Christ how was that not a penalty on Ritchie hauling down Kadri?
Leafs @ Ducks - Mar. 3rd, 10:00pm - TSN4, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Because most games don't go to shootouts, a shootout specialists wouldn't make that contribution in anywhere from 75 to 90% of games. By taking someone out of the line-up who's more suited to help your team in those 75-90% of games that don't go to a shootout to concentrate on the 10-15% that do you're almost certainly making your team less likely to win games on the whole.
Typically the principle of putting players on a team is about making the team better as a whole. Choosing the group that will get you the most points over the course of a season. It's fair to argue that a face-off specialist is an inefficient use of a roster spot in that purpose because of the relative lack of importance of face-offs but it's not the same thing as arguing you should use a roster spot for something that won't happen in the majority of your games.
So if you meant it's similar in the sense that they're both bad ideas that probably would cost a team in the long run, fair play. The shootout specialist is just a lot worse.
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
OK, I'll go onto your frequency turf and argue a bit more.
The SO specialist by definition will have a direct effect on whether the team gets an extra point that time. So even if the specialist only plays every X games, when he does play the proportionate impact is much higher than a faceoff guy.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
That doesn't make any sense. How would the specialist only play in games with shootouts? Would they schedule them ahead of time?
It's also not true. If your specialist scores, your other two guys don't score and the other team scores all three goals, then the specialist and his increased % of shootout scoring had absolutely no impact on whether or not the team got the extra point or not.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
You just said "even if he only plays every X games". But he'd be playing every game. And if he wouldn't be on the team aside from his shootout skills then by definition he'd be making them worse in the vast majority of games that don't go to a shootout.
Which is the key difference between him and a face-off specialist. Rightly or wrongly, a coach adding a face-off specialist is making the case that the attributes the face-off guy brings makes the team better night in and night out, which ultimately makes him no different than any other player.
The argument for a shootout specialist is making the case that it's better to have a slightly better chance at winning the 10% or so games that go to a shootout but be worse for the 90% that don't. Those are not the same arguments.
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Sorry, I meant to write even if it only goes to a SO every X games.
The same criticism you make of the SO specialist applies to your FO specialist. Or any specialist, which of course is a misnomer a hockey, they all have to do other things.
Again, same thing in principle.
God I hate this rule.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
No it doesn't. The criticism I'm making is explicitly about the amount of games that don't go into a shootout, rendering any advantage moot. That is not true with a face-off specialist. I've already said I think they're both bad ideas.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Repeat it all you want but "This player has a skill that will make us better each game and we'll have more points at the end of the year than if we didn't have them" is not the same principle as "This player has a skill that will provide an advantage to our team so long as we get into enough shootouts".
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
I said the principle that's the same is that both are skills that contribute to a win. Which is patently obvious. You are debating whether they are both good or bad ideas, or which one's better.
Wait -- Bobby Mac just voted for a SO specialist, and Jeffburger said no, so, by Appeal to Authority, and Disappeal to Disauthority, I am right.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
No, I'm saying that if you believe that winning faceoffs help a team win then a face-off specialist will help a team win night in and night out. You can think a shootout specialist has a skill that might contribute to a team winning but in the vast majority of wins it'll be a skill that is incidental to the team winning or not.
You can't say they adhere to the same principle of helping a team win if it's not actually true. Otherwise "being good defensively" and "bringing in a tarot card reader" adhere to the same principle.