Over-rated/Under-rated
Kennedy
Alex--it's pretty obviuos from your over/under list that you haven't
seen some of the teams very often. Take for example the St. Louis
Blues--Brett Hull has been one of the few players working day in and
day-out. The removal of the "C" has been overblown--Keenan has said
before and after the incident that Hull has given his all. He is
leading by example, and he has stuck up for his teammates both this year
and last.
I would have agreed with you that Hull is overrated 2 if you said that 2
years ago. But not in 1995.
I like some of your other choices, but this one is way off.
Rob kennedy
Kevin Sterner
> team by team, here's the most under and over-rated players:
> Philly: Over: LeClair: Where was he without Lindros?
> Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been. 10 years from
> now he'll have replaced Messier.
I have to disagree. The conventional wisdom is that LeClair is
overrated, since his stats were nothing spectacular until he was
placed on a line with Lindros and Renberg. But you can't make that
judgement until you've seen him play! He is great fun to watch. His
skills are everything that you might think by looking at his stats.
Why didn't he produce like this before the LOD? I have no idea, but
lack of skill ain't it. And BOY can he deliver a devastating check!
LeClair is the most underrated player on the team.
Also underrated: Hextall, Renberg, Haller, Dimaio
Lindros is neither underrated nor overrated. He is recognized as the
best player in hockey, and that's just right.
It's hard to find overrated players on the Flyers, since the players
who have been overrated in the past have had their stock fall
precipitously in the early season. Roussel, Svoboda, Semenov, Bowen,
and--ouch--Kevin Dineen are in the doghouse, so they can't be called
overrated right now. Patrick Juhlin and Joel Otto haven't lived up
to expectations (mine, anyway...does that mean they're overrated, or
just underrated by me?) Many people expect Antoski to make a serious
contribution beyond his enforcer role, because of his surprising
speed given his size...but he sure has had trouble putting the puck
in the net.
My choice for overrated: Eric Desjardins. He's viewed as being one of
the top defensemen in the league. He certainly is very good, but I've
seen him commit a few too many bad defensive-zone giveaways lately.
-- K.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner | U. Penn. High Energy Physics | Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcing Emily Jane Sterner, Born 10/24/95, 8 lbs. 4 oz., 21", Apgar 9.9/9.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Geneaux
>Washington: Over: Bondra. yeah he's hot, but does anyone really think
>this guy is a star? Come On! He's a loser.
> Under: Mark Tinordi. See Cavallini's review. He's a
force.
>
First, let me just say that this definitely is one of the
stupidest posts that I have ever seen. You're reasons for players being
overrated are absolutely ridiculous. I would respond to basically all of
these but it would take up too much space. Being as I am a Capitals fan
I thought I would respond to this. For one thing, I think Bondra is a
star and I think many other people do too. Why is he a loser, because he
scores goals? That is so stupid. Also, besides scoring goals, Bondra
plays on the power play, kills penalties, and plays pretty good defense
now too. Your arguments have no basis at all.
Jeremy
Tom Collins
> Colorado: Over; Sakic. He can't score in the 2nd half. What good is a
> guy who loses it after Christmas?
What about your (our) whipping boy, Sandis Ozolinsh? I understand he's
doing well in an Av's Uniform...
> San Jose: Over: Falloon. Fat prick couldn't outskate Orson Welles.
Again, it's his head, not his waist line. Saw Pat in street clothes at the
Tank last week, he ain't fat, even by pro hockey standards. I guarantee
you Pat will
have a new uniform before December 1.
> Under: Mike Rathje: One day will be a great defenseman.
> Reminds me of Brad Park.
Brad Park on steriods, maybe. Rathje is 6-5. Kinda slow and deliberate
in a Brad Park sort of way. Needs to use his size more to his advantage,
*move* with the puck when you're lookin for that outlet pass, Mike.
Clearing your zone will be so much easier when you're skating, not
standing with the puck.
Put in your "under" book for the Sharks: Andre Nazarov. Yes, Mr.
head-butt can play this game and has some good hands. Great disposition
for pro hockey, will
only get better with time, not afraid of anyone, just a colt waiting to be
tamed.
Thanks Alex, finally a good post not involving sex. :-)
> Alex
>
to...@farallon.com
*****************
mill
>no star. He had the worst plus/minus on the team a year ago. He's got a
>long way to go.
So, this year he's plus eight and sixth in the league in scoring.
[snip]
>Colorado: Over; Sakic. He can't score in the 2nd half. What good is a
>guy who loses it after Christmas?
But he's one of the better before.
> Under: Mike Ricci. Great 2-way centre. He's the real #1
>centre in Denver.
Yea, right. Before Christmas Sakic is #1 and after Forsberg. Ricci?
Never.
[snip]
>New Jersey: Over: Brodeur. has he ever seen 30 shots in a game? he's
>a fine goalie, but no super star. Did he face a single shot in the
>playoffs last year?
Agree.
> Under: Scott Stevens. Simply the best defenseman in the game.
Agree, but is he really underrated?
>Ottawa: Over: Daigle: useless
> Under: Yashin: One of the best 10 players around. Too bad
>he's stupid. he's letting the Russian Hoceky Federation make an example
>of himself.
Ok, he's great but top ten? Nope.
>Philly: Over: LeClair: Where was he without Lindros?
I thought so before but he has done well without Lindros.
Though he is overrated. (Leclair allstar?!)
> Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been. 10 years from
>now he'll have replaced Messier.
Maybe.
>Pittsburgh: Over: Jagr. Scores a lot, causes goals against. I'm not
>convinced he's anymore than an average player
Definitely more than an average player.
[snip]
/mill
--
###########################################################
# S-mail: Olof Oberg # tdv9...@cs.umu.se #
# Gnejsv. 10B # mi...@ludd.luth.se #
# S-907 41 Umea # mi...@ts.umu.se #
# Phone: 090-197395 # http://www.ludd.luth.se/~mill #
###########################################################
NJDevilCup
> Under: Paul Cavallini: One of the 5 best defensemen in the
>game. Totally overlooked.
Uh, hello McFly! He retired this past week. Try Dave Gagner, a
consistent 30 goal scorer who is the best 1 on 3 player in the
history of hockey. I have seen this guy score more goals when
he brings the puck in alone against 2 or 3 defenders. I don't know
how he does it. He may be getting old, though, because against
LA this past week he brought the puck in 1 on 3, but had to pass
to a wing who scored the goal. Only an assist for Gags. : )
>Over: Brodeur
>Under: Scott Stevens
I agree that Stevens is the best "D"efenseman in the game, but I
would hardly call him underrated. In the poll I conducted this past
week he finished 2nd to Chelios in voting for Best Defenseman. He
deserves the credit, he gets it.
Brodeur is one hell of a lot better than Trevor Kidd! Kidd the 2nd best
in the NHL? Please! I'm not calling Brodeur 2nd best, but he's in the
top 5, easy. Just because a guy doesn't see a lot of shots per game
doesn't mean he's not great. Look at Roy. For years he faced minimal
shots for the Habs, but he's still the greatest goalie since Dryden.
Brodeur makes all the big saves, and every goal that gets scored on
him you end up saying, "Well, no goalie in the NHL would have stopped
that.
Try Bill Guerin for underrated. Hits, skates, scores, plays D, and just
turned 25 on Thursday. If Eric Lindros is a Porsche, then Bill Guerin
is an American-made Porsche.
BTW, if Dale Hawerchuk is how far you have to stoop to find a Blues
underrated player, then I guess there's little to smile about in St.
Louis. You should have just put "none" next to them.
Kuch
Let's Go Devils! 7-6-1, with (Thanks, Neil) only 68 games until it
counts.
Mark M Hoffman
>agod...@uoguelph.ca (Alex A Goddard) writes:
>> now he'll have replaced Messier.
>
>most likely to win the Ross this year (him or Mario)... I don't think
>he's underrated by any stretch of the imagination.
>
>Personally, I think Brind'Amour is the unsung hero of the Flyers. The
>guy plays his ass off, kills penalties effectively, he's a great draw
>man, great play maker... reminds me of Ron Francis without the support
>cast that Ron has (Brindy aint on a line with Jagr)
Absolutely. It's too bad that the Flyers can't afford to get a winger to
go with him. He has more goals shorthanded than a lot of his teamates have
at even strength. Never mind that, he's a BRUISER... people spend a lot of
time thinking about Lindros and LOD that Brindy gets forgotten.
Mark
--
Let's go Flyers!
Santeri Pienimaki
: Edmonton: Over: F. Olousson. Where this guy got the reputation as a
: good defenseman is beyond me. he stinks.
: Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks too.
This was something I didn't understand. Yes, Olausson isn't that good as
a defenseman any more (but he was -4 last year, the second best among
Edmonton defensemen.. only Dean Kennedy had positive plus/minus record.
Even Luke Richardson had -6!). This year he has been terrible as I have
heard, though.
But you can't say that Numminen stinks defensively. He has had the best
plus/minus rating in Winnipeg for many seasons. Last year he was +12 in
a team which didn't make the playoffs. And yes, he has the reputation as
a good defensive defenseman - and he plays a lot (something like 30+
minutes a game). I don't know about him being over-rated but certainly
he ain't any kind of a bum. He is the best defenseman they (Jets) have.
Ok. Maybe I'm stressing too much the plus/minus stats, but in Numminen's
case they actually do reflect his defensive playing. If you are on the
ice 30 minutes in every game you play, and still have the best +/- in
your team, you got to be at least adequate defensively.
--
* Satan is devil and thou are not. Santeri....@cs.Helsinki.FI *
* university of helsinki rekipellontie 2 c 28 00940 helsinki *
* department of computer science finland p. 358-0-3951034 *
* kill everyone now kill everyone now kill everyone now kill everyone now kil *
Kostadis Roussos
> > Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been. 10 years from
> >now he'll have replaced Messier.
Wayne. Period. After that you have to consider Beliveau and Trottier
as the second greatest centres. Believeau because of his playoff
performances and his regular season prowess. Trottier because although
he never put up the monster totals Wayne did, he was still a defensive
force. Messier, is a legend in his own time, maybe in the top ten, but
certainly not in the top four.
cheers,
kostadis
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking.OUCH! That hurts
- Kernighan n' Ritchie -
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deepak Chhabra
Alex A Goddard <agod...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Montreal Over: Damphousse. Can't check to save his life. useless.
You haven't been watching him this year, then. Since being moved to
centre, he's found new life...furthermore he's playing on both special
teams and he plays against the #1 lines in the league.
Last year I would have agreed with you though...
