Post-Game Talk: Leafs come back to get a point

[Suntouchable13]

Sure, Hainsey is our most reliable defensive d'man, the Blues were all over the Leafs in the first period, it makes sense to play him a lot in the first period. Hainsey plays on the top pair so it makes sense that he played more than Muzzin and Dermott last night.

Dermott is a 3rd pairing d'man, hopefully, he can make the jump to 2nd pair next season.

I don't think we'll go far with Hainsey getting all these tough minutes. He is going to be 38 at the time the playoffs start. He is not a top pairing guy.

 

[RLF]

I’ll let the playoff record sway me.

You mean like our last two playoff opponents in Wash and Bos?

 

[ToneDog]

I don't think we'll go far with Hainsey getting all these tough minutes. He is going to be 38 at the time the playoffs start. He is not a top pairing guy.

Just posted on another thread:

Just caught a bit of Matthew Barnaby on the Big Show. He hinted that Babs is giving Hainsey as many minutes as he has because he is sending a message to Dubas to get another RHD.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Just posted on another thread:

Just caught a bit of Matthew Barnaby on the Big Show. He hinted that Babs is giving Hainsey as many minutes as he has because he is sending a message to Dubas to get another RHD.

That would be a **** move. Especially when he talks all about winning

 

[ToneDog]

That would be a **** move. Especially when he talks all about winning

Not really. Mike's goal is to win the playoffs. The regular season is an audition for the playoffs.

Dermott in his first full year. Z sucks. Hainsey is his most reliable RHD and Rielly is most comfortable with him. Now if you get him a better option, perhaps it pushes Hainsey down.

 

[Mr Hockey]

I don't think we'll go far with Hainsey getting all these tough minutes. He is going to be 38 at the time the playoffs start. He is not a top pairing guy.

Why are you stuck on his age, he plays better defensive minutes than a 22 yr old Dermott, 28 Gardiner, etc, I know this because I watch the games. He may not be a top pairing guy on his own but he is with Rielly as a partner, try and understand that.

 

[TheOneArmedMan]

If that is what Babcock said, he should be fired. He already pissed off Matthews, Nylander, Johnsson and probably more, so lets throw the whole defense core under the bus too. He is such an ahole!

Hes so overrated. Think they should just find some fresh blood on the bench

 

[Suntouchable13]

Why are you stuck on his age, he plays better defensive minutes than a 22 yr old Dermott, 28 Gardiner, etc, I know this because I watch the games. He may not be a top pairing guy on his own but he is with Rielly as a partner, try and understand that.

You saw him last year in the playoffs, right? He was gassed.

 

[zeke]

hainsey is 4th in d'men ATOI at even strength

hilariously, he's moved up to 2nd since we got Muzzin.

 

[zeke]

Whatever their advantage is, it's clear and substantial and you know what - I don't even need to peruse through all kinds of stats to see what makes sense, all I need to do is look at the standings to know it's true.

TB 61 games, 96 points
Us 59 games, 76 points.

See how easy that was? At this point in time, we're closer to missing the playoffs then we are to TB so not sure why people are spending their time comparing ourselves to a team that's vastly superior to us.

so here's Gary caring only about wins and losses again.

until the next time he decides that his personal context matters.

 

[Mr Hockey]

hilariously, he's moved up to 2nd since we got Muzzin.

Leafs are shuffling around the D'men trying to figure out how to maximize the pairings and he has played a lot of defensives minutes. Coaches are not going to put players in situations they will fail in, nobody wants to step up and steal Hainsey's minutes, Dermott is still a 3rd pairing guy.

 

[Budsfan]

Hainsey pairing with Rielly, has made that a pretty solid top pairing, they have tried others there but Rielly has become a Norris candidate playing with Hainsey.

 

[Gary Nylund]

so here's Gary caring only about wins and losses again.

until the next time he decides that his personal context matters.

Can you define for us the term "personal context", I haven't heard that one before.

Do you have any thoughts to offer us other than making sarcastic comments about nothing in particular?

You earlier made this post:

the leafs dominated the 2nd period, for the record.

This is just one out of 177 periods we've played this season and it was just one part of a game where we got outplayed and we lost. Is there any particular reason that you're drawing our attention to this one period and ignoring the rest of the game?

