lilbones Wrote:stop looking at stats, because there are more important things
Agreed. Anybody who thinks stats are everything knows nothing about the game and probably hasn't ever been on a winning team in their life.
Having said that, I'm not really a big fan of Primeau and I doubt he'll make the team.
tommygunn Wrote:lilbones Wrote:stop looking at stats, because there are more important things
Agreed. Anybody who thinks stats are everything knows nothing about the game and probably hasn't ever been on a winning team in their life.
Having said that, I'm not really a big fan of Primeau and I doubt he'll make the team.
The only thing worse than going by ONLY stats is MAKING EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE STATS. Yes there are other things than stats. Like I said, I'd rather have Brendan Witt on Vancouver than Jovo. He can play DEFENSE but can't get 50 points a year.
Don't say "knows nothing about the game" because you come off as holier than thou. Unless I'm speaking with Scotty Bowman, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
Stats matter a lot. Not the be all and end all but they matter. When a goal scorer stops putting up good number they say he turned into a two way player which is another way of saying he isn't as good but we have to make him seem as good because he has a name. That's the job of the hockey media, to build up stars whether they deserve it or not. I don't need to hear Bob Cole tell me how great a play was when a peewee player can make the same play. Professionals should be held to a higher standard. I've seen NHLers who CANNOT TAKE A SLAPSHOT. It's ridiculous.
Stats matter because guys like Forsberg and Naslund aren't easily replaceable. People say Trevor Linden is just as valuable as a guy who scores 50 goals but he's not.Penalty killing and winning faceoffs ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT AS BEING ABLE TO SCORE 50 GOALS. Anybody can be a penalty killer. Linden could be replaced by a LOT OF OTHER PLAYERS. Matt Cooke could be replaced EASILY. Tie Domi could be replaced EASILY. Kris Draper IS NOT A STAR. He's a HARD WORKER. There are PLENTY OF PLAYERS WHO COULD WORK AS HARD AND BE ALMOST AS GOOD AS DRAPER. Some players are decent players but REPLACEABLE. Primeau could be replaced by a big lumbering guy in the AHL easier than Joe Sakic can be replaced for example. The true SUPERSTARS DO PUT UP NUMBERS. Therefore, stats do matter quite a bit.
tommygunn Wrote:lilbones Wrote:stop looking at stats, because there are more important things
Agreed. Anybody who thinks stats are everything knows nothing about the game and probably hasn't ever been on a winning team in their life.
Exactly. That's why Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and the rest of the guys who put up stats were complete bums who never won anything and the hockey hall of fame is littered with fourth liners who oozed "character" and "heart". Errrr, nevermind.
Stats aren't EVERYTHING. But they do count for a lot.
However, if all you can do is score goals (for example), then you are a skilled player, but you're not a star. The real stars of the game get their goals and assists but also do the little things, like win faceoffs and play good defense.
That's why I think Canada will win the Olympic hockey gold again... other countries have many skilled players, but I think Canada has more stars.
I didn't say stats are everything. Someone said there are "more important" things than stats, which is hogwash. If you win faceoffs and play good defense but you don't score, you simply aren't as valuable as a guy who wins fewer faceoffs, doesn't play as good D, BUT scores. Which takes me back to my original post about Primeau. Maybe he wins more than 50% of his faceoffs. Maybe he plays good defense. Good for him. But I'll take an 80 point guy over a 30 point guy who does "the little things" each and every time.
As the Bobby Holik Rag$ era proved, it doesn't matter how good your checking centre is if the rest of your team is loaded with unmotivated floaters.
And, as I said before, if Keith Primeau is so good at "the little things", then why isn't his name on the Cup? He's played on some pretty talented and deep teams, yet, NADA.
tigerthelion Wrote:Anybody can be a penalty killer.
I strongly disagree!
cferneyh Wrote:Someone said there are "more important" things than stats, which is hogwash. If you win faceoffs and play good defense but you don't score, you simply aren't as valuable as a guy who wins fewer faceoffs, doesn't play as good D, BUT scores.
So you're saying a guy like Pierre Larouche was more valuable than Bob Gainey? :roll:
When reflecting on the Habs winning 4 straight Stanley Cups in the 70's, (a dynasty, considered one of the greatest teams ever) Scotty Bowman said that the most valuable player during those years was Bob Gainey.
During this time, the Soviets also went on record saying "Bob Gainey is the best player in the world."
Gainey never scored a lot of goals but he was an extremely valuable player who dominated the game whenever he was on the ice.
"Gainey became a star despite never being a flashy scorer. His name appeared in the game summary far less frequently than most of his teammates, but without him the Habs quite possibly wouldn't have won those Cups."