>New Jersey: Over: Brodeur. has he ever seen 30 shots in a game? he's
>a fine goalie, but no super star. Did he face a single shot in the
>playoffs last year?
Disagree completely. Brodeur never looks like he has much to do because
he plays the position so damn well. He rarely has to make a "spectacular"
save because he's always in the right place at the right time...and he's
very likely the best poke-checker in the league right now. The heir to
Patrick Roy.
> Under: Scott Stevens. Simply the best defenseman in the game.
Yeah but who is underrating him?
>Pittsburgh: Over: Jagr. Scores a lot, causes goals against. I'm not
>convinced he's anymore than an average player
Once upon a time I might have agreed. But Jagr is a workhorse...this
guy is one of the absolute best forwards in the game.
--
Deepak Chhabra |
chh...@bnr.ca | Standard disclaimers apply.
Kristjan Helgi Stefansson
>Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks too.
> Under: How about Mike Eastwood? Up and comer on the world of
>defensive forwards.
Comparing Numminen to Olauson is ridicilous.. Numminen is one of the
most underrated d-man in the league..
Gerry Warner
Alex A Goddard (agod...@uoguelph.ca) writes:
> team by team, here's the most under and over-rated players:
Let's see if anyone likes my picks better! :)
> Anaheim: Over: Paul Kariya.
> Under: Steve Ruchin.
Over: Nobody! The entire team is underrated. Even Kariya. The kid is
dynamite. I just wish he'd stop diving.
Under: By extension, almost everybody. But Rucchin is a good choice.
> Boston: Over: Kevin Stevens
> Under: Dave Reid
No argument.
> Buffalo: Over: Bodger
> Under: DRAW! Brad May (and Mike) Peca.
I'll accept your expertise on Bodger and the Sabres in general.
Honourable under mention to Dave Hannan, at least before this season.
> Calgary; Over: Phil Housley.
> Under: Trevor Kidd.
Perfect.
> Chicago: Over: Belfour.
> Under: Roenick. Second best player in the game.
Over: Bob Probert. Useless overpaid relic.
Under: Gary Suter. I think lots of people recognize Roenick as a
superstar, so he doesn't count.
> Colorado: Over: Sakic.
> Under: Mike Ricci.
Over: Sandis Ozolinsh. He has to be overrated by Lacroix at least,
if he's willing to trade Nolan for him.
> Dallas: Over: Kevin Hatcher. Can't play defense.
> Under: Paul Cavallini
Wow, I never knew anybody but myself felt that way about Hatcher.
As for under, my choice is Craig Ludwig. (BTW, I guess Cavallini
underrated himself, since he retired last week!).
> Detroit: Over: Paul Coffee. He's the *worst* defenseman in the NHL.
> Under: Doug Brown.
Phil Housley is still worse than Coffey.
Hon. mention Under: Darren McCarty.
> Edmonton: Over: F. Olousson.
> Under: Luke Richardson.
Can't argue with that. Other than spelling Olausson.
> Florida: Over: Vanbiesbrouk.
> Under: Radek Dvorek. WoW! What a rookie!
Under: Brian Skrudland. He's the secret to Dvorak's success. :)
> Hartford: Over: Shanahan
> Under: Robert Kron. Fastest man in the NHL.
How's about... Over: Geoff Sanderson. When does his season start?
Under: Jocelyn Lemieux, Mark Janssens. Yeah, I like
the checkers.
> L.A. Over: McSoreley.
> Under: Tocchet.
Hon. Mention Over: Rob Blake. Where's that Norris? Ain't gonna happen.
Under: I dunno who, but I don't think people underrate Tocchet. We all
know he's awesome.
> Montreal Over: Damphousse.
> Under: Mike Keane.
Your knowledge of Damphousse is dated, as I've mentioned before. He's
our defensive center now, and as hard-working as anybody on the team.
Over: Vladimir Malakhov
Under: Benoit Brunet
> New Jersey: Over: Brodeur.
> Under: Scott Stevens.
Agreed, Brodeur is overrated, but he's still one of the best goalies in
the league. Just not *THE* best, like some people claim. Stevens gets
paid too much to be underrated. My Under: Ken Daneyko. But a case
could be made for lots of Devils (McKay, Guerin, even MacLean).
> NYI: Over: Soderstrom. Pylon. useless.
> under: Kirk Muller. Does it all. He's a natural leader.
Over: Wendel Clark. Character? Yeah, right. Whiner. Heh.
Under: Dennis Vaske. Don't ask me why.
> NYR: Over: Leetch
> Under: Mark Messier.
Under: Ray Ferraro and Wayne Presley are more reasonable. I doubt
anybody underrates Mark Messier.
> Ottawa: Over: Daigle
> Under: Yashin
Better Under choices: Randy Cunneyworth, Frank Musil.
> Philly: Over: LeClair: Where was he without Lindros?
> Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been.
Poor Alex! :) You have fallen into the media/no-brain trap of believing
LeClair is just an extension of Lindros. How wrong you are. The irony
is LeClair would probably be just the type of player you'd really like
if you took the blinders off. He has a great shot, is a great skater,
hits like a freight train. And more than capable of a point-a-game
even without Eric around.
Over: Really nobody on Philly. Maybe Petr Svoboda.
Under: John LeClair.
> Pittsburgh: Over: Jagr. I'm not convinced he's anymore than an
> average player.
> Under: Zubov. WOW. he controls the game but avoids the
Uh, I'm not a big Jagr fan either, but you're nuts if you can't at least
acknowledge he's better than "average". He's not a defenseman, you know,
he doesn't have to play great in his own zone because the puck is rarely
there when he and Francis are rolling.
Over: Petr Nedved. Perpetually.
Under: Until last year, Ron Francis.
> St. Louis: Over: Brett Hull. Scores, does nothing else. Poor leader.
> Under: Hawerchuk. Most underated player in history.
Over: Lots of Blues. Start with Mike Keenan.
Under: Ian Laperriere. But only by Keenan.
(Hawerchuk may have been underrated for most of the last decade,
but his new contract shifts him into the overrated category, at least
by Blues' management.)
> San Jose: Over: Falloon.
> Under: Mike Rathje
Over: Arturs Irbe. But that's changing this season. Falloon is a
good pick too.
Under: Ulf Dahlen, Andrei Nazarov.
> Tampa: Over: Bradley.
> Under: Hamrlik
Over: Brian Bellows. Ugh.
Under: I always liked Shawn Burr more than Scotty did. Hon. Mention:
Paul Ysebaert?
> Toronto: Over: Murphy
> Under: Sundin
Agreed big-time on Murphy. Mr. +/- Dougie Gilmour is rapidly heading
towards honourable mention for overratedness too.
Under: Outside of Toronto, Felix Potvin. One of the top-5 G's.
But within reach of the Toronto media there is no such thing as an
underrated Leaf.
>Vancouver: Over: McLean.
> Under: Tevor Linden.
Over: Pavel Bure. Yes he's great, but not $5M great. Not 70-goal
great either. (Knee injury notwithstanding.)
Under: Sure, Linden. The real best player on the Canucks. Hon.Mention:
Martin Gelinas.
>Washington: Over: Bondra.
> Under: Mark Tinordi.
Over: Pivonka maybe, but Bondra is proving that last year was no
fluke. The Caps have a certain amount of anonymity that
precludes them from being overrated.
Under: Lots of Caps. Tinordi and Keith Jones could play on my
team any day. Konowalchuk looked great last season too.
>Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks.
> Under: How about Mike Eastwood?
Over: Hmm, I'm not seeing anybody. Maybe Selanne if anyone thinks
he'll ever get 76 goals again. But I still like Teemu.
Under: Numminen! He's one of the most under-appreciated steady
two-way defenders in the league. I have to seriously question
the sanity of anyone who thinks he stinks! :)
l8r,
--
****************************************** /CCCCCCCCCCC| ****************
Gerry Warner / au...@freenet.carleton.ca |C|~~|H__H|~~~ 22 49 12
Aerospace Engineering / Carleton U. |C|__|H~~H|___ 34 43
****************************************** \CCCCCCCCCCC| ****** 33 ******
Kennedy
Alex, have you ever seen a Jets game? Nummenin is a very, very
underrated defenceman---plays tough and smart at both ends of the ice.
Alex A Goddard
: Alex--it's pretty obviuos from your over/under list that you haven't
: seen some of the teams very often. Take for example the St. Louis
: Blues--Brett Hull has been one of the few players working day in and
: day-out. The removal of the "C" has been overblown--Keenan has said
: before and after the incident that Hull has given his all. He is
: leading by example, and he has stuck up for his teammates both this year
: and last.
: I would have agreed with you that Hull is overrated 2 if you said that 2
: years ago. But not in 1995.
I thought Hull's overall play came a long way last year, but from what
I've seen *this* year, his play has fallen back to it's level of 2 years
ago. He's still a great powerplay performer, but an even strength liability.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: > Under: Paul Cavallini: One of the 5 best defensemen in the
: >game. Totally overlooked.
: Uh, hello McFly! He retired this past week.
I hadn't heard that. Can anyone confirm?
: Try Dave Gagner, a
: consistent 30 goal scorer who is the best 1 on 3 player in the
: history of hockey. I have seen this guy score more goals when
: he brings the puck in alone against 2 or 3 defenders. I don't know
: how he does it. He may be getting old, though, because against
: LA this past week he brought the puck in 1 on 3, but had to pass
: to a wing who scored the goal. Only an assist for Gags. : )
If Cavallini is gone, then I give the underated award for Dallas to Mike
Donnelly. Gagner is a defensive liability, and therefore, undeserving of
praise.
: >Over: Brodeur
: >Under: Scott Stevens
: I agree that Stevens is the best "D"efenseman in the game, but I
: would hardly call him underrated. In the poll I conducted this past
: week he finished 2nd to Chelios in voting for Best Defenseman. He
: deserves the credit, he gets it.
If Chelios was voted best and Stevens *is* the best, then Stevens is, by
definition, underrated. You're contradicting yourself.
: Brodeur is one hell of a lot better than Trevor Kidd! Kidd the 2nd best
: in the NHL? Please! I'm not calling Brodeur 2nd best, but he's in the
: top 5, easy. Just because a guy doesn't see a lot of shots per game
: doesn't mean he's not great. Look at Roy. For years he faced minimal
: shots for the Habs, but he's still the greatest goalie since Dryden.
: Brodeur makes all the big saves, and every goal that gets scored on
: him you end up saying, "Well, no goalie in the NHL would have stopped
: that.
Until Brodeur sees more than 10 shots a game, I'll call him overrated. I
would have a 1.50 GAA if I never faced a shot from inside centre ice. I
think Brodeur is an excellent goalie, but he's not in the league with
Burke, Kidd, Hasek, Roy and Potvin.
