GDT: Flames look to continue Honda Centre win streak. 8pm MT on SNW

[OvermanKingGainer]

So what you're saying in OKG speak is Monahan is now our 4th best center?

What I am saying is that Monahan is better suited to the wing as he does nothing a center is expected to do very well, but is a fantastic 1-D goal scorer. At this point he may as well be our 5th best center because he isn't a center, while Dube is.

Results speak for themselves, not goals and assists but the actual product on the ice with Monahan down the middle is and has always been far below the ability level of this roster.

You can be a hater all you want, I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this into "OKG is an idiot" as that is your MO but everyone who knows what's what sees the signs that maybe it's time to give in and accept that I am not talking out of my ass but out of this thing called watching games.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

No, the league works off points percentage, not winning percentage. So given that, the thing that is "meaningless" is winning percentage. In no situation is winning percentage ever considered in this league.

If we were to go 20-0-62, we would make the playoffs over a team that goes 45-37-0. So to hell with winning percentage.

That's nice, but then a .500 points percentage is meaningless as 80% of the league will finish ".500". Flames are below the median or mean points percentage (let's call it .577?) and below the median or mean win percentage (.500) right now. Appealing to a .500 points percentage is moot.

 

[DFF]

Our record in 1 goal games is a surprising 9-4-4 lol. I was expecting something much worse.

Really? It feels like we cant buy a goal when we need it

anyway, I stand correct

 

[DFF]

What I am saying is that Monahan is better suited to the wing as he does nothing a center is expected to do very well, but is a fantastic 1-D goal scorer. At this point he may as well be our 5th best center because he isn't a center, while Dube is.

Results speak for themselves, not goals and assists but the actual product on the ice with Monahan down the middle is and has always been far below the ability level of this roster.

You can be a hater all you want, I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this into "OKG is an idiot" as that is your MO but everyone who knows what's what sees the signs that maybe it's time to give in and accept that I am not talking out of my ass but out of this thing called watching games.

You are still incorrect because how bad Monahan is, we only have one that is arguably better than him....the others are not even 4th line center also

 

[Anglesmith]

That's nice, but then a .500 points percentage is meaningless as 80% of the league will finish ".500". Flames are below the median or mean points percentage (let's call it .577?) and below the median or mean win percentage (.500) right now. Appealing to a .500 points percentage is moot.

Yes, that's true, but that's your (collective: not just you) issue with how you want to interpret .500, not a problem with the statement at all. Did you assume I was implying we were in the top half of the league? I was not.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

My question is "so what?". Here is what you said:

We're above .500 and there's nothing to suggest that won't be the case at the end of the season.

Unless you're interpretting ".500" as something meaningful, why point to it at all? It'd be like you saying "The Flames will have a draft pick in the 2018 NHL Draft".

Sure, but so what? It's not about interpretation, it's about using a term that is contextually meaningless. In a league with loser points, as lightstorm points out, there is no meaning to that term, so why use it?

 

[Anglesmith]

My question is "so what?". Here is what you said:



Unless you're interpretting ".500" as something meaningful, why point to it at all? It'd be like you saying "The Flames will have a draft pick in the 2018 NHL Draft".

Sure, but so what? It's not about interpretation, it's about using a term that is contextually meaningless. In a league with loser points, as lightstorm points out, there is no meaning to that term, so why use it?

Well, every team starts at .500 (essentially, but don't try putting this one in your calculator). To make the playoffs, you need to end up at about 12 games above .500 at least. If at this point of the season, you're above .500, you're giving yourself a decent chance to make the playoffs, because it means over the course of your season, you've trended upwards in terms of winning percentage. There's still lots of track left, and a team that is getting more wins than regulation losses is at least on the right side of that balance, even if they need to still tip it further. Basically, the way I see it, a playoff team needs to play .500 hockey most of the season, and throw in a few good win streaks, and they'll be in. That's it. So as long as you're above .500 with a lot of season to go, you're just a couple of good streaks away from the playoffs. If you're below .500, perhaps that is true, but you actually need to reverse the trend that you've established so far as opposed to simply improving it.

In terms of the end of the season, .500 is generally a good separator between genuinely bad teams (lottery teams) and bubble teams. If a team remains above .500, they probably don't need to worry too much about their first round pick winning the lottery.

It's far more meaningful than winning percentage, because there realistically is no meaning to winning percentage in the NHL. A team can win 50% of their games and be only .500, while another can have the same winning percentage and be at .780. In addition, if there's an issue between arbitrarily suggesting there's a big difference between a team that's one game over vs. one game under .500, then that same silliness exists with suggesting that the Flames would be a better team if they'd won the shootout in San Jose and had a 50% winning percentage after all.

