Sport Today

by **Devon Willia** » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup because they have Eric Lindros

The Old'Diques already won the Stanley Cup because they traded Lindros.

Quote:

>Forget all those other teams, cheer on the Flyers. Kick ass in The Play-Offs

Stupid Philly loser...

Devon Williams

by **Andrew Bauma** » Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> >Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup because they have Eric Lindros

> The Old'Diques already won the Stanley Cup because they traded Lindros.

> >Forget all those other teams, cheer on the Flyers. Kick ass in The Play-Offs

> Stupid Philly loser...

> Devon Williams

hmm, I just read your pages long rant about Lindros and LeClair and now this...
you're not a wee bit biased, eh?

Sure the original post was kind of mindless but it was probably made by
some kid. Why do you have to be such as *** about it?

As for some of you comments on Lindros and LeClair...
Yes, Lindros has had good players on his line in the past, he has
benefitted from that. But those players certainyl benefitted from him
more.

Just look at the arguments Lisa posted, please. You ignore them so
easily. W/ Lindros in philly (and Feydk so he had a crappy opposite wing)
Recchi was a 110 point scorer. W/o lindros in Montreal he scores at a
point a game pace. It's simple. Don't talk about defensive systems or
what not because philly has always played a relatively conservative
system. Recchi is a goo player on his own but Lindros made him better.

LeClair was missused in Montreal so comparisons between his play there and
in philly are moot. But look at lisa's post about this year. Without
lindros LeClair scored at a significantly reduced pace and he was still
playing with Renberg and Brind'amour or Hawerchuck, not too shappy of
linemates. Same with Renberg. W/o lindros duringthe beginning of the
year he wasn't scoring at all. W/ lindros he came back to life for the
second half of the season.

As for Brind'amour, he's not exactly an old guy. Saying his point total
has gone down because of age is simple stupid. He would never be anywhere
near 100 points w/o being on Lindros' line ever.

Andrew

by **Ale** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>>Philadelphia will win the Stanley Cup because they have Eric Lindros

>The Old'Diques already won the Stanley Cup because they traded Lindros.

>>Forget all those other teams, cheer on the Flyers. Kick ass in The Play-Offs

>Stupid Philly loser...

>Devon Williams

Right on! Hehehehehe!!!

by **Devon Willia** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>hmm, I just read your pages long rant about Lindros and LeClair and now this...
>you're not a wee bit biased, eh?

Key difference, I use facts and admit Lindros is a fine
player.

Quote:

>Sure the original post was kind of mindless but it was probably made by
>some kid. Why do you have to be such as *** about it?

I see, so you know the original poster?

Quote:

>As for some of you comments on Lindros and LeClair...
>Yes, Lindros has had good players on his line in the past, he has
>benefitted from that. But those players certainyl benefitted from him
>more.

You flat-out can't say that (as I said before) because (as I posted
in my response to Lisa that you read but failed to understand):

1. Good linemates have a synergistic effect on EACH OTHER;
2. Lindros has never played without excellent linemates.

Quote:

>Just look at the arguments Lisa posted, please. You ignore them so
>easily. W/ Lindros in philly (and Feydk so he had a crappy opposite wing)
>Recchi was a 110 point scorer.

Recchi was s similar scorer in Philly without Lindros and
with little time with the oft-injured Mario, who missed almost
an entire season, I think, when Recchi was there due to back
problems. Keep ignoring this all you want, that doesn't change the
facts.

Quote:

> W/o lindros in Montreal he scores at a
>point a game pace. It's simple. Don't talk about defensive systems or
>what not because philly has always played a relatively conservative
>system.

You really scored some fine hash this week, I guess. The
restrictiveness of Montreal's current system is NHL legend.
Not so with Philly, who, under Murray, has a very open
system (by all accounts) which emphasizes attack and puck
cycling.

Quote:

>Recchi is a goo player on his own but Lindros made him better.

Recchi played as well or better in Pittsburgh.

Quote:

>LeClair was missused in Montreal so comparisons between his play there and
>in philly are moot. But look at lisa's post about this year. Without
>lindros LeClair scored at a significantly reduced pace

But still exceptionally well. When has Lindros not had an All-Star
on his wing? Never, so you can't say how he benefits others alone
but doesn't receive comparable benefits.