: Try Bill Guerin for underrated. Hits, skates, scores, plays D, and just
: turned 25 on Thursday. If Eric Lindros is a Porsche, then Bill Guerin
: is an American-made Porsche.
Yup, Guerin is a good player, but I wouldn't say "he scores". He's a
solid 2-way 15-25 goal scorer, but no star.
: BTW, if Dale Hawerchuk is how far you have to stoop to find a Blues
: underrated player, then I guess there's little to smile about in St.
: Louis. You should have just put "none" next to them.
I don't get your point. You don't think Hawerchuck is underrated?
Points galore and great defensive play, but only once recognized as a 2nd
team all star qualifies Dale as one of the most underrated players in the
history of the game. He's still one of the ten best centres in the NHL.
Alex
Gerald Olchowy
>I have to disagree. The conventional wisdom is that LeClair is
>overrated, since his stats were nothing spectacular until he was
>placed on a line with Lindros and Renberg. But you can't make that
>judgement until you've seen him play! He is great fun to watch. His
>skills are everything that you might think by looking at his stats.
>Why didn't he produce like this before the LOD? I have no idea, but
>lack of skill ain't it. And BOY can he deliver a devastating check!
>LeClair is the most underrated player on the team.
LeClair did produce previously...or have you forgotten the 1993 playoffs.
The "problem" with LeClair in Montreal is that he produced sporadically,
the question always being whether it was a problem with LeClair or with
the way LeClair was being used by Demers.
Gerald
Robert Lucien Joseph Buisson
Kristjan Helgi Stefansson <kri...@rhi.hi.is> wrote:
>In <47v1gd$2...@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> agod...@uoguelph.ca (Alex A Goddard) writes:
>
>
>>Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks too.
>> Under: How about Mike Eastwood? Up and comer on the world of
>>defensive forwards.
>
>most underrated d-man in the league..
Teppo Numminen has consistently been in the top 3 defensive defenseman in
the National Hockey league over the last 5 years. IF it wasn't for this
guy, the Jets would have given up 6 goals a game last season. If only he
played in Toronto or New York, he would be an all-star.
--
| Robert L. J. Buisson | "There are two official languages |
| University of Manitoba (Law I) | in this country, and I don't |
| e-mail: umbu...@cc.umanitboa.ca | speak none of 'em." -E. Whelan |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< In Stereo (where available) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vern Faulkner
^^^^
Remember the Sesame Street game, "one of these things is not like the others?"
Vern Faulkner
GO> the question always being whether it was a problem with LeClair or with
GO> the way LeClair was being used by Demers.
Lessee ... LeClair is considered by the Sporting News to be one of the most
improved goal scorers, and it happened almost scant minutes after he stepped on
the ice as part of a new organization. LeClair still has a job, Demers doesn't.
George in Sunny South Florida
=I hadn't heard that. Can anyone confirm?
[ STUFF DELETED ]
=Alex
Alex,
Some questions: Over/Underated by whom?
Have you ever actually watched an NHL game?
Have you ever seen/studied NHL stats?
Are you familiar with the saying
"Better to keep your mouth(keyboard) shut and be thought stupid
than open your mouth(keyboard) and prove it." ?
_________________________________________________ Gateway
George | Je compute, donc je suis (at least I think so). | Users
|__ g...@gate.net ____ ___| International
Why do people park in driveways and drive on parkways? - Larry Anderson
NJDevilCup
(Alex A Goddard) writes:
>
>: Uh, hello McFly! He retired this past week.
>
>I hadn't heard that. Can anyone confirm?
>
>: Try Dave Gagner, a
>: consistent 30 goal scorer who is the best 1 on 3 player in the
>: history of hockey. I have seen this guy score more goals when
>: he brings the puck in alone against 2 or 3 defenders. I don't know
>: how he does it. He may be getting old, though, because against
>: LA this past week he brought the puck in 1 on 3, but had to pass
>: to a wing who scored the goal. Only an assist for Gags. : )
>
>If Cavallini is gone, then I give the underated award for Dallas to Mike
>Donnelly. Gagner is a defensive liability, and therefore, undeserving of
>praise.
>
>: >Over: Brodeur
>: >Under: Scott Stevens
>
>: I agree that Stevens is the best "D"efenseman in the game, but I
>: would hardly call him underrated. In the poll I conducted this past
>: week he finished 2nd to Chelios in voting for Best Defenseman. He
>: deserves the credit, he gets it.
>
>If Chelios was voted best and Stevens *is* the best, then Stevens is, by
>definition, underrated. You're contradicting yourself.
The point is that people consider him elite. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd he's way
up there, and not underrated.
>: Brodeur is one hell of a lot better than Trevor Kidd! Kidd the 2nd best
>: in the NHL? Please! I'm not calling Brodeur 2nd best, but he's in the
>: top 5, easy. Just because a guy doesn't see a lot of shots per game
>: doesn't mean he's not great. Look at Roy. For years he faced minimal
>: shots for the Habs, but he's still the greatest goalie since Dryden.
>: Brodeur makes all the big saves, and every goal that gets scored on
>: him you end up saying, "Well, no goalie in the NHL would have stopped
>: that.
>
>Until Brodeur sees more than 10 shots a game, I'll call him overrated. I
>would have a 1.50 GAA if I never faced a shot from inside centre ice. I
>think Brodeur is an excellent goalie, but he's not in the league with
>Burke, Kidd, Hasek, Roy and Potvin.
Brodeur has faced more than 10 shots in each game this season.
YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.
>: Try Bill Guerin for underrated. Hits, skates, scores, plays D, and just
>: turned 25 on Thursday. If Eric Lindros is a Porsche, then Bill Guerin
>: is an American-made Porsche.
>
>Yup, Guerin is a good player, but I wouldn't say "he scores". He's a
>solid 2-way 15-25 goal scorer, but no star.
Did I say star? I said underrated for all that he does.
>: BTW, if Dale Hawerchuk is how far you have to stoop to find a Blues
>: underrated player, then I guess there's little to smile about in St.
>: Louis. You should have just put "none" next to them.
>
>I don't get your point. You don't think Hawerchuck is underrated?
>Points galore and great defensive play, but only once recognized as a 2nd
>team all star qualifies Dale as one of the most underrated players in the
>history of the game. He's still one of the ten best centres in the NHL.
>
>Alex
No, I don't think Hawerchuk is underrated becuase of everything
you just said. If you consider him to be a top 10 center, then no
way in hell is he underrated. If anything, he's overrated. That was
my point, Blues boy.
Get a life. Or get a Cup. (I guess you don't need the Cup if
you got no balls. Eh, Blues fans?)
GO Devils! 9-6-1, with 66 games to go before the real season starts!
Kuch
Sami Kallio
: Florida: Over: Vanbiesbrouk: yeah, he's a good goalie, but not one of
: the ten best. His success has more to do with a team commitment than
: goaltending brilliance
Nope, one of the best goalies!
: Montreal Over: Damphousse. Can't check to save his life. useless.
: Under: Mike Keane. Great defensive player with grit and
: leadership. He belongs in Sabre blue! :-)
Under: Brunet
: New Jersey: Over: Brodeur. has he ever seen 30 shots in a game? he's
: a fine goalie, but no super star. Did he face a single shot in the
: playoffs last year?
Agree with that one!
: Under: Mark Messier. The greatest player of all time. Hon
: mention to Wayne Presley, the best defensive forward around.
Oh my good, Messier underrated, no way! I would put him on overrated!
: Philly: Over: LeClair: Where was he without Lindros?
: Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been. 10 years from
: now he'll have replaced Messier.
Overrated: Lindros, period!
Toronto: Overrated is that so-called superstar, Gilmour.
: Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks too.
: Under: How about Mike Eastwood? Up and comer on the world of
: defensive forwards.
Uups, did you really say that Numminen is overrated? He is underrated, no
doubt!
--
*** Sami Kallio ** Student of Oulu Institute of Technology ***
*** Haapanatie 2a413 90150 Oulu ** FINLAND ****** 940-5472240 ***
** ***************** nfh...@otol.fi ********************* **
** *************** Oulu Northern Lights ****************** **
*** *********** http://www.otol.fi/~nfhusky *************** ***
Fred Scheifele
g...@gate.net (George in Sunny South Florida) wrote:
>[...]
>
>Some questions: Over/Underated by whom?
> Have you ever actually watched an NHL game?
> Have you ever seen/studied NHL stats?
> Are you familiar with the saying
>"Better to keep your mouth(keyboard) shut and be thought stupid
> than open your mouth(keyboard) and prove it." ?
I believe the actual quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln and reads:
"It is better to sit quietly and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt."
Cheers,
Fred Scheifele (Sch...@pluto.njcc.com)
Taras A. Hetmanczuk
streak of seven straight 40+goal seasons - one of only six players in the
history of the NHL to achieve that - others include Bossy, Gretzky,
Hull...Mullen's won the Lady Byng (twice), 3 Cups and should have won the
Conn Smythe in 1989 (led all goal scorers in playoffs) but again was
overlooked....Maybe the reason Hawerchuck has only been on the all-star team
once is because he played in an era with Trottier,Gretzky, Lemieux et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CampusLife - University of Toronto
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Morin
>>>game. Totally overlooked.
>I hadn't heard that. Can anyone confirm?
Confirmed.
Do you follow hockey at all?
Agrivar
******************************************************
Sent Via SportsNet On-Line Services
Toronto's Premier Sports and Recreation Service
Modem: 416-223-2463 Phone: 416-223-2250 Ext. 33
For information, send e-mail to: in...@sportsnet.com
******************************************************
Randy Morin
>Anaheim: Over: Paul Kariya. Hey Paul is good young winger, but he's
>no star. He had the worst plus/minus on the team a year ago. He's got a
>long way to go.
Do you watch any hockey?
This year Kariya is on pace for a plus 40 and 110 points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: DRAW! Brad May is a terrific two-way forward with lots
>of heart. He's a valuable gem, despite his lack of offensce. Peca.
>he's hit the injury bug as a youngster, but has the heart and skills of a
>young Yzerman or LaFontaine. He'll be a start in years to come.
Brad May has 6 goals in his last 49 games.
But then, Buffalo is full of offensive liabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Chicago: Over: Belfour. Terrible goalie when the games get important.
>Nuff said
Ya you are right.
That 923 save percentage in the playoffs proves it :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Roenick. Second best player in the game. He does it all.
Two goals in fourteen playoff games in the last two seasons.
