Mr Ryan Miller....

[Stoner]

Whoa!.......if he's un-trade-able and average, it might be better to re-sign him for average money.

 

You are diabolical.

[X. Benedict]

You are diabolical.

He'll be gone soon enough. ;)

 

Value is what we all want. A better than average return is my expectation for Murray's new job.

[tom webster]

Ryan Miller is not the answer to Caps’ netminding woes

 

This analysis is why I question almost every single person who considers himself an "authority" on analytics. They undervalue what they consider to be insignificant differences. The funny part is that these same people will tell you that every team should have an analytics department because with parity, attention to detail and even the slightest advantage can change the course of a season.

[...]

DOWN WITH ANALYTICS!

[tom webster]

DOWN WITH ANALYTICS!

 

Now don't put words in my mouth. I think they serve a purpose and can even serve a significant purpose. The problem, to use an old cliche, is that for some, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

[IKnowPhysics]

###### YOU TRUEBLUEPHD!

[...]

 

 

Now don't put words in my mouth. I think they serve a purpose and can even serve a significant purpose. The problem, to use an old cliche, is that for some, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

Just having fun; but, FWIW, you're not the only person banging on analytics around here lately.

 

I agree with you, in particular, pretty much word for word.

[TrueBlueGED]

Like I said....you write too well to be Schopp........ :)

 

I hate Mike Schopp.

 

And you :P

 

This analysis is why I question almost every single person who considers himself an "authority" on analytics. They undervalue what they consider to be insignificant differences. The funny part is that these same people will tell you that every team should have an analytics department because with parity, attention to detail and even the slightest advantage can change the course of a season.

 

Greenberg is normally pretty decent, but I'm not sure how a writer for a middling playoff team can say "he might be good for two wins, so what's the fuss about?" In the last full season those four points would have put Washington as the 2 seed rather than the 7th that they ended up.

 

###### YOU TRUEBLUEPHD!

 

Cold fusion is real :angel:

[Hoss]

Anddddddd Halak collapses again. St. Louis takes a 2-0 lead into the 3rd and he gives up two goals in a matter of two and a half minutes. Third straight game that St. Louis blew a third period lead. First time they won in OT. Last time they lost in a shootout. This time? Time will tell.

 

Fans booing in St. Louis now.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Tankalicious

[Hoss]

If the report about us wanting John Gibson from Anaheim is true, then I have to think they're pushing more for Jake Allen in a trade than Ty Rattie if we do end up making a deal with St. Louis. We need something more solid. Could see us sending Hackett with Miller to get Allen, a pick and a mid-level prospect.

 

Poop. The St. Louis offense bails out Halak in OT.

[Bob Malooga]

I don't know where else to put this, and I have come to realize this is nothing like TBD where you are allowed to start a new conversation about different topics...this place seems to generalize topics and lump them all together. So I have no clue where to ask this...but, it was in a Miller article, so I'll put it here.

 

But, Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News went on a rampage in an article's comment section, because someone said that Drury and Briere were in "decline" when they left Buffalo. Mike's comment was something like, "Don't let facts get in your way, its pathetic. They had career highs their last year in Buffalo. I will not let somebody use false statements without correcting them."

 

So, I countered with this...(which has since been deleted, so I posted it again...and he will not respond.)

 

Tell me, Sabrespace...did these two NOT decline once they left Buffalo?!?

 

Chris Drury

06-07 = 69 pts (Last year in Buffalo)

07-08 = 58 pts

08-09 = 56 pts

09-10 = 32 pts

10-11 = 5 pts

 

Danny Briere

06-07 = 95 pts (Last year in Buffalo)

07-08 = 72 pts

08-09 = 25 pts

09-10 = 53 pts

10-11 = 68 pts

11-12 = 49 pts

12-13 = 16 pts

 

(Thank you, I rest my case...Eat poop, Harrington, eat poop.)

 

*And YES, I searched "Briere and Drury" and found nowhere to post this, sorry.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Bob Malooga

[MattPie]

I don't know where else to put this, and I have come to realize this is nothing like TBD where you are allowed to start a new conversation about different topics...this place seems to generalize topics and lump them all together. So I have no clue where to ask this...but, it was in a Miller article, so I'll put it here.

 

But, Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News went on a rampage in an article's comment section, because someone said that Drury and Briere were in "decline" when they left Buffalo. Mike's comment was something like, "Don't let facts get in your way, its pathetic. They had career highs their last year in Buffalo. I will not let somebody use false statements without correcting them."

 

So, I countered with this...(which has since been deleted, so I posted it again...and he will not respond.)

 

Tell me, Sabrespace...did these two NOT decline once they left Buffalo?!?

