News Article: Vanek, 3rd best LW in NHL?

[Waterfowlist]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=659225&navid=DL|NHL|home

He got 3 votes for #1.

Click to read more...

 

[Shoey]

That goal Vanek scored the other night is the only thing I need to recognize that he's absolutely an elite player in this league.

The guy saw the breakout in his own zone before Pominville even had the puck and started flying down the wing, it's the kind of thing almost nobody can do... ALL INSTINCT.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

He's a great talent with a great sense for game, plus he's always pushing it. Some people have other views but I don't get it. He's an elite player. He's not Crosby, obviously, but he is elite

 

[Squantosawuss]

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.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

"The best Austrian to play in the NHL"...somehow I don't think he has much competition for that.

 

[Shoey]

"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

 

[NotABadPeriod]

It's Vanek, Grabner, and Nodl I believe.

Grabner's a pretty solid player but yeeeeaaaaaah

How dare you forget Thomas Pock!

 

[Shoey]

How dare you forget Thomas Pock!

surprisingly he hasn't played in the NHL the last 3 years despite being an undeniable international superstar.

 

[Duddy]

How dare you forget Thomas Pock!

how dare you forget the mighty Christoph Brandner (first Austrian player to score a goal in the NHL) or the Marty Brodeur of Austria Reinhard Divis first Austrian to play in the NHL?

shame on you

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

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.

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?

 

[Karate Johnson*]

Vanek is an elite winger*

*sometimes



Screw this guy. Elite players don't disappear

 

[vcv]

Vanek is an elite winger*

*sometimes



Screw this guy. Elite players don't disappear

Yes they do.

 

[Shoey]

How many elite players take 500 cross checks a year?

 

[jBuds]

This hit a chord:

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.

interesting that he was the only one to be on all of the lists. Who the hell omitted Parise?????? Or am I reading that wrong, and they're only saying Vanek on all lists out of he, Gabby, Ovie, and Marlo Stanfield?

 

[enthusiast]

Vanek is an elite winger*

*sometimes



Screw this guy. Elite players don't disappear

Ahahahaha

 

[jBuds]

Ahahahaha

Rrrrrrrrrracewaaaay PARK!

 

[Squantosawuss]

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.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

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?

 

[ZZamboni]

Yes they do.

He meant in NHL13

 

[dugman]

When Ruff was coaching, much was made of him playing Vanek too little, and that Vanek and Ruff had a strained relationship. Rolston hasn't been seen yelling at Vanek, and his ice time is up significantly, but Vanek hasn't been particularly good since Rolston took over. I know it is a small sample size, and Vanek may be playing hurt, and I am too lazy to back this up with actual research, but do we have an ideal TV ice time?

 

[Squantosawuss]

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?

You're reading waaaay too much into my criticism of this article, lol.

FACT is, they were WRONG about the Sabres playoff success recently. And if I'm slamming the Sabres so much, WHY am I the one pointing out that their mistake shortchanges the Sabres? FACT is, they said the Sabres haven't gotten past the first round since Vanek's first season. FACT (not opinion), is that the Sabres actually won the Presidents Trophy AND went to the ECF in Vanek's second season. That's not just my perception or opinion, it's reality.

If you can't get that simple fact correct in a relatively short article, maybe you're not paying much attention to detail, hence the credibility issue I raised.