Who would you start in Game 6?

Who would you start tonight?


  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
8,182
Washington, DC
I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
This. If Tuukka is healthy, then it's obviously Tuukka. If he's at a reduced capacity, then it depends on how reduced he is and if that puts him below Sway as an option. Absent that information, I don't know how we could answer this.
 

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
8,866
Some fancy town in CT
I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
Yeah pretty much this. I'd almost rather play Swayman than even a 90% Rask. The margin for error for a goalie is too damn small to risk it with someone who is not fully healthy.
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,017
Gallows Hill
See how Rask responds to treatment, and make the call after warm ups. Tell Swayman to prepare to start, or come into the game at any point. If Rask isn’t moving well in warmups, start Swayman. If Rask appears to tweek anything, switch goalies. You can always put him back in if the painkillers kick in.

I’m voting start Swayman because I don’t think there’s any way he’s going to be moving well in warmups. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he has back surgery after the season.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,586
306, row 14
I voted for Rask but we're working with incomplete information.

This isn't something that just popped up on Monday. He's been playing hurt all postseason and has still posted a .925. If he tells the medical team it's gotten worse, then yeah, Swayman, but all things being equal if he's feeling the same as in the Washington series and games 1-4 of this series, I'd stick with Rask.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
2,207
Yeah without knowing what is wrong it's so hard to say, I remember trying to play through a groin strain and the recovery was anything but linear and it was pretty miserable, but I was able to play pretty consistently with something floating in my ankle until it wasn't a big deal just pain management. This sounds like something lingering and up and down and right now it seems like a down. In a lot of ways it seems like the Celtics with Kemba's knee in the playoffs. Yes if you get Rask on the good day, you start him and hope he steals a few games, but if he's struggling like the past couple games and cannot generate the power to move side to side and has to go down to be comfortable you have to go Swayman.
 

Rosey Ruzicka

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 16, 2013
250
I don't think Rask is 100%. I would let Sway win the next 2 games and let Rask take game 1 in the next round.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Tuukka just had the second worst season save percentage of his career, has been league average or worse in that stat for five of the past six years, and can barely move.

Honestly, this isn’t even a close question for me.

I hope that, through the miracles of modern pharmaceuticals, he pulls a rabbit out of his ass.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
And he's been on fire until yesterday. I don't know why what he did in 2018 is particularly relevant to the decision.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
And he's been on fire until yesterday. I don't know why what he did in 2018 is particularly relevant to the decision.
Reversion to the mean. Even if healthy, is Rask more likely to be what he has been for 24 or so games this season and 294 games over the past six, or what he was for the first nine games of this playoffs?

Rask has been league average or slightly worse for five of the past six years. At this stage of his career, that’s what he is.

There is massive value in having a goalie who is that consistent and has the ability to catch lightning in a bottle for extended periods of time. It’s huge to have that plug and play ability, especially given the variance in the league.

But he’s objectively not an elite goalie. And now, he is also injured.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
You're very casually "yada, yada"-ing him finishing second the Vezina 12 months ago in favor of things that happened 60 months ago when JM Liles was a top 6 defenseman and Ryan Spooner was the Krejci heir apparent. 5 of the last 6 years is wholly arbitrary and I would argue most of those years are irrelevant at this point.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
You're very casually "yada, yada"-ing him finishing second the Vezina 12 months ago in favor of things that happened 60 months ago when JM Liles was a top 6 defenseman and Ryan Spooner was the Krejci heir apparent. 5 of the last 6 years is wholly arbitrary and I would argue most of those years are irrelevant at this point.
No, I’m not, and that’s not how math works.

It’s not “things that happened 60 months ago.” It’s both the mean and the mode for “things that have been happening in an ongoing fashion for the past six years, including literally the outcome of this most recent season.”

Your argument is, “But I like this variance from 12 months ago a lot more than I like either the mean of the past six years or the reversion to the five year mean that happened literally this season.”

Go ahead and explain why the past six years are wholly arbitrary and why they are completely irrelevant, for a reason that does not then make this season—which is nearly identical to that mean in every respect—the proper measure of his true ability level.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
41,781
If the team is outplayed in general tonight, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the Rask of game 5 or anything close to it has no chance of stealing it for us, whereas maybe Swayman has a better chance of catching lightning in a bottle. So in the sense of having one fewer out, so to speak, it makes me nervous. Of course I'm concerned about rookie mistakes for Swayman but given how Rask was handling the puck we are frankly lucky the Isles didn't score one or two really embarrassing goals the other night.

