Should We Alternate Goalies in the Playoffs?

[Packer487 3]

God, I can't believing I'm even bothering to respond to this. But here I go....

In short, the reason you have to take out Ozzie's 3 worst games if you take out Dom's 3 worst games is to make an equal comparison.

Let me put it into terms you might be able to relate to.

Both you and I are up for a promotion at work. You've worked there a few years longer than I have, but both of us are senior employees. This year, you slacked off a lot for the first few months, missing days for no good reason. While I worked my ass off, but I did take a few sick days. You have lately picked things up are started to work a lot harder, and not miss days for no good reason.

So the boss sits down to evaluate both of us. He looks at you first, sees your rocky start, but also you recent change back to your old ways. Then he looks at me, and sees I've had a few slips, but nothing too serious.

Tell me how it would make ANY sense for the boss to throw out your poor performances to evaluate us? You can't because it doesn't. Of course you are going to look better than you really have been. So, for sake of LOGIC, he must also throw out an equal amount of my slip ups.

Make sense? Or do I need to break it down further?

It has nothing to do with me 'opening my mind' and everything to do with you having a man crush on Dom.

I've said it before, I hate Dom. But I can admit when he has a good game, and I give him his due credit. On the flip side, I'll be right there yelling when he has a s***ty game. But I don't lobby for Ozzie because in games played after 7pm, on a Wednesday in the Pacific time zone, when the Wings are wearing the red jersey and the opposition doesn't have at least 3 right handed defensemen, he has a .001 better save percentage than Dom.

Seriously, your boat is sinking, and I know the captain is supposed to go down with his ship and all, but man....

If I had been the best employee doing what I do in the corporate world for 10 years +, and had 3 bad days at the start of the year, two at least partially because some joker spilled coffee on my computer, I could see looking past it, especially since my performance has regained it's previous level of awesomeness.

Of course, I would point out that in the last decade you hadn't closed a deal as big as the one that I closed last year (and have on several occasions in that time span), or really even come close. And I'd point out that apart from the 2 days where the jerk-off spilled coffee on my computer (and one other time where my mind was just elsewhere...just had a bad breakup. My fault for not working past it.) our performances had been dead on balls even the rest of the year, and I had actually been better for the second half of the time we're talking about here. I'd get the promotion.

But seriously, if your argument is that Osgood should get the job because he's been great for the whole year, and that Dom has only been great for half the year...and I can show that apart from 3 fluky bad games, Dom's numbers are really damn comparable to Osgood's for the whole year (meaning, worthy of the label "awesome"), you don't think that's a legitimate point? And you don't think that that disproves your idea that he sucked for a lot more than 3 games?

And even when you take out Ozzie's three worst games and we have a "fair comparison", the gap between him and Dom still shrinks dramatically, which pretty much proves my point (again) that we've got 3 games skewing the results

It's especially interesting since some people like you think he sucked for "a few months" and that Osgood has been amazing throughout (the latter I would agree with). If their numbers are that close, then either you've got a strange definition of "suck", your standards are really low for Ozzie (not that case since he has been amazing this year) or you're giving Dom a lot more credit than either you or I have realized.

But whatever, it's clear we're not going to change each other's minds. I'm fine revisiting this in a few weeks when we're starting to come down the home stretch of the season. Then we don't have to deal with the hypothetical "If both goalies keep up this pace for the rest of the year" since it's pretty likely that one or both of them will not--since they've both been playing at an incredible level.

And btw, the joke's on you. We haven't played a Wednesday game in the Pacific Time Zone this year

Edited January 13, 2008 by Packer487

[dallas27 7]

If I had been the best employee doing what I do in the corporate world for 10 years +, and had 3 bad days at the start of the year, two at least partially because some joker spilled coffee on my computer, I could see looking past it, especially since my performance has regained it's previous level of awesomeness.

Of course, I would point out that in the last decade you hadn't closed a deal as big as the one that I closed last year (and have on several occasions in that time span), or really even come close. And I'd point out that apart from the 2 days where the jerk-off spilled coffee on my computer (and one other time where my mind was just elsewhere...just had a bad breakup. My fault for not working past it.) our performances had been dead on balls even the rest of the year, and I had actually been better for the second half of the time we're talking about here. I'd get the promotion.

But seriously, if your argument is that Osgood should get the job because he's been great for the whole year, and that Dom has only been great for half the year...and I can show that apart from 3 fluky bad games, Dom's numbers are really damn comparable to Osgood's for the whole year (meaning, worthy of the label "awesome"), you don't think that's a legitimate point? And you don't think that that disproves your idea that he sucked for a lot more than 3 games?

And even when you take out Ozzie's three worst games and we have a "fair comparison", the gap between him and Dom still shrinks dramatically, which pretty much proves my point (again) that we've got 3 games skewing the results

It's especially interesting since some people like you think he sucked for "a few months" and that Osgood has been amazing throughout (the latter I would agree with). If their numbers are that close, then either you've got a strange definition of "suck", your standards are really low for Ozzie (not that case since he has been amazing this year) or you're giving Dom a lot more credit than either you or I have realized.

Not really. Osgood would boast a .942 sv% where as Hasek would be at .919

[imisssergei 0]

Not really. Osgood would boast a .942 sv% where as Hasek would be at .919

Don't waste your time. Packer just likes to argue. There is no use for reason or logic in his tiny world. He's obviously one of those who loves Dom and thinks he can do no wrong, but try to put up a "I only think what's fair" facade.