|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 2, 2002 22:34:24 GMT -5
"Nowhere do I see or understand that he saying that he is grading them within their capabilities. " True - I'm going off a LaPresse article I read a few years ago about that very grading system, when I think someone complained that Quintal was getting ranked too high. The key thing is that like it or not, players are ranked according to their roles. Blouin deserves a 9/10 on a night where he plays 5 minutes, lays out 3 big hits and beats up some goon - yet overall his play isn't nearly as good as Koivu's might be that night - but Koivu is the #1 center and we expect him to perform offensively day in and day out, so Koivu might just get a 7 while getting a couple of points. There's nothing about comparing to last year... Then my dear PTH you are obfuscating the point of the article. To me (and almost everybody else on the board) LaPress and Pierre Ladouceur are telling us that Brisebois and Traverse are playing as well as Saku. And why? Because Saku appears tired by the third period. Think about that. The guy is forechecking, backchecking, carrying the offensive load on his back, gets no help from the third “freak of the night” that they throw on his line and he gets TIRED? Well WHAT THE HELL DO THEY EXPECT? He is the focus of all the third line checkers and their abuses, there is no real second line to take the pressure. And he is TIRED? I’m surprised he is ALIVE, never mind tired. I am not one to start blaming the ”French Press” for the Hab’s ills but does it not surprise you that they are rating Traverse this high. Tell me that they are only doing it because they truly believe he is a number two defenseman. Tell me PTH, tell me that there is no politics involved. And before you do that, remember, I am an ex-Montreal boy. No, I am not saying all reporters are the same. I am not saying that all French Media are the same, but SOME media have more twists and agendas then a dozen Nixons. BTW, do not tell me that the paper does not review what the writer hands in. Now, back to Travesty. Is this not the same Traverse that no intelligent or semi-intelligent GM want for free? Why is that? Maybe because he is a multi-colored, slow thinking pylon? What do those professionals GM's know, what do you know, what do we all know that LaPress and Pierre Ladouceur does NOT? You know, in the end of the day, if that paper and that moron reporter actually believe what they write then they don’t know hockey from a piece of toilet paper stuck on their *ss.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 2, 2002 23:08:25 GMT -5
Hold on guys....let's be fair here. In my opinion our best players so far this year have been Hackett, Traverse, Quintal, Dykhuis, and Audette. Far and away, in fact, our best players. They have been playing so well, that any, and I mean ANY, GM in their right mind would kill to have them on his team. They have been swift, tough, resilient and have shown such character that I can't imagine where our team would be without them. The only thing that could hurt us worse is if some GM 'tampered' with our coach and signed him out from under our noses, leaving us with only a couple of 1st round choices instead. Yep, what a terrible state of affairs that would be.
HA, promise me this. If I'm ever so depressed that I'm about to drive off the bridge in my new Yugo, just send me one of your translations, please.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 2, 2002 23:13:20 GMT -5
Hold on guys....let's be fair here. In my opinion our best players so far this year have been Hackett, Traverse, Quintal, Dykhuis, and Audette. Far and away, in fact, our best players. They have been playing so well, that any, and I mean ANY, GM in their right mind would kill to have them on his team. They have been swift, tough, resilient and have shown such character that I can't imagine where our team would be without them. The only thing that could hurt us worse is if some GM 'tampered' with our coach and signed him out from under our noses, leaving us with only a couple of 1st round choices instead. Yep, what a terrible state of affairs that would be. HA, promise me this. If I'm ever so depressed that I'm about to drive off the bridge in my new Yugo, just send me one of your translations, please. If Traverse is our new Star players..........I'm joining you...........and I'm bringing lead weights.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyVerdun on Dec 2, 2002 23:23:29 GMT -5
Dict:
What's wrong with you? Can't you recognize a modified stableford scoring system when it's staring you in the face? Par for Traverse is determined having regard to the collective unconscious and a weighted average score for its (their?) expectations is then divided by the square of his plus/minus and his body-fat index just prior to his afternoon skate. The cumulative total is then subjected to binary dialectics (only taught at the University of Quebec at Montreal and the Sorbonne) in order to get his "deontological stableford score", which is higher than Koivu's for reasons that are pretty clear, n'est pas? I mean, if PTH could see this, why couldn't you?
