haroldsnepsts

The thread is "Should visors be mandatory in the NHL." His post was: It's pretty clear he is saying in regards to visors he thinks it should be 100% a players choice. He made no claims about other sports or other protective equipment. Your post claiming he's saying NFL players shouldn't have to wear helmets has nothing to do with his statement. You either misinterpreted what he was saying or misrepresented it just to argue. I'm not going to diagram it out for you any more than that so I suggest you drop it.

Not in a GDT.

Uhh, no he didn't. You left off the end of his sentence, I'm guessing intentionally, because it says "if they want to wear one." Meaning it should be their choice if they (NHL players) want to wear one (visors). You're taking one statement and using it completely out of context.

Kindl is 26.

Nice strawman fallacy. He was talking specifically about players opting not to wear visors. He didn't say across the board pro athletes should be able to determine what protective equipment they will and won't wear.

If the Wings move to the East, I think more people here will start wishing they had an enforcer in the lineup.

That's my whole point. You can't tell from plus-minus. But he gets a +3 and people use it to say he had a great game.

I think Lidstrom's -2 in 2011 is an example of what you're talking about. My point about Quincey and the weakness of plus-minus is this. He's a +11 and has 1 goal this season (his only point of the season as well). So all his pluses except that one are dependent on the production of other players on the ice. Look at one game like against St. Louis where the Wings won 5-1. The Blues one goal came on the PP, so no one gets a minus. The Wings goals however, came from guys like Kindl, Emmerton, Cleary, Brunner, and Flip. Kronwall plays 21 minutes of Even Strength and ends up with a +1. Quincey plays 14:42 minutes of ES and ends up a +3. Neither one had a point in the game. So Quincey had a better game and is shutting down 2nd and 3rd lines because he was standing on the ice when three of his teammates scored? The other Blues game where they won 5-3 is another good example. Don't get me wrong I think Q has been fairly solid and much better than his first few games of the season. But that's based on watching games. Not on misusing a statistic.

The more you explain what Quincey's plus-minus shows, the more you make my case about it being mostly useless and widely misinterpreted. You're using the stat to demonstrate something it's absolutely not built for. Here's a decent explanation of the weaknesses and common misuses of the stat. http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20

First, if you're going to call someone retarded, it carries more weight when you spell it correctly. Second, it's best not to call anyone that here, especially not a moderator. Here's the forum rules for reference. I'd focus on the personal attack and respecting moderators stuff. http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules Third, it is a mostly useless stat.

I'm not just reacting to Kane and the shootout loss. I've always hated the it. It's a terrible way to decide a game and by its artificial nature requires keeping the loser point. I'd much rather have ten minutes of 4 on 4 OT, then just call it a tie if no one scores and both teams get a point. If someone does score then two points to the winner, no points for losing. Ever. I grew up watching hockey in the 80s so there were ties. It really only got bad in the clutch and grab era. Watching a slow boring hockey game ending in a tie.

I'm not sure what your point is in regards to my post. I wasn't questioning Kane's skill. He takes the rules to the limit and uses his skill to score. When in a hockey game would you be able to come to an almost complete stop for that much time to make that many moves? Never. Someone would bury you. My point was using an artificially constructed event to decide a hockey game, and Kane's near stops highlights the absurdity of it.

you technically only have to be making forward progress. He still is. Barely. It highlights why the shootout is a joke.

Kane's shootout tactic is a perfect example of why the shootout shouldn't be used to decide hockey games.

If Kane does his slow down nearly to a stop crap, I hope Howard decks him a la Tim Thomas.

Hi. This is the GDT. Let's say we talk about the game and not judging who's a true fan or not. mmkay thanks.

Honestly I think the Wings were getting some quality chances and he did make big saves. This wasn't one of the classic Wings pepper the goalie with weak shots from the perimeter kind of game.

It's like he played 58 great minutes and then ran out of brain power or something.

Funny how you haven't posted for days until Ericsson took that penalty.

holly hell. Red Wings D men getting the yips here at the end.

post! good god.

you knew it was going to happen.

good lord Ericsson

wasn't that play offsides anyway??

whew. juicy rebound there by Jimmy.