JR Ewing
-
Posts
4,608 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
50
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Support Us
Posts posted by JR Ewing
-
-
Absolutely true...I always wondered why Beane got so much credit & glory when his info/decision-making were based on Bill James' formulas & principles.
Standing on the shoulders of giants... Not the first time, won't be the last.
JR
-
That would be fun, trying to do some of the older players....AND, it's August...nothing better to do, except watch my TIgers kick some butt!!
I like the idea of just sticking to your criteria, that way we have a significant strong base to cross compare the totals.
Exactly. This is prime summer stuff here.
" I got turned on to his stuff while messing around at the public library when I was about 9, so around 1982 or so, and I then had to read everything of his that I could get my hands."
Waaait a minute here, when other kids were playing with marbles and playing tag, you were knee deep in stats?? HA HA...that is great!!
I played marbles and tag and baseball, rode every square inch of Trenton, Ontario on my bike, ran around in the woods with a jack knife and a BB gun all of that stuff, too. But, I also made sure to get to the library as much as I could because I liked to read, too.
And man... Kids are sheltered now.
JR
-
He is such a hard case. Nobody with anywhere near his 640 goals will be kept out of the hall, and who is to say that the guy who scores 35 goals for fifteen years is not as worthy as the guy who scores fifty for ten? I understand peak value versus career value. He really was never thought of as a star while playing, only two all star games, never first or second team but SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTY GOALS!! What the hell do you do abut that??
Career like his are ones where the sum is greater than the whole of its parts: never had a great season, but wound up with great career numbers. It couldn't be any different than the best players in the history of the game. If Gretzky had quit after ten years, he'd be a shoe-in HOFer, and his results on this list would likely be exactly the same. The first ten years are largely about establishing the HOF argument, and the rest of the career is more about padding those numbers.
Andreychuk built his case with padding.
JR
-
Dave Andreychuk
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)Not really, but he was a master in front of the net and would push his way into position ala holmstrom
17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? Yes
18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? Yes. He parked his big butt in front of the net and became the all time master of setting up in front of the net and tipping pucks.
so for andreychuk that is a total of 8 or 9 points, depending on definition of a category or two, so he is at the least in the top end of the 5-8. I think 9, 10 should be he rule of thumb for a HOFer. To me Andreychuk is the ultimate borderline, his body f work way outnumbers any one season, kind of the Don Sutton of Hockey, Sutton won 15 games a year for 20 years until he had numbers too good to not put in, 300 wins and 3000 strikeouts. Andreychuk lumbered out in front of the net and scored 34-38 goals a year forever until his overall numbers are so ridiculous that it is impossible to look at the body of work and not see a hall of famer. I am torn with him, 8,9 votes for him sounds about right. IMHO anyone below him is not a HOFer, anyone above likely is.
See, and I wouldn't even give him a point in any of those.
10. He stuck his butt in one spot and didn't move. He was definitely really good with the puck right there, but he wasn't a physical beast who intimidate the opposition. With that question, I'm looking for animals; bulls. We're looking for Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay. Coiled springs lubricated with testosterone.
17. He was well known in the cities he played in, but he didn't exactly transcend the sport.
18. Andreychuk was definitely not the first guy to do that, so I don't see a point for innovation.
I agree, though: definitely not a clear-cut HOFer.
JR
-
Honestly? I see the Browns precedent in the NFL as coming into play in these situations. I agree that Katz was essentially blackmailing the city, but at the same time there was no way the NHL was going without a team in Edmonton and - as far as I am concerned - there is no way Canada would allow the legacy of Wayne Gretzky to be moved to Seattle. So, even if Katz ripped the roster away, I never saw "The Oilers" leaving.
The fact that the City backed down as much as they have - as many American cities have - is disgusting. One of many things to admire in Ed Snider is that the Spectrum was built privately and the current building was built privately (city donated land and site prep). He just removed the Spectrum privately and built Xfinity Live privately.
