GDT: AZ Coyotes @ CO Avs TIME: 7PM

[Jakey53]

And yet he keeps getting quoted. Haha.

He is just stating his opinion, that is all. That's what makes these boards fun to read.

 

[The Grocery Stick]

I don't think he is being obnoxious, rather his opinion. I really don't have a clue about basketball, but if you start a conversation about the Suns I will chirp in and give you my opinion, which probably would make no sense to you.

It would be interesting to find out how many posters have played hockey or even laced up a pair of skates.

Playing hockey does not make one an expert at hockey...see Tyson Nash, Wayne Gretzky etc. (and though I agree with much of what he says, particularly regarding Ribs, he is being obnoxious and is diminishing an environment that is otherwise respectful and devoid of obnoxiousness).

 

[Jakey53]

Playing hockey does not make one an expert at hockey...see Tyson Nash, Wayne Gretzky etc. (and though I agree with much of what he says, particularly regarding Ribs, he is being obnoxious and is diminishing an environment that is otherwise respectful and devoid of obnoxiousness).

Are you kidding me? Nash and TGO have forgetten more about hockey than all of us know. Watching the game from the couch is totally different than playing any game. The game looks simple when watching, but playing it is a totally different. If you were on the ice with David Moss he would make you look like a fool. Very few make it to the pros, and the ones who do are very talented.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Playing hockey does not make one an expert at hockey...see Tyson Nash, Wayne Gretzky.

That's a ridiculous statement.

I think what you meant to say is that just because you excel at a sport, doesn't mean you can do color commentary or coach it.

 

[rt]

I don't think he is being obnoxious, rather his opinion. I really don't have a clue about basketball, but if you start a conversation about the Suns I will chirp in and give you my opinion, which probably would make no sense to you.

It would be interesting to find out how many posters have played hockey or even laced up a pair of skates.

I was a peewee(I think?) in grade school. Roller for a season too. Does that make me more or less credible? How many seasons of ice hockey would one have to play to understand how a children's game works? Or is it the level? Have to go to high school level? Or will adult rec league suffice? Does playing old fart beer league make you a hockey genius? Break this down for us. Make a chart. I'm very anxious to see where this goes Jake.

 

[Matias Maccete]

I don't think he is being obnoxious, rather his opinion. I really don't have a clue about basketball, but if you start a conversation about the Suns I will chirp in and give you my opinion, which probably would make no sense to you.

It would be interesting to find out how many posters have played hockey or even laced up a pair of skates.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when every time you voice your opinion it's accompanied by "if you don't agree you're ignorant or don't know hockey" then it's hard to take seriously.

 

[The Grocery Stick]

Are you kidding me? Nash and TGO have forgetten more about hockey than all of us know. Watching the game from the couch is totally different than playing any game. The game looks simple when watching, but playing it is a totally different. If you were on the ice with David Moss he would make you look like a fool. Very few make it to the pros, and the ones who do are very talented.

These are true statements but it does not mean that someone from the couch can not have an expert opinion that Tyson Nash does not know how to perform color commentary or Wayne Gretzky doesn't know how to coach in the NHL because the person making the statement has never played hockey. It does not mean that someone, can't be a GM, owner, coach, scout, etc. in the NHL because they've never played hockey.

 

[The Grocery Stick]

That's a ridiculous statement.

I think what you meant to say is that just because you excel at a sport, doesn't mean you can do color commentary or coach it.

Fair statement.

 

[Etch]

I don't think he is being obnoxious, rather his opinion. I really don't have a clue about basketball, but if you start a conversation about the Suns I will chirp in and give you my opinion, which probably would make no sense to you.

It would be interesting to find out how many posters have played hockey or even laced up a pair of skates.

This is pretty ridiculous. Everyone's allowed to have their opinion and discuss things.

It's entirely different, and pretty bold to immediately discredit other people who don't agree with you and to act as if you're in some kind of exclusive all knowing club where you assume the rest of us are small peons who don't understand what hockey is or haven't played it. I played competitive growing up and still play in a men's league, I'm sure many others have. I don't for one second discredit anyone else's opinion because they might not have "laced up the skates." I'm sure there are a lot of other people out there with a better understanding of the game with far less actual experience than me, and to think otherwise is ignorant.

This is a hockey forum for pete's sake. I'd hope people taking the time to post here are at least somewhat knowledgeable/invested in the sport.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I've been in sports media for a while, and one thing I've noticed is that people who become color commentators after being competitors in their given sport are excellent at providing nuance that those who have never competed might miss.

But I've also noticed that those same commentators lack the ability to divorce themselves from their own experiences. They fall victim to observational bias as much as fans do - sometimes more.

The whole "You didn't do it so you are not qualified to comment" theory is one of my pet peeves because, if anything, those who DID do it are often the least qualified to see the big picture.

