2 games, 1 goal against...

[Drake_Marcus 890]

*Gasp* Filppula's been gone for these two games as well. Surely there's more than a circumstantial link between his absence and these scores as well!

[Mors 201]

*Gasp* Filppula's been gone for these two games as well. Surely there's more than a circumstantial link between his absence and these scores as well!

Careful now Filppula is -6, don't get 'em started

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Careful now Filppula is -6, don't get 'em started

I know right? I mean Ericsson's only 4th on the team in scoring and leads all other Wings d-men in points by 25% as well as in goals. But hey-- sometimes he turns the puck over like a rookie. Clearly, as the d-man ranked 5th in icetime he was our undooing.

I mean logic would say hey-- Ericsson is on the ice for significantly less time than Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall and Stuart, so surely the team's defensive play hinges on his performance.

[Esquire 324]

*Gasp* Filppula's been gone for these two games as well. Surely there's more than a circumstantial link between his absence and these scores as well!

I know right? I mean Ericsson's only 4th on the team in scoring and leads all other Wings d-men in points by 25% as well as in goals. But hey-- sometimes he turns the puck over like a rookie. Clearly, as the d-man ranked 5th in icetime he was our undooing.

I mean logic would say hey-- Ericsson is on the ice for significantly less time than Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall and Stuart, so surely the team's defensive play hinges on his performance.

The point of my topic was to invite discussion about Ericsson, not Filppula. Stay on topic or don't bother posting self-serving, condescending drivel.

Moving along, you conveniently forgot to mention another Ericsson stat: -3. Which puts him last among Red Wing defenseman. Maybe if he was doing less scoring and looking after his own end more he wouldn't need big offensive stats to mask some of his brutal turnovers.

I never once implied that Ericsson was the entire reason for the Wings last two low goals against games but merely asked for people to discuss how perhaps Ericsson may be having problems and how those problems may be addressed and fixed upon his return.

Again, your sarcasm is refreshing and riveting here on LGW, but if you don't contribute anything at least stay away from my topics.

[Theophany 110]

The point of my topic was to invite discussion about Ericsson, not Filppula. Stay on topic or don't bother posting self-serving, condescending drivel.

Moving along, you conveniently forgot to mention another Ericsson stat: -3. Which puts him last among Red Wing defenseman. Maybe if he was doing less scoring and looking after his own end more he wouldn't need big offensive stats to mask some of his brutal turnovers.

I never once implied that Ericsson was the entire reason for the Wings last two low goals against games but merely asked for people to discuss how perhaps Ericsson may be having problems and how those problems may be addressed and fixed upon his return.

Again, your sarcasm is refreshing and riveting here on LGW, but if you don't contribute anything at least stay away from my topics.

He was pointing out how dumb this thread is. Just as Filppula's absence isn't the cause of the wins, neither is Ericsson's.

It's a different day, and the Wings are solidifying as a team that can (finally) play team hockey.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

[Esquire 324]

He was pointing out how dumb this thread is. Just as Filppula's absence isn't the cause of the wins, neither is Ericsson's.

It's a different day, and the Wings are solidifying as a team that can (finally) play team hockey.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

The title of this thread is "2 Games, 1 Goal Against" and is not "2 Wins, No Ericsson/Filppula"

Again, discussing the defensive end of this and NOT Filppula either.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

The point of my topic was to invite discussion about Ericsson, not Filppula. Stay on topic or don't bother posting self-serving, condescending drivel.

Moving along, you conveniently forgot to mention another Ericsson stat: -3. Which puts him last among Red Wing defenseman. Maybe if he was doing less scoring and looking after his own end more he wouldn't need big offensive stats to mask some of his brutal turnovers.

I never once implied that Ericsson was the entire reason for the Wings last two low goals against games but merely asked for people to discuss how perhaps Ericsson may be having problems and how those problems may be addressed and fixed upon his return.

Again, your sarcasm is refreshing and riveting here on LGW, but if you don't contribute anything at least stay away from my topics.

I just noticed there's no "MOD" under your name. You should probably talk to Matt about that, 'cause otherwise I have no intention of modifying my posting habits or content based on your comments.

Now that we've established that you've got zero grounds to tell me how to post, let's get back on topic.

Yeah, Ericsson is -3. But if you paid attention you'd know that at the time of his injury the defensive +/- values looked like this:

-->Lidstrom +6

-->Kronwall 0

-->Lebda -2

-->Ericsson -3

-->Rafalski -3

-->Stuart -5

So as you can see-- that puts Ericsson in the exact middle of the defensive +/- on the team at the time of his last game. Given that the Wings have outscored their opponents 5-1 over the last two games it's pretty self-serving of you to compare the current +/- values after getting those boosts to Ericsson's values instead of just comparing apples to apples.

Feel free to keep talking out of your ass, though.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

He was pointing out how dumb this thread is. Just as Filppula's absence isn't the cause of the wins, neither is Ericsson's.

It's a different day, and the Wings are solidifying as a team that can (finally) play team hockey.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Thank you.

