AHL- Apolyton Hockey League III-- Olympic edition

[Sparrowhawk]

Any stat which argues that the best PKer on the Canucks is Pettinger is complete crap.

All it measures is how often they are put out there. It doesn't actually measure performance. IIRC, they haven't been using Burr + Kes on the PK as much this year, and unsurprisingly, they are not doing as well as they have in the past.

I think you have it right here Ben. The TOI doesn't say that they are the best PK on the Canucks, but merely the one that the Canucks Coaching staff have put out there the most often to kill penalties. Who is the better penalty killer is still open for debate, but if the coaches put Pettinger out there more often then any other Canuck I would think they have a reason and who are we to argue it.

[action=Sparrowhawk][/action]

[Asher]

I think it's obvious that Ben knows more about the strengths of the individual players of the Canucks than the Canucks coaching staff.

[Kitschum]

Hockey, eh

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is the better penalty killer is still open for debate, but if the coaches put Pettinger out there more often then any other Canuck I would think they have a reason and who are we to argue it.

You are aware that Pettinger has only played 7 games this season? Ashers 'stat' only measures the average minutes PER GAME PLAYED.

Not only does it fail to show effectiveness, but also, the stat is unadjusted for a minimum number of games.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's obvious that Ben knows more about the strengths of the individual players of the Canucks than the Canucks coaching staff.

We need a new phrase.

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and Asher stats.

[Flubber]

Using time on ice on the Penalty kill as a measure of PK effectiveness is the worst argument I've seen from you in a long time.

I'm just sad that Flubber would rather go along with you than think for himself.

I alway think for myself thanks.

So far you argument seems to be that Burrows is an amazing PK guy because you say so. Answer this

1. Is not the Canuck PK 20th in the league?
2. Is Burrows the most used PK guy by the staff (ignore pettinger)
3. What stat or evidence do you have of that PK amazingness other than the fact that you said so. Since you seem to think that the Swiss got a PP goal last night your credibility is a little thin even with respect to the hockey basics. That and your statement that Burrows was more productive than Iggy when Iggy has more goals and more assists.

[Flubber]

Right, and Gretzky was awesome in the '88 canada cup too.

Maybe he should be the captain here.

Ben -- Asher was refuting your statements and clear imoplications that Iggy had never done anything significant internationally which is clearly and demonstrably false.

AS for Gretzky? If he had averaged 90 points the prior 3 seasons and had 57 points this year, he'd be on my Olympic team.

[Flubber]

How am I a liar? He got his bell rung and was useless. Two options.

1. He was concussed.

or 2, he played like crap.

Neither of which bode well against teams better then the Swiss.

Sorry-- Are you arguing either

1. that a player is at fault for getting blindsided when he doesn't have the puck or

2. that a player on a weaker team team is incapable of such a blindside. Damn you obviously never saw a senior B, junior B or lower level pro game. and those folks had enough size and strength to injure even elite NHL Players

[Flubber]

Sigh. Why does productivity when you are the only guy who can score at all relevant to an all star team? Wouldn't Burrows who is used to working with talented players be a better fit?



.

Double sigh .

No-- It is far more impressive to have offensive production when you are the lone star on your team. This is true because

1. defenses key on you more
2. you get fewer assists as your linemates don't have as good an ability to finish plays
3. You get fewer goals because your linemates are not razzle dazzling the defense and affording you tap-ins etc etc

Exhibit A is the Shark line-- All those guys are better and having increased offensive production because there are three bona fide stars on the line. You cannot key on Thornton-- Instead of Cheechoo missing the net, Heatley buries those wonderful passes.

Ben please isn't this so obvious it hardly needs to be said? If an elite player makes a great set-up pass 10 times to a no-hands idiot maybe two goals result, make the same pass to an elite scorer and 8 goals result. Now Ben for 1000 points and a lollipop, in which situation does the elite passer get more points? Put another way. Imagine Sydney Crosby had to play all the rest of his nhl shifts this year teamed up with 4 quadrapalegics or instead Pittsburgh did trades and got him Steve nash, Danny heatley, and Mike Green to go with Gonchar. In which scenario does Sydney Crosby obtain the more impressive point totals?


Ben-- if you choose to respond why not try to answer some of the quaestions asked (those are usually the things preceding the question mark)-- thats right you can't or won't. Instead I expect you usual strawmen that we are saying Iggy is the best player on the Olympic team or that performance 20 years ago should determine a team now

One last question? Can you point to any known writer, coach, pundit that has seriously suggested Burrows for the Olympic team. I saw no one and since you seem to be so vehement and certain, what is it that you saw that no one else saw. Could it be that your perception of reality is skewed a bit?

Anyway it was fun for a while again but if you refuse to address the points put to you and continue with your strawmen, I'll end up ignoring this too

[Flubber]

I think it's obvious that Ben knows more about the strengths of the individual players of the Canucks than the Canucks coaching staff.

I am still wondering how he knows of a Swiss PPG that was missed by the game statistician and all the officials. (he never retracted that claim) Maybe the Swiss won 3-2 in regulation and we all missed it ?

[Pekka]

an OK night against Germany. 5-0, was it 4 in PP? Germany didn't make it easy though, they play really tight trap game. It's kind of frustrating, because there are weaker teams that play trap, and then there are those who are better that still play trap. And against those better teams that play trap, it's a long night ahead.

