Quick links:  Login  |  Sign up  |  Site Rules  |  Support TMLfans

Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate

#30781
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 21, 2011, 10:28:45 AM
Quote from: cw on July 20, 2011, 11:14:41 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 20, 2011, 09:38:46 PM
and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

Here's your statement:
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 20, 2011, 03:45:49 PMThink about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.

In 1982, this was the list when Vachon retired:
1. Terry Sawchuk, 447     
2. Jacques Plante, 437
3. Tony Esposito, 423
4. Glenn Hall, 407
5. Rogatien Vachon, 355
6. Gump Worsley, 335
7. Harry Lumley, 330
8. Turk Broda, 302

Vachon has cup wins and credentials similar to Osgood. He was #5 on the list in 1982 when he retired. Vachon was handily within the top 10 for more than a decade after he retired. And he's still on the outside looking in.

You may "contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket". I would contend that the history of HHoF selection defies that contention using Vachon as a pretty good and reasonable example.

Well, your reply here is not a criticism of me, it's a criticism of the HOF selection committee.  By arguing that Osgood deserves it I am not making any judgment as to whether the HOF committee will agree.  By saying "I contend" I am stating my opinion, not saying that it will in fact happen.  Your reply only shows that Rogie belongs in the HOF. 
#30782
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: Overpaid Leafs
July 21, 2011, 10:21:18 AM
Quote from: cw on July 21, 2011, 07:58:28 AM
Quote from: Saint Nik on July 21, 2011, 06:24:56 AM
Expecting guys to live up to contracts they've already kind of proven they won't doesn't really make a lot of sense. Phaneuf was available because he was a disappointment.

I suspect many hoped or expected Phaneuf would bounce back to perform closer to a level his contract represents. Overall, I don't think he has since he arrived in Toronto. Still hoping he'll figure it out this season ... but I can't say that I expect it. As you say, if he had been performing in Calgary up to the level his deal suggests, he'd probably still be in Calgary.


I agree.  i wish it were otherwise, but I think what we see in Phaneuf is all we'll ever get. 
#30783
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: so is Burke finished..
July 21, 2011, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: Saint Nik on July 21, 2011, 08:45:49 AM
Quote from: buds50 on July 21, 2011, 07:24:19 AM
both sundin and kaberle screwed us out of carter and some high picks and what not by not dropping the ntc ,

Wow, really? Bringing up something from that long ago and still being wrong about it? Want to complain about the Courtnall trade? Keon's feud with Ballard? All these new fangled horseless carriages?

It's a BS argument anyway, refuted a thousand times.  But there will always be some "fans" who find ways to denigrate the two best and most loyal players in recent Leafs history.  I'll let other guess at the motives.
#30784
Main Leafs Hockey Talk / Re: so is Burke finished..
July 21, 2011, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: cw on July 12, 2011, 12:10:58 PM
Brian Burke confidently taking heat
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/adrian_dater/07/12/brian.burke.maple.leafs/
What word would Burke bring to a table full of critics who want him to explain why he has been too quiet for their liking on the trade and free agent markets this summer?

"One word: Dion," he replies.

Further defined, Dion is Dion Phaneuf, the Leafs' captain and defenseman, who was acquired late in 2009-10 by Burke from Calgary.

"We're 45-36-11 since the trade in games he has dressed," Burke says.



Just saw this,  Seriously, Brian?  As someone pointed out, 45-36-11 is 101 points in 92 games, or 1.1 points/game, or 90 points over a season.  It seems BB is supremely confident in his ability to achieve mediocrity.
#30785
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 20, 2011, 09:38:46 PM
Quote from: CarltonTheBear on July 20, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
Patrick Lalime just announced his retirement today. Daniel Tolensky posted some of his stats on twitter:

-Lalime's playoff GAA was 1st among active goalies at the time of his retirement at 1.77 and his save% was 2nd to Tim Thomas at .926.
-His playoff GAA lowest posted since 1941 5th alltime behind Alec Connell ('35), Charlie Gardiner ('34), Lorne Chabot ('36) & Dave Kerr ('41)
-His playoff SVP is third-all time among goalies (.926), behind Tim Thomas (.935) & Olaf Kolzig (.927).
-In the 5 yrs leading up to the lockout, top 5 goalies in wins were Brodeur (202), Kolzig (161), Belfour (159), Joseph (148) & Lalime (146).
-Also in those 5 yrs only Brodeur (39) had more shutouts than Lalime (30 - tied with Belfour) in 82 more GP. Both posted a SO every 10.6 GP.