[Esquire 324]

I just noticed there's no "MOD" under your name. You should probably talk to Matt about that, 'cause otherwise I have no intention of modifying my posting habits or content based on your comments.

Now that we've established that you've got zero grounds to tell me how to post, let's get back on topic.

Yeah, Ericsson is -3. But if you paid attention you'd know that at the time of his injury the defensive +/- values looked like this:

-->Lidstrom +6

-->Kronwall 0

-->Lebda -2

-->Ericsson -3

-->Rafalski -3

-->Stuart -5

So as you can see-- that puts Ericsson in the exact middle of the defensive +/- on the team at the time of his last game. Given that the Wings have outscored their opponents 5-1 over the last two games it's pretty self-serving of you to compare the current +/- values after getting those boosts to Ericsson's values instead of just comparing apples to apples.

Feel free to keep talking out of your ass, though.

Hey, just trying to express to you that maybe if you've got nothing to contribute then maybe boosting your post count can take place in someone elses topics.

Anyway...

You say "middle", I say "tied for 2nd last". Fancy it up all ya want, but there's no way he's been strong defensively this year which was...wait for it...here it comes...the ENTIRE point of this discussion.

I'll concede that using the +/- after two games that he's been gone is a bit unfair, but you can't ignore the fact that for a guy who still leads our defensemen in points, he's still the worst +/- of the blueliners on the Wings and was 3rd worst at the time of his injury.

So, for a guy who only plays the "5th most ice time" among defensemen as you put it, to have a +/- that he does even with his point totals, should at least be a cause for discussion.

[Viking_Erection 1]

The title of this thread is good. The opening post is dumb.

Matt, please require an IQ test before anyone is allowed to create a thread.

thx

[Esquire 324]

The title of this thread is good. The opening post is dumb.

Matt, please require an IQ test before anyone is allowed to create a thread.

thx

And maybe tack on another test for handle names.

[Theophany 110]

Hey, just trying to express to you that maybe if you've got nothing to contribute then maybe boosting your post count can take place in someone elses topics.

Anyway...

You say "middle", I say "tied for 2nd last". Fancy it up all ya want, but there's no way he's been strong defensively this year which was...wait for it...here it comes...the ENTIRE point of this discussion.

I'll concede that using the +/- after two games that he's been gone is a bit unfair, but you can't ignore the fact that for a guy who still leads our defensemen in points, he's still the worst +/- of the blueliners on the Wings and was 3rd worst at the time of his injury.

So, for a guy who only plays the "5th most ice time" among defensemen as you put it, to have a +/- that he does even with his point totals, should at least be a cause for discussion.

Stuart gets more ice time and has a worse +/-. Why aren't you on his case?

Also, as I said, he was pointing out that it's a dumb thread because the team isn't losing solely because Ericsson is on the ice.

You're committing a huge fallacy when you imply that Ericsson not being on the roster is the only (or at least primary) cause of us only letting in one goal, when the more likely cause is that Ozzie played better, or the team tightened up defensively, or that Lidstrom was pulling more minutes, or that forwards were backchecking harder, or any one of the hundreds of causes that I could think of.

Marcus pointed out that Filppula was out for the last two games to show how ridiculous your argument was; one person is not going to be the cause of 3-5 goals by the opposition—the more logical assumption is that the team played better as a whole.

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Another stupid thread, created with the intention of stirring up heated debate. Classic board discussion on an open board, or yet another attempt to start a flame war? Fine line, sometimes. Geez, don't we have anything else to do?

[Viking_Erection 1]

And maybe tack on another test for handle names.

Make a stupid thread. Get called out on it. Then you wish to resort to immature personal attacks?

The Wings went 2 games with 1 goal against for more significant reasons than one rookie kid on the 3rd pairing. c'mon!

Edited November 4, 2009 by Viking_Erection

[Esquire 324]

Stuart gets more ice time and has a worse +/-. Why aren't you on his case?

Because this makes a bit more sense. If you're out there for more time, chances are you're going to rack up more +/- stats. Good or bad. If you play minimal ice time yet rack up a "-" then why wouldn't you look into their play?

Also, as I said, he was pointing out that it's a dumb thread because the team isn't losing solely because Ericsson is on the ice.

Show me a single time I implied that the Wings current winning trend was based upon Ericsson being out. Can't do that? Oh that's right. That's because I never did. Stop putting words in my mouth and again, read the thread title.

You're committing a huge fallacy when you imply that Ericsson not being on the roster is the only (or at least primary) cause of us only letting in one goal, when the more likely cause is that Ozzie played better, or the team tightened up defensively, or that Lidstrom was pulling more minutes, or that forwards were backchecking harder, or any one of the hundreds of causes that I could think of.

Hey look! A contribution to the discussion! At last! These "hundreds" of causes were so plentiful you just decided to hold out for suspense this entire time I guess? Those explanations were all I was looking for. Thank you. Finally.

[Esquire 324]

Another stupid thread, created with the intention of stirring up heated debate. Classic board discussion on an open board, or yet another attempt to start a flame war? Fine line, sometimes. Geez, don't we have anything else to do?

