TrueBlueGED

Using Jack and Kane being injured to defend Bylsma's approach doesn't have a ton of legs, IMO. Why? Because right now, the team's shot metrics resemble those of the tank years. We're dead last in the league with ~41 shot attempts per 60 minutes of even strength time (the Leafs are #1 with over 70). Nolan-esque, yet I don't think anyone around here is about to argue that this team with ROR, Okposo, Reinhart and Kulikov in the lineup is anything other than significantly better than those tank years. Bylsma has got to go.

The point I was trying to get at is nobody uses their eyes the same way--people value different attributes differently, people evaluating the same player see different value. Hell, look at our GDTs--five different people will give five different opinions on the same sequence of plays. Some value a physical game, others don't. Our brains' screens and biases filter what we see and how we interpret it. Why, then, do statistics have to be used the exact same way by everyone before they have any value? Applying the logic of 2+2 must equal 4 before we're confident in the stats to the eye test would render traditional evaluation methods completely unusable. To the bigger point, one of my biggest pet peeves is that statistics are held to a very different standard for evaluation than traditional scouting is. Using imperfection against statistical analysis is such a weak argument, since identical imperfection and uncertainty exists with the traditional methods...yet nobody dismisses them out of hand because of it. Only stats get that treatment. New stats have challenged preconceived notions about what is important and what isn't, and many old school hockey people have responded how anyone else in any other walk of life does when presented with new information that challenges them: dig the heels in and reject the new way of looking at things. We also need to stop conflating the use of individual statistics in decision making with statistical modeling and blind adherence to that model (which is something nobody advocates anyway). But that's a whole other rant. If you prefer that style of play, that's totally fine. But the whole "It's always been this way" is a really bad argument.

I have a sneaking suspicion I couldn't prove it to you ;) Paul Hamilton ‏@pham1717 8m8 minutes ago Bylsma felt disappointing part of the game was not capitalizing on the 5-on-3. Gee, Dan, if only you had some impact on the likelihood of 5-on-3 success.

...not because of this strategy.

Yes, which is a horrible strategy. Let's say Calgary wins the draw...Gorges is among our worst players at regaining possession. To say nothing of his skating in a 3-on-3 environment. Just awful.

Shall I welcome you aboard the Fire Bylsma Express?

Nice :lol:

..... .......... ............................. *gets more beer*

I need to pee. WHAT IS DAN BYLSMA'S OBSESSION WITH HAVING 2 D OUT FOR 3V3?!?!?!?!?

Well, I got 1/3 right.....

Shift 1: Gionta-Grant-Gorges

...because he tries hard.

Yes, this is what i was indirectly getting at :)

I want the puck to be on Reinhart's stick more often.

Because he works hard. I don't think I'm joking.

Well, there goes Dudacek's erection. You want Lehner to stop that.

Dudacek just .

Pretty much, yup.

We won't be a contender until it improves substantially.

Yyyyeeeeaaaaa. Nice story from the preseason, but he's pretty clearly an AHLer.

Okay, so it's not me. I don't want to derail the thread with a long Bylsma rant, but he's using our personnel precisely the wrong way. It's like he's scared of Calgary's speed vs our blue line, but by playing defense he's making our defenders do more of what they're not very good at.

I would have forgiven Gorges for all transgressions if he had just managed to fall over backwards there :lol:

Maybe it's me, but it looks like we're back to the weak ass forecheck from the Habs game.

I hold Dudacek personally responsible for every Foligno mistake.

Unrelated, but looking like we may have dodged a bullet with Zatkoff going to LA--he looks like hot, smoldering, cow dung.