I’m rooting for the kid, I thought at one point he was going to be a really good player, and I don’t like the yo-yo up and down he’s received but he just has not shown any consistency to his game. Some plays here and there, that’s it.
- ClaudeFather

This could very easily be a cause and effect. A player who is always on the lookout for the hook works more on being careful than on being aggressive. I also think “some plays” does not capture it. He is shifty and a playmaker. The scoring play with TK and OL earlier this year is something we could us more of as a team.

Like most playmakers, he's often slowing down to allow the play to develop. He's not a Michael Grabner who just grabs the puck turns on the jets in every situation. And like most playmakers, he thrives when he's playing with skilled players. Put him with a couple of cement hands and you're just wasting him.

Flyers have no clue how to develop unless a guy is basically turnkey.
- Tomahawk

I agree and it's maddening how bad the coaching has been for the last two seasons. However, I think Frost has to break that habit of slowing down. I agree with those that think he has to play with more consistent pace. That will work better for him in the NHL.

I assume this is the same kid who was in your company when you told off the waitstaff for serving french fries in your salad?

I would not have let him go. Still reports of horrific health things coming from there. Tell him to watch the excellent documentary instead.

He would never go there in a professional capacity. If he ever did, the world is ending, and its all moot.
- PT21

Lol. No my daughter was with me for French fries in salad stupid Pittsburgh poop. As for my son I only signed off to enlist because I know he would at 18. He’s in for combat medic. So yeah as with my daughter who did 4 years in army it will be worrisome few years for sure.


At least I have flyers to watch 🙄

Wow!
- jd250

It was a more measured statement than might appear. I recognize you are a good guy, and fair, and good spirited. I was not spouting invective. You know me by now. I just tend to be very blunt.

Your assertion some months back about the covid vaccine not being a vaccine because it is called a shot was 'screencaptured' by me and circulated on a WhatsApp group full of zillions of doctors who treat Covid patients daily, and induced much entertainment.

Indeed, you would not have used either of the terms "rhetorical" (which doesn't btw mean what you think it means) or "nonsense" to refer to what the far too short-lived discussion yesterday consisted of, if you had even an elementary understanding/appreciation of what the discussion was about.

Let me catch up on all the "hockey discussion" of the afternoon now.

This post is odd. I have no clue what observations would lead you to this conclusion. I guess the old statement about opinions still applies.
- iamscore2day

I will not comment on this issue, because I enjoy reading both your posts, but it is my personal observation that almost no one comes here for discussion.

Just like smokers who gather in a designated room at the airport are too intent on blowing their own smoke, with company incidental, so too here people are too busy justifying their already formed opinions, and rather than discuss, are actually just engaging in a verbal exhalation of their own thoughts.

It was a more measured statement than might appear. I recognize you are a good guy, and fair, and good spirited. I was not spouting invective. You know me by now. I just tend to be very blunt.

Your assertion some months back about the covid vaccine not being a vaccine because it is called a shot was 'screencaptured' by me and circulated on a WhatsApp group full of zillions of doctors who treat Covid patients daily, and induced much entertainment.

Indeed, you would not have used either of the terms "rhetorical" (which doesn't btw mean what you think it means) or "nonsense" to refer to what the far too short-lived discussion yesterday consisted of, if you had even an elementary understanding/appreciation of what the discussion was about.

Let me catch up on all the "hockey discussion" of the afternoon now.


- PT21

thank you, I think you are a good spirited guy too, my only complaint is to please keep it to hockey.

So more of the same archaic make him earn it. He has had plenty of games where he has been the best player on his line.
- MJL

Its less about earning it and more about being ready. Given the current state of the team if Frost moves into the top 6 right now which center moves out, G or Laughton? Once G is traded there may be a spot for Frost in the top 6, but in the meantime he needs to bring it each shift. Also I disagree with you that there have been many games where Frost has been the best player in his line. Mayhew has been much better and much more consistent.

I'm sorry if my explanation went over your head. There is absolutely no contradiction here, unless of course, you are trying really hard to find one. Next time I will use R Y B blocks so even you can understand.
- jd250

I wouldn't bother misusing those blocks as you surely would.

But since you used the word discussion earlier, lets have a discussion about discussion in the large, before I point out why your sentence earlier was a contradiction.

1. Discussion presumes making a good faith effort to understand the other person's pov.
2. Then either agreeing, or using logic to disagree.

Now look again at Mochoson's pov: first post on this page, para 3.
https://www.hockeybuzz.co...?thread_id=177524&page=14

It can be summarized in the following:
Monetary considerations was at least one factor in the choice of putting NAK on waivers instead of Brown or Zach.

