Yup. Most umps are good guys, and catchers are in the best position to joke around, ask questions on the dl, and just get to know them a bit. I enjoyed it a lot.
- wolfhounds

One time, it was with Todd actually, I was batting and I fouled a pitch off...

Me- "Was that a strike?"
Todd (as I was digging in)- "Uhh...yeah you fouled it off dumb(frank)..."
*I call time*
*turn to him laughing*
*he and the opposing catcher are both laughing*
Me- "No I mean would it have been called a strike if I didn't swing at it?!"
Todd (laughing harder now)- "Nope! How do ya feel now?!"
Me (digging in)- "I hate you... "

I will not correct it. I will leave it out for all to see. I am not ashamed!
- PhillySportsGuy

So are you doing this to spite me?

I will not correct it. I will leave it out for all to see. I am not ashamed!
- PhillySportsGuy

I'm proud of you. I feel I've witnessed a moment of growth, and I will cherish it forever.

One time, it was with Todd actually, I was batting and I could a pitch off...

Me- "Was that a strike?"
Todd (as I was digging in)- "Ugh...yeah you fouled it off dumb(frank)..."
*I call time*
*turn to him laughing*
*he and the opposing catcher are both laughing*
Me- "No I mean would it have been called a strike if I didn't swing at it?!"
Todd (laughing harder now)- "Nope! How do ya feel now?!"
Me (digging in)- "I hate you... "
- Giroux_Is_God

Nice. I like it. He was sympathetic to your issues.

Sports are not for the weak.

So are you doing this to spite me?
- Giroux_Is_God

It's a statement for all grammar misusers. For all those whom think your better then them. For all those whom enjoy going too the blog without being judged.

I'm proud of you. I feel I've witnessed a moment of growth, and I will cherish it forever.


- wolfhounds

WTF That (frank)ing bird

WTF That (frank)ing bird
- PhillySportsGuy

Whoa, easy there...he doesn't like it when you laugh at him.

Whoa, easy there...he doesn't like it when you laugh at him.
- wolfhounds

I don't think he likes much of anything, tbh.

Except watching the world burn, of course. He likes that.

- wolfhounds

SOON. Like... NOW.

insert round and round gif here

It's a statement for all grammar misusers. For all those whom think your better then them. For all those whom enjoy going too the blog without being judged.
- PhillySportsGuy

You're a villain and a fiend

I'm proud of you. I feel I've witnessed a moment of growth, and I will cherish it forever.


- wolfhounds

Yep. I looked at the wrong column for St Louis. Stamkos's +2.9 is markedly better.


Still fail to see how mediocre numbers in line with a mediocre team means that he's not posting mediocre numbers. Further, if you look at the WOWY's there were 3 guys who had better CF% numbers when playing over 100 minutes with him than without him during his last season in TB

Spare us the flawed stats argument, because the data pool is pretty deep. It gets worse when you add in his Flyers numbers. Ignore it if you want, but a guy getting older and the majority of players doing better in terms of possession without him than with him over a two year period is pretty significant.

Maybe using it as a team stat will help-with Lecavalier playing a big role in 2013, the Lightning were at 47%CF at 5 on 5. Last year, with Lecavalier gone, their team CF% jumped to 51% at 5 on 5.
- Jsaquella

If the answer to the flawed stats argument is that the data pool is very deep, then the issue of flawed data is clearly not understood. How deep the data pool is, is irrelevant to the flawed stat argument, in fact the deeper the data pool, the more false data is included.
WOWY's are also not reliable due to small sample sizes and changes in situations and roles when players are moved around.
And finally the above is a classic misuse of the Corsi stat. Are you actually stating that the reason that TB's CF% as a team jumped to 51%, was because of Lecavalier leaving? That is exactly the kind of poor analysis using Corsi that the developers of Corsi warn against.

No way I bump Schenn from center in favor of an aging Lecavalier. I give Schenn a full season at center with competent wingers - again, not VL - and see what he can do. Schenn is part of the future of this team, either as a player or in trade; VL is still here because he couldn't be moved.

Edit: And I certainly hope VL puts it all back together, and I think he can.
- wolfhounds

I understand not wanting to move a young player for an older player. But I would for two reasons. The team is weak at LW. And I think B Schenn's skill set is better suited to play Wing then Center.

What's disturbing is that he's had trouble outperforming the team average on a generally sub-average team, despite playing relatively easy/offensive minutes, and not having to deal with the tough matchups that all went to Stamkos/StL.

Also disturbing that he's gone from barely treading water to deep under water in a hurry over the past 24 mos. The guy was never a good possession player, but he's really turned into a gaping black hole.
- Tomahawk

But let's ignore the back injury and the position change as a factor in last year's season.

Also in the 12/13 Season, Lecavalier had a higher percentage of D zone starts then both Stamkos and St. Louis. And St. Louis was Lecavalier's most frequent linemate among TB forwards. So I think saying that he got relatively easy/offensive minutes and didn't have to deal with the tough matchups that all went to Stamkos and St. Louis, is not entirely true.

And your commentary above is a great illustration of confirmation bias. These stats can be used to say whatever you want to say about a player.

But let's ignore the back injury and the position change as a factor in last year's season.

Also in the 12/13 Season, Lecavalier had a higher percentage of D zone starts then both Stamkos and St. Louis. And St. Louis was Lecavalier's most frequent linemate among TB forwards. So I think saying that he got relatively easy/offensive minutes and didn't have to deal with the tough matchups that all went to Stamkos and St. Louis, is not entirely true.

