Down on Krejci

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : What you are leaving out is that the Bruins were good enough to win the first three games of that series with Rask & without Thomas & Seidenberg. Krejci got hurt & then everything came crumbling down. At that point the Bruins didn`t have the depth to deal with Krejci`s injury up front. Were there other factors that played a part? Sure. But the fact is it all went south when Krejci got hurt & the Bruins that were left could not muster up enough to simply win 1 game.
    Posted by Newfiebullet[/QUOTE]




    Sorry Newf...but there are no facts in your position.  Only opinions. 
    That's what you're leaving out.  
    Because DK is the last domino to fall, doesn't mean his absence caused the end result.
    You mention the team winning without TT and DS.  The B's also beat the Flyers without DK?   
      Do you think if TT had been able to play, CJ would have stuck with Tuuka for 4 straight Bruin losses?
    Of course not.  
    Philly scored 15 goals in those final 4 games, which incidentally they all won.  That's an average of almost 4 goals per game.  Somehow, a goalie has to find a way to achieve a better GAA, or else 99 times out of 100, the team loses.  TT would not have had to play that well to do much, much better, and he would've had 4 chances to do it once.
      Boston didn't lose that series because they couldn't do without DK's offense(or his defense either).  Their goalie conked out.  Based on everything that's happenned over the last 3 years...had Thomas been healthy and available to play those last 4 games, knowing he only had to stand on his head for a maximum 1 game....and he was allowed to lose 3....it's certainly fair to believe he would have made a difference. 
    That difference would have put them in the conf finals.
    Sure DK was a huge loss, no one is arguing that, but the B's scored plenty enough goals.  They scored 4 in game 4, and were up 3-0 in game 7.  Game 5 they got hammered, so unless #46 was in on 5 goals, nothing changes there.  If he's in on a couple in game 6, the B's win.  Other than that, it's all goaltending.
    TT has 4 realistic cracks at changing history.  In the playoffs, it doesn't matter how good a team is.  It must have superb goaltending to advance.  In this case we didn't have it.
    Why is it so unreasonable to suggest the NHL's best goalie 2 of the past 3 years(2 for 2 when healthy), couldn't have had more impact than the leagues 27th best center ?   

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]I would say it is a much greater assumption to say that a player who didn't play in a series would have a bigger impact than one that did.  With Krejci 3-0, without, 0-4.  That is pretty black and white.  When you bring up Thomas, you have to make all kinds of assumptions.  Is he playing like '09 Thomas or '11 Thomas? '09 had a sv% 93.3. in '11 he was at 93.8. Rask in '10 was at 93.1. Not a big difference. Rask was not the reason the Bruins lost to Philly, but they could get nothing going when Krejci went down. With him, they dominated.  That's pretty clear.  Other factors like Flyers getting healthy were important too.  But talking about injuries to Thomas and Seidenberg and others are really impossible to judge. I also don't think a goalie trumps a forward.  A forward can dominate a series just as well as a goalie can. In Response to Re: Down on Krejci :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]


    Not black and white at all.  Your with/without scenario is merely taking general statistics down to their lowest common denominater, then attempting to twist them into validating a particular thought or agenda.  An equal example of misuse would be to suggest Nathan Horton is the most valuable Bruin, then attempting to validate that statement with the following fact.  The Bruins won the cup in 11, but didn't in 10, therefore, Horton is the reason, cuz he wasn't there in 10.

    TT was hurt in 09/10.  He tried to play through it, but the fact remains, he was injured.  Doesn't seem reasonable to me to judge a players value based on his play while hurt.  Immediately before, and immediately after, Thomas was outstanding, and to this day, is the B's go-to goalie(no disrepect to TR, I love him)
    So therefore, I'm projecting his play to be what we've seen while he is not injured, which just happens to be about the best in the world.

    Continuing down through your above note,  Rask let in 15 goals in the final 4 games.  That's terrible.  NHL teams just don't win in the playoffs with those numbers.  It may be polite to say "Rask is not the reason the Bruins lost to Philly", but defense, not offense, was arguably the culprit.

    It's not "clear" the Bruins "dominated" with Krejci in the lineup.  In fact that statement is totally incorrect.  In game 1, the B's squandered a healthy lead, and managed the win in o/t.  That's not dominating.  In game 2, things were deadlocked with under 3 minutes remaining.  The Bruins score with 2:57 in the third, to squeak out victory #2.  That ain't dominating in anyones book either.  In game 3, Krejci gets hurt early in the first period, thus contributing virtually nothing, while the B's win 4-1, their only win by multiple goals. This wasn't a dominating win either, but if it was, it wouldn't have been because DK was in the line up.  He was in the dressing room.