I'm starting to wonder about whether you really are smarter than a fencepost.... as you keep insisting....
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 2, 2002 23:38:01 GMT -5
To me (and almost everybody else on the board) LaPress and Pierre Ladouceur are telling us that Brisebois and Traverse are playing as well as Saku. And why? Because Saku appears tired by the third period. Think about that. The guy is forechecking, backchecking, carrying the offensive load on his back, gets no help from the third “freak of the night” that they throw on his line and he gets TIRED? Well WHAT THE HELL DO THEY EXPECT? He is the focus of all the third line checkers and their abuses, there is no real second line to take the pressure. And he is TIRED? I’m surprised he is ALIVE, never mind tired. Well, BC and Doc seem to think I have a point, and they are two of the posters I tend to respect most, so I figure if they see my point, I'm not totally out of it. I hope you realise, this wasn't a 1-time ranking - they just took their numbers from the games played, and this is what it gave them. If they could do the numbers from scratch, I think it would be more along the lines of what you'd like. Everyone has twists - but to simply blame them on any single factor seems too simple - ie, Audette isn't just playing because he's French-speaking and Chow is Polish. Well, my take is that the LaPresse guys are evaluating him as a #6 guy - and #6 guys are available by the dozen at the waiver draft, so no surprise he wasn't taken. Well, they just took data and collated it. I can't get why everyone looks at this like a definitive assesment of the Habs. I mean, they might know it's crap, but hey, those are the numbers they put out, and the average is that Traverse is rated highly. Deal with it....
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 3, 2002 0:29:31 GMT -5
Well, BC and Doc seem to think I have a point, and they are two of the posters I tend to respect most, so I figure if they see my point, I'm not totally out of it.
Gee, it seems to me that you are trying to avoid the issue and hide behind them.............
I hope you realize, this wasn't a 1-time ranking - they just took their numbers from the games played, and this is what it gave them. If they could do the numbers from scratch, I think it would be more along the lines of what you'd like.
And? How does this change anything? To begin with, this is how I read it also. It does not change the fact that they think that Traverse and Koivu are of equal value.
Everyone has twists - but to simply blame them on any single factor seems too simple - ie, Audette isn't just playing because he's French-speaking and Chow is Polish.
Who singled out “French speaking” Audette? They had Cz and McKAy on the same line and they were just as useless.
Well, my take is that the LaPresse guys are evaluating him as a #6 guy - and #6 guys are available by the dozen at the waiver draft, so no surprise he wasn't taken.
Your take is not what I read. You are conjecturing as to what they MAY be using. Or they MAY be using the Stableford Scoring System. Dammit JV, you may be right. Or they MAY be using Fuzzy Logic. Quantum Physics? Perhaps On the other hand, they could be using a straight forward rating system and they are saying what 1 + 1 = 2.
Well, they just took data and collated it. I can't get why everyone looks at this like a definitive assessment of the Habs. I mean, they might know it's crap, but hey, those are the numbers they put out, and the average is that Traverse is rated highly. Deal with it.
You have totally avoided the issue of their ratings and gone off to a tangent and obfuscated the issue by tossing in “possible” evaluating systems. Can you show me an article where they said this? Certainly not in THIS article which stands on it’s own.
No knowledgeable hockey person in his right mind could possibly rate Koivu and Traverse as equal. Or that Brisebois is better. They shouldn’t even be on the same piece of paper. What I plainly see and what I plainly read is what LaPress and Pierre Ladouceur have written. And there are plainly TWO explanations for that. Competence is ONE of them. Bias is another one.