 

[XX]

It's really only 2 or 3 people that feel the need to put down other posters and simultaneously pump their own tires. Just ignore them.

 

[kihekah19*]

Do you understand how obnoxious this is? Literally no one else does this.

Yes, I most certainly do. I am a VERY obnoxious person and it humors me to be so.

I also happen to believe it stimulates discussion and passion in those who angered by it, which I believe to be a good thing. Mostly I just want to get dialogue going, by whatever means. Some form of dialogue other than the (imo) boring armchair GM fantasy talk regarding whom a given poster may or may not deal for - as if they had control over something other than their keyboard.

 

[The Grocery Stick]

Yes, I most certainly do. I am a VERY obnoxious person and it humors me to be so.

I also happen to believe it stimulates discussion and passion in those who angered by it, which I believe to be a good thing. Mostly I just want to get dialogue going, by whatever means. Some form of dialogue other than the (imo) boring armchair GM fantasy talk regarding whom a given poster may or may not deal for - as if they had control over something other than their keyboard.

What you are advocating for is stimulating conversation via emotion over intellect. If you weren't so stupid, I would find it to be humorous.

 

[kihekah19*]

Yes, shame on me. Not calling our team an offensive juggernaut, but nothing in those stats signifies that when we had better offensive talent, he was less turnover prone or mistake free. So the points of better forwards could very well be moot.

He is dynamic. His game is his vision, I have seen that many a time. Is it the right vision consistently? So are you saying that Whitney, Doan, Vrbata are incompetent? Because Yandle had 43 points in all of 11-12 season, when his vision has led to the same assist to turnover ratio as this year? To argue that his giveaways are strongly dependent on the offense are false.

Maybe when we had talented forwards, we didn't need to rely on Yandle as much. And we went to the conference finals that year. And yet, his game this year is on pace for more points but the same turnover ratio. That tells me the same story as has been said all year - the majority of our shots are coming from far away. Rebounds and tipped shots provide the chance for assists. A Newell Brown coached PP has given a lot of.opportunity as well.

But maybe as the offensive skill from the forwards develops, we are not necessarily rewarded with smarter play or enhanced point totals. Is that the type of player that makes sense to keep long term?

All I can tell ya Buxy, is that there are countless times Keith puts puts himself in a position that if an incompetent teamate could read and get HIMSELF in a position that is on board with Yandle's vision, said teamate would have an incredible scoring opportunity.

Saw same with Ribs and actually more so.

No true or real offense man, but stats rarely come close to telling the whole story - merely a tool.

 

[kihekah19*]

What you are advocating for is stimulating conversation via emotion over intellect. If you weren't so stupid, I would find it to be humorous.

Now that's just not nice! I happen to be quite intelligent.

If you analyze the situation here though, it makes sense, in that there is so little intellect that we need emotion.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

All I can tell ya Buxy, is that there are countless times Keith puts puts himself in a position that if an incompetent teamate could read and get HIMSELF in a position that is on board with Yandle's vision, said teamate would have an incredible scoring opportunity.

Saw same with Ribs and actually more so.

No true or real offense man, but stats rarely come close to telling the whole story - merely a tool.

I don't think anyone discounts the playmaking abilities of either Yandle or Ribeiro.

My personal issue with Yandle is that the downsides to his game - which are improving in small spurts, I'll admit - often at least nullify or directly contradict the advantages that his amazing offensive vision provide.

It's also hard for me blame his "incompetent" forwards for those times when he sees an opening, goes for the pass, and plunks it directly into the shinpads of a defender which results in a breakaway going the other way. And if you tell me that happens to everybody, it happens a LOT more to Yandle than to other players.

Yandle is gifted, he's a great teammate and personality, and I'd hate to see him go. But he's about as one-dimensional as they come and if it came down to trading one or the other, I'd keep Oliver Ekman-Larsson 100% of the time.

 

[kihekah19*]

This is pretty ridiculous. Everyone's allowed to have their opinion and discuss things.

It's entirely different, and pretty bold to immediately discredit other people who don't agree with you and to act as if you're in some kind of exclusive all knowing club where you assume the rest of us are small peons who don't understand what hockey is or haven't played it. I played competitive growing up and still play in a men's league, I'm sure many others have. I don't for one second discredit anyone else's opinion because they might not have "laced up the skates." I'm sure there are a lot of other people out there with a better understanding of the game with far less actual experience than me, and to think otherwise is ignorant.
.

You're selling yourself short (or doing the polite/kind Canadian thing), either way - you do have more insight having played the game.

Some do not keep up with the games progression and are left in a state of not understanding, but those who are willing to accept the changes in the game and have played have more insight - it's really impossible not to. I've taken former players that I used to coach and they occassionally make comments that make it apparent they either are not understanding the game at the NHL level, or have not kept up with changes in the game.

