• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

ChristopherReevesLegs

Glendog for Captain

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Akakabuto said:

NEETs will inherit the earth. 
 

Dekeyser: ”I regret wearing shorts today. Everybody is laughing at my nonexistent calves." 

Abdelkader: ”I wonder if I can help out putting the organ in place?”

Miller: ”Back in my day we thought Olympia was big”

Glendening: ”I bet I can hit a nail harder than that guy with my backhand”

Larkin: *Looking at worker scraping up dirt in the bottom of the pit* ”Thats right, clean it up wagie”

DK: "This dust is stinging my 30 year old grown man acne"

Justin Abdulkadir:  سأدمر هذا المبنى بعد بنائه إن شاء الله

Miller: "Ryan never helped build a high-rise. Now mom will have to love me more."

Glendog: "Luke like football. Football gud."

Larkin: "I shidded and fardded"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

Sc6aVN8.jpg

DK: "I wonder if Miller knows I banged his mom."

Abby: "My GF is way hotter than me. It helps when you're about to be overpaid by millions."

Miller: "The gray isn't real. I just do it to get attention."

Glenny: "I heard that if you put in my name on LGW.com it will come out as disney.com."

Larkin: "If one more person calls me a 2C. Imma jump over this railing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You've said it's flawed, and done absolutely nothing to point out why it is so.

No, 3rd and 4th line centers ranking in the top 20 doesn't prove that it's a flawed stat at all...

19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Name them.

iCF - 3rd, iFF - 4th, ixG - 23rd, among others. I'm sure you can do a quick google search on advanced stats...

Speaking of doing a quick google search, I just came across this list from corsicahockey, where Larkin is ranked number 25 amongst all centers with a 76.44 rating. I'm not sure exactly how they do their calculations, but they say they "distill all statistical information that is available into one single number using machine learning algorithms. The rating captures all contributions made by skaters - offensive, defensive, even strength or special teams". You can take that as you may, but I personally agree with most of the rankings.

corsicahockey.com/nhl/players/nhl-player-ratings-ratings

57 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Explain the logic here

I already explained it in a previous post, but basically, opposing teams have one line to match against. They shut down the Larkin line, more often than not they win the game. If we had another dangerous, or even capable line, it would take a ton of pressure off Larkin, and the rest of the top line. Pretty straightforward stuff...

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Yet he was continuing to enter his prime this year and only got worse, while his line-mates stayed the same or got better. If you're going to continue to use the "muh team bad" excuse to explain this away, you need to address why it affected Larkin so badly, but not Mantha or Bertuzzi and to some extent Fabbri.

So basically, players are not allowed to have down (half) seasons. We get it, your boy Bertuzzi had a fantastic season. Is he better than Larkin? Not even close.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin had 51.5% offensive zone starts this year
Last year he has 51.4% offensive zone starts

He wasn't deployed any differently than last year

LOL you can't be serious... You don't actually think that because Larkin had a lot of the offensive zone starts, that he wasn't asked to concentrate on defense? Of course Larkin's line got a ton of offensive zone starts. What other option was there? 

Here's a quote from Blashill from a few months ago...

"The challenge that Dylan has, is he wants this and we want him to become a great two-way center. A guy who is great defensively, so that even when you are not producing offense, you're still doing a real good job of eliminating the other team's offense."

From the same article...

"Coach Blashill prefers to look at Larkin's two-way game, Larkin's defensive work, and the fact that at age 23, Larkin continues to mature and grow into the type of player on and off the ice that will be a foundation piece for the Wings' organization."

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Okay, explain to me why it's flawed.

You can run any average stat this year. Points per game. Points per 60. Primary assists per 60. Shooting percentage... etc etc. None of them place him in the top31 centers.

Still only willing to look at specific stats in a specific window... It was a down year for Larkin. He will bounce back.

