Hey dumb dumb I know the analytic system they use. You know technology right? They program it. Just because they program the system to read a play and put a checkmark in this case scoring chance or not doesn’t mean it’s not subjective.

For example you and I see a play by coots. You deem it elite and I don’t. It’s subjective. You put it into your calculator system and I do too. Guess what genius. My rts system reads different than yours.


That’s why you don’t just go by those. 3 chances by bedard my ass. No one WATCHING that game saw only 3 chances. And just because a shot or something WASNT taken doesn’t mean it wasn’t a chance when a play is going on. Like I say said subjective.

If you want to strictly watch a game and go online and look to get a printout of what a programmed system says the game was feel free. You’d be wrong tho. Call it the eye test if you must.
- Stayin alive

You just proved you don't have a clue. It's the human eye that is subjective. The stat data is not subjective. It is irrefutable fact. You really are ignorant. Have a good night.

Outside of Celebrini this draft isn’t really worth tanking for so this season won’t hurt the rebuild as much as you think.

Next year looks to have some high end forwards especially at center and the Flyers will likely be worse next season. They very well could stumble into everything they need by accident.
- psuhockey

Kind of intrigued by Iginla, Hage, and Jecho this draft. I agree this draft is not deep. If the wheels really fall off, Flyers would pick around 13.

Outside of Celebrini this draft isn’t really worth tanking for so this season won’t hurt the rebuild as much as you think.

Next year looks to have some high end forwards especially at center and the Flyers will likely be worse next season. They very well could stumble into everything they need by accident.
- psuhockey

It’s not about celebrini. What about Petterson? He was only talked about as elite ceiling by some. You’re more likely to get a really good or elite player higher in draft. Yes it’s possible to get one later.

The more higher picks had the more moves can be made. Opens it up more. If you tell me your team has 4 1st and 10 picks in top 2 rounds then yes getting a 1c isn’t a problem. Could they still (frank) it up ? Yes certainly. But worried? No because they have the means to do many things. Will they plan well? Who knows. Will they pick right players? Who knows.

For mean it’s all about having the ability to make moves. You don’t even need an elite center when you have a talent like mm. Look at Kaprizov. What does he do WITHOUT an elite center. Just an example.

I think mm is gonnna be elite. I could be wrong. Maybe he’s just good. Or a bust who knows. But if I’m thinking he’s elite I’m trying to build around him. Not the Seelers and tk’s etc etc

You just proved you don't have a clue. It's the human eye that is subjective. The stat data is not subjective. It is irrefutable fact. You really are ignorant. Have a good night.
- MJL

Yes it’s the human eye that is subjective. Surely is. Didn’t I say that. Tool. Where did this magical rts system come from? Mars? Who programmed it dummy. You don’t know who programmed it. You have no idea how technology works yet you cite it and use it as gospel. Such a tool. Why even play the game? You have all the stats just simulate the game. Who needs human eye or interpretation

Kind of intrigued by Iginla, Hage, and Jecho this draft. I agree this draft is not deep. If the wheels really fall off, Flyers would pick around 13.
- Trox88

What would’ve been nice and realistic is around 7-9. That’s a big jump from 13 or 15 or 20 it just opens up so much possibilities

You just proved you don't have a clue. It's the human eye that is subjective. The stat data is not subjective. It is irrefutable fact. You really are ignorant. Have a good night.
- MJL

Let me try to enlighten you with an example…. Does the stat data know the difference between Gretzky and mjl? If Gretzky is moving move the puck surveying the ice in the o zone does the stat data interpret what could happen? Or if mjl is in exactly same play as Gretzky? Dont now see where the stat data is easily just a programmed interpretation? A guideline if you will.

Look further if Gretzky is skating down wing and mjl is in identical plays do defensemen play differently or do they play the same? Who are they scared by? The programmed stat data system can’t possibly interpret beyond what it’s programmed to compute. It’s a tool nothing more. Usually it’s semi accurate in telling an overall story like tonight. You went by stat of 27-14 and I sat 60/40 flyers in chances.

