X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 He still needs to get that eye fixed. Send him to Portland for Re-hab :chris:
nobody Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 From said definition: It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. Sizzle's just trying to be a trendsetter.
nfreeman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Skill-wise, I believe that they have it in them to be in the #5-#10 range, as shown by their ability to beat "better" teams. However, it's the proverbial "heart" that has put them at the bottom of that range for the past two seasons. Not only did they find ways to lose to teams below them, but "just missing" is actually an indicator of this, too. They would play well to get back in it, then let up and slip back out. Either they will finally find this drive within themselves, this drive will be demonstrated to them by a player acquired later this Summer or they will again struggle with the consistency necessary to keep a hold on one of those #5-#8 spots. For the record, I don't believe that they should be content with being a #5-#10 team. Good post. As for not being content with #5-#10, I of course agree, but I don't see them getting into the top 4 without guys like Pommer, Stafford, Sekera, Butler, etc. taking major steps forward. It can happen, but this year is probably too soon.
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 There's still that drinking problem too... I hope he actually is gay because 1 chick for that many dudes, especially when one is a professional athlete, is shameful.
X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I hope he actually is gay because 1 chick for that many dudes, especially when one is a professional athlete, is shameful. I got no problem with gay... the Busch drinking however........Busch?.....In a world with good beer in it.....hell.....Genny is a better beer than that corporate sludge............whoever owns that boat has some explaining to do....
inkman Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I got no problem with gay... That would explain his propensity for allowing weak wristers in... :rolleyes:
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Ruff is 146-86-1 with Ryan Miller in goal.......hmmmmmmm......... this place does get antsy in the offseason.... I never said Miller was bad, in fact I said he could be looked at as highly as the #5 goalie in the league at his best. I never said Harding was a better goalie than Miller or that the Sabres should trade for Harding or trade Miller away. What I said was I am sick of hearing the "Ryan Miller is a young goalie who is going to improve" excuse that has come from the organization the past 3 offseasons and looks to be accepted by some of the more knowledgable fans...i.e. Taro. Miller may be in "his prime", but recently that was good enough to miss the playoffs entirely. I admitted that he is more than capable of winning a Cup when surrounded by the right cast. That will not happen in Buffalo. Hasek was good enough to take an average group and go far with them. Miller is not. If nothing much changes, this season will be more of the same. In fact, it will be even more heartbreaking because they will probably have a playoff spot held 70 games into the season and then will spit the bit. If Miller is the starter in the Olympics, good luck getting anything out of him down the stretch.
X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I never said Miller was bad, in fact I said he could be looked at as highly as the #5 goalie in the league at his best.I never said Harding was a better goalie than Miller or that the Sabres should trade for Harding or trade Miller away. What I said was I am sick of hearing the "Ryan Miller is a young goalie who is going to improve" excuse that has come from the organization the past 3 offseasons and looks to be accepted by some of the more knowledgable fans...i.e. Taro. Miller may be in "his prime", but recently that was good enough to miss the playoffs entirely. I admitted that he is more than capable of winning a Cup when surrounded by the right cast. That will not happen in Buffalo. Hasek was good enough to take an average group and go far with them. Miller is not. If nothing much changes, this season will be more of the same. In fact, it will be even more heartbreaking because they will probably have a playoff spot held 70 games into the season and then will spit the bit. If Miller is the starter in the Olympics, good luck getting anything out of him down the stretch. We don't disagree on Miller. The problem on the team is not the scoring, goaltender, or special teams......it is not having a shut down line....or a line that creates offense from checking.... holding leads is a problem...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 We don't disagree on Miller. The problem on the team is not the scoring, goaltender, or special teams......it is not having a shut down line....or a line that creates offense from checking.... holding leads is a problem... You can't create offense from checking or hold leads when your team isn't built to play physical. I can't even blame the players anymore because Ruff came out 2 years ago defending his system. That is when I walked away. A dishonest ownership, a GM that doesn't take any chances, a Coach that believes in his faulty system more than trusting his players to play the game, and a group of players that can't be trusted because they were assembled under the failings of the previous 3 mentioned. I have no problem building a team around Vanek and Miller, but the team needs to know that you can't expect your skin and bones goalie to play 100 games a year. You surround Miller with a #2 that can take 25 games, and a well rounded experienced group of defensemen that have the propensity to play physical, and you are 80% of the way to a CUP. Instead of trusting career punks like Connolly, Roy and Kaleta.....get some guys in here that command respect. I would rather win games 2-1 and be respected then have to endure another year of losing 5-3 and be a laughingstock of people and teams I do respect.
