cjsgro@watdragon.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (03/05/86)
In article <7869@watrose.UUCP> gbelleville@watrose.UUCP (gbelleville) writes: >> > < Donning Asbestos Suit > >> Damn right, Gary! :-) > It's getting mighty warm in here! :-) The sprinklers just went off! :-) > >> > Kjell Dahlin is NOT riding on the coat tails of Naslund and Smith. >> > What has been added to the Montreal power play since last year? >> > Yup... Kjell Dahlin. >> I suggest that you review the principles of causation. Just because Dahlin >> is new does not mean that he is responsible for the success. Nor am I saying >> that he did not have a part in it, either. > OK fine. He's not the only reason, but he is a contributing factor. Finally! We agree on something! You won't get an argument from me there. > And that fact has been ignored in the media's evaluation of Dahlin. But you might here. I don't really think that Dahlin's relationship with the powerplay has been ignored. After all, Jeff originally stated that the large contribution that the power play made to Dahlin's stats was tainting his position. >> Smith finally has the type of atmosphere that made him such a success in >> Minnesota. ... Let's not minimize his effect on the other two, either. > You are right, Bobby is playing better this year, but I don't > think the powerplay would suffer without him. > (I am confident Stephane Richer could be just as successfull). Amazing! Another point of agreement! I've only seen Richer twice this year (he's been injured quite a bit) but it seems like he is a very good player with a good sense for the open ice. Richer could possibly replace Smith but that's only because of the Canadiens' depth. >> > The bottom line is Clark has spent far too much time in the penalty box. >> He's just a rookie making mistakes of overaggressiveness. And sometimes when >> you're the only guy with guts out there you have to take some penalties in >> order to show the other team that you can't be pushed around (like going >> after (I think) Reed Larson on Friday night after Larson injured Salming). > > Isn't that what Goons are for?? Why should you have your #1 draft pick > playing policeman?? That job used to belong to Brubaker, but since the > Leafs got Clark they don't need him anymore. You should have your > garbage players doing the fighting so the people with goal scoring > talent(like Clark) can put the puck in the net. Clark might have > 35+ goals by now if he had stayed on the ice longer this year. That's a fault of the Leafs, not a slight on Clark. >> >> > And don't use that "HE'S ON THE LEAFS AND THEY ARE A CRUDDY TEAM" argument, >> > because that doesn't cut it. Check Courtnall's, Thomas' and Salming's >> > plus-minus. >> As far as his backchecking goes, it's no worse than Mr. Dahlin's (and I would >> say better). He's only a rookie playing on a lousy team. Like it or not, >> it is a valid argument (or do you believe that all players should be able >> to play like they've just played 5 years on the Edmonton Oilers?). > > No, it is NOT a valid argument. You can't really believe that someone > with a -27 plus/minus is no worse defensively than someone with a -2 > plus/minus when they both play forward on the same team. > Statistics do not tell the whole story, but this stat on Clark cannot > be overlooked when one tries to decide who is the best rookie. And it won't be overlooked, either. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will look at that -27 and faint. But he is a ROOKIE. Experience is a key when it comes to backchecking. Note that I tried to emphasize that point. Evidently I failed. >> >> > How can you justify giving the Calder to someone with NINE assists? >> By the same token, anyone with only 19 assists doesn't deserve to be on >> the All-Star team, right? I'm sure Tim Kerr would appreciate the >> vacation. > Wrongo. Consider that: > 1) 19 is more than twice as much as 9, and that it was attained > in fewer games So Kerr is better than Clark. Do we have any argument here? > 2) Kerr had an amazing number of goals See above. Take everything in proportion and don't forget that we are dealing with a ROOKIE here. They're not expected to have the same types of numbers as veterans (can I borrow your asbestos suit for this one?). > 3) Please don't compare being named to the "All Star" team with > winning a major NHL award. Why not? Kerr deserves to be an All Star, unlike many players who are named to fill up space. Also, there have been a lot of stiffs who have won the Calder. -- Carlo Sgro ...![ihnp4||decvax||allegra||clyde||utzoo]!watmath!watdragon!cjsgro "ihnp4 Express: Overnight to the USA or you don't pay!"
tohaapanen@watrose.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (03/05/86)
>>>> < Donning Asbestos Suit > >>> Damn right, Gary! :-) >> It's getting mighty warm in here! :-) > The sprinklers just went off! :-) Hey, this is really starting to look like fun! >>> ... Dahlin and the Montreal power play ... >> OK fine. He's not the only reason, but he is a contributing factor. >Finally! We agree on something! You won't get an argument from me there. >> And that fact has been ignored in the media's evaluation of Dahlin. > But you might here. I don't really think that Dahlin's relationship with > the powerplay has been ignored. After all, Jeff originally stated that > the large contribution that the power play made to Dahlin's stats was > tainting his position. Yes, but! What the media is assuming is that Dahlin's production is impressive BECAUSE OF the fact that he's on the league's best power play unit. They're the ones that should be figuring out causation. That power play production should NOT taint his chances -- although it may. >>> ... Bobby Smith and the power play ... >> (I am confident Stephane Richer could be just as successfull). > Amazing! Another point of agreement! I've only seen Richer twice this > year (he's been injured quite a bit) but it seems like he is a very good > player with a good sense for the open ice. Richer could possibly > replace Smith but that's only because of the Canadiens' depth. In my opinion, had Richer not been injured, he would be a viable candidate for the Calder as well. Flames on that one? >>>> The bottom line is Clark has spent far too much time in the penalty box. >>> He's just a rookie making mistakes of overaggressiveness. <excuses follow> >> Isn't that what Goons are for?? > That's a fault of the Leafs, not a slight on Clark. I'm sure Maloney is not telling him "Go get him, Wendel!" (now if Clark was playing for Detroit...). So, yes, he is making mistakes of overaggressiveness. But, Carlo, in my opinion he is making far too many of them, even for a rookie. Compare his penalty total to Dahlin or Ridley... >And it won't be overlooked, either. I'm sure that there are plenty >of people who will look at that -27 and faint. But he is a ROOKIE. >Experience is a key when it comes to backchecking. Note that I tried >to emphasize that point. Evidently I failed. We KNOW he's a rookie --- we ARE talking about the Calder trophy, aren't we? OK, look at Clark's plus/minus and compare it to the other Leafs. Now look at Dahlin's and Ridley's and compare them to the rest of the Canadiens and Rangers. Do you still say Clark is good enough defensively, EVEN AS A ROOKIE? It's not that Clark isn't (or at least won't be in the future) a good player, I just feel he's got too many deficiencies right now to merit the Calder trophy. \tom haapanen / watrose!tohaapanen university of waterloo ..!watmath <-- watmum!tohaapanen \ watlion!tohaapanen I am one in ten, a number on a list I am one in ten, even though I don't exist No-body knows me, though I'm always there A statistical reminder of a world that doesn't care (c) UB40, 1981