[Signing] Weegar 8 year extension worth $50 million ($6.25mil AAV)

[GranteedEV]

It's frustrating that Hanifin and Zadorov are somehow ahead of Weegar on the PP

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

It's frustrating that Hanifin and Zadorov are somehow ahead of Weegar on the PP

I agree. I think our 3 defencemen on the PP should:

1. Andersson
2. Weegar
3. Hanifin

Weegar should be on one of the PP units every night.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by saillias

I'm surprised he shows the card like this. By "this" I mean he just averaged the data from the last 3 seasons so the smaller sample of this season has had a negligible impact. If its not this year in isolation it's not relevant, its mostly showing us he was a good Panther which we knew

It says weighted avg. Presumably current year is weighted much higher than 2-3 years ago.

Based on the right side graphs though it seems like this year and last year may be combined in the highest weight category, which probably makes sense until at least halfway through this season

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Until he stops serving them up every game I am calling him the pizza guy.

Domino.. he delivers!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by chummer

That's harsh, don't be dissin' dissen.

It's not harsh, it's factual lol.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Weegsy

Gotta use the 'Z' tho...

Weegzy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It's not harsh, it's factual lol.

Factual?

Can you back it up with evidence?

What are his 'pizza' numbers vs the other d-men?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Factual?

Can you back it up with evidence?

What are his 'pizza' numbers vs the other d-men?

It seems difficult for some people to differentiate opinion from fact.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Factual?

Can you back it up with evidence?

What are his 'pizza' numbers vs the other d-men?

Do you watch Flames games? Then you have seen the evidence. I always find it amusing some fans just can't handle earned criticism of players off their favourite team.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Do you watch Flames games? Then you have seen the evidence. I always find it amusing some fans just can't handle earned criticism of players off their favourite team.

Such an unnecessary comment. Especially after how you handled the criticism about how wrong you were about Gaudreau.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Do you watch Flames games? Then you have seen the evidence. I always find it amusing some fans just can't handle earned criticism of players off their favourite team.

My counter:

Do you watch Flames games? Then you have seen the evidence to the contrary. You are wrong, I am right.

———————-

That doesn’t make the most interesting debate does it? There’s a good amount of data out there showing Weegar is a high quality defenceman. If you’re looking to refute that it makes it more fun if you bring something to table. Show us the gaffes that hurt the team. The numbers show that his impact on the team is a positive one.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

The numbers show that his impact on the team is a positive one.

Numbers, schmumbers. Numbers are for dweebs. When I was a kid, numbers were for the losers we used to stuff into lockers. We shoulda never let them out.

Am I doing this right?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Do you watch Flames games? Then you have seen the evidence..

Can you identify a correlation between "pizzas that you've seen" and... literally any fact-based aspect of performance?

Hockey fans key in on events
such as turnovers up the middle, lost board battles, and failed toedrags precisely because when they go bad, there might be a goal event, which is emotionally triggering.

But it is impossible to remove that emotional reaction from the non-emotional evaluation of a player's body of work, it you are evaluating based on subjective criteria (with skewed sample sizes of "your favourite team" at that)

Top players almost always find themselves in situations where failed attempts at plays are glaringly obvious. It's their original ability to make those plays, which lesser players would not attempt, that makes them highly effective.

Someone mentioned in another thread they would not want Erik Karlsson on this team because he's not a defensive-minded defenseman. The guy who at least a few days ago was literally tied with Sidney Crosby for first in the NHL in even strength scoring, and a guy who has a positive (+5) goal differential at 5v5 despite playing on a bottom feeding team with an AHL-calibre partner and poor goaltending.

Why? Because they saw some goal events againdt that made EK look bad.

Even Cale Makar would look worse without Devon Toews next to him.

Even Nathan MacKinnon has Taylor Hall style moments in games.

Whether it's Weegar, or Huberdeau, or Kadri, or Kylington, the players on this team most likely to make visually egregious plays are not the problem that needs fixing. It's just the problem you notice.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by chummer

Such an unnecessary comment. Especially after how you handled the criticism about how wrong you were about Gaudreau.