X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 You can't create offense from checking or hold leads when your team isn't built to play physical. I can't even blame the players anymore because Ruff came out 2 years ago defending his system. That is when I walked away. A dishonest ownership, a GM that doesn't take any chances, a Coach that believes in his faulty system more than trusting his players to play the game, and a group of players that can't be trusted because they were assembled under the failings of the previous 3 mentioned. I have no problem building a team around Vanek and Miller, but the team needs to know that you can't expect your skin and bones goalie to play 100 games a year. You surround Miller with a #2 that can take 25 games, and a well rounded experienced group of defensemen that have the propensity to play physical, and you are 80% of the way to a CUP. Instead of trusting career punks like Connolly, Roy and Kaleta.....get some guys in here that command respect. I would rather win games 2-1 and be respected then have to endure another year of losing 5-3 and be a laughingstock of people and teams I do respect. Last year the team lost in Nov. after a great start. Centers Roy-Gaustad-Mair. Basically they could still score.. but Roy was really centering the 1st and 3rd line Before the deadline... Connolley-Roy-Mair.... still scoring but..but no answer to any teams top line Every team in the NHL that doesn't make it past the 1st round is called soft.... when the team lost it didn't have the balance or depth to shut down or limit any teams top line. If the team is able to skate a third line that can take away time and space and hold possession ...it doesn't matter if they are hitting. Just my take.
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Wow are you guys high you want to trade Miller. He's are franchise player. And worst of all you want to trade him for Josh Harding a goalie who has never really broken out and definately is not considered a top 15 goalie. We have a top 5 goalie in Miller stop your complaining goaltending is not the problem. Top 5 in what? He's been 11th, 20th, 24th and 18th in GAA in his four full regular seasons, and 10th, 16th, 29th and 8th in save %. If he's among the top five goalies in the NHL, this teetotaler will drink a six-pack of Busch beer.
Taro T Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 I never said Miller was bad, in fact I said he could be looked at as highly as the #5 goalie in the league at his best.I never said Harding was a better goalie than Miller or that the Sabres should trade for Harding or trade Miller away. What I said was I am sick of hearing the "Ryan Miller is a young goalie who is going to improve" excuse that has come from the organization the past 3 offseasons and looks to be accepted by some of the more knowledgable fans...i.e. Taro. Miller may be in "his prime", but recently that was good enough to miss the playoffs entirely. I admitted that he is more than capable of winning a Cup when surrounded by the right cast. That will not happen in Buffalo. Hasek was good enough to take an average group and go far with them. Miller is not. If nothing much changes, this season will be more of the same. In fact, it will be even more heartbreaking because they will probably have a playoff spot held 70 games into the season and then will spit the bit. If Miller is the starter in the Olympics, good luck getting anything out of him down the stretch. You're sick of hearing it? It must be ringing in your ears, because you are hearing it when people aren't saying it. I'm not certain how you transformed my comments that Ryan "is now at a point where he is a top goalie", that he's in the top 10 in the league currently, and that I didn't want to see him replaced with a young inexperienced unproven goalie into some Ryan Miller excuse. Ryan Miller's play is NOT why the team missed the playoffs the last 2 years, nor is it the reason the team bowed out 1 round shy of the Finals the 2 prior to that. My comment that he's hitting his prime should not have been interpreted to mean that he's suddenly going to be Dominic Hasek. As long as we are discussing statements that seem to be misinterpreted; no, you did not state that Harding was a better goalie than Miller nor that Harding or Miller should be on the Sabres trading blocks. You merely stated that it's folly to assume that Harding won't be better than Miller in a short amount of time. Regardless (happy Inky? :P ), I've stated my peace on the matter.