 

[Kahvi]

Results speak for themselves, not goals and assists but the actual product on the ice with Monahan down the middle is and has always been far below the ability level of this roster.

Did you already forgot this thread?
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/it-is-time-to-talk-about-sean-monahan.2420665/

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Did you already forgot this thread?
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/it-is-time-to-talk-about-sean-monahan.2420665/

I addressed this earlier today:

You might be spot on; making a "it's time" thread for Monahan was probably the dumbest thing I could ever have done because I confused him finally arriving with a hot streak. If I could undo anything I've ever done on HFBoards, that thread would be it. I've made a lot of bold claims on here that I'll stand by to the end, but that one was clownish of proportions of certain other CFHF members who actually think Monahan is a 1C.

No team is going anywhere giving Monahan such a prime role. His numbers come at the expense of the team. Bennett is our true 1C and when we realize that we will soar.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Why are people talking about putting Bennet as Gaudreau's centre? Bennett has had zero, absolutely zero games where he's been good as a centre in his NHL career. I don't give a rat's nutsack what tools people think he has that make him a "better" centre than Monahan; he has never shown the ability to play well at centre at the NHL level (the best he's done is "okay" for short spurts). It doesn't make any sense to try to get the Flames going by putting him back there.

 

[DFF]

Why are people talking about putting Bennet as Gaudreau's centre? Bennett has had zero, absolutely zero games where he's been good as a centre in his NHL career. I don't give a rat's nutsack what tools people think he has that make him a "better" centre than Monahan; he has never shown the ability to play well at centre at the NHL level (the best he's done is "okay" for short spurts). It doesn't make any sense to try to get the Flames going by putting him back there.

Yeah, Monahan sucks doesn't make bennett a 1st line center.

 

[Skobel24]

No, the league works off points percentage, not winning percentage. So given that, the thing that is "meaningless" is winning percentage. In no situation is winning percentage ever considered in this league.

If we were to go 20-0-62, we would make the playoffs over a team that goes 45-37-0. So to hell with winning percentage.

I had a season in NHL 04 or 05 where I finished with a record like that. Something like 21-14-30-28. Was the most frustrating season I played in any of the games.

 

[Sparky93]

Yeah, Monahan sucks doesn't make bennett a 1st line center.

Yes, 4 points out of being top 10 in centre scoring, even with the slump....he’s horrible. If only he was more like Backlund, who’s been absolutely amazing in December!

 

[Skobel24]

Oh I don't need to twist anything to make you look like an idiot. You do that just fine without any help.

I stopped reading after "Dube is currently a better center than Monahan".

 

[Baxterman]

When a player slumps, you try and make life easy on him. Hence putting him on a third line with some offensive pieces and giving him easy zone starts.

Are you truly thinking we should address our problem, by simply trying to same thing that hasn't been working for the last 10 games? Make sense. I think there's a definition of insanity you should look up.

No I am saying we shouldn't put our best center (and player) on the 3rd line with two maybes. I have no issue switching up the lines but it makes no sense to bury Monahan.

Especially when you say put our most talented guys together and leave our most talented guy off that group. If we are going to stack the top line then lets put Tkachuk up with Gaudreau and Monahan. If we are trying to spread out the offense then having pairs like Gaudreau-Bennett and Monahan-Tkachuk and Back-Frolik together.

 

[Baxterman]

It's laughable when someone can't even read the word recently; and are blinded by rage.

I don't think the word recently is in the post I quoted.

 

[Volica]

I don't think the word recently is in the post I quoted.

So, what you're saying is I was correct in my assessment.

I'm indifferent with either down the middle. Neither has shown much of anything to be considered the superior centre option recently to me. I like Jankowski more than Monahan on the Backlund line, because you hope Janko can hit a Backlund level of centre; so may as well play with him.

 

[Baxterman]

So, what you're saying is I was correct in my assessment.

That wasn't the post I quoted:

1 goal in his last 10 or something?
He's just not getting it done. His defence is questionable, his IQ is questionable, his passing has always been suspect.

When Monahan slumps, he kind of exposes the flaws in his game you forgive when he's scoring.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I'm find with them switching up the lines, but no centres should be moving to wing. I'd say Jankowski with Gaudreau and Ferland, and Monahan with Bennett and Hathaway. I don't think it has to be long term, but certainly the team needs a different look offensively for a bit.