I don't like the idea of throwing Rask out there and hoping for the best with the "flexibility" to yank him again if he remains physically unable to make the necessary saves and the team is suddenly down on the road in a do-or-die.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
I mean, the JM Liles and Spooner analogies are fucking brain dead, given that no one is arguing that the past six years of ongoing performance lead to those conclusions.

“Here’s this huge, mostly consistent sample that basically mirrors our most recent season of data.”

“But last year’s variance is what matters!”
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
If athletic performance worked in a linear fashion, then I would agree. Unfortunately there is a bunch of randomness and recent performance can be more relevant than past performance. Considering the question is "who should start tonight", I don't find how Tuukka performed in 2018 to be particularly relevant to the discussion.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
If athletic performance worked in a linear fashion, then I would agree. Unfortunately there is a bunch of randomness and recent performance can be more relevant than past performance. Considering the question is "who should start tonight", I don't find how Tuukka performed in 2018 to be particularly relevant to the discussion.
It’s six years of mostly consistent data.

Your argument is that recent performance is what matters, but not recent performance from this regular season, which tracks that six years of data, and certainly not recent performance from last game, when Rask couldn’t move.

This is what it looks like when you come to a conclusion and then have to reverse engineer the reasoning.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Could Tuukka randomly outperform his true skill level as pretty convincingly illustrated by his past six years of performance? Of course he can. I can hit a 17 against a dealer’s six and pull a four, too.

I’ll even buy that his playoff skill level is above the regular season. Give him bonus points for the increased focus and short term lack of distractions. I can absolutely buy that.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
It’s six years of mostly consistent data.

Your argument is that recent performance is what matters, but not recent performance from this regular season, which tracks that six years of data, and certainly not recent performance from last game, when Rask couldn’t move.

This is what it looks like when you come to a conclusion and then have to reverse engineer the reasoning.
What conclusion have I come to outside I did not think your reasoning was particularly sound?

And please point out to where I said point 2.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
What conclusion have I come to outside I did not think your reasoning was particularly sound?
Your conclusion is, “But I don’t want Tuukka to be league average.”

You also haven’t explained why my reasoning is not sound. You’ve said it a bunch of times, and then invoked the fact that randomness exists.

And please point out to where I said point 2.
“He’s been on fire until yesterday.”
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Massive sample: Tuukka is league average
Most Recent Season: Tuukka is league average
Most Recent Game: Tuukka can barely move and let in 4 goals on 12 shots.

That’s a pretty big trifecta.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
I feel like nobody can reasonably answer the question since we're not the training staff. If Tuukka's healthy enough, he goes. If he can't push off or anything, Swayman goes. That said, it should be a firm decision. You can't test the waters with a goalie.
I said the above in Post 4. I didn't disagree with your conclusion necessarily. I disagreed with some of how you got there. That led to 7 progressively more aggressive responses.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
I said the above in Post 4. I didn't disagree with your conclusion necessarily. I disagreed with some of how you got there. That led to 7 progressively more aggressive responses.
You misrepresented how I got there. Once that got cleared up, you didn’t really explain any disagreement with that reasoning, other than, “But randomness.” You’ve also claimed that I’m including irrelevant data, but haven’t explained why those data are irrelevant, but his regular season performance last year was, despite the fact that the former track his regular season performance this year and his six year mean, while your preferred data don’t.

Do we agree that Tuukka has been a roughly league average goalie for the past six years? If not, why not? What’s your reasoning?
 
Last edited:

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,586
306, row 14
Rask is 3rd in save percentage among goalies with 6000 minutes played since 2017/2018 in the regular season behind Kuemper and Vasilevsky. He's 6th in high danger save percentage over the same time frame. Drops to 6th if we lower the time on ice qualifier to 5000 minutes,

In the playoffs over that same time period he has 2344 playoff minutes. He is 2nd in save percentage, .929 behind Carey Price who has half the minutes played. He's 2nd in high danger save percentage. He leads all goalies in goals saved above average in the postseason.

I guess by saying "6 years" you can include some down years when the team also stunk, but to call him roughly league average is simply not an accurate representation of his performance.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
You misrepresented how I got there. Once that got cleared up, you didn’t really explain any disagreement with that reasoning, other than, “But randomness.” You’ve also claimed that I’m including irrelevant data, but haven’t explained why those data are irrelevant, but his regular season performance last year was, despite the fact that the former track his regular season performance this year and his six year mean, while your preferred data don’t.