Look PTH, I know that you are sensitive to any suggestions that there is bias in SOME papers. Whether I (we) like it or not, the Hab's are in Quebec and have to deal with some politics and bias. It's a fact of life, but that does not make it any more palatable nor should it be glossed over. First and foremost I am an addicted fan of the Hab's and I do not want to see ANYTHING interfere with my Hab's. If certain articles writen that appear to be biased, discussing it does not automatically make one a "bigot" or "racist". I think it was a frank discussion of what was printed in ONE paper, by ONE reporter, in ONE day.
There you go, I dealt with it.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 3, 2002 8:54:12 GMT -5
Holy blowing out of proportion Batman.
I would bet you $1000 right here, right now, that Pierre Ladouceur, and whoever helped him with those rankings at La Presse, in no way, shape, or form, intended their rankings to mean Saku Koivu has not been as good a player as Patrick Traverse. In fact, I would probably bump that up to $5000. Heck, lets max out my line of credit and go for $15,000.
And I don't bet.
Come on. We're acting as bad as some of the more headline-hogging members of the local press, or worse, like Toronto fans, seeing controversy where there is none. This team has enough real issues, without trying to believe that there is ANYONE, French or English, who believes Patrick Traverse has been better than Saku Koivu. Maybe they didn't explicitly say it in their article, that the rankings are based on expectation, but I would gamble big money they thought it was understood...
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 3, 2002 9:44:45 GMT -5
I would bet you $1000 right here, right now, that Pierre Ladouceur, and whoever helped him with those rankings at La Presse, in no way, shape, or form, intended their rankings to mean Saku Koivu has not been as good a player as Patrick Traverse. In fact, I would probably bump that up to $5000. Heck, lets max out my line of credit and go for $15,000.
And I don't bet.
Wow.................
Come on. We're acting as bad as some of the more headline-hogging members of the local press, or worse, like Toronto fans, seeing controversy where there is none. This team has enough real issues, without trying to believe that there is ANYONE, French or English, who believes Patrick Traverse has been better than Saku Koivu. Maybe they didn't explicitly say it in their article, that the rankings are based on expectation, but I would gamble big money they thought it was understood...
You're right. I couldn't possibly imagine how Saku would misunderstand reading that Brisebois is better then him or Traverse is his equal. I’m sure that he is fully capable of reading between the lines and behind the words. Actually, he was seen once carrying his pink secret decoder ring. How can I be so silly as to think that Saku, after reading such brilliantly encoded material, will not work harder and be more devoted to the Hab’s cause. Besides, who would possibly read such an obscure article in Quebec’s largest newspaper……………<br> BC, clearly, plainly this article irks me. My angst goes way back to such times as when LaPress was screaming that Chelios was a hazard and a menace to the community while lamenting that the Hab’s did not have a French Canadian “star”. Days later, Chelios was sent packing for a rapidly declining player who had the right “credentials”. Nothing that appears in LaPresse is by accident. Nothing. To justify it or colored it with guesses as to how they “derive” the numbers is to gloss over it’s blatant message.
The article is blatant and intentional with a clear agenda. It’s target market well within it’s scope of influence. This does nothing but hurt the Hab’s atmosphere (dressing room) but that is irrelevant to LaPresse.
P.S. Insult me if you must but never associate my well thought out drivel with Leaf fans. That strikes the CH of my genetic code.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 3, 2002 12:30:35 GMT -5
You're right. I couldn't possibly imagine how Saku would misunderstand reading that Brisebois is better then him or Traverse is his equal. I’m sure that he is fully capable of reading between the lines and behind the words. Actually, he was seen once carrying his pink secret decoder ring. How can I be so silly as to think that Saku, after reading such brilliantly encoded material, will not work harder and be more devoted to the Hab’s cause. Besides, who would possibly read such an obscure article in Quebec’s largest newspaper……………<br> BC, clearly, plainly this article irks me. My angst goes way back to such times as when LaPress was screaming that Chelios was a hazard and a menace to the community while lamenting that the Hab’s did not have a French Canadian “star”. Days later, Chelios was sent packing for a rapidly declining player who had the right “credentials”. Nothing that appears in LaPresse is by accident. Nothing. To justify it or colored it with guesses as to how they “derive” the numbers is to gloss over it’s blatant message.