 

Chris Drury

06-07 = 69 pts (Last year in Buffalo)

07-08 = 58 pts

08-09 = 56 pts

09-10 = 32 pts

10-11 = 5 pts

 

Danny Briere

06-07 = 95 pts (Last year in Buffalo)

07-08 = 72 pts

08-09 = 25 pts

09-10 = 53 pts

10-11 = 68 pts

11-12 = 49 pts

12-13 = 16 pts

 

(Thank you, I rest my case...Eat poop, Harrington, eat poop.)

 

*And YES, I searched "Briere and Drury" and found nowhere to post this, sorry.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the 10% drop from Buffalo to their new teams is in part due to the league changing from the free-wheeling post-lockout officiating to more like you see now. It'd be good to list games played, since if one was hurt for awhile it would affect raw points.

 

But yeah, that doesn't look like a decline to me.

 

EDIT: oh, and starting a new thread about Drury and Briere would probably be ill-advised. I *think* we've discussed the subject at some point. :) :)

Edited February 10, 2014 by MattPie

[apuszczalowski]

I read the comments and some of the responses and I think the problem he had with it and the point he was making was that in Hindsight, its easy now to say that was the best years they had and have gone down since for whatever reason, but at the time, they were not in decline, they had just had their best seasons. After leaving Buffalo, Drury didn't have a huge drop in stats until 2 years later, and it was injuries that took a toll on him forcing him into retirement. Brieres stats took a bit of a hit after leaving Buffalo, and were a bit of up and down and he also suffered from injuries too. Neither player at the time (2007) looked like their skills were in decline.

[That Aud Smell]

But, Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News went on a rampage in an article's comment section, because someone said that Drury and Briere were in "decline" when they left Buffalo. Mike's comment was something like, "Don't let facts get in your way, its pathetic. They had career highs their last year in Buffalo. I will not let somebody use false statements without correcting them."

 

So, I countered with this...(which has since been deleted, so I posted it again...and he will not respond.)

 

Tell me, Sabrespace...did these two NOT decline once they left Buffalo?!?

 

(Thank you, I rest my case...Eat poop, Harrington, eat poop.)

 

I genuinely dislike Harrington, as much as I can dislike anyone I've never met. Everything about his writing - both in tone and content - and his persona is just ... . Well, I just think he's a repulsive pud of a sportswriter.

 

So, yeah - the enemy of my enemy is typically my friend.

 

And even at that, if you were picking a fight with him and the thesis of your argument is that our former co-captains were in decline as of July 2007 ... well, I'm not sure what to say in support of your crusade against that pud.

Edited February 10, 2014 by That Aud Smell

[Bob Malooga]

I wasn't trying to pick a fight...I just think he was WAY off base. Maybe we look at the definition of "decline" differently. But, as far as I am concerned, they left Buffalo and joined equal or better teams, and never produced like that again. Now, I do NOT condone letting good players walk out the door, especially beloved captains...but I just thought he was overreacting a bit. (And his argument is not a good or fair reason for keeping Ryan Miller.) Thank you for the feedback though...I am sill new here, so I am still trying to learn about the place. (as well as TBN, WGR and their "crews.")

 

I was actually just asked to be a part-time contributor/writer for an up-and-coming sports website, but I am learning that I am not very good at putting my thoughts into typed words. :blush:

 

 

*I mean, no matter how you slice it...their production dropped when they left the Sabres organization.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Bob Malooga

[JJFIVEOH]

I used to follow Harrington on Twitter. I found it amusing that he routinely attacked and mocked the people that followed up on his articles and/or communicated with him via Twitter. Then, once a month or so, he would come out and talk about blocking all the people that attack him because it didn't create any civilized dialogue. I'm not sure what is bigger, his ego or his double standards. I have no respect for that man. He is not a journalist, he makes a mockery of the profession. What little respect I had for him was lost when him and Sully made an as of themselves the day Pegula announced the approval of the Harbor Center. He is nothing more than a classless hack. I refuse to give the Buffalo News a penny as long as he is an employee.

[Jsixspd]

Text just came in from WGR - Jonathan Quick is the starting goalie - Miller is benched. Smart decision - Quick is 6 years younger and in his prime, and playing better.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Text just came in from WGR - Jonathan Quick is the starting goalie - Miller is benched. Smart decision - Quick is 6 years younger and in his prime, and playing better.

 

Re-read. Quick is starting for the first game. They may rotate goalies like Canada is going to during the group play, and go with the hot goalie.

 

I could also be off base on that.

 

And I honestly don't know who I'd rather start. Miller has more international experience, but Quick has been playing better, and neither has shown anything on the larger ice surface yet.

[Eleven]

Re-read. Quick is starting for the first game. They may rotate goalies like Canada is going to during the group play, and go with the hot goalie.

 

I could also be off base on that.