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 You're sick of hearing it? It must be ringing in your ears, because you are hearing it when people aren't saying it. I'm not certain how you transformed my comments that Ryan "is now at a point where he is a top goalie", that he's in the top 10 in the league currently, and that I didn't want to see him replaced with a young inexperienced unproven goalie into some Ryan Miller excuse. Ryan Miller's play is NOT why the team missed the playoffs the last 2 years, nor is it the reason the team bowed out 1 round shy of the Finals the 2 prior to that. My comment that he's hitting his prime should not have been interpreted to mean that he's suddenly going to be Dominic Hasek. As long as we are discussing statements that seem to be misinterpreted; no, you did not state that Harding was a better goalie than Miller nor that Harding or Miller should be on the Sabres trading blocks. You merely stated that it's folly to assume that Harding won't be better than Miller in a short amount of time. Regardless (happy Inky? :P ), I've stated my peace on the matter. It was the Vezina statement I took issue with. You take a sliver of sample size then explain away the 2 of 7 that didn't fit your mold while ignoring 7 of 9 before that run that also went against your theory....all while counting Hasek and Brodeur as "older" when they came into their own when in actuality Brodeur was a top goalie for over a decade the same time of Roy and Hasek, and Hasek was stuck behind Belfour and Fuhr for 5 years....2 legitimate reasons for not winning earlier. You are a straight shooter, so I thought that was skimpy on your part. No big deal. If we want to trend current...I can say the next 10 presidents will be black.
SabresFan526 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Top 5 in what? He's been 11th, 20th, 24th and 18th in GAA in his four full regular seasons, and 10th, 16th, 29th and 8th in save %. If he's among the top five goalies in the NHL, this teetotaler will drink a six-pack of Busch beer. He's been 11th, 3rd, 6th, and 8th respectively in wins in his four full regular seasons. Stats are nice, but I'd like my goalie winning games regardless of what the score is. I'm not going to argue GAA as I think that's a rather fair measure for a goalie since that is over a 60 minute span. But, save % is kind of ridiculous and can be poorly interpreted. For example, if Lydman or Jay McKee block 2 or 3 less shots and those shots are on goal and Miller makes the save on those shots, his save percentage ranking goes from 29th to 15th or from 16th to top 10 or 10 to 5th. By crediting defenseman for blocking some of those shots that potentially could be easy saves, it distorts the save percentage itself. And when you look at the save percentage rankings, they are hundredths of a percentage point that separate players by almost 10 spots. So, some of this is arbitrarily determined based on what a scorekeeper considers to be a shot on goal vs. not a shot on goal. Additionally, the standard deviation over the course of approximately 65 games could potentially adjust the save percentage. So, if look at it statistically, the save percentage statistic has some holes in it. Regardless, I think Miller is a top 10 goalie in the NHL. For me, the only things that matter for judging a goalie are wins and losses. Miller's pretty good in that regard, and is easily a top 10 goalie in that regard.
sabresman17 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Top 5 in what? He's been 11th, 20th, 24th and 18th in GAA in his four full regular seasons, and 10th, 16th, 29th and 8th in save %. If he's among the top five goalies in the NHL, this teetotaler will drink a six-pack of Busch beer. He was 34-18-6 last year i believe that is a good record. Concedering you think Josh Harding is better then Miller and that miller isn't even a top ten goalie you should zip your mouth when it comes to putting input on goalies because oviously you don't really know what your talking about.
X. Benedict Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Top 5 in what? He's been 11th, 20th, 24th and 18th in GAA in his four full regular seasons, and 10th, 16th, 29th and 8th in save %. If he's among the top five goalies in the NHL, this teetotaler will drink a six-pack of Busch beer. He's #5 in points percentage among active goaltenders. http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/po...lie_active.html
hopeleslyobvious Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 You can't create offense from checking or hold leads when your team isn't built to play physical. I can't even blame the players anymore because Ruff came out 2 years ago defending his system. That is when I walked away. A dishonest ownership, a GM that doesn't take any chances, a Coach that believes in his faulty system more than trusting his players to play the game, and a group of players that can't be trusted because they were assembled under the failings of the previous 3 mentioned. I have no problem building a team around Vanek and Miller, but the team needs to know that you can't expect your skin and bones goalie to play 100 games a year. You surround Miller with a #2 that can take 25 games, and a well rounded experienced group of defensemen that have the propensity to play physical, and you are 80% of the way to a CUP. Instead of trusting career punks like Connolly, Roy and Kaleta.....get some guys in here that command respect. I would rather win games 2-1 and be respected then have to endure another year of losing 5-3 and be a laughingstock of people and teams I do respect. And he's a sports nutritionist!
