No worries about Hasek.

[Offsides 21]

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.

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.

[Seraph 240]

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.

[Offsides 21]

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 guess then we should throw out stats altogether then. Then what will we base it on then. A contest, like american idol where the fans vote? That really works via allstar game...or shall we just go by wins, or cup wins...hmm...that's looking even more skewed than the original numbers.

I guess we should just go based on your opinion.

The point is that no one said Osgood IS Hasek...

Someone said Ozzie will be capable to step in if need be, which apparently is BLASPHEMY...which leaves every Osgood supporter to bow their head, wring their hands and say, "oh no, no no, we didn't mean that OF COURSE Hasek is God...we would never suggest that Hasek is fallable, or replaceable, or that Osgood is even half as good as him."

Hell no. I'm sick of that. Hasek is not God, and not the only one capable of winning a Cup with Detroit. And I'm not saying Osgood is that person, but honestly...we don't know that Hasek is that person either. We'll have to wait until June to know that. Or earlier if the contrary is true.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Offsides

[Majsheppard 203]

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.

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.

[puckloo39 5,686]

No, it's like...someone said something positive about Ozzie and you felt the need to post a freaking 2 page report on how Ozzie's not as good as Dom, even though everyone knows that Hasek's one of the best ever. What is the point? Seriously.

And then, Puckaloo just likes to poke me with a stick. No one's said bad stuff about Hasek here, there's not need to drag in DNA evidence that Hasek is higher on the evolutionary scale than Osgood. GRAR.

Seriously, you need to read my posts for what they are. I didn't say anything bad about Ozzie. I explained what I said, so that you would understand... Hasek gets his share of negativism, in general and in this forum.

You're the one making up the creative, over-the-top put downs on Oz (I actually like the evolutionary scale comparison), even though I know you're being sarcastic. I was going to say hyperbolic, but you make fun of me when I use big words.

Peace, Offsides...

[Offsides 21]

Seriously, you need to read my posts for what they are. I didn't say anything bad about Ozzie. I explained what I said, so that you would understand... Hasek gets his share of negativism, in general and in this forum.

You're the one making up the creative, over-the-top put downs on Oz (I actually like the evolutionary scale comparison), even though I know you're being sarcastic. I was going to say hyperbolic, but you make fun of me when I use big words.

Peace, Offsides...

Puckloo, I'm seriously only going to say this once, because I don't think you are getting it when I've not replied the last couple of times.

I'm not really talking to you, meaning that wasn't directed at you.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Offsides

[puckloo39 5,686]

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!

I think SOG totals can be misleading. There is no measure indicating whether a 20 shot game comprised 2 actual scoring chances or 15. It's just a number used in game stats. I've seen 50-shot games which were easier for the goalie to win than games with 20 or less. For most goalies who routinely stop 100's of pucks in practice, a whole bunch of weak shots in a game are not exactly a challenge, but the numbers look good. As subjective as hockey is, there's no real way around that... it isn't particularly logical.

Puckloo, I'm seriously only going to say this once, because I don't think you are getting it when I've not replied the last couple of times.

I'm not really talking to you, meaning that wasn't directed at you.

OK, we're cool, yes?

[Jaymister 71]

There's a reason Hasek is the starter, GAA isn't even close with Hasek at 2.04 and Ozzy at 2.57. That's a 71.96 goals against let in by Ozzie in a 28 game playoff schedule and 57.12 goals against Hasek in those same 28 games. Big difference there, Hasek goes down and we're done.

[Seraph 240]

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.

Edited March 4, 2007 by The Nephilim

[Guest Crymson]

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 admitted as much. Did you read the whole thing, including the end?

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.

I'm surprised you'd throw THAT one at me, of all people.

I guess then we should throw out stats altogether then. Then what will we base it on then. A contest, like american idol where the fans vote? That really works via allstar game...or shall we just go by wins, or cup wins...hmm...that's looking even more skewed than the original numbers.

