Devils731

Looking at shot differentials is the same exact thing, which is why it drives me up a wall when people tout it. 

 

it helps when you have better players shooting the puck.  And what do you know, the player on the team that's best at that hasn't been playing. 

 

People have been providing context with the shot chart and with watching the games.  

 

Look at last game, not only did the Devils have many more shots, they had many more shots from good spots.  They hit another post, they had the goalie making saves where he's just hoping the puck hits him, and they missed some chances.  All those things don't keep going wrong, unless, overnight, almost every player on the Devils magically became half the shooter they've always been.

Where did I say whether Larsson playing this way was good or bad?  I complimented him in one aspect of his game and fairly critiqued another aspect of his game.  Neither person disputed what I said is untrue but both seemed to feel it was unfair to say.

 

To clarify, I don't care if Larsson hits people, he doesn't put himself in a good position on the boards because he often won't fight for it, he's content to sit on the outside of the player and not win the puck.

 

I think people are too touchy on Larsson, as if talking about the areas he might improve in makes him actually play worse.

Hey, if the Rangers win the Cup this year, is it only half a cup? I mean, I'm  just using their logic (and I use that term very loosely when it comes to Ranger fans) here lol. I mean, they all went out of their way to discredit the '95 Cup, so I'm wondering if that would be the case if they won this year. My guess is they'd be changing their tune on that real quick.

They would never flip flop on half a cup, just like they would never flip flop on hating defensive hockey systems.

Obviously you're not a bowler.

I'm a bowler, but I'm still not getting it.  

2 buyouts won't be used by that many teams IMO

Rangers were probably complaining it wasn't fair they had to use their first buyout on an AHL player.

If its done in retrospect, then Kurvers for Toronto 1st round pick has to be the best.

6 major polls are released daily as well as other scattered ones, it's more accurate to view them in aggregate. But, like I said if you were going to try and pick a poll that favored your guy, a few days ago gall up had him +7 and still has him +3, so I guess my point is less about you cherry picking to be disingenuous and more about "who cares one what given poll says".

Why not use the link I already posted?  It's much more relevant than the one you posted and already made the point you wanted to make.

http://www.realclear...obama-1891.html

It's for Pennsylvania, which was the topic of discussion.  GHDI asked for even one poll that showed Pennsylvania is close and am showing him a poll that has Romney in the lead.

That's neither cherry picking nor disingenuous.

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

A lot of the players would probably be very happy to accept that.  The NHLPA is kind of a joke, the league stars are still making millions while the majority of the PA is suffering massive paycuts.  The players making a lot less right now will love a small decrease in HRR percentage to get their huge actual increase in salary, as compared to their other options.

I don't know if you saw ATLL, but I took specific pains not to say Romney was taken out of context, but you're the second person to say I said that.  I'm somehow ridiculous, but you guys are comfortable ignoring direct statements and putting your own in their place.

Maybe that's how bias can't be seen by you guys, you refuse to comprehend anything that isn't fitting with what you know must be happening.

And this 800 billion dollar permanent increase is what exactly? Tarp? which was paid back and wasn't even Obama's legacy, Stimulus? which was half tax cuts, basically the solution all republicans have proposed, Obamacare? which the CBA rated as essentially revenue neutral?

In 2008 the US gov't spent ~2.9 trillion dollars.  In 2009 the US gov't spent ~3.5 trillion dollars, much of it in supposedly temporary stimulus money.

So 2010 should see a decrease in what the gov't spent, since so much temporary spending was finished, instead was see ~3.5 trillion spent again.  2011 sees ~3.6 trillion in spending and 2012 is estimated to be about 3.8 trillion in spending.  

Those have nothing to do with tax cuts, those are pure spending increase.  In 5 years the spending outlays by the US gov't will have increase from ~2.7 trillion to ~3.8 trillion, much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do.  That's about a 41% increase in outlays while the US GDP was barely growing, to me that's unacceptable and irresponsible behavior.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

Hypothetical Question:

If Lou and the Devils would have known about the Zach wanting to play with Minnesota before the trade deadline, should we have dealt him away to another team or kept him to see how far we would have gone in the Stanley Cup run?

You keep him, similar to if you had made a big trade deadline acquisition who might walk, except he is free.

Good teams looking to make playoff runs add pieces, they don't send them away.

This thread is stupid before the season ends

Can the teams hold them if everyone who goes promises to turn their tv on and have the hockey game play even though they aren't home?

On ESPN the main headline is Seton Hall, so at least it's NJ related.

I don't believe models predicted a massive rise in C02 coupled with a flattening of temperatures for the last decade.  IF CO2 forces temperature rising then an 8-12 year pause in warming during continued increase of CO2 seems unlikely.  I know people re-did their models to explain why this pause is happening, but that doesn't mean these models are any better at predicting future events.  If we can't come up with models that can predict 10 years into the future then it seems hard to believe the models that predict 100 years into the future.