Post-Game Talk: SENS in Philly, Monday 7:00 pm

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
64,990
49,509
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BonkTastic

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
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?

Yeah, but typical of almost any player, you can almost always find an advanced stat that makes them look at least average.

Even Boro.

Cherrypicking stats ≠ qualitative analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BondraTime

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
My original point remains, this is the same as last time and next time people will talk about him and try arguing with me but you can't win when he's good defensively and the numbers show it.

If it's just the eye tests that count now...how coincidental that is.
 

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
If that's what I said, I would have said it.
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.
 

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
Saying a whole lot of nothing

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BondraTime

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
64,990
49,509
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.

On the top 10 teams in the league .. Boro is not playing at all

Same can be said for many of the players in the Sens lineup now. Boro is a marginal NHL player.
Calling him a 5-6 is very complimentary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deku

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
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.
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!

All that you're proving is that a 5-6 d might not be very good and using an incredible amount of time doing it.

I didn't make the numbers or charts, but i certainly follow them and have some sort of awareness to other players in the nhl, something i doubt many here do. but continue with your little charade.
 

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
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.

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.
 

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
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.
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?.
 
Last edited:

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
You guys are ridiculously hypocratic.

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.
 

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
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.
No i was looking for the word I used,thanks and thats what you're being.
 

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
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.
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.
 

BonkTastic

ಠ_ಠ
Nov 9, 2010
30,901
10,092
Parts Unknown
theres that pretend part

It's not pretending when you flat out 100% admit your intentions from the beginning.

I'm fairly sure I laid out exactly how this conversation was going to go like an hour ago. Here, let me remind you:

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.
 

solidprospect

Borveetzky
Sep 30, 2017
4,422
1,274
BonkTastic said:
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.

But yet, here you are...still. still trying to prove things.​
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->