I was pretty surprised to see his playoff numbers so good, considering, well, you know. I'm not trying to argue that Lalime was a better goalie than Osgood, or that he belongs in the Hall. But in 100 years from now somebody might look at Lalime's statistics and think, man, that dude was a pretty great goalie. And they'd be wrong. Which is why you can put somebody in the Hall just because of what you read on his resume. Osgood was never one of the best goalies on the planet. Osgood was never one of the best players on his teams.  That doesn't sound like a goalie who belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

I draw the opposite conclusion.  Nik was lecturing me about how whizbang individual stats are.  You've just listed a whole bunch of pretty impressive individual stats of a goalie who, in Game 7 against the Leafs, let a Nieuwendyk dipper go five-hole on him to kill off any chance that Captain Diet Coke and Co. would make good on his win guarantee.  In other words, a LOSER.

Seriously -- recall that I said since he's a goalie and the goalie is the most important position on the team then # of wins is the overriding stat.  That's because that while it's a team game the one player disproportionately responsible for the outcome is the goalie.  If that weren't the case we would have won the Cup with Vesa Toskala in net.

and cw: I don't understand your list.  The relevant list is the real one, not one with players removed.

and finally Nik: 10th place is a "silly" cutoff?  Only if you don't live in a Base Ten culture.  Top Ten is a very defensible cutoff, people use that standard all the time.
#30786
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 20, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Busta Reims on July 19, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 19, 2011, 02:18:23 PM
Now that made me laugh out loud.

How do you figure? Wins are a team based statistic. Regardless of your performance, outside of the unlikely possibility that the goalie actually scores the only goal of the game, no individual player can actually win a game by himself.  Being part of a successful team is hardly a good measure of an individual's performance. Osgood was an ordinary goalie - maybe above average in his prime, but, overall, fairly run-of-the-mill as starting goalies go - on a number of great Detroit teams that helped him win a lot of games, regardless of his performance. Case in point - in the 08/09 season, Osgood had a 26-9-8 record despite registering a 3.09 GAA (41st among 47 qualified goalies) and a .887 Sv% (45th among 47 qualified goalies - behind even the Leafs' Vesa Toskala). And this isn't the only season Osgood had where his win totals and his GAA and Sv% did not aline. In just about every single season the man played, his individual statistics (like GAA and Sv%) were middle of the pack while his team-based stats (like wins) were very good. He was an ordinary player on a great team - and ordinary players do not belong in the HHOF.

I just came back to this thread from yesterday and (forgive my bluntness) you guys are all cranked.  Winning is the name of the game.  Winning IS the only relevant statistic, when you get down to the essentials.  Of course I'm being somewhat facetious there but if you are 10th in all-time wins you are NOT an ordinary player.  It's just silly to argue otherwise.

Think about it: if he were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd on the all-time win list, would you deny him entry even if he was an "ordinary" player?  I don't see how anyone could argue that seriously.  If so, then the question is, what's the cutoff?  I contend that top-10 is an automatic ticket.
#30787
Quote from: louisstamos on July 20, 2011, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: BlueWhiteBlood on July 19, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
I think there is a good chance he'll be a leaf after that deal is done. I know a lot of people say that Toronto players like to come home, but with him, I actually think it's true.

I'm not as sure it'll happen with Stamkos, especially if Tampa continues to play well.  From the pre-draft impressions I got, I think Tavares is a more likely candidate to "come home" as a UFA and wants to play for his favorite team...

Well, the Leafs are Stamkos' favorite team as well.  I remember reading some kind of interview when he was with Sarnia saying he'd love to be a Leaf.  But a lot will depend on where TB & TO are, respectively, in 2016.  Yzerman succeeding Burke as our GM in 2013 will help, that's for sure.  8)
#30788
Quote from: Mordac on July 20, 2011, 01:27:21 PM
Ah, Belak...always good for a laugh.

Indeed.  Love the Rhino.
#30789
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 19, 2011, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Saint Nik on July 19, 2011, 02:19:33 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 19, 2011, 02:18:23 PM
Now that made me laugh out loud.

Because you're the one remaining person who thinks Andrew Raycroft had the greatest goaltending season in Maple Leafs history?

