Hah misread that stat line.

Still; tournament mvp, Granlund/Jokinen linemates.
- fry

I think it was a bad choice. He was 4th in scoring, six points(50%) behind the scoring leader who did get a bronze with russia. Plus all of Laine's points and goals came at the beginning of the tourney against weaker teams. When it came to the big playoff round and medal games he was kept off the score poop.

Still a great player. But this is a 3 team tournament with a bunch of plug-in teams and those are where Laine got most of his production in.

I think it was a bad choice. He was 4th in scoring, six points(50%) behind the scoring leader who did get a bronze with russia. Plus all of Laine's points and goals came at the beginning of the tourney against weaker teams. When it came to the big playoff round and medal games he was kept off the score poop.

Still a great player. But this is a 3 team tournament with a bunch of plug-in teams and those are where Laine got most of his production in.
- Njuice

Not true....Laine set up the winning goal agansst the Russians in the semi-final.

You can write whatever you want, saying Laine should be picked ahead of Matthews is one of the dumbest things ever.
- James_Tanner

I don't disagree, but all of his points were valid.

I think it was a bad choice. He was 4th in scoring, six points(50%) behind the scoring leader who did get a bronze with russia. Plus all of Laine's points and goals came at the beginning of the tourney against weaker teams. When it came to the big playoff round and medal games he was kept off the score poop.

Still a great player. But this is a 3 team tournament with a bunch of plug-in teams and those are where Laine got most of his production in.
- Njuice

He had a gorgeous primary assist on the game winner against Russia in the semifinal. The same Russian team that kept Matthews off the scoresheet when it mattered.

We are all forgetting the best argument for Laine being better than Matthews (who the Leafs WILL draft): finally getting the first overall pick and picking the lesser guy would be a totally Leafs thing to do.

Based on this, Laine is going to be the best.

Every other fanbase in the league would freak out if their team had the first overall and didn't take the big centre prospect who's been ranked number one for a year. Could he turn out to not be the best pick in the draft? Sure, maybe some guy in the fourth round will be a HOFer. But c'mon as soon as those lottery balls fell the Leafs' way it was Laine bandwagon activate! It's fun, I love it.

Every other fanbase in the league would freak out if their team had the first overall and didn't take the big centre prospect who's been ranked number one for a year. Could he turn out to not be the best pick in the draft? Sure, maybe some guy in the fourth round will be a HOFer. But c'mon as soon as those lottery balls fell the Leafs' way it was Laine bandwagon activate! It's fun, I love it.
- Zezel

If Leafs had the second pick, everyone would be talking about how Laine only scored against the lesser teams and won't be able to score in the NHL.

If Leafs had the second pick, everyone would be talking about how Laine only scored against the lesser teams and won't be able to score in the NHL.
- SolidGoldBricks

That's only because it would be true in that case.

If Leafs had the second pick, everyone would be talking about how Laine only scored against the lesser teams and won't be able to score in the NHL.
- SolidGoldBricks

Yep, and the Puljujarvi fan club would be blowing up. I could listen to the Laine tire-pumping all day, it's simply wonderful.

If Leafs had the second pick, everyone would be talking about how Laine only scored against the lesser teams and won't be able to score in the NHL.
- SolidGoldBricks

This thread has taken a turn in a leafs-fan-complex direction.

This thread has taken a turn in a leafs-fan-complex direction.
- fry

The only cure is the decapitation of Kerry Fraser. Because, you know, the Leafs would have won the Stanley Cup in 1993 had he called the high stick on Gretzky.

The only cure is the decapitation of Kerry Fraser. Because, you know, the Leafs would have won the Stanley Cup in 1993 had he called the high stick on Gretzky.
- jmatchett383

That is a fact though.

You real lying that Elliott was the best goalie this season? His save percentage was higher than Bishop's but Bishop played 19 more games. Do games played not factor into ranking goalies seasons?
- flamminghead

I'm going to sound like a homer, but it could be argued that both Elliott and Allen were the two most important goaltenders in the league this season. The Blues didn't show up until the last quarter of the season; they were largely carried by the goaltenders the first three-quarters. The Blues certainly wouldn't have finished second in the West without the strong play of Elliott and Allen, they likely would've been a wildcard...or worse.

"In the end, changing the goalie was a mistake that just didn't end up costing the Blues."

I thought you just finished explaining, in the prior arguments, that there is no way of knowing either way whether the goalie change provide for a positive, a negative, or no discernible effect on the outcome of the game (which I agreed with)?

But, how does your closing line, that i quoted, not totally refute everything you just got done making a case for?

The only cure is the decapitation of Kerry Fraser. Because, you know, the Leafs would have won the Stanley Cup in 1993 had he called the high stick on Gretzky.
- jmatchett383

I would endorse this. He gave the damn Lightning a two man advantage on weak penalties in game bloody 7.

Let's make a holiday of it.

I would endorse this. He gave the damn Lightning a two man advantage on weak penalties in game bloody 7.

Let's make a holiday of it.
- fry

I just saw the vector animation showing the Gelinas no-goal. I don't buy it, as they're making some assumptions on the depth.

Sometimes, it's not logic that influences a coaches mind, but rather the aspect of that gut feeling, that token chance.

That is what makes Hockey so great. Stats are useful in acknowledging scenarios and helping out a coach make decisions, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the what the mind prefers.