It's not about dicrediting an opinion based on having played, or not played. It's about hearing the opinion and responding.

 

[rt]

Unless Yandle is amenable to a reasonable long term extension and somebody offers us insane value for OEL.

 

[kihekah19*]

I don't think anyone discounts the playmaking abilities of either Yandle or Ribeiro.

My personal issue with Yandle is that the downsides to his game - which are improving in small spurts, I'll admit - often at least nullify or directly contradict the advantages that his amazing offensive vision provide.

It's also hard for me blame his "incompetent" forwards for those times when he sees an opening, goes for the pass, and plunks it directly into the shinpads of a defender which results in a breakaway going the other way. And if you tell me that happens to everybody, it happens a LOT more to Yandle than to other players.

Yandle is gifted, he's a great teammate and personality, and I'd hate to see him go. But he's about as one-dimensional as they come and if it came down to trading one or the other, I'd keep Oliver Ekman-Larsson 100% of the time.

He's a gunslingher no doubt, but I don't agree that the negatives outweigh the positives. Do you really think he'd still be on this conservative team, if they did?

OEL or Yandle? Keep 'em both, we've got something ridiculously dynamic there.

 

[kihekah19*]

You loathe him as a player? If you loathe Yandle as a player, you must loathe every player on the Coyotes.

Crazy ain't it? Often I agree with xx, but this is absurd.

 

[BUX7PHX]

All I can tell ya Buxy, is that there are countless times Keith puts puts himself in a position that if an incompetent teamate could read and get HIMSELF in a position that is on board with Yandle's vision, said teamate would have an incredible scoring opportunity.

Saw same with Ribs and actually more so.

No true or real offense man, but stats rarely come close to telling the whole story - merely a tool.

It takes two to tango - one person to pass that puck and one person to receive the puck. How many icings does Yandle have on the year? Am I to assume that every attempted pass that is iced is a byproduct of the puck being in the perfect position every time, and a failure on the part of the forward? Or have we also seen Yandle make hasty decisions that hurt the team? Your emotions toward Yandle's offensive skills leave you believing the idea that every single time he touches the puck, it will always lead to gold. And if it doesn't, it must clearly be someone else's fault.

That is what that stat line of giveaways/takeaways represents to me. During the time when we had peak offensive production, I would expect to see giveaways decrease, or the giveaway/takeaway ratio to reduce to something like 1/1 or 1.5/1. During both our most positive and negative years on the ice, the ratio has remained similar.

Intellect goes both ways. Your intellect spins the positive side of what Yandle brings, and mine focuses more so on the negative. The intellectual statement was that Yandle's turnovers are caused by a lack of offensive talent. That is opinion, and not fact, b/c if there was a correlation between Yandle's giveaways and the roster, I would expect the number of giveaways and/or ratio to takeaways to differ greatly between our strongest offensive teams and our weakest. They don't. Plain and simple.

Stats are used to tell a story. This stat opens up the idea that he is prone to mistakes. The stat of leading the NHL in assists opens up the idea that he is an elite puck-mover. So which story is more believable?

My story is that he is a good puck-mover, but does try to force things (more than one may think, given his giveaway/takeaway differential). He also has far more missed shots on goal when compared to defenseman in the NHL with similar giveaway/takeaway numbers. Has a few moments where he is out of position. For leadership, he does have the A, but I have always looked at leaders as being the types who represent both on and off the ice. On the ice, one game he could look so good, and the next game look so bad. Is that the type of leadership that young players should be exposed to? He appears to be a model leader, but in his tenure as Associate Captain, other veteran presence has helped solidify our team more (Whitney, Aucoin), and specifically to the win/loss record. Looking at some other stats, I would argue that the team also helps him look better (look at his PP this year vs. a year pre-Newell Brown). It seems like his point totals are reflective of the type of team we are (good PP% and PP stats go up, while ES goes down or vice-versa). Speaks to his versatility, but wouldn't you want a little more assurance that he could create on the PP without a new coach coming in? Or that his 5on5 play would stay more consistent, given that he has attained "elite" player status?

So what we have is an offensive talent with leadership skills and a good demeanor who forces the puck, has some situational awareness issues, and doesn't necessarily put shots on net. Vision also encompasses finding shooting lanes, so the number of missed shots is concerning. Does he have clutch moments? Sure, but it seems like those tend to happen against the Oilers or Islanders (circa 2011-13 seasons).

Is there another Keith Yandle out there? No, probably not. But I am willing to bet that a d-man who scores 25% fewer points but reduces the giveaways by 25% is probably just as suited for this team (maybe more so) than Yandle.

 

[Matias Maccete]

Are they counting shots that are fired wide intentionally as passes as missed shots? He does miss the net frequently either way, but as mainly a passer he does that and shoots for deflections frequently too.

