Leafs @ Ducks - Mar. 3rd, 10:00pm - TSN4, Fan 590

[mr grieves]

Again, same thing in principle.

Repeat it all you want but "This player has a skill that will make us better each game and we'll have more points at the end of the year than if we didn't have them" is not the same principle as "This player has a skill that will provide an advantage to our team so long as we get into enough shootouts".

You could make this more concrete by asking whether Hyman, Brown, Komarov, Martin, and Soshnikov/Leivo offer all that much more during regulation than Vrbata, PAP, and Vanek. I don't know that they do. And if it's only a marginal upgrade during the first 65 min, and the latter bunch have are much more likely to help you out with the extra point, seems like a "shootout specialist" -- guy who's okay in regulation, better than most in the shootout -- is worth having. 

 

[BrownRolo]

Why not just get a faceoff specialist who is also a shootout specialist.

 

[Kin]

You could make this more concrete by asking whether Hyman, Brown, Komarov, Martin, and Soshnikov/Leivo offer all that much more during regulation than Vrbata, PAP, and Vanek. I don't know that they do. And if it's only a marginal upgrade during the first 65 min, and the latter bunch have are much more likely to help you out with the extra point, seems like a "shootout specialist" -- guy who's okay in regulation, better than most in the shootout -- is worth having.

That seems less like a case for shootout specialists and more a case for the Leafs needing to upgrade on the wing. Vanek being more useful than Martin seems true if the team has 82 or 0 shootouts.

 

[ZBBM]

I said the principle that's the same is that both are skills that contribute to a win.  Which is patently obvious.  You are debating whether they are both good or bad ideas, or which one's better.

No, I'm saying that if you believe that winning faceoffs help a team win then a face-off specialist will help a team win night in and night out. You can think a shootout specialist has a skill that might contribute to a team winning but in the vast majority of wins it'll be a skill that is incidental to the team winning or not.

Why slip in "might"?  The FO specialist "might" or might not help you win too.

Anyway, I'll hand off to Grieves at this point if you want to continue.  OTOH, if you want to debate Ho-Sang wearing 66 (I think it's fine -- it's like saying Simmonds should change his first name because it's disrespectful to Gretzky) then I'm your man.

 

[azzurri63]

Pp has been awful so far tonight. Entry into the zone has been poor and I think they are trying to get cute when they do get in. Get some shots at the net. Making Bernier look good.

 

[Kin]

Why slip in "might"?  The FO specialist "might" or might not help you win too.

Because, and I'm not entirely sure how many ways there are to say this, one is an argument of the relative worth of the skill vs. other skills and the other is an argument about the frequency with which the skill is employed(and it's relative worth).

A coach that uses a FO specialist believes face-offs matter and will help a team win. No coach, no matter how valuable he thinks the shootout skill is, thinks every game will go to a shootout. Hence might.

 

[ZBBM]

Kadri!  But props to Marner mostly.

 

[azzurri63]

Must have heard me they needed that cuz you know the Ducks are going to get a couple more PP's before the end of the night.

 

[ZBBM]

Ray's observation there about Hyman kind of encapsulates the kinds of things he contributes. 

 

[ZBBM]

Marner giveth, and Marner giveth away.

 

[ZBBM]

Oh for God's sake!

 

[Kin]

The heck is Polak doing there?

 

[azzurri63]

FFS Marner.

 

[azzurri63]

If Babcock was any kind of a coach Marner wouldn't see the ice again. Quit playing favourites. Cost us last night as well.

 

[Kin]

If Babcock was any kind of a coach Marner wouldn't see the ice again. Quit playing favourites. Cost us last night as well.

Nothing says serious about winning quite like benching one of your best offensive players when you're down a goal.

 

[ZBBM]

If Babcock was any kind of a coach Marner wouldn't see the ice again. Quit playing favourites. Cost us last night as well.

I wouldn't be so hasty.  Perry got an assist on the 3rd goal after taking 3 stupid penalties.  Give Mitch the same chance.

 

[herman]

Haha I think Polak thought the puck was still going north.

 

[ZBBM]

Nylander on the Bozak/JVR line .... ?

 

[azzurri63]

If Babcock was any kind of a coach Marner wouldn't see the ice again. Quit playing favourites. Cost us last night as well.

Nothing says serious about winning quite like benching one of your best offensive players when you're down a goal.

Are you watching the same game as any of us. You never see the glaring mistakes some of these guys make. Last night he cost us 2 goals. Tonight the same. If that was Nylander he'd be on the 4th line. Stupid stupid mistakes and quite honestly he gets cute with the puck and for the most part hasn't cost him. If you look at the give away he could of easily skated up ice and dumped it in.I don't care if he's one of your best offensive guys.We are down a goal because of his carelessness.

 

[dekedastardly]

The heck is Polak doing there?

I saw that too.... Trying to start a conga line is my best guess?

He's such a liability out there. Every night. Can't he just be Robidas'd?