Larkin was on pace to have 61 points this season. Even more if you think he could have kept the hot streak rolling. He had 73 points in 76 games the season before. That's s 65-75 point center, handling all the tough matchups, on the worst team in the NHL, at the age of 22-23. But yeah, Larkin is the problem...

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You could've, and probably did, say the same thing last year. Yet here we are.

Yes, I could've, but probably didn't, because not a single person was arguing how good Dylan Larkin was after last season...

Yet, here we are...

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

>He's only going to get better!
>Gets worse

Down season. It happens. He'll hit 70+ points next season. Mark it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No, 3rd and 4th line centers ranking in the top 20 doesn't prove that it's a flawed stat at all...

Lol the stat isn't flawed, you just don't understand how to interpret it.

Scoring per 60 is a measure of productiveness while on the ice. Brian Boyle can score on every single 4th line shift he takes and rank #1 in scoring per 60. That doesn't mean he's better than Dylan Larkin. Which is why I filtered out 3rd, 4th, and 2nd line centers for you, but go ahead and ignore that I guess...

It's a measure of how effective a player is offensively in their given position. If Brian Boyle has a very high scoring per 60 from the 4th line, that's an indicator he needs to be promoted to the 3rd line. Dylan Larkin's scoring per 60 is on the low end for a 1st line center, this year and averaged over the last 3. Which indicates in an ideal situation he would be demoted to the 2nd line where he's more effective per shift. Simple as that brother.

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

iCF - 3rd, iFF - 4th, ixG - 23rd, among others. I'm sure you can do a quick google search on advanced stats...

Speaking of doing a quick google search, I just came across this list from corsicahockey, where Larkin is ranked number 25 amongst all centers with a 76.44 rating. I'm not sure exactly how they do their calculations, but they say they "distill all statistical information that is available into one single number using machine learning algorithms. The rating captures all contributions made by skaters - offensive, defensive, even strength or special teams". You can take that as you may, but I personally agree with most of the rankings.

corsicahockey.com/nhl/players/nhl-player-ratings-ratings

I'm sorry, I'm not a math freak, please explain what in the heck iCF and ixG are.

Did I not just rank Larkin as the 24th best 1st line center productively over the last 3 seasons? It seems corsica took a very long way to get to the same conclusion as me, or 23rd at least. Where do they rank him this season in a vacuum?

Your link 404's btw

19 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I already explained it in a previous post, but basically, opposing teams have one line to match against. They shut down the Larkin line, more often than not they win the game. If we had another dangerous, or even capable line, it would take a ton of pressure off Larkin, and the rest of the top line. Pretty straightforward stuff...

Opposing teams are always gonna to try to "shut down" our best line. Doesn't matter if our 2nd line is great, good, mediocre, or poor. Sure we might win more with more scoring help from the 2nd line, but that doesn't make Larkin's 1st line magically play better.

Now if you want to suggest that opponents are going to instead send their best matchup guys out against a different line than Larkin's, all that means is that Larkin is no longer on the best line. Exactly the change I'm advocating for.

27 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

So basically, players are not allowed to have down (half) seasons. We get it, your boy Bertuzzi had a fantastic season. Is he better than Larkin? Not even close.

Nice strawman to avoid the issue.

Larkin is allowed to have down seasons, but also Larkin is definitely going to get better. This is in a nutshell the problem I have with fans and young players. Because of perceived potential Larkin is immune to any criticism. We've seen this same scenario play out badly with both Brendan Smith and Petr Mrazek. I point out that these players are getting worse, or at least not getting better as expected, and most fans get mad because I'm not towing the line and looking the other way on them... cause their young and have "potential". I don't think any player deserves this kind of immunity. Larkin is 400 games into his career and he's proving to me he's the not the 1st line center we all hoped he could be. If he wants to be considered more than a 2C or poor mans 1C he needs to prove it with play and production, not make believe future potential. Right now he's trending downward when considering the totality of the season.

