News: Nick Ritchie and Anaheim Ducks aren't close on a deal yet.

[Sojourn]

So basically what your excuse is referring to is Powerplay time. So we have age, we have Powerplay Time. Anymore excuses on why Penner should be compared to Ritchie? Because Ritchie doesn’t even deserve Powerplay time because he has no shot, nor can he pass like our PP unit.

Carlyle coached Penner and he’s also coaching Ritchie. If the coaching staff saw any Penner esk in ritchie he would be on the PP unit. But he’s not. So those are facts. Y’all are speaking hyperboles and spewing nonsense when facts are being laid out in front of you.

What do you think Penner did on the PP? He stood in front of the net. That was it. Penner had a good shot, but he didn’t have a quick release. It took him half a period to get it off. He wasn’t out there for his playmaking ability, or his shot. He was out there to be a big body in front of the net, front the goalie and the defense, and go into the corners to try to body up and help win the puck. He was a 2nd PP unit player, who got a buttload of PP time because there was so much available.

No, I’m talking facts. You just don’t want to hear them. Like age. A two year difference at this stage is quite large. You just don’t want to hear it, because then you run the risk of looking foolish if Ritchie takes these next two years and improves. You talked about how you were laying out facts, but when people bring up other facts it’s just nonsense? Make up your mind, man.

I gave you evidence that the difference between Ritchie and Penner is smaller than you’re suggesting. The evidence came from facts. Do you understand that in 2006-2007 the Ducks had 5 players who averaged 4 or more minutes per game on the PP? Penner was not one of those players. Getzlaf was not one of those players. Perry was not one of those players. And yet, despite those players averaging 4+ minutes, guys like Perry, Penner, and Getzlaf still averaged 3 minutes of PP time per game. That’s how much PP time was available then.

Penner wasn’t getting big PP minutes because he was “that” much better on the PP. He was getting big PP minutes because there were a shit load of PP’s every game and Anaheim’s top unit was already spending 4-6 minutes per game out there. Contrast that with this season, where Getzlaf lead the team with just under 3 minutes of PP time per game. That was the difference between 2006-2007 and now. The difference is massive. A player like Niedermayer or Pronger would be out there on the PP more than both of Anaheim’s current units combined, and that still allowed a player like Beauchemin to average more minutes on the PP than even Getzlaf played this last season. I bring up Beauchemin to show that, even though Pronger and Niedermayer were out there more than anyone else, there was still plenty of time for a player like Beauchemin to average 3 minutes of PP time per game. 3 minutes.

These are facts. It isn’t hyperbole, because there is no exaggeration. Those numbers are accurate. Penner’s advantage comes primarily on the PP, and there aren’t enough PP’s for that to happen in the current NHL. The actual even strength difference between the two of them was marginal. Again, fact. The evidence is there. I’ve shown it to you.

The issue here isn’t that you’re talking facts, and no one else is. The issue is you’re plugging your fingers in your ears and trying to shout down any facts that dispute your whole “Penner is so much better” argument. You’re so focused on trying to prove that this is the case, that when there is actual evidence in front of you that proves it isn’t, you’re not willing to acknowledge it.

 

[405Exit]

What do you think Penner did on the PP? He stood in front of the net. That was it. Penner had a good shot, but he didn’t have a quick release. It took him half a period to get it off. He wasn’t out there for his playmaking ability, or his shot. He was out there to be a big body in front of the net, front the goalie and the defense, and go into the corners to try to body up and help win the puck. He was a 2nd PP unit player, who got a buttload of PP time because there was so much available.

No, I’m talking facts. You just don’t want to hear them. Like age. A two year difference at this stage is quite large. You just don’t want to hear it, because then you run the risk of looking foolish if Ritchie takes these next two years and improves. You talked about how you were laying out facts, but when people bring up other facts it’s just nonsense? Make up your mind, man.

I gave you evidence that the difference between Ritchie and Penner is smaller than you’re suggesting. The evidence came from facts. Do you understand that in 2006-2007 the Ducks had 5 players who averaged 4 or more minutes per game on the PP? Penner was not one of those players. Getzlaf was not one of those players. Perry was not one of those players. And yet, despite those players averaging 4+ minutes, guys like Perry, Penner, and Getzlaf still averaged 3 minutes of PP time per game. That’s how much PP time was available then.