The article is blatant and intentional with a clear agenda. It’s target market well within it’s scope of influence. This does nothing but hurt the Hab’s atmosphere (dressing room) but that is irrelevant to LaPresse.
P.S. Insult me if you must but never associate my well thought out drivel with Leaf fans. That strikes the CH of my genetic code.Sort of reminds me of this interview I saw with George Lucas way back when. They asked Lucas if Luke Skywalker represented the Christ figure, in his epic and allegorical film Star Wars, what with the whole biblical theme of good versus evil, Satan, the apocalypse and the quest for redemption, and all that. Lucas replied “No. It’s a movie about space aliens. I thought ten year old boys would like it.” I have worked with journalists, worked briefly as a journalist, and I have drunk extensively with journalists. Trust me, they are not that clever, nor that subtle. If they want to say that Chris Chelios is a cancer in the dressing room, they will say that Chris Chelios is a cancer in the dressing room. If they want to make fun of Patrice Brisebois, scar him, and turn as many readers as they can against him, they will make up simple, and frankly not-so-clever nicknames for him, like “Breezeby.” If they think there is a rat in the dressing room, they will say “There is a rat in the dressing room.” If they think Craig Rivet is a nothing, and not worthy of holding Donald Audette’s jockstrap, they will pointedly, bluntly, and crassly print something like “Who the F*** is Craig Rivet??” If they wanted to say that Patrick Traverse is better than Saku Koivu, they would have said “Patrick Traverse is better than Saku Koivu.” Having a hidden agenda, and subtly hoping readers read between the lines, see that Traverse is ranked higher than Koivu, really isn’t their style. To be frank, most journalists don’t have all that much respect for their readers, and don’t think they are all that smart. Look at the way Jack Todd always makes fun of the people who send him e-mails. In fact, send Jack Todd an e-mail, criticizing one of his columns. Ask him why he continues to support Doug Gilmour, or why he hasn’t criticized Michel Therrien. You will get a nasty, rude and insulting response, the type of response that would get you banned here. Journalists, writers really, tend to be lazy, and they get even more lazy when a deadline approaches. This was not some masterpiece Mr. Ladouceur has been working on for 3 years, the definitive work on the Montreal Canadiens, to be studied, memorized, and perhaps encased in a glass shrine at the Bell Centre. It was probably something he threw together 2 hours before he had to hand it in. Lets not read too much into it. (Really got to you with the Leaf’s barb, eh? Sometimes I aim low… ;-))
|
|
|
Post by darz on Dec 3, 2002 13:46:02 GMT -5
Sort of reminds me of this interview I saw with George Lucas way back when. They asked Lucas if Luke Skywalker represented the Christ figure, in his epic and allegorical film Star Wars, what with the whole biblical theme of good versus evil, Satan, the apocalypse and the quest for redemption, and all that. Lucas replied “No. It’s a movie about space aliens. I thought ten year old boys would like it.” I have worked with journalists, worked briefly as a journalist, and I have drunk extensively with journalists. Trust me, they are not that clever, nor that subtle. If they want to say that Chris Chelios is a cancer in the dressing room, they will say that Chris Chelios is a cancer in the dressing room. If they want to make fun of Patrice Brisebois, scar him, and turn as many readers as they can against him, they will make up simple, and frankly not-so-clever nicknames for him, like “Breezeby.” If they think there is a rat in the dressing room, they will say “There is a rat in the dressing room.” If they think Craig Rivet is a nothing, and not worthy of holding Donald Audette’s jockstrap, they will pointedly, bluntly, and crassly print something like “Who the F*** is Craig Rivet??” If they wanted to say that Patrick Traverse is better than Saku Koivu, they would have said “Patrick Traverse is better than Saku Koivu.” Having a hidden agenda, and subtly hoping readers read between the lines, see that Traverse is ranked higher than Koivu, really isn’t their style. To be frank, most journalists don’t have all that much respect for their readers, and don’t think they are all that smart. Look at the way Jack Todd always makes fun of the people who send him e-mails. In fact, send Jack Todd an e-mail, criticizing one of his columns. Ask him why he continues to support Doug Gilmour, or why he hasn’t criticized Michel Therrien. You will get a nasty, rude and insulting response, the type of response that would get you banned here. Journalists, writers really, tend to be lazy, and they get even more lazy when a deadline approaches. This was not some masterpiece Mr. Ladouceur has been working on for 3 years, the definitive work on the Montreal Canadiens, to be studied, memorized, and perhaps encased in a glass shrine at the Bell Centre. It was probably something he threw together 2 hours before he had to hand it in. Lets not read too much into it. (Really got to you with the Leaf’s barb, eh? Sometimes I aim low… ;-)) great post!!!! sometimes people put these sports writers above the average fan, and in many cased they shouldn't be. getting readers to read their articles, is their number one priority, and how some do that is very questionable...anyhow, like i said, great post!
