Jump to content


Echolalia's Photo

Echolalia

Member Since 21 Mar 2007
Offline Last Active Today, 09:30 PM
**---

#2656672 2/29 GDT : Detroit Red Wings at Dallas Stars, 8:30PM EST

Posted by Echolalia on 29 February 2016 - 10:30 PM

Just chiming in to comment on the torrid pace of this one. It's like a playoff game.


#2654842 Datsyuk Now 7th in All-Time Wings Goals

Posted by Echolalia on 24 February 2016 - 11:13 AM

Are you serious? You honestly value points more than Stanley Cups? There's a reason Toews makes 10.5 million a year and Datsyuk makes 7. Chicago isnt asking their captain to win art ross trophies. They just want Stanley Cups. And Toews is delivering them.

When determining who is a better individual player?  Absolutely I value individual stats over team stats.  That's common sense.  




#2654833 Datsyuk Now 7th in All-Time Wings Goals

Posted by Echolalia on 24 February 2016 - 10:56 AM

Sorry. I realize it skews the argument, but how else are we going to do it? Someone said "in their primes", so i figured all we could use as comparisons for that measure are stats up to age 27. If we go with total careers, Toews might end up with 5 or 6 more cups, 1 or 2 more selkes, 100-200 more points, 3 or 4 more gold medals, etc etc etc than Datsyuk. I'm not Nostradomus, but it's looking like Toews is a sure fire Hall of Famer much like Stevie Y. Datsyuk is probably going to have to play a few more years to solidify his case for the HHOF.

 

If you want to look at comparing their primes take the best statistical season from each player and compare it.  Their best season is by definition "their prime".  If that's too small of a sample size take their top 3 or even top 5 statistical seasons. 

And you keep going back to Stanley Cups, Gold metals and these other parameters that in no way measure an individual's talent, which has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread to be a silly way to approach the problem.  I don't know why you keep having to rely on that.




#2654830 Datsyuk Now 7th in All-Time Wings Goals

Posted by Echolalia on 24 February 2016 - 10:40 AM

So the stats Bill posted are correct? Doesn't Datsyuk has 2 cups ('02, '08)? If you want to take cups into account... I wouldn't diminish Datsyuk to only dangles when he showcases great skill and hockey iq, either cleanly stealing the puck while defending, those awesome saucer or no look passes, I was hoping he wore the C when Lids retired, but then understood why Z got it. I feel Dats does more for hockey, not only on but off the ice as well. Anyways I know y'all know all that better than me.

Billyboy was only comparing stats up to age 27 for each player. So Datsyuk only had a few season in the NHL and Toews had like 8. That conveniently excludes Datsyuk's other cup, selke trophies, and half of his statistical output, and compares it to Toews' entire NHL career. Thus Toews is clearly the best player.  What Billyboy failed to do is include Emdog in the competition, and when we look at his stats, its clear Emdog is truly the best:

 

Taking both players stats from December 17th 2011 we have: 

Emdog:
2 goals             

1 assist

3 points

+2

2 faceoffs won

Toews:
0 goals

0 assists

0 points

+0

0 faceoffs won

 

Emdog is clearly better in every statistical category.  THE STATS DONT LIE




#2654166 Datsyuk Now 7th in All-Time Wings Goals

Posted by Echolalia on 21 February 2016 - 05:39 PM

[quote name="kickazz" post="2654120" timestamp="1456028976"]

Toews is better than Datsyuk in his prime? Prove it. 

By age 27, here are the hardware counts:

Stanleys = 3 to 1 Toews
Selkes = 1 to 0 Toews
Conn Smythes = 1 to 0 Toews

And point counts:

548 to 241 Toews

And +/- counts:

190 to 50 Toews

More everything for Toews at equal stages of their lives/careers.

Datsyuk has a higher points per game average, so if you only use ppg for your "better" argument, then you are right.

Otherwise, total fail.

 

What's the significance of going by their career successes only up to age 27?  I'm failing to see how that is a necessity to determine who is the better player. What it does do is skew the numbers horribly in Toews' favor.  You're essentially comparing what Datsyuk was able to do in 3 years to what Toews was able to do in 8 years, and then arguing that because Toews did more in those 8 years hes the better player.