Yeah, Katz has no interest in moving the team. He has a great thing going, and he's not going to screw it up by moving the team where he can't get fans misty-eyed with old photos of Wayne Gretzky holding Cups and Mark Messier back when he still had hair. Besides, like you said, the NHL would never consider it anyway. People in Canada (sometimes fairly) bitch endlessly about Gary Bettman, but he did everything he could to keep the Oilers in Edmonton back when the Canadian dollar was so low, and Peter Pocklington was trying to sell the team to Les Alexander down in Houston.
The Philly Sports Complex (baseball/basketball/hockey/football all across the street from each other) could arguably make the list as best sports complex in the world, too.
We are pretty darn awesome, after all
That's the way it should be done. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it's right for a man to pay for what it his.
JR
-
Peter Forsberg
? 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
Yes 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
Yes 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
? 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?
4 - Yes. Forsberg led the NHL in A and Pts in 2003.
13 - Perhaps a minor point, but of the ten most similar players, 3 are in the HOF. I don't know if that's "many", but it's still impressive.
17 - At first I was going to disagree, on the basis that Forsberg isn't exactly a household name among non-hockey fans the way Gretzky is, or the way Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali or Tiger Woods are for non-fans of their sport. But then, I have to admit, the man is on a postage stamp in his country. Not exactly a common honour, and it does brings positive and intense focus to hockey.
18 - My vote would be for no, but it's extremely tough to get one here.
There really should be a category for playing through numerous injuries
I really really really think this is an area best avoided. We can say "Man, that guy would have been great if he wasn't injured", but there's really no stopping once you start. It's hypothesizing about what might have been rather than focusing on what the player was. Orr WAS great despite the knees, Bossy and Lemieux were great despite their bad backs, etc, etc, etc.
JR
-
Hockey's just too expensive for many families. It was for mine when I was that age too (thus, I played baseball), and it's only gotten worse in the last 30 years.
JR
-
1
-
-
Am I reading right that of the 30 NHL teams, only 11 are operating at a loss? A loss of about $132M?
With the top two teams in the league bringing in an operating surplus of over $150M and the top 10 with a surplus of over $300M combined?
Edmonton - tacitly threatening to leave despite sellout crowds - has an operating surplus of $16.2M.
Better shut this league down. It's out of control. No way it can continue to operate like that. Blame the union.
Of course they will never let Edmonton move to Seattle.
That's what expansion's for.
And it's about to get bigger in the next few years.
- The land the arena is being built upon was owned by, yup, Oilers owner Daryl Katz. The city will buy that from him, naturally.
- The construction company the city is paying to build the arena is owned by Daryl Katz.
- The firm hired by the city to design the arena? What? Daryl Katz owns that?
- Who gets the money from naming rights, concessions, parking and non-hockey events? Daryl Katz.
- The city will own the arena, and will have to pay for 100% of the maintenance on the building. All savings for Katz.
The arena will be built, it will be damn near 100% taxpayer funded, and Katz will receive most, if not all, of the profits... This is what has happened in virtually every community where this sort of thing comes up. As an Oilers fan, the last thing I'm worried about is the team to moving to Seattle, that's for sure. The last thing the BoG would approve is moving a revenue rich team to an unsure market. This has all just been part of tightening the screws in Edmonton.
JR
- The land the arena is being built upon was owned by, yup, Oilers owner Daryl Katz. The city will buy that from him, naturally.
-
Another thing I'd like to propose:
If we're going to go through the process of voting, I'd like to ensure that we don't just concentrate on the last two or three decades, and make an attempt to look at players from decades gone by. For those who know about these guys, it's a chance to fill other people in about them, to spread knowledge of the game. For those who don't know about some of those players, it can help create more appreciation for different eras of hockey, those players, and help provide context for how to view modern players as well.
JR
-
Good lord I knew I liked you. I have about everything Bill James ever wrote in the eighties thru the mid nineties. His Whatever happened t the Hall of Fame is a top twenty or so favorite of mine. Speaking of Hall of Fame, he certainly belongs in one somewhere if you just go by his own Keltner list.
