you were arguing first line minutes with kessel over the 17 games quoting a single news article as your source. when proven wrong all you could do was post a email address and tell us to take it up with the writer.
- sens rock

No I refereed to the article, written by Michael Traikos who covers leaf games who stated that Kadri was given "Top six" minutes in his first stint of 17 games in the NHL last season, and that he failed to score a single goal.

Don't put words in my mouth, that's procks job.


http://sports.nationalpos...ri-ready-to-be-a-regular/
When he was called up for 17 games in November and December, Kadri was playing on the top line and logging about 17 minutes per night. But during that span he scored no goals and six assists. In his stint at the end of the season, he averaged three fewer minutes per game on the third line, but Kadri recorded three goals and three assists in 12 games.
[email protected]

That is pretty fair. Obviously there are going to be things that stats won't show. However, claims like "he couldn't get past the blueline when Karlsson was on the ice", "all off Ovechkin's shots were from the outside", "Karlsson repeated stripped Ovechkin of the puck", Karlsson forced Ovechkin to turn the puck over many times", are quite clearly untrue, according to the NHL. So, one should be wary on making claims that go against what those who are paid to interpret a game are saying happened.
- prock

You believe what you want to believe, that is apparent. What you are saying is totally inconsistent with the commentators. except for the shot thing. It was noted that Ovechkin was being kept to the outside or turned inward and forced to shoot from a position that was ineffectual. Now this may be simply a continuation of what other teams are doing but it is clear from the play that it rendered him pretty ineffectual. And, it was clear that Karlsson was very effective in executing against Ovechkin.

No I refereed to the article, written by Michael Traikos who covers leaf games who stated that Kadri was given "Top six" minutes in his first stint of 17 games in the NHL last season, and that he failed to score a single goal.

Don't put words in my mouth, that's procks job.


http://sports.nationalpos...ri-ready-to-be-a-regular/
When he was called up for 17 games in November and December, Kadri was playing on the top line and logging about 17 minutes per night. But during that span he scored no goals and six assists. In his stint at the end of the season, he averaged three fewer minutes per game on the third line, but Kadri recorded three goals and three assists in 12 games.
- Doppleganger

Yes, it's unfortunate that the columnist was wrong. You should maybe question what he says in the future. It will help you avoid making a fool of yourself again.

No I refereed to the article, written by Michael Traikos who covers leaf games who stated that Kadri was given "Top six" minutes in his first stint of 17 games in the NHL last season, and that he failed to score a single goal.

Don't put words in my mouth, that's procks job.


http://sports.nationalpos...ri-ready-to-be-a-regular/
When he was called up for 17 games in November and December, Kadri was playing on the top line and logging about 17 minutes per night. But during that span he scored no goals and six assists. In his stint at the end of the season, he averaged three fewer minutes per game on the third line, but Kadri recorded three goals and three assists in 12 games.
[email protected]
- Doppleganger

that was wrong and it was proven so. nobody even brought his 2nd stint into the conversation once in that thread.

You believe what you want to believe, that is apparent. What you are saying is totally inconsistent with the commentators. except for the shot thing. It was noted that Ovechkin was being kept to the outside or turned inward and forced to shoot from a position that was ineffectual. Now this may be simply a continuation of what other teams are doing but it is clear from the play that it rendered him pretty ineffectual. And, it was clear that Karlsson was very effective in executing against Ovechkin.
- spatso

yup, the team's commentators are a good source of accurate, unbiased information. It's not at all their job to get the team's fans pumped about the team, even when they're poop.

yup, the team's commentators are a good source of accurate, unbiased information. It's not at all their job to get the team's fans pumped about the team, even when they're poop.
- Schenn-Sational!

the sens commentators are dean brown and gord wilson. millen and galley did that game.

the sens commentators are dean brown and gord wilson. millen and galley did that game.
- sens rock

My point stands, when broadcasting for a team, you talk them up to keep the fans excited. The job is to put a positive spin on everything- since spasto called them witnesses, their testimony would be considered biased.

You believe what you want to believe, that is apparent. What you are saying is totally inconsistent with the commentators. except for the shot thing. It was noted that Ovechkin was being kept to the outside or turned inward and forced to shoot from a position that was ineffectual. Now this may be simply a continuation of what other teams are doing but it is clear from the play that it rendered him pretty ineffectual. And, it was clear that Karlsson was very effective in executing against Ovechkin.
- spatso

I can tell that you watched the game, as your observations confirm what I saw as well.