I guess we should just go based on your opinion.

The point is that no one said Osgood IS Hasek...

Someone said Ozzie will be capable to step in if need be, which apparently is BLASPHEMY...which leaves every Osgood supporter to bow their head, wring their hands and say, "oh no, no no, we didn't mean that OF COURSE Hasek is God...we would never suggest that Hasek is fallable, or replaceable, or that Osgood is even half as good as him."

Hell no. I'm sick of that. Hasek is not God, and not the only one capable of winning a Cup with Detroit. And I'm not saying Osgood is that person, but honestly...we don't know that Hasek is that person either. We'll have to wait until June to know that. Or earlier if the contrary is true.

Maybe I should just delete my post.

[Offsides 21]

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 put up similar numbers. That's being really positive! Have fun sleeping well at night.

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.

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?

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.

So disproving that Osgood = Hasek or whatever is a pointless way to be a big downer. There's not a point. To even try to bring up this argument is actually missing the whole point of the original post. 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?

I'm surprised you'd throw THAT one at me, of all people.

It wasn't JUST directed at you.

Maybe I should just delete my post.

I'm sorry, I admit I got rather heated, well, not at first, but by now. I am just so sick of people having to prove over and over again that Hasek is better than Osgood. Why does this need to be proved so very often over and over again, when it's so ... plain.

Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Offsides

[Seraph 240]

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.

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

Offsides pretty much hit everything right on the head. Great posts.

I was going to make a huge post, but I'll refrain because it wouldn't be pretty.

Edited March 4, 2007 by hockeycrazy3033

[interminded 1]

Offsides pretty much hit everything right on the head. Great posts.

I was going to make a huge post, but I'll refrain because it wouldn't be pretty.

I agree.

Twice.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

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.

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.

[OsGOD 3]

Far be it from me to put words in the mouth of someone as eloquent as Crymson,

Awww Offsides, are we that cutsie on here?

[sixer 37]

Ozzie is known for giving up soft goals and being unable to put a Solid Full Season together.

That said, this is the worst type of goalie you'd want in the playoffs. He could put a solid string of games together, for instance, like what Cam Ward did with Carolina and what he did when we won the cup with him, but overall he would not be my choice as starter during regular season or playoffs.

Hence, he'd better not be our starting goalie next year, otherwise you will once again see his inability to put a Full Solid Season together.

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

Ozzie is known for giving up soft goals and being unable to put a Solid Full Season together.

That said, this is the worst type of goalie you'd want in the playoffs. He could put a solid string of games together, for instance, like what Cam Ward did with Carolina and what he did when we won the cup with him, but overall he would not be my choice as starter during regular season or playoffs.

Hence, he'd better not be our starting goalie next year, otherwise you will once again see his inability to put a Full Solid Season together.

Only if this post made some sense a little.

Look at his numbers, and winning season records then tell me again how he isn't able to put a solid full season together. Thanks!

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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.

Hey, SWF, when did you become the voice of reason??

[eva unit zero 271]

Ozzie is known for giving up soft goals and being unable to put a Solid Full Season together.

That said, this is the worst type of goalie you'd want in the playoffs. He could put a solid string of games together, for instance, like what Cam Ward did with Carolina and what he did when we won the cup with him, but overall he would not be my choice as starter during regular season or playoffs.

Hence, he'd better not be our starting goalie next year, otherwise you will once again see his inability to put a Full Solid Season together.

Osgood is known for soft goals..like those he gave up en route to being second in Conn Smythe voting and winning a Cup, or like one he gave up in his rookie year in the playoffs (when he became only the second Wings goalie ever to get a shutout in his playoff debut)

Sorry, Ozzie doesn't give up any more soft goals than Roy, Brodeur, etc. That argument is invalid.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Hey, SWF, when did you become the voice of reason??

Let's not get ahead of ourselves now harold.

[Seraph 240]

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.