Quote:

> and he was still
>playing with Renberg and Brind'amour or Hawerchuck, not too shappy of
>linemates. Same with Renberg. W/o lindros duringthe beginning of the
>year he wasn't scoring at all.

You're saying Renberg is like a bigger, faster Fedyk. Moot.
He plays with Leclair AND Lindros, don't forget. You can't say
it's all Lindros when it's Lindros and Leclair.

Quote:

>As for Brind'amour, he's not exactly an old guy. Saying his point total
>has gone down because of age is simple stupid.

I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
you feel better; fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the
second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
could be affected by numerous other things than whether
he played with Lindros. This could include:

1. reconfiguration of the second line with players like
Falloon and thus a reduction in ice time at even strength;
2. similar reduction in power-play time;
3. any unreported nagging injuries or personal problems.

For lisa to chalk this entirely up to playing with or without
His Holy Hockiness, Lord of the High Stick and the Flase Guarantee,
is irresponsible at best.

Quote:

>He would never be anywhere
>near 100 points w/o being on Lindros' line ever.

I never said he was. I hope you get over your intellectual
neediness soon...

Devon Williams

by **Lisa Kriwon** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
>challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
>a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
>you feel better; fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the
>second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
>this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
>about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
>could be affected by numerous other things than whether
>he played with Lindros. This could include:

Once again Devon, you disagree with someone, so they are automatically an
"Idiot". Like I said, ignorant. I may disagree with what you say and see
you as anti-Flyers, whatever, but I don't automatically see you as an
idiots as you are entitled to your opinion. But I do see you as ignorant.

Quote:

>For lisa to chalk this entirely up to playing with or without
>His Holy Hockiness, Lord of the High Stick and the Flase Guarantee,
>is irresponsible at best.

When did I say that? Look at my post. I simply said that I had an
intersting stat. That's it.....plain and simple. Don't put thoughts into
my head. I happen to think LeClair is a star in his own rights and I've
stated to many times on this group.

Quote:

>I never said he was. I hope you get over your intellectual
>neediness soon...

>Devon Williams

No, you're not ignorant or anything

by **Devon Willia** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>>I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
>>challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
>>a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
>>you feel better; fine.
>Once again Devon, you disagree with someone, so they are automatically an
>"Idiot".

One last time, your juvenile bahavior and misstatements about
what I say is about all a sane person could take. The above poster
is (rightly) being personally rebuked for bearing false witness
against me. Thus I called him an idiot, far less than you have
unleashed upon myself and others. Lisa, you're a blind hypocrite
here. You won't find what he says I posted either, dear, and it's
not sheer coincidence....I simply didn't state it. I have also
treated you roughly the same way for the same behavior on roughly
the same subject in an earlier thread, this very day. If you
can't keep track of what I have posted, read up on the thread.

Quote:

> Like I said, ignorant.

Ignorant of what? Eric's All-Star linemates? What?
Nothing. ignorant implies a lack of information. You
have yet to show it, and thus are reduced to appearing to hurl
churlish insults. At least this time you settled on something
less vulgar, kid.

Quote:

> but I don't automatically see you as an
>idiots as you are entitled to your opinion.

I'm not entitled to state an opinion that openly lies about
what someone else has done. That *very* transgression was
committed by the poster you so vigorously defend against
my response. Read and learn, Lisa. Andrew Baumann lied
about what I sadi and attacked me for it. That's idiotic
behavior in any book. I called him an idiot.

Quote:

>But I do see you as ignorant.

Prove it. Be an *** about it. Let the
world see, once and for all, how brilliant
you really are.

Quote:

>>For lisa to chalk this entirely up to playing with or without
>>His Holy Hockiness, Lord of the High Stick and the Flase Guarantee,
>>is irresponsible at best.
>When did I say that? Look at my post. I simply said that I had an
>intersting stat.