So next up is Sweden. Our defense has been good so far, and offense has been OK, they've scored enough from the chances they've gotten. So far it looks good for our team then, but the next game will show us where we're at. Good game coming up!

[Flubber]

It appears that so far Finland has been getting it done-- with the convincing wins one would expect. But as you say say the final game in the RR is the biggest test.

The same is true for Russia and canada. If either or both of them can be very good in their final games, the hiccups of their respective second game will be quicky forgotten and generally won't matter that much

[Pekka]

It appears that so far Finland has been getting it done-- with the convincing wins one would expect. But as you say say the final game in the RR is the biggest test.

The same is true for Russia and canada. If either or both of them can be very good in their final games, the hiccups of their respective second game will be quicky forgotten and generally won't matter that much

I think it will come down to how well we can shut out scoring chances and capitalize on ours. So far we have capitalized and created chances, and defense looks good. Against Russia or Canada? I don't know. Just have to wait and see. Kipper has to be hot though. But so do all goalies... no time to give up a goal or two.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Is not the Canuck PK 20th in the league?

Yes it is at the moment.

2. Is Burrows the most used PK guy by the staff (ignore pettinger)

No, he's not. If he were the most used guy and they were 20th, you'd have a better argument, but that's not the case. His PK time is down from the years when they were 1st overall in the league and Burrows did get the most time of anyone.

3. What stat or evidence do you have of that PK amazingness other than the fact that you said so.

Burrows was the star (along with Kesler), of a number one powerplay unit back in 2007. That was his claim to fame, until now when he's been getting first line minutes, and PP time with a subsequent decrease in his PK minutes.

Since you seem to think that the Swiss got a PP goal last night your credibility is a little thin even with respect to the hockey basics. That and your statement that Burrows was more productive than Iggy when Iggy has more goals and more assists.

True, and your insistance that Burrows is not 'olympic calibre', even though he's better then 6 other Canadian Olympians is also suspect from the same measure. When I said that there was a gap of 1 point, which has widened a bit.

I expect the gap to shrink and Burrows to overtake Iginla by the end of the season.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. defenses key on you more
2. you get fewer assists as your linemates don't have as good an ability to finish plays
3. You get fewer goals because your linemates are not razzle dazzling the defense and affording you tap-ins etc etc

But you also get luxurious minutes. This is not the case on an all star team.

Ben please isn't this so obvious it hardly needs to be said? If an elite player makes a great set-up pass 10 times to a no-hands idiot maybe two goals result, make the same pass to an elite scorer and 8 goals result. Now Ben for 1000 points and a lollipop, in which situation does the elite passer get more points? Put another way. Imagine Sydney Crosby had to play all the rest of his nhl shifts this year teamed up with 4 quadrapalegics or instead Pittsburgh did trades and got him Steve nash, Danny heatley, and Mike Green to go with Gonchar. In which scenario does Sydney Crosby obtain the more impressive point totals?

Probably by himself, the same way it worked for Mario, rather then splitting time. Truly elite passers are productive irrespective of their linemates, and their production can go down when their minutes are cut. Same was true for Phil Esposito. I think Iggy is much the same, although he isn't even in the same galaxy as Phil. Cut his minutes, and his production goes down.

Ben-- if you choose to respond why not try to answer some of the quaestions asked (those are usually the things preceding the question mark)-- thats right you can't or won't. Instead I expect you usual strawmen that we are saying Iggy is the best player on the Olympic team or that performance 20 years ago should determine a team now

And you seem to be saying that performance 8 years ago is applicable now. 8 years is a long time. If the team in 06 had won, why mess with a winning formula? But they didn't and they disappointed. So my question, is what was different from the 02 team that wasn't there in 06? The answer isn't Iginla, as he was there for both. If Iginla is the crucial element from 02, why is it at his peak in 06, that the team disappointed?

One last question? Can you point to any known writer, coach, pundit that has seriously suggested Burrows for the Olympic team. I saw no one and since you seem to be so vehement and certain, what is it that you saw that no one else saw. Could it be that your perception of reality is skewed a bit?

Couple reasons here. Olympic selection is at the beginning of the year. No one, myself included, anticipated Burrows going on the first line with the twins. If you had asked me in the beginning of the year who would go on, I would not have put him on.

However, at this point in time, I believe the analogy with Peca is apt. Burrows has stepped up his game considerably this year, and the Twins even are having their best season ever with him. So it's not just the Twins.

What do I see that no one else sees? His work ethic, it seems to be. I also don't give a **** about Ron Maclean or CBC or any of this crap with the referee. I'm saddened that his play has been overshadowed by the political garbage. I think he would bring some grit to Team Canada, and that his passion for the game would be very helpful in the quest for a medal, especially, (and don't forget this), because of support from the home crowd.

One of my reasons I'm worried about this Team USA game, is that they've benched Luongo. That means they have zero canucks on the ice, and team USA has Ryan Kesler prominent. Who's going to have the home ice advantage? Why are Canuck fans going to willingly cheer against Kesler for a team filled with their enemies? This is why I think Babcock should have started Luongo this game against the USA.