47 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

LOL you can't be serious... You don't actually think that because Larkin had a lot of the offensive zone starts, that he wasn't asked to concentrate on defense? Of course Larkin's line got a ton of offensive zone starts. What other option was there? 

Here's a quote from Blashill from a few months ago...

"The challenge that Dylan has, is he wants this and we want him to become a great two-way center. A guy who is great defensively, so that even when you are not producing offense, you're still doing a real good job of eliminating the other team's offense."

From the same article...

"Coach Blashill prefers to look at Larkin's two-way game, Larkin's defensive work, and the fact that at age 23, Larkin continues to mature and grow into the type of player on and off the ice that will be a foundation piece for the Wings' organization."

I'm quite serious. Last I checked the O zone and the D zone are at two different ends of the ice. It's great that Larkin is working on improving his D, but Larkin isn't focused on D in the O zone. If he is we have a much more serious problem. Blashill also did not change his scheme from last year to keep up Larkin up high more often.

52 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Still only willing to look at specific stats in a specific window... It was a down year for Larkin. He will bounce back.

Larkin was on pace to have 61 points this season. Even more if you think he could have kept the hot streak rolling. He had 73 points in 76 games the season before. That's s 65-75 point center, handling all the tough matchups, on the worst team in the NHL, at the age of 22-23. But yeah, Larkin is the problem...

He handled all the tough matchups last year too. Yet he regressed from a 79 pt pace that year to 61 this year. Pretty dramatic. No other player on the team had such a dramatic drop off. Sticking your head in the sand on this seems wise though.

57 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Yes, I could've, but probably didn't, because not a single person was arguing how good Dylan Larkin was after last season...

Yet, here we are...

Curious. What do you think changed?

58 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Down season. It happens. He'll hit 70+ points next season. Mark it.

What do I win if I take this bet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Lol the stat isn't flawed, you just don't understand how to interpret it.

Scoring per 60 is a measure of productiveness while on the ice. Brian Boyle can score on every single 4th line shift he takes and rank #1 in scoring per 60. That doesn't mean he's better than Dylan Larkin. Which is why I filtered out 3rd, 4th, and 2nd line centers for you, but go ahead and ignore that I guess...

It's a measure of how effective a player is offensively in their given position. If Brian Boyle has a very high scoring per 60 from the 4th line, that's an indicator he needs to be promoted to the 3rd line. Dylan Larkin's scoring per 60 is on the low end for a 1st line center, this year and averaged over the last 3. Which indicates in an ideal situation he would be demoted to the 2nd line where he's more effective per shift. Simple as that brother.

LOL I don't know how to interpret the stat? I'm the one that explained to you how it works, and why Larkin wasn't the 51st ranked center, based on the flawed stat that you were posting...

Imagine thinking that a 23 year old on the worst NHL team assembled in the modern era is tapped out, is what he is... 

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm sorry, I'm not a math freak, please explain what in the heck iCF and ixG are.

Individual Corsi, Fenwick and expected goals. There are many other stats out there that rank Larkin in the top 31 as well.

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Did I not just rank Larkin as the 24th best 1st line center productively over the last 3 seasons? It seems corsica took a very long way to get to the same conclusion as me, or 23rd at least. Where do they rank him this season in a vacuum?

What's your point? We both rank him around the same then. So does most of the hockey world. The difference is, I see him improving as he continues to develop. You apparently don't. I'd rather keep our best players, and build around them, adding better players. You apparently wouldn't.

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Opposing teams are always gonna to try to "shut down" our best line. Doesn't matter if our 2nd line is great, good, mediocre, or poor. Sure we might win more with more scoring help from the 2nd line, but that doesn't make Larkin's 1st line magically play better.

Now if you want to suggest that opponents are going to instead send their best matchup guys out against a different line than Larkin's, all that means is that Larkin is no longer on the best line. Exactly the change I'm advocating for.