There is only 1 way to refute this statement. By providing other reasons, and showing that monetary considerations was not any of them.

However, as soon as you use the phrases like salary cap, or cheaper, or more expensive, or cap hit , or "free up cap space" (as you did) you are immediately and implicitly allowing that op's pov was possibly correct, because your argument is not free of monetary considerations.

Or to come back to the reason that made me enter this silly "discussion": pay a bit more attention to reading the post you are discussing and the logical structure of your disagreement than complaining about the fairly infrequent digressions from hockey topics here. The former is a far bigger threat to "hockey discussion" here than the latter.

What you and MJL do daily here is no more "discussion" of hockey than sumo wrestling is "simulations of balletic grace."

I will not comment on this issue, because I enjoy reading both your posts, but it is my personal observation that almost no one comes here for discussion.

Just like smokers who gather in a designated room at the airport are too intent on blowing their own smoke, with company incidental, so too here people are too busy justifying their already formed opinions, and rather than discuss, are actually just engaging in a verbal exhalation of their own thoughts.
- PT21

hey now

Keep going guys, only 3 more hours and you’ll hit 48 hours of arguing.

Fans are reaching for straws here with Frost...he is an average prospect who is too small and not fast enough to make up for his size. If he wants to make it in the NHL he is going to have to work his arse off to prove he belongs both in the workout room and on the ice( like a Zuccarello did )...He is not entitled for any special treatment because the fans are desperate. Heck look at Lafreniere, he played a year and a half on a weak 3rd line till he started showing the coaches what they wanted to see from him. Time after time Flyer fans so over inflate how good their prospects are you would think by now we would have learned.
- hfc355

the next
HeX promised he was the new Messiah

Seriously the best post you ever made on this forum. Bravo dude.
- Tomahawk

Mr. Passive Aggressive, from the Tony Hsieh School of Mgmt, hello:

Here are a few things YOU can do to improve hockey discussion on this forum, instead of wringing your hands like a hooker who is vexed at the downfall of morality because her best friend's husband has shown up at the doorstep as a john.

1. Stop using selective stats to support your case du jour, where the selection varies according to day. Stats are not the color you choose to form the picture. Stats are already the picture for you to take in, whether you like what the picture says or not.

2. Specifically, stop using GA/60 as a measure of a Dman's limitations, when you have spent years talking about the importance of Dman's ability to keep puck away from own zone (transition/ability to join the rush/stand up-stickwork guys in neutral zone/even shoot the puck themselves) in the modern game. Any measure of a Dman must, by your own calculus, account for the latter, and therefore, by definition, cannot be constrained to only GA measures. It must account for something like GF at the very least, which, in the case explicated below, happens to not back up your position (no doubt a coincidence).

3. If you are going to use a different stat and take a position, BACK IT UP with some reasoning for the departure and do your work. Since our discussion last week, I did, guess what I found in 5 mins. That the GA/60 of Sanheim versus Risto in 5-0n-5 play is almost identical. The difference is 0.2, as opposed to 0.6+ in ES.

Do you know why this is? Because GA/60 is a highly fragile stat. Since only a few goals are scored in ES during the course of half a season for a specific Dman, a few goals here and there can blow the stat one way or another. In other words, almost 70% of the GA/60 difference between Travis and Risto is due to overtime/special teams discrepancies. So very sorry it does not fit your narrative that Risto has been an unmitigated disaster compared to Travis outside of those situations. I am not in the Risto camp, but I am compelled to note this because I have no (frank)ing choice and neither do you.

4. If you are going to make stats be a platform to base your opinions, as you have over the years, stop shelving them and using mysticism to support your case that Voracek has been a possession boon for us and we have suffered since he left in that regard. Using the same measures used by you in the past to justify possession driving, namely Relative Corsi at 5-on-5, Voracek has been a possession drag the past few years, and Atkinson has been a possession spur for us this year, though the magnitudes are small. Again, so very sorry it does not fit your narrative that the loss of Voracek has hurt our transition game.

5. Get it in your head that there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE whatsoever that Couturier should be kept to provide mentorship to young players. No team gives an expensive contract at this stage of a team's development with said mentorship being anything other than a laughably irrelevant factor. If you feel that is worthwhile in an instinctive, unmeasurable and not statistical way, say so. Stop jettisoning stats without explanation when they are inconvenient and pretend there is some science behind your feeling.

6. Stop the genuflection about Hextall's regime. The empirical evidence that his tenure was not headed in the right direction is before you now. Accept what the data tells you, which btw is further corroboration of the fact that "draft wherever and develop and mosey along" is statistically a fool's game. You have no choice. You cannot use empirical evidence when it suits you.