    I also disagree they couldn't get anything "going" after DK went down.  They only stunk offensively in game 5.

    Back to "my opinion".

    The B's were lucky to be up 3-0.  It hurt losing DK, but I think that's a very simplistic explanation as to why the B's lost that series.  Philly was the better team over those 7 games, and the scales tipped more in their favor as our guys went down, and their guys came off the injured list.  Even in that 4-1 Bruins win in game 3, the puck was in our end most of the night....and that's the key, the Bruins were more lucky than good in those first 3 games....then the well we call Tuuka went dry, the flyers started getting a little luck...and the market correction all happenned at the same time. 
    Despite that....we only needed one more win.  Guess we disagree, but when looking at how things actually went down, it just seems to me that if history could have been changed, playing a 2 time Vezina winner might have been the best crack at getting it done.
      
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]Just a couple points on the varied discussions happening on this thread: On DK being the 20th best center in the league and should not be paid what the top 10 guys make:  The 20th highest paid paid center in the NHL has a cap hit of $6 Mil. And there are many teams who would pay him that. The key to winning in the NHL has always been to have two excellent centers. Many teams like the Blackhawks could use another, and many don't even have one. On DK's injury in '10 being or not being the cause of the Bruins' collapse: Yes, there were other injuries on the team, but the Bruins were still winning in spite of those. And Krejci was playing some really great hockey that spring. He was the key puck mover through the neutral zone, when he went down there was no one who could replace his skills. Having Tyler Seguin means the Bruins could deal Krejci and still have two outstanding centers. I hope they don't deal him. I like the way he plays, and despite a weak first quarter we all know he can and most likely will contribute more in the future.  I also really like the Seguin/Bergeron/Marchand line and want them to stay together. The only way I would want to see DK moved is if his cap hit becomes really huge and would make signing Seguin difficult, or if a really good package of young talent was offered. I don't think either scenario is likely, and if they do happen I think it would probably be after this season that it becomes an issue. So in the meantime I hope I get to continue to enjoy watching two amazing scoring lines play for the Bruins, and the added luxury of having a guy like Peverley on the third.
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]


    Yes, he was playing well, but few would argue he was the teams most dominant player up to the point of his injury.  He is/was a good player, but is rarely considered one who can "carry" the team.
    We have the benefit of hindsight on this one, and we're debating which injured player "broke the camels back".
    We're up 3-0, so the "back" had to break after that point(which just happens to coincide with DK's injury)
    What we disagree on, is which injured player could have had the most impact in that series, so we can only speculate on their contribution within the confines of what happenned.
    It can't be argued that TT wasn't playing very well that year.  He was hurt, so in our debate, we assume both are healthy and ready to go at the level they generally play at.
     I'll agree that the B's offense in those last 4 games would have been considerably better with a healthy DK in the lineup, and I'll even go along with team defense being a little better with him playing.  
    To say DK's injury killed us, is the same as saying...with DK, we win.
    Again, we have the benefit of hindsight.  The games have already been played.  In retrospect, which player possibly could have made a bigger impact on the results as we know them.
    We know Philly scored 15 goals in those last 4 games.  Based on TT's play over the last 3 years(when healthy), that's far worse than his norm.  In order to change history, DK would have had to play far "above" his norm.  
     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    As a former researcher on stochastic process and advanced probability and statistics, I need to say that what you have said is the exact opposite of the truth. I did not twist statistics, I said that it is more reliable to use information from something that actually happened than something that did not. If Thomas played he may have made the team better, however we have no examples of how the team performed with him in the lineup and healthy that season against Philly in the playoffs. We do have data on how they performed with/without Krejci.  It is not exact science as it is sport and there were other factors involved, but it is a greater assumption to predict outcomes based on no real world evidence than some. That is my point. I also did not bring up Thomas's '10 numbers, I brought up his '09 stats. These stats are just as relevenat as his '11 stats. These stats are also closer to Rask's '10 stats than Thomas's own record-setting '11 numbers. It is folly to look at a player's best career year and say that is always how they will perform.