If you have two top lines, like the Leafs (as much as I hate to say it), some nights are going to be easier than others because you can get away from certain matchups. It's that much harder with only one good line.

It's also not just about the other team matching against you. Again, with only one good line, Larkin is being matched against the other teams best as well.

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin is allowed to have down seasons, but also Larkin is definitely going to get better. This is in a nutshell the problem I have with fans and young players. Because of perceived potential Larkin is immune to any criticism. We've seen this same scenario play out badly with both Brendan Smith and Petr Mrazek. I point out that these players are getting worse, or at least not getting better as expected, and most fans get mad because I'm not towing the line and looking the other way on them... cause their young and have "potential". I don't think any player deserves this kind of immunity. Larkin is 400 games into his career and he's proving to me he's the not the 1st line center we all hoped he could be. If he wants to be considered more than a 2C or poor mans 1C he needs to prove it with play and production, not make believe future potential. Right now he's trending downward when considering the totality of the season.

Huge difference between criticizing a player for poor play, and writing him off as a top line center because of a bad season. Criticism was warranted last season, especially the midway point of the season. He struggled. It happens.

You're advocating Larkin as the 2C. Where are we getting his 1C replacement? There are none available...

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm quite serious. Last I checked the O zone and the D zone are at two different ends of the ice. It's great that Larkin is working on improving his D, but Larkin isn't focused on D in the O zone. If he is we have a much more serious problem. Blashill also did not change his scheme from last year to keep up Larkin up high more often.

What the f*** are you even talking about? Because Larkin gets offensive zone starts (name a top line center that doesn't...), that means he hasn't been asked to concentrate on defense? LOL

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He handled all the tough matchups last year too. Yet he regressed from a 79 pt pace that year to 61 this year. Pretty dramatic. No other player on the team had such a dramatic drop off. Sticking your head in the sand on this seems wise though.

You forget the massive dropoff in points Yzerman had when Bowman told him to concentrate on defense do you?

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Curious. What do you think changed?

I would say it was a combination of a lot of things, but if I were to point to one thing specific, probably the fact that the team was MUCH worse overall.

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

What do I win if I take this bet?

Nothing.

I'm sure nothing and being right is more important to you than Larkin bouncing back, and you having to admit you were wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

LOL I don't know how to interpret the stat? I'm the one that explained to you how it works, and why Larkin wasn't the 51st ranked center, based on the flawed stat that you were posting...

Then why are you telling me it's flawed bc of 3rd and 4th line forwards on the list??? I literally filtered them out for you.

5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Imagine thinking that a 23 year old on the worst NHL team assembled in the modern era is tapped out, is what he is...

Sure, but I've never forwarded this argument.

6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Individual Corsi, Fenwick and expected goals.

You'll have to remind me what these are and how they're measured. I gave up on fancy stats years ago.

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

There are many other stats out there that rank Larkin in the top 31 as well.

Again... present them. One would think if there exists such numerous and sound stats that prove me wrong you would have presented one by now. I'm open to hearing a run down of Larkin's fancy stats if they are so good.

12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

What's your point? We both rank him around the same then. So does most of the hockey world. The difference is, I see him improving as he continues to develop. You apparently don't. I'd rather keep our best players, and build around them, adding better players. You apparently wouldn't.

I've never argued that Larkin won't continue to develop. Don't get ahead of yourself. Would I go forward with him as 1C and captain? Not if I had the choice.

15 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

If you have two top lines, like the Leafs (as much as I hate to say it), some nights are going to be easier than others because you can get away from certain matchups. It's that much harder with only one good line.

It's also not just about the other team matching against you. Again, with only one good line, Larkin is being matched against the other teams best as well.

