Where are you getting that he is a one dimensional player with a crappy attitude from? I don't think that is the case.
- MJL

Sarcasm good sir. Sarcasm.

Still a weak argument. You want to say he was a non factor and was just there when the data says differently. You're making a bad argument here because nobody has said that anyone is making a decision solely based on one game. That is your invention.
- MJL

never said this. reread if you need to.

never said this. reread if you need to.
- gritty_committee

You're right, I misread that. To address what you did say. We're not discussing NHL teams. We're discussing your claim that Gauthier was a non factor in the game.

You're right, I misread that. To address what you did say. We're not discussing NHL teams. We're discussing your claim that Gauthier was a non factor in the game.
- MJL

i see a guy that has numbers simply because he was on the ice during an NHL game.

he didn't have a bad game. he didn't have a great game. You said he was "solid" - I don't know what this means.

advanced stats are more relevant over a long sample size, not a single game. in this scenario, they are being used to prop up a pretty average performance. which is fine and to be expected. he's a rookie.

i see a guy that has numbers simply because he was on the ice during an NHL game.

he didn't have a bad game. he didn't have a great game. You said he was "solid" - I don't know what this means.

advanced stats are more relevant over a long sample size, not a single game. in this scenario, they are being used to prop up a pretty average performance.
- gritty_committee

What you see is irrelevant. That can be said about every player. It's just simply a bias.You're just simply offering an opinion with no substance behind it. No facts to support it. It's an unintelligent argument that ignores the facts simply because you think they don't matter.

I'll post it again, when he was on the ice, his team controlled shot share at 61.29%. A GF% of 100%. xGF% which is a measure of shot quality was 75.97% Scoring chances were 8 to 6 Anaheim and high danger chances were 4-0 Anaheim. He was second on his team in Individual CF%, 2nd in individual scoring chances and created the most rebounds for his team.

Perhaps you're just not aware that all of that shows that Anaheim had control of the game when he was on the ice. That Anaheim had the puck more and had more scoring chances. Perhaps you're not aware that if you have the puck, the other team can't score. In what was essentially a one goal game and a close game, that level of play is most definitely a factor.

I'll happily read any facts that you can offer that proves that he was a non factor in the game. Based on your posts so far. I don't think that is going to happen.

What you see is irrelevant. That can be said about every player. It's just simply a bias.You're just simply offering an opinion with no substance behind it. No facts to support it. It's an unintelligent argument that ignores the facts simply because you think they don't matter.

I'll post it again, when he was on the ice, his team controlled shot share at 61.29%. A GF% of 100%. xGF% which is a measure of shot quality was 75.97% Scoring chances were 8 to 6 Anaheim and high danger chances were 4-0 Anaheim. He was second on his team in Individual CF%, 2nd in individual scoring chances and created the most rebound attempts for his team.

Perhaps you're just not aware that all of that shows that Anaheim had control of the game when he was on the ice. That Anaheim had the puck more and had more scoring chances. Perhaps you're not aware that if you have the puck, the other team can't score. In what was essentially a one goal game and a close game, that level of play is most definitely a factor.

I'll happily read any facts that you can offer that proves that he was a non factor in the game. Based on your posts so far. I don't think that is going to happen.
- MJL

Putting those statistics aside. Do you think he was a factor in the game that you watched?

Pickett the new Foles!!!

Spectacular goal by Cutter versus the Oilers

What you see is irrelevant. That can be said about every player. It's just simply a bias.You're just simply offering an opinion with no substance behind it. No facts to support it. It's an unintelligent argument that ignores the facts simply because you think they don't matter.

I'll post it again, when he was on the ice, his team controlled shot share at 61.29%. A GF% of 100%. xGF% which is a measure of shot quality was 75.97% Scoring chances were 8 to 6 Anaheim and high danger chances were 4-0 Anaheim. He was second on his team in Individual CF%, 2nd in individual scoring chances and created the most rebounds for his team.

Perhaps you're just not aware that all of that shows that Anaheim had control of the game when he was on the ice. That Anaheim had the puck more and had more scoring chances. Perhaps you're not aware that if you have the puck, the other team can't score. In what was essentially a one goal game and a close game, that level of play is most definitely a factor.

I'll happily read any facts that you can offer that proves that he was a non factor in the game. Based on your posts so far. I don't think that is going to happen.
- MJL

you're attaching numbers to nothing plays. again, i see a guy who was on the ice during an nhl game. those numbers speak more about the team and not the player.

those numbers over the course of one game don't come close to telling any story.

you're attaching numbers to nothing plays. again, i see a guy who was on the ice during an nhl game. those numbers speak more about the team and not the player.

those numbers over the course of one game don't come close to telling any story.
- gritty_committee

I'm not attaching anything. It's simply the data of the game. Stating that it's nothing plays just exposes a lack of understanding of the game and what really drives it. You're still making generic comments and weak arguments not supported by any facts or reality. Nor have you supported that it's more about the team than the individual player. I already debunked that with individual numbers. It is an unintelligent argument and unless you can up with something even remotely relevant factually to support your views. Not much reason to continue. You showed up to a gun fight with a butter knife.

I'm not attaching anything. It's simply the data of the game. Stating that it's nothing plays just exposes a lack of understanding of the game and what really drives it. You're still making generic comments and weak arguments not supported by any facts or reality. Nor have you supported that it's more about the team than the individual player. I already debunked that with individual numbers. It is an unintelligent argument and unless you can up with something even remotely relevant factually to support your views. Not much reason to continue. You showed up to a gun fight with a butter knife.
- MJL

you've proven you don't know how to use advanced stats if you are putting any stock in them over the course of one game.

butter knife wins.

you've proven you don't know how to use advanced stats if you are putting any stock in them over the course of one game.

butter knife wins.
- gritty_committee

The expert analytics community would disagree with you. They can absolutely be used to assess a players play in a game and they are. Which is why an NHL coach gets a report from the analytics staff on players performance after every game. You've really exposed yourself here. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but I'm now wasting my time.

Laughton with a terrific screen on Kolosov

Foerster turning into a power fwd- learning to use his size to his advantage.

he wanted a guarantee just like Rutger did.

heard from who? JD? Kevin Cronin?
- login

The Broad cast team