Leafs @ Lightning - Dec. 29th, 7:30pm - SNO, Fan 590

[Bonsixx]

I like my regional broadcasts to be from my teams point of view with leaf goals called with a little more enthusiasm

You like what you like, and that's cool, but I've never really understood this. As a Leafs fan growing up in Newfoundland, we got Bob Cole calling Leafs games on HNIC usually, and that's pretty much all we got to hear, so when I finally heard Joe Bowen I couldn't stand his homerism. (Even though Habs fans will tell you Cole loves the Leafs, despite the fact(?) he's actually a fan of the Habs.)

Listen to Jack Edwards doing the Boston/Buffalo game tonight. That stuff is just embarrassing. Is that what you want? Though I'll give the devil his due and admit he had a point about the linesman wrapping the Boston player as he got punched in the face repeatedly by the guy the other linesman couldn't restrain.

[bustaheims]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

[Deebo]

I like my regional broadcasts to be from my teams point of view with leaf goals called with a little more enthusiasm

You like what you like, and that's cool, but I've never really understood this. As a Leafs fan growing up in Newfoundland, we got Bob Cole calling Leafs games on HNIC usually, and that's pretty much all we got to hear, so when I finally heard Joe Bowen I couldn't stand his homerism. (Even though Habs fans will tell you Cole loves the Leafs, despite the fact(?) he's actually a fan of the Habs.)

Listen to Jack Edwards doing the Boston/Buffalo game tonight. That stuff is just embarrassing. Is that what you want? Though I'll give the devil his due and admit he had a point about the linesman wrapping the Boston player as he got punched in the face repeatedly by the guy the other linesman couldn't restrain.

There is something in between over the top homerism and completely impartial.

[TBLeafer]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

[Tigger]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

What majorly flawed ideal would that be?

[Nik]

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

If you're going to try to be condescending, it'd help if you got you're/your straight.

[TBLeafer]

You guys are funny. Your stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

If you're going to try to be condescending, it'd help if you got you're/your straight.

Damn auto-correct. Condescending? I didn't call you intrinsically flawed, I called the ideal behind getting another top lottery pick intrinsically flawed.  How is that condescending?

[TBLeafer]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

What majorly flawed ideal would that be?

Wanting another top 5 draft pick.  Its all the wrong kind of greedy.

[Tigger]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

What majorly flawed ideal would that be?

Wanting another top 5 draft pick.  Its all the wrong kind of greedy.

What does that have to do with you cherry picking stats?

[Nik]

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

In terms of goals for Florida is 26th in the league, Phoenix 29th and Colorado 30th. The Leafs played those three and gave up an average of 39 shots a night. Throw in a slightly better performance against a marginally better team(albeit one without their best player) and it's still 36 shots a night for the trip.

The wins were all fun but they were offense/goaltending wins. The defense has not been good by any legitimate metric. Admittedly this is a "conversation" with someone allergic to anything resembling fact but even still this is an egregious example of selective interpretation.

[TBLeafer]

Gosh. It's not like those questions were cherry picked. You've convinced me for definite.

It's almost like having your goaltending put up a Sv% of ~.950 reduces goals against significantly, even when the team is giving up 32+ shots on a regular basis.

You guys are funny. You're stubbornness to hold onto a majorly flawed ideal actually makes me smile.  :)

What majorly flawed ideal would that be?

Wanting another top 5 draft pick.  Its all the wrong kind of greedy.

What does that have to do with you cherry picking stats?

I didn't cherry pick anything, I just asked a couple questions.

How they perceived is not my fault.

[Tigger]

Reality check time. Our D is getting pretty good as is.

Sure.

I'll let you do the work.

Starter or backup, how many goals were allowed this road trip?

How many shots allowed with Bibeau in net?

People are referring to this as cherry picking stats to support your claim that the Leafs defense is fine. When this is pointed out you start talking about a majorly flawed ideal that no one is talking about.

[TBLeafer]

Reality check time. Our D is getting pretty good as is.

Sure.

I'll let you do the work.

Starter or backup, how many goals were allowed this road trip?

How many shots allowed with Bibeau in net?

People are referring to this as cherry picking stats to support your claim that the Leafs defense is fine. When this is pointed out you start talking about a majorly flawed ideal that no one is talking about.

I didn't provide stats. So I didn't cherry pick and our defence IS improving.

You disagree?

[Nik]

I didn't provide stats. So I didn't cherry pick and our defence IS improving.

Oh get real. You asked those questions knowing the answers. Shockingly, shots against only mattered to you in the one game where the Leafs did well. Those weren't genuine inquiries looking for information, those were rhetorical questions of careful chosen criteria(or cherry-picked, to use a colloquialism) intended to prove a point.

We've all been doing this for a long time. You're not as clever, and far more transparent, than you think you are. You are the epitome of the old maxim of misusing statistics the way a drunk misuses a lamppost.

[Tigger]

Reality check time. Our D is getting pretty good as is.

Sure.

I'll let you do the work.

Starter or backup, how many goals were allowed this road trip?

How many shots allowed with Bibeau in net?

People are referring to this as cherry picking stats to support your claim that the Leafs defense is fine. When this is pointed out you start talking about a majorly flawed ideal that no one is talking about.

I didn't provide stats. So I didn't cherry pick and our defence IS improving.

You disagree?

Are you freaking serious? Now you're arguing that you're not trying to back up your claim with those numbers?

Get bent.