|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Sept 30, 2017 16:38:47 GMT -4
Thought Waite might get the nod tonight but am happy it’s Grametbauer Charlottetown should be a Waite start...that's a better matchup for him than Bathurst... |
|
|
|
Post by WHEELsnipePARTY on Sept 30, 2017 17:19:17 GMT -4
I wonder if wieringa isn’t banged up, unless he was really bad against Bathurst, kinda surprised to not see him play all weekend ...maybe they just wanted to cycle in the two younger guys against a weaker team in SJ. Well speaking of him, him and McKenna taking warm up with Bellamy out |
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Sept 30, 2017 21:41:44 GMT -4
Pelletier at +6 is impressive for a rookie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 1, 2017 1:04:39 GMT -4
Pelletier at +6 is impressive for a rookie. I like how he is playing, but that says more about his offense and playing weaker teams(3 of 4 vs SJ and Cha) than his defense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 15:20:42 GMT -4
Pelletier at +6 is impressive for a rookie. I like how he is playing, but that says more about his offense and playing weaker teams(3 of 4 vs SJ and Cha) than his defense. Is that what it means? Because MacDonald has 4 points and is -4...did he play different teams? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 1, 2017 19:55:36 GMT -4
I like how he is playing, but that says more about his offense and playing weaker teams(3 of 4 vs SJ and Cha) than his defense. Is that what it means? Because MacDonald has 4 points and is -4...did he play different teams? Very small sample size, I wouldn't worry too much about 4 games. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 19:57:34 GMT -4
Is that what it means? Because MacDonald has 4 points and is -4...did he play different teams? Very small sample size, I wouldn't worry too much about 4 games. And yet you were able to draw a conclusion on Pelltier's play based on the same sample size...weird. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 1, 2017 21:49:12 GMT -4
Very small sample size, I wouldn't worry too much about 4 games. And yet you were able to draw a conclusion on Pelltier's play based on the same sample size...weird. Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... |
|
ronmac
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 376
|
Post by ronmac on Oct 2, 2017 6:45:06 GMT -4
And yet you were able to draw a conclusion on Pelltier's play based on the same sample size...weird. Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... Captain Obvious you are giving yourself quite a spread, LOL |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Oct 2, 2017 8:16:00 GMT -4
And yet you were able to draw a conclusion on Pelltier's play based on the same sample size...weird. Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... I thought Pelletier came with the rep of being a very strong two way player when we drafted him ... wasn't he compared to Patrice Bergeron in terms of style? Or did I dream that? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 2, 2017 10:24:22 GMT -4
Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... I thought Pelletier came with the rep of being a very strong two way player when we drafted him ... wasn't he compared to Patrice Bergeron in terms of style? Or did I dream that? I have never heard that comparison, but it may exist. The comparison I heard was Drouin. High end skill and strong work ethic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 0:05:00 GMT -4
And yet you were able to draw a conclusion on Pelltier's play based on the same sample size...weird. Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... I can shit on you any time i like...you offered an opinion on Pelltier based on his plus/minus over a few games...you said his plus/minus was good because he played poor opponents. Yet MacDonald has a piss poor plus minus over the same sample and you said it was a non issue because of the small amount of games played. They both played the same opponents genius! So MacDonald played the same shitty opponents and had a much worse plus minus but you dismiss that... Only you can take 2+2 and get the answer 5 and apples when asked the same question twice. Dont get all bitchy at me because you posted something stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 3, 2017 6:58:35 GMT -4
Thanks for proving my case. Neither guy is high end defensively. The fact that one is +6 and the other -4 screams sample size. BOTH are cases for a small sample size. If Pelletier finishes +68 and A.MacDonald -102, then you can shit on me... I can shit on you any time i like...you offered an opinion on Pelltier based on his plus/minus over a few games...you said his plus/minus was good because he played poor opponents. Yet MacDonald has a piss poor plus minus over the same sample and you said it was a non issue because of the small amount of games played. They both played the same opponents genius! So MacDonald played the same shitty opponents and had a much worse plus minus but you dismiss that... Only you can take 2+2 and get the answer 5 and apples when asked the same question twice. Dont get all bitchy at me because you posted