"The Politics of Glory" was a fantastic book, even by James' standards. I got turned on to his stuff while messing around at the public library when I was about 9, so around 1982 or so, and I then had to read everything of his that I could get my hands. Changed the way I thought about baseball, and opened up my mind to how I thought about hockey and how I couldn't help but noticed other people talked about the game as well. At a young age, it was a good introduction into the world of logical and ordered thinking. I keep an updated version of "The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" next my bed, and thumb through it regularly. It's not stretching the point to say that I treasure it, beaten up as it's become. Notes in the margins, etc, etc, etc... I love it.
The black ink test of James also was fantastic, hockeyreference.com has their own slightly different version but it comes out fairly well on most players as far as rating them goes.
Another James innovation was similarities scores which again hockeyreference.com has listed, not sure of their exact formula and they have the occasional eyebrow raising selection but overall Bill James did more for statistical analysis than any man alive.
Baseball men (and many writers) have hated his kind for years, but I feel his impact on the game will be understood in time. Billy Beane is credited as a genius, had a book written in no small part about him, a movie, etc. Mostly it's because he's a handsome insider, and James is a neck-beard outsider, and if people think Beane had baseball men chafing, just think of what they thought of a chubby night security guard from a pork and beans plant telling them how wrong they were.
Nice to see another fan.
JR
-
@JR Ewing I can see how 18 would be a tough cookie to crack. Off the top of my head, I'd say Gretzky, Brodeur, Harvey and Orr would qualify there. I wonder if Patrick Roy's excessively bulky goaltending equpment and jersey would qualify for the rule change part?
Yeah, not a lot of players can cut the mustard on that one. The Bobby Hull banana curve comes to mind. Some others players have had their doings inspire rules changes, but they're dubious honours:
Sean Avery: the "wave your arms and hands around like a jackass" rule.
Rob Ray: jersey tie-downs for fights, because the goof stripped himself down every time. Man, that was cheap.
JR
-
haha. So far this forum seems like it could handle the poll
I am up for this. I like the discussions.
Will we be skipping the obvious hall of fame guys? I mean autoinducting them?
Obviously we do not need to have a discussion on the merits of the top 20 players of all time lol.
On the one hand, it seems like not THE best use of our time to go through the process of auto-inducting players like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, etc.
However, on the other hand, where do we draw the line on who to drop the voting process for?
That's not a loaded question but, rather, an honest one.
JR
-
I am assuming we can use our own Criteria? Certain intangibles mean more to people than others
Edit, and would we have a panel and vote in process?
I'm guessing you didn't get past the thread title. lol
Anyway, I certainly don't mean to impose MY way of looking at these things on to everybody else. There's any number of ways we could go about. I proposed a Keltner List approach as its quick and allows things to move along. If others wish to put the players to vote, that's certainly an option too, though it would definitely increase the time (which isn't always bad) between players inductions. We could create a series of polls and have them run for a certain amount of time (a week, for example) and then create a minimum percentage of votes for players to require in order to be inducted. This would be a chance for people to make their case (well reasoned, idiotic and everything in between). My only fear is that discussion may be diminished due to that approach, but it could work very well, too. Also, the chance for jackass votes exists, as well.
JR
-
I have a strong preference for TSN's broadcast over CBC, as I feel HNIC has really slipped over the years. That said, I would prefer if CBC were able to keep the games they cover, if for no other reason than that I wouldn't want to see NHL hockey become the sole domain of cable/sat subscribers and lock out those unable or unwilling to spend the money.
JR
-
I'll kick things off with a gimme, but just to show how it works: Mark Messier.
1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
No way. Not with Gretzky and Lemieux around.
2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
He won two Harts, but I don't anybody saying he was the best centre around.
3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
Yes. Messier was among the league leaders in the major categories about 20 times. (1)
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
No. (1)
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
Yes, Messier was a big part of 7 trips to the Finals. (2)
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
Absolutely. Messier was the 2C on four Cup winners, and top dog on 2 more. (3)
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
Yes, he was a captain for the Oilers, Rangers and Canucks. (4)
8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
Messier is the only player to captain two different teams to Stanley Cups (EDM and NYR) (5)
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
Messier was decent in this area, but not in the range of the top defensive forwards of his time. No (5)
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
Messier had a serious dirty side to his game which intimidated friend and foe alike. Big yes. (6)
11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?
