Jump to content

Echolalia's Photo


Member Since 21 Mar 2007
Online Last Active Today, 01:52 PM

#2679664 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 27 June 2016 - 12:58 PM

I've never been to Buffalo and I'm super biased but Detroit has to be one of the most underrated cities right now.

#2679202 Detroit trades Datsyuk to Arizona

Posted by Echolalia on 24 June 2016 - 08:55 PM

Jesus Holland next time at least use lube.

#2678809 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 24 June 2016 - 10:25 AM

Does Filppula or Hudler provide something that our younger, cheaper guys already in the system don't?  I'd rather utilize our resources in acquiring something we lack ie a franchise forward, top pairing defensman, established goal scorer etc

#2678728 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 23 June 2016 - 11:48 AM

what to stop chris chelios from having an i heart chris chelios pillow on his bed


edit: beat me to it.


and it wasn't even close lol

#2678705 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 23 June 2016 - 09:12 AM


Common sense should normally tell you that these numbers must be wrong. If you're, despite ridiculous numbers, several links provided by another user and and my explanations still convinced that they're right then it's on you to explain why a player has good numbers and why another one doesn't. First you criticize me for not knowing how they track it even though I clearly wrote that and why those numbers are wrong. After it came out that there really is no definition for a take- or giveaway you make it very easy for yourself by just saying that it's not on you to prove that the numbers are right. So you criticize me for saying that they're wrong but refuse to tell me why they're right? You're a joke. Really ridiculous. But good on you for not abusing those numbers to spread lies like others about Tatar or Helm being that good, never losing pucks and so on...I'm sick of it.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong.  That has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all and confirms my suspicion you don't know what I'm talking about.  My problem is that you make definitive statements based on nothing and pass them off as fact.  You're the one who said Tatar is a turnover machine, and when people questioned you on it your defense was exclusively and repeatedly eyeball test, which means absolutely nothing.

#2678699 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 23 June 2016 - 08:24 AM

We can tell? Who is we? You and your ego? You seem to be a bit bipolar...
Just because they tell you what you dream about in your fantasyworld, take- and giveaway statistics are 100% true and waterproof and you ignore every fact that tells you the opposite.
You keep telling people that what they see with their own eyes is completely wrong but at the same time have no proof for your weird fantasies other than stats who obviously couldn't be more wrong.
I'm also still waiting for some other user with similar problems theory why Stone is such a takeaway monster, dominated the league in that regard over two years and is, together with Datsyuk, by far the best takeaway player ever in NHL history. You, Echolalia, indicated that my theory of those stats being randomly counted is absolutely wrong so I suspect that it should be easy for you to explain me why Stone isn't a superstar already. Cannot wait for you to tell me.

The onus isn't on me to prove why Stone isn't a superstar based on takeaways/giveaways. Doing so has nothing to do with my argument, so you even suggesting it, and then ignoring all other aspects of what I say and doubling down on it gives me the impression you aren't even fully aware of specifically what we are even taking about right now. I'm not the one passing judgement about players I cannot back up with support. That would be you.
But because you're so desperately clinging onto this Stone thing I do want to mention one point that makes me chuckle. Its yet another example of you allowing yourself to be swayed by emotion and make a conclusion based 100% off emotion (and the good ol infallible eyeball test), and anything that isn't consistent with your preconceived conclusion you automatically reject: on the grounds of emotion and eyeballs. You have no actual evidence that he isn't the best takeaway player. I doubt you've even seen him play ten games this year, let alone his whole season. And further to the point I doubt you've been specifically logging his takeaways and giveaways on the occasion that you did see him. But your emotion tells you that it's wrong and therefore everything that suggests otherwise must be wrong. I have no idea where Stone stands. But the difference between you and me is that I have the self insight to know the limitations of my views and opinions and you do not.

#2678645 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 22 June 2016 - 05:40 PM


Let's call it common sense.

Nobody does. Or do you wanna explain me why Mark Stone is by far the best takeaway player in this league and nobody ever realized it? I can't wait to read your explanation.  

If those numbers are true, Mark Stone would be an absolute star. Datsyuk's all time NHL-record for takeaways is 144 but in 82 games. 


In all fairness, Mark Stone is a good player. But these numbers are just ridiculous. 

Lets not call it common sense.  Common sense isn't assuming the eyeball test, which has been widely and repeatedly proven to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence, is a more accurate means of measuring a parameter than another method, which you have no insight to how is even measured.  That's rejecting data for intuition and/or emotion, which is the exact opposite of sensical.  Incidentally that's the same issue that's plaguing the anti-vaccine movement.  Its intuition and emotion based on preconceived notions you have with Tatar, or Helm, or Smith, or whomever else which you are relying on to make interpretations on otherwise quantifiable data, and when the data isn't congruent with your intuition, you reject the data, instead of modify your original hypothesis.  If science was run like this our society never would have accepted the sun is the center of our solar system, or that infectious disease is a manifest of microorganisms.  I have no issue with being skeptical of information presented to you, but when the purported alternative is supported exclusively by "because that's what I think" then there's a problem.