Also, regardless of how you want to cut the seasons to try to argue your case, Stanely Cup count is a horrible indicator to determine who is better because its a function of team skill, not individual skill, and also has a lot to do with luck, health, and relative quality of opposition during the cup run.  Case in point: you know who has more Stanley Cups than Toews?  Jeff Beukeboom.  Going by your criteria that would make him a better player.  We both know that's absurd. 

Conn Smyth: Also a problem.  Based on relative quality of teammates (and opponents during the SCF) during stanley cup run which makes it a flawed stat to use for a couple reasons.  One is that the Blackhawks have won the cup more times than the Wings have during their respective careers (and particularly during your little age restriction), so Toews has had a way better opportunity presented to him to win it than Datsyuk. In addition to that, the winner of this award is measured as a comparison of players in that particular final, and not throughout the rest of the league.  Toews winning the Conn Smyth means he was better than his teammates in that particular cup run and thats about it.  It doesn't assess how he compares to people on other teams (maybe with the exception of whoever lost in the finals that year), nor does it assess how he compares to players in different years.  Mike Vernon has more Conn Smyth trophies than Dominic Hasek and Brodeur (and that's without putting a cute age restriction on the criteria).  It clearly doesn't mean he was the best goalie of the three.




#2653926 The Petr Mrazek Appreciation Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 20 February 2016 - 12:10 PM

The fact that this is even a discussion is downright insane. Are there people who really think that the greats never had a bad two game stretch in their careers?

to be fair i don't think anyone actually is having this discussion.  At least in this thread, everyone seems to be in agreement that Mrazek had a couple bad games, and those two games shouldn't represent his status to the team or his overall ability to be a goalie.




#2652904 2/14 GDT - Bruins at Red Wings - 3:30 PM EST

Posted by Echolalia on 14 February 2016 - 06:02 PM

Mrz will get his day off tommorow, just need to gut this one out fir us today buddy!
Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk


I thought he took today off


#2652890 2/14 GDT - Bruins at Red Wings - 3:30 PM EST

Posted by Echolalia on 14 February 2016 - 05:56 PM

 
The thing is, if you put in Howard then suddenly the questions start again: Who is the Detroit goalie? Is this a timeshare? Is it a 1a, 1b situation or is Howard still the backup? I think Blashill is showing great poise and judgment in allowing his goalie to work through a bad day. He knows what the consequences would be of throwing the goalie situation back into doubt; instead, he's making a statement about who our #1 goalie is and that he has confidence in his ability to figure it out. I like it. It's a bold move.
 
Was that Pasha's goal? 


I disagree. Standard protocol for as long as I can remember was if a goalie is playing poorly, he gets yanked. The only time that it stirs up controversy is if the goalie getting yanked gets yanked regularly and there's reason to suspect his job is on the line. I can't imagine letting in 6 goals is much better for his confidence than letting in 3 and getting pulled anyway.


#2652822 2/14 GDT - Bruins at Red Wings - 3:30 PM EST

Posted by Echolalia on 14 February 2016 - 05:36 PM

Why is Mrazek still in


#2652049 2/10 GDT : Ottawa Senators at Red Wings, 7:00 EST

Posted by Echolalia on 11 February 2016 - 09:46 AM

 
Actually, I listen to the broadcast as a fan of the Wings, but also notice that Mickey (in particular) is quick to point out other teams' stellar play, as well as to criticize the Wings where it's legitimate.  I think Kenny and Mick for the most part are very fair, and far more knowledgeable than a lot of other team announcers.  Try listening to a SJ feed if you want to hear homerism at its finest.  Oh, my...

I agree with this to an extent. Obviously there's some wings bias with Ken and Mickey and that's gonna show, but unless Mick is having one of those days, he calls em how he sees em. I think he gets a bad rap about being very homeristic because if a fan of another team happens to watch our broadcast and Mickey does his blatant praise or scolding, people can easily take that as being homerish, especially if they aren't around to see when Mickey calls out a Wings' player for something dumb or compliments an opposing player. He's come to the defense of opposing players plenty of times when a stupid penalty is called against them, also.