It was intended to stir up discussion/debate. Imagine that. On a MESSAGE BOARD none the less. The horror!

I've got no motives other than to pick peoples brains. I gain nothing by flaming/trolling.

[Esquire 324]

Make a stupid thread. Get called out on it. Then you wish to resort to immature personal attacks?

Says the guy throwing the insults my way.

The Wings went 2 games with 1 goal against for more significant reasons than one rookie kid on the 3rd pairing. c'mon!

I'm sure there are more significant reasons, which is what all the other contributors have done. However, it doesn't seem that you can give me any but rather enter the thread with the sole intention of trashing it.

[kook_10 1,705]

break the wrist, walk away

[Esquire 324]

break the wrist, walk away

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Hey, just trying to express to you that maybe if you've got nothing to contribute then maybe boosting your post count can take place in someone elses topics.

Anyway...

You say "middle", I say "tied for 2nd last". Fancy it up all ya want, but there's no way he's been strong defensively this year which was...wait for it...here it comes...the ENTIRE point of this discussion.

I'll concede that using the +/- after two games that he's been gone is a bit unfair, but you can't ignore the fact that for a guy who still leads our defensemen in points, he's still the worst +/- of the blueliners on the Wings and was 3rd worst at the time of his injury.

So, for a guy who only plays the "5th most ice time" among defensemen as you put it, to have a +/- that he does even with his point totals, should at least be a cause for discussion.

You don't seem to want much discussion. Your thread title, original, and subsequent posts clearly single out Ericsson as a major factor in their defensive problems. And you're pulling stats like plus minus to try and justify them.

Have you been watching the games? Ericsson is a rookie, and will make rookie mistakes, but he's hardly been the worst defenseman out there. He's been the better half of a brutal pairing.

The only thing I'd really like to see when he comes back into the lineup is that he not be paired with Lebda.

If you want to look for things that changed defensively the last couple games, Lidstrom played 27 minutes against Boston, and the rest of the top four played a couple minutes extra a piece against Calgary. So our best D men were out on the ice more the last two games. That ice time isn't really sustainable over a season, but it probably had a greater impact defensively than Ericsson's absence.

Edited November 5, 2009 by haroldsnepsts

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Because this makes a bit more sense. If you're out there for more time, chances are you're going to rack up more +/- stats. Good or bad. If you play minimal ice time yet rack up a "-" then why wouldn't you look into their play?

This makes no sense. If you're out there for more time, why exactly are you going to rack up more +/- stats? Or more specifically, if you're out there longer, how does that explain away having a greater minus rating? When actually, Ericsson's less ice time means his stat is based on a smaller sample size.

It's generally overused and abused stat anyway.

Show me a single time I implied that the Wings current winning trend was based upon Ericsson being out. Can't do that? Oh that's right. That's because I never did. Stop putting words in my mouth and again, read the thread title.

You titled the thread 2 games, 1 goal against... with Ericsson out of the lineup.

If you weren't trying to imply they were much better defensively (hence the winning trend and one goal against), then why make that correlation?

And don't pretend like people somehow jumped to this ridiculous conclusion. You led them there in your original post.

what exactly is it you would like to discuss about Ericsson?

[Drake_Marcus 890]

This makes no sense. If you're out there for more time, why exactly are you going to rack up more +/- stats? Or more specifically, if you're out there longer, how does that explain away having a greater minus rating? When actually, Ericsson's less ice time means his stat is based on a smaller sample size.

It's generally overused and abused stat anyway.

You titled the thread 2 games, 1 goal against... with Ericsson out of the lineup.

If you weren't trying to imply they were much better defensively (hence the winning trend and one goal against), then why make that correlation?

And don't pretend like people somehow jumped to this ridiculous conclusion. You led them there in your original post.

what exactly is it you would like to discuss about Ericsson?

[Grim 5]

oh please... to somehow pin this all on Ericsson must be a collosal joke. the kid came up HUGE for us this past postseason. no way does this team get as far as it did last postseason without a godsend like Big-Rig, literally!

The team simply changed its focus on defense. No Lie... they "flipped the switch"! notice how many icings there were?? the team cleaned up their zone well despite the (few) juicy rebounds that Ozzy was giving up. I am also loving all this icetime that Helm and Eaves are earning!

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

This makes no sense. If you're out there for more time, why exactly are you going to rack up more +/- stats? Or more specifically, if you're out there longer, how does that explain away having a greater minus rating? When actually, Ericsson's less ice time means his stat is based on a smaller sample size.

It's generally overused and abused stat anyway.

You titled the thread 2 games, 1 goal against... with Ericsson out of the lineup.

If you weren't trying to imply they were much better defensively (hence the winning trend and one goal against), then why make that correlation?

And don't pretend like people somehow jumped to this ridiculous conclusion. You led them there in your original post.

what exactly is it you would like to discuss about Ericsson?

You may have just killed the thread, Harold.

[gcom007 1,465]

You know what else was different? I've been eating leftover Halloween candy the last two games. I wasn't eating leftover halloween candy before Saturday's game. It's an interesting correlation, no? I should make a new thread and see what people think.