Penner wasn’t getting big PP minutes because he was “that” much better on the PP. He was getting big PP minutes because there were a **** load of PP’s every game and Anaheim’s top unit was already spending 4-6 minutes per game out there. Contrast that with this season, where Getzlaf lead the team with just under 3 minutes of PP time per game. That was the difference between 2006-2007 and now. The difference is massive. A player like Niedermayer or Pronger would be out there on the PP more than both of Anaheim’s current units combined, and that still allowed a player like Beauchemin to average more minutes on the PP than even Getzlaf played this last season. I bring up Beauchemin to show that, even though Pronger and Niedermayer were out there more than anyone else, there was still plenty of time for a player like Beauchemin to average 3 minutes of PP time per game. 3 minutes.

These are facts. It isn’t hyperbole, because there is no exaggeration. Those numbers are accurate. Penner’s advantage comes primarily on the PP, and there aren’t enough PP’s for that to happen in the current NHL. The actual even strength difference between the two of them was marginal. Again, fact. The evidence is there. I’ve shown it to you.

The issue here isn’t that you’re talking facts, and no one else is. The issue is you’re plugging your fingers in your ears and trying to shout down any facts that dispute your whole “Penner is so much better” argument. You’re so focused on trying to prove that this is the case, that when there is actual evidence in front of you that proves it isn’t, you’re not willing to acknowledge it.

Are you going to height and weight next? Because all you’re saying is reiterated garbage. Blaming PP time and other excuses on how the two are comparable.

Third line Penner demolishes Ritchie stat wise in 06-07. How’s it Penners fault he got the green light on PP time. Ritchie can’t even get a lick of PP time because he’s bad.

And you still didn’t answer my statement / question. Carlyle our current coach was with Penner at the beginning and made him blossom. Now he’s coaching Ritchie and he’s utter garbage.

One coach for both players and one blossoms the other is a dud. If Ritchie had skill? Like Penner? When he earned his PP time? Ritchie would have pp time. And he doesn’t. Sorry to break it you

 

[Sojourn]

Are you going to height and weight next? Because all you’re saying is reiterated garbage. Blaming PP time and other excuses on how the two are comparable.

Third line Penner demolishes Ritchie stat wise in 06-07. How’s it Penners fault he got the green light on PP time. Ritchie can’t even get a lick of PP time because he’s bad.

And you still didn’t answer my statement / question. Carlyle our current coach was with Penner at the beginning and made him blossom. Now he’s coaching Ritchie and he’s utter garbage.

One coach for both players and one blossoms the other is a dud. If Ritchie had skill? Like Penner? When he earned his PP time? Ritchie would have pp time. And he doesn’t. Sorry to break it you

You just neatly proved my point that you aren't actually interested in facts, unless they support your opinion. I gave you a pretty clear example of how the game has changed. Penner played as many minutes on the PP in 2006-2007 as Getzlaf did this season. Think about that for a moment. Penner was on the 2nd PP unit at the time. Getzlaf lead Anaheim in PP minutes. That's the difference in opportunity.

Third line Penner had 5 more points than Ritchie in 2006-2007 in 6 more games. Even strength points are where Penner being on the third line is relevant. Ritchie is so garbage, that he effectively matched Penner, while being 2 years younger. That's some argument you're making.

As for the rest, it's you being a hypocrite and scrambling for an argument when there is actual evidence in front of you that the difference between them was much smaller than you're suggesting. The hypocrisy part comes from you accusing me of hyperbole and nonsense, while calling Ritchie garbage and a dud. That's nonsense, but you've allowed your dislike of Ritchie to color your opinion so much that you're overlapping the actual facts with your opinion.

 

[Sojourn]

Penner got better over the years in terms of his ES play, and he deserves credit for that. When he put in the effort he was pretty good. Effort was a problem with him, and one of the reasons he bounced around the NHL the way he did.

But you aren't talking about Penner over the years. You're talking about 2006-2007, and the facts just don't back you up here. Ritchie was just as productive as Penner at even strength, while being 2 years younger. Where he goes from here remains to be seen, but this idea that Penner was worlds better than Ritchie at that point in his career is laughable.

