Line-up changes

[maplesyrup]

And yet Colby isn't the whipping boy. No offense, but this is a pretty ludicrous double standard.

Well, first of all, "whipping boy" seems pretty strong. Is there any chance people don't make fun of Connolly? Probably not. But I don't see those jokes as blaming him or "hating" him.

But secondly, the double standard is pretty easily explained. Armstrong, like Clark to some extent, plays a physical game and people chalk up their injuries to that physical style. Connolly is both soft as butter and brittle as, well, brittle.

Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical, and especially so if you want to compare him to Clark. He's not in the same ballpark as Clark was. Yes he is compared to Connolly and he will take the occasional run at someone but the fact is, he doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does, and I don't consider him all that physical.

Nobody should compare Armstrong to Clark but "Armstrong isn't exactly all that physical?" Please explain.

Please read above......Army for such a physical guy, doesn't hit anymore then Lupul does. Maybe Lupul is a bad example for you.....How bout this...Mike Brown is physical..He finishes every check and punishes people...Army is an agitator, a chirper.....Army isn't Mike Brown.

He's an agitator, yes but I think he plays a physical game too. I think he's capable of backing up his chirping. Does he hit like Dion or or fight like Brown, well no... you've got me there. 

Edit: You know what, I'll correct myself here... I went to Google to find a clip or two of some Armstrong being physical clips and there's literally too many to count. Some of the hits he doles out are indeed Phaneuf-esque. He's physical all right... Much more so then Lupul.

 

[sneakyray]

reimer's injury is almost as vague as connoly's...and he is far more important to the team success than either of the other guys, and doesn't he have a history of head and neck injuries...oh yeah, and didn't he fight through an entire period before being pulled because of a significant injury.

yeah, I hate that these guys are hurt cause they are all pretty good players but I think arguing what injury hurts the leafs the most is pointless because its pretty obvious that reimer's takes the cake.

new whipping boy reimer?  anyone?

 

[Bullfrog]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

 

[TML fan]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

 

[Leafaholic99]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

The Leafs do have a better record with Armstrong in the lineup, then when he isn't, he draws a lot of penalties and gets under the skin of the opposing teams top players a lot, too bad so many fans look at stats and determine a players value that way.

Fans need to actually watch games and base their opinions on that, rather then look at the stat sheet and hate on some players.

 

[TML fan]

He's -3. Got anything else?

I didn't throw away his importance to the team. He's like that kid on everyone's house league team who can't skate and always goes offside. He's the one joking around on the bench making sure everyone is having fun. He's basically the Leafs' cheerleader.

Anything else? Like, an argument stronger than your "he's a -3." In only  games played this year, that is probably the least statistically significant fact I've ever heard.

I agree it's a weak argument, but when the counter argument is supported only by opinion and the only available (however irrelevant) statistical evidence says contrary, I'm inclined to stick by my comment.

I thought the other statistical evidence was that the team has a better record with him in the lineup than without?

Surely that is no more coincidental than him being a -3.

Yeah, hence it being a weak argument to counter an equally weak argument. It's hard to convince me that Armstrong is good at shutting down lines when he's on the ice for more goals against than for. If anything, he's rather average at it.

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

 

[TML fan]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

I think it makes perfect sense. Armstrong could be the water boy and it wouldn't matter. As long as he's around the team (which he probably isn't much when he's injured) he'll have a positive impact. His value is in his personality and his leadership. I don't think anything he does on the ice makes more than the slightest bit of difference on whether the Leafs win or lose.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

As for the team's record, using the logic of that argument I could say that it doesn't matter if Armstrong plays a single minute to make a difference. All the record tells us is that Armstrong was or wasn't in the lineup.

But since you do know that he plays more than zero minutes, it would not make any sense to look at it that way.  Why would you not look at it as at worst a coincidence and at best a sign that he has a positive impact upon the rest of the team when in the lineup?

I think it makes perfect sense. Armstrong could be the water boy and it wouldn't matter. As long as he's around the team (which he probably isn't much when he's injured) he'll have a positive impact. His value is in his personality and his leadership. I don't think anything he does on the ice makes more than the slightest bit of difference on whether the Leafs win or lose.

Come to think of it the Leafs were 25-19-6 with Armstrong last year, so essentially 25-25. If the only difference between Armstrong and no Armstrong is average and terrible, then again, I don't think he makes that much of a difference.

With him they got points at a 91 point pace, and without him, they got points at a 74 point pace.

And if you want to include the games he's played this season, they are 29-19-7 with him in the lineup since he's been a Leaf - or a 97 point pace.

Including this season's games, without him they are 18-20-1 - or a 77 point pace.

You might want to belittle it, but those are huge discrepancies and important ones.

 

[TML fan]

You could argue that the Leafs would go undefeated this season if Armstrong played every game and I couldn't really say much, could I? Using that, you could argue that Armstrong is not only the most valuable player on the team, but indeed in the entire league.