 

And I honestly don't know who I'd rather start. Miller has more international experience, but Quick has been playing better, and neither has shown anything on the larger ice surface yet.

 

Correct & as I said in the OLY hockey thread, can't really go wrong between the two of them.

[Kristian]

Re-read. Quick is starting for the first game. They may rotate goalies like Canada is going to during the group play, and go with the hot goalie.

 

I could also be off base on that.

 

And I honestly don't know who I'd rather start. Miller has more international experience, but Quick has been playing better, and neither has shown anything on the larger ice surface yet.

 

That's what I think.

 

Most likely, they'll alternate for the first 4 games unless either (or both) play themselves off the team, then go with the hotter of the two.

 

Team USA may still have flashbacks of Mike Richter, so I doubt they'll just pick a goalie and go with him.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Kristian

[That Aud Smell]

I wasn't trying to pick a fight...I just think he was WAY off base. Maybe we look at the definition of "decline" differently. But, as far as I am concerned, they left Buffalo and joined equal or better teams, and never produced like that again. Now, I do NOT condone letting good players walk out the door, especially beloved captains...but I just thought he was overreacting a bit. (And his argument is not a good or fair reason for keeping Ryan Miller.) Thank you for the feedback though...I am sill new here, so I am still trying to learn about the place. (as well as TBN, WGR and their "crews.") I was actually just asked to be a part-time contributor/writer for an up-and-coming sports website, but I am learning that I am not very good at putting my thoughts into typed words. :blush: *I mean, no matter how you slice it...their production dropped when they left the Sabres organization.

 

missed this until now. i reckon i'd need to see what harrington was saying in order to understand where you were coming from. i can presume that whatever MH was saying was ill-conceived.

 

and, hey - welcome to the board, and keep after the postings. there are close to 20 regulars here whom i read more closely than i read any writer for the BN. and if you find you're not easily getting your thoughts onto the screen, then i recommend practice, practice, practice.

 

Re-read. Quick is starting for the first game. They may rotate goalies like Canada is going to during the group play, and go with the hot goalie. I could also be off base on that.

 

I held out hope that Bylsma [sic?] was going to go with Miller because he thought maybe Quick was a bit of a product of a terrific system, and Miller was the MVP in 2010, etc.

 

My thinking is this: If Quick is solid in game 1, then why go with Miller against the Russians in game 2? It'll be Quick who had the warm-up in game 1. I can see Miller maybe getting Game 3, depending on where we are in terms of advancing to the medal round.

 

And I can't bring myself to cheer for a 5-4 U.S. win in game 1 -- if Quick's the guy they choose I want him to be stellar.

 

In any case: Go USA.

 

That's what I think.

 

Most likely, they'll alternate for the first 4 games unless either (or both) play themselves off the team, then go with the hotter of the two.

 

Team USA may still have flashbacks of Mike Richter, so I doubt they'll just pick a goalie and go with him.

 

4? there's just 3 games before the medal round begins. my sense is that they'll want their #1 before the single-elimination games begin.

[Jsixspd]

 

My thinking is this: If Quick is solid in game 1, then why go with Miller against the Russians in game 2? It'll be Quick who had the warm-up in game 1. I can see Miller maybe getting Game 3, depending on where we are in terms of advancing to the medal round.

 

 

I think that's the only logical conclusion. The coach prefers Quick as starter over Miller. And If Quick is solid, there would be no reason to bench him in lieu of Miller. It's all about winning, not about giving someone ice time as a 'feel good' thing.

[dEnnis the Menace]

I held out hope that Bylsma [sic?] was going to go with Miller because he thought maybe Quick was a bit of a product of a terrific system, and Miller was the MVP in 2010, etc.

 

My thinking is this: If Quick is solid in game 1, then why go with Miller against the Russians in game 2? It'll be Quick who had the warm-up in game 1. I can see Miller maybe getting Game 3, depending on where we are in terms of advancing to the medal round.

 

And I can't bring myself to cheer for a 5-4 U.S. win in game 1 -- if Quick's the guy they choose I want him to be stellar.

 

In any case: Go USA.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[TrueBlueGED]

Re-read. Quick is starting for the first game. They may rotate goalies like Canada is going to during the group play, and go with the hot goalie.

 

I could also be off base on that.

 

And I honestly don't know who I'd rather start. Miller has more international experience, but Quick has been playing better, and neither has shown anything on the larger ice surface yet.

 

I believe this to be false. Save percentages for the last three seasons:

 

2011: Miller .916 | Quick .929

2012: Miller .915 | Quick .902

2013: Miller .923 | Quick .911

 

Those are not small differences the last two seasons, especially considering the team each one plays behind.

[Hoss]

Miller is playing FAR better than Quick on a much worse team. I still think he'll end up getting a majority of the time.