|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 4, 2017 15:10:23 GMT -4
I’ve been told it’s between Ben Evans (Ottawa 67s) and Owen Lane (Sudbury Wolves). I like the fact they're both 18 , Evans put up decent numbers in the OHL last season. Sign them both and cut Pataki? |
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on Oct 4, 2017 15:12:26 GMT -4
I like the fact they're both 18 , Evans put up decent numbers in the OHL last season. Sign them both and cut Pataki? The thought crossed my mind.... Lane played with Dunda last season. |
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Oct 4, 2017 16:01:01 GMT -4
I like the fact they're both 18 , Evans put up decent numbers in the OHL last season. Sign them both and cut Pataki? Would Pataki get cut before MacRae? |
|
|
|
Post by herculeshorn on Oct 4, 2017 16:07:28 GMT -4
Any insight on an Ontario FA going the team on Friday ? It was mentioned on the french board.. I’ve been told it’s between Ben Evans (Ottawa 67s) and Owen Lane (Sudbury Wolves). Incorrect! The answer is Dylan Seitz. |
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Oct 4, 2017 16:07:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by herculeshorn on Oct 4, 2017 16:11:05 GMT -4
Matt Waite out 1 week. Alec MacDonald called up.
Anderson MacDonald will miss 3 in 3 this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Oct 4, 2017 18:13:35 GMT -4
Sounds like Seitz is big guy. Another grinder.
|
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on Oct 4, 2017 18:28:57 GMT -4
Sign them both and cut Pataki? Would Pataki get cut before MacRae? Either or. |
|
|
|
Post by WildcatMapleLeafs on Oct 4, 2017 19:10:47 GMT -4
On an interesting note , Steitz was ranked for the 2017 NHL draft.
2017 NHL Entry Draft: Ranked #123 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters)
|
|
|
|
Post by catzfans on Oct 4, 2017 21:09:46 GMT -4
Surprised that he wasn’t picked up by another OHL team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 22:13:10 GMT -4
No. My post was about you judging one players defensive success as a product of weak opponents and you judging another players poor results as not releavant because of the small sample size but exact same opponents. You have been trying to twist it to a plus minus discussion ever since.., You're the guy that brought up MacDonald being -4. Neither stat means much. The only weight I put on +- is over a full season and compared to a player's teammates and roles. On bottom feeders, for example, usually the best defensive players have terrible +- because they get tough matchups on teams getting pounded. You are a clown....do you think if you just ignore the conversation and talk about what you want it changes anything? Wow thanks again for the in depth opinion on the +/- stat...again not relevant to my post. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 5, 2017 6:55:30 GMT -4
You're the guy that brought up MacDonald being -4. Neither stat means much. The only weight I put on +- is over a full season and compared to a player's teammates and roles. On bottom feeders, for example, usually the best defensive players have terrible +- because they get tough matchups on teams getting pounded. You are a clown....do you think if you just ignore the conversation and talk about what you want it changes anything? Wow thanks again for the in depth opinion on the +/- stat...again not relevant to my post. Bahahahhahahaha I'm a clown? You're the guy pulling out +- like it's some kind of great measuring stick...and over FOUR games to boot. Crawl back into your hole until you hit puberty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 23:08:39 GMT -4
You are a clown....do you think if you just ignore the conversation and talk about what you want it changes anything? Wow thanks again for the in depth opinion on the +/- stat...again not relevant to my post. Bahahahhahahaha I'm a clown? You're the guy pulling out +- like it's some kind of great measuring stick...and over FOUR games to boot. Crawl back into your hole until you hit puberty. Look you douche bag...no I didn't but you know that and this is what you do you twist an argument into something to wasn't because you are a no life loser who only gets self esteem from pretending to be right on a message board. No i didn't pull out +/- and no I didn't analyze anything YOU DID! Is that clear enough for you. I already quoted you once I won't bother again...but I will paraphrase and them just maybe you can answer the one question that was posed... You said Pelltier's +/- was a result of bad opponents not good defensive play...YOU SAID THAT! I asked about MacDonalds poor +/- against the same teams. and YOU SAID it wasn't an issue and too small a sample. So the original question is how do YOU find a meaning in one players good number but no meaning in another players poor number against the same opponents and sample size? That is it that was the question...since then you have spouted bullshit and nonsense...then in a twist of rare stupidity tried to say I spouted off about plus minus...any chance you can answer the original part of the discussion or will you continue to be a keyboard idiot for today and the rest of your life? "You're the guy pulling out +- like it's some kind of great measuring stick...and over FOUR games to boot." Those are YOUR words...so you find 4 games not a good sample...awesome..then why were you able to put down a players defensive effort based on that small sample? |
|
dar
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 458
|
Post by dar on Oct 6, 2017 6:38:58 GMT -4
Don't bother with him... he will never admit it when he is wrong... just like another certain poster on thr Titan board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Oct 6, 2017 6:55:12 GMT -4
Bahahahhahahaha I'm a clown? You're the guy pulling out +- like it's some kind of great measuring stick...and over FOUR games to boot. Crawl back into your hole until you hit puberty. Look you douche bag...no I didn't but you know that and this is what you do you twist an argument into something to wasn't because you are a no life loser who only gets self esteem from pretending to be right on a message board. No i didn't pull out +/- and no I didn't analyze anything YOU DID! Is that clear enough for you. I already quoted you once I won't bother again...but I will paraphrase and them just maybe you can answer the one question that was posed... You said Pelltier's +/- was a result of bad opponents not good defensive play...YOU SAID THAT! I asked about MacDonalds poor +/- against the same teams. and YOU SAID it wasn't an issue and too small a sample. So the original question is how do YOU find a meaning in one players good number but no meaning in another players poor number against the same opponents and sample size? That is it that was the question...since then you have spouted bullshit and nonsense...then in a twist of rare stupidity tried to say I spouted off about plus minus...any chance you can answer the original part of the discussion or will you continue to be a keyboard idiot for today and the rest of your life? "You're the guy pulling out +- like it's some kind of great measuring stick...and over FOUR games to boot." Those are YOUR words...so you find 4 games not a good sample...awesome..then why were you able to put down a players defensive effort based on that small sample? YOU are the one that brought it up in the first place, comparing Pelletier's numbers to MacDonald. No matter what moronic explanations you have, nobody with half a brain would use +- to gauge players' performance after FOUR freaking games!!! You want to act like a clown, then argue with yourself. Bottom line, you made a stupid point and now you're making 4 more stupid posts to try and defend it. Ask anybody that works in hockey how much weight they put in plus minus in FOUR games. |
|