Do we agree that Tuukka has been a roughly league average goalie for the past six years? If not, why not? What’s your reasoning?
It's irrelevant IMO how he has done the last six years when you're making a decision for a game in 3.5 hours, which (taking health off the table for second) for a goalie is all about what current form you are in and not how you were playing when JM Liles was your defenseman (also not an analogy, more pointing out how long ago it was). I would look at some combination of how he's done this playoffs, this year, and maybe last year. I would weight it strongly towards how he's done this playoffs and the end of the regular season. He's been hot until Monday, played okay in the regular season with hot and cold streaks and was lights out last year until the bubble, which I'm willing to discount because of unique circumstances. Given the other option is a rookie goalie who hasn't played in a month and has a suspect glove, I'm going to go with Tuukka (assuming health). Career narratives are pointless for upcoming lineup decisions, especially in goal.
 

durandal1707

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2007
3,474
With the "I'm just a guy watching the games on TV" caveat that I have no clue what Tuukka's current status is... I'm going to go with Swayman.

Tuukka's a phenomenal goalie and has been outperforming expected goals so far this postseason, but last game he seemed to take a turn for the worse. Two of those PP goals I feel like he would usually save, and several times he went out to play the puck and looked very slow getting back to the crease. Whatever his condition is, it doesn't appear to be getting better. Even if it's not getting noticeably worse, the book is out on him this postseason, and teams are challenging him.

As much as the focus should be on just winning tonight, then winning Game 7 after that, I think they should start Swayman even if they think a 80% (or whatever percent) Rask is the better option. If Swayman can't stop the relatively light offense of the Islanders, then this team is not getting past the Lightning next round anyway. Get the kid in now, and if the Bs advance he'll have some playoff wins under his belt before facing the Tampa Bay juggernaut, and maybe a week or so of rest improves Tuukka's condition. This also has the added value of disrupting the Islanders' game plan and maybe that flusters them.

I'm usually wrong about this stuff, so here's hoping Tuukka is ready to go tonight despite my thinking.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Rask is 3rd in save percentage among goalies with 6000 minutes played since 2017/2018 in the regular season behind Kuemper and Vasilevsky. He's 6th in high danger save percentage over the same time frame. Drops to 6th if we lower the time on ice qualifier to 5000 minutes,

In the playoffs over that same time period he has 2344 playoff minutes. He is 2nd in save percentage, .929 behind Carey Price who has half the minutes played. He's 2nd in high danger save percentage. He leads all goalies in goals saved above average in the postseason.

I guess by saying "6 years" you can include some down years when the team also stunk, but to call him roughly league average is simply not an accurate representation of his performance.
His goals saved above average for those six years are:
0.9 (38th)
2.3 (24th)
7.8 (19th)
3.2 (29th)
22.5 (1st)
3.3 (25th)

His GA PCT (100 is league average) are:
99
98
94
97
79
94

His Save% among qualifiers:
.915 (27th)
.915 (17th)
.917 (18th—his back up played 3/5 as many games with a .913 and 24th place)
.912 (25th—his back up played almost as many games for .922 and 9th)
.929 (2nd)
.913 (18th)

The Bruins point totals during that time are:
93 (missed playoffs)
95 (lost first round)
112 (lost second round)
107 (lost SCF)
100 (shortened season, President’s trophy, lost second round)
73 (shortened season, 10th in points) currently down 3-2 in second round.

So, I guess that my main question is, which season did the team stink in that I’m cherry picking, and how does that season compare to others?

Tuukka has largely been a league average goalie in each of those seasons. The phenomenon that you are pointing to is one of variance in league performance for the other goalies—an issue that Tuukka has largely avoided and a reason that I specifically mentioned above as a reason that he has provided enormous value.

I’m not hiding the ball on any of this. The stats speak for themselves. Tuukka generally provides league average performance in each season, has uncommon consistency in doing so (which provides value!), probably has a materially higher baseline playoff skill level for whatever reason, and certainly has the ability to occasionally catch lightning in a bottle, especially as he plays fewer games later in his career.