 

[405Exit]

You just neatly proved my point that you aren't actually interested in facts, unless they support your opinion. I gave you a pretty clear example of how the game has changed. Penner played as many minutes on the PP in 2006-2007 as Getzlaf did this season. Think about that for a moment. Penner was on the 2nd PP unit at the time. Getzlaf lead Anaheim in PP minutes. That's the difference in opportunity.

Third line Penner had 5 more points than Ritchie in 2006-2007 in 6 more games. Even strength points are where Penner being on the third line is relevant. Ritchie is so garbage, that he effectively matched Penner, while being 2 years younger. That's some argument you're making.

As for the rest, it's you being a hypocrite and scrambling for an argument when there is actual evidence in front of you that the difference between them was much smaller than you're suggesting. The hypocrisy part comes from you accusing me of hyperbole and nonsense, while calling Ritchie garbage and a dud. That's nonsense, but you've allowed your dislike of Ritchie to color your opinion so much that you're overlapping the actual facts with your opinion.

Fascinating. So we goto another excuse of “how the game has changed”. I was gonna guess height and weight. But this will suffice I guess. Excuses excuses.

The Ducks Powerplay is crap. If Ritchie had any skill he would be on it. But he’s not. And that’s a fact.

 

[Sojourn]

Fascinating. So we goto another excuse of “how the game has changed”. I was gonna guess height and weight. But this will suffice I guess. Excuses excuses.

The Ducks Powerplay is crap. If Ritchie had any skill he would be on it. But he’s not. And that’s a fact.

Note to self: Any fact that 405Exit disagrees with will be labeled an excuse. Not because it's actually an excuse, but because that's how he's going to dismiss any evidence that disputes his point.

Why ask for evidence if you don't want it? Serious question. If you wanted to actually have a discussion, you should be open to, you know, discussing. Is this just an opportunity for you to crap on Ritchie? You don't actually care what the evidence says, do you? So long as you can continue to tell everyone how garbage you think Ritchie is.

I'm just trying to figure you out here. You accused me of not giving you facts when I pointed out the age difference. That is a fact, by the way. You may want to double check the definition of fact, if you're unclear on that. So, I tried to humor you and dig deeper, and provide more facts. You dismissed those too. The fact that Penner's 2006-2007 season came at a time where PP opportunities were massively inflated. The fact that Ritchie actually compares favorably to Penner at even strength, and the big difference in their offensive numbers actually stems from those PP opportunities, which isn't possible now. The fact that Ritchie actually accomplished this while being 2 years younger. At what point is this just you arguing like a child and refusing to admit you might be mistaken? Because I think we're past that point.

 

[Sojourn]

I think your mistake is that you were pushing so hard to deny that any comparison could be made, but now that one can be made, you look a little silly. Or a lot silly. It might have been too late for that, after you said Ritchie's production was AHL level.

Either way, the evidence is there that Ritchie is closer to Penner than you're admitting. Ritchie still has some developing to do, and hopefully he makes good progress, but this idea you have that Ritchie isn't even close isn't really rooted in reality. As the evidence shows.

 

[405Exit]

Note to self: Any fact that 405Exit disagrees with will be labeled an excuse. Not because it's actually an excuse, but because that's how he's going to dismiss any evidence that disputes his point.

Why ask for evidence if you don't want it? Serious question. If you wanted to actually have a discussion, you should be open to, you know, discussing. Is this just an opportunity for you to crap on Ritchie? You don't actually care what the evidence says, do you? So long as you can continue to tell everyone how garbage you think Ritchie is.

I'm just trying to figure you out here. You accused me of not giving you facts when I pointed out the age difference. That is a fact, by the way. You may want to double check the definition of fact, if you're unclear on that. So, I tried to humor you and dig deeper, and provide more facts. You dismissed those too. The fact that Penner's 2006-2007 season came at a time where PP opportunities were massively inflated. The fact that Ritchie actually compares favorably to Penner at even strength, and the big difference in their offensive numbers actually stems from those PP opportunities, which isn't possible now. The fact that Ritchie actually accomplished this while being 2 years younger. At what point is this just you arguing like a child and refusing to admit you might be mistaken? Because I think we're past that point.

