Seraph
-
Content Count
998 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Seraph
-
-
I wouldn't doubt it for a second.
-
Yes. Diving is a part of the game. But you've got to be smart about it and manage your risks. Diving when you could potentially lose the game for your team is probably not a good management of risks. That's why Babcock said something, whether it appears like that or not.
-
There's not much conversation to really be had when reality is obvious that...
1. Hasek is better than Osgood when both are healthy.
2. The Wings chances of making a deep run are probably better with Hasek in net.
3. Osgood is capable of filling in and is not a handicap to this team.
4. The Wings chances of making a deep run probably do not spiral downhill if Osgood is in net.
End of story, there's nothing else really worthwhile to discuss between the two, homerish or reality/insightful.
I respect this reply. The whole point was to NOT resist reality. -
Why do you care so much. Why do you care SO MUCH that you have to prove someone wrong. Someone who's worst flaw is trying to be uplifting about the Red Wings, and did nothing to denegrade Hasek.
I personally don't want to be uplifted by lies, but hey, that's just me. If other people do, then I'll keep my mouth shut next time.
What do you get out of this, because the cost of being such a know it all, is being very negative and not supportive, and down on the team. What is the payoff, because that is the cost. If people are so ignorant, as you say, why do you care?
I think being a "know it all" in this case is helping clear up a stat that would otherwise create false hope (but from what you're saying, that sounds like what you want, so maybe I'm wrong?). That's the benefit to your cost. If you want to be a part of a message board that just sits around blindly praising and believing, they call that homerism. Let's face reality and have some insightful conversations.
When it comes down to it. No matter what stat you have, no matter what has happened in the past it does not indicate the future. Hasek has been healthy thus far and so we think he will continue to be so. Osgood has't played many games and so we think he might not win a Cup this year. Anything can happen though. The past can hint at the future but will not determine it. So to say we will win with Hasek, or lose with Ozzie, or even live another day to post, is immaterial, and basically conjecture. The only thing a post about stats does is boost morale and give everyone hope and a fact to feel positive if Hasek is out for longer than a couple games.
Okay, so lets make up some more faulty stats to boost morale. I actually heard recently that Kris Draper is a cyborg and can burst the hearts of little children with a single stare. I can already feel the morale rising. I agree with you that the future is the future, and stats are stats. But they're still fun to talk about when speaking about sports. We're allowed to do that, right? I'm also sure you would agree with me that when stats are used, they should be accurate. Why are you resisting me so much? Is it because I'm a "know it all"?
You guys think you are so smart, but you don't even realize that the point of the post was to spread some good postive energy and cheer, and rah team! But apparently you missed that, so since you can't even grasp that basic concept why should we think your logic isn't faulty as well?
Your last sentence is the faultiest logic I've ever heard.
-
Never quote me logic, I know logic. I compared their two cup runs where they were but one game difference between the two. Then I put out that in the limited time this year for Osgood, they have the same shots against, and but a .009 percent save difference. Does that mean his saves were better, no. It just means that statistically with the data in hand there is little difference.
If the teams Osgood plays are worse it has no real effect on the numbers offered. Why? Because their shots against per game are almost identical!
If anything that proves that we allow more shots when we play non playoff teams, which is hardly a slight against Osgood. Read the post before you insult my logic sir. Because you insulting logic by infering that I made any such exclimation of his superiority with biased numbers.
It is people like you that make it impossible to bring intellegence to the message boards, and threads that degrade like this that keep me to 300 some posts over a year and a half. It just hurts my head.
The whole point was that your logic IS wrong. Even above.
The only part I disagree with is the .009 difference in goals against. You admit that Osgood played worse teams. If this is true, then all you have shown above is that statistically Osgood has played WORSE than Hasek. Try to think about it more.
Your data would be valid only if the starting goalie was randomly selected each game. That obviously wasn't the case. Let's take it to the extreme and see if that helps. Lets pretend the Wings randomly played pee-wee teams throughout the season. They decide only to start Osgood in pee-wee games and let Hasek rest. The team plays out their season and Hasek and Osgood have goals against averages that are only .009 different. Is that reassuring? Hardly. For your comparison to be valid, Hasek AND Osgood would have to have been randomly selected to play whether it was against the pee-wee team or an NHL team.