You've been rambling on about context today, why then make this post which is completely devoid of context?

Why is it relevant that we dominated this period and the 1st period where we were the ones who got dominated isn't worth mentioning? Is it that you'd like to forget the rest of this game happened? Is remembering only parts of games where we played well your idea of "personal context"?

 

[zeke]

Can you define for us the term "personal context", I haven't heard that one before.

Do you have any thoughts to offer us other than making sarcastic comments about nothing in particular?

yes.

personal context is when you respond to someone in one post that their analysis is meaningless because only wins and losses matter, and then go on in your next post to bring up all sorts of personal analysis beyond wins and losses.

This is just one out of 177 periods we've played this season and it was just one part of a game where we got outplayed and we lost. Is there any particular reason that you're drawing our attention to this one period and ignoring the rest of the game?

Yes. The post directly above that said we only showed up for the 3rd period in this game. So i pointed out that we also dominated the 2nd.

 

[zeke]

Leafs are shuffling around the D'men trying to figure out how to maximize the pairings and he has played a lot of defensives minutes. Coaches are not going to put players in situations they will fail in, nobody wants to step up and steal Hainsey's minutes, Dermott is still a 3rd pairing guy.

there's no shuffling. we traded for muzzin, and saw Muzzin replace hainsey on the top pair, and hainsy replace ozzy on the bottom pair. This worked really well. Our top pair was fantastic in those 6gms as was the bottom pair. we went 4-1-1 in those games.

Then babcock couldn't resist but to put hainsey back on the top pair.

 

[Mr Hockey]

there's no shuffling. we traded for muzzin, and saw Muzzin replace hainsey on the top pair, and hainsy replace ozzy on the bottom pair. This worked really well. Our top pair was fantastic in those 6gms as was the bottom pair. we went 4-1-1 in those games.

Then babcock couldn't resist but to put hainsey back on the top pair.

Babcock said right after we got Muzzin that he will start off with Rielly and move back to the 2nd pairing. That gives them 2 sold anchors on our top 2 pairings. It's about winning and not about helping Rielly win a Norris.

So Matthews and Tavares lines will always get Rielly or Muzzin each shift.

 

[Gary Nylund]

yes.

personal context is when you respond to someone in one post that their analysis is meaningless because only wins and losses matter, and then go on in your next post to bring up all sorts of personal analysis beyond wins and losses.

What is this "personal analysis beyond wins and losses" that you're referring to?

I have no problem with stats but we're 60 games into the season and when someone posts some "advanced" stats over a 25 game period showing that we're as good as TB then I feel like saying get a clue pal and have a peek at the standings. Wins and losses may not be "advanced" but when comparing us to TB, yes they are all you need at this point in time.

Does that help?

yes.
Yes. The post directly above that said we only showed up for the 3rd period in this game. So i pointed out that we also dominated the 2nd.

Dear Zeke, how the hell do you expect anyone to know if you're responding to someone, much less who and/or what you're responding to when you don't quote the post? You made a random comment, without quoting anyone, with zero context. Practice what you preach or stop making sarcastic comments about context, it makes no sense.

 

[zeke]

What is this "personal analysis beyond wins and losses" that you're referring to?

I have no problem with stats but we're 60 games into the season and when someone posts some "advanced" stats over a 25 game period showing that we're as good as TB then I feel like saying get a clue pal and have a peek at the standings. Wins and losses may not be "advanced" but when comparing us to TB, yes they are all you need at this point in time.

Does that help?

i'm not looking it up again, but literally in the very next post after chastising me for looking at anything other than wins and losses, you started diving into something other than wins and losses. heck, it may have even been the same post.

Dear Zeke, how the hell do you expect anyone to know if you're responding to someone, much less who and/or what you're responding to when you don't quote the post? You made a random comment, without quoting anyone, with zero context. Practice what you preach or stop making sarcastic comments about context, it makes no sense.

heheh what are you even going on about here now?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Babcock said right after we got Muzzin that he will start off with Rielly and move back to the 2nd pairing. That gives them 2 sold anchors on our top 2 pairings. It's about winning and not about helping Rielly win a Norris.