And Belfour is terrible in important games?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Colorado: Over; Sakic. He can't score in the 2nd half. What good is a
>guy who loses it after Christmas?
Was 4th in NHL in scoring after Xmas last season.
What is your definition of losing it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Mike Ricci. Great 2-way centre. He's the real #1
>centre in Denver.
First Ricci, then Forsberg, then Sakic.
And Ricci shows it in the playoffs with one goal in 12 career games :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Paul Cavallini: One of the 5 best defensemen in the
>game. Totally overlooked.
I'll bet you anything, Paul doesn't score a goal this year :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Detroit: Over: Paul Coffee. He's the *worst* defenseman in the NHL.
>period.
> Under: Doug Brown: What an addition! this guy is a terrific
>player.
I get it.
All offensive players are overated and all defensive players are underated.
This is getting very repetitive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Lots of guys could be underated in Edmonton (Arnott,
>Marchant, Oliver, Thornton), but the prize goes to Luke Richardson. He's
>simply the very best defensive defenseman in the game. He deserves the
>Norris.
Richardson has a plus-minus of minus 25 over last three season (include this
year).
His team finished second last in penalty killing.
His linemates must really suck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Tocchet. Does *everything* He's a goal scorer, a
>playmaker, a powerplay guy, a tough guy, a leader, you name it!
Twenty eight power-play points over two season with Gretzky, Jagr and
Lemieux.
He's a powerplay demon :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Montreal Over: Damphousse. Can't check to save his life. useless.
And this guy is paid to check?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>New Jersey: Over: Brodeur. has he ever seen 30 shots in a game? he's
>a fine goalie, but no super star. Did he face a single shot in the
>playoffs last year?
Winnipeg (Oct 12) 30 shots 1 goal
Montreal (Oct 14) 42 shots 1 goal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>NYR: Over: Leetch. Useless defensive player. Causes more chances
>against than chances for. After Coffee, he's the biggest bum in the NHL
If he causes more changes against,
then why is he +26 over last three seasons (include this year).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ottawa: Over: Daigle: useless
So how is he overated.
Does anybody still think he's great?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Under: Lindros is the best there's ever been. 10 years from
>now he'll have replaced Messier.
So how is he underated.
Most people think he is the best in the game today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Pittsburgh: Over: Jagr. Scores a lot, causes goals against. I'm not
>convinced he's anymore than an average player
His plus 45 is the best on the Penguins over the last three season (include
this year).
Scores on the powerplay and has a great plus-minus.
He's average :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>St. Louis: Over: Brett Hull. Scores, does nothing else. Poor leader.
Did you know overated and offensive are two different words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Vancouver: Over: McLean. Why is this guy in the NHL?
He has won six playoffs series in four years.
Imagine if he didn't average 29.
Alex A Goddard
: Lessee ... LeClair is considered by the Sporting News to be one of the most
: improved goal scorers, and it happened almost scant minutes after he stepped on
: the ice as part of a new organization. LeClair still has a job, Demers doesn't.
First, who ever considered the Sporting News to be an authority? I'm not
saying LeClair isn't a good player...he is. Without Lindros he was not a
good player. He's rather like Kevin Stevens. His success has more to do
with his centreman than his own ability.
Alex
Gerry Warner
> : Lessee ... LeClair is considered by the Sporting News to be one of the most
> : improved goal scorers, and it happened almost scant minutes after he stepped on
> : the ice as part of a new organization. LeClair still has a job, Demers doesn't.
> First, who ever considered the Sporting News to be an authority? I'm not
> saying LeClair isn't a good player...he is. Without Lindros he was not a
> good player.
No no no no no no! Argh. Without Lindros, LeClair was still a very
good player. I missed fewer than half a dozen Habs games a season
during LeClair's years with the team. He was always a good player.
He was perenially expected to break out and become a top-line producer.
Everyone could see that he had the talent and ability, but for whatever
reason (read: coach) he just didn't click on the Habs.
> He's rather like Kevin Stevens. His success has more to do
> with his centreman than his own ability.
Question: Do you think LeClair could score 80 points in a full
season playing on a line with Joel Otto and Mikael Renberg? (Plus the
usual power play shifts, possibly featuring other non-Lindros Flyers).
I think he could. And an 80-pt physical presence is a great player
by my standards. Put him with Lindros and he becomes a 110-pt
physical presence. Even more impressive.
l8r,
****************/CCCCCCCCCCC|*****************************************
Gerry Warner |C|~~|H__H|~~~ 22 49 12 Player Of The Day:
AE, CU |C|__|H~~H|___ 34 43 Terry Ryan
****************\CCCCCCCCCCC|****** 33 *******************************
Michel Morin
>
>Colorado: Over; Sakic. He can't score in the 2nd half. What good is a
>guy who loses it after Christmas?
DAMN RIGHT; one word : CHOKER...
>Detroit: Over: Paul Coffee. He's the *worst* defenseman in the NHL.
>period.
Forgot Yzerman : biggest choker of them all...
>L.A. Over: McSoreley. One of th worst defensemen in the NHL. He's
>the most over paid guy around.
I agree for McSORRY (thanks for that stupid penality in the 93 series
against my habs!!!)
BUT the list should also include Jamie Storr (how could the Canadian
Junior team choose him instead of Thibault or Fichaud ???)
>Philly: Over: LeClair: Where was he without Lindros?
You forgot the biggest jerk in the league : Hextall !! Always on his ass,
lucky saves and UUUUUUUUUUgly bastard.
MM
HABS !!!!
Mattias Kreku
I actually think he is a bit OVER rated. He can hit like a ton of bricks,
he can shoot and aim very good too, and he maye even have that special
'eye' that makes the best players special.
(Don't know what it's called but it is what makes a player see the perfect
pass and such)
BUT, I have never seen him SKATE like a superstar. He seems to be a bit
slow.. No fancy moves.
: Winnipeg: Over: Numminen. See Olousson. This guy stinks too.
Are you sure about this choice for Numminen?
It is so strange it makes me doubt you know much about what hockey
d-men are all about.
Mattias.
Craig D. DeLucia
> Until Brodeur sees more than 10 shots a game, I'll call him overrated. I
> would have a 1.50 GAA if I never faced a shot from inside centre ice. I
> think Brodeur is an excellent goalie, but he's not in the league with
> Burke, Kidd, Hasek, Roy and Potvin.
I disagree, Alex. Sure, Brodeur has a lower GAA, but his high save
percentage reflects his superb ability. Besides, the only time it really
matters is in May, and Martin Brodeur has been the best player between
the pipes for the last two playoffs.
> Yup, Guerin is a good player, but I wouldn't say "he scores". He's a
> solid 2-way 15-25 goal scorer, but no star.
The only thing stopping Guerin from putting up numbers like Keith Tkachuk
is the system that New Jersey employs. Guerin would score 40-50 goals on
90% of the teams in the NHL. While Jacques' defensive style wins games
and Cups, it deflates individual player statistics.
> : BTW, if Dale Hawerchuk is how far you have to stoop to find a Blues
> : underrated player, then I guess there's little to smile about in St.
> : Louis. You should have just put "none" next to them.
>
> I don't get your point. You don't think Hawerchuck is underrated?
> Points galore and great defensive play, but only once recognized as a 2nd
> team all star qualifies Dale as one of the most underrated players in the
> history of the game. He's still one of the ten best centres in the NHL.
For all the Hawerchuck bashers...look at the numbers he out up in
Winnipeg his first nine seasons and the leadership presence he brought to
the ice. I'd take him on my team in a heartbeat.
Craig
******************************************************************************
Craig DeLucia "My feet, they finally took root in the earth,
cde...@hubcap.clemson.edu but I got me a nice little place in the
Phi Kappa Tau stars..."--Bruce Springsteen
Epsilon Nu Chapter "Can't this wait till I'm old, can't I live
Let's Go Devils!! while I'm young?"--Phish
Administrator, Bus Stop .Net Bus Stop, Bruce, Phish, DMB, BT, Hootie
Currently searching for: Blues Traveler 5/30/93, Phish 4/19/92 set II
******************************************************************************
Randy Morin
>>definition, underrated. You're contradicting yourself.
>The point is that people consider him elite. 1st, 2nd, or 3rd he's way
>up there, and not underrated.
Note that Alex said Stevens was THE under-rated player on the Devils.
Since Stevens is only under-rated by a couple of notches,
he cannot be considered THE under-rated player on the Devils.
I guess MacLean and Niedermayer are not that under-rated?
I love replying to Alex's posts.
They are so easy to cut to pieces.
George in Sunny South Florida
= g...@gate.net (George in Sunny South Florida) wrote:
=>"Better to keep your mouth(keyboard) shut and be thought stupid
=> than open your mouth(keyboard) and prove it." ?
=I believe the actual quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln and reads:
="It is better to sit quietly and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and
=remove all doubt."
=Cheers,
= Fred Scheifele (Sch...@pluto.njcc.com)
Believe you are correct (though I was actually quoting my mother who
was a great paraphraser). Thanks for the info.
Best regards,
_________________________________________________ Gateway
George | Je compute, donc je suis (at least I think so). | Users
|__ g...@gate.net ____ ___| International
I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides,
the pig likes it. -George Bernard Shaw
Randy Morin
>No no no no no no! Argh. Without Lindros, LeClair was still a very
>good player. I missed fewer than half a dozen Habs games a season
>during LeClair's years with the team. He was always a good player.
>He was perenially expected to break out and become a top-line producer.
>Everyone could see that he had the talent and ability, but for whatever
>reason (read: coach) he just didn't click on the Habs.
Everybody is saying this in hindsight. Hindsign is 20/20.
Nobody expected Leclair to score 100 points in a year.
Except maybe biased fans and family.
You are talking about a player drafted 33rd overall.
And a player who was a disappointment in college.
>Question: Do you think LeClair could score 80 points in a full
>season playing on a line with Joel Otto and Mikael Renberg? (Plus the
>usual power play shifts, possibly featuring other non-Lindros Flyers).
>I think he could. And an 80-pt physical presence is a great player
>by my standards. Put him with Lindros and he becomes a 110-pt
>physical presence. Even more impressive.
Without Lindros on that line and with Otto at centre,
Leclair and Renberg score 40-60 points each.
Why? Because they wouldn't play 20-25 minutes a game
and they would not be considered an offensive threat.
Randy Morin
>BUT, I have never seen him SKATE like a superstar. He seems to be a bit
>slow.. No fancy moves.
This is Lindros' style.
He mopes around the ice when the other team has the puck,
but he's always there to break up scoring plays.
The moping might help him conserve energy (I don't know).