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 He was 34-18-6 last year i believe that is a good record. Concedering you think Josh Harding is better then Miller and that miller isn't even a top ten goalie you should zip your mouth when it comes to putting input on goalies because oviously you don't really know what your talking about. I never said Harding was better.
Stoner Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 He's #5 in points percentage among active goaltenders. http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/po...lie_active.html If that makes Miller a top 5 active goalie, it also makes him a top 12 all-time goalie! http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/po...lie_career.html Roy-Hasek-Miller-Plante. Which one doesn't belong?
sabresman17 Posted July 21, 2009 Report Posted July 21, 2009 If that makes Miller a top 5 active goalie, it also makes him a top 12 all-time goalie! http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/po...lie_career.html Roy-Hasek-Miller-Plante. Which one doesn't belong? Im not saying that Miller is as good as them but here's the thing. Millers not even half way done his career.
Taro T Posted July 21, 2009 Report Posted July 21, 2009 It was the Vezina statement I took issue with. You take a sliver of sample size then explain away the 2 of 7 that didn't fit your mold while ignoring 7 of 9 before that run that also went against your theory....all while counting Hasek and Brodeur as "older" when they came into their own when in actuality Brodeur was a top goalie for over a decade the same time of Roy and Hasek, and Hasek was stuck behind Belfour and Fuhr for 5 years....2 legitimate reasons for not winning earlier. You are a straight shooter, so I thought that was skimpy on your part. No big deal. If we want to trend current...I can say the next 10 presidents will be black. Fair enough. Just out of curiosity, I looked at the ages of the runner-ups; they are as follows: '82 - Fuhr - 19 (Smith won it that year at the tender young age of 31) '83 - Melanson - 22 '84 - Lemelin - 29 '85 - Barrasso - 20 '86 - Frose - 27 '87 - Liut - 31 '88 - Barrasso - 23 '89 - Vernon - 26 '90 - Puppa (yes, THAT Puppa) - 25 '91 - Roy - 25 '92 - McLean - 25 '93 - Barrasso - 28 '94 - Beezer - 30 '95 - Bats in his Belfour - 30 '96 - Osgood - 23 '97 - Brodeur - 25 '98 - Brodeur - 26 '99 - Joseph - 32 '00 - Turek - 30 '01 - Cechmanek - 30 '02 - Roy - 36 '03 - Turco - 27 '04 - Kiprusoff - 27 '06 - Brodeur - 34 '07 - Luongo - 28 '08 - Nabakov - 32 '09 - Mason - 21 We'd already established that since '94, the winner has been at least 28 (29 as well, technically) in 13 out of 15 seasons. The runner up has been at least 28 in the bulk of those seasons as well (9 out of 15), and the runner up has only been 25 or younger 3 times during that span. Prior to '94, the winner has only been at least 28 in 2 seasons, and the winner was 25 or younger in 8 out of 12 seasons. The runner up was at least 28 3 times back then and was 25 or younger 7 times during that span. Clearly the sample sets are too small to make any "statistically significant" pronounciations. But the data does support the binary occularity sensitivity test. (It LOOKS like there might be something there.) And that is all I was getting at in my original response to PA. It IS rare (since Dom 1st won it) for a player that isn't close to 30 or over 30 to win the Vezina. The runner up is typically closing in on 30 as well. (Mason's edging of the 31 YO Backstrom being the 1st time a "young" guy was runner up since Brodeur was 12 years earlier.) Feel free to continue to rip on this, I agree the data set is small and honestly hadn't looked at any hard data when I made my original statement. (I actually am very surprised that my original casual observation has been correct 87% of the time.) I do typically enjoy reading your posts as they are typically an attempt to look at things from a truly fresh perspective. It gets mighty boring when everyone agrees.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.