Who is the Worst Member of the Buffalo Media?

[will]

Harrington was on the SiriusXM NHL channel a couple hours ago this morning, and his 15min contribution boiled down to "c'mon, we all know this is what's going on, even though I have zero facts." you could hear the deep sighs from the co-host after every blurb followed by a valiant attempt to keep some sense of integrity instilled in the conversation, but it was embarassing at best...to hear a journalist literally making stuff up on the fly. Eff Harrington.

[qwksndmonster]

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.

This is always my least favorite defense of terrible writers. People read it so they're doing their jobs!!!

 

Yeah, and Suicide Squad made a truckload of money and won an oscar.

[Thorner]

Ya, this "Total Goals is the only important metric when evaluating performance" thought needs to die a quick death. Connor McDavid says hello. Eichel and Reinhart are generally going to be leaning towards the playmaking side of things. Eichel will probably have years like Sid Crosby where he dials up the goal total when needed, but more commonly Crosby (like McDavid) stacks up the assist total.

 

Reinhart's point total went up. If that keeps happening on a regular basis, I'm happy.

[WildCard]

FWIW, Vogl and Wawrow seem pretty good at their job. So it's not all negative

[Stoner]

FWIW, Vogl and Wawrow seem pretty good at their job. So it's not all negative

Those guys are beat writers, not commentators. They are as close to journalists as we'll get when it comes to coverage of an NHL team in Buffalo, NY. They play it straight, which is probably why you like them. They've never, or rarely, expressed a negative opinion about your team.

Edited April 25, 2017 by PASabreFan

[MattPie]

Those guys are beat writers, not commentators. They are as close to journalists as we'll get when it comes to coverage of an NHL team in Buffalo, NY. They play it straight, which is probably why you like them. They've never, or rarely, expressed a negative, uninformed, shallow opinion about your team.

 

FTFY!

[WildCard]

Those guys are beat writers, not commentators. They are as close to journalists as we'll get when it comes to coverage of an NHL team in Buffalo, NY. They play it straight, which is probably why you like them. They've never, or rarely, expressed a negative opinion about your team.

It's funny, because you know how you've been running around saying things get old? Claiming we only hate negative writers about our teams gets old too. Murphy is a well known homer and people don't like him either

Edited April 25, 2017 by WildCard

[Stoner]

This is always my least favorite defense of terrible writers. People read it so they're doing their jobs!!!

 

Yeah, and Suicide Squad made a truckload of money and won an oscar.

That's not my point. Their job is to "tell it like it is," as they see it. And that offends many fans, who bristle at the "outside" criticism, while they rip the team all they want among friends. Just human nature.

[Eleven]

It's funny, because you know how you've been running around saying things get old? Claiming we only hate negative writers about our teams gets old too. Murphy is a well known homer and people don't like him either

 

That's a great point.  I can't stand his show because he is completely unable to criticize the Bills.  I can't stand Gleason and Sullivan (or rather I couldn't--I haven't read either in years) because they are completely unable to be anything but miserable.

[WildCard]

That's not my point. Their job is to "tell it like it is," as they see it. And that offends many fans, who bristle at the "outside" criticism, while they rip the team all they want among friends. Just human nature.

It doesn't offend us, they should just be held to a different standard. At least when we rip on our team on here, there's a ton of effort and research that goes into it, and we don't even benefit from it. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by WildCard

[Stoner]

It doesn't offend us, they should just be held to a different standard. At least when we rip on our team on here, there's a ton of effort and research that goes into it. 

You're writing for a different audience. The general public really isn't up for advanced analytics. Paul thinks Reinhart regressed, is behind other second picks and got lazy. He made his case. I don't know what you want, a 10,000 word, illustrated treatise?

[LGR4GM]

You're writing for a different audience. The general public really isn't up for advanced analytics. Paul thinks Reinhart regressed, is behind other second picks and got lazy. He made his case. I don't know what you want, a 10,000 word, illustrated treatise?

He didn't make his case. That's literally the point. That article, even if you ignored the evidence used, is written pretty terribly. 

[WildCard]

You're writing for a different audience. The general public really isn't up for advanced analytics. Paul thinks Reinhart regressed, is behind other second picks and got lazy. He made his case. I don't know what you want, a 10,000 word, illustrated treatise?

There's a massive gap between a 10,000 word treatise and just being lazy. What I want is to do his job like Elliot Friedman, Kris Baker, or someone similar. It took this board a combined 20m to sniff out the crap in his article and find the proper stats. If that's him being lazy, that's to an absurd level. More likely, going with his Eichel and the kids are too spoiled routine, he wrote a garbage article to fit his own narrative   

[Stoner]

He didn't make his case. That's literally the point. That article, even if you ignored the evidence used, is written pretty terribly. 

Semantics. He presented his case.

[WildCard]

Semantics. He presented his case.

Terribly so

[Randall Flagg]

You're writing for a different audience. The general public really isn't up for advanced analytics. Paul thinks Reinhart regressed, is behind other second picks and got lazy. He made his case. I don't know what you want, a 10,000 word, illustrated treatise?

 

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.

Reinhart had a disappointing season, PA, and a lot of people think that. But using the comparison method Hamilton did, which you still haven't commented on, is the most laughable joke of an argument I've ever seen from someone who gets paid to have hockey opinions. My jaw hit the floor when I read it. If a casual hockey friend fan of mine tried to do that, I'd never speak to him about hockey again. It was that bad. When combined with the narrative he tried to build against Samson all season long, about him turning lazy because he hadn't been to the ROR practice during the stretch when the coaches canceled the ROR practice because the team had 11 games in 19 days, and then with Samson later being reported to have gone to ROR practices after this stretch, well, that's why people have a problem with the article and with Paul. Not because he criticized our precious hockey team.