It's true that he is not as strong a skater as many of the European stars
(Bure, etc.).
Lindros tends to push his way to the net while
throwing pylon defensemen out of the way.
Douglas C Edwards
: : Some questions: Over/Underated by whom?
: : Have you ever actually watched an NHL game?
: : Have you ever seen/studied NHL stats?
: : Are you familiar with the saying
: : "Better to keep your mouth(keyboard) shut and be thought stupid
: : than open your mouth(keyboard) and prove it." ?
:
: Do you actually have a point to make? I'm taking flack about hockey
: knowledge from a guy from Florida. That's rich!
: Alex
No, I think that's appropriate.
But I do appreciate your posts, they do stir up the controversy.
I just don't know if they are serious or not.
Doug
Garry Holmen
:
: Ok. Maybe I'm stressing too much the plus/minus stats, but in Numminen's
: case they actually do reflect his defensive playing. If you are on the
: ice 30 minutes in every game you play, and still have the best +/- in
: your team, you got to be at least adequate defensively.
Silly question... if Numminen is so great and the Jets have one of the
best lines in Keith, Teemu and Alexi why didn't they make the
playoffs?
And for Numminen being on the ice for 30+ minutes why are all
those goals going in? Take a look at Winnipegs goals against...
Garry
Alex A Goddard
: BUT the list should also include Jamie Storr (how could the Canadian
Or Dan Cloutier, who was a better OHL goaltender than Storr over the past 2
seasons. The Rangers drafted him at the end of the first round the same
year that Storr went 7th.
Alex
Artur Roytburg
Doug, I think that you are full of air, man. Alex stated his opinions,
however controversial they may be, while you proved to have no point
whatsoever. You might have watched an NHL game, but it seems that your
problem is that you watched only one.
Artur
David Norwood
Hey Kids!!! The guy who posted this original is just plain wacky. Hey Alex,
your analyses could never be considered "underated."
JIMBLUE1
>best lines in Keith, Teemu and Alexi why didn't they make the
>playoffs?
defensemen. Four guys don't make a hockey team. When the Rangers lost
Brian Leetch with a broken ankle, they didn't make the playoffs. Does that
mean that Messier, Graves, and Kovalev are no good?
Jim Armstrong
Trevor Peter Peterson
: Silly question... if Numminen is so great and the Jets have one of the
: best lines in Keith, Teemu and Alexi why didn't they make the
: playoffs?
One line and one great defenseman do not make up a whole team. When
these players are on the ice, Winnipeg is in great hands and they perform
well. However, they cannot play the entire game and this is when they
falter. Numminen is the only defenseman they have that can play great
defensive hockey and still move up the ice into the offensive zone. In
fact, he is the only above average defensive player on the team, PERIOD!
: And for Numminen being on the ice for 30+ minutes why are all
: those goals going in? Take a look at Winnipegs goals against...
: Garry
Uh, Gary. Last time I looked there was still 60 minutes in a game not
30. Put Numminen on any team in the league with good players around him
and he would be a Norris Trophy candidate. As it stands, he does not
have many good defensive partners to play with (actually none at all),
and even he cannot keep the opposition from scoring all by himself.
Bottom line: Stats mean dick-all in some cases and this is one of
them. If you know anything about hockey (and it does not really sound
like it), then you would know that you can only measure a players talent
level by watching him, not by looking at the stats in a paper (or on the
computer screen). Wake up and smell the fire burning under your nose!
Trevor Peterson
Michael Kriwonos
Also remember, LeClair was used a lot at center in Montreal. He's much
more comfortable and at home on the wing.
Alex A Goddard
: I disagree, Alex. Sure, Brodeur has a lower GAA, but his high save
: matters is in May, and Martin Brodeur has been the best player between
: the pipes for the last two playoffs.
Remember, my list was "over/under-rated", not "good/bad". I think
Brodeur is a fine goalie, but I don't think he's as good as the praise he
gets around here. There are at least a half dozen better goalies in the
league, IMHO.
: The only thing stopping Guerin from putting up numbers like Keith Tkachuk
: is the system that New Jersey employs. Guerin would score 40-50 goals on
: 90% of the teams in the NHL. While Jacques' defensive style wins games
: and Cups, it deflates individual player statistics.
If my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle! :-) Seriously, Guerin is a good
winger, no doubt, but he's not Keith Tkachuk and wouldn't be on any team.
: For all the Hawerchuck bashers...look at the numbers he out up in
: Winnipeg his first nine seasons and the leadership presence he brought to
: the ice. I'd take him on my team in a heartbeat.
He'd be a very good Devil. He plays that type of game.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: This is Lindros' style.
: He mopes around the ice when the other team has the puck,
: but he's always there to break up scoring plays.
: The moping might help him conserve energy (I don't know).
: It's true that he is not as strong a skater as many of the European stars
: (Bure, etc.).
: Lindros tends to push his way to the net while
: throwing pylon defensemen out of the way.
I wonder how much this has to do with coaching. If Lindros wasn't forced
to play 30-40 minutes a game, he'd be able to show his speed a little more.
Alex
Kennedy
Garry, are you nuts?? Are you expecting that Teppo play defence by
himself?? The Jets have no depth, and mediocre to weak
goaltending--that's why the GA is so high. This is not Teppo's fault. Buts
when Dave Manson in his 30's is your other best defenceman, what can youe
do? in
GA>Silly question... if Numminen is so great and the Jets have one of the
GA>best lines in Keith, Teemu and Alexi why didn't they make the
GA>playoffs?
GA>And for Numminen being on the ice for 30+ minutes why are all
GA>those goals going in? Take a look at Winnipegs goals against...
GA>Garry
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
=Randy Morin (Randy...@sportsnet.com) wrote:
=: I love replying to Alex's posts.
=
=I like it better than the obsenity laden e-mail replies you keep filling
=my mailbox with, punk.
=Alex
Alex,
My, my aren't we sensitive. When an ignoramus (that's you) fills cyberspace
with utter, undocumented nonsense as you have, then you earn the title of "punk"
and should not be surprised at receiving the same.
You don't like what you get by e-mail, respond by e-mail.
Bye the way, what does where one currently resides have to do with
their hockey knowledge?
Haven't seen your answer to my other questions yet.
_________________________________________________ Gateway
George | Je compute, donc je suis (at least I think so). | Users
|__ g...@gate.net ____ ___| International
You can't cheat an honest man. -WC Fields o_o Twice: Once too often. -A Bierce
Bri
: : Florida: Over: Vanbiesbrouk: yeah, he's a good goalie, but not one of
: : the ten best. His success has more to do with a team commitment than
: : goaltending brilliance
: Nope, one of the best goalies!
definitely one of the best...the Kings had about 7 outnumbered
attacks/breakaways on him the other night. they only scored on one of
them (but still won :).
i've never seen a goalie cover the short post on a wraparound as fast or
as well as Beez.
bri
Bri
: > Until Brodeur sees more than 10 shots a game, I'll call him overrated. I
: > would have a 1.50 GAA if I never faced a shot from inside centre ice. I
: > think Brodeur is an excellent goalie, but he's not in the league with
: > Burke, Kidd, Hasek, Roy and Potvin.
: I disagree, Alex. Sure, Brodeur has a lower GAA, but his high save
: percentage reflects his superb ability. Besides, the only time it really
: matters is in May, and Martin Brodeur has been the best player between
: the pipes for the last two playoffs.
you've got to admit though...it's much easier to have a great sv% when
you rarely see more than 20 shots....it's the fatigue factor. this is
where Byron Dafoe should get a ton of credit. he's in the top 5 in sv%,
despite the Kings allowing 37 shots a game. Rick Tocchet said it should
be between Lemieux and Dafoe for MVP right now...he should know, having
played with both. if Dafoe doesn't finish in the top 4 in Calder votes,
something is VERY wrong (Yachmenev, Alfredsson, Daze, Dafoe). if he was
playing in the East he would have won player of the week 3 times now.
Garry Holmen
: Bottom line: Stats mean dick-all in some cases and this is one of
: like it), then you would know that you can only measure a players talent
: level by watching him, not by looking at the stats in a paper (or on the
: computer screen). Wake up and smell the fire burning under your nose!
Exactly my point.... stats mean nothing. It's the results that count.
I'm glad someone else out there realizes this.
As for my hockey knowledge/experience I'm not an expert... but I have
played up to Jr B hockey and have watched/competed in the sport
since I was 4....
Garry
Deepak Chhabra
Bri <sh...@hondo.cyberverse.com> wrote:
>you've got to admit though...it's much easier to have a great sv% when
>you rarely see more than 20 shots....
Fair enough, however I think Brodeur does a lot of things to keep that
SOG against down (eg pokecheck, controlling rebounds, giving shooters
nothing to shoot at in the first place, etc), and he doesn't get credit
for it.
>where Byron Dafoe should get a ton of credit. he's in the top 5 in sv%,
>despite the Kings allowing 37 shots a game. Rick Tocchet said it should
>be between Lemieux and Dafoe for MVP right now...he should know, having
>played with both.
Wahaha. When Grant Fuhr became an LA King, Tocchet said he was still the
best goaltender in the world. Now I'm not taking anything away from
Dafoe...he's been on fire this year. Just don't take Tocchet's word for
it.
--
Deepak Chhabra |
chh...@bnr.ca | Standard disclaimers apply.
NJDevilCup
Sorestad) writes:
>Not the best, but he is getting there. A much better choice for
>overrated is Mike Peluso/Randy McKay - slabs of meat, that's all.
How many Devils' games have you seen? When did you see them?
Two years ago, I would have agreed. But these two boys (along
with Holik when healthy) create consistent offensive pressure,
while playing tremendous in their own zone. Peluso doesn't have
a great, accurate shot, but he passes well. McKay can rip it, and
has throughout the past two seasons. I don't know of any other 4th
line in the NHL that strikes fear into opponents like these guys.
(And not because of their goonery. They just don't fight as much as
they used to, though they'll still drop 'em and go!)
Thanks for defending Brodeur, though, against Alex's ramblings.
Kuch
Go Devils! 10-7-2, with 63 left to the big show!
Alex A Goddard
: Fair enough, however I think Brodeur does a lot of things to keep that
: SOG against down (eg pokecheck, controlling rebounds, giving shooters
: nothing to shoot at in the first place, etc), and he doesn't get credit
: for it.
Brodeur hasn't much to do with Stevens, Niedermayer, Daneyko and
(previously) Driver blocking half of the shots aimed at him.
: Wahaha. When Grant Fuhr became an LA King, Tocchet said he was still the
: best goaltender in the world. Now I'm not taking anything away from
: Dafoe...he's been on fire this year. Just don't take Tocchet's word for
: it.