And your commentary above is a great illustration of confirmation bias. These stats can be used to say whatever you want to say about a player.
- MJL

ZS-rel of +6.7%... QoC 1.2% less than Stamkos... I'd say they were relatively easy minutes.

Let's just say Coots would think he had died and gone to heaven under that kind of usage.

ZS-rel of +6.7%... QoC 1.2% less than Stamkos... I'd say they were relatively easy minutes.

Let's just say Coots would think he had died and gone to heaven under that kind of usage.
- Tomahawk

Changing your argument. You earlier compared Lecavalier's minutes to Stamkos and St. Louis minutes. Now your comparing them to Couturier. This is a normal occurrence after a counter point has been made. Lecavalier's usage is supposed to be slanted to the offensive side. That's proper usage of the player. Because of what kind of player he is. But it's mistakenly used as a criticism of a player. And it all goes to confirmation bias. And how all these stats can be used to say whatever you want it to say.

In the 12/13 Season, St. Louis started in the D zone 28.9%. Stamkos started in the D zone 29.5%. Lecavalier started in the D zone 32.2% of the time.

Changing your argument. You earlier compared Lecavalier's minutes to Stamkos and St. Louis minutes. Now your comparing them to Couturier. This is a normal occurrence after a counter point has been made. Lecavalier's usage is supposed to be slanted to the offensive side. That's proper usage of the player. Because of what kind of player he is. But it's mistakenly used as a criticism of a player. And it all goes to confirmation bias. And how all these stats can be used to say whatever you want it to say.

In the 12/13 Season, St. Louis started in the D zone 28.9%. Stamkos started in the D zone 29.5%. Lecavalier started in the D zone 32.2% of the time.
- MJL

Vinny's usage in 12-13 was appropriate for the player... he was no longer a prime offensive threat, so Stamkos saw a greater share of offensive situations. Meanwhile, he rarely saw anything better than secondary checking, while Stamkos was the focal point of the other teams' primary matchups.

No idea what you have to argue about here -- not sure how you can look at the usage and confirm that Vinny wasn't the 2C on that team... and 2C's get relatively easier minutes than the 1C in terms of matchups.

You're just arguing to argue... or falling under your own blatant confirmation bias, trying to refute that Vinny is in decline, a stance that 99% of the hockey world agreed on BEFORE he came to Philadelphia.

Vinny's usage in 12-13 was appropriate for the player... he was no longer a prime offensive threat, so Stamkos saw a greater share of offensive situations. Meanwhile, he rarely saw anything better than secondary checking, while Stamkos was the focal point of the other teams' primary matchups.

No idea what you have to argue about here -- not sure how you can look at the usage and confirm that Vinny wasn't the 2C on that team... and 2C's get relatively easier minutes than the 1C in terms of matchups.

You're just arguing to argue... or falling under your own blatant confirmation bias, trying to refute that Vinny is in decline, a stance that 99% of the hockey world agreed on BEFORE he came to Philadelphia.
- Tomahawk

I think you need to go back and reread what was posted. I never once stated that Lecavalier wasn't the 2C on that team. Or that his minutes weren't easy minutes. Nor did I ever state that Lecavalier wasn't in decline as a player. So you're just inventing things here.
Just because a player is in decline, and not the prime offensive threat that he was in his prime, doesn't mean that he's still not a good player, or a player worth having on a team.
Chris Pronger was in decline when he came to the Flyers. He was no longer the Hart trophy player he was in his prime. But still a difference maker. Not claiming that Lecavalier is a difference maker. Kimmo Timonen has been in decline for a number of years, from his prime. But has still been a very good defenseman in that time. Just some examples.

What I have disputed is that Lecavalier has been this possession anchor in his final years with TB. TB was a poor possession team in 12/13, and Lecavalier's possession numbers were similar to most of the high minute players on that team. It was a false argument to offer that he's been an albatross. And it is also poor analysis to look at his season last year, where he didn't play well overall. And ignore the injury and position change as big factors in that.

And if he remains with the Flyers, he should continue to get easy minutes. Because that is proper use of the player.

What I have disputed is that Lecavalier has been this possession anchor in his final years with TB.
- MJL

Fact: over the past 4-5 seasons, he hasn't driven possession in a single season, despite much easier minutes after Stamkos' emergence. It's easy to see why they CBO'd that contract... he simply wasn't living up to expectations anymore.

And if he remains with the Flyers, he should continue to get easy minutes. Because that is proper use of the player.
- MJL

Didn't you insist initially that he was a two-way power forward? How your tune has changed...

Fact: over the past 4-5 seasons, he hasn't driven possession in a single season, despite much easier minutes after Stamkos' emergence. It's easy to see why they CBO'd that contract... he simply wasn't living up to expectations anymore.


- Tomahawk

I've never claimed that Lecavalier was a driver of possession. I agree that Lecavalier was no longer worthy of a 7.7M cap hit with 7 more years left on it that was a risk of recaptrue penalties. So that was a good move for TB to make. Doesn't mean that Lecavalier is no longer a good player, just no longer a star level player.

Didn't you insist initially that he was a two-way power forward? How your tune has changed...
- Tomahawk

You can make all the false claims you want on what I said or insisted. That's not going to help the credibility of your counter arguement. I've never stated that Lecavalier is anything more

- -davies-

- Crimsoninja

lol i had to borrow it