Roy Retiring? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-28-2003, 04:41 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
hey Griffs, I just want to make one more point beforeI let this thing die. Now I know this is an extreme, but I'm just doing it to make a point, so bear with me.

Lets say there is team A who is full of superstars for 10 years, by far the greatest team ever, offensively and defensively. But they have the worst goalie of all time. Every game they give up 10 shots and he lets in 9 goals. So he has a GA of 9.00 and a Save % of .100 in the 10 years. But, they score 10 goals every game. So they always win, and they won 10 Stanley Cups with him.

Now there is Team B, the worst team of all time. They give up 100 shots a game. But they have a great goalie, he stops 99 of them. So he has a 1.00 GA and a .990 Save %. But his team never scores, so they lose every game 1-0. But he ends up winning 10 Vezinas.

Now by your theory, you would say the goalie on Team A is better than the goalie on Team B, because he has 10 Stanley Cups, and that means more than the 10 Vezinas, since the Stanley Cups are the ultimate "individual" accomplishment. So do you see how ridiculous that is?
This doesn't refute what I was saying at all, and if you and Cujo believe it does, I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear the first time. This is an extreme case. (I always love how people use extreme cases out of context.) I was simply saying that in Roy's case--ie, the balance of his hardware (personal achievments) with his team achievements (Cups)--far outshines Hasek. I was simply saying the two things, personal and team, have to be weighted against each other, and Roy easily comes out on top in such a scenario. It's a team game that relies on individual excellence, and therefore needs to be addressed accordingly, whether you are speaking in terms of the team, or individually.

Touché.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 05:43 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
PS: I think it's safe to start calling you two Abbott and Costello.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 06:10 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 11:11 PM
i think it's safe to start calling you Barry Melrose
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 08:51 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Michael, I'm sorry but you're just being... well I don't even know what you're being. The point that you made is that hockey is based on the dichotomy of individual success and team strength... I don't think that point is going to be refuted. But, in order to talk about GOALTENDING in general terms, you have to look at individual stats. Admittedly, Roy has great numbers... so by superficial examination you could argue that he is the best goalie ever. However, when you consider the team aspect of his performance (the argument that both Chizip and I have subscribed to ), his statistics get exaggerated. The same type of discussion emerges when talking about other money goalies like Brodeur. Individual success is how you fair individually... some of the best goalies ever haven't been afforded the opportunity to play for a team like the Devils or Avalanche of recent years... you can't deny their abilities simply because of their teammates shortcomings. If you need further examples... all you have to do is ask.

Obviously there is a discrepancy in how we look at netminding ability... and that's fine. Honor Roy as much as you want, because his career has meritted an ovation or two. But, when you start asking questions about who the best goalie of all time is... then there's a problem. We are all biased... so, I don't see any of us backing off or accepting another idea.

PS- I see Michael as more of the Curly from the Three Stooges.
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 08:59 PM   #95
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
i think it's safe to start calling you Barry Melrose

I don't think there's enough hair goop in the world. Or gold chains, or leisure suits.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 09:23 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cujo
Michael, I'm sorry but you're just being... well I don't even know what you're being. The point that you made is that hockey is based on the dichotomy of individual success and team strength... I don't think that point is going to be refuted. But, in order to talk about GOALTENDING in general terms, you have to look at individual stats. Admittedly, Roy has great numbers... so by superficial examination you could argue that he is the best goalie ever. However, when you consider the team aspect of his performance (the argument that both Chizip and I have subscribed to ), his statistics get exaggerated. The same type of discussion emerges when talking about other money goalies like Brodeur. Individual success is how you fair individually... some of the best goalies ever haven't been afforded the opportunity to play for a team like the Devils or Avalanche of recent years... you can't deny their abilities simply because of their teammates shortcomings. If you need further examples... all you have to do is ask.

Obviously there is a discrepancy in how we look at netminding ability... and that's fine. Honor Roy as much as you want, because his career has meritted an ovation or two. But, when you start asking questions about who the best goalie of all time is... then there's a problem. We are all biased... so, I don't see any of us backing off or accepting another idea.

PS- I see Michael as more of the Curly from the Three Stooges.
First of all, I am looking at indivdual stats, but I'm also looking at his team stats. Whether you like it or not, wins are an integral component of a goaltender's worth. They are ultimately judged on that alone. They are paid to win hockey games, and I don't buy the argument that Roy only played for great teams. He single handedly won the Cup in his rookie year in '86. Talk to any commentators, players and coaches alike, and they'll tell you that. He beat the NY Rangers all by himself, making 20 saves in the final OT for the win. He then proceeded to carry the Canadiens all the way to the Cup, stoning the Flames time and time again in the finals. He did the same thing in 93. LA totally outplayed them, outshooting them, outchancing them, but they couldn't beat Patrick Roy. You don't win 10 OT games *in a row* without spectacular goaltending. That's what he did. Talk all you want about being on great teams, but I just don't buy that argument as to why he had a great career. Yes, he played on some fine teams (especially once he got to Colorado), but that doesn't take away from the fact he carried his team to the Stanley Cup on at least two occasions, if not more. You could make the same argument that Lemieux was better than Gretzky because Lemiuex didn't play on the great Oiler teams that Gretzky did. You could say that his stats were "exaggerated".