-legendsofhockey.net
Gainey was so good at what he did, the NHL pretty much invented a trophy to honour what a player like him brings to the game. i.e. the Selke Trophy.
"Bob's contribution to the game was that he proved once and for all that a forward could be a genuine star without scoring a lot."
-Ken Dryden
When Denis Potvin was asked about great players he mentioned Gainey before Lafleur:
"He was the guy who made Montreal really hard for me to play," said Potvin. "He hurried you. If you did not turn in time and really hustle after the puck and get rid if it right away, he planted you. Hell, he planted you even if you did make the play. After a few shifts, I'd be throwing the puck away against a Lambert or a Riseborough too. He took me off my game and made me play too quickly against Montreal. I don't think I played nearly as well at a Bob Gainey tempo as I did when I controlled the pace of the game."
8)
And I'm sure that if those Habs hadn't had Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt, Jacques Lemaire - among others - that they would have been just as dominant - all because of Bob Gainey. Thanks for proving my point. :thumb:
And I find it comical that you are comparing Bob Gainey (4 Cups as a player, 4 Selkes) to Primeau - an overrated player who hasn't won a damn thing. :roll:
cferneyh Wrote:And I'm sure that if those Habs hadn't had Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt, Jacques Lemaire - among others - that they would have been just as dominant - all because of Bob Gainey. Thanks for proving my point. :thumb:
And I find it comical that you are comparing Bob Gainey (4 Cups as a player, 4 Selkes) to Primeau - an overrated player who hasn't won a damn thing. :roll:
Proving your point?
cratch:
I totally
disproved your point that "If you win faceoffs and play good defense but you don't score, you simply aren't as valuable as a guy who wins fewer faceoffs, doesn't play as good D, BUT scores."
The coach of the Canadiens during that dynasty, a man who would know the team better than anybody else, has said Bob Gainey was his most valuable player during those years. Not Lafleur, not Shutt, not Lemaire.. but
GAINEY!
Where do I compare Gainey to Primeau? I was comparing Gainey (won most faceoffs, played great defense but didn't score much) to Pierre Larouche, a player who was terrible defensively, but did score a great number of goals.
Might want to scroll up and re-read my post a little more slowly... :thumb:
By the way, Gainey won
5 Cups as a player! The last Cup coming with him as captain of the team, a pretty
valuable position to hold!
As well, he won a Conn Smythe Trophy (most
valuable player in the playoffs)!
8)
Uh, what did you do to disprove my point that the Habs wouldn't have won crap without Lafleur, Shutt, or Lemaire? Oh right - a coach's quote about how valuable someone else was. Yeah, coaches never spew empty rhetoric like that. Never.
"Take away all of our offense and we'd still kick ass because of our checking centre".
That's rich.
What's next? Take away Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson and the Oilers are still a dynasty because of Esa Tikkanen? Uh, yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.
For the third time now... *sigh*
This was the point you made. One that I totally refuted!
"If you win faceoffs and play good defense but you don't score, you simply aren't as valuable as a guy who wins fewer faceoffs, doesn't play as good D, BUT scores."
In my posts above, where do you see me saying anything that resembles an asinine remark like "take away all our offense.."?
I'm simply saying that a defensive player that doesn't score many goals can be more valuable to a team than a player who scores but is lacking defensively! Bob Gainey perfectly proves my point!
8)
tommygunn Wrote:I'm simply saying that a defensive player that doesn't score many goals can be more valuable to a team than a player who scores but is lacking defensively!
"
Can be".
And I'm simply saying that I'd rather have a guy who puts the puck in the net, since the object of the game is to score more goals than the opposition. Hey, if you want to load up Team Canada with a bunch of Primeau's, good for you. I'm sure that team would win gold, given all the Cups he's won. Errrrr, nevermind.
cferneyh Wrote:tommygunn Wrote:I'm simply saying that a defensive player that doesn't score many goals can be more valuable to a team than a player who scores but is lacking defensively!
"Can be".
Thanks for
finally agreeing! :thumb:
Quote:Hey, if you want to load up Team Canada with a bunch of Primeau's, good for you. I'm sure that team would win gold, given all the Cups he's won. Errrrr, nevermind.
As I said earlier...
"I'm not really a big fan of Primeau and I doubt he'll make the team."
8)
Actually, I'm not agreeing with you. I was mocking the "can be" part of your quote. But since getting me to agree with you appears to be some sort of obsession of yours, interpret it however you like.
cferneyh Wrote:Actually, I'm not agreeing with you. I was mocking the "can be" part of your quote. But since getting me to agree with you appears to be some sort of obsession of yours, interpret it however you like.
?????
wow...
cratch: