Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
What a terrible post.
|
Well, you're an advanced stats guy, so who cares what you think xD.
Thanks for the explanation. Without your enlightened post, I could never have guessed it would be easier to score 5 on 4 than 5 on 5... You're saying 4 is less than 5??? What a fantastic contribution.
So you're saying Stone's PK prowess should be factored in, but Johnny's PP prowess shouldn't? Like you said, it's about overall game. Seems to me power plays are just as much a part of the game as penalty killing (Why, it's almost as if for every power play, there's a penalty kill - perhaps you could explain?). The fact you think PP time is a negative is foolish. Your statement that it's harder to score 50 points ES than 50 on the PP illustrates your reliance on stats. What if they scored those 50 PPP on 100 Powerplays? I'd argue that's a hell of a lot harder than scoring 50 in 75 games. You think coaches and GMs think Kane isn't as good because it's "easier" to score on the PP? Terrible. Johnny earned his spot on the powerplay by being able to produce consistently and efficiently, and that's a good thing. Pp specialists are just as valued, if not more so, than Pk specialists, you'd know that if you actually watched hockey instead of looking at stats... xP
What I'm saying is not that Stone's defensive ability is meaningless, but that it IS NOT of more value than Johnny' offensive ability. Like I said, it goes to the best rookie, not the best defensive rookie, so defensive ability is just as valuable as offensive ability, not more. Saying johnny deserves it less because he plays more PP is, frankly, dim. Your argument contradicts itself.