An interesting stat that any hockey scouting report (even the
book by the same name) would pigeonhole with the utter ridiculity
of comparing a player's stats from one period in his career when
he was virtually buried on the third line with marginal NHL players
(where are Leclair's Montreal centers now, Lisa?) and saw little
power play time to another perriod in his career where he logged
much more ice time and on the first line (not second or third)
and first power play? This was pointed out, Lisa, but you and
other brainwashed Flyers' fans seem unwilling to deal with this
in any manner but 'gee, I don't think the numbers lie'. Well,
guess what, there's more to those numbers than the pages you
are reading them from, Lisa.

Quote:

> That's it.....plain and simple. Don't put thoughts into
>my head. I happen to think LeClair is a star in his own rights and I've
>stated to many times on this group.

Yes, you have, but comparing his stats now to those he garnered
in Montreal and chalking them up to playing with Lindros (alone)
and utterly refusing to acknowledge other confounding circumstances
is the trademark of an unreasonable 'situation' to say the
absolute least.

And to stick to your guns without admitting that, *perhaps*
Lindros All-Star linemates (throughout his *entire* career)
could have had some effect on his success not accounted for
in your earlier posts would have a difficult effect on those
of us who have watched other excellent players fight through
pilon linemates and tight systems to make their marks.

The choice is yours, Lisa. You can continue the vulgar and
humorless attacks, but I don't think anyone here doesn't know to
read your Lindros Newsletters here without a grain of salt
(OK, maybe the whole canister).

Devon Williams

by **Andrew Bauma** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

Baumann) says:

> >hmm, I just read your pages long rant about Lindros and LeClair and now
this...
> >you're not a wee bit biased, eh?

> Key difference, I use facts and admit Lindros is a fine
> player.

hmmm, yes you use soem fact but choose to ignore otehrs that refute your
point, that would be called, let's see, what is it again? Oh yes, bias,
that's right.

Quote:

> >Sure the original post was kind of mindless but it was probably made by
> >some kid. Why do you have to be such as *** about it?

> I see, so you know the original poster?

note the word "probably" in my post. It was conjecture on my part and
admitted to be so. I notice that you have to reply to my comment about
you being such an *** so I guess that is an admission on your part
that you were acting like one.

Quote:

> >As for some of you comments on Lindros and LeClair...
> >Yes, Lindros has had good players on his line in the past, he has
> >benefitted from that. But those players certainyl benefitted from him
> >more.

> You flat-out can't say that (as I said before) because (as I posted
> in my response to Lisa that you read but failed to understand):

> 1. Good linemates have a synergistic effect on EACH OTHER;
> 2. Lindros has never played without excellent linemates.

I flat out can say that. Expecially if you can flat out say LeClair is
better than Lindros. Whyt he double standard? It's ok for you to make
statements but not me??

as for your point:
1. of course, this is obvious. Lindros and LeClair work very well
together, each making each other better, there is no doubt about that and
I never argued it. Still Lindros is the better of the two and raises
LeClair's level more than LeClair raises Lindros' level

2. Not at all. The crazy eights were not excellent linemates. Feydk was
flat out bad. As for Recchi, he is a good player, very good but not
excellent. A point a game player on his own right, only stupendous
because of the presence of Lindros (or in pitt: Stevens, Jagr, Francis,
and Lemieux-you so convieniently forgot the former four when you analyzed
the pitts situation)

Quote:

> >Just look at the arguments Lisa posted, please. You ignore them so
> >easily. W/ Lindros in philly (and Feydk so he had a crappy opposite wing)
> >Recchi was a 110 point scorer.

> Recchi was s similar scorer in Philly without Lindros and
> with little time with the oft-injured Mario, who missed almost
> an entire season, I think, when Recchi was there due to back
> problems. Keep ignoring this all you want, that doesn't change the
> facts.

Recchi broke Boby Clarke's record with Lindros as his center. He scored
well there before lindros arrived but not nearly as well as with Lindros.
As for pitts, read what I said above. What about Jagr, Stevens and
Francis, you think they weren't good linemates? Perhaps you should stop
ignoring that.

Quote:

> > W/o lindros in Montreal he scores at a
> >point a game pace. It's simple. Don't talk about defensive systems or
> >what not because philly has always played a relatively conservative
> >system.

> You really scored some fine hash this week, I guess. The
> restrictiveness of Montreal's current system is NHL legend.
> Not so with Philly, who, under Murray, has a very open
> system (by all accounts) which emphasizes attack and puck
> cycling.