Sure. Opponents have to make the decision who to put their best matchup on: Tavares or Matthews. Lets say they choose Tavares. Tavares doesn't suddenly have an easier go of things because Matthews happens to exist on the 2nd line. The only way Tavares gets an easier go of things is if the opponent instead chooses Matthews to matchup against. Likewise Larkin is never going to have an easier go of things until Detroit adds an equal or better center to the roster and opponents choose to matchup against that center instead of Larkin. Doesn't matter if Jason Williams is our 2C or RNH is our 2C... Larkin is always going to get the toughest match-up until he's supplanted at 1C.

23 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Huge difference between criticizing a player for poor play, and writing him off as a top line center because of a bad season. Criticism was warranted last season, especially the midway point of the season. He struggled. It happens.

Nielsen struggled this season. It happens. We can't write him off.

Would you make this same argument? It's the same logic.

I'm not here to defend Nielsen, I just like to see the same standards applied to all players. Nielsen should have been our 3C this year and dropped the ball. Likewise we needed Larkin to be our leader and 1C and he dropped the ball through the entire beginning of the season.

33 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

What the f*** are you even talking about? Because Larkin gets offensive zone starts (name a top line center that doesn't...), that means he hasn't been asked to concentrate on defense? LOL

That's not even remotely close to what I just wrote.

Read it again:

3 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm quite serious. Last I checked the O zone and the D zone are at two different ends of the ice. It's great that Larkin is working on improving his D, but Larkin isn't focused on D in the O zone. If he is we have a much more serious problem. Blashill also did not change his scheme from last year to keep up Larkin up high more often

 

36 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You forget the massive dropoff in points Yzerman had when Bowman told him to concentrate on defense do you?

 

Ah you mean when a new coach implemented an entirely different defensive and offensive scheme? Blashill didn't change his systems this year and deployed Larkin exactly the same as last year. Again, if Larkin is thinking about D when he's in the O zone then he needs to get his head checked.

39 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I would say it was a combination of a lot of things, but if I were to point to one thing specific, probably the fact that the team was MUCH worse overall.

How come that didn't affect Bertuzzi or Mantha?

40 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Nothing.

I'm sure nothing and being right is more important to you than Larkin bouncing back, and you having to admit you were wrong...

C'mon now. You said mark it. Why can't you back it up if you're so confident? We'll both still be here in 1 year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Then why are you telling me it's flawed bc of 3rd and 4th line forwards on the list??? I literally filtered them out for you.

It's flawed because those 3rd and 4th line forwards are on the list. You choosing to remove them doesn't change the stat line.

I said it was flawed when you said he was ranked 51st from that list. You then agreed with me, and said he's actually in the late 20's, with those players removed. I then agreed with that. I'm not sure what you're finding so confusing about that...

30 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You'll have to remind me what these are and how they're measured. I gave up on fancy stats years ago.

Again... present them. One would think if there exists such numerous and sound stats that prove me wrong you would have presented one by now. I'm open to hearing a run down of Larkin's fancy stats if they are so good.

I'm not going to sit here and explain all the advanced metrics used in hockey. If you're interested, look into. If not, don't.

I would have presented one by now? I just presented three, but you didn't understand them. Therefore they don't exist...

33 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I've never argued that Larkin won't continue to develop. Don't get ahead of yourself. Would I go forward with him as 1C and captain? Not if I had the choice.

Not in so many words no, but you've said he sucks and we should trade him...

Again, who would you replace him with?

34 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Sure. Opponents have to make the decision who to put their best matchup on: Tavares or Matthews. Lets say they choose Tavares. Tavares doesn't suddenly have an easier go of things because Matthews happens to exist on the 2nd line. The only way Tavares gets an easier go of things is if the opponent instead chooses Matthews to matchup against. Likewise Larkin is never going to have an easier go of things until Detroit adds an equal or better center to the roster and opponents choose to matchup against that center instead of Larkin. Doesn't matter if Jason Williams is our 2C or RNH is our 2C... Larkin is always going to get the toughest match-up until he's supplanted at 1C.

