Waterfowlist
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2012
- 3,286
- 1,832
"The best Austrian to play in the NHL"...somehow I don't think he has much competition for that.
It's Vanek, Grabner, and Nodl I believe.
Grabner's a pretty solid player but yeeeeaaaaaah
How dare you forget Thomas Pock!
How dare you forget Thomas Pock!
The "top players with the #8" doesn't really add credibility to this survey, nor does the composition of voters, nor paragraphs like this:
"The Sabres have not advanced past the first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs since his first season, but he had five goals in a seven-game series loss to the Philadelphia Flyers in 2010-11. Vanek got off to a monster start to 2012-13 but has cooled of late."
Is this writer the type of writer (or TV personality) used in the voting process?
Vanek is excellent, but not because this goofy poll says so.
Yes they do.Vanek is an elite winger*
*sometimes
Screw this guy. Elite players don't disappear
There is clearly a group of super-talented left wings with consistency issues on the ice, and that was reflected in the voting. That group includes Ovechkin, Marian Gaborik, Patrick Marleau and Thomas Vanek -- each received at least four top-four votes, but only Vanek appeared on all 10, and four members of the panel placed him sixth or seventh.
Vanek is an elite winger*
*sometimes
Screw this guy. Elite players don't disappear
the voting breakdown was at the end of the article, they're NHL.com and NHL network guys
Confused, you agreed with the results but because of who was involved you don't like it? Even though you agree with it?
Any survey or poll can have answers that make sense, while having used a methodology that is silly.
Ask a Kardashian who'll win a political race and why. They may get the answer right, but for ridiculous reasons.
Granted, I really didn't read who voted, but when I see clearly mistaken info passed off as fact, or goofy questions included, I tend to start automatically dismissing sources.
if your bolded post is an indication of the misinformation I'd have to strongly disagree with you, playoff success is a marginal at best example of individual success. Also they werent asking the khardasians about hockey players they were asking hockey analysts about hockey players, and off the bat it deserves a little more than "I didn't even read the entire article but here's my judgment on their credibility". The same way a political poll of DC analysts would garner much more respect than Kim Kris an kloe. What I figured was you saw someone said something positive about the Sabres and you knocked your desk lamp over scrambling in to denounce them because obviously nothing good ever happens in Buffalo and people who think otherwise are delusional. The Khardasian statement kind of backs that up. The rankings seam fairly accurate and their analysis of those rankings seams to be fairly accurate as well. Especially considering they matter of factly point out that several players on the list have consistency issues and much to the editors surprise there's much less correlation between rank and playoff success in the winger pool than the center pool. The article comes at you with about as much integrity as you could ask for in a sports article and because you disagree with 1 point you dismiss it out of hand as fallacious. Perhaps instead it's one of your preconceived notions that is incorrect?