Brooks Watch Out for Recurring Mistakes

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

The '93-94 Rangers went 16-9-8 in 1 goal games in the regular season.  The .606 point percentage was less than the .667 points percentage overall which is probably about right because luck is supposed to regress to the means over a large sample.  

You're going back to count games in which they won by one goal, are you going back to count games where they were winning by one and scored an empty netter? 

 

This is what I mean about skewed numbers.

Edited February 5 by Pete

[The Dude]

6 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

I don't work for you. 

 

Just do the research on goal differential yourself.  It's established sports science at this point and has been for decades now.  Basically since sports science became a thing.

Just tell him you heard it on a podcast.  He should be fine with that. 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Just tell him you heard it on a podcast.  He should be fine with that. 

If he linked the podcast I'd listen without requesting a fuckin time coded breakdown LOL.

 

I enjoy exploring sources posted by others. It's how you learn new things. 

 

You should try it. 

[Jdog99]

How do u measure the cumulative impact of giving up picks over multiple years just for rentals...

 

Im not a big fan of the approach myself

[The Dude]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

If he linked the podcast I'd listen without requesting a fuckin time coded breakdown LOL.

 

I enjoy exploring sources posted by others. It's how you learn new things. 

 

You should try it. 

Totally.  I love when people tell me to listen for a certain quote on a podcast, and they give me a link to 50 podcasts to search through each and every one for said quote. Exploring indeed. 

 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Totally.  I love when people tell me to listen for a certain quote on a podcast, and they give me a link to 50 podcasts to search through each and every one for said quote. Exploring indeed. 

 

L is for laziness, that surely describes you! If I could have posted just one podcast, I would have. But you're so wrong about so many things across the board, I just decided to give you a library of education. 

 

It's cool though. Continue to be willfully ignorant, make up conspiracy theories, and defend them as if they were fact. It's definitely been a winning strategy for you over the years. 

 

Edited February 5 by Pete

[Br4d]

11 hours ago, Jdog99 said:

How do u measure the cumulative impact of giving up picks over multiple years just for rentals...

 

Im not a big fan of the approach myself

 

It makes the pain three to five years down the road much deeper.  There's a world where we're all talking about how bad Drury actually was because he left us a non-competitive team trying to dig it's way out of a ditch to pump a team that was never going to win it all anyway.

[4EverRangerFrank]

^And then there's the Dolan problem. He appears to be 'hands-off' when it comes to Rangers but I cannot think he's not looking at the missed revenue from ousting before a deep playoff run. That's when the call comes from upstairs, "Do something quick, something that will bring the beer-binging fools back to The Garden!"

Edited February 5 by 4EverRangerFrank

[siddious]

59 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It makes the pain three to five years down the road much deeper.  There's a world where we're all talking about how bad Drury actually was because he left us a non-competitive team trying to dig it's way out of a ditch to pump a team that was never going to win it all anyway.

He can still give the farm away at any moment but as of right now I don’t think this is a fair assessment of what he’s done.

 

still have Othman, and Perrault and the next few first rounders. I feel like in terms of depth guys like berard, sykora, jones, barker, korczak, Robertson, and a few goalies all have potential. More so than what we had under gorton.

 

lets not discount that guys like miller, laf, kakko, Cuylle, Schneider, chytil have all moved into NHL roles over the past few seasons. 

is it ideal? Far from it. You can’t blame them for going for it the last few seasons. But they haven’t exactly given a ton away either. 

[The Dude]

10 hours ago, Pete said:

L is for laziness, that surely describes you! If I could have posted just one podcast, I would have. But you're so wrong about so many things across the board, I just decided to give you a library of education. 

 

It's cool though. Continue to be willfully ignorant, make up conspiracy theories, and defend them as if they were fact. It's definitely been a winning strategy for you over the years. 

 

Like I said. Just dump a library of podcasts on Pete.  He'll  be fine with it and listen to every episode ever.  Yeah. That'll go over great. 

 

The fact that you absolutely CAN  share a link to one single podcast, yet you say it's not possible is laughable. The fact that you couldn't say, "hey episode 43 has a blurb in it about what I'm talking about ", shows that your hollow attempt at providing facts is nothing but your typical deflecting. 

 

Continue being you Pete. The guy that refuses to take the L, despite being so L. 

 

We are to provide links for things we say are fact. You couldn't do it. 