Nice deke on the logic front, but I'm calling you on it because we are talking career achievements, not one season.  If Rayzer (oh yeah, I miss that nickname) had done 37 for 11 years in a row, then shiver me timbers, he'd deserve to be in the HOF.
#30790
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 19, 2011, 02:18:23 PM
Quote from: Saint Nik on July 19, 2011, 02:12:07 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 19, 2011, 01:53:35 PM
Since the goalie is the most important position on any team, in Osgood's case you can put up all the arguments you want, but at bottom it's indefensible to privilege a particular opinion (which I happen to share, BTW) over his W-L record.  He won the games, he won the rings.  He's in.

No, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. That's saying that nothing matters, not save percentage, not GAA, not end of year awards or all-star selections or actually trying to examine his impact on the teams he played on(Osgood did not lead his non-Wings teams to much success and the Wings had/have success without him) compared to a ridiculously flawed statistic like wins.

Now that made me laugh out loud.
#30791
General NHL News & Views / Re: Osgood hangs 'em up
July 19, 2011, 01:53:35 PM
Where does 401 wins rank on the alltime list?  10?

He's in.  He has to be.  To deny him the HOF means giving more weight to completely subjective judgments about how much the Wings' success was due to him and how much to the rest of the roster than to the only stat that really matters: the W.  Since the goalie is the most important position on any team, in Osgood's case you can put up all the arguments you want, but at bottom it's indefensible to privilege a particular opinion (which I happen to share, BTW) over his W-L record.  He won the games, he won the rings.  He's in.
#30792
Quote from: cw on July 19, 2011, 12:19:39 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/mirtle/status/93366690200555521

@mirtle
James Mirtle
Crabb's new contract with the Leafs is two-way deal for $750k in NHL and $105k in minors.
10 minutes ago via


What is the NHL league minimum -- is it $750k?  I thought it was closer to $500k.  Nothing against Crabb but has he done anything to earn a contract above the minimum?
#30793
Quote from: Tigger on July 18, 2011, 09:25:02 PM

I'm glad they haven't given up on him too, I'm looking forward to seeing him play for the Leafs next year.

Me too.  Hope he presses Reimer for the starting job, hard competition between two young goalies (well, Gustavsson is not young-young) can't be a bad thing.
#30794
Quote from: Busta Reims on July 18, 2011, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate on July 18, 2011, 03:46:34 PM
Well, you're just restating our basic disagreement.  You are confident that all these new guys could make up a shortfall, and I'm not.  Especially not in the case of Connolly.

It's not just the new guys, though. It's everyone. I mean, let's say Kessel adds 4 to his total, Lupul adds 2 to his and Versteeg's combined totals, Armstrong stays healthy and puts up 16 (roughly his career average) adding 8 to his total, add in a handful more goals from the blueline, and we're back where we started. I mean, I'm not exactly talking about unreasonable gains or wild career seasons or anything. It really doesn't take all that much for the 15 other skaters to make up the difference of 20 goals over the course of a season. Yeah, I'm confident that the offence won't take a significant dip just because one line has dip in production. I mean, the team scored roughly the same amount of goals in 09/10 that they did in 10/11 without the Kulemin-Grabovski-MacArthur line putting up the totals they did - and there's more talent on the 11/12 roster than there was back then. I really think you're just being unnecessarily pessimistic about all this. The Leafs will score at least 210-215 goals next season, right around where they've been for the past couple seasons. I have no doubts about that, and that's not being overconfident about anything either - I mean, that total will still put them in the bottom 1/3 of the league - outside of some devastating injuries or everyone in the top 6 having terrible seasons, that's just where the team's overall talent level puts them as a rough baseline

You could be right, but if we stay even keel in GF that puts a lot of burden on Reimer (and/or Gus).  Still dicey I think.
#30795
Quote from: Busta Reims on July 18, 2011, 03:27:02 PM

You're so focused on the potential regression from a couple guys that you're seemingly refusing to even acknowledge the potential improvement from a number of others.

Well, you're just restating our basic disagreement.  You are confident that all these new guys could make up a shortfall, and I'm not.  Especially not in the case of Connolly.

And of course some people might improve -- there is that potential.  But earlier in your post you said ..."the fact that there will be a couple guys who will inevitably improve....'  That's neither a fact nor inevitable, and even if a couple of guys improve, if those guys are Brown and Boyce, the improvement very likely won't make any difference.