Buppy

Silver Booster
  • Content count

    2,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Buppy last won the day on October 15 2016

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank
    Hall-of-Famer
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,538 profile views
  1. Coreau will not be waiver eligible until next season. It was Jensen who had the 10 game limit. He will now have to pass through waivers to be sent down.
  2. "others" is a funny way to refer to yourself.
  3. Just what we need, our PP coach taking over everything. Wouldn't getting players to buy into the system, and getting them motivated to play, be considered one of the primary aspects of coaching?
  4. Frank and #9. Someone else after I responded too. And I have no problem with anyone calling him out. Only with people going over the top with the criticism. Labeling someone as "cancerous" after a single incident is over the top, in my opinion.
  5. Not excusing anything. I said it was unprofessional. I just don't think that's any big deal, and concluding that he's a prima donna or a drama queen, or saying we should trade him over it is over-reacting. Nor am I justifying anything regarding Mantha, because there's nothing to justify. And I'm not against Mantha either, nor ever have been. His first season in GR was disappointing. No other way to put it. Acknowledging that doesn't make it some terrible attack on the kid or an attempt to humiliate him. A disappointing first pro season. Happens all the time. I'm sure even to guys who go on to have great careers. It's no big deal, and neither was talking about it. Fans are the only ones who made a big deal of the statement. Many argued that his season wasn't disappointing, and expectations were just too high, and then ironically those same people got mad again when Holland said basically that we shouldn't expect too much from Mantha. If Mantha had anything to be embarrassed by (and I don't think he did) it was that what Holland and Devellano said was true, not that they said it.
  6. It didn't really, people just over-reacted to some (true) statements made about him from Devellano and Holland. Much like people are over-reacting to this news. He got pissed that the team chose to go with a guy who had one (poor) NHL game over him. Acted a bit unprofessional about it. Not a big deal and I'd bet stuff like that happens far, far more often than we hear about. But when people get down on a player they start looking for anything they can find to criticize. Mrazek could say he likes puppies, and 40 people would post the pic of that "Mrazek hates puppies" sign, and only 38 of them would be joking. 6 more people would be offended by his dislike for kittens. Fandom at it's fandomest.
  7. Except that is essentially what he means by saying we should probably expect less. He just added, "but hey, try to look on the bright side." It doesn't matter what he says. You can lie to yourself and pretend there's some particular turn of phrase that's going to make you happy, but there isn't. If he says we need stars, as he has many times, or we're trying to find a defenseman, or whatever...it just changes the rants to "well then do it already" or you whine that he didn't spell out some foolproof plan in exacting detail. We're in transition, no matter what term anyone wants to use to describe it. No one has ever denied it or tried to hide it. Your mistake is in thinking that because this is where we are now, it's because we want to be here and we're going to stay here forever. Lower expectations now doesn't mean permanently lower. That's just you reading too much into things.
  8. Lol. I disagree with you so I must like to watch the team lose. Please keep the veiled insults to yourself. Sure, if the only goal was to measure variance, SD would be great. But you're trying to evaluate a goalie. So what exactly does the variance tell you in that regard? It's not writing anything off. Maybe I should have left the "probably a loss" part out or said if the team wins it isn't because of that goalie. Point is there isn't a meaningful difference in that range. And the point about getting pulled early is all the more reason to look beyond simple variance. One fluke game can have a significant impact on even a very large sample. Or the same impact could come from several games. You have to look deeper to understand. Data from 2014-15 through this year: Shots Against <20 20-26 27-35 36-40 >40 % of Games 4.9% 26.7% 49.3% 12.9% 6.2% Goals Against 1 2 3 4 5+ Point% 93.7% 74.0% 46.6% 24.6% 9.1% ~89% of games see between 20-40 shots allowed, and almost half are 27-35. So again, a goalie with a 95% save% will almost always be allowing 1 or fewer goals. There's no point in differentiating anything because the practical result is almost always the same. Similarly, a save % below 85% is almost always (~95%) going to be 4+ goals in a full game. ~73% of the time even it would be 5+ goals. Or it means getting pulled early. Either way, it's not something you want from your goalie. Again there's not much point in the difference. But here's the full list anyway: 100.00% *13.6%(9.6) 10.4% 97.00% 4.8% 8.2% 96.00% 7.2% 13.4% 95.00% 6.4% 6.5% 94.00% 2.4% 6.1% 93.00% 8.0% 6.9% 92.00% 10.4% 5.2% 91.00% 5.6% 5.2% 90.00% 8.8% 6.1% 89.00% 5.6% 3.5% 88.00% 2.4% 6.1% 87.00% 3.2% 4.8% 86.00% 1.6% 2.6% 85.00% 3.2% 2.2% 84.00% 4.0% 3.0% 83.00% 0.8% 1.3% 82.00% 0.8% 2.2% 81.00% 3.2% 0.4% 80.00% 0.8% 2.2% 70.00% 3.2% 3.5% Below 4.0% 0.4% *the number in parentheses is complete game shutouts Semantics.