#2678631 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 22 June 2016 - 04:56 PM

It's not clear enough. We all know what a shot is, what a hit is, what a block is. It's not hard to count for pretty much everybody. Take- and giveaways are different. I don't know how they count them but the numbers are too low. Like I said...don't even need to know hockey to understand that the numbers aren't right. Therefore I'd really worry about you if you don't agree...
Andersson per nhl.com has 0 givaways in 29 regular season games. Marchenko has just 7 takeaways in 66 games. If those numbers are true we shouldn't resign Marchenko and offer huge money to Andersson instead.
A few other numbers leaguewide:
1. Mark Stone 128 (in just 75 games) :w00t:
2. Jeff Skinner 77
3. Dustin Byfuglien 73
1. PK Subban 106 (in just 68 games)  :blind:
2. Brent Burns 102
3. Joe Thornton 98
They really must think that hockeyfans are extremely stupid.

So you do just use the eyeball test. And besides that you readily admit that you don't understand how the league defines takeaway vs giveaway. Which means at the most fundamental level you are inequipped to say their data is inaccurate.

#2678624 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 22 June 2016 - 04:11 PM

Empirically? Wow. So you're convinced that these numbers are right? Ericsson might turn over the puck 71 times per hour...but not per season. These numbers are as random as it gets and generally waaaaaay too low. Really. Statistics are usually pretty good nd precise in the nhl but not in terms of give- and takeaways. It's not even possible that those numbers are right. You don't even have to know a lot about hockey to understand that.

I have no reason to hate Tatar. In fact I even was a great fan. He was great as a rookie. Lightning fast, hitting everybody, shooting...he brought lots of energy into this team. Last season I saw none of it. He scored a few points but there was no energy, he didn't hit and also didn't seem to really care. He was brutal. No need to lie. It wasn't enough. And he wasn't the only one who lost all trust of the coaching staff with careless or naive play.

How are you quantifying which stats are accurate and which stats are not? Do you actually have a method that defines a particular statistic as well as a way to measure it, and have you put in the hours and combed through games and compared your data with official league data, including based on their means of measurement and definition? Or are you just eyeballing it.

#2678560 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 21 June 2016 - 09:22 PM

cool story bro

Dude some guy's eyeballs > quantifiable data. Get with it man.

#2678388 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 20 June 2016 - 05:32 PM

Seems like a pretty active market thus far, which I suppose bodes well for Holland.

#2677413 Biggest need for Red Wings in Off-season Poll

Posted by Echolalia on 10 June 2016 - 08:28 PM

Biggest need this offseason is def getting Darren Helm signed to a contract

#2677266 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 09 June 2016 - 07:37 PM

So...basically what you're trying to say is that I'm spreading lies? I'm only listing facts, Darren. You didn't score despite playing with Pav almost all season long. Pav's line was as bad as it gets because you were on it. You are one of those turnover machines who forced Pav to chase the puck instead of making plays. 

You got it wrong man, I'm Darren Helm.

#2677241 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 09 June 2016 - 11:53 AM

Maybe Helm is the most underrated player on this team now.

#2677031 Official 2016 Detroit Red Wings Offseason Thread

Posted by Echolalia on 05 June 2016 - 05:05 PM

I never understood all the love for Jurco, and in continues to baffle me as more time passes.  At first it was just Babcock not utilizing him properly, but then his boy Blashill became the head coach, whom he had a good working relationship with in the AHL.  And then Blashill repeatedly scratched him and played him primarily in the bottom six as well.  Its difficult to imagine two separate head coaches mismanaging the same player in the same way, especially when one of those coaches used him liberally in the AHL.  Jurco has had opportunities in the top six and he has been unable to run with it on any of the chances he was given.  To this, people respond that his opportunities weren't long enough and he needs more time to gel with his linemates.  I can appreciate this to an extent, but at the same time, how long should a head coach attach an anchor to one of his top two lines to bog down the rest of the line with before he cuts the cord?  If Jurco struggles on the top six for five games and we end up losing one or two of those games we're already talking about the difference between making and missing the playoffs.  Should he go 10 games on the top six?  15?  20?  I don't know the correct answer, but I do know that Larkin, Nyquist, Tatar, Abdelkader, even Helm had no problem making the most of the opportunity when they were put alongside Datsyuk or Zetterberg.  The NHL doesn't reward potential.  It rewards performance.  And that's Jurco's biggest issue.  Pulkkinen as well, for that matter.  I would love for him to suddenly click and become the power-forward we've all been hoping for, and I'm not saying that it won't happen yet.  But we can't hold the rest of the team back while we wait for Jurco to develop.