Well your previous commentary is evidence enough that you pay very little
attention to the Flyers. Every time Murray talks about his system he
stressed defense. When the fleyrs play well it's because they are playing
good defense and that leads to offensive chances. The Flyers' system is
not at all wide open (while pitts' was while Recchi was there which
inflated his point totals significantly, especially since he never played
defense). The puck cycling is a result of the talents and size of the
Flyer players, especially Lindros and LeClair and is built into the
system. However, that is not at all "wide open" and credit for scoring
because of cycling should go fully to the players not some system.

Quote:

> >Recchi is a goo player on his own but Lindros made him better.

> Recchi played as well or better in Pittsburgh.

as well, at times, better no. Of course, in philly he had Lindros, in
Pitts he had Lemieum, jagr, Francis, Stevens, oh , and Coffee too, forgot
aobut him earlier. Let's see that's 1,2,3,4,5 all stars on his team. In
philly, let's count, there was Lindros. Of course Recchi scored in Pitt.
He had 5 all stars passing himt he puck and he never ahd to play defense
and he played in the most free-wheeling, offesive oriented system in the
league!

Quote:

> >LeClair was missused in Montreal so comparisons between his play there and
> >in philly are moot. But look at lisa's post about this year. Without
> >lindros LeClair scored at a significantly reduced pace

> But still exceptionally well. When has Lindros not had an All-Star
> on his wing? Never, so you can't say how he benefits others alone
> but doesn't receive comparable benefits.

Exceptionally well? Know, not at all. Point a game about. That's good,
but not exceptional.

Quote:

> > and he was still
> >playing with Renberg and Brind'amour or Hawerchuck, not too shappy of
> >linemates. Same with Renberg. W/o lindros duringthe beginning of the
> >year he wasn't scoring at all.

> You're saying Renberg is like a bigger, faster Fedyk. Moot.
> He plays with Leclair AND Lindros, don't forget. You can't say
> it's all Lindros when it's Lindros and Leclair.

Where exactly did I say this? Again, you ignore the facts. Let's see:
in the geginning of the year Renberg played with Brind'amour/ Hawerchuck
and LeClair. he didn't score. W/o Lindros but with LeClair Renberg
didn't score, but with Lindros back in he scored in bunches. Gee, waht
does that say. It says you're out of your mind.

Quote:

> >As for Brind'amour, he's not exactly an old guy. Saying his point total
> >has gone down because of age is simple stupid.

> I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
> challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
> a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
> you feel better;

unfortunately I don't have your original post saved. However I'm sure
someone else does. If anyone wants to find his exact quote please do...
You said something to the effect that the reason Brind'amour didn't score
this year was because of deterioration fromt he passing of time. That
would be what other than aging? Please tell me.

Why so testy Devon? Is it because you're realizing how terrible your
arguments really are and thus you have to result to thsoe immature
personal attacks?

fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the

Quote:

> second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
> this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
> about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
> could be affected by numerous other things than whether
> he played with Lindros. This could include:

> 1. reconfiguration of the second line with players like
> Falloon and thus a reduction in ice time at even strength;
> 2. similar reduction in power-play time;
> 3. any unreported nagging injuries or personal problems.

Brindy had 80 points once w/o Lindros. When he was with lindros for one
year he scored near 100. What does that tell you? Fine, he's played well
alone in the past but his production when way up w/ Lindros. You can tell
me it's a coincidence but then you're completely biased.

Brind'amour had plenty of power play time this year. He was absolutely a
regular on the Flyers' pp.

Quote:

> For lisa to chalk this entirely up to playing with or without
> His Holy Hockiness, Lord of the High Stick and the Flase Guarantee,
> is irresponsible at best.

ah yes, once again you can't win witht he fact so you call Lindros names.
Oh no, sicne you say he's the "Lord of the High Stick" I guess all my
arguments are mott. You win, you win.

By the way, did Lisa ever chalk it up totally to playing w/o Lindros?
No. She merely pointed out the fact that Brindy's point total was
significantly higher w/ Lindros than w/o. The stat spoke for itself, Lisa
didn't have to.