Let's say it is Tavares' line. Do you think every team matches their best center and defense pairing against Tavares? No. Some teams would choose to match their best against Tavares, other teams would choose Matthews. Some nights Tavares has it easier than Matthews, and vice versa. I didn't think that would be such a hard concept to understand...

39 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Nielsen struggled this season. It happens. We can't write him off.

Would you make this same argument? It's the same logic.

I'm not here to defend Nielsen, I just like to see the same standards applied to all players. Nielsen should have been our 3C this year and dropped the ball. Likewise we needed Larkin to be our leader and 1C and he dropped the ball through the entire beginning of the season.

No, you're right. We shouldn't write off a 35 year old veteran, that played below replacement level this past season. That's the exact same as a 23 year old, that struggled, and still lead the team in points...

43 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's not even remotely close to what I just wrote.

Read it again:

It's great that Larkin is working on improving his D, but Larkin isn't focused on D in the O zone.

What the f*** does this have to do with anything? 

45 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Ah you mean when a new coach implemented an entirely different defensive and offensive scheme? Blashill didn't change his systems this year and deployed Larkin exactly the same as last year. Again, if Larkin is thinking about D when he's in the O zone then he needs to get his head checked.

Where are you pulling this bulls*** about Larkin thinking about D in the offensive zone? It makes no sense. 

47 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

How come that didn't affect Bertuzzi or Mantha?

More defensive responsibility on Larkin?

48 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

C'mon now. You said mark it. Why can't you back it up if you're so confident? We'll both still be here in 1 year.

LOL Back it up with what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, krsmith17 said:

It's flawed because those 3rd and 4th line forwards are on the list. You choosing to remove them doesn't change the stat line.

I said it was flawed when you said he was ranked 51st from that list. You then agreed with me, and said he's actually in the late 20's, with those players removed. I then agreed with that. I'm not sure what you're finding so confusing about that...

C4N3zMTWIAAxk4r.jpg

You agree with me... but it's still flawed? Yes I am thoroughly confused

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not going to sit here and explain all the advanced metrics used in hockey. If you're interested, look into. If not, don't.

I have HUNDREDS of fancy stats that prove Larkin is really a 3C. But I'm not going to bother to explain them to you. Go look it up yourself.

9 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I would have presented one by now? I just presented three, but you didn't understand them. Therefore they don't exist...

Correct. If you don't wanna present evidence to prove your point then you don't have an argument. You have a statement you can't back up. "iXG says so" isn't evidence.

13 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Not in so many words no, but you've said he sucks and we should trade him...

Again, who would you replace him with?

No one of significance. I'd be tanking this sucker.

14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Let's say it is Tavares' line. Do you think every team matches their best center and defense pairing against Tavares? No. Some teams would choose to match their best against Tavares, other teams would choose Matthews. Some nights Tavares has it easier than Matthews, and vice versa. I didn't think that would be such a hard concept to understand...

Having a hard time reading again? I highlighted the crucial point for you to make it easier:

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Sure. Opponents have to make the decision who to put their best matchup on: Tavares or Matthews. Lets say they choose Tavares. Tavares doesn't suddenly have an easier go of things because Matthews happens to exist on the 2nd line. The only way Tavares gets an easier go of things is if the opponent instead chooses Matthews to matchup against. Likewise Larkin is never going to have an easier go of things until Detroit adds an equal or better center to the roster and opponents choose to matchup against that center instead of Larkin. Doesn't matter if Jason Williams is our 2C or RNH is our 2C... Larkin is always going to get the toughest match-up until he's supplanted at 1C.

 

16 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

No, you're right. We shouldn't write off a 35 year old veteran, that played below replacement level this past season. That's the exact same as a 23 year old, that struggled, and still lead the team in points...

*yawn* more strawmen

Larkin and Nielsen play on different lines and have different sets of expectations? Whoa u just rocked my world...

20 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

What the f*** does this have to do with anything? 

It's your assertion that he's so concentrated on D he can't play offense. I think that's pretty retarded.