My point stands, when broadcasting for a team, you talk them up to keep the fans excited. The job is to put a positive spin on everything- since spasto called them witnesses, their testimony would be considered biased.
- Schenn-Sational!

fair enough.

except when healy is involved in a broadcast. all he does is point out players who aren't doing enough.

yup, the team's commentators are a good source of accurate, unbiased information. It's not at all their job to get the team's fans pumped about the team, even when they're poop.
- Schenn-Sational!

Like bob cole and harry neale did for all those years, eh?

I can tell that you watched the game, as your observations confirm what I saw as well.
- Doppleganger

So, basically, the only people who's opinions matter are those who agree with you.

that was wrong and it was proven so. nobody even brought his 2nd stint into the conversation once in that thread.
- sens rock

No it was right, go to the Stats and add up his TOI over the 17 games, and it works out to an average of 16 minutes and 50 seconds per game. ( all times posted in another thread posting, and won't do it again just for you).

If a top six player is not averaging (about) 17 minutes a game, then who is?

Sorry that you're proven wrong.

Like bob cole and harry neale did for all those years, eh?
- Doppleganger

Did you ever see me use them as evidence for anything?

No it was right, go to the Stats and add up his TOI over the 17 games, and it works out to an average of 16 minutes and 50 seconds per game. ( all times posted in another thread posting, and won't do it again just for you).

If a top six player is not averaging (about) 17 minutes a game, then who is?

Sorry that you're proven wrong.
- Doppleganger

So you admit that Karlsson had 0 takeaways?


TOI doesn't mean you're playing in a top-6 role, playing a regular shift in the top-6 does.

So you admit that Karlsson had 0 takeaways?


TOI doesn't mean you're playing in a top-6 role, playing a regular shift in the top-6 does.
- Schenn-Sational!

so the third and fourth lines are averaging 17 minutes a game..............thanks for that!


BTW, I watched the game, you did not, so I know what I saw, you don't have a leg to stand on, but continue to use "stats" when they don't agree with your views, and disregard them when they confirm you're wrong.................it just confirms the goggles are super glues to your head.

No it was right, go to the Stats and add up his TOI over the 17 games, and it works out to an average of 16 minutes and 50 seconds per game. ( all times posted in another thread posting, and won't do it again just for you).

If a top six player is not averaging (about) 17 minutes a game, then who is?

Sorry that you're proven wrong.
- Doppleganger

not once does it say anything about top 6 in that article. it says top line in stint 1 for all 17 games. which is wrong when you look at game by game toi.

so the third and fourth lines are averaging 17 minutes a game..............thanks for that!


BTW, I watched the game, you did not, so I know what I saw, you don't have a leg to stand on, but continue to use "stats" when they don't agree with your views, and disregard them when they confirm you're wrong.................it just confirms the goggles are super glues to your head.
- Doppleganger

I'm liking the errors in this post.

u mad?

not once does it say anything about top 6 in that article. it says top line in stint 1 for all 17 games. which is wrong when you look at game by game toi.
- sens rock

what part of

When he was called up for 17 games in November and December, Kadri was playing on the top line and logging about 17 minutes per night.

don't you understand........go check it out for yourself,

http://sports.nationalpos...ri-ready-to-be-a-regular/

then e-mail then Michael Traikos

[email protected]

I did not write the column, just commented and referred to it, when asking leaf fans about Kadri's chances of making the leaf this season.

what part of

When he was called up for 17 games in November and December, Kadri was playing on the top line and logging about 17 minutes per night.

don't you understand........go check it out for yourself,

http://sports.nationalpos...ri-ready-to-be-a-regular/

then e-mail then Michael Traikos

[email protected]

I did not write the column, just commented and referred to it, when asking leaf fans about Kadri's chances of making the leaf this season.
- Doppleganger

because the top line is a different arguement that the top 6. he wasn't on the top line for 17 games plain and simple.

I have no problem with him being wrong, its with you continuing to use his article as a reference after it was proven it was wrong.

No it was right, go to the Stats and add up his TOI over the 17 games, and it works out to an average of 16 minutes and 50 seconds per game. ( all times posted in another thread posting, and won't do it again just for you).