    It's interesting that you bring up Horton and sarcastically suggest that he is the most valuable Bruin.  He's not, but a skilled right winger was the single biggest piece missing from the team the year before, so he was the most valuable acquisition they could have made.  In the same way I would not say that DK is more valuable than Tim Thomas.  But on a team that had another good goaltender but lacked depth up front, he is more valuable at that point in time. You need a couple of good centers, some skill on the wing, dependable defense and a good goaltender to win it all.  When Krejci went down what had been the Bruins' best line with Satan and Lucic was ruined. You could throw Thomas in there but the forwards still would have been weak. And I do have to say that I felt Krejci was playing dominant hockey that fall. I also felt that he played pretty dominant hockey this past year when he lead the Bruins in playoff scoring. Mark Messier agreed, saying he was the biggest standout of the playoffs.

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : Not black and white at all.  Your with/without scenario is merely taking general statistics down to their lowest common denominater, then attempting to twist them into validating a particular thought or agenda.  An equal example of misuse would be to suggest Nathan Horton is the most valuable Bruin, then attempting to validate that statement with the following fact.  The Bruins won the cup in 11, but didn't in 10, therefore, Horton is the reason, cuz he wasn't there in 10. TT was hurt in 09/10.  He tried to play through it, but the fact remains, he was injured.  Doesn't seem reasonable to me to judge a players value based on his play while hurt.  Immediately before, and immediately after, Thomas was outstanding, and to this day, is the B's go-to goalie(no disrepect to TR, I love him) So therefore, I'm projecting his play to be what we've seen while he is not injured, which just happens to be about the best in the world. Continuing down through your above note,  Rask let in 15 goals in the final 4 games.  That's terrible.  NHL teams just don't win in the playoffs with those numbers.  It may be polite to say "Rask is not the reason the Bruins lost to Philly", but defense, not offense, was arguably the culprit. It's not "clear" the Bruins "dominated" with Krejci in the lineup.  In fact that statement is totally incorrect.  In game 1, the B's squandered a healthy lead, and managed the win in o/t.  That's not dominating.  In game 2, things were deadlocked with under 3 minutes remaining.  The Bruins score with 2:57 in the third, to squeak out victory #2.  That ain't dominating in anyones book either.  In game 3, Krejci gets hurt early in the first period, thus contributing virtually nothing, while the B's win 4-1, their only win by multiple goals. This wasn't a dominating win either, but if it was, it wouldn't have been because DK was in the line up.  He was in the dressing room. I also disagree they couldn't get anything "going" after DK went down.  They only stunk offensively in game 5. Back to "my opinion". The B's were lucky to be up 3-0.  It hurt losing DK, but I think that's a very simplistic explanation as to why the B's lost that series.  Philly was the better team over those 7 games, and the scales tipped more in their favor as our guys went down, and their guys came off the injured list.  Even in that 4-1 Bruins win in game 3, the puck was in our end most of the night....and that's the key, the Bruins were more lucky than good in those first 3 games....then the well we call Tuuka went dry, the flyers started getting a little luck...and the market correction all happenned at the same time.  Despite that....we only needed one more win.  Guess we disagree, but when looking at how things actually went down, it just seems to me that if history could have been changed, playing a 2 time Vezina winner might have been the best crack at getting it done.   
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    David Bolland, he of 7G, 3A -10 in 21 games and a blistering 37pts in 61 games last year? He of a career best 19goals and 47pts in '09? The guy that has never played a complete NHL season? Your right he is a GREAT NHL center! I have no idea why they were trying Kane at center this year. The Blackhwaks are crazy to try such desperate measures when they have the amazing Dave Bolland.

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci :  Hawks have Toews and Bolland. That's two great centers.
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    Krejci has never played wing. He also does produce like a top center, I think you are mistaken about how much 1st line centers actually score. He is also solid defensively and is good on faceoffs.