The man played forever. (7)
12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
Messier was 1st AS at LW (1982), 3 more times at C (1983, '90, '92), and a 2nd AS in 1984. (8)
13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
Yes. Of the ten most similar player, 5 are in the HOF, and most of the rest will likely be in soon. (9)
14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)
Messier won two Harts and two Lindsays. (10)
15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)
Messier won the 1984 Conn Smythe. (11)
16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)
I don't see it. (11)
17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
Extremely difficult area in which to get a point. Messier was well known in the hockey world as an Edmonton Oilers. When he led the Rangers to their Cup in 1994, he became famous everywhere. Yes. (12)
18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?
No, but this one is also very difficult.
Final Score = 12
According to the quiz, Messier is an unquestioned HOFer.
-
I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is.
Years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too. I think of it as a chance to build our own hockeyforums.net Hall of Fame.
1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played?
2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played?
3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc)
5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run?
6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner?
7. Was he ever a team Captain?
8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner?
9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player?
10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here)
11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime?
12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team?
13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF?
14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections)
15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources)
16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!)
17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey?
18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played?
13+ = Best of the best
11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer
9-10 = Great player
5-8 = Belongs in HOF
4 = Borderline
3 = Weak Argument
1-2 = Completely Unqualified
Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes.
NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment.
So, I'm hoping to see other member be interested in this. If so, copy/paste the questions and enter a player. We can keep a running list and build the HF.net Hall of Fame.
Resources
The biggest resource of info for these questions is at hockey-reference. You can find all of their stats, league leader, awards, the most similar players, etc.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/
For the questions regarding team captains, full listing is here. Just click on each team's listing, and you'll be re-directed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_NHL_captains_and_alternate_captains
The Conn Smythe Trohpy wasn't created until the 1965 season. The Society for International Hockey Research, with support from the Hockey Hall of Fame, has filled in the blanks from 1918 to 1964. We can use that list to help with players from those years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_Conn_Smythe
JR
-
1
-
-
Klefbom is not ready Nurse is a ways away but both are blue chippers from what I have read, Musil looks like a big Alberta arm boy who is a defense first player with offensive upside down the road. Beyond that I don't know who you guys have down on the farm. Too bad these kids aren't the same place as your forwards right now.
-Nurse: is absolutely not ready.
-Klefbom: the best place he can go is almost assuredly the AHL, but MacTavish seems to feel he's ready to challenge for an NHL job. I really don't know about that. Physically, he's ready to play in the NHL, and from all reports, he was becoming a dominant defenseman in Sweden, up until his injury last year. And that, for me, is a big issue. He hasn't played hockey in quite awhile now. He's been playing against men since he was 16, and has surely learned a lot more than many kids his age, but I don't think it would hurt to let him get used to North American away from NHL shooters.
If I were to rank the Oilers prospects on the blueline, it would look something like:
- Oscar Klefbom - an all-around, two-way defenseman. I *love* players with a well-rounded game and that's the word on him.
- Darnell Nurse - physical and mean, will have to get bigger. He played some of the toughest minutes in the CHL. (tougher than Seth Jones, for example).
- Martin Marincin - big lanky guy. Puck mover. Made big strides in his defensive game in the AHL last year. Scored just as much without Justin Schultz as with. Very good news.
- Martin Gernat - puck moving defenseman with size. Like lots his age, needs to work on his play without the puck. Needs work.
- Taylor Fedun - getting a little bit old to call a prospect, but breaking his femur really set him back, so I think it's fair to include him here. Plays in all situations in AHL, and was good.
- David Musil - his skating issues persist, but he can play defense at a very high level already. Quick NHL wingers would eat him alive if he can't skate better.
- Dillon Simpson - likely would have been drafted a lot earlier if he'd been a CHLer rather than skipping right from the AJHL to the University of North Dakota a year early. Could be better than most think.
- Brandon Davidson - played well after he came back from the cancer treatment, but stuff like that is tough to overcome at this point of a player's development.