something stupid. I didn't offer an opinion on Pelletier, I simply said it was a small sample size and it was mostly vs shitty teams. Same applies to MacDonald. If anybody here is posting stupid shit, it's you...using +- over FOUR games to draw conclusions about a player. Some say +- is a useless stat. I'll give it due consideration, but the same size has to be A LOT bigger than 4 games, and it has to be done in the context of the team. For further context...Tessier is used a lot in PK and other defensive situations, they have said multiple times in the paper that he is good defensively, he is -4 and Cyr is not as good defensively and he is +5. Again, small sample size. Not sure why anybody gets their panties in a knot about +-, maybe you're too emotionally involved or you're just PMSing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:21:23 GMT -4
I can shit on you any time i like...you offered an opinion on Pelltier based on his plus/minus over a few games...you said his plus/minus was good because he played poor opponents. Yet MacDonald has a piss poor plus minus over the same sample and you said it was a non issue because of the small amount of games played. They both played the same opponents genius! So MacDonald played the same shitty opponents and had a much worse plus minus but you dismiss that... Only you can take 2+2 and get the answer 5 and apples when asked the same question twice. Dont get all bitchy at me because you posted something stupid. I didn't offer an opinion on Pelletier, I simply said it was a small sample size and it was mostly vs shitty teams. Same applies to MacDonald. If anybody here is posting stupid shit, it's you...using +- over FOUR games to draw conclusions about a player. Some say +- is a useless stat. I'll give it due consideration, but the same size has to be A LOT bigger than 4 games, and it has to be done in the context of the team. For further context...Tessier is used a lot in PK and other defensive situations, they have said multiple times in the paper that he is good defensively, he is -4 and Cyr is not as good defensively and he is +5. Again, small sample size. Not sure why anybody gets their panties in a knot about +-, maybe you're too emotionally involved or you're just PMSing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 14:50:01 GMT -4
I can shit on you any time i like...you offered an opinion on Pelltier based on his plus/minus over a few games...you said his plus/minus was good because he played poor opponents. Yet MacDonald has a piss poor plus minus over the same sample and you said it was a non issue because of the small amount of games played. They both played the same opponents genius! So MacDonald played the same shitty opponents and had a much worse plus minus but you dismiss that... Only you can take 2+2 and get the answer 5 and apples when asked the same question twice. Dont get all bitchy at me because you posted something stupid. I didn't offer an opinion on Pelletier, I simply said it was a small sample size and it was mostly vs shitty teams. Same applies to MacDonald. If anybody here is posting stupid shit, it's you...using +- over FOUR games to draw conclusions about a player. Some say +- is a useless stat. I'll give it due consideration, but the same size has to be A LOT bigger than 4 games, and it has to be done in the context of the team. For further context...Tessier is used a lot in PK and other defensive situations, they have said multiple times in the paper that he is good defensively, he is -4 and Cyr is not as good defensively and he is +5. Again, small sample size. Not sure why anybody gets their panties in a knot about +-, maybe you're too emotionally involved or you're just PMSing. "I like how he is playing, but that says more about his offense and playing weaker teams(3 of 4 vs SJ and Cha) than his defense." That is what you wrote about Pelltier. That is an opinion. He was given credit by another poster for being +6 as a Rookie. You said it was just because of his offense and crappy opponents and not because of him being responsible or a two way player. "Very small sample size, I wouldn't worry too much about 4 games." that is what you wrote about MacDonald who has more points and is -4. So for MacDonald it is non-issue because the sample size is small but for Pelltier who played the same teams, it just means he played crappy opponents. Do you see the problem yet? I didn't say anything about sample size, other players...your personal research into the value of the plus/minus stat. just pointing out the hypocrisy of your posts. I have zero emotional involvement...I havent spent the last ten plus years of my life trying to always appear right on a message board. I guess amused could be an emotion. Thanks for explaining Tessiers ice time this year...pretty sure his time on the PK hasn't impacted his plus/minus. it doesn't impact anyone else in hockey... (from what I remember about Pelltier scouting reports he was touted as a kid who competes in all three zones of the ice, is responsible in his own end and was frequently used in key defensive situations. Pretty sure the defensive game according to scouts is one area that MacDonald has been challenged to improve) |
|