22 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Where are you pulling this bulls*** about Larkin thinking about D in the offensive zone? It makes no sense. 

It's your assertion that he's so concentrated on D he can't play offense. I think that's pretty retarded.

23 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

More defensive responsibility on Larkin?

So when Bertuzzi and Larkin are in the O zone Bertuzzi is playing offense but Larkin is focused on defense? Why is Larkin doing this? He should be focusing on offensive responsibility in the O zone.

26 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

LOL Back it up with what?

With a friendly wager. I'll take the position that he doesn't score 70 pts next season. What do you wanna do if he gets injured? A push until he plays full 82 games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You agree with me... but it's still flawed? Yes I am thoroughly confused

Yes, the stat is flawed. You had to remove players from the list because it was flawed. Once the appropriate players were removed, I agreed. You said Larkin was ranked 51st based on that particular stat, and then backpedaled when I brought up the flaw...

I'm still not sure what you're confused about...

15 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I have HUNDREDS of fancy stats that prove Larkin is really a 3C. But I'm not going to bother to explain them to you. Go look it up yourself.

I didn't say I have hundreds of stats that prove that Larkin is a 1C. I said there are hundreds of stats out there. A lot of which prove that Larkin is a 1C.

You brought up PTS/60. I knew what the stat was, but I looked it up to verify what you were saying was accurate. Turns out it wasn't. You say you have no idea what Corsi or Fenwick are. Look them up if it interests you. 

19 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Correct. If you don't wanna present evidence to prove your point then you don't have an argument. You have a statement you can't back up. "iXG says so" isn't evidence.

If ixG isn't a valid stat because you say so, neither is PTS/60 or any of the other stats you mentioned.

20 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Having a hard time reading again? I highlighted the crucial point for you to make it easier:

Likewise Larkin is never going to have an easier go of things until Detroit adds an equal or better center to the roster and opponents choose to matchup against that center instead of Larkin. Doesn't matter if Jason Williams is our 2C or RNH is our 2C... Larkin is always going to get the toughest match-up until he's supplanted at 1C.

You act as if I'm saying we shouldn't add a center equal or better than Larkin. That clearly isn't the case. I'm hoping that Veleno is that player. Probably not though. The difference is, I'm not blaming the teams shortcomings on the teams best player. I'm not advocating trading our best player. Larkin needs more help on his wings, and more help behind him down the middle. Those two things combined, and Larkin is near a point per game, two-way center.

24 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin and Nielsen play on different lines and have different sets of expectations? Whoa u just rocked my world...

Different expectations, sure. What's your point. Nielsen is very clearly expendable. Larkin is not.

29 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

It's your assertion that he's so concentrated on D he can't play offense. I think that's pretty retarded.

So when Bertuzzi and Larkin are in the O zone Bertuzzi is playing offense but Larkin is focused on defense? Why is Larkin doing this? He should be focusing on offensive responsibility in the O zone.

MoRe StRaWmEn... I've never said that Larkin is or should concentrate on defense in the offensive zone. Of course he's trying to produce in the offensive zone, but when you spend more time chasing the play, than controlling the play, you should be concentrating on defending / getting the puck back.

31 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

With a friendly wager. I'll take the position that he doesn't score 70 pts next season. What do you wanna do if he gets injured? A push until he plays full 82 games?

70 point pace (0.85 points per game), if he misses games, or if the NHL doesn't play a full 82 next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

Yes, the stat is flawed. You had to remove players from the list because it was flawed. Once the appropriate players were removed, I agreed. You said Larkin was ranked 51st based on that particular stat, and then backpedaled when I brought up the flaw...

I fixed the stat based on our interaction and ur still whining about the original stat being flawed. Some ppl cant be helped.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

I didn't say I have hundreds of stats that prove that Larkin is a 1C. I said there are hundreds of stats out there. A lot of which prove that Larkin is a 1C.

