GDT: Capitals @ Sabres - Feb. 26, 2023, 1pm, MSG, WGR

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Just checking, the Sabres did WIN this game, right?

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

I came here to post what a pleasantly surprising win that was, and a fun one to boot.  FFS you’d think the score was reversed.

This is just more “congrats, you found a negative!”, good-wins-should-equal-say-only-nice-things gatekeeping, I’m sorry. 
 

This is when the talks get the most fun: when we can debate the more minutia because we are at a stage where *it IS* the small things that represent the difference between good and great: because we’ve established such a solid base.

I’ve been waiting for this day since I joined the board 
 

If you want “hooray team!” (Which there actually is a lot of in this thread too, obviously, speaking for myself and dare I say others) exclusively, there’s always Stan twitter. If that’s what we actually want in here, I’ll willingly bow out. My reading is the group would be leaning overall towards more balanced and varied discussion but I could be wrong as it certainly depend on who you ask 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your full of yourself. Read your response. I specifically talked about this game. You directed your comment toward me. And I answered it. If you can't handle my response, then so be it. That's your issue--not mine. 

Keep attacking me, I find it fun. Where I attacked the general view that upl wasn't that bad, you keep going personal. Why is that? 

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I just chuckle at it at this point because there is no consistency - starting goalie is held to wildly different standards than the other positions. No one is going to argue UPL is *above* average, right? So being gracious let’s say he is average. What other position is that labelled “Check. Good enough to win if the rest of the roster does it’s job.”? What is the average 1C? 50-60 points? Would we be content to write off that sort of production as inclusive of realistically achieving the goals we want, and look to the rest of the team every time we came up short because our top guy scores 2 points every 3 games?  If every position was filled by an average player, wouldn’t we be about league average? That’s not the endgame, is it? 

i keep saying, there’s nothing wrong with wanting a *good* goalie. I feel like that’s the entire point 

Who doesn't want a good goalie? Name a goalie that you believe that our GM is pursuing to improve that unit? 

[TageMVP]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Hey Siri, how are NHL goals scored. 

Are you saying every goal scored is due to a defensive breakdown? What about goals that are tipped? Deflected? Defensive positioning could be sound on those types of goals 

[Crusader1969]

1 hour ago, Night Train said:

Coming into today UPL in February

.856 Save %

5.35 GA

So he lowered that today with 4.

 

Anypne got some pig lipstick ? 

 

The leafs game would kill anyones stats 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not satisfied with him. But out of fairness, if you review the goals he gave up today, I would attribute almost all the goals to the porous defense in front of him. I've been strongly advocating another Lyubushkin caliber player to the unit. That would help all the netminders. 

I wouldn't. 

1 minute ago, TageMVP said:

Are you saying every goal scored is due to a defensive breakdown? What about goals that are tipped? Deflected? Defensive positioning could be sound on those types of goals 

Most are, but we've reached the semantics argument portion of the evening. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

 

This is just more “congrats, you found a negative!”, good-wins-should-equal-say-only-nice-things gatekeeping, I’m sorry. 
 

This is when the talks get the most fun: when we can debate the more minutia because we are at a stage where *it IS* the small things that represent the difference between good and great: because we’ve established such a solid base. 
 

If you want “hooray team!” (Which there actually is a lot of in this thread too, obviously, speaking for myself and dare I say others) exclusively, there’s always Stan twitter. If that’s what we actually want in here, I’ll willingly bow out. My reading is the group would be leaning overall towards more balanced and varied discussion but I could be wrong as it certainly depend on who you ask 

Not at all.  Just find all the back and forth on Ukka Pukka Dukka no longer has anything to do wiht the thread and could probably fit better into one of the several threads about the goaltending in general or UPL specifically.

And, don't really care that the discussion has turned away from the thread topic.  Yours truly is one of the worst offenders around here of that offence.  Just found it interesting and worthy of comment.  MHO.  YMMV.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

The leafs game would kill anyones stats 

 

 

OK, take the Leafs game out and redo the numbers. Let us know what you come up with. 

[JohnC]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Keep attacking me, I find it fun. Where I attacked the general view that upl wasn't that bad, you keep going personal. Why is that? 

I'm not attacking you. You are being too sensitive. Again, and again, I stated my view on UPL in this specific game. You took my response as a defense of the caliber of goalie he is. That is an inaccurate interpretation of my response/s. It's as simple as that. You act as if I'm assaulting your character and your integrity. I'm not. You are taking things too personally. Sometimes the commentary results in some unintentional stings. That's not what I intended. Let it go and move on.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JohnC said:

I'm not attacking you. You are being too sensitive. Again, and again, I stated my view on UPL in this specific game. You took my response as a defense of the caliber of goalie he is. That is an inaccurate interpretation of my response/s. It's as simple as that. You act as if I'm assaulting your character and your integrity. I'm not. You are taking things too personally. Sometimes the commentary results in some unintentional stings. That's not what I intended. Let it go and move on.