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 3, 2002 14:22:30 GMT -5
. To justify it or colored it with guesses as to how they “derive” the numbers is to gloss over it’s blatant message.. HA, PTH simply tried to explain that this particular article gathers report card that are handled in LaPresse after every game where they rank the players according to what's expected of them. It looks goofy no question there but... ...It is not some French supremacist political ticket... Goodness! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with PTH about how a certain group of the population (which will remain hidden) can establish worldwide domination with Poutine, Tourtière and Celine Dion CDs... Tabernac!!!
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 3, 2002 16:01:14 GMT -5
HA, PTH simply tried to explain that this particular article gathers report card that are handled in LaPresse after every game where they rank the players according to what's expected of them. It looks goofy no question there but... ...It is not some French supremacist political ticket... Goodness! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting with PTH about how a certain group of the population (which will remain hidden) can establish worldwide domination with Poutine, Tourtière and Celine Dion CDs... Tabernac!!! Adda boy, Doc! Go big or outta town. By the way, French chicks rock in general ... er ... and in an absolute feable attempt to stay with the theme of the board, so does hockey ... Love the religious reference too cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 3, 2002 23:15:36 GMT -5
Well, BC and Doc seem to think I have a point, and they are two of the posters I tend to respect most, so I figure if they see my point, I'm not totally out of it.Gee, it seems to me that you are trying to avoid the issue and hide behind them............. Being possessed with a healthy dose of self-doubt, I like to see when other people agree with me. When the two posters I respect most see my point, I figure I'm not totally out of it. It means that they gave Traverse high marks a few times too many, and it skews the numbers, big deal. They can't go back and change their past rankings based on what they realise is the total. I read in Lapresse years ago that the rankings are based on the given reporters expectations from that player, this isn't rocket science. If you don't want to beleive me, don't, but don't go off as if it were a complex concept. Of course. But you could say that Traverse is as good a #7 defenseman as Saku is a #1 center. I have no problem admitting that there are multiple bigots out there - it's the all-encompassing "the French media thinks.... " that gets to me. Jack Todd is a bigot, and so are a lot of others of both languages.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 3, 2002 23:18:10 GMT -5
HA, PTH simply tried to explain that this particular article gathers report card that are handled in LaPresse after every game where they rank the players according to what's expected of them. It looks goofy no question there but... Goofy ? There evaluations are downright silly, I stopped reading them years ago. Celine ? I think we're going to start a split-off group which has the exact same goals but includes having her shot with Donald Audette.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Dec 3, 2002 23:27:44 GMT -5
PTH,
The entire board is very edgy right now and I will end my participation of this discussion.
I wanted to deal with LaPress's article as it stood by itself but I see that this can be fueling an ever widening anger and people are ready to blame anything and anyone. Including the players last name.
|
|