Judging by Fuhr's play this year, Tocchet may not be as daft as you
think. After all, Grant had, basically, 3 years off.
Alex
Deepak Chhabra
Alex A Goddard <agod...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>: Fair enough, however I think Brodeur does a lot of things to keep that
>: SOG against down (eg pokecheck, controlling rebounds, giving shooters
>: nothing to shoot at in the first place, etc), and he doesn't get credit
>: for it.
>Brodeur hasn't much to do with Stevens, Niedermayer, Daneyko and
>(previously) Driver blocking half of the shots aimed at him.
"Half"? C'mon Alex, how many Devils games can you possibly see in
Guelph? Not a slam, really, after all I _did_ spend five years in that
hotbed known as Waterloo...do you have a dish <seriously>?
Besides which, even if half the shots _are_ blocked, he still stops 90+ %
of the ones that do get through, right? There's really no reason to
assume he couldn't stop 90+ % of the ones that don't get through.
Brodeur is an outstanding technical goalie. No flopping around, and few
highlight-reel saves, because he's always where he should be to make it
look easy.
>Judging by Fuhr's play this year, Tocchet may not be as daft as you
>think. After all, Grant had, basically, 3 years off.
Uh-oh. The_Fuhr_Question again...let's just save the bandwidth this time
around, fair enough?:)
Alex A Goddard
: Thanks for defending Brodeur, though, against Alex's ramblings.
Ramblings? I guess you missed Brodeur's *brilliant* play against the
Sabres and Panthers in recent games. If anything, he's getting more and
more overrated every day.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: "Half"? C'mon Alex, how many Devils games can you possibly see in
: Guelph? Not a slam, really, after all I _did_ spend five years in that
: hotbed known as Waterloo...do you have a dish <seriously>?
I saw about 20 playoff games last year. I've only seen them once this
season. Half may be an exageration. It wasn't in last year's playoffs.
: Besides which, even if half the shots _are_ blocked, he still stops 90+ %
: of the ones that do get through, right? There's really no reason to
: assume he couldn't stop 90+ % of the ones that don't get through.
: Brodeur is an outstanding technical goalie. No flopping around, and few
: highlight-reel saves, because he's always where he should be to make it
: look easy.
What good is per centage? If a guy stoppes 18 or 20, that's 20 saves.
If a guy stops 40 of 50, that's 40 saves. Which goalie had the better
game, the guy with a .900 SA or the guy with the .800? It's easier to
have a high save percentage when you face fewer shots. Coincidently, if
you have fewer shots against, you're likely to have fewer *quality* shots
against as well. This is why I'm critical of the Save % statistic.
: Uh-oh. The_Fuhr_Question again...let's just save the bandwidth this time
: around, fair enough?:)
You'll recall, I decalared Fuhr "washed up" last season. That may have
been premature on my part. :-)
Alex
George in Sunny South Florida
=Deepak Chhabra (chh...@bnr.ca) wrote:
=
=: "Half"? C'mon Alex, how many Devils games can you possibly see in
=: Guelph? Not a slam, really, after all I _did_ spend five years in that
=: hotbed known as Waterloo...do you have a dish <seriously>?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alex, Why don't you answer the question?
=What good is per centage? If a guy stoppes 18 or 20, that's 20 saves.
=If a guy stops 40 of 50, that's 40 saves. Which goalie had the better
=game, the guy with a .900 SA or the guy with the .800?
Alex, Are you kidding? You're saying the goalie who gave up 10 goals had
a better game than the goalie who gave up 2 goals? NITWIT!
=It's easier to
=have a high save percentage when you face fewer shots.
Alex, Says who?? Your statement is without foundation nor any basis in fact.
I know, your motto is "Don't confuse me with the facts.".
=Coincidently, if
=you have fewer shots against, you're likely to have fewer *quality* shots
=against as well. This is why I'm critical of the Save % statistic.
Alex, You undoubtedly flunked logic. [20 SA, 6 "quality" shots] vs [30 SA,
9 "quality" shots] is "fewer *quality shots", BUT IT IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE
OF "QUALITY" SHOTS IN BOTH CASES!
Another question you're not capable of answering: What IS a "quality" shot?
Let's face it, Alex, your mental powers are more suited to alt.UFO or
alt.be.guided.by.the.stars or alt.opinions.but.no.knowledge than hockey.
_________________________________________________ Gateway
George | Je compute, donc je suis (at least I think so). | Users
|__ g...@gate.net ____ ___| International
In the long run, we are all dead. -John Maynard Keynes
NJDevilCup
against the Sabres and Panthers in recent games. If anything,
he's getting more and more overrated every day
Yes, Alex, RAMBLINGS!
I suppose you'll say Brodeur played poorly against the Stars
last night, losing 2-0. Well, as eyewitnesses to how poorly the
Devils are playing right now, my friends and I agreed that Brodeur
was the best Devil on the ice in the loss. He played very well
despite the loss. But someone who doesn't actually attend
Devils games might not see that. (That would be you, Alex)
RAMBLE ON, ALEX!
Kuch
Go Devils! Brodeur for Vezina!
Garry Holmen
: a better game than the goalie who gave up 2 goals? NITWIT!
It really depends doesn't it? If a team plays crap defense and lets
the opposition team get 60 shots with tons of quality scoring
chances but the goalie lets in 5 goals does this make him
worse then a golaie who gets 8 shots against with no quality chances
(ie. Flames aerlier this year.) and gets a shut out?
Come on... let's not be silly here.
The number of goals a goalie lets in tends to very team dependent.
To label a goalie good or poor based on that is a poor statistic...
Garry
Deepak Chhabra
Alex A Goddard <agod...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>What good is per centage? If a guy stoppes 18 or 20, that's 20 saves.
>If a guy stops 40 of 50, that's 40 saves. Which goalie had the better
>game, the guy with a .900 SA or the guy with the .800?
This really isn't a reasonable question...
>It's easier to
>have a high save percentage when you face fewer shots. Coincidently, if
>you have fewer shots against, you're likely to have fewer *quality* shots
>against as well. This is why I'm critical of the Save % statistic.
The points are valid but entirely subjective...you are making very key
_assumptions_.
Keep in mind here that I do see your point...you think Brodeur is a fine
goalie, but not as good as his press, correct?
Let me then state that I think Brodeur is one of the two very best
goaltenders in the NHL today. The fact that he plays on a good
defensive team helps, but is independent of his skill. My assessment is
not based solely on his (ass-kicking) numbers either...his technique is,
simply put, outstanding.
George in Sunny South Florida
=George in Sunny South Florida (g...@gate.net) wrote:
=: Alex, Are you kidding? You're saying the goalie who gave up 10 goals had
=: a better game than the goalie who gave up 2 goals? NITWIT!
=
=It really depends doesn't it?
N O ! <------------
=If a team plays crap defense and lets
=the opposition team get 60 shots
=with tons of quality scoring chances
HOW MANY "TONS"? <-----------
=but the goalie lets in 5 goals
91.7 Save % EXCELLENT <----------
=does this make him worse then a golaie
=who gets 8 shots against with no
=quality chances and gets a shut out?
100.0 Save % EVEN BETTER! <------
Not worse, the shutout goalie was just better for that one game and if
the shutout goalie played 82 games and faced 8 shots in each and never
gave up a goal, then he's better than a goalie with a seasonal 91.7 Save %.
=Come on... let's not be silly here.
Agree, so why are you comparing a 50SA/40save vs 20SA/18save situation
with a 60SA/5save vs 8SA/8save scenario?
=The number of goals a goalie lets in tends to very team dependent.
Yes, the NUMBER OF GOALS, NOT the PERCENTAGE OF SHOTS - THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
=To label a goalie good or poor based on that is a poor statistic...
Poor fellow. Garry, you just don't get it, do you? It is the
ONLY statistic that evaluates a goalie.
Shots against/per game measure team defense.
Goals against/per game measure combined team defense/goal tending.
If one knows enough about statistics AND hockey, then you should have
no problem recognizing what a stat means (and doesn't mean).
_________________________________________________ Gateway
George | Je compute, donc je suis (at least I think so). | Users
|__ g...@gate.net ____ ___| International
PATIENCE: A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue. -Ambrose Bierce
Alex A Goddard
: Alex, Why don't you answer the question?
No, I don't own a dish. The pub that I watch hockey at has 2.
: Alex, Are you kidding? You're saying the goalie who gave up 10 goals had
: a better game than the goalie who gave up 2 goals? NITWIT!
No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you read? I was *asking* whether a
guy who gives up ten and saves forty had as good a game as a guy who let
in 2 and stopped 18. I wasn't answering one way or the other. My point
was just that neither Save % nor GAA tells the whole story. It's you
that's the nitwit if you think those stats do.
=
: Alex, Says who?? Your statement is without foundation nor any basis in fact.
: I know, your motto is "Don't confuse me with the facts.".
Are you saying that a goalie who faces 20 shots will face more "quality"
shots than a guy who faces 50? Simple logic suggests that the more shots
you face, the more chances to score you're going to face. Oh, I forgot,
this is about lynching my position, regardless of common sense.
: Alex, You undoubtedly flunked logic. [20 SA, 6 "quality" shots] vs [30 SA,
: 9 "quality" shots] is "fewer *quality shots", BUT IT IS THE SAME PERCENTAGE
: OF "QUALITY" SHOTS IN BOTH CASES!
I never said it wasn't the same percentages. I said that percentages
don't necessarily mean everything. Using your numbers, the goalie who
faced the most shots also faced the most "quality" shots. Isn't that
exactly what I said was likely to happen? Yes, it is. However, you've
decided to attack whatever I say, even when it's exactly what you are
saying as well.
: Another question you're not capable of answering: What IS a "quality" shot?
I suppose it's arbitrary, but IMHO, a quality shot is a shot that's has a
high percentage of finding the net. A shoot in from centre ice or a weak
backhand is not a "quality" shot. A 10 foot slapper is.
: Let's face it, Alex, your mental powers are more suited to alt.UFO or
: alt.be.guided.by.the.stars or alt.opinions.but.no.knowledge than hockey.
More personal attacks. Do you get off on them?
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: I suppose you'll say Brodeur played poorly against the Stars
: last night, losing 2-0. Well, as eyewitnesses to how poorly the
: Devils are playing right now, my friends and I agreed that Brodeur
: was the best Devil on the ice in the loss. He played very well
: despite the loss. But someone who doesn't actually attend
: Devils games might not see that. (That would be you, Alex)
More newbie Rhetoric. I never saw the Stars game. Unlike many here, I
prefer to comment only on games I've seen. Brodeur was lousy against
Florida and absolutely aweful against the Sabres. Is he a good goalie?