7. You are arguably the best poster on this site in potential. Use the knowledge and your energies to take on pursuits a bit more worthwhile if you truly care about the discussion on the site, pursuits such as intellectual rigor and consistency as mentioned above, rather than your usual lazy sniping about peccadilloes such as the relevant, respectful intellectual digressions that occurred yesterday and that too on a slow day.

Lol. No my daughter was with me for French fries in salad stupid Pittsburgh poop. As for my son I only signed off to enlist because I know he would at 18. He’s in for combat medic. So yeah as with my daughter who did 4 years in army it will be worrisome few years for sure.


At least I have flyers to watch 🙄
- Stayin alive

I understand. I would not worry too much about being stationed in conflict zones though. Unlikely in the next many years. I have friends from childhood in the army, and in the span of the past 20 years, they have seen deployment in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Highly unlikely things will be as bad.

Good luck to your kids and post more here.

Keep going guys, only 3 more hours and you’ll hit 48 hours of arguing.
- Angus4444

As opposed to what? This site is for losers (myself included ofc) to rehash their complexes while using hockey as an excuse.

And speaking of losers, what did I tell you about Carson Wentz being much closer to Ryan Leaf than Tom Brady? Hope he goes to TB. Hope he pulls that unvaccinated poop he did with Reich with Arians this time. He will be playing backup or out of the NFL in an year.

hey now
- stayinthefnnet

Should I have included sado-masochistic voyeurism as another option?

I mean, we have a brief, non-confrontational, utterly apolitical (unless by far fetched innuendo), totally intellectual discussion on a slow day about pressing matters on this Wayne'sWorld-meets-Beavis-and-Butthead of a forum, and 4 of the biggest actors in that show pipe up objecting.

Enjoy your weekend, fellas. Keep up that staggering quality of discussion.

It was a more measured statement than might appear. I recognize you are a good guy, and fair, and good spirited. I was not spouting invective. You know me by now. I just tend to be very blunt.

Your assertion some months back about the covid vaccine not being a vaccine because it is called a shot was 'screencaptured' by me and circulated on a WhatsApp group full of zillions of doctors who treat Covid patients daily, and induced much entertainment.

Indeed, you would not have used either of the terms "rhetorical" (which doesn't btw mean what you think it means) or "nonsense" to refer to what the far too short-lived discussion yesterday consisted of, if you had even an elementary understanding/appreciation of what the discussion was about.

Let me catch up on all the "hockey discussion" of the afternoon now.


- PT21

Funny how you claim to not be spouting invective then immediately follow up with an insult. Of course, someone used a word that doesn't mean what they think it does.

Mr. Passive Aggressive, from the Tony Hsieh School of Mgmt, hello:

Here are a few things YOU can do to improve hockey discussion on this forum, instead of wringing your hands like a hooker who is vexed at the downfall of morality because her best friend's husband has shown up at the doorstep as a john.

1. Stop using selective stats to support your case du jour, where the selection varies according to day. Stats are not the color you choose to form the picture. Stats are already the picture for you to take in, whether you like what the picture says or not.

2. Specifically, stop using GA/60 as a measure of a Dman's limitations, when you have spent years talking about the importance of Dman's ability to keep puck away from own zone (transition/ability to join the rush/stand up-stickwork guys in neutral zone/even shoot the puck themselves) in the modern game. Any measure of a Dman must, by your own calculus, account for the latter, and therefore, by definition, cannot be constrained to only GA measures. It must account for something like GF at the very least, which, in the case explicated below, happens to not back up your position (no doubt a coincidence).

3. If you are going to use a different stat and take a position, BACK IT UP with some reasoning for the departure and do your work. Since our discussion last week, I did, guess what I found in 5 mins. That the GA/60 of Sanheim versus Risto in 5-0n-5 play is almost identical. The difference is 0.2, as opposed to 0.6+ in ES.

Do you know why this is? Because GA/60 is a highly fragile stat. Since only a few goals are scored in ES during the course of half a season for a specific Dman, a few goals here and there can blow the stat one way or another. In other words, almost 70% of the GA/60 difference between Travis and Risto is due to overtime/special teams discrepancies. So very sorry it does not fit your narrative that Risto has been an unmitigated disaster compared to Travis outside of those situations. I am not in the Risto camp, but I am compelled to note this because I have no (frank)ing choice and neither do you.