If you still disagree with me, then you are free to frolic in your ignorance. As far as being "positive" towards the team, that's fine with me if you want to trick yourselves into thinking Osgood has performed similarly. That's being really positive! Have fun sleeping well at night.
-
Because, Majsheppard, you should know that the 1st rule of DRW hockey is DO NOT BE POSITIVE. Especially if it involves Chris Osgood. We wouldn't want fans to be 'mislead' into having actual 'faith' or confidence in him or the team. It's all about knocking one another down.
Okay, 9 + 6 = 45. Since this is true, the New Jersey Devils will be 2006-2007 Stanley Cup Champions. You can't just provide numerical "evidence" to be positive. The objection is against doing that, not against Osgood or the team.
-
I just don't understand why a defense for Chris Osgood being a very capable is see as an attack on Hasek.
Because you tried to compare Osgood's numbers to Hasek's and compared them using faulty statistical logic. See my post above. Your "defense" of Osgood was misleading.
-
I appreciate your nod to the positive side, but I find it another unwarranted lash against Hasek that he has become, in your eyes, somewhat "unnecessary" to the team's success. I've taken several semesters of engineering calculus, calculus-based physics, etc--I know enough to get around, at least. Math--statistics, rather--does not work in the way you have presented. You have failed to take into account important outside factors. Chief amongst these this season are the number of Osgood's starts and the teams he has started against.
Ozzie has started 12 games. Of these, three have come against Chicago, two against the Blues, one against Columbus, two against the Kings, one against the Wild, one against the Stars, one against the Preds, and one against the Sharks. As you have it there, Ozzie has played 67% (8) of his games against teams who are amongst the worst in the NHL, and has won 6 (75%) of those (I did not include his loss against CBJ in which he replaced Dom). He has played 30% (4) of his starts against teams which could be considered "good" (though Minnesota would best be called average). In those contests, he lost against the Wild, lost against the Predators, and was yanked against the Sharks. He played a great game against Dallas.
These statistics show that, regardless of Osgood's save percentage, he has compiled 6 out of his seven victories (85%) against mediocre teams, while only winning 25% of his contests against worthy opponents, all of whom we might meet in the playoffs. Bad sign. Keep in mind that Ozzie's low number of starts does equal a low sample size, thus reducing the amount of data we have available to make a statistical judgment; it could possibly alter the data in either direction.
I do respect Osgood, and I certainly hope that he has the capability to pick up the slack if Dom sustains an injury. I have confidence in him, and do not subscribe to whatever idiotic track of thought which suggests that I must dislike one goaltender in supporting the other. Certainly there might be other extraneous factors on Osgood's record, amongst these that he hasn't had a tremendous amount of time to get his play up to speed. However, I find any notion that Osgood is even close to Dom's equal ludicrous, as do I find ridiculous the idea that we'll be able to work off of him in the playoffs at his current standard.
Like it or not, Dom is a big part of our success right now. His play has ranked around the best amongst all goalies in the NHL this season; he is not a simple replaceable part.
EDIT: I've compiled Dom's corresponding stats and matched them against Ozzie's below. All percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.
I included Ozzie and Dom's starts in which they were pulled (Ozzie's in San Jose, and Dom's in San Jose and Columbus) as losses for each of them, but I did not include the two games (CBJ and SJS) games in which Ozzie replaced Dom as losses for Ozzie.
Dom
Total games played against playoff-caliber teams: 30
Percentage of total games played: 65%
Victories: 20
Victory percentage: 67%
Percentage of total wins: 61%
Total games played against non-playoff-caliber teams: 16
Percentage of total games played: 35%
Victories: 13
Victory percentage: 69%
Percentage of total wins: 39%
Ozzie
Total games played against non-playoff-calibre teams: Eight
Percentage of total games played: 67%
Victories: Six
Victory percentage: 75%
Percentage of total wins: 86%
Total games played against playoff-calibre teams: Four
Percentage of total games played: 33%
Victories: One
Victory percentage: 25%
Percentage of total wins: 14%
Possible sources of error (plus many others; sports carry too many extraneous factors to list):
1) Ozzie's sample size is low both absolutely and relatively to to Dom's sample size.