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]I wouldn't mind trading Krejci. I don't see him as a number 1 center. He is a 2nd line winger in my eyes. He doesn't produce like a top center and he doesn't shut-down like other top centers who aren't as creative offensively. But, he needs to bring a return that won't cripple the organization.
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macfact. Show Macfact's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    Haggerty view point

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]Krejci has never played wing. He also does produce like a top center, I think you are mistaken about how much 1st line centers actually score. He is also solid defensively and is good on faceoffs. In Response to Re: Down on Krejci :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]
    Sorry for writing winger didn't mean that at all. I'm not mistaken on how much 1st line centers score. I think a lot on the boards overvalue him. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]As a former researcher on stochastic process and advanced probability and statistics, I need to say that what you have said is the exact opposite of the truth. I did not twist statistics, I said that it is more reliable to use information from something that actually happened than something that did not. If Thomas played he may have made the team better, however we have no examples of how the team performed with him in the lineup and healthy that season against Philly in the playoffs. We do have data on how they performed with/without Krejci.  It is not exact science as it is sport and there were other factors involved, but it is a greater assumption to predict outcomes based on no real world evidence than some. That is my point. I also did not bring up Thomas's '10 numbers, I brought up his '09 stats. These stats are just as relevenat as his '11 stats. These stats are also closer to Rask's '10 stats than Thomas's own record-setting '11 numbers. It is folly to look at a player's best career year and say that is always how they will perform. It's interesting that you bring up Horton and sarcastically suggest that he is the most valuable Bruin.  He's not, but a skilled right winger was the single biggest piece missing from the team the year before, so he was the most valuable acquisition they could have made.  In the same way I would not say that DK is more valuable than Tim Thomas.  But on a team that had another good goaltender but lacked depth up front, he is more valuable at that point in time. You need a couple of good centers, some skill on the wing, dependable defense and a good goaltender to win it all.  When Krejci went down what had been the Bruins' best line with Satan and Lucic was ruined. You could throw Thomas in there but the forwards still would have been weak. And I do have to say that I felt Krejci was playing dominant hockey that fall. I also felt that he played pretty dominant hockey this past year when he lead the Bruins in playoff scoring. Mark Messier agreed, saying he was the biggest standout of the playoffs. In Response to Re: Down on Krejci :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]


    Geez Oates...I'm surprised at you.  Now you're trying to play the "stochastic process" card, in an attempt to sweep your ill thought responses to my theory under the carpet?
    I clearly stated my logic as to why I floated the theory that a healthy TT could have made a greater difference than a healthy DK, over those last 4 games against Philly.  You disagreed, and that's your option, but you've provided dik-all to elevate your own argument.  You slam mine, but put forth nothing except generalities, bluster, and the prospect that you're on a higher intellectual plane.

    The stochastic process suggests that although there may be more than one possibility, some options could be more probable than others.  That's how I came to my conclusion.  I looked at the facts, plugged in the subjective, and came up with a theory.  Fair enough isn't it?

    This idea of yours that there is useful "data" supporting your claim, that only applies to DK, and not TT, is statistical nonsense.  Just because TT didn't play in that particular series, does not mean there is no quantifiable stats from which to form a reasonable position.  There is a lot of statistically relevant information from which to submit an opinion.

    Forget stochastic processes, consider Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which is Latin, for the highly seductive, intellectually lazy, misbegotten logic, that  because 1 event follows another, the second must have been caused by the first.(Krejci gets hurt, then the B's blow the series, so Krejci's injury must have been the reason)
      Your position is classic post hoc.

    You've made 1 empty statement after another, and when called on them, you refuse any acknowledgment, instead resorting to irrelevant comments and the feeble hope that your condecending lesson in statistical realities will scare me off.

    I never brought up any stats from TT's best year.  In fact there was never any debate about his stats.


    Whether or not Krejci was playing dominant hockey "that fall" is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

    So is Messier's comment about DK's play in this years playoff.

    I never succumbed to "the folly" of suggesting a player always performs equal to a career year.

    There is also data available between the 2 teams during the regular season.  Each goalie played 2 games.  TT allowed exactly half as many goals as Rask.  Should we consider that, or would it be more scholarly to throw that out too.

    Lets review some more.  You stated the B's dominated Philly with DK in the lineup.  Total, absolute horses..t    100% untrue.  The facts are outlined in an earlier post.

    Your comments on Horton further attempt to cloud, convolute, change direction and manipulate the debate, as they offer nothing pertinent to our original positions.

    You say DK's line was "ruined" after he went down.  Like most..there's no meat to that statement.  Fact is..it wasn't ruined.  It wasn't as good, but it wasn't ruined. It's not like that line never scored after he went down.  Have you noticed DK's line hasn't been scoring this year, yet the team hasn't folded up.

    More fluff, exxageration, generality.

    Is there a pattern here?

    There is no clear answer to what we're debating here.  There are responsibilities though, to support one's position with logical, analytical reasoning, and if you can't sell your theory, at least prove there is a grain of thought and substance into your position.  If there isn't one, we should all be open to alternative thinking.