No it’s because I’m not gonna read 5 paragraphs when your opening argument is, “the game has changed”. Like you’re not even worth reading past the point using sub par introduction on an argument.

You’re responses are fluid with excuse after excuse after excuse. What we can discuss? Is stats that are factual. What we can’t discuss? Is would coulda shoulda non sense between the two and that’s your Powerplay crap. And that’s why I called it hyperbole. Because what you’re saying is literally non sense on what if’s etc.

 

[Sojourn]

It must be hard to come up with a good counter argument when you don't bother to read.

I've given you facts, 405. It's not my responsibility to help you understand them, or try to convince you that they are facts. The definition of "fact" does the latter part for me. That's not really up for debate. They are facts. Your unwillingness to acknowledge them as such just comes across as denial and ignorance, because it shows how incorrect your entire argument is. Like Viper said:

"I'm backing my statement with facts, whereas you're back paddling with... facts."

Absolutely slayed them with facts & logic.

He nailed it, and all you did was continue to prove him right.

Props to Vipers there, for being so far ahead of the curve.

 

[Coachcorner]

I mean how long do they takes with this thang mayne. Ritchie is very, very deeply needed here. Anaheim needs that sucka type of a hitta. Big banga. He taking that body, real hard. I mean 250 hits while scoring 30 points, even more. Mayne that boy got that fire on that rear end damn that dawg is on faia! :fire: Just sign that paper on so he can get to the practise with his so called friends. Period. I know ice hockey. Played myself sire, and coached some. Years go on and on.

 

[405Exit]

It must be hard to come up with a good counter argument when you don't bother to read.

I've given you facts, 405. It's not my responsibility to help you understand them, or try to convince you that they are facts. The definition of "fact" does the latter part for me. That's not really up for debate. They are facts. Your unwillingness to acknowledge them as such just comes across as denial and ignorance, because it shows how incorrect your entire argument is. Like Viper said:



He nailed it, and all you did was continue to prove him right.

Props to Vipers there, for being so far ahead of the curve.

You don’t have facts. That’s the problem. You have woulda coulda shoulda. And excuses regarding Powerplay time. Like how can anyone take you seriously when your opening introduction was, “the game has changed” before you spewed out non sense regarding PP.

Just fascinating how mods on HF boards get thumbs up for non factual arguments. If you read Soj responses? They are excuses based off “the game has changed” comparing Penner to ritchie. Height and weight is next for his counter.

 

[Sojourn]

You don’t have facts. That’s the problem. You have woulda coulda shoulda. And excuses regarding Powerplay time. Like how can anyone take you seriously when your opening introduction was, “the game has changed” before you spewed out non sense regarding PP.

Just fascinating how mods on HF boards get thumbs up for non factual arguments. If you read Soj responses? They are excuses based off “the game has changed” comparing Penner to ritchie. Height and weight is next for his counter.

Definition of FACT

Do everyone a favor. Read the definition of a fact. You clearly need a better understanding of the word, with how much you like to throw it around.

This is actually getting to the point of being embarrassing, because your argument has essentially come down to you defining a fact as different than the actual definition of it. So, learn what the word actually means, come back, and then we might be able to discuss this like adults. You know, with facts.

 

[405Exit]

Definition of FACT

Do everyone a favor. Read the definition of a fact. You clearly need a better understanding of the word, with how much you like to throw it around.

Which you presented none. I did I showed you Same coach in Carlyle for both, I showed you both Ritchie and Penner rookie season comparisons. One obviously the better player. And you made excuses in introductory argument of “the game has changed”. And then you fall back on woulda coulda shoulda.

So whatever man. I’m already over it have a good weekend!

 

[Sojourn]

Which you presented none. I did I showed you Same coach in Carlyle for both, I showed you both Ritchie and Penner rookie season comparisons. One obviously the better player. And you made excuses in introductory argument of “the game has changed”. And then you fall back on woulda coulda shoulda.

So whatever man. I’m already over it have a good weekend!

Denial and ignorance it is.