Joey Hoser
Registered User
Are you serious? Who glorifies Bozak? Guy gets **** on constantly and we have two threads on the front page about how overpaid Clarkson is.
Mike Richards had only 44 points the year LA won the cup. This is the type of production with context we need on this team. A winning team.
Not 80 goal lines on a leaky team defensively, an often lotto team, that was just terrible.
The point here is systems teams play enhance players stats for poolies, and de-hance stats for teams that play winning hockey.
The Kings are a defensive juggernaut, they'll go for weeks with ridiculous GA . If Randy could ever achieve that kind of stingy game here, I'd be the first guy to send the goodbye forever card to guys like Grabovski and MacArthur. Instead, they make the choice to to "supplement" our lineup with guys who can't score but are supposed to bring "intangibles" and we're as big a mess defensively as ever. Guys keep talking intangibles and building a winning "system", lets see this great so called system that justifies the ludicrous caphit. Not to mention choosing not to buyout a defenseman who is going to spend all his time in the A and in the press box.
If Randy could ever achieve that kind of stingy game here, I'd be the first guy to send the goodbye forever card to guys like Grabovski and MacArthur. Instead, they make the choice to to "supplement" our lineup with guys who can't score but are supposed to bring "intangibles" and we're as big a mess defensively as ever.
We're fourth in the league in goals against.
If you look at GA/G, we're not 4th but still pretty good. But that's because of ridiculous goaltending or a tight defensive system? If you think this team plays well defensively, all I can say is that I'm glad you're enjoying it.
Proud ignorance is a very ugly trait.
Well, all I hear is that our goalies only look so good because our defence only allows low-percentage shots from the outside.
So the defence only looks good because of the goalies, and the goalies only look good because of the defence. I love how when it comes to the Leafs, even if they are good, they are bad.
No it wasn't. It was a good line for 1 year and then unreliable the rest of the time it was together. In fact that line only succeeded the year Kulemin was able to pot 30 goals. Once he stumbled, the entire line became unsuccessful.
But hey, lets celebrate mediocre accomplishments.
Wow, this is some serious spin
It's cute that you're using 10gp as a qualifier, because it lets you ignore Clarkson, who has dominated possession since he started playing.It's also cute that you're using 5 on 5 instead of 5 on 5 close when evaluating a player's Corsi. Score effects result in misleading data, which is why 5 on 5 close is almost always used instead of 5 on 5.
Grabovski's Corsi (5 on 5 Close) is 45.4%. Putting him below Clarkson, Kadri, Ashton, Bolland and Gardiner. So he'd actually only be the third best center on the team from a possession standpoint. Grabovski also starts more shifts in the offensive zone than any of these players and is on a team with a better Corsi in the first place, inflating his numbers.
Grabovski had a 42.8% Corsi (5 on 5 Close) last year. His skills as a possession forward have always been overrated, and he needs a strong possession forward to compensate (Hagman, MacArthur, etc).
It's pretty standard to exclude stats under a certain number of games played, why would you think it's cute? And since when was Hagman a strong possession forward? "Corsi close?" Sure, let's take a tenuous statistic and further reduce it to find the numbers we want to see And then adding a defenseman to the comparison? And then ignore that none of the Leafs' three best players have better numbers in the category you cherrypicked? You do realize that Corsi is essentially a glorified version of +/- that counts missed and blocked shots, right?
It's pretty standard to exclude stats under a certain number of games played, why would you think it's cute? And since when was Hagman a strong possession forward? "Corsi close?" Sure, let's take a tenuous statistic and further reduce it to find the numbers we want to see And then adding a defenseman to the comparison? And then ignore that none of the Leafs' three best players have better numbers in the category you cherrypicked? You do realize that Corsi is essentially a glorified version of +/- that counts missed and blocked shots, right?