[Stoner]

There's a massive gap between a 10,000 word treatise and just being lazy. What I want is to do his job like Elliot Friedman, Kris Baker, or someone similar. It took this board a combined 20m to sniff out the crap in his article and find the proper stats. If that's him being lazy, that's to an absurd level. More likely, going with his Eichel and the kids are too spoiled routine, he wrote a garbage article to fit his own narrative   

This is cropping up wayyyyy too much. How smart some of you think you are. How analytics always has the correct answer and everyone else is dumb and lazy. It's not a matter of a computer spitting out the answer. We have a human here with eyes, a human who goes to all the practices and noticed that Reinhart started skipping the O'Reilly practices (Flagg's contention notwithstanding). People are going to put at least as much stock in that as Nearsighted Lopsided Fenwick on Jewish Holidays.

[Doctor of Philhousley]

Reinhart had a disappointing season, PA, and a lot of people think that. But using the comparison method Hamilton did, which you still haven't commented on, is the most laughable joke of an argument I've ever seen from someone who gets paid to have hockey opinions. My jaw hit the floor when I read it. If a casual hockey friend fan of mine tried to do that, I'd never speak to him about hockey again. It was that bad. When combined with the narrative he tried to build against Samson all season long, about him turning lazy because he hadn't been to the ROR practice during the stretch when the coaches canceled the ROR practice because the team had 11 games in 19 days, and then with Samson later being reported to have gone to ROR practices after this stretch, well, that's why people have a problem with the article and with Paul. Not because he criticized our precious hockey team.

What Flagg said. 

[Stoner]

Reinhart had a disappointing season, PA, and a lot of people think that. But using the comparison method Hamilton did, which you still haven't commented on, is the most laughable joke of an argument I've ever seen from someone who gets paid to have hockey opinions. My jaw hit the floor when I read it. If a casual hockey friend fan of mine tried to do that, I'd never speak to him about hockey again. It was that bad. When combined with the narrative he tried to build against Samson all season long, about him turning lazy because he hadn't been to the ROR practice during the stretch when the coaches canceled the ROR practice because the team had 11 games in 19 days, and then with Samson later being reported to have gone to ROR practices after this stretch, well, that's why people have a problem with the article and with Paul. Not because he criticized our precious hockey team.

And there's the Flagg Contention!

[WildCard]

This is cropping up wayyyyy too much. How smart some of you think you are. How analytics always has the correct answer and everyone else is dumb and lazy. It's not a matter of a computer spitting out the answer. We have a human here with eyes, a human who goes to all the practices and noticed that Reinhart started skipping the O'Reilly practices (Flagg's contention notwithstanding). People are going to put at least as much stock in that as Nearsighted Lopsided Fenwick on Jewish Holidays.

Wait what?

 

PA, I don't know how many times this has to be said, but again, Hamilton's article didn't need analytics; Baker's didn't and was a good point. Vogl doesn't use analytics, and I've never seen Friedman drool over them in any of his articles. So maybe stop harping on us all being some high browed ass-hats because we like stats. His article sucked because he took what was easily identified as a 3rd graders logic to manipulate numbers to prove a point. 

[Jacque Richard]

Wes goforth or Mike nolan or chuck Healy or rick azar

[Randall Flagg]

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.

Oh, you did comment on it. 

 

Yikes.

[Eleven]

Reinhart had a disappointing season, PA, and a lot of people think that. But using the comparison method Hamilton did, which you still haven't commented on, is the most laughable joke of an argument I've ever seen from someone who gets paid to have hockey opinions. My jaw hit the floor when I read it. If a casual hockey friend fan of mine tried to do that, I'd never speak to him about hockey again. It was that bad. When combined with the narrative he tried to build against Samson all season long, about him turning lazy because he hadn't been to the ROR practice during the stretch when the coaches canceled the ROR practice because the team had 11 games in 19 days, and then with Samson later being reported to have gone to ROR practices after this stretch, well, that's why people have a problem with the article and with Paul. Not because he criticized our precious hockey team.

 

You don't expect him to actually...address this, do you?

[Thorner]

Reinhart had a disappointing season, PA, and a lot of people think that. But using the comparison method Hamilton did, which you still haven't commented on, is the most laughable joke of an argument I've ever seen from someone who gets paid to have hockey opinions. My jaw hit the floor when I read it. If a casual hockey friend fan of mine tried to do that, I'd never speak to him about hockey again. It was that bad. When combined with the narrative he tried to build against Samson all season long, about him turning lazy because he hadn't been to the ROR practice during the stretch when the coaches canceled the ROR practice because the team had 11 games in 19 days, and then with Samson later being reported to have gone to ROR practices after this stretch, well, that's why people have a problem with the article and with Paul. Not because he criticized our precious hockey team.

Disagree Sam had a disappointing season, agree with the rest, well said.

[Stoner]

Oh, you did comment on it. 

 

Yikes.

So, we're done? To be honest, I just skimmed it. I promise, baby.

 

To your point about the ROR practices, what is the source for that? If Reinhart attended those practices every time or almost every time they were held, I'd look at Hamilton's opinion much differently. Hammy's at every practice, home and away. How do you think he got that so wrong?