.
Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view, I think that most of the North Division is so bad that we probably do land somewhere in the middle. Montreal and Toronto so far look decent and I’m intrigued to see Winnipeg with Dubois. I think that could be a decent team.
I think early returns from this division are probably unreliable. You've got a small number of teams all playing mini series against one another. After 20-25 games we'll know a little more. I don't expect Calgary to stay down for long.
You could be right. I get the sense that there’s something going on in Calgary with problems with the core. On paper that’s a pretty good team with a top goalie.
No one is claiming the Oilers were a terrible team or asking you to agree that they were and few of us at this point necessarily disagree with the contention that the Oilers shouldn't trade their best players. We're pointing out that you're sticking to one fact to try to make a case while disregarding and playing down the importance of other facts that you usually seem to find credible when it suits your argument. Simply pointing out the Oilers finished 9th last year isn't particularly illustrative.