    You haven't played that way.  You've just huffed and puffed at me. 

    Thank heaven for the stochastic process though.  There is a theory.  The most probable one wins. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    OMG, I feel like I am in the bar in Good Will Hunting for crying out loud.  The next thing I am going to read is "How do you like them apples!"  LOL
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from callodthedom19. Show callodthedom19's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]OMG, I feel like I am in the bar in Good Will Hunting for crying out loud.  The next thing I am going to read is "How do you like them apples!"  LOL
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]
    HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES!?
    Posted by callodthedom19[/QUOTE]

    AWESOME!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]OMG, I feel like I am in the bar in Good Will Hunting for crying out loud.  The next thing I am going to read is "How do you like them apples!"  LOL
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]
    I loved the parts of Steve's post that I understood. I got the gist of most of it though and agree.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    cmon Krejci

    put up 5 points tonight and shut these moron hab fans up
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    2 points so far. Way to go Krejci, eat it haters
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from crono420. Show crono420's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    3 points!! back to your caves Krejci haters. You can go root for the habs later tonight
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    I'm more partial to OatesCam's arguments. Looks like DK got the message, 1g, 2a tonight.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    JUST Signed A 3 year extension!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]JUST Signed A 3 year extension!
    Posted by MeanE[/QUOTE]
    I wonder if the deal got done before the game, and having that distraction over with helped his play?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    I bet you are right!

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : I wonder if the deal got done before the game, and having that distraction over with helped his play?
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    You are not referencing statistics, probability and definitely stochastic processes in an accurate way.  That is why I brought out that "card". The fundamental point of my initial response to you was that it is more reasonable to evaluate and predict the impact of David Krejci in the Philly series because he actually played, than the possible impact of Tim Thomas based on other seasons because he didn't play at all.  Your initial argument (with Newfie, I think?) was that it was more reasonable to say that Tim Thomas would have prevented the Krejci-less Bruins from losing 4 straight than it was to say that losing DK was a primary cause for them losing 4 straight. While both scenarios are possible, I am saying that the Krejci argument is more valid, because there are relevant real-world results from the actual event to base it on.  This is fundamental to any prediction of probability, which is what you are trying to do when you say your opinion is more reasonable or more likely than his.

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : Geez Oates...I'm surprised at you.  Now you're trying to play the "stochastic process" card, in an attempt to sweep your ill thought responses to my theory under the carpet? I clearly stated my logic as to why I floated the theory that a healthy TT could have made a greater difference than a healthy DK, over those last 4 games against Philly.  You disagreed, and that's your option, but you've provided dik-all to elevate your own argument.  You slam mine, but put forth nothing except generalities, bluster, and the prospect that you're on a higher intellectual plane. The stochastic process suggests that although there may be more than one possibility, some options could be more probable than others.  That's how I came to my conclusion.  I looked at the facts, plugged in the subjective, and came up with a theory.  Fair enough isn't it? This idea of yours that there is useful "data" supporting your claim, that only applies to DK, and not TT, is statistical nonsense.  Just because TT didn't play in that particular series, does not mean there is no quantifiable stats from which to form a reasonable position.  There is a lot of statistically relevant information from which to submit an opinion. Forget stochastic processes, consider Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which is Latin, for the highly seductive, intellectually lazy, misbegotten logic, that  because 1 event follows another, the second must have been caused by the first.(Krejci gets hurt, then the B's blow the series, so Krejci's injury must have been the reason)   Your position is classic post hoc. You've made 1 empty statement after another, and when called on them, you refuse any acknowledgment, instead resorting to irrelevant comments and the feeble hope that your condecending lesson in statistical realities will scare me off. I never brought up any stats from TT's best year.  In fact there was never any debate about his stats. Whether or not Krejci was playing dominant hockey "that fall" is totally irrelevant to the conversation. So is Messier's comment about DK's play in this years playoff. I never succumbed to "the folly" of suggesting a player always performs equal to a career year. There is also data available between the 2 teams during the regular season.  Each goalie played 2 games.  TT allowed exactly half as many goals as Rask.  Should we consider that, or would it be more scholarly to throw that out too. Lets review some more.  You stated the B's dominated Philly with DK in the lineup.  Total, absolute horses..t    100% untrue.  The facts are outlined in an earlier post. Your comments on Horton further attempt to cloud, convolute, change direction and manipulate the debate, as they offer nothing pertinent to our original positions. You say DK's line was "ruined" after he went down.  Like most..there's no meat to that statement.  Fact is..it wasn't ruined.  It wasn't as good, but it wasn't ruined. It's not like that line never scored after he went down.  Have you noticed DK's line hasn't been scoring this year, yet the team hasn't folded up. More fluff, exxageration, generality. Is there a pattern here? There is no clear answer to what we're debating here.  There are responsibilities though, to support one's position with logical, analytical reasoning, and if you can't sell your theory, at least prove there is a grain of thought and substance into your position.  If there isn't one, we should all be open to alternative thinking. You haven't played that way.  You've just huffed and puffed at me.  Thank heaven for the stochastic process though.  There is a theory.  The most probable one wins. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : I wonder if the deal got done before the game, and having that distraction over with helped his play? Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]