#2652028 Random Discussion Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 10 February 2016 - 10:10 PM

That's a loaded question.

 

When I was young and able, I could do simple things like replacing a door and building a deck.  Now I'm hard pressed to change a lightbulb.

Its a genuine question!  I've recently found myself in the world of wood working and I have very little actual experience but a lot of plans that I need to fulfill.  I have this weird combination of obsessive behavior combined with adhd which results in me picking up hobbies very easily and feverishly pursuing how to accomplish whatever task I set myself, but then somewhere along the path of pursuing my goal I discover something new and interesting, which inevitably results in more discovered passions based on the tangential research or prep, which I also have to pursue at an obsessive pace.

 

I was playing a board game with some friends a few months back when one of the dice rolled off the table and we never found it.  To this day its still missing.  So I thought it would be a good idea to get a board game table with raised walls (among other things), expect they're super expensive and I have a very particular set of features in mind for what I want.  So I figured, well maybe I can just build it myself.  So I made a lot of concepts on paper, drafted up some designs, came to a decision on one in particular design I liked and made a 3d model of it on my computer to really see how it will all come together.  

Then I wondered if the table set at the scale I designed it as would fit nicely in my house.  So I then modeled half of the entire house I'm moving into soon (to scale) on my computer.  Not just the room the table was supposed to go into.  Half the house.  I don't know why.  This involved learning a bunch of stuff that I didn't know how to do on this particular program.  It also involved measuring and recreating all of our livingroom and dining room furniture, only to find out the scale of my table is too big, and for conceptual reasons I can't scale it down.  I still need to build it, though.  But its on the bottom of my priority list because its not practical for me at the moment.

But I figured a smaller table would fit in a particular part of the house nicely, so then I set out to design a small dining room table, because that's more practical.  Did some research, watched a lot of youtube videos and read a bunch of articles, made my designs, and created a 3d model of it on my computer.  Cool!  That will look awesome!

But the problem is I don't have anywhere to actually start building this thing yet, and no work surface either.  So before I can make the table I need to make a work bench!  That will make building my table much easier!  So I research what makes a good work bench and watch a bunch of youtube videos and one of the youtube videos leads me to another youtube video which leads me to another and eventually I get to some video on how to make dovetail joints which is entirely unrelated to workbenches or tables, but a fascinating thing that I think would look awesome on a box.  Now I want to make a nice box for something, but again, I "can't" just yet because I don't have a workbench or a vice or any of these things that would make the job convenient.  

So I have to start small.  I'm going to make a board game table eventually so I might as well make a board game to go along with it.  I choose Settlers of Catan.   I do a bunch of research and planning and all that stuff and I did in fact build my own game without managing to get sidetracked too much and it turned out very nice but now I need a nice box for it, so I'm back to dovetail joints on that box I want to design, and a nice workbench to build it on.

Anyway, I have like 4 projects that I need to do now, and after seeing a bunch of different people use different tools online I have questions that I want answered because these things need to be taken care of.

 

And this is how losing a single die has resulted in me building a Settlers of Catan board game, making 2d and 3d designs for a kitchen table, a board game table, a work bench, and recreating my new house on 3d software.




#2652014 D-Boz tearin 'em up in the D!

Posted by Echolalia on 10 February 2016 - 09:44 PM

Dances With Wolves has been a mainstay of Red Wings defense.  I'm glad he was never traded.




#2652008 2/10 GDT : Ottawa Senators at Red Wings, 7:00 EST

Posted by Echolalia on 10 February 2016 - 09:41 PM

Oddly enough the best part about this victory is that Larkin wasn't involved in any of the scoring.  This team has needed to remember how to score without his help.




#2651853 9 (NINE!) player trade involving Phanuef

Posted by Echolalia on 10 February 2016 - 03:50 PM

I would.  Having a chance to potentially lead the "Maple Leaf Revolution" which incidentally is also his hometown team and the most popular franchise in hockey's biggest country, and make a s*** ton of money doing it?  (and maybe also have Matthews to play alongside next year)




#2651696 9 (NINE!) player trade involving Phanuef

Posted by Echolalia on 09 February 2016 - 11:54 AM

Saw it coming a mile away. All nine players.