Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Fishsticks, 7pm

[txpd]

is the anti Alzner drum beat still going on?

ok....lets try this. Alzner is not a goal scorer. That's bad.

Carlson 3
Kuznetsov 3
Niskanen 2
Alzner 2
Orlov 1

 

[ovikovy817]

is the anti Alzner drum beat still going on?

ok....lets try this. Alzner is not a goal scorer. That's bad.

Carlson 3
Kuznetsov 3
Niskanen 2
Alzner 2
Orlov 1

But wait ... He has not good enough corsi ... CORSI is everything my friend

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[g00n]

These are really easily verifiable facts (corsica.hockey is a great site) and it's confusing why people choose to resort to crackpot theories to support their claims rather than come to conclusions based on actual data.

The problem is not data, it's interpretation. You see numbers and think "doesn't X" means "can't X". And because YOU value X more than anything else, anyone who doesn't execute X at a high enough rate sucks. It's absolutely tedious, and honestly I think it's turning people off to this board. The same couple of people hammering the same crusades using the same stats and charts over and over is not hockey talk, it's proselytizing.

You have no evidence to prove any of your theories, either. You're an out-of-the-loop fan talking up a bunch of theories just like the rest of us. I don't have "evidence" for that (other than a lack of vetted "insiders" on this team board), but I'm pretty sure it's true.

 

[twabby]

How do you interpret "Alzner's individual shot attempts have risen" and conclude "Hmm the coaches must be telling him to shoot less"? It's not an issue of interpretation, it's ignoring facts because they don't agree with your conclusion that you've already made up your mind about.

And just because you and some others don't like charts and stats doesn't mean it's not hockey talk. It's a different way of looking at it.

 

[g00n]

How do you interpret "Alzner's individual shot attempts have risen" and conclude "Hmm the coaches must be telling him to shoot less"? It's not an issue of interpretation, it's ignoring facts because they don't agree with your conclusion that you've already made up your mind about.

And just because you and some others don't like charts and stats doesn't mean it's not hockey talk. It's a different way of looking at it.

No, the problem is in saying he WOULD shoot more if he was any good at it. Or that nobody would teach/coach a player to eschew shooting in favor of getting the puck deep. It's not the overall volume of shots I'm talking about, it's your assumptions about his role, as I already said.

 

[txpd]

We spent the entire off season here hammering Brooks Orpik for being over the hill and a waste of space. Now after it appears his troubles were more injury that lack of ability to play the game and he has been good, we are now focused on the other guy on the team that plays that similar way.

In this case its not bad penalties or being too slow that is the reason for the suckatude, its lack of scoring or trying to score and that his market value for a new contract might be too much. "He's not that good".

Tedious. That is a good word for it.

Edit: I am still kind of confused by the...whatever the word is....That a pending UFA defenseman that is generally thought to be able to get fairly easily a high dollar, long term contract is also judged to be not that good. This means those that form the consensus don't have a clue which doesn't make any sense.