    Beckett said that it was a distraction right after his extension last year now does this mean beer n video games in between periods for david n Josh now DR. ? LoL!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : Geez Oates...I'm surprised at you.  Now you're trying to play the "stochastic process" card, in an attempt to sweep your ill thought responses to my theory under the carpet? I clearly stated my logic as to why I floated the theory that a healthy TT could have made a greater difference than a healthy DK, over those last 4 games against Philly.  You disagreed, and that's your option, but you've provided dik-all to elevate your own argument.  You slam mine, but put forth nothing except generalities, bluster, and the prospect that you're on a higher intellectual plane. The stochastic process suggests that although there may be more than one possibility, some options could be more probable than others.  That's how I came to my conclusion.  I looked at the facts, plugged in the subjective, and came up with a theory.  Fair enough isn't it? This idea of yours that there is useful "data" supporting your claim, that only applies to DK, and not TT, is statistical nonsense.  Just because TT didn't play in that particular series, does not mean there is no quantifiable stats from which to form a reasonable position.  There is a lot of statistically relevant information from which to submit an opinion. Forget stochastic processes, consider Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which is Latin, for the highly seductive, intellectually lazy, misbegotten logic, that  because 1 event follows another, the second must have been caused by the first.(Krejci gets hurt, then the B's blow the series, so Krejci's injury must have been the reason)   Your position is classic post hoc. You've made 1 empty statement after another, and when called on them, you refuse any acknowledgment, instead resorting to irrelevant comments and the feeble hope that your condecending lesson in statistical realities will scare me off. I never brought up any stats from TT's best year.  In fact there was never any debate about his stats. Whether or not Krejci was playing dominant hockey "that fall" is totally irrelevant to the conversation. So is Messier's comment about DK's play in this years playoff. I never succumbed to "the folly" of suggesting a player always performs equal to a career year. There is also data available between the 2 teams during the regular season.  Each goalie played 2 games.  TT allowed exactly half as many goals as Rask.  Should we consider that, or would it be more scholarly to throw that out too. Lets review some more.  You stated the B's dominated Philly with DK in the lineup.  Total, absolute horses..t    100% untrue.  The facts are outlined in an earlier post. Your comments on Horton further attempt to cloud, convolute, change direction and manipulate the debate, as they offer nothing pertinent to our original positions. You say DK's line was "ruined" after he went down.  Like most..there's no meat to that statement.  Fact is..it wasn't ruined.  It wasn't as good, but it wasn't ruined. It's not like that line never scored after he went down.  Have you noticed DK's line hasn't been scoring this year, yet the team hasn't folded up. More fluff, exxageration, generality. Is there a pattern here? There is no clear answer to what we're debating here.  There are responsibilities though, to support one's position with logical, analytical reasoning, and if you can't sell your theory, at least prove there is a grain of thought and substance into your position.  If there isn't one, we should all be open to alternative thinking. You haven't played that way.  You've just huffed and puffed at me.  Thank heaven for the stochastic process though.  There is a theory.  The most probable one wins. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    I like hockey.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]I'm more partial to OatesCam's arguments. Looks like DK got the message, 1g, 2a tonight.
    Posted by Klaas[/QUOTE]
    I predicted at least 6 points for his line last night. I believe they ended with 7.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Down on Krejci

    In Response to Re: Down on Krejci:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Down on Krejci : I predicted at least 6 points for his line last night. I believe they ended with 7.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]
    Well you can thank guys like me fo being so negative on DK. He obviously read my posts and got motivated ... I did my job.
     

Share