 

[kihekah19*]

It takes two to tango - one person to pass that puck and one person to receive the puck. How many icings does Yandle have on the year? Am I to assume that every attempted pass that is iced is a byproduct of the puck being in the perfect position every time, and a failure on the part of the forward? Or have we also seen Yandle make hasty decisions that hurt the team? Your emotions toward Yandle's offensive skills leave you believing the idea that every single time he touches the puck, it will always lead to gold. And if it doesn't, it must clearly be someone else's fault.

That is what that stat line of giveaways/takeaways represents to me. During the time when we had peak offensive production, I would expect to see giveaways decrease, or the giveaway/takeaway ratio to reduce to something like 1/1 or 1.5/1. During both our most positive and negative years on the ice, the ratio has remained similar.

Intellect goes both ways. Your intellect spins the positive side of what Yandle brings, and mine focuses more so on the negative. The intellectual statement was that Yandle's turnovers are caused by a lack of offensive talent. That is opinion, and not fact, b/c if there was a correlation between Yandle's giveaways and the roster, I would expect the number of giveaways and/or ratio to takeaways to differ greatly between our strongest offensive teams and our weakest. They don't. Plain and simple.

Stats are used to tell a story. This stat opens up the idea that he is prone to mistakes. The stat of leading the NHL in assists opens up the idea that he is an elite puck-mover. So which story is more believable?

My story is that he is a good puck-mover, but does try to force things (more than one may think, given his giveaway/takeaway differential). He also has far more missed shots on goal when compared to defenseman in the NHL with similar giveaway/takeaway numbers. Has a few moments where he is out of position. For leadership, he does have the A, but I have always looked at leaders as being the types who represent both on and off the ice. On the ice, one game he could look so good, and the next game look so bad. Is that the type of leadership that young players should be exposed to? He appears to be a model leader, but in his tenure as Associate Captain, other veteran presence has helped solidify our team more (Whitney, Aucoin), and specifically to the win/loss record. Looking at some other stats, I would argue that the team also helps him look better (look at his PP this year vs. a year pre-Newell Brown). It seems like his point totals are reflective of the type of team we are (good PP% and PP stats go up, while ES goes down or vice-versa). Speaks to his versatility, but wouldn't you want a little more assurance that he could create on the PP without a new coach coming in? Or that his 5on5 play would stay more consistent, given that he has attained "elite" player status?

So what we have is an offensive talent with leadership skills and a good demeanor who forces the puck, has some situational awareness issues, and doesn't necessarily put shots on net. Vision also encompasses finding shooting lanes, so the number of missed shots is concerning. Does he have clutch moments? Sure, but it seems like those tend to happen against the Oilers or Islanders (circa 2011-13 seasons).

Is there another Keith Yandle out there? No, probably not. But I am willing to bet that a d-man who scores 25% fewer points but reduces the giveaways by 25% is probably just as suited for this team (maybe more so) than Yandle.

Forgot how long winded you can be Buxy!

Moneyball has yet to win a World Series, or a Stanley Cup.

See my friend Matozzi187's question below.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Are they counting shots that are fired wide intentionally as passes as missed shots? He does miss the net frequently either way, but as mainly a passer he does that and shoots for deflections frequently too.

Not certain. But let's also be real here - just how many times in a season do we see a perfectly placed missed shot that winds up rebounding back to another player for a goal?

I will say that in the times that I was watching the games live (I sat in the corners on the end the 'Yotes shot twice on), I maybe saw 10 such goals. Maybe. In about close to 160 games over 4.5 seasons, including playoffs. Not saying that a player or team doesn't attempt to use the back wall behind the net, but the probability of it working seems rather slim. I'd almost suggest that more goals are scored like that by way of accident/fortunate bounce, rather than any planned play. If Yandle is using that as part of his offensive repertoire, wouldn't that speak to the attempts of trying too hard to make his vision become reality on the ice?

 

[kihekah19*]

Not certain. But let's also be real here - just how many times in a season do we see a perfectly placed missed shot that winds up rebounding back to another player for a goal?

I will say that in the times that I was watching the games live (I sat in the corners on the end the 'Yotes shot twice on), I maybe saw 10 such goals. Maybe. In about close to 160 games over 4.5 seasons, including playoffs. Not saying that a player or team doesn't attempt to use the back wall behind the net, but the probability of it working seems rather slim. I'd almost suggest that more goals are scored like that by way of accident/fortunate bounce, rather than any planned play. If Yandle is using that as part of his offensive repertoire, wouldn't that speak to the attempts of trying too hard to make his vision become reality on the ice?

Not at all, that's the genius of such vision. It always amuses me when play by play announcers mistakenly call such attempts as a wide shot.