That's why I removed that point about the record. It says something but not reliably. The Leafs are going to lose games with Armstrong in the lineup. I think it's just as valid for me to believe that the numbers would even out over 82 games as it is for you to extrapolate a point pace based on the games that he did play. Armstrong playing less actually helps your argument.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You could argue that the Leafs would go undefeated this season if Armstrong played every game and I couldn't really say much, could I? Using that, you could argue that Armstrong is not only the most valuable player on the team, but indeed in the entire league.

That's why I removed that point about the record. It says something but not reliably. The Leafs are going to lose games with Armstrong in the lineup. I think it's just as valid for me to believe that the numbers would even out over 82 games as it is for you to extrapolate a point pace based on the games that he did play. Armstrong playing less actually helps your argument.

Sure, I could say they would go undefeated, and then any rational person would say 5 games is a ridiculously small sample size to make any kind of generalization on.

Which is why I used a 55 game sample, that being the number of games he has played over the last 2 seasons for the Leafs, because it is close to 3/4 of the games of an entire NHL season.

That to me is a lot easier to look at for trends, and in my mind is at least something to point to, rather than simply just saying "nope he has no impact, he just doesn't" without really showing why he doesn't.

I'm not saying he is the reason 100% for this discrepancy, but clearly the team has played much, much better with him in the lineup.  And whether or not you want to believe it is because of him or not, until the trend changes appreciably, having Armstrong in the lineup has seen a much better result.

 

[TML fan]

Wait? I havent shown why Armstrong has no impact? The lack of statistics hasn't already done that? Actually I never said he has no impact. In fact I believe I stated that he has a positive impact if you bother to read the entirety of my posts.

All you've done is just show me the Leafs record when he plays. I already know its good. Can you tell me WHY it's good? I don't think it has anything to do with his play on the ice, and so far you're the one saying "Armstrong just makes them play better". I've done more to explain that then you have and I'm the one saying he's not that important.

 

[maplesyrup]

Other than bringing a physical game and bringing an asset on the PK, he's probably one of the most well liked guys in the room. A character to say the least. Why is that a good thing you say? Well, I work shift work... I always do better and and have an extra je ne sais quoi in my step when I'm working with my favourite people. Does that in some way translate to hockey? I'd say it probably does. 

 

[leafplasma]

On a team devoid of any veteran forwards to help with all this youth.  Look at what Ryan Smyth is doing with the Oilers this season.  A character 28 year old in the presence of Armstrong has a ton of importance to this young team.  Although he isn't the cagey vet maybe this team is lacking, his importance to this team simply cannot be overlooked.  I don't think there is any fluke involved whatsoever in looking at the Leafs record with Colby in the lineup.

 

[TML fan]

Ryan Smyth has 16 points in 16 games. His contribution is measurable. Again, all you've shown me is that Armstrong just needs to be in the lineup. The Leafs could dress him injured and he'd still make their record better with him than without.

I'm not seeing how a guy who averages just over 12 minutes a game, doesn't get any points, and is a minus player has THAT much of an impact on whether his team wins or loses. As I've said, he probably isn't around the team that much when he's injured and they miss him. There's nothing there that says it has anything to do with what he does on the ice.

 

[leafplasma]

Ryan Smyth has 16 points in 16 games. His contribution is measurable. Again, all you've shown me is that Armstrong just needs to be in the lineup. The Leafs could dress him injured and he'd still make their record better with him than without.

I'm not seeing how a guy who averages just over 12 minutes a game, doesn't get any points, and is a minus player has THAT much of an impact on whether his team wins or loses. As I've said, he probably isn't around the team that much when he's injured and they miss him. There's nothing there that says it has anything to do with what he does on the ice.

Your just not a good judge of character then 

 

[Strangelove]

The offense has languished long enough that it seems like a good time to bring up Kadri and give him a significant role.  Frattin's been given a far longer leash than Kadri was ever afforded last season, and at this point the former simply isn't getting it done.

I was under the impression we'd seen enough of Bozak to permanently relegate him out of the top 6 - apparent not.  Kadri has to be given an opportunity in his place.

 

[pnjunction]

Bozak was one of our better players that game and looked decent in the first period.

Our vaunted 2nd line however, could be replaced by a potato, a peanut and a donut and they'd have the same number of points in the last 4 games.

 

[princedpw]

Ryan Smyth has 16 points in 16 games. His contribution is measurable. Again, all you've shown me is that Armstrong just needs to be in the lineup. The Leafs could dress him injured and he'd still make their record better with him than without.

I'm not seeing how a guy who averages just over 12 minutes a game, doesn't get any points, and is a minus player has THAT much of an impact on whether his team wins or loses. As I've said, he probably isn't around the team that much when he's injured and they miss him. There's nothing there that says it has anything to do with what he does on the ice.

Your just not a good judge of character then 

Seriously?  That is your argument?  You might have well as said "I'm right. You're wrong. Nah-nah nah-nah."

Edit: I really should read posts before I comment.  I missed the smiley face. Sorry!