• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Hockeytown0001

Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Dafuq am I looking at? It looks like a CAD drawing of a die for use in Dungeons and Dragons.

It's cubist cad painting of the designer's trashcan as seen from above. Awful colour scheme. Notice how Marchenko's ressemble a banana peel and is almost the same tone as the chart bg. You can't even see K-wall's properly. Back to the drawing board with this one

Edited by NerveDamage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's not easy to see when they're all overlapped like that. Being able to choose each player individually makes it much easier to understand.

I'd post Smith and a few others individually to compare, but I'm unable to right now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might get a shock that Stamkos winds up somewhere crazy like Carolina, but personally I feel it's Toronto, Buffalo, Tampa, and then Detroit respectively in the top 4.

I would place Tampa at the top, but who knows, I read somewhere that it would be funny that he signed a one-year deal and waited for the Las Vegas team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha awesome! eventhough it's from 2007 somethings never change.

Quotes:

"indeed ... fire bettman! sirdrake for commish! "

"sirdrake, you are my hero. This one NEEDS NFM's "Classic" stamp."

so funny

*edit: and 9 years later his legacy carries on...

Edited by NerveDamage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, few of those people remain.

Yeah, it's funny looking in those threads and seeing a bunch of users you recognize, but haven't seen in forever.

Back to wings, this is the first day in a while where I haven't heard anything regarding them. Still early in the day, but... maybe silence is good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying he can be signed for that, I'm saying any more would be a stupid contract.

As far as Tatar goes, I showed how the value of the give away Stat is iffy at best, and anyone who watched him last year can see how he ignored open linemates and tried to do everything himself instead, leading to the other team getting the puck. Just because they stay guy didn't give him give aways for that doesn't mean he's a good possession player, and your argument that the stats say he is and you can't prove otherwise is just plain asinine. You remind me of a guy on the old rwc board who complained that Miller was overused a few years ago because his total TOI led the team when he was the only one who played close to 82 games and his average TOI was something like 13th among the forwards. But the numbers proved he was right.

You're misunderstanding me. Again. Is it intentional? I can't fathom how else you consistently mis-represent my argument.

I am making no claims about Tatar's possession numbers. I am making no claims about his ability to score goals, or about his decision-making with the puck, or about his value to the team as a whole. Quite literally the only thing I am saying is that the claim "Tatar was a turnover machine" is not supported by the statistics that we currently have available.

Are those statistics perfect? By no means. But professionally trained statisticians at the highest level of the game list Tatar as having turned the puck over fewer times this season than most of his teammates. So criticism of him on that point, specifically, is unfounded.

If you want my honest thoughts on Tatar, here they are: I think he's critical to our team's future, and we need to start playing him that way. His usage throughout the season was, to me, too inconsistent to expect him to thrive in the primary scoring role that we need him to be. That said, he still had a season of generally poor physical play and not great decision-making. Even being on the back lines, he should have done better than he did. He wasn't as physical as we know he can be. In the end, I think if Tatar plays to his fullest potential, he has more Abby in him than Datsyuk, and that's okay. But he isn't being used that way all the time.

I'm not saying his improper usage excuses or explains his poor play. I'm saying he was used wrong and he let being used wrong affect him more than it should have. And yes, I'm allowed to make an argument with nuance in that way.

I'm not trying to harp on the numbers here. I'm trying to harp on the trend - that this is a perfect example of - where certain players are targeted for poor play, but the claims made about them are ludicrous and factually incorrect. For example, if I said Datsyuk is a washed up old man who has lost his scoring touch and can't play physical and sucks at handling the puck, you would laugh me out of the room. Now, Datsyuk IS getting old and he can't score like he used to. That part is fair. But tacking on the "sucks at handling the puck" claim - which we all know is patently absurd - makes clear that I'm just bashing him for the sake of bashing him.

So look, say what you want about Tatar's value to the team. Say what you want about his possession numbers. If you want to bash him for being a poor possession guy, then that's a discussion we can have. But as far as we can reasonably measure he wasn't responsible for an unusual amount of turnovers compared to his linemates. Now, it's entirely possible for somebody to have a small number of turnovers and still be a bad possession player, or vice-versa. It's possible for somebody to be good at one thing or another and still have had an off season. And more generally, we don't have to hate everything about a certain player just because their game faltered in one or two specific areas this season.

But this inability to see grey areas and say that because Tatar was bad at X - or generally bad this season - he has to be bad at everything and it's open season on everything about him...that's a type of argumentation that lacks nuance and reasonable thought and I'm going to push back on that. Is it quibbling over a footnote? Maybe. But I think it's important for our desires as fans to be informed as much as possible by reality. Sorry.

Edited by Aethernum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.