Line-up changes

[Bender]

Just to add .2 cents I also think type of injuries has something to do with it.

Armstrong gets punched in the eye ball, gets his wrist seriously slashed at and breaks his foot with a puck. All visible injuries.

Connoly seems very Alexander Karpotsevish about his injuries.

I know its not fair and makes hardly sense but thats what I think.

I dunno, and injury is an injury no matter how you received it I think. And I'm not sure how you deem one injury more worthy than another. It's not like a breeze knocked Connolly over and he was injured. He battled through the injury the entire Boston game.

[Sarge]

Here's how I see it... You and your significant other go up to Rama... Do you scream louder when he/she places $300.00 on "Red" at the Roulette table or $475.00 on a single number?

Edit: Speaking in cap hit terms (not total deal) of course.

[Guilt Trip]

And yet Colby isn't the whipping boy. No offense, but this is a pretty ludicrous double standard.

Well, first of all, "whipping boy" seems pretty strong. Is there any chance people don't make fun of Connolly? Probably not. But I don't see those jokes as blaming him or "hating" him.

But secondly, the double standard is pretty easily explained. Armstrong, like Clark to some extent, plays a physical game and people chalk up their injuries to that physical style. Connolly is both soft as butter and brittle as, well, brittle.

Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical, and especially so if you want to compare him to Clark. He's not in the same ballpark as Clark was. Yes he is compared to Connolly and he will take the occasional run at someone but the fact is, he doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does, and I don't consider him all that physical.

[Sarge]

And yet Colby isn't the whipping boy. No offense, but this is a pretty ludicrous double standard.

Well, first of all, "whipping boy" seems pretty strong. Is there any chance people don't make fun of Connolly? Probably not. But I don't see those jokes as blaming him or "hating" him.

But secondly, the double standard is pretty easily explained. Armstrong, like Clark to some extent, plays a physical game and people chalk up their injuries to that physical style. Connolly is both soft as butter and brittle as, well, brittle.

Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical, and especially so if you want to compare him to Clark. He's not in the same ballpark as Clark was. Yes he is compared to Connolly and he will take the occasional run at someone but the fact is, he doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does, and I don't consider him all that physical.

Nobody should compare Armstrong to Clark but "Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical?" Please explain.

[Guilt Trip]

And yet Colby isn't the whipping boy. No offense, but this is a pretty ludicrous double standard.

Well, first of all, "whipping boy" seems pretty strong. Is there any chance people don't make fun of Connolly? Probably not. But I don't see those jokes as blaming him or "hating" him.

But secondly, the double standard is pretty easily explained. Armstrong, like Clark to some extent, plays a physical game and people chalk up their injuries to that physical style. Connolly is both soft as butter and brittle as, well, brittle.

Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical, and especially so if you want to compare him to Clark. He's not in the same ballpark as Clark was. Yes he is compared to Connolly and he will take the occasional run at someone but the fact is, he doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does, and I don't consider him all that physical.

Nobody should compare Armstrong to Clark but "Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical?" Please explain.

Please read above......Army for such a physical guy, doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does. Maybe Lupul is a bad example for you.....How bout this...Mike Brown is physical..He finishes every check and punishes people...Army is an agitator, a chirper.....Army isn't Mike Brown.

[Sarge]

And yet Colby isn't the whipping boy. No offense, but this is a pretty ludicrous double standard.

Well, first of all, "whipping boy" seems pretty strong. Is there any chance people don't make fun of Connolly? Probably not. But I don't see those jokes as blaming him or "hating" him.

But secondly, the double standard is pretty easily explained. Armstrong, like Clark to some extent, plays a physical game and people chalk up their injuries to that physical style. Connolly is both soft as butter and brittle as, well, brittle.

Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical, and especially so if you want to compare him to Clark. He's not in the same ballpark as Clark was. Yes he is compared to Connolly and he will take the occasional run at someone but the fact is, he doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does, and I don't consider him all that physical.

Nobody should compare Armstrong to Clark but "Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical?" Please explain.

Please read above......Army for such a physical guy, doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does. Maybe Lupul is a bad example for you.....How bout this...Mike Brown is physical..He finishes every check and punishes people...Army is an agitator, a chirper.....Army isn't Mike Brown.

He's an agitator, yes but I think he plays a physical game too. I think he's capable of backing up his chirping. Does he hit like Dion or or fight like Brown, well no... you've got me there. 

Edit: You know what, I'll correct myself here... I went to Google to find a clip or two of some Armstrong being physical clips and there's literally too many to count. Some of the hits he doles out are indeed Phaneuf-esque. He's physical all right... Much more so then Lupul.

[sneakyray]

reimer's injury is almost as vague as connoly's...and he is far more important to the team success than either of the other guys, and doesn't he have a history of head and neck injuries...oh yeah, and didn't he fight through an entire period before being pulled because of a significant injury.

yeah, I hate that these guys are hurt cause they are all pretty good players but I think arguing what injury hurts the leafs the most is pointless because its pretty obvious that reimer's takes the cake.

new whipping boy reimer?  anyone?

[Bullfrog]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

[Deleted Account]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

[Potvin29]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

[ThatLeafsFan]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

The Leafs do have a better record with Armstrong in the lineup, then when he isn't, he draws a lot of penalties and gets under the skin of the opposing teams top players a lot, too bad so many fans look at stats and determine a players value that way.

Fans need to actually watch games and base their opinions on that, rather then look at the stat sheet and hate on some players.

[Deleted Account]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

Yeah, hence it being a weak argument to counter an equally weak argument. It's hard to convince me that Armstrong is good at shutting down lines when he's on the ice for more goals against than for. If anything, he's rather average at it.

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

[Potvin29]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

[Deleted Account]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

I think it makes perfect sense. Armstrong could be the water boy and it wouldn't matter. As long as he's around the team (which he probably isn't much when he's injured) he'll have a positive impact. His value is in his personality and his leadership. I don't think anything he does on the ice makes more than the slightest bit of difference on whether the Leafs win or lose.

[Potvin29]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

I think it makes perfect sense. Armstrong could be the water boy and it wouldn't matter. As long as he's around the team (which he probably isn't much when he's injured) he'll have a positive impact. His value is in his personality and his leadership. I don't think anything he does on the ice makes more than the slightest bit of difference on whether the Leafs win or lose.

Come to think of it the Leafs were 25-19-6 with Armstrong last year, so essentially 25-25. If the only difference between Armstrong and no Armstrong is average and terrible, then again, I don't think he makes that much of a difference.

With him they got points at a 91 point pace, and without him, they got points at a 74 point pace.

And if you want to include the games he's played this season, they are 29-19-7 with him in the lineup since he's been a Leaf - or a 97 point pace.

Including this season's games, without him they are 18-20-1 - or a 77 point pace.

You might want to belittle it, but those are huge discrepancies and important ones.