  9. And that's a lot of cap going toward your goalies, and no spot for someone who might be even better than either. All for the sake of maybe a few more points during a rebuild?
  10. Really? How is Fowler better than Barrie? Ristolainen is emerging as one of the top scoring defensemen in the league, and plays huge minutes, all situations. Reilly is maybe the most debatable, but he plays a similar role and produces at a similar rate to Fowler. What makes you think Fowler is so much better?
  11. Seriously? Ok, keep Howard or replace him with an established #1. Feel better? Do I really need to type out the qualifier every time? Because that has been the argument since the beginning. " you better trade for an established number 1 goaltender to fill his spot " " But if you're gung-ho about getting rid of Howard, you best trade for an established number 1 NHL calibre goalie " " if Howard is traded away, Holland better find another goalie to work with Mrazek " I've said all along I don't care about Mrazek's consistency, because Howard isn't any better. Replacing Howard with an average backup doesn't make us any worse. You keep wanting to make it about Mrazek's consistency, despite me saying numerous times it's a different argument. In regards to that argument: Let's say you have two goalies, both played exactly 231 games. 4 years as a regular starter basically. One has a stdev of .07227, the other is .05752. What does that difference mean in real terms? How does that help you decide which is better? What kind of different performance would you expect from one to the next? Can you glean anything remotely useful from that? The reason I lumped the save%s into ranges is because it gives useful information on what you might expect. To post a save%of .950 or higher means allowing one goal or less most of the time. Two if you face 40+ shots. In either case, your team should have an exceptional chance to win the game. .920 but below .950 is mostly going to be two goals, and again a good chance to win. Excellent chance if you're keeping the shots low, but getting risky if allowing a lot. .89-.92 you need to either keep the shots against low, or do a lot of scoring of your own. Most likely a game that could go either way for most teams. .85-89 you really need the rest of the team to bail you out. Usually going to be 3 or 4 goals, fair chance for an OT point if the shots are lowish and the offense is good. Below that is either giving up 4+ goals or getting pulled early, either way probably a loss. If you want more data: 94.00% 2.4% 6.1% 93.00% 8.0% 6.9% 92.00% 10.4% 5.2% 91.00% 5.6% 5.2% 90.00% 8.8% 6.1% 89.00% 5.6% 3.5% 88.00% 2.4% 6.1% 87.00% 3.2% 4.8% 86.00% 1.6% 2.6% 85.00% 3.2% 2.2%
  12. Barrie, Ristolainen, Reilly.
  13. And none of that address the question of why we need to keep Howard. Secondly, standard deviation doesn't really mean anything. A large percentage of any goalies stdev is going to come from a small number of games that are well below the norm (below because you can't go much higher). So if Mrazek is in fact prone to 1 or 2 extra complete s*** games in a full season, so what? >95% 32.00% 38.53% 92-95% 20.80% 18.18% 89-92% 20.00% 14.72% 85-89% 10.40% 15.58% <85% 16.80% 12.99% The above is two goalies, 125+ games each, and the percentage of games in each save% range. What really is the difference there?
  14. Debatable, but also irrelevant. If it's a problem for Mrazek, it's a problem for Howard. So why do we need, or want, both?
  15. But if you have similar feelings and concerns about both, I don't understand why having both is better. I guess there's situations like this year, where one is playing well while the other is slumping, but you'll also have spells where both are bad or both are good. I'd rather have the extra cap space and a roster spot open for someone else who could potentially become our future, particularly right now during a rebuild when it's less important. In regards to the bold: If you look into goaltending data, high and low extremes are actually far more common than "average" performances. In any given game, giving up 2 or fewer goals is probably going to be above average, while 3 or more is below. It's pretty rare for a goalie to be completely consistent with an "above" game, then a "below" game (much less above and below by equal amounts). So even when you go out to a 5 or even 10 game stretch, chances are it's going to be either above or below average. In some cases (and I'm guessing probably much less rare than people would think) it can be well above or below. Even when you look at full season stats for a goalie it's fairly common to have some significant variation year to year. But when you get a good sample size, like 100+ games, it should give you a good idea about what a goalie is. Mrazek may or may not be prone to unusually long "down" periods and conversely, unusually long "up" periods, but it's more likely that it's just a fluke. In the future, we should probably expect a more normal distribution of both. But regardless, based on his career to date, we should expect a more high than low, with all of it adding up to fairly average.