You tend to use these metrics to try to debate others on many topics or their opinions and use those as proof of fact. That’s what makes you a tool bag. Because only a moron would do that.

Because while the eye can be deceiving at times it’s not always for example I was at the game when leclair goal went through the side of the net. Was sitting in the corner and said to my brother that went in through the side. He said no way. Impossible and hasek looked down at net confused. Sometimes what you see is exactly what was. Don’t be so dismissive of what someone sees because of a program that is hahahaha programmed by people says

What would’ve been nice and realistic is around 7-9. That’s a big jump from 13 or 15 or 20 it just opens up so much possibilities
- Stayin alive

Flyers have plenty of ammunition to trade up if they are so inclined

Flyers have plenty of ammunition to trade up if they are so inclined
- Flyers1218

Good… add to it. More players the better

Let me try to enlighten you with an example…. Does the stat data know the difference between Gretzky and mjl? If Gretzky is moving move the puck surveying the ice in the o zone does the stat data interpret what could happen? Or if mjl is in exactly same play as Gretzky? Dont now see where the stat data is easily just a programmed interpretation? A guideline if you will.

Look further if Gretzky is skating down wing and mjl is in identical plays do defensemen play differently or do they play the same? Who are they scared by? The programmed stat data system can’t possibly interpret beyond what it’s programmed to compute. It’s a tool nothing more. Usually it’s semi accurate in telling an overall story like tonight. You went by stat of 27-14 and I sat 60/40 flyers in chances.

You tend to use these metrics to try to debate others on many topics or their opinions and use those as proof of fact. That’s what makes you a tool bag. Because only a moron would do that.

Because while the eye can be deceiving at times it’s not always for example I was at the game when leclair goal went through the side of the net. Was sitting in the corner and said to my brother that went in through the side. He said no way. Impossible and hasek looked down at net confused. Sometimes what you see is exactly what was. Don’t be so dismissive of what someone sees because of a program that is hahahaha programmed by people says
- Stayin alive

Your posts are a complete exercise in stupidity and show a complete lack of understanding of simple game analytics. If you did, you wouldn't be making these idiotic statements. Scoring chances are simply that. Scoring chances. Plays that meet a statistical criteria. It's not subjective. It is factual.
In terms of your asinine hypothetical of Gretzky and me. Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY statistics that separate the quality of scoring chances. Such as High danger scoring chances and there is also a statistic known as expected goals. Which is a stat that measures the quality of shots taken. You obviously don't know any of this. I'd be happy to explain that to your dumb ass but I doubt you'd be able to grasp it.

Here is what these stats can do. They show that what you think happened, what untrained human eyes think they see in a game, is not always the case. They are part of an evaluation of a game. A perfect example is they showed that your take on the game was incorrect I used the simple scoring chances data to show one thing. that while the Flyers generated a lot more scoring chances. The quality of their scoring chances was poor for a variety of reasons. One notable is missing the net too much.

In terms of using them to debate others and use them as fact. They are facts and there is no flaw in the programming. It is a proven and universally accepted statistical science in the game of hockey. As an example of how I use them in debate. Is that in the game against Montreal, there were a number of posters who said that Sanheim had a bad game. The statistical data showed that their flawed human eye, was incorrect. He couldn't of possibly had a bad game when the data shows that when he was on the ice, the Flyers controlled the game and were on the better end of shot attempts, scoring chances and he had a high percentage of expected goals, meaning his team had the much better quality chances. As well as not being on the ice for a single goal against. So when debating an opinion, the opinion supported by the facts, is the more intelligent argument.

My argument is intelligent. Your argument is not. In closing, you're an obtuse idiot and you've always been an idiot.

The Easter Bunny.
- MJL

The organization is thinking this completely backwards as usual. Given a complete gift drafting a talent like MM at 7. Not only that, you have three years to strip it to the studs with no expectations and get more elite talent.

Instead what do they do? Start laying the groundwork for The Standard and Culture thinking they are ready to compete the second the dude comes over. Handing out 8 year deals to multiple pretty good players instead of elite players.

Nonsensical.
- StepfordSam

TY