Yes, of course. Is he the best in the NHL? No. Is he in the top ten?
IMHO, yes. Is he in the top five? IMHO, no.
Alex
Santeri Pienimaki
: Santeri Pienimaki (pien...@cc.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: :
: : Ok. Maybe I'm stressing too much the plus/minus stats, but in Numminen's
: : case they actually do reflect his defensive playing. If you are on the
: : ice 30 minutes in every game you play, and still have the best +/- in
: : your team, you got to be at least adequate defensively.
: Silly question... if Numminen is so great and the Jets have one of the
: best lines in Keith, Teemu and Alexi why didn't they make the
: playoffs?
They didin't have any defence after Numminen and any offense after the
Olympic line? :)
: And for Numminen being on the ice for 30+ minutes why are all
: those goals going in? Take a look at Winnipegs goals against...
Because hockey games last for 60 minutes, Numminen is off the ice for
almost 30 minutes..? :)
Seriously, haven't you seen Numminen's +/- stats? Last year they were
best in the Jets (+12 ?) and that means he sure has been ADEQUATE
defensively. Take a look at ie. Dave Manson's stats - he plays almost as
much as Numminen and had -26 last year. And he is considered adequate.
What does that tell about Numminen?
--
* Satan is devil and thou are not. Santeri....@cs.Helsinki.FI *
* university of helsinki rekipellontie 2 c 28 00940 helsinki *
* department of computer science finland p. 358-0-3951034 *
* kill everyone now kill everyone now kill everyone now kill everyone now kil *
Alex A Goddard
: >What good is per centage? If a guy stoppes 18 or 20, that's 20 saves.
: >If a guy stops 40 of 50, that's 40 saves. Which goalie had the better
: >game, the guy with a .900 SA or the guy with the .800?
: This really isn't a reasonable question...
Right, it isn't a reasonable question unless we know something about shot
quality/scoring chance quality. GAA and Save % tells us little about
those.
: >It's easier to
: >have a high save percentage when you face fewer shots. Coincidently, if
: >you have fewer shots against, you're likely to have fewer *quality* shots
: >against as well. This is why I'm critical of the Save % statistic.
: The points are valid but entirely subjective...you are making very key
: _assumptions_.
I'm making a logical, statistical assumption that the more shots a guy
faces, the more quality scoring chances a guy will face. I don't think
that assumption is much of stretch.
: Keep in mind here that I do see your point...you think Brodeur is a fine
: goalie, but not as good as his press, correct?
Right. However, some people with a lesser grasp on English seem to think
that a statement that he's not the best somehow implies he's not any
good. See the Forsberg thread for similar lack of English comprehension.
: Let me then state that I think Brodeur is one of the two very best
: goaltenders in the NHL today. The fact that he plays on a good
: defensive team helps, but is independent of his skill. My assessment is
: not based solely on his (ass-kicking) numbers either...his technique is,
: simply put, outstanding.
I think he's an excellent goalie as well. I think Roy, Hasek, Kidd,
Burke and Potvin are better, and Belfour and Ranford are at least as
good.
Alex
Jim Jungbauer
>: Keep in mind here that I do see your point...you think Brodeur is a fine
>: goalie, but not as good as his press, correct?
>
>Right. However, some people with a lesser grasp on English seem to think
>that a statement that he's not the best somehow implies he's not any
>good. See the Forsberg thread for similar lack of English comprehension.
If this last statement is intended for me, there was no lack of
English comprehension in any of my responses. I was not arguing that
you think Forsberg is not any good. You think he is not as good as
Mike Ricci, and with that I strongly disagree.
Jim
Alex A Goddard
: Not worse, the shutout goalie was just better for that one game and if
: the shutout goalie played 82 games and faced 8 shots in each and never
: gave up a goal, then he's better than a goalie with a seasonal 91.7 Save %.
Let me get this straight: you're saying that a goalie who takes 8 shots
per game and never gives up a goal is a better goalie than a guy who
takes 50 shots a game and has a 3.5 GAA? okay, whatever.
: =The number of goals a goalie lets in tends to very team dependent.
: Yes, the NUMBER OF GOALS, NOT the PERCENTAGE OF SHOTS - THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
Games are won and lost on the number of goals that enter the net, not the
percentage of shots turned away.
: =To label a goalie good or poor based on that is a poor statistic...
: Poor fellow. Garry, you just don't get it, do you? It is the
: ONLY statistic that evaluates a goalie.
So you're saying that the end-all and be all of goaltending greatness is
save percentage? Is that it?
: Shots against/per game measure team defense.
: Goals against/per game measure combined team defense/goal tending.
: If one knows enough about statistics AND hockey, then you should have
: no problem recognizing what a stat means (and doesn't mean).
If you know anything about hockey and stats you should know that *NO*
stat is worth a damn if you haven't watched the guys play. No single
stat defines anyone's play at any position, least of all in goal. Save
Percentage tells no more about a goalie's play than the number on his
sweater if you haven't seen the types of shots he's stopped, the types
he's let in, and the situations in which he's been scored on.
Alex
Deepak Chhabra
Alex A Goddard <agod...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>: >have a high save percentage when you face fewer shots. Coincidently, if
>: >you have fewer shots against, you're likely to have fewer *quality* shots
>: The points are valid but entirely subjective...you are making very key
>: _assumptions_.
>I'm making a logical, statistical assumption that the more shots a guy
>faces, the more quality scoring chances a guy will face. I don't think
>that assumption is much of stretch.
Well, I didn't say it was a stretch. In fact I said the points were
valid!
I will explain what I mean by "subjective". The argument here is that
Brodeur is "overrated", i.e. in the context you are using, he is not as
good as <say> I think he is. The supporting argument in this case is
that given the team he plays for, he faces fewer "quality scoring
chances" (yes I know what that descriptive means) than, say, Bill
Ranford or somebody else. What I'm saying is that just because he
doesn't face as many of those "quality" shots/chances, doesn't mean he
couldn't stop 'em if he did. In fact I'll go one step further...IMO if
he _did_ face those shots/chances, he would still post a save % close to
the one he currently posts.
>: Keep in mind here that I do see your point...
>Right. However, some people with a lesser grasp on English seem to think
>that a statement that he's not the best somehow implies he's not any
>good.
<shrug> What can you do...
>I think he's an excellent goalie as well. I think Roy, Hasek, Kidd,
>Burke and Potvin are better, and Belfour and Ranford are at least as
>good.
Belfour? Why? IMO Belfour could be described as a very good reflex
goalie whose temper too often gets him into trouble and causes him to
lose his concentration. Brodeur, on the other hand, I would describe as
a technically sound goalie who rarely loses his temper and
concentration. In fact I know that you have previously stated that you
don't have a very high opinion of Belfour...
--
Deepak Chhabra | "Boy, you've got some _nice_ toys here."
chh...@bnr.ca | --Rutger Hauer, Bladerunner
Standard disclaimers, and all that...
NJDevilCup
(Alex A Goddard) writes:
>
>More newbie Rhetoric. I never saw the Stars game. Unlike many here, I
>prefer to comment only on games I've seen. Brodeur was lousy against
>Florida and absolutely aweful against the Sabres. Is he a good goalie?
>Yes, of course. Is he the best in the NHL? No. Is he in the top ten?
>IMHO, yes. Is he in the top five? IMHO, no.
>
>Alex
Alex, Alex, Alex. You flat out admitted on one of your other posts
(3 days ago) that you have only seen one Devils game this season.
Yet, you comment on 2 games above. More contradictions from the
master. Why don't you do everyone a favor and comment only on
games where you score a goal?
Besides, 2 out of 23 games means nothing! What if the only 2 games
someone saw last year of the Devils run were the first 2 home playoff
games against the Flyers? You'd never believe they swept the Red
Wings!
Brodeur has not played as well as he did last year and he STILL is
the best goalie in the NHL right now. (Roy's the best over the past
few years) Even though it means little, I'm glad All-Star balloters
agree with me about Brodeur. I know he got my vote!
Kuch
Go Devils! 10-10-3, facing the mighty Avalanche tonight. Tough call.
Alex A Goddard
: If this last statement is intended for me, there was no lack of
: English comprehension in any of my responses. I was not arguing that
: you think Forsberg is not any good. You think he is not as good as
: Mike Ricci, and with that I strongly disagree.
No, it wasn't intended for you, Jim. You're one of the few who's
been able to carry on a dicussion with me in recent weeks *without*
resorting to personal attacks and/or needing English explained to them.
Also, I don't necessarily think that Forsberg "isn't as good as Ricci", I
just think Ricci is a more valuable player on the team. Clearly offense
is not what the Avalanche needs more of.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: Alex, Alex, Alex. You flat out admitted on one of your other posts
: (3 days ago) that you have only seen one Devils game this season.
: Yet, you comment on 2 games above. More contradictions from the
: master. Why don't you do everyone a favor and comment only on
: games where you score a goal?
I saw about half of the Florida game. The half I saw he was shaky
: Besides, 2 out of 23 games means nothing! What if the only 2 games
: someone saw last year of the Devils run were the first 2 home playoff
: games against the Flyers? You'd never believe they swept the Red
: Wings!
What's your point? Why don't you simply admit that you're a homer and
you simply can't take honest, impartial criticism of anyone wearing your
team's colours? That's the real issue here, isn't it?
: Brodeur has not played as well as he did last year and he STILL is
: the best goalie in the NHL right now. (Roy's the best over the past
: few years) Even though it means little, I'm glad All-Star balloters
: agree with me about Brodeur. I know he got my vote!
Brodeur hasn't played as well this year, and he wasn't the best in the
NHL last year. He's one of the top ten, but he's not nearly as good as
Hasek, Roy or Potvin.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: I will explain what I mean by "subjective". The argument here is that
: Brodeur is "overrated", i.e. in the context you are using, he is not as
: good as <say> I think he is. The supporting argument in this case is
: that given the team he plays for, he faces fewer "quality scoring
: chances" (yes I know what that descriptive means) than, say, Bill
: Ranford or somebody else. What I'm saying is that just because he
: doesn't face as many of those "quality" shots/chances, doesn't mean he
: couldn't stop 'em if he did. In fact I'll go one step further...IMO if
: he _did_ face those shots/chances, he would still post a save % close to
: the one he currently posts.
I think you're right, but that's speculative, to say the least. Until
Brodeur *does* face more shots, we'll really never know how many he'll stop.
: <shrug> What can you do...