Trollololol

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Can you identify a correlation between "pizzas that you've seen" and... literally any fact-based aspect of performance?

Hockey fans key in on events
such as turnovers up the middle, lost board battles, and failed toedrags precisely because when they go bad, there might be a goal event, which is emotionally triggering.

But it is impossible to remove that emotional reaction from the non-emotional evaluation of a player's body of work, it you are evaluating based on subjective criteria (with skewed sample sizes of "your favourite team" at that)

Top players almost always find themselves in situations where failed attempts at plays are glaringly obvious. It's their original ability to make those plays, which lesser players would not attempt, that makes them highly effective.

Someone mentioned in another thread they would not want Erik Karlsson on this team because he's not a defensive-minded defenseman. The guy who at least a few days ago was literally tied with Sidney Crosby for first in the NHL in even strength scoring, and a guy who has a positive (+5) goal differential at 5v5 despite playing on a bottom feeding team with an AHL-calibre partner and poor goaltending.

Why? Because they saw some goal events againdt that made EK look bad.

Even Cale Makar would look worse without Devon Toews next to him.

Even Nathan MacKinnon has Taylor Hall style moments in games.

Whether it's Weegar, or Huberdeau, or Kadri, or Kylington, the players on this team most likely to make visually egregious plays are not the problem that needs fixing. It's just the problem you notice.

I was the guy who said I don't want Karlsson because he's paid 11 million to be a defenceman not a right wing.

He sucks defensively and his offensive contributions don't saw off his poor defensive plays.

He contributes to both teams when he is on the ice.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

He sucks defensively and his offensive contributions don't saw off his poor defensive plays.

You are replying to a post that directly contradicts your claim:

a guy who has a positive (+5) goal differential at 5v5 despite playing on a bottom feeding team with an AHL-calibre partner and poor goaltending.

You repeat the lie in the very moment when you are quoting the facts. That takes chutzpah.

[Paulie Walnuts]

If you watched the games we played against San Jose last week you would have seen that +5 at work. It's not just thaf San Jose sucks he is contributing to them sucking.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

If you watched the games we played against San Jose last week you would have seen that +5 at work. It's not just thaf San Jose sucks he is contributing to them sucking.

This is word salad. You have no facts in support of your claim, so you try misdirection.

The Sharks' two games against the Flames were not a representative sample of their season as a whole. Their goal differential in those two games was –7, or –3.5 per game. In their other 33 games this season, their goal differential was –14, or –0.42 per game. You are cherrypicking two of the team's worst performances of the season and pretending that you can judge their whole season from that.

I would say ‘nice try’, but your effort is so risibly bad that it isn't even worth the expenditure of sarcasm.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is word salad. You have no facts in support of your claim, so you try misdirection.

The Sharks' two games against the Flames were not a representative sample of their season as a whole. Their goal differential in those two games was –7, or –3.5 per game. In their other 33 games this season, their goal differential was –14, or –0.42 per game. You are cherrypicking two of the team's worst performances of the season and pretending that you can judge their whole season from that.

I would say ‘nice try’, but your effort is so risibly bad that it isn't even worth the expenditure of sarcasm.

My eyes tell me enough to support my claim.

You toss out all the stats you like the game is played on the ice not a simulation that you look at stats after and say someone played well.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

My eyes tell me enough to support my claim.

That's not how this works. You support your claim by giving evidence, and your eyes are not connected to other people's brains.

You toss out all the stats you like the game is played on the ice not a simulation that you look at stats after and say someone played well.

The old argument from ignorance. Every one of these statistics is based on adding up numbers of events that actually happened, even if you did not see them. You insist that we must believe your eyes, but you refuse to believe anyone else's eyes when they see things that you weren't there to see.

The plain fact of the matter is that Karlsson has been on the ice for more even-strength goals for than against, even though his team has given up a lot more even-strength goals against than for. It is a plain fact that the goals his team gives up when he is on the ice are fewer than the goals they score when he is on the ice. But apparently, because these goals for and against are counted using numbers, you don't believe them, because numbers are for dummies or something.

Your stupidity on this point is laughable.