2) The effect of injuries cannot be taken into account.
3) Differences in rosters across all games cannot be taken into account.
4) Which goals were caused purely by non-goalie error were not traced-- I did not take the time to evaluate every last goal. However, we can assume that such gaffes were equally distributed per each game and thus per each goalie's games played.
5) Goalies sometimes have bad games. This cannot be accounted for. Ozzie's lower number of games makes for a single bad game having a greater effect on his statistics. Then again, goalies sometimes play incredible games as well.
As a culmination of these sources of error, Ozzie's lower number of games against quality teams makes his overall performance against them, which is the most important factor, difficult to make any sort of statement on. He may have had a run of bad games against these teams or may have had no help, or he may simply have simply been outplayed.
However, the sheer number of extraneous factors inherent to sports likely makes any statistical analysis on the subject, including mine, so fraught with error as to be useless. In the end, we will only be able to make a true judgment after we see what actually happens.
Bravo, on this reply. As I was reading the original message, I was thinking the exact same thing. As a back-up, your minimum duty is to at least match the winning numbers of the starter. If you're truly better or on the same level as the starter, then you should have much better numbers since you're playing the lower tier teams. In this case, Osgood is doing the minimum. Hasek is the one out there earning the difficult points against the hard teams.
You can also think of it like this: Osgood is not as good of a goalie as Hasek because (even though they have similar save percentages) the quality of the shots Osgood has faced have been lower than Hasek's.
-
Does the organization even have Red Wings jerseys in his size?!
-
I think an interesting question here is: How do you guys think the Red Wings will react going into the playoffs not as the favorite? Do you think there is less pressure? Will that help them or maybe harm them? The expectations don't seem to be as high, from what Buccigross is saying.
-
Quick question. Why does everyone place all the blame of the lock-out on Bettman? Wasn't it kind of stupid for Goodenow not to accept his final offer before canceling the season? It was the players that got screwed in the end because of him.
-
The only thing I really know about Seattle comes from Grey's Anatomy but isn't Seattle a little close to Vancouver. Having to teams that close together can't really be a good thing
Believe me, the hockey in Vancouver has absolutely no impact on Seattle. I used to live in Detroit and then I moved to Seattle, I told people at my school that I was into hockey and they only had a vague idea of what it was. It took me a really long time to find a league I could play in, too. And it didn't turn up being anything fancy either.
I think the potential for a team in the Northwest is great. There just hasn't been enough exposure to the sport. Portland is a great city too and could be good for an NHL team. I actually think hockey is a bit more popular in Portland, but what I know is only anecdotal.
EDIT: My comment about there being "no impact" on Seattle was relating to the popular culture. The people who follow the minors would of course be aware and very much into what's going on in BC. I doubt there are many casual fans, though.
-
Can someone say something about if/how well Bertuzzi will fit in Detroit's system?
-
Red Wings acquire Bertuzzi for little, something good happens. In retrospect we're all glad we got him.
Red Wings acquire Bertuzzi for little, nothing good happens so he is let go. We aren't glad we got him for what he did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Wings DON'T acquire Bertuzzi, more than likely, nothing good happens (see past few playoffs)
Red Wings DON'T acquire Bertuzzi, less than likely, something good happens.
Pick your side of the fence.
-
before the lockout, i bet my wife lapointe would retire a wing. i would love to be right.
haha, pretty high stakes, putting your wife on the table... what are you getting in return if you're right?!
Who's on your Red Wings Jersey?
in General
Posted · Report reply
Small white youth jersey, no name on the back. I've had it since I was eight and it is completely disgusting with mustard and food stains all over it.
Blank, red jersey.
Yzerman, red jersey.
I got 'em in that order, too.
Coming next is a Zetterberg jersey.