If a top six player is not averaging (about) 17 minutes a game, then who is?

Sorry that you're proven wrong.
- Doppleganger

So, this is no longer the columnists assertion, YOU are saying this is correct, right?

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the more outlandish claim.

Dopple and Spatso claim: That Karlsson effectively shut down Ovechkin, stopping him at the blueline several times, taking the puck away from him several times and forcing all or most of his shots to the perimeter.

Schenn-sational claim: Karlsson may have had an impact in warding off Ovechkin, but Ovechkin's lack of success can be more accurately attributed to his cold play of late than to the specific play of Karlsson.

Prock claim: That Ovechkin did not particularly shut down Ovechkin, that Ovechkin still had many shots on net, and did not give the puck away.

Now, my view is this: Dopple and Spatso's claim is the most spectacular, so more backing than from just eye witness is required, especially when it appears that the stats seem to represent Prock's version of the events. In corollary, Prock and Schenn-sational could bolster their arguments by watching the game, and gaining access to the sole piece of evidence that Dopple and Spatso are going off of. Though it should be noted Schenn-sational has a pretty benign argument compared to the others on the sides of the "this happened-this didn't happen" argument.

In my humble opinion, eye witness testimony is at least as fallible as professionally collected, uninterpreted data, especially when the witness has a strong emotional investment in what they are seeing.

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the more outlandish claim.

Dopple and Spatso claim: That Karlsson effectively shut down Ovechkin, stopping him at the blueline several times, taking the puck away from him several times and forcing all or most of his shots to the perimeter.

Schenn-sational claim: Karlsson may have had an impact in warding off Ovechkin, but Ovechkin's lack of success can be more accurately attributed to his cold play of late than to the specific play of Karlsson.

Prock claim: That Ovechkin did not particularly shut down Ovechkin, that Ovechkin still had many shots on net, and did not give the puck away.

Now, my view is this: Dopple and Spatso's claim is the most spectacular, so more backing than from just eye witness is required, especially when it appears that the stats seem to represent Prock's version of the events. In corollary, Prock and Schenn-sational could bolster their arguments by watching the game, and gaining access to the sole piece of evidence that Dopple and Spatso are going off of. Though it should be noted Schenn-sational has a pretty benign argument compared to the others on the sides of the "this happened-this didn't happen" argument.

In my humble opinion, eye witness testimony is at least as fallible as professionally collected, uninterpreted data, especially when the witness has a strong emotional investment in what they are seeing.
- Morris

Booya, I win.

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the more outlandish claim.

Dopple and Spatso claim: That Karlsson effectively shut down Ovechkin, stopping him at the blueline several times, taking the puck away from him several times and forcing all or most of his shots to the perimeter.

Schenn-sational claim: Karlsson may have had an impact in warding off Ovechkin, but Ovechkin's lack of success can be more accurately attributed to his cold play of late than to the specific play of Karlsson.

Prock claim: That Ovechkin did not particularly shut down Ovechkin, that Ovechkin still had many shots on net, and did not give the puck away.

Now, my view is this: Dopple and Spatso's claim is the most spectacular, so more backing than from just eye witness is required, especially when it appears that the stats seem to represent Prock's version of the events. In corollary, Prock and Schenn-sational could bolster their arguments by watching the game, and gaining access to the sole piece of evidence that Dopple and Spatso are going off of. Though it should be noted Schenn-sational has a pretty benign argument compared to the others on the sides of the "this happened-this didn't happen" argument.

In my humble opinion, eye witness testimony is at least as fallible as professionally collected, uninterpreted data, especially when the witness has a strong emotional investment in what they are seeing.
- Morris

Bravo!

On the basis of that brilliant summary we should all agree to move on and argue about something that is equally redundant to everyone else other than a few bored hockey fans.

Booya, I win.
- prock

No the judgment is very clear. His Honor Morris has clearly ruled that you are morally obligated to watch the Washington/Ottawa game from last Saturday.

Yeah, uh, Ottawa did not draft Filatov. Ottawa gave up a measley 3rd rounder for him and it is still too early to write him off completely (although admittedly it does not look good).

In Ottawa's position, I make the deal they every time, regardless. It was a risk with high upside. There is still high upside.