So, I don't know how things will work out other than to say that at a few of those guys will be busts. Just the way it is. Klefbom, Nurse and Marincin represent their best young defensemen, though, and are very nice pieces going forward. The problem is, as you said, that they lag behind the forwards.
JR
- Oscar Klefbom - an all-around, two-way defenseman. I *love* players with a well-rounded game and that's the word on him.
-
@JR Ewing Wow, that's not even a photo-shopped pic? Fairly scary....
How about an avatar of Schneid's jersey on the clearance rack? (Like the Oils haven't been laughing about that!)....hey, I was in the sports shop recently...it's going for bargoon prices...
No, not photochopped...
http://www.urlesque.com/2010/05/24/41-hilarious-mugshots/
JR
-
You mentioned Cleary, as a Wings fan I have watched his skill level go down for two years in a row as his knees are shot but his intensity and desire are still up there, and his battles with Bickel in the playoffs (The two REALLY were the top battle in the West for the entire postseason IMHO) prove that he still can bring it. I agree with Jones, too many holes in his game and Mike Brown is worthless. If you were to dip into your amazing stable of young forwards, as a Oiler fan to trade for a top pair d-man, lets say a Yandle who is rumored to be on the block for a top line forward, who would it be? Gagner is a solid top six guy, Yakupov is unproven but didn't embarrass himself last year, Hall has to be untouchable, Nuge was off his game but has huge upside, and then you have Eberle. IDK, something has to give, I personally think Eberle could bring a huge return but that would force Nuge into a top line center spot and while I think he can and will do that down the road I am not so sure about right now. Tough position for your boys but any team in the game would kill to have your top five forwards....
-Cleary:. If he could be signed to a bargain deal, I think he has some time left in him. Had the second-toughest zone starts in DET last season, was a possession positive player even though he had some bad puck luck (PDO of only 968). A one-year deal signed at a low salary could be a bet which pays off long, since it seems tough to believe he'll go from delivering quality minutes to nothing overnight..
-Yakupov: I wouldn't deal him at this stage of his career for anything other than a gross overpay. I don't think anybody would want to pony up a prime age top pairing defenseman for somebody so young. I think they have to let him ride, and besides... In my honest opinion, he'll be a more dangerous player than Jordan Eberle. He put up a very nice rookie year, and only played his natural position for the last 20% of the season. It was night and day, the difference between his effectiveness on RW as compared to LW.
http://stats.hockeya...2012-13&sit=5v5
Other than Sam Gagner and Ales Hemsky, with whom Yakupov played LW, every one of his teammates scored more with him on the ice. It's not every rookie who does that at that age.
-Hall: yes, definitely untouchable.
-Nugent-Hopkins: had big issues with his should last year (and since he played in Red Deer, actually), so that couldn't have helped his offense. One thing about him that didn't get a lot of notice last year: his play without the puck improved at a staggering rate. Looking forward to what he may be capable of if a little more healthy, but everything is still nicely in the same direction as before. I don't think he'll be the ES monster that Hall already is, but rHop is a PP savant. What is forgotten (I don't mean by you) sometimes is young Hopkins was for a #1 pick; he's almost two years younger than Taylor Hall (who has a late birthday, like most 1st round picks). He just turned 20 after the season ended; unreal.
I think we can expect a bounce-back from him as far as goals is concerned. His shooting percentage was only 5.1% last year, and SH% regresses heavily to the mean on a yearly basis.
One note: was already playing 1C for the last two years, and Eberle has been his RW during that time.
JR
-
@JR Ewing HAHAHA....btw WHAT is that avatar anyhow?? Many have wondered, but few/none have dared ask
...(reminds me of 'Deliverance'...LOL!)Just a mugshot of some poor sap somewhere. I change avatars every month or so, so it won't be around too too long.
(accepting offers, btw... low low prices)
JR
-
Very nice write up, thanks!!