This is what distinguishes us from robots; the element and conscience of the human mind.
- EdmHockeyMan

Your best post ever I think

James Tanner the reason why you do not understand logic or statistics is that you are guilty of thinking in a linear fashion. You seem to havno comprehension of systems thinking.

This is why your use of stats is bogus. You can no interpret them through the noise because you see only linear casual relationships. You probably cannot even identify what one of your fellow countrymen and excellent statistician was able regarding the hockey stick graph of global warming being driven by anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions. Because you think only in a linear fashion. Your understanding of cause and effect are so basic that you will never be able to see a larger picture.

Besides the goaltending argumentnyou are making is a logical fallacy. You are seeking to prove the antecedent by claiming that is what others are doing. The stats say A. A, therefore B. That is plain wrong.

Of course you missed Corsi between the two goaltenders failed to see which player was playing without which players due to injuries and were unable to see how much and for how long the Blues leaned on Allen with their injuries early in the season.

James Tanner the reason why you do not understand logic or statistics is that you are guilty of thinking in a linear fashion. You seem to havno comprehension of systems thinking.

This is why your use of stats is bogus. You can no interpret them through the noise because you see only linear casual relationships. You probably cannot even identify what one of your fellow countrymen and excellent statistician was able regarding the hockey stick graph of global warming being driven by anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions. Because you think only in a linear fashion. Your understanding of cause and effect are so basic that you will never be able to see a larger picture.

Besides the goaltending argumentnyou are making is a logical fallacy. You are seeking to prove the antecedent by claiming that is what others are doing. The stats say A. A, therefore B. That is plain wrong.

Of course you missed Corsi between the two goaltenders failed to see which player was playing without which players due to injuries and were unable to see how much and for how long the Blues leaned on Allen with their injuries early in the season.
- BluemanGuruu

Logical fallacy! That's Tanner's material, get your own. He's a critical thinker.

Seriously though, very well said.

Talk about click bait. If you had watched even one second of game three in the StL v. SJ series, you'd know that Elliot's performance had been declining. He was fighting the puck on nearly every shot and his reactions post to post were nowhere near normal.

He is tired from playing so many games back-to-back. Changing to Allen is not a significant downgrade between the pipes, so giving Elliot rest when you've lost two games in a row and had been outplayed is not a bad move to 1) hold all of the players accountable for losing and 2) to give Elliot a well needed rest.

James Tanner the reason why you do not understand logic or statistics is that you are guilty of thinking in a linear fashion. You seem to havno comprehension of systems thinking.

This is why your use of stats is bogus. You can no interpret them through the noise because you see only linear casual relationships. You probably cannot even identify what one of your fellow countrymen and excellent statistician was able regarding the hockey stick graph of global warming being driven by anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions. Because you think only in a linear fashion. Your understanding of cause and effect are so basic that you will never be able to see a larger picture.

Besides the goaltending argumentnyou are making is a logical fallacy. You are seeking to prove the antecedent by claiming that is what others are doing. The stats say A. A, therefore B. That is plain wrong.

Of course you missed Corsi between the two goaltenders failed to see which player was playing without which players due to injuries and were unable to see how much and for how long the Blues leaned on Allen with their injuries early in the season.
- BluemanGuruu

Only on the internet kids.

Tanner,

You seem to be in the habit of misapplying rules of logic and probability. You did it the other day with your coin toss analogy and are doing so again here.

You are [badly] attempting to apply rules of logic and probability where human behavior is concerned.

If you'd like to talk logic, then let's do so: your premise is fundamentally flawed which makes any conclusion you draw suspect, at best.

Yes, recency bias is a real thing. So is cherry-picking evidence to support a conclusion. But your specific citations of these principles is wrong. And as someone who stated earlier that you find a lack of logic offensive - I find your consistent misuse of information offensive.

If matchups are evened out over time; and players who make it to the NHL don't have the same psychology as every other human; then teams would, over time, have the same record at home as they do on the road. Home ice advantage includes getting the last change, is negated by the first of your usual arguments. And having the support of the fans, negated by your concept that players don't need a spark.

Since we know teams have statistically significant better results at home, we've proven your logic false.

Tanner,

You seem to be in the habit of misapplying rules of logic and probability. You did it the other day with your coin toss analogy and are doing so again here.

You are
- devils_mike[badly] attempting to apply rules of logic and probability where human behavior is concerned.

If you'd like to talk logic, then let's do so: your premise is fundamentally flawed which makes any conclusion you draw suspect, at best.

Yes, recency bias is a real thing. So is cherry-picking evidence to support a conclusion. But your specific citations of these principles is wrong. And as someone who stated earlier that you find a lack of logic offensive - I find your consistent misuse of information offensive.

Hey if it makes you feel all smart and stuff to rip on a guy who lives in a broken down Chrysler Lebaron out back of a burned down Dominoes, then be my guest.

Hey if it makes you feel all smart and stuff to rip on a guy who lives in a broken down Chrysler Lebaron out back of a burned down Dominoes, then be my guest.
- James_Tanner

You can deflect all you'd like, but you have yet to really address any of the concerns that I, and others, have pointed out in your arguments.

It's not a case of me disagreeing with your opinions. If that's all it were, I would have read the blog and moved on.

You are justifying conclusions with misapplied logic and concepts (which is ironic since that seemed to be the intent of this entire blog). That is with what I take issue.