BonkTastic
ಠ_ಠ
So was Angelo Esposito1st round pick?
paid 4 mil per over the next 3 years roughly
We paid Cowen almost that much, didn't we?
and boro rates better
Boro is better than Esposito and Cowen too. It doesn't mean anything.
So was Angelo Esposito1st round pick?
paid 4 mil per over the next 3 years roughly
and boro rates better
I wonder if our GM and scouts don't rely on numbers and it's strictly just eye tests? I doubt it.
I'd guess the reason you keep talking about it is "not every game in the literal sens" but quite often
The majority of the board thinks this wasn't a rebuild, how did that go.
Does CA/60 tell us anything? Is 73.2 good? Its the highest number of any year he's had with the Sens ... does that mean he's improving? How about CF/60 vs CA/60 is -23.3 good?
he's good defensively and the numbers show it.
So he's above average in expected goals against but he's bad defensively, is that what you're saying?But stats also show him being bad defensively.
So he's above average in expected goals against but he's bad defensively, is that what you're saying?
So basically, he's not bad defensively.If that's what I was saying, I would have said that.
I said the exact thing I said.
So bascially, he's not bad defensively.
Saying a whole lot of nothing that isn't true, about a defenceman that is above average defensively. but still continue to argue about it at various times even though you're aware he's only a 5-6 d anyways.If that's what I said, I would have said it.
Saying a whole lot of nothing
Saying a whole lot of nothing that isn't true, about a defenceman that is above average defensively. but still continue to argue about it at various times even though you're aware he's only a 5-6 d anyways.
Your replies would indicate otherwise , i'll come around when stats show that hes no longer good defensively,such as expected goal against numbers relative to every player in the NHL that i just showed!Oh, we've had this argument multiple times before, and I'm perfectly happy with how that ended the last time, and satisfied with my side of the debate.
I'm not going to keep trying to prove things with you. I'm just at the point where I'm going to continue to remind you that your reasoning is faulty and your analysis is bad. At some point you'll come around. Or not. I don't really care.
i'll come around when stats show that hes no longer good defensively
If it's the one i'm recalling, you tried to use a puck possession corsi stat to rate boro. I'll steer clear of that.Cool, go look at all the stats I gave you the last time we discussed Boro, or the time before that.
It's there.
If it's the one i'm recalling, you tried to use a puck possession corsi stat to rate boro. I'll steer clear of that.
If it's the one i'm recalling, you tried to use a puck possession corsi stat to rate boro. I'll steer clear of that.
You're doing exactly the same thing. but it turns out that the defenceman that are actually BAD at defence rate lower in that category than the ones then ARE good at it. But your numbers are more important than my numbers and I'm the only one nitpicking. You guys are ridiculously Hippocratic?.Oh, I've probably used at least 7 or 8 different stats in our debates in the past.
But it doesn't matter, because there's always one or two stats that can make literally any NHL player look at bare minimum to be average. As long as you can glom onto those while nitpicking the rest, nothing I say will matter. You need to change the way you are interacting with these stats before any meaningful conversation will evolve here.
Wash, rine, repeat.
Rating boro on puck possession is like rating my microwave on how fast it freezes food....right, because it doesn't fit your narrative...
You guys are ridiculously hypocratic.
No i was looking for the word I used,thanks and thats what you're being.1) The word you're looking for is "hypocritical".
2) All anyone is trying to tell you to do is look beyond like literally 1 or 2 stats (because no one or two stats can definitively say anything about a player, especially defensively), and consider the larger picture, that stats are meant to be used collaboratively with eachother and with our eyes to create a truly holistic evaluation of a player, which you refuse to do. So no, we are not hypocrites - the problem is that you are stubborn and refuse to listen.
And because of that last part, most people have lost the appetite to debate this with you. Like me. So now I just bring up the same points and hope you re-consider your literal entire approach to player evaluation. Which probably won't happen.
Anyways, cool beans. Good talk. Let's do this again in a couple of weeks.
Yeah somehow that doesn't seem really important, was my point.
And then you pretend like you're not involved in it, keep trying to take shots and prove things to me, even when he's expected to be scored on less than an average nhl defenceman.Yeah, that's been my main point with your entire argument regarding Mark Borowiecki, too.
I like how this conversation is coming round-circle like this. It's nice and tidy. Very satisfying.
theres that pretend part
I'm not going to keep trying to prove things with you. I'm just at the point where I'm going to continue to remind you that your reasoning is faulty and your analysis is bad. At some point you'll come around. Or not. I don't really care.