Who is the Worst Member of the Buffalo Media?

[woods-racer]

Hi Everyone - I'm new to the board - first post.  I have enjoyed reading threads over time and was soooo excited and amused during the Vesey sweepstakes thread.  There's a diversity of opinion here which is great.  

 

I'm happy that WildCard started this discussion.  Buffalo sports media coverage has been wearing on me for a long time but IMO really crossed the line with the attack on Whaley during his year end PC.  Some may agree with their antagonistic questioning but I believe that they were mean spirited.  Media coverage is continually treading out-of-bounds.  False statements are attributed to Eichel, Pegula and many others.  They hide behind "sources" and seem self-justified in stirring the pot.  Certainly no accountability for them - except those of us who refuse to give them clicks.  I can't respect that type of reporting and believe that the MEDIA is being diminished ---- though their own classless reporting.

 

One thing on Murph.  I sometimes think back on the Bills Super Bowl run.  He was great back then.  We were all so excited to hear anything on the Bills and he was a voice that fueled fandemonium during a fantastic run.  When wins are more scarce his optimism has a different effect.

 

Lastly, I more enjoy the reporting of Chuck Pollock and their hockey guy (can't think of his name).  Although they seem to be running John Wawrow lately.

 

Looking forward to interacting with y'all.

 

Hi Ripper and welcome!

[SwampD]

Welcome, Ripper.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

How could I not welcome the newbie.

 

Welcome Ripper.

[That Aud Smell]

Ripper!

 

I look forward to your getting chirped when Cliff Pu is issed #72 for an anticipated call-up.

[WildCard]

Hamilton really taking a run for first with his latest article.

 

Added a poll

[Stoner]

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

[TrueBlueGED]

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

 

Why not respond to the criticisms on the merits? Go ahead and defend Hamilton's article.

[WildCard]

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

Who said this is the criteria for what makes them bad? Cherry picking stats, refusing to evolve in their profession, and responding to criticism the way a child would is what makes them terrible

[Doctor of Philhousley]

From PH's recent column - "The lack of extra work showed as his goals went from 23 to 17. He did increase his assist total from 19 to 30, and overall had five extra points."

 

So "lack of extra effort" apparently results in less goals and more assists per year. Paul if you're out there, this does not count as doing your homework or as you like to put it "extra effort". How does Sam compare to Draisaitl or other players his draft year? You may want to take a look at Flagg's analysis. Personally, I do not care if you criticize or praise my local team. Just give me some data to back up your opinion.  

[Stoner]

Why not respond to the criticisms on the merits? Go ahead and defend Hamilton's article.

I didn't read it. Now I have to, to see if what WC is complaining about is the problem with the piece.

 

I am guessing that refusing to evolve means he doesn't bow down to analytics.

[WildCard]

I didn't read it. Now I have to, to see if what WC is complaining about is the problem with the piece.

 

I am guessing that refusing to evolve means he doesn't bow down to analytics.

Don't have to bow to anything, just acknowledge and maybe even try to understand new information that is presented. His job is to report on teams, and all of these teams use these stats now. Harrington is still stuck on goal differential. 

[Stoner]

Don't have to bow to anything, just acknowledge and maybe even try to understand new information that is presented. His job is to report on teams, and all of these teams use these stats now. Harrington is still stuck on goal differential. 

It's a good piece. Is there something in analytics that would disprove the idea that Reinhart was disappointing in his second season? Sometimes simple and logical is the best analysis there is. What did you see with your eyes? The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

[LGR4GM]

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

No but they should be good reporters and blasting Reinhart using bad logic and stats is still bad journalism. He says Sam got worse, using less goals to justify that, then tosses out he went from 19 to 30 assists like it's a garage accomplishment. I don't need fancy stats to tell me he's full of it after that.

 

I was critical of Sams game too. I think the last 20 games he really played mediocre hockey. Sam needs to grow up this off-season and find that fire to get better. He can do that, especially with Eichel as his friend. Basically I think Sam needs to be a center for the season with Kane as his winger. Let's see what that does.

It's a good piece. Is there something in analytics that would disprove the idea that Reinhart was disappointing in his second season? Sometimes simple and logical is the best analysis there is. What did you see with your eyes? The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

No he didn't.

 

Here logic stats... Sam had more points this year compared to last. Therefore he improved.

Edited April 25, 2017 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

The problem lately with Hamilton in general is that he's not doing his homework.  I feel like he used to.  As I said last week, there was a time when I trusted him implicitly.

[TrueBlueGED]

I didn't read it. Now I have to, to see if what WC is complaining about is the problem with the piece.

 

I am guessing that refusing to evolve means he doesn't bow down to analytics.

 

So your first instinct was to say we're complaining just because the article was negative, without ever reading the article? FWIW, stuff like this is why you get accused of trolling.

 

 

It's a good piece. Is there something in analytics that would disprove the idea that Reinhart was disappointing in his second season? Sometimes simple and logical is the best analysis there is. What did you see with your eyes? The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

 

I have a post in that very thread, without a psychedelic sphincter, showing Reinhart was as good or better than all of O'Reilly, Eichel, Kane, and Okposo, in every major statistical category. 