... I mean... you didn't even make it a sentence. And I'm taking it personally?

Hold on...

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Did you watch this game? The goals he gave up were for the most part not his fault. I didn't say he was good or bad. That wasn't even part of the discussion. Pay attention to what is actually being said and not what you think the person said. You are distorting my comments to fit your narrative. 

Right. 

I agree though. Let's move on. 

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Who doesn't want a good goalie? Name a goalie that you believe that our GM is pursuing to improve that unit? 

I’m not blaming Adams in this thread, if you’ve noticed. I’m simply pointing out the statistical reality of what UPL has shown, continues to show, and what we do or do not yet know he’ll show in the future. And notably weighing that perception verses the way I commonly, though admittedly anecdotally, see the other positions being perceived by the same group 

Good thread honestly 

carry on 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Thorny

[Norcal]

This thread didn't disappoint, thank you all 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Taro T said:

Huh?  Which of the 2 sentences you highlighted weren't sentences?

I see what you did there. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I see what you did there. 

Not intentionally.  (Thus the deletion more or less immediately, as what youd meant finally twigged.)   It's been a long week.

[PickaPecaPickles]

3 minutes ago, Norcal said:

This thread didn't disappoint, thank you all 

Yeah, the discussion is really overshadowing Lyubushkin setting a career high in points today.  Shame...

[Thorner]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not at all.  Just find all the back and forth on Ukka Pukka Dukka no longer has anything to do wiht the thread and could probably fit better into one of the several threads about the goaltending in general or UPL specifically.

And, don't really care that the discussion has turned away from the thread topic.  Yours truly is one of the worst offenders around here of that offence.  Just found it interesting and worthy of comment.  MHO.  YMMV.

but THIS thread is HOT HOT HOT

says so on the main page

im an agent of chaos  lively discussion

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

This is just more “congrats, you found a negative!”, good-wins-should-equal-say-only-nice-things gatekeeping, I’m sorry. 
 

This is when the talks get the most fun: when we can debate the more minutia because we are at a stage where *it IS* the small things that represent the difference between good and great: because we’ve established such a solid base.

I’ve been waiting for this day since I joined the board 
 

If you want “hooray team!” (Which there actually is a lot of in this thread too, obviously, speaking for myself and dare I say others) exclusively, there’s always Stan twitter. If that’s what we actually want in here, I’ll willingly bow out. My reading is the group would be leaning overall towards more balanced and varied discussion but I could be wrong as it certainly depend on who you ask 

Gatekeeper?  Thats a new label for me.  I’m just commenting on how weirdly negative this all sounds after a huge, entertaining win with 2 of our arguably top 3 players on the shelf.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not intentionally.  (Thus the deletion more or less immediately, as what youd meant finally twigged.)   It's been a long week.

Lol, it broke the tension. Honestly I think John C is one of our better posters.

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

Gatekeeper?  Thats a new label for me.  I’m just commenting on how weirdly negative this all sounds after a huge, entertaining win with 2 of our arguably top 3 players on the shelf.

It was a really fun game. Start to finish it was enjoyable to watch. 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Gatekeeper?  Thats a new label for me.  I’m just commenting on how weirdly negative this all sounds after a huge, entertaining win with 2 of our arguably top 3 players on the shelf.

Im sorry it comes off that way. will have to continue to try and work on my framing. 
- - -

That’s what I tried I explain, to me the stage where we are debating very specific faults in a sea of good things is the mark of a good team. It’s what I’ve been waiting a decade for. The fun discussion. When we are bad I don’t think the discussion is better, though the “this team sucks” seemed to often in the old GDTs, be what the discussion amounted to, understandably. There’s a lot of cheering deservedly during the game and it fits great there but I don’t think “this team rules” serves as well as a capper: when I’m feeling good I want to talk more and patting the team on the back after is great it’s just not that interesting discussion wise.
 

We all love the Sabres, we all swooned during the match but after the game I want to have the hubris to pretend I have any solitary idea how to fix the remaining areas that need fixing 

thank u very much 

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

It was a really fun game. Start to finish it was enjoyable to watch. 

Hallelujah! We agree in this thread. Let's celebrate:

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Hallelujah! We agree in this thread. Let's celebrate:

[JohnC]

Attached is a link from NHL.com

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2022/wildcard

[JohnC]

Does anyone know what the attendance was? On TV it looked like a full house. 

[pi2000]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Does anyone know what the attendance was? On TV it looked like a full house. 

More than 6 probably 

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Does anyone know what the attendance was? On TV it looked like a full house. 

PTR had posted that there were about 300 seats left around 11:30 AM.  Close enough to a sellout for gubmint work.