And, earlier in his career, he was really fucking awesome pretty often.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
It's irrelevant IMO how he has done the last six years when you're making a decision for a game in 3.5 hours, which (taking health off the table for second) for a goalie is all about what current form you are in and not how you were playing when JM Liles was your defenseman (also not an analogy, more pointing out how long ago it was).
You literally had a post last week excoriating someone for picking three games as a better indicator of Rask’s ability than his stats over a 10 year period, but now true talent level as revealed by years of stats doesn’t influence a lineup decision (but strangely, his really awesome outlier regular season performance from last year maybe does), because the past 10 games are everything?

I would look at some combination of how he's done this playoffs, this year, and maybe last year. I would weight it strongly towards how he's done this playoffs and the end of the regular season. He's been hot until Monday, played okay in the regular season with hot and cold streaks and was lights out last year until the bubble, which I'm willing to discount because of unique circumstances. Given the other option is a rookie goalie who hasn't played in a month and has a suspect glove, I'm going to go with Tuukka (assuming health). Career narratives are pointless for upcoming lineup decisions, especially in goal.
It’s not a “narrative.” Those are his stats. His stats this year are not an outlier—they match the stats for 4/5 previous years. His backup outplayed him in one of those years and another came close to matching him.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
I hope I’m wrong, and he tears it up the rest of this series, and they somehow figure something out for Tampa next round.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
With the "I'm just a guy watching the games on TV" caveat that I have no clue what Tuukka's current status is... I'm going to go with Swayman.

Tuukka's a phenomenal goalie and has been outperforming expected goals so far this postseason, but last game he seemed to take a turn for the worse. Two of those PP goals I feel like he would usually save, and several times he went out to play the puck and looked very slow getting back to the crease. Whatever his condition is, it doesn't appear to be getting better. Even if it's not getting noticeably worse, the book is out on him this postseason, and teams are challenging him.

As much as the focus should be on just winning tonight, then winning Game 7 after that, I think they should start Swayman even if they think a 80% (or whatever percent) Rask is the better option. If Swayman can't stop the relatively light offense of the Islanders, then this team is not getting past the Lightning next round anyway. Get the kid in now, and if the Bs advance he'll have some playoff wins under his belt before facing the Tampa Bay juggernaut, and maybe a week or so of rest improves Tuukka's condition. This also has the added value of disrupting the Islanders' game plan and maybe that flusters them.
I largely agree with this as well. When making lineup decisions for a completely unrelated sport at a completely unrelated level, a friend of mine once said, “If the younger player gives you about the same chance to win as the older player, go with the younger one to get him the experience.” I think that there’s something to that, here.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,586
306, row 14
His save percentage ranking is going to vary year to year. Guys get hot, guys get cold. Rask has been as consistent and as steady as they come. I'll take a .915 year after year from my top goalie, especially one that has been a great playoff performer.

.915
.915
.917
.912
.929
.913

In aggregate, he's got the 3rd highest save percentage among goalies with 6000+ minutes (about the equivalent of 100 games) over the past 3 season. If you remove the .929 as an outlier he'd still be right around 10th.

I'd take Rask in net over just about anyone this side of Vasileysky.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
You literally had a post last week excoriating someone for picking three games as a better indicator of Rask’s ability than his stats over a 10 year period, but now true talent level as revealed by years of stats doesn’t influence a lineup decision (but strangely, his really awesome outlier regular season performance from last year maybe does), because the past 10 games are everything?



It’s not a “narrative.” Those are his stats. His stats this year are not an outlier—they match the stats for 4/5 previous years. His backup outplayed him in one of those years and another came close to matching him.
Discussions aren't absent of context. One was backwards looking on the legacy of Rask's career (i.e., I can't trust him because of a large body of past performance). This one is forward looking based on 3 hours from now. For fast approaching forward looking decision that have minimal long-term impact (e.g., starting a game vs. signing a contract), I find recent-ish data to be more relevant than longer look backs. I'm lost as to whether you are arguing about Tuukka's legacy / standing or whether he should start. From the start, I've felt this is a short-term decision where the most recent data and information is most relevant. Hence my initial comment.

Regarding the second point of your comment, that's irrelevant for the discussion at hand and has not been the question I have been addressing based on my above reasoning.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Discussions aren't absent of context. One was backwards looking on the legacy of Rask's career (i.e., I can't trust him because of a large body of past performance). This one is forward looking based on 3 hours from now. For fast approaching forward looking decision that have minimal long-term impact (e.g., starting a game vs. signing a contract), I find recent-ish data to be more relevant than longer look backs. I'm lost as to whether you are arguing about Tuukka's legacy / standing or whether he should start. From the start, I've felt this is a short-term decision where the most recent data and information is most relevant. Hence my initial comment.