With regards to the NJ homer on this thread, it would seem nothing.
: Belfour? Why? IMO Belfour could be described as a very good reflex
: goalie whose temper too often gets him into trouble and causes him to
: lose his concentration. Brodeur, on the other hand, I would describe as
: a technically sound goalie who rarely loses his temper and
: concentration. In fact I know that you have previously stated that you
: don't have a very high opinion of Belfour...
I don't have a low opinion of Belfour. I think he'd be the best in the
game if could avoid the "one bad goal". If he'd stay in his damn crease,
he'd take a full goal per game off of his GAA. As it stands, he's a very
good goalie that tends to let in some weak one's, usually when his team
can least afford it. That has a lot to do with Chicago's weak offense in
recent years as well. Either way, I think Belfour is as good,
technically, as Brodeur, though not as smart a goalie and not nearly as
lucky with regards to the team in front of him. I consider them a
virtual wash, both ranking in the 6th-8th range among NHL goaltenders.
Alex
NJDevilCup
(Alex A Goddard) writes:
>
>What's your point? Why don't you simply admit that you're a homer and
>you simply can't take honest, impartial criticism of anyone wearing your
>team's colours? That's the real issue here, isn't it?
No. Back up. Time out, Alex. I may be the biggest Devil fan, but I am
not blinded by my love of the team. I flat out admit that the Devils are,
at best, the 5th best team in hockey. Philly (my pick to win the Cup)
Pittsburgh (to my surprise), Colorado and Detroit are ALL BETTER
than the Devils. Right now. It doesn't mean that they will win the Cup
though. It doesn't mean the Devils will.
Our team doesn't have the greatest top-level talent (Richer-Thomas
-Broten versus say, Lindros-LeClair-Renberg) and I admit that. I think
there are teams with better defensemen, especially with Lemaire
juggling combinations around lately. Our backup goalie has 2 NHL
games in his career. Chris Nilan is not the defensive coach that Larry
Robinson was. Our team is not perfect, and I am not a homey. But I
have seen Brodeur play enough to say that he is the best, right now,
in the NHL. It's only his third year, so I won't ever say that he's
established in the way that Roy is. I'm at least glad you recognize
him in the top 10, but I recommend you watch him play more (not
intended as a flame, intended for your true viewing pleasure).
Kuch
Go Devils! 11-10-3, and plugging along.
Craig D. DeLucia
As I enter the fray...
On 29 Nov 1995, Alex A Goddard wrote:
> George in Sunny South Florida (g...@gate.net) wrote:
>
> : Not worse, the shutout goalie was just better for that one game and if
> : the shutout goalie played 82 games and faced 8 shots in each and never
> : gave up a goal, then he's better than a goalie with a seasonal 91.7 Save %.
>
> Let me get this straight: you're saying that a goalie who takes 8 shots
> per game and never gives up a goal is a better goalie than a guy who
> takes 50 shots a game and has a 3.5 GAA? okay, whatever.
While I often agree with your opinions (which, lately, puts me in the
minority around here ;), Alex, I think your logic and comparison is
faulty. You are posing a hypothetical question based on a comparison of
two different statistics. As you have mentioned in previous posts, they
are only stats. The true judge of any player is how he performs on the
ice, especially come the late spring. Hell, if my team only gave up
eight shots a game, I might save the expensive salary and tend goal
myself :)
> : =The number of goals a goalie lets in tends to very team dependent.
> : Yes, the NUMBER OF GOALS, NOT the PERCENTAGE OF SHOTS - THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
>
> Games are won and lost on the number of goals that enter the net, not the
> percentage of shots turned away.
Agreed...but to a point. This goes back to the argument you made
before. If you choose to factor stats in, by using your previous example
I would rather have the scond goalie you listed above. His 93% save
percentage (3.5 GAA on 50 shots average) would indicate that,
historially, this goaltender will stop 93% of the shots fired at him.
While stats do not reflect the nature of the athlete, they do give a
basis for comparison in numerical terms. What I am saying (and I think
you will agree with me) is that, while games are won and lost on the
number of pucks that enter the net, a goalie's historical performance is
just as important. To take an extreme example...goalie A faces 10 shots
a game with a .900 save pctg., producing a GAA of 1.00, while goalie B
faces 50 shots with a .940 save percentage, producing a GAA of 3.00.
While goalie B would lose every game these two teams played if history
remained near its past performance level, I think we would both choose
gaolie B...even though he allows more goals, he is the man I would rather
have in goal (ceteris paribus) in the event my defense collapsed and
allowed 40 shots one night.
> : Shots against/per game measure team defense.
> : Goals against/per game measure combined team defense/goal tending.
> : If one knows enough about statistics AND hockey, then you should have
> : no problem recognizing what a stat means (and doesn't mean).
>
> If you know anything about hockey and stats you should know that *NO*
> stat is worth a damn if you haven't watched the guys play. No single
> stat defines anyone's play at any position, least of all in goal. Save
> Percentage tells no more about a goalie's play than the number on his
> sweater if you haven't seen the types of shots he's stopped, the types
> he's let in, and the situations in which he's been scored on.
Agreed...to an extent. Stats provide a springboard for comparison.
Let's face it; with the exception of the players on your team, every
goalie faces the same competition. You will have a hard time proving to
me that a goalie that allows 4.00 GAA and has an .875 save pctg is better
than a goalie with significantly better numbers because even though
numbers don't provide the entire picture, they form an outline. Sure,
players often color outside of the lines and play far better or worse
than their numbers would show...but stats give you a place to start compaing.
Craig
******************************************************************************
Craig DeLucia "My feet, they finally took root in the earth,
cde...@hubcap.clemson.edu but I got me a nice little place in the
Phi Kappa Tau stars..."--Bruce Springsteen
Epsilon Nu Chapter "Can't this wait till I'm old, can't I live
Let's Go Devils!! while I'm young?"--Phish
Administrator, Bus Stop .Net Bus Stop, Bruce, Phish, DMB, BT, Hootie
Currently searching for: Blues Traveler 5/30/93, Phish 4/19/92 set II
******************************************************************************
Ray Hopkins
On 28 Nov 1995, Alex A Goddard wrote:
> I think he's an excellent goalie as well. I think Roy, Hasek, Kidd,
> Burke and Potvin are better, and Belfour and Ranford are at least as
> good.
>
> Alex
>
>
Trevor Kidd? I went to the Lightning game vs. Calgary. Kidd was shaken
even by routine shots on goal. Potvin has become a streaky goalie as of
late. Burke is definately underrated. You also forgot to mention Kelly
Hrudey. This guy has faced more shots than anyone year after year, but
all anyone ever looks at are the final scores.
Alex A Goddard
: No. Back up. Time out, Alex. I may be the biggest Devil fan, but I am
: not blinded by my love of the team. I flat out admit that the Devils are,
: at best, the 5th best team in hockey. Philly (my pick to win the Cup)
: Pittsburgh (to my surprise), Colorado and Detroit are ALL BETTER
: than the Devils. Right now. It doesn't mean that they will win the Cup
: though. It doesn't mean the Devils will.
: Our team doesn't have the greatest top-level talent (Richer-Thomas
: -Broten versus say, Lindros-LeClair-Renberg) and I admit that. I think
: there are teams with better defensemen, especially with Lemaire
: juggling combinations around lately. Our backup goalie has 2 NHL
: games in his career. Chris Nilan is not the defensive coach that Larry
: Robinson was. Our team is not perfect, and I am not a homey. But I
: have seen Brodeur play enough to say that he is the best, right now,
: in the NHL. It's only his third year, so I won't ever say that he's
: established in the way that Roy is. I'm at least glad you recognize
: him in the top 10, but I recommend you watch him play more (not
: intended as a flame, intended for your true viewing pleasure).
Thanks! An honest, intelligent post. If you think that Brodeur is the
best in the NHL, then you need to see more of Hasek, not me see more of
Brodeur. No one is even close to Dominik, nor has been over the past 3
seasons.
Alex
Alex A Goddard
: While I often agree with your opinions (which, lately, puts me in the
: minority around here ;), Alex, I think your logic and comparison is
: faulty. You are posing a hypothetical question based on a comparison of
: two different statistics. As you have mentioned in previous posts, they
: are only stats. The true judge of any player is how he performs on the
: ice, especially come the late spring. Hell, if my team only gave up
: eight shots a game, I might save the expensive salary and tend goal
: myself :)
You're missing the point. I'm *not* posing hypothetical comparisons of
stats. I'm saying that comparison of *any* stats is useless unless
you've seen the games.
: Agreed...but to a point. This goes back to the argument you made
: before. If you choose to factor stats in, by using your previous example
: I would rather have the scond goalie you listed above. His 93% save
: percentage (3.5 GAA on 50 shots average) would indicate that,
: historially, this goaltender will stop 93% of the shots fired at him.
: While stats do not reflect the nature of the athlete, they do give a
: basis for comparison in numerical terms. What I am saying (and I think
: you will agree with me) is that, while games are won and lost on the
: number of pucks that enter the net, a goalie's historical performance is
: just as important. To take an extreme example...goalie A faces 10 shots
: a game with a .900 save pctg., producing a GAA of 1.00, while goalie B
: faces 50 shots with a .940 save percentage, producing a GAA of 3.00.
: While goalie B would lose every game these two teams played if history
: remained near its past performance level, I think we would both choose
: gaolie B...even though he allows more goals, he is the man I would rather
: have in goal (ceteris paribus) in the event my defense collapsed and
: allowed 40 shots one night.
I agree totally. That's the exact point i was trying to make to the
individual who claimed the guy facing 8 shots per game, never allowing a
goal, was the "better" player.
: Agreed...to an extent. Stats provide a springboard for comparison.
: Let's face it; with the exception of the players on your team, every
: goalie faces the same competition. You will have a hard time proving to
: me that a goalie that allows 4.00 GAA and has an .875 save pctg is better
: than a goalie with significantly better numbers because even though
: numbers don't provide the entire picture, they form an outline. Sure,
: players often color outside of the lines and play far better or worse
: than their numbers would show...but stats give you a place to start compaing.
True enough.
Alex
NJDevilCup
>But how can you claim this unless you've seen all the other goalies
>in the league play? Come on don't call Alex a homer and then follow it
>up with this....
Garry,
I never called Alex a homer. I was responding to his calling me a homer.
I have seen alot of Eastern goalies, Hasek is the best other than Brodeur.
I agree with Alex on that. If I have any bias, it's that I don't get to
see all
of the Western goalies, and usually only on TV.
Kuch
Go Devils! 12-11-3, but posing no threat to Philly!