You brought up PTS/60. I knew what the stat was, but I looked it up to verify what you were saying was accurate. Turns out it wasn't. You say you have no idea what Corsi or Fenwick are. Look them up if it interests you.

Either post stats that prove me wrong or im gonna keep s***ting on lazy Larkin with my own stats. lol.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

If ixG isn't a valid stat because you say so, neither is PTS/60 or any of the other stats you mentioned.

Holy baloney. Don't hire Canadians friends.

No one has said ixG isn't a legitimate stat. But you need to explain what it means to get your point across. If you can't then it means nothing. "ixG says so" is useless if you cant interpret the stat.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

You act as if I'm saying we shouldn't add a center equal or better than Larkin. That clearly isn't the case. I'm hoping that Veleno is that player. Probably not though. The difference is, I'm not blaming the teams shortcomings on the teams best player. I'm not advocating trading our best player. Larkin needs more help on his wings, and more help behind him down the middle. Those two things combined, and Larkin is near a point per game, two-way center.

So you don't think Bertuzzi and Mantha are good enough wingers?

You missed the point completely. As long as Larkin is the 1C he will have the hardest matchups. Get real.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

Different expectations, sure. What's your point. Nielsen is very clearly expendable. Larkin is not.

My point, smart man, is that different players have different expectations. Tough to grasp I know. Nielsen has failed to uphold his responsibilities as the 3C, but likewise Larkin has failed to uphold his responsibilities as the 1C.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

MoRe StRaWmEn... I've never said that Larkin is or should concentrate on defense in the offensive zone. Of course he's trying to produce in the offensive zone, but when you spend more time chasing the play, than controlling the play, you should be concentrating on defending / getting the puck back.

Where's the straw man? I'm genuinely curious to know. Point it out.

Larkin is trying to produce in the offensive zone but isn't. Focusing on D is not an excuse. Larkin doesn't focus on D in the O zone. Therefore your excuse for him is legitimately retarded. Sorry.

On 6/2/2020 at 4:26 PM, krsmith17 said:

70 point pace (0.85 points per game), if he misses games, or if the NHL doesn't play a full 82 next season.

Too scared to take a bet. Your arguments are as cowardly as they are hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

>Gets completely BTFO and has no response
>"Get over it"

mp,550x550,gloss,ffffff,t.jpg

You and a handful of other morons are the only people that think "Larkin sucks". You're not worth my time. Go troll someone (somewhere) else.

You posted a couple weeks ago and promised us all that it would be your last post... Unfortunately, it wasn't...

This site does not "need you", like you claim. We would be more than fine without your constant flaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You and a handful of other morons are the only people that think "Larkin sucks". You're not worth my time. Go troll someone (somewhere) else.

>Personal attacks
You're lucky there's no mods. Rule breaking like this would get you suspended.

3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

You posted a couple weeks ago and promised us all that it would be your last post... Unfortunately, it wasn't...

Literally where? Quote me.

4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

This site does not "need you", like you claim. We would be more than fine without your constant flaming.

Likewise, this site does not need you. We would be more than fine without your constant moaning and griping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

>Personal attacks
You're lucky there's no mods. Rule breaking like this would get you suspended.

Yes, so lucky...

20 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Literally where? Quote me.

We both know what you said. If you only knew how disinterested I was in finding that quote...

23 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Likewise, this site does not need you. We would be more than fine without your constant moaning and griping.

I'm not the one claiming that I'm needed to keep this site up and running...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

We both know what you said. If you only knew how disinterested I was in finding that quote...

You can't find the quote cause it doesn't exist. The blatant lying and fantasizing has got to stop my dude.

19 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not the one claiming that I'm needed to keep this site up and running...

Dont quit dude. We do need you here.  Despite what anyone says.

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You can't find the quote cause it doesn't exist. The blatant lying and fascinating has got to stop my dude.

I have zero interest in tracking it down. I'm sure it's probably already been removed by a mod at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now