 

It's an L. Its OK. I lost a couple times. I accept that you make up a lot of things and decide how the rules work, when challenged for the proof.  I accept that you can decide to do that, then turn around and cite the rules of how things work around here, by demanding links..  

 

IDK. It's as if you have your own set if rules. Cool. Nothing new there. 

 

Hey here's a new ice city episode from back in April.  But it can't be done.

 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2nv263nTj7rjP9S0UvFL2s?si=ylp0FeBFSNOxxoqpWsHmXw

 

 

Edited February 5 by The Dude

[Pete]

17 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Like I said. Just dump a library of podcasts on Pete.  He'll  be fine with it and listen to every episode ever.  Yeah. That'll go over great. 

 

The fact that you absolutely CAN  share a link to one single podcast, yet you say it's not possible is laughable. The fact that you couldn't say, "hey episode 43 has a blurb in it about what I'm talking about ", shows that your hollow attempt at providing facts is nothing but your typical deflecting. 

 

Continue being you Pete. The guy that refuses to take the L, despite being so L. 

 

We are to provide links for things we say are fact. You couldn't do it. 

 

It's an L. Its OK. I lost a couple times. I accept that you make up a lot of things and decide how the rules work, when challenged for the proof.  I accept that you can decide to do that, then turn around and cite the rules of how things work around here, by demanding links..  

 

IDK. It's as if you have your own set if rules. Cool. Nothing new there. 

 

Hey here's a new ice city episode from back in April.  But it can't be done.

 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2nv263nTj7rjP9S0UvFL2s?si=ylp0FeBFSNOxxoqpWsHmXw

 

 

[RangersIn7]

20 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

It makes the pain three to five years down the road much deeper.  There's a world where we're all talking about how bad Drury actually was because he left us a non-competitive team trying to dig it's way out of a ditch to pump a team that was never going to win it all anyway.

It hurts you when you start to decline. Not having the picks and the players you could presumably have acquired does catch up to you.

 

However, it’s generally not enough to stop a team from declining, and if you’re team is aging and you’re going to push the reset button anyway, you’re going to get a bunch of picks back when you offload those vets. 

[Pete]

21 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

It makes the pain three to five years down the road much deeper.  There's a world where we're all talking about how bad Drury actually was because he left us a non-competitive team trying to dig it's way out of a ditch to pump a team that was never going to win it all anyway.

That would be a conversation that lacks perspective and is full of hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking. 

 

If you think you have a team that can win, then you go for it.

 

There would be plenty of opportunity to regain picks when we start trading guys in the last year of their deal while this window closes.

 

What's making me doubt going for it this year is the goaltending. It all comes down to if you think Quick can be relied upon for 25 straight starts in the playoffs. 

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

It hurts you when you start to decline. Not having the picks and the players you could presumably have acquired does catch up to you.

 

However, it’s generally not enough to stop a team from declining, and if you’re team is aging and you’re going to push the reset button anyway, you’re going to get a bunch of picks back when you offload those vets. 

 

The way the NMC's are written some of the vets will not be tradeable before they hit UFA.  Kreider and Trouba are exceptions to the rule.

 

Panarin for instance is NMC full right up until he hits UFA in summer of '26.  Zibanejad is NMC full until the end of his contract also.

 

I don't think the Rangers are likely to pull as much value as you think by trading these guys.  I think they're likely to get to the end of their contracts and then figure out where they want to go.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Br4d said:

 

The way the NMC's are written some of the vets will not be tradeable before they hit UFA.  Kreider and Trouba are exceptions to the rule.

 

Panarin for instance is NMC full right up until he hits UFA in summer of '26.  Zibanejad is NMC full until the end of his contract also.

 

I don't think the Rangers are likely to pull as much value as you think by trading these guys.  I think they're likely to get to the end of their contracts and then figure out where they want to go.

Once again, having an NMC doesn't make you untradable. It's simply means you decide where you're going. 

 

Tarasenko and Kane both had them. Both were traded. Tarasenko has trade protection now. He's clearly on the block. 

Edited February 6 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

12 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

The way the NMC's are written some of the vets will not be tradeable before they hit UFA.  Kreider and Trouba are exceptions to the rule.

 

Panarin for instance is NMC full right up until he hits UFA in summer of '26.  Zibanejad is NMC full until the end of his contract also.

 

I don't think the Rangers are likely to pull as much value as you think by trading these guys.  I think they're likely to get to the end of their contracts and then figure out where they want to go.

That’s where you use your ability to retain some salary in the short-term as a weapon.