[That Aud Smell]

It's a good piece. Is there something in analytics that would disprove the idea that Reinhart was disappointing in his second season? Sometimes simple and logical is the best analysis there is. What did you see with your eyes? The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

 

It is an objectively stupid and lazy piece. 

 

His comparison to other second picks is not compelling - it is misleading.

 

Kris Baker from prospects had, in apparent response to this garbage-in-garbage-out from Hamilton, a "compelling" comparison and, unlike Hamilton, did his homework (correctly):

 

 

The problem lately with Hamilton in general is that he's not doing his homework.  I feel like he used to.  As I said last week, there was a time when I trusted him implicitly.

 

A-freakin-men.

 

I'll say my "sorry's" if he turns out to be correct about Eichel being a smirking coach-killer and Reinhart being complacent and arrogant. But, as it stands, Hamilton comes off as an ill-informed crank who's cherry picking facts to verify his feelings (and telling those kids to get the hell off his lawn).

[LGR4GM]

What place was Sam in team ppg?

[Eleven]

Aud, thanks for posting what Baker did.  (Frankly, I hope he's able to be a professional hockey writer someday.)

 

Interesting that Yashin and Falloon are above him and Sedin and JVR are below.

[That Aud Smell]

Aud, thanks for posting what Baker did.  (Frankly, I hope he's able to be a professional hockey writer someday.)

 

Interesting that Yashin and Falloon are above him and Sedin and JVR are below.

 

It's almost as if players age and mature differently - that some improve, and some regress.

[MattPie]

It's a good piece. Is there something in analytics that would disprove the idea that Reinhart was disappointing in his second season? Sometimes simple and logical is the best analysis there is. What did you see with your eyes? The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

 

More points, and based on the chart above, he's solidly in the middle of #2 picks in the last couple decades, even taking into account some of those guys may have started playing pro at an older age and some (I'm looking at you, Malkin) played in a much more wide-open era (and on more wide open teams).

 

What place was Sam in team ppg?

 

Without doing the exact math, it's Eichel, ROR, Okposo, Kane, Samson, and Risto, the last three being in the same neighborhood of points (mid-40s). After that, there's a noticeable drop to Gionta and Moulson, and another to McCabe and Foligno.

[Eleven]

It's almost as if players age and mature differently - that some improve, and some regress.

 

Right?

 

By the way, why isn't Eichel on that chart?

[PromoTheRobot]

Hi Everyone - I'm new to the board - first post. I have enjoyed reading threads over time and was soooo excited and amused during the Vesey sweepstakes thread. There's a diversity of opinion here which is great.

 

I'm happy that WildCard started this discussion. Buffalo sports media coverage has been wearing on me for a long time but IMO really crossed the line with the attack on Whaley during his year end PC. Some may agree with their antagonistic questioning but I believe that they were mean spirited. Media coverage is continually treading out-of-bounds. False statements are attributed to Eichel, Pegula and many others. They hide behind "sources" and seem self-justified in stirring the pot. Certainly no accountability for them - except those of us who refuse to give them clicks. I can't respect that type of reporting and believe that the MEDIA is being diminished ---- though their own classless reporting.

 

One thing on Murph. I sometimes think back on the Bills Super Bowl run. He was great back then. We were all so excited to hear anything on the Bills and he was a voice that fueled fandemonium during a fantastic run. When wins are more scarce his optimism has a different effect.

 

Lastly, I more enjoy the reporting of Chuck Pollock and their hockey guy (can't think of his name). Although they seem to be running John Wawrow lately.

 

Looking forward to interacting with y'all.

Be careful defending Whaley over that press conference. It's a trigger for some people.

This gets so old. These guys are not supposed to be cheerleaders for the team. If they write things you hate or disagree with, it doesn't make them terrible. They're doing their job. Advice: stick to sabres.com. Or Chuck Pollock. He loves Terry because they played racquetball once in 1983.

But what is their job?

 

I recently had a twitter exchange with Jay Skurski about his story saying the Bills cap guy Overdorf sucks and should be fired. His argument was because the Bills lost Hogan and Gillislee to the Patriots, Overdorf must be mismanaging the cap.

 

I asked him to be more specific. Why is the cap mismanaged? What contract was a mistake? How much falls on Overdorf when Whaley is signing the players? All I get back is look at the results.

 

I left it there because I didn't want to get into an argument but doesn't that strike you as pretty lazy?

Edited April 25, 2017 by PromoTheRobot

[That Aud Smell]

Right?

 

By the way, why isn't Eichel on that chart?

 

Good eye. Baker lulz'd about that oversight, and said it just slipped his mind.

[dudacek]

The comparison to other second picks is pretty compelling. Paul did his homework there.

PA, I can't believe you looked very closely at the numbers in Hamilton's article.

He comparing career averages of veterans to a Reinharts first two seasons. It's disingenuous at best.

Check the Reinhart thread for more.

[I-90 W]

What place was Sam in team ppg?

Jack 0.93

ROR 0.76

Okposo 0.69

Kane 0.61

Sam 0.59

 

#5 ppg for Sabres, #139 league wide.