4. If you are going to make stats be a platform to base your opinions, as you have over the years, stop shelving them and using mysticism to support your case that Voracek has been a possession boon for us and we have suffered since he left in that regard. Using the same measures used by you in the past to justify possession driving, namely Relative Corsi at 5-on-5, Voracek has been a possession drag the past few years, and Atkinson has been a possession spur for us this year, though the magnitudes are small. Again, so very sorry it does not fit your narrative that the loss of Voracek has hurt our transition game.

5. Get it in your head that there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE whatsoever that Couturier should be kept to provide mentorship to young players. No team gives an expensive contract at this stage of a team's development with said mentorship being anything other than a laughably irrelevant factor. If you feel that is worthwhile in an instinctive, unmeasurable and not statistical way, say so. Stop jettisoning stats without explanation when they are inconvenient and pretend there is some science behind your feeling.

6. Stop the genuflection about Hextall's regime. The empirical evidence that his tenure was not headed in the right direction is before you now. Accept what the data tells you, which btw is further corroboration of the fact that "draft wherever and develop and mosey along" is statistically a fool's game. You have no choice. You cannot use empirical evidence when it suits you.

7. You are arguably the best poster on this site in potential. Use the knowledge and your energies to take on pursuits a bit more worthwhile if you truly care about the discussion on the site, pursuits such as intellectual rigor and consistency as mentioned above, rather than your usual lazy sniping about peccadilloes such as the relevant, respectful intellectual digressions that occurred yesterday and that too on a slow day.
- PT21

Someone must of hit a nerve.


The least you could do if you're going to lecture someone on stats is learn that you shouldn't look at all situations play when using possession stats.

Should I have included sado-masochistic voyeurism as another option?

I mean, we have a brief, non-confrontational, utterly apolitical (unless by far fetched innuendo), totally intellectual discussion on a slow day about pressing matters on this Wayne'sWorld-meets-Beavis-and-Butthead of a forum, and 4 of the biggest actors in that show pipe up objecting.

Enjoy your weekend, fellas. Keep up that staggering quality of discussion.
- PT21

i mean i dont chirp in ALL that often on a lot of topics because im lazy and dont put in the time to backread a lot so i dont want to half ass chime in when there are some potentially juicy topics going on. i dont think that would be fair without adequate context on my part.

some will disagree with me and thats totally fine but i love when this place touches on topics from time to time outside of hockey. think of how many good people used to stop by and shoot the breeze about whatever. really felt like a virtual bar stool sometimes. some may not like that, and its fine and i wouldnt direct or engage non hockey topics towards them. I also can see why certain topics may become overly redundant at a point, and there are definitely some who have no interest in chatting and just want to inflame people, but i dont think the odd post about music or living situations or whatever suddenly brings hockey talk to a screeching halt.

Mr. Passive Aggressive... blah blah blah blah blah.
- PT21

🥱

However, as soon as you use the phrases like salary cap, or cheaper, or more expensive, or cap hit , or "free up cap space" (as you did) you are immediately and implicitly allowing that op's pov was possibly correct, because your argument is not free of monetary considerations.

- PT21

Ok, what I did was provide a factual timeline of the relevant transactions that occurred in October and November which clearly contradict the posters main premise, which is that NAK was waived because Fletcher wanted to replace NAK with cheaper players, i.e. Brown and MacEwen. However, the facts clearly show that all 3 players were on the Flyers for approximately 1 month before NAK got waived, and the only reason he did get waived was to make room for Kevin Hayes, who is around 6 times more expensive than NAK. My premise is therefore different than the posters. My premise is that Fletcher figured NAK would clear waivers and he could tuck him down on the Phantoms to make a roster spot for Hayes, and he was wrong. Its perfectly OK if you and/or the poster disagree.

Or to come back to the reason that made me enter this silly "discussion": pay a bit more attention to reading the post you are discussing and the logical structure of your disagreement than complaining about the fairly infrequent digressions from hockey topics here. The former is a far bigger threat to "hockey discussion" here than the latter.

What you and MJL do daily here is no more "discussion" of hockey than sumo wrestling is "simulations of balletic grace."
- PT21