So Matthews and Tavares lines will always get Rielly or Muzzin each shift.

They were also speculating yesterday that Rielly may have told Babcock that he feels more comfortable playing on the left side. Not sure if there's anything to that or not, you never know though. Of course what you say about 2 solid anchors makes sense too, the thing I don't like about that is it forces Jake down to the 3rd pair. I admit I'm a bit concerned that our D may be good on paper, but may not be easy to fit together in a way that gets the most out of everyone.

 

[Gary Nylund]

i'm not looking it up again, but literally in the very next post after chastising me for looking at anything other than wins and losses, you started diving into something other than wins and losses. heck, it may have even been the same post.

Not chastising you at all buddy, you're the one that's been doing that to me. Context, context, context, Gary doesn't care about context unless he does, you've posted nonsense like that a number of times today. What I can't understand is why you're going on and on about this considering how many times I've backed you up on discussions about stats. Having a bad day today?

heheh what are you even going on about here now?

You made a post with zero context. You didn't quote anyone, now you say you were responding to someone but unless you quote them, how could anyone possibly know that?

Seems pretty straightforward, what part are you having trouble with?

 

[Al14]

Just posted on another thread:

Just caught a bit of Matthew Barnaby on the Big Show. He hinted that Babs is giving Hainsey as many minutes as he has because he is sending a message to Dubas to get another RHD.

So, Barnaby is saying that verbal communication between Dubas and Babcock has ceased. So, Babcock has turned to sending messages to Dubas by overplaying an aging veteran in Hainsey. Interesting, but stupid.

Maybe Dubas should hire Quenneville in an advisory role to send a message back to Babcock.

 

[Gary Nylund]

i'm not looking it up again, but literally in the very next post after chastising me for looking at anything other than wins and losses, you started diving into something other than wins and losses. heck, it may have even been the same post.

OK Zeke, I looked it up and here it is. First off, you made this post. You didn't quote anyone, didn't (and still haven't) explained why this is particularly relevant, you simply said\:

the leafs dominated the 2nd period, for the record.

I responded with this:

Is there a "record" of some sort for meaningless stuff like this? And the follow up question is - who cares? The only record that matters will show that the Leafs lost. And if we go out again in the 1st round, I for one will find zero consolation in the fact that we dominate periods here and there, not even one little bit.

And then you said this:

if all you care about is wins and losses then you should be happy, given leafs have one of the best records in the league, and the 2nd most regulation wins.

So there it is. I never actually said that all I care about is wins and losses, those were words that you put in my mouth, what I actually said was something else, you then completely ignored the context around what I said and have been making sarcastic cracks about how I'm the one who doesn't care about context.

How's that for some context?

 

[Gary Nylund]

So, Barnaby is saying that verbal communication between Dubas and Babcock has ceased. So, Babcock has turned to sending messages to Dubas by overplaying an aging veteran in Hainsey. Interesting, but stupid.

Maybe Dubas should hire Quenneville in an advisory role to send a message back to Babcock.

LOL.

 

[zeke]

Not chastising you at all buddy, you're the one that's been doing that to me. Context, context, context, Gary doesn't care about context unless he does, you've posted nonsense like that a number of times today. What I can't understand is why you're going on and on about this considering how many times I've backed you up on discussions about stats. Having a bad day today?

just thought it was funny that you said "only wins and losses matter" then immediat3ly dived into talking about something other than wins.

You made a post with zero context. You didn't quote anyone, now you say you were responding to someone but unless you quote them, how could anyone possibly know that?

Seems pretty straightforward, what part are you having trouble with?

I'm pretty sure everyone followed that context except I guess you.

I'll work on my posting technique for you going forward.

 

[zeke]

OK Zeke, I looked it up and here it is. First off, you made this post. You didn't quote anyone, didn't (and still haven't) explained why this is particularly relevant, you simply said\:



I responded with this:



And then you said this:



So there it is. I never actually said that all I care about is wins and losses, those were words that you put in my mouth, what I actually said was something else, you then completely ignored the context around what I said and have been making sarcastic cracks about how I'm the one who doesn't care about context.

How's that for some context?

look at the post before mine.