Speaking of which, I really disagree with that statement:

"...when you consider the team aspect of his performance...his statistics get exaggerated."

How can stats "get exaggerated"? Stats are stats. They do not lie. People may draw conclusions based on those stats that are off base, but those are simply conclusions. You could say that Giggy has the best stats (GGA) since WWII and therefore claim he's the best goaltender of the modern era, but while that conclusion is obviously off base, to say that his stats are exaggerated is bogus. The fact remains, he has the best playoff stats of the modern era, and no one can take that away from him.

Anyway, you also say that I'm not looking at Roy's individual abilty - once again, totally bogus statement. I am most definitely considereing his individual talent. He is the most talented goaltender I've ever seen play. Now maybe that's just my opinion, but 90% of the hockey world agrees with me, so I don't think I'm all that off base. It's the same thing as making the argument that Lemieux was better than Gretzky in his prime. But all arguments to that end--just like yours and Chizip's--are based on the "what if" component. I prefer to use what actually happened, rather than "what if he'd played on a great team" to back up my claims, that's all.

PS: I still haven't revealed which one of you is Abbott and who is Costello.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 09:52 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Damn it... I was writing a rebuttal but interference logged me off.

First of all, EXAGGERATION of stats does exist... especially in GAA and SP %. Both are the product of team defense, relating to scoring chances and quantity of shots. The smaller the amount of legitimate scoring chances, the greater the goalies stats will be (logically). This corrupts numbers, giving money-goalies like Roy and Brodeur exaggerated statistics... I'm sure they are good goalies, but when you extrapolate their "numbers" to other teams... their stats become awful. Definitely not Vezina material.

An example of this exaggeration of stats comes from 2001, which Michael has proclaimed as *Roy's best year ever*... funnily enough the GM's voting didn't consider Roy as the best goalie that year, and the Writer's Association also saw that Jose Theodore grabbed the Hart Trophy. All things being fair... if that was Roy's BEST season, the GMs and Writer's must have thought it had less to do with his individual ability, and more to do with his team's defensive system. A system which inflates his stats. Your reply might be "oh, well that was only one year"... but if that was his BEST year, then obviously Roy's status as *the best goalie* ever is in jeopardy. If you want to then talk consistency... well, look at his later years. You have already admitted that the Avalanche were a great team... which considerably increased Roy's stats, CUPS, and awards.

As for "what-if" situations... stop demeaning our arguments. When you try to justify Roy's position it starts to sound desperate. Frankly, the only measuring-stick for comparison of goalies trans-temporally requires an examination of all the aspects of their respective era.

Now, I'm tired of saying the same thing... obviously your bias has pervaded you, as mine has...
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 10:09 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Looks like you've subscribed to the "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit," school of thought. "...trans-temporally requires..." lol
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-28-2003, 10:14 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Well, my school required you to finish a thought in less than six pages... or at least mention one that was comprehensible...



I'm sorry that you are baffled by my bull-shit. Your reading must be inhibited with your "blindness from unhealthy fan worship"...

PS- Here's one to add to your "words to look up for today list":

trans-temporally:
it means, across time.

I suggest a Scrabble game to determine the winner of this argument... my triple word score beats all of your additions to the word "it".
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 03:06 AM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Someone's feisty today.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 09:02 AM   #101
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 11:11 PM
cujo gets that way when he hasn't danced for a few days.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 05-29-2003, 04:35 PM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 11:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


No, no, no! Head up! Always keep the head up! That way you can see the goalie.

Supposedly.

Maybe you're right. You are Canadian, after all. My coach is only Minnesotan.
Minnesota doesn't produce very good goalies.

__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 12:24 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cujo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Province
Posts: 5,820
Local Time: 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Someone's feisty today.
Damn Midol... never works.

Yes, I tend to get testy about goaltending arguments... I wonder why?

PS- LMPA, I'm your private dancer... That was the name the Canadian Navy gave me anyway
__________________
cujo is offline  
Old 05-30-2003, 10:32 AM   #104
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 11:11 PM



Well, you are the one who first made me an honorary canuck.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 05-31-2003, 03:43 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:11 AM
Hahaha, this is funny...Okay, you know how Gary Betman brought up the idea of making the nets bigger to increase scoring? Well, Patrick Roy was just interviewed and, when asked the question about it, he had the following to say:

"They shouldn't make the nets bigger...they should just make the goal posts smaller. I mean, how many times have you seen the puck hit the post? If they just made the posts smaller, I think you'd see all the problems would be solved."



Bwahahahaha!!! The guy is hilarious! Make the posts smaller??? hahaha. Way too funny.

(And, no, it wouldn't do a thing, as the puck would have the same chance of going in since the size of the net would be exactly the same. The guy is such a joker.)
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com