|
Post by habsfan on Aug 15, 2007 13:59:14 GMT -4
Yes, you are a homer for local kids. That coming from a guy who said Langan could get 50 points this year . Langan could very well put up 50 this season imo
|
|
|
Post by chillywack on Aug 15, 2007 14:21:11 GMT -4
Yes, you are a homer for local kids. That coming from a guy who said Langan could get 50 points this year . Langan could very well put up 50 this season imo In Midget AAA or possibly Junior A. But Major Junior? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Aug 15, 2007 16:20:09 GMT -4
Langan could very well put up 50 this season imo You should be happy if Anthony puts up 50 puts this year. Esposito is the only 16 year old to score more than 50 points in the last 3 seasons. And he played with the league MVP Radulov. I just don't think you realise how little most 16 year olds really contribute. Here are the rest of the top scoring 16 year olds in the last 3 years: 06-07 Tessier 63-23-27-50 04-05 Sheppard 65-14-31-45 06-07 Caron 59-18-22-40 04-05 Breault 54-13-27-40 06-07 Doyle 50-18-18-36 05-06 Laroche 63-15-17-32
|
|
|
Post by berner on Aug 15, 2007 16:33:21 GMT -4
While I agree that the forwards in general need to show improvement on the defensive side, the plus-minus stat is among the less useful stats out there, and certainly not a stat to base any arguments on. What it CAN do is provide backup for an argument, but it can't BE the argument. No arguments here just stating the facts..the numbers dont lie ..if were on the same team and our +/- is better than theirs we win..so if this stat is useless please explain how. I know that I always thought otherwise....but I don't know it all maybe i'll learn something OK... first I never said it was useless, it does have some warrant (read over what I wrote previously). Having said that let me use a simple example. The NHLs Selke Nominees for last season as best defensive forwards were BrindAmour, Pahlsson and Pandolfo. Their respective plus-minus numbers were +7, -4 and -5. Few would argue they were among the best defensive forwards last season. But the numbers don't lie, do they?? Of course they do if you use plus-minus as a primary means to measure a players defensive abilities. Team-wise, check this out. Last season the NJ Devils were ranked second in the Eastern Conference. Their team plus-minus was -12. Based on this stat the Devils should not have even made the playoffs, as 8 teams in the East had a better plus-minus. Conversely, The Florida Panthers recorded a team +13. Fourth-best in the East, yet they placed 12th out of 15 teams in the East. Used on it's own, plus-minus is often a very deceptive stat and never tells the whole story. These days special teams play huge role in the NHL and the Q, and under PP or SH conditions plus-minus does not apply. So, did you learn something?
|
|
|
Post by habh8er on Aug 15, 2007 16:47:11 GMT -4
Yes Sir I did....however...still doesn't seem relevant to the conversation at hand..I guess the numbers can tell us what we want to hear on either side of the coin IMO
|
|
|
Post by berner on Aug 15, 2007 17:00:12 GMT -4
Yes Sir I did.... however...still doesn't seem relevant to the conversation at hand..I guess the numbers can tell us what we want to hear on either side of the coin IMO Oh, OK, I can help you with that one too. You posted this back on page 1 of this thread: I agree with you Dogbert "we're hurting in the checking department for sure". If you consider +/- to be an important aspect of a hockey player or club for that matter then if J.B. can't do something about this I agree we are in a world of hurt for sure. The top 3 scorers for the seadogs last year had a combined +/- of a whopping -66. The top 3 foggies had a combined number of - 25.And at the other end of the spectrum the presidents cup champ Maineacs top 3 had a +90 averaged out that is S.D. -22....F.D.-8.33...LEW.+30. I think that scoring is very important, however unless we are going to score ten goals a game defence is the answer.As they say offence wins games but defence wins championships.Not that we are going for a championship but you have to start working on good habits and work ethic now to have these things drilled into young heads when it does matter. You were using plus-minus stats to indicate a lack of defence (I believe). While agree with you that the Dogs, especially the forwards, need to get their collective butts back on defence, I was explaining to you why plus-minus is a non-starter when discussing anything useful about a player or team. And there's the relevance.
|
|
|
Post by bjindaho on Aug 15, 2007 18:42:09 GMT -4
I'd like to see something like: Liske-Dido-Knox Charland-Sparling-Charland Anthony-Stoddard-Kirkpatrick Gallant-Leduc-Thomas Gauthier and Langan/Mugford/FA as extras
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Aug 15, 2007 19:22:27 GMT -4
I'd like to see something like: Liske-Dido-Knox Charland-Sparling-Charland Anthony-Stoddard-Kirkpatrick Gallant-Leduc-Thomas Gauthier and Langan/Mugford/FA as extras I'm expecting something similar to start: Gauthier-DiDomenico-Knox K. Charland-Sparling-F. Charland Liske-Leduc-Stoddard Gallant-Anthony-Thomas Langan-Pard-Kirkpatrick
|
|
|
Post by major on Aug 15, 2007 19:55:38 GMT -4
I dont think that Gauthier will be on the top two lines, I personally think he might get traded. I think Bjindaho projected line-up is more of a possability than MikeC's. But I still think Sparling will be traded before the end of training camp.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Aug 15, 2007 20:01:36 GMT -4
I dont think that Gauthier will be on the top two lines, I personally think he might get traded. I think Bjindaho projected line-up is more of a possability than MikeC's. But I still think Sparling will be traded before the end of training camp. Stoddard and Gauthier are probably going to score 60+ and 50+ points respectively. If you trade Gauthier and Sparling to get guys like Thomas and Langan more ice time, I don't think you make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by berner on Aug 15, 2007 20:34:27 GMT -4
I like MikeC's lines, for now... difficult to predict until camp gets rolling though, as to who clicks with who etc.. although I really feel pairing the Charlands could pay dividends.
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Aug 15, 2007 20:43:06 GMT -4
Hmm. I can't see us moving Sparling (we could have moved him at Xmas last year and got something. More than we would now anyway.) but to me he does seem the odd man out when trying to put together lines. Not because he's the worst player or anything. He just doesn't...fit. I kinda see this though cuz I think he stays.
Liske-Dido-Knox Sparling-Anthony-F.Charland K.Charland-Leduc-Gauthier Gallant-Stoddard-Kirkpatrick
Ugh. I don't like that either. I give up. Basically I was assuming that if Liske is healthy he and Dido likely stay together again, adding in Knox. The K.Charland-Leduc-Gauthier line had chemistry last year and think they get a shot together again. The rest is all eff'd up though and none of the combos seem to fit together, although since a lot of these guys are new faces who knows who will work well with who. With Anthony being a key piece of the future puzzle for this team though I can't see him on the 4th line. Safe to say F.Charland won't be on the 4th line either. Stoddard has a ton of potential and if he has put in the off season work as is rumored, I can't see him on the 4th line either as he is young and a key piece to the future too. Ergh. Let JB figure it out I quit!
|
|
|
Post by berner on Aug 15, 2007 20:52:30 GMT -4
I can see Anthony on the fourth line to start, easily. Ease him into the game, believe me it won't take long for the injury bug to hit or for him to simply show that he deserves more ice time at the expense of someone else. Same with Kirkpatrick.
It's the same idea with Despres. They'll probably start him on the third pairing/7th D and proceed from there.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on Aug 15, 2007 20:57:36 GMT -4
Hmm. I can't see us moving Sparling (we could have moved him at Xmas last year and got something. More than we would now anyway.) but to me he does seem the odd man out when trying to put together lines. Not because he's the worst player or anything. He just doesn't...fit. I kinda see this though cuz I think he stays. Liske-Dido-Knox Sparling-Anthony-F.Charland K.Charland-Leduc-Gauthier Gallant-Stoddard-Kirkpatrick Ugh. I don't like that either. I give up. Basically I was assuming that if Liske is healthy he and Dido likely stay together again, adding in Knox. The K.Charland-Leduc-Gauthier line had chemistry last year and think they get a shot together again. The rest is all eff'd up though and none of the combos seem to fit together, although since a lot of these guys are new faces who knows who will work well with who. With Anthony being a key piece of the future puzzle for this team though I can't see him on the 4th line. Safe to say F.Charland won't be on the 4th line either. Stoddard has a ton of potential and if he has put in the off season work as is rumored, I can't see him on the 4th line either as he is young and a key piece to the future too. Ergh. Let JB figure it out I quit! The problem of having too many Q level players sure beats the opposite, which was the problem you've had for the last 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Aug 15, 2007 20:58:32 GMT -4
I can see Anthony on the fourth line to start, easily. Ease him into the game, believe me it won't take long for the injury bug to hit or for him to simply show that he deserves more ice time at the expense of someone else. Same with Kirkpatrick. It's the same idea with Despres. They'll probably start him on the third pairing/7th D and proceed from there. Yeah but typically our 4th line sees very little ice time. Some periods they don't even hit the ice. I can't see Anthony being in that limited a role, even to start the season. Despres in the third D pair is fine as even the third pairing sees a fair bit of icetime. You may be right though and he starts there and moves up as injuries appear or players underachieve. I think it more likely though that Anthony starts better than fourth line and JB demotes him to there or benches him when he becomes guilty of "lazy play", which seemed to be the knock on the guy. That he took nights off.
|
|