IMHO the Oilers DO have bigger fish to fry and addressed quite a few of them with the signing of Ference, Gordon and the trade for Perron, Defensive minded players all. This is still a very poor blue line, Neither you nor I are big fans of plus/minus as a be all end all but Schultz was wretched in his own end last season, he has a ton of upside and a few others in the system will be solid NHLers eventually and guys like Smid and Petry wont hurt you, but this defense is woeful. Yes I know nobody wanted to come up off of blueliners this offseason but the Oilers may be better served packaging one of their studly young forwards and acquiring the top pair d-man they desperately need so Schultz can grow at a more comfortable pace.
I know a large portion of goaltending is defense, hell Osgood for my Wings won a couple of cups but that had more to do with the guys in front of him than anything. Dubnyk in the right system could be a Corey Crawford, a system goalie backed up by a great team who ala Osgood or Crawford wins a cup because of the team around him. But what this team needs is a superior netminder, I don't blame the Canucks for not dealing Schneider to a division rival even though from what I heard Mactavish made the superior offer, and the Mike Smiths of the world were resigned by their team, but I really do not see this team as anything more than a outside looking in or sneaking in and being a first round out as presently constituted and Dubnyk is the wrong goalie for the team at this time.
Well, I know that I'd sure as hell like to see some position-by-position improvements on the blueline. They still lack a quality top guy who belongs in that spot, rather than having the minutes handed to him because he's the best they have. I think that Smid and Petry re complimentary defensemen, and am not bullish on them still being the top dogs. Perhaps if Justin Schultz can take a big step, he can be that guy, but that's a really lousy bet to make. If I'm a GM, I'm going to be a pessimist, never assume I'll see huge improvement, and plan accordingly.
Also:
-Not big on the Oilers keeping Ryan Jones around. He's living proof that hustle can have a large impact on the impression you give as a player, but he's still terribly ineffective and cheats for offense. I think he's a bottom of the roster guy with some skill, but NOT a two-way player. Would much rather see a free agent like Dan Cleary getting those minutes.
-I'm uncomfortable with the lack of depth up the middle, and would rather bring in a more proven veteran than Anton Lander. Lander will never be an offense player, and does have some defensive skills, but again: don't bank on those things all coming to fruition in the toughest league in the world. I'd rather make a low cost risk on a cheap veteran with a track record of being able to take tough zone starts.
-Would dearly love to get rid of Mike Brown.
-I also don't see this as a playoff team yet.
JR
-
You're an upstanding guy, JR...you bring a lot of class to this forum/site..(not that it was classless, but just sayin'...
)Sure, sure. The cat's out of the bag now.
JR
-
Your comment showed a proper correlation. My response was more geared to the run of the mill comments a few like to pile on about his playoff struggles, which clearly represent shoot outs.
. My comment was largely dependent but I by no means meant mostly dependent. I think if your goalie is better at it you have a greater chance of winning though. You can score two and have a great shooting percentage but still lose if your goalie surrenders three. Yeah, I'm not a guy to start piling on and flame. Not my style. There's few players, managers, etc I have anything against, and if I make a comment, it's never from a source of bias.
Well... Maybe not Steve Tambellini. To hell with everything about that guy as a GM. Terrible.
JR
-
1
-
-
I have always been a believer that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.....
Ok, let's work with that. The question then becomes "Is Devan Dubnyk the problem?"
Year SV% Lg Avg
2013 .921 .909
2012 .914 .911
2011 .916 .910We could compare this to how the Oilers have fared in CorsiFor% during the same period:
2013 - 29th
2012 - 28th
2011 - 27th
So, we have a situation where the team has a goalie who was clearly above league average last year, and slightly above the two seasons before. I don't think that's nearly the problem compared to the fact that their CorsiFor% shows that they just don't carry enough of the play, and spend too much time in their own end. That's the big problem facing facing the Oilers.
By all means, they could improve the goaltending; I don't disagree. I also don't really see a championship team building themselves around Devan Dubnyk. I don't think Craig MacTavish does either, or he wouldn't have tried so hard for Corey Schneider.
But, do the Oilers have bigger fish to fry? Bigger problems than Devan Dubnyk? Yes, in my honest opinion.
JR
-
Who's Online 3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)
The HF.net Hall of Fame
in General Hockey
Posted
Yeah, Gartner's another one of those guys, too.
JR