Regarding the second point of your comment, that's irrelevant for the discussion at hand and has not been the question I have been addressing based on my above reasoning.
It’s not irrelevant to the discussion at hand. His known baseline ability—as exhibited by remarkable consistency throughout the latter part of his career—is absolutely relevant. If it weren’t, we’d have gone with Swayman to start the playoffs because he was playing out of his tits while Tuukka was stumbling toward the end of the regular season.

Last year’s stats mean far less for the analysis despite relative recency specifically because it was a massive outlier as evidenced by both mean over time and this past season, which had the benefit of far greater recency. It’s Vanian cherry-picking to suggest that that outlier season is worth more analytically than the previous four, which are both remarkably consistent and track the sixth.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
It’s also Vanian to say he’s been at par with his backups and not adjusting for the lower level of competition a backup plays. It’s Vanian to look solely at save percentage and come to the average conclusion you came to.

We have different ways to judge next game up. Yours differs from mine. Neither of us are correct. That’s okay. Put the hammer down. You’ve hit the nail several times already.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
It’s also Vanian to say he’s been at par with his backups and not adjusting for the lower level of competition a backup plays. It’s Vanian to look solely at save percentage and come to the average conclusion you came to.
Dude, I quoted four different stats over a massive sample, including one of the top seasons of his career. You gave us the internally inconsistent, “Recent performance is all that matters,” “But he was awesome last year!” and “But athletic performance is random.”

Please, spare me.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
Here are Halak’s other stats relative to Tuukka’s in 2018-19:

GA%
86 to 97 (lower is better, 100 is average)

GSAA
14.4 to 3.2 (in six fewer games)

GAA
2.34 to 2.48

QS%
.595 to .533

They split the season 46 games to 40. You want to tell me that Cassidy somehow got Halak all the weak matchups while trying to pay attention to workload more than anything? Let’s look:

The Bruins in Halak’s games had a Corsi for % of 51.9. In Tuukka’s games, they had 52.3

Fenwick was 51.7% for Halak, 53.3 for Rask.

Please don’t accuse me of cherry-picking.

Of course, we started Rask for those playoffs—based on known skill level as established by multiple recent seasons worth of data.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
Dude, I quoted four different stats over a massive sample, including one of the top seasons of his career. You gave us the internally inconsistent, “Recent performance is all that matters,” “But he was awesome last year!” and “But athletic performance is random.”

Please, spare me.
I missed that in the scrolling and back and forth. Apologies. I was wrong. Would’ve been useful in the first post as it’s not a self evident point. Regardless I’ve never cared about that in the course of this discussion until you used the Vanian term so it’s IMO secondary to this discussion and the point I was making. You dragged me in and I ate the cheese. That’s on me.

And your grossly misrepresenting my point. The incredulous tone you take towards me disagreeing with you and the bastardizing of my view is tiresome.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
32,277
South Boston
I missed that in the scrolling and back and forth. Apologies. I was wrong. Would’ve been useful in the first post as it’s not a self evident point. Regardless I’ve never cared about that in the course of this discussion until you used the Vanian term so it’s IMO secondary to this discussion and the point I was making. You dragged me in and I ate the cheese. That’s on me.

And your grossly misrepresenting my point. The incredulous tone you take towards me disagreeing with you and the bastardizing of my view is tiresome.
You’re hot to trot to include last year’s great stats, but not the four before it that mostly match this past one.

What’s inaccurate about that? Honestly, show me the error of my understanding of your point.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
13,988
Tuukka's refugee camp
Recent performance is matters more than past performance when determining who to play for a single game. Past performance from 1 to 2 years ago doesn’t really matter in most cases but I would consider and weight it more than performance from 5 years ago. I would also throw playoff performance in there if I want to be consistent. Athletic performance is random to some degree in by a game to game performance but is informed by part performance. I trust more recent performance to be a better indicator of next game performance than longer ago performance. You disagree. This is the third time I’ve written it out in various words. You’re smart and should be able to understand if you wanted to.

Nothing in here should be as controversial as you claim and my posts and viewpoint have been consistent. Sometimes it right, sometimes it’s wrong. And I’m okay with that. You don’t appear to be. Which is fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.