Look, I can't speak or presume I can speak for others' intentions on this forum, I can only speak for myself. I sincerely come here to share my thoughts on the Flyers with other like minded people, and when I say like minded I mean people who love the Flyers as much or even more than I do. I do love the discussion and absolutely hate it when people try to put words in my mouth or misrepresent what I post or the meaning of the words I use. Its petty. I also come to this site to learn, and I do learn lots; from Bill, from passionate posters like MJL, and even you! For example I recently have given you credit for planting the seed in my head that drafting in the top 5 is the very best way of getting top end talent. I have no problem being wrong and admitting it, nor do I have a problem with changing my position, because that means I learned something, accepted it and evolved. I have no problem with people challenging what I post because honestly some of it is well thought out, and some of it is just stream of consciousness while watching another season blow up in smoke. What I don't like are the insults and disrespect towards each other. I try my best to stay above it but I lower myself from time to time, and I typically feel awful afterwards. I also don't like it when others disrespect the purpose of this forum by bringing in topics that are outside of hockey or the Flyers. I come here to talk Flyers, that's it. Anyway, I like MJL a lot, he loves hockey and loves the Flyers, and I often wondered if he and I should have a podcast where people can listen to us argue with other for an hour every day :-) Speaking for myself, its all in good fun and I hope he feels the same way. There are some others however that are completely vial towards me and MJL and it sickens me sometimes, but that's social media, people rarely come on social media to be positive and share good thoughts ...

I wouldn't bother misusing those blocks as you surely would.

But since you used the word discussion earlier, lets have a discussion about discussion in the large, before I point out why your sentence earlier was a contradiction.

1. Discussion presumes making a good faith effort to understand the other person's pov.
2. Then either agreeing, or using logic to disagree.

Now look again at Mochoson's pov: first post on this page, para 3.
https://www.hockeybuzz.co...?thread_id=177524&page=14

It can be summarized in the following:
Monetary considerations was at least one factor in the choice of putting NAK on waivers instead of Brown or Zach.

There is only 1 way to refute this statement. By providing other reasons, and showing that monetary considerations was not any of them.

However, as soon as you use the phrases like salary cap, or cheaper, or more expensive, or cap hit , or "free up cap space" (as you did) you are immediately and implicitly allowing that op's pov was possibly correct, because your argument is not free of monetary considerations.

Or to come back to the reason that made me enter this silly "discussion": pay a bit more attention to reading the post you are discussing and the logical structure of your disagreement than complaining about the fairly infrequent digressions from hockey topics here. The former is a far bigger threat to "hockey discussion" here than the latter.

What you and MJL do daily here is no more "discussion" of hockey than sumo wrestling is "simulations of balletic grace."
- PT21

I like this guy^^^

I still love all of you equally

Ok, what I did was provide a factual timeline of the relevant transactions that occurred in October and November which clearly contradict the posters main premise, which is that NAK was waived because Fletcher wanted to replace NAK with cheaper players, i.e. Brown and MacEwen. However, the facts clearly show that all 3 players were on the Flyers for approximately 1 month before NAK got waived, and the only reason he did get waived was to make room for Kevin Hayes, who is around 6 times more expensive than NAK. My premise is therefore different than the posters. My premise is that Fletcher figured NAK would clear waivers and he could tuck him down on the Phantoms to make a roster spot for Hayes, and he was wrong. Its perfectly OK if you and/or the poster disagree.
- jd250

And he nearly did get him through. Wouldn’t Colorado have been one of the last teams to have a crack at him?

Look, I can't speak or presume I can speak for others' intentions on this forum, I can only speak for myself. I sincerely come here to share my thoughts on the Flyers with other like minded people, and when I say like minded I mean people who love the Flyers as much or even more than I do. I do love the discussion and absolutely hate it when people try to put words in my mouth or misrepresent what I post or the meaning of the words I use. Its petty. I also come to this site to learn, and I do learn lots; from Bill, from passionate posters like MJL, and even you! For example I recently have given you credit for planting the seed in my head that drafting in the top 5 is the very best way of getting top end talent. I have no problem being wrong and admitting it, nor do I have a problem with changing my position, because that means I learned something, accepted it and evolved. I have no problem with people challenging what I post because honestly some of it is well thought out, and some of it is just stream of consciousness while watching another season blow up in smoke. What I don't like are the insults and disrespect towards each other. I try my best to stay above it but I lower myself from time to time, and I typically feel awful afterwards. I also don't like it when others disrespect the purpose of this forum by bringing in topics that are outside of hockey or the Flyers. I come here to talk Flyers, that's it. Anyway, I like MJL a lot, he loves hockey and loves the Flyers, and I often wondered if he and I should have a podcast where people can listen to us argue with other for an hour every day :-) Speaking for myself, its all in good fun and I hope he feels the same way. There are some others however that are completely vial towards me and MJL and it sickens me sometimes, but that's social media, people rarely come on social media to be positive and share good thoughts ...
- jd250

My well intentioned advice is don't let him drag you down to that garbage level. No other poster talks about people as much as he does. It's inappropriate and you're better than that and better than he is. Your post about the Putin nonsense showed that. People's opinions are fair game. People are not.