kipwinger

But here's my vow to you. The next time someone says Dekeyser is our best defenseman over the last three games, and in reality he was wholly (or partially) responsible for three goals against and a breakaway...I'll look up the video. Just do me a favor and point out when people say that about Dekeyser in those situations, because as far as I can tell they never do. I didn't bring Smith up today. Didn't say a word about him.

I don't "dislike" Smith. I just recognize what he is. An underwhelming, third pair, defenseman with upside. He's like a less good MIchael Del Zotto. So basically Jamie McBain.

Sigh. My most recent criticism of Smith was in response to people saying "Smith's been our best defenseman lately". Which wasn't true. During the period in question he'd regularly blown his defensive assignments, and in some cases even catastrophically screwed up (e.g. turned the puck over for goals and/or breakaways). He was awful 5 on 5, and since he doesn't regularly play on the special teams, I'm not sure how that statement could be true. I don't pick on Smith. He's a third pair defenseman, who plays like a third pair defenseman. I only point out Smith's screw ups when dim bulbs around here start saying demonstrably false things like "Smith's been our best defenseman".

Showing video of Smith screwing up, and blaming him for loses aren't the same thing. I did the first. I never did the second. And if you'd take the time to go look at my recent comments on Smith you'd see that I said this at the time I posted the videos of his play: "Third pair defense are rarely to blame for losing streaks, and this is no different. But you are all insane if you think Smith has played well the last three games. He hasn't. I don't blame him for the failures of our PK, but he's EASILY been our worst defenseman 5 on 5. Here's the evidence. Disagree with me? Go find the videos to prove it." I know that you're just dying to catch me contradicting myself, but you're just going to have to keep trying.

It's always easy to pick on the fourth line, or third pair defense. But prolonged losing slumps are rarely their fault. Miller's job isn't to score goals. And we didn't score any. And we lost. Miller's job is to play defensively responsible hockey for about 12:00 a game, and kill penalties. Which he did.

or do this... Erik Cole Henrik Zetterberg Justin Abdelkader Darren Helm Riley Sheahan Tomas Tatar Gustav Nyquist Joakim Andersson Teemu Pulkkinen Drew Miller Luke Glendening Tomas Jurco Ugh. Can this idiot please just go save the Maple Leafs already?

Ideal playoff situation? Keep away from Ovechkin, who had two more last night. Jesus Christ.

Who needs Connor McDavid anyway?

Dear Mike Babcock, Since you're a dumbass (but totally a genius too), will you please just do the first of these things while Datsyuk is out, and the second once he gets back. Mostly because we'll win more. But also because it actually maximizes our players talents in a complementary way. That's called specialization. It's been all the rage since the industrial revolution. It makes things more efficient. Clearly it's not on the curriculum for honorary PhD's from McGill. Nyquist-Z-Abby Tatar-Sheahan-Cole Pulkkinen-Helm-Jurco Miller-Glendening-Andersson/Weiss Zetterberg-Datsyuk-Abby Tatar-Sheahan-Cole Nyquist-Helm-Jurco Miller-Glendening-Andersson/Weiss Anyway, thanks...you ******* schmuck. Kip. p.s. If something works 1 time our of 4, it's not a success...even if it's your idea. So just stop it already.

When Dats and Z are gone we'll have (just listing them here, no particular order) Tatar-Athanasiou-Mantha Nyquist-Larkin-Abby Pulkkinen-Sheahan-Jurco Helm-Glendening-whoever. Yeah, I'm sure we'll suck lol.

We traded for Cole. He's better than Jagr at this point in their careers. Are you guys saying you want Jagr too, or that you'd rather have Jagr than Cole. Besides Babs would just have put him with Zetterberg and Abby...for some reason.

Seems like every few years there's some new kid in the draft that's the elite of the elite. The next Crosby. The next Stamkos. The next Ovechkin. The next Tavares. The next whoever. So what? Crosby, Stamkos, Ovechkin, Tavares, only have one cup between them. Lots of teams do lots of winning without generational talents. And lots of generational talents weren't drafted with the top pick. Connor McDavid will probably be a good NHLer, but I doubt he's going to be so otherworldly good that we'll all be left in awe. At best he'll be Crosby level good. And is anybody really that blown away with him anymore? Sure he's a great player, but not so much better that development, and management, and team building, don't matter. Connor McDavid is more likely to be an Eberle, Yakupov, RNH, or Hall than he is to be another Crosby. Because he'll likely get drafted by a team that only knows how to get that much out of him.

Aside from a crappy game against a decent team, which I don't want to comment on too much, does anybody else notice that when Babs gives the guys the day off, they play like crap? Maybe a mandatory, yet easy, skate would help them look alive? I don't know.

Jurco will be fine. Look how long it took Abby to become a consistent power forward. Jurco is starting much the same way, except he has an even higher ceiling. He just need s to continue to do the small stuff correctly and sooner or later he will get a chance and run with it.

No. Putting Abby with Datsyuk is not "just as, if not more dumb" than putting him on the fourth line. Unreal. Because I wasn't suggesting moving Abby to a place that would completely negate his production (like the fourth line). I was questioning whether it might be good to temporarily put Abby with Datsyuk, a guy he's been nearly as good with throughout the season, in order to maintain Cole's current production. The point was that you don't lose much by moving Abby to a line with Datsyuk, because he already knows how to play with Datsyuk and he's been effective on Datsyuk's wing in the past. Conversely Cole is also producing really well, but unlike Abby, he hasn't played with Pav in the past. And it seems like some players have trouble adjusting to Pav's style (Nyquist, for instance, still doesn't play well with Pav). I was asking Buppy which had the greater risk/reward: Moving Abby and potentially making him a little less effective, or moving Cole and potentially making him a lot less effective. Buppy understood this, and responded immediately and without issue. You're the only one still having trouble with it.

Prior to your proposed lineup change, Abdelkader was having the best season of his career and Jurco hadn't scored in 30+ games. It was only slightly less dumb then than now. But still massively dumb. As I articulated at the time.

Bingo. And it's clearly presented as such. And when I said, "Tatar has a better goals per game without Datsyuk than with him", it was a fact. Are we clear now, or are you just going to go through each of my posts and highlight when I offer an opinion versus when I state a fact? I responded to the part of your last post which was applicable to me. The rest of your post was pointless because I didn't say "Split Abby and Hank up", as you're insinuating. I asked Buppy a question based on an observation I made. I was hoping his answer, and our subsequent discourse, would be pleasant and informative. All of which is quite a lot different than you saying that "Abby should be on the fourth line and Jurco the third". Which was just dumb.

I thought Weiss looked decent when Zetterberg was out, Sheahan was on the second line, and Weiss was back at center. I don't think the wing plays to his strengths. He seems to see the ice well, and is good and recognizing plays as they develop. He seems pretty bad at winning board battles. I agree with Cole, Abby, and Helm being pretty interchangeable. My question had more to do with easing Cole's transition than some conclusion about their abilities.

See above. The two of you know the difference between observation and analysis right?

Not really. I didn't perform any analysis whatsoever. I pondered a question based on an observation that I've made. And as I stated above, observations (including my own) are often wrong. Hence the need for analysis. I sure hope your take away from everything I said above was not, "Don't ever make an observation". Because that wouldn't be correct. My point was, "don't ever confuse observations with reality unless you've verified them".

Do you think it would be preferable to put Abby with Datsyuk, and Cole with Zetterberg, considering Abby is more familiar with Datsyuk's style of play? Datsyuk is the more unconventional player, and while Cole is still learning the system it might be easier for him to play with Z. Just a thought.

I'm not really sure how you're not meaning offense, and telling me I've got a "problem" at the same time. But ok. To answer what I think your question probably is. Yes, I watch every game. Either during game play, or with the help of my DVR. However, because I don't rely on the "eyeball test", I don't automatically assume that what I see, and the empirical reality, are the same thing. Why? Because seeing and believing are both frequently wrong. And why do I think that? Because I perform statistical analysis, and policy review for the Department of Defense all day. And would you like to know what one of the most common things we find is? That what we hear when we ask people their opinions, and what we find when we use empirical methodology and statistical analysis to determine the reality, are often starkly different. Edit: Also, I didn't ever say Tatar and Datsyuk were "better" without one another. I said that so far this season, they've each scored goals more prodigiously when not on a line with one another, which is empirically true.

To say nothing about the possible chemistry, matchups, defense, etc., I will say this about Tatar being a "lock" to play with Datsyuk. Prior to being paired with Datsyuk and Helm, Tatar had 10 goals in 26 games (.38 goals per game). Since being paired with Pav and Helm he's scored 15 goals in 42 games (.35 goals per game). Datsyuk was noticeably better without Tatar than with him, in terms of production. Dats had 11 goals in 15 games without Tatar and Helm, and 12 goals in 42 games with them. Finally, Helm had 4 goals in 26 games before joining that line. And 9 goals in 35 games since. So, of the three, only Helm's goal scoring production has improved since that line was put together. Caveats: This says nothing about the affect that this line may have on others. Maybe it allows other guys to be slotted more appropriately. Maybe, it gets the hard matchups and therefore allows other lines to produce more. I don't know. Also, I've only looked at offensive production, and within that area I've only looked at goal scoring. So take it for what it's worth. But on the basis of this alone, if your primary goal is to get MORE goals out of Tatar and Datsyuk...you should split them up.

I'd be a real fool to read something that doesn't seem right (e.g. Datsyuk feeds Tatar his goals), and not check to see if it's true or not. I'll be stupid, gullible, or a rube if I just took everybody's word for it. And before you ask, the reason it didn't "seem right" is because I already know that Tatar has better possession numbers than Datsyuk, and I already know that he played significantly on Sheahan's wing before moving to the top line. So it's not unreasonable to think that he creates his own offense. Which would contradict the insinuation that Datsyuk is primarily responsible for Tatar's production by "feeding" him goals.

Because the alternative would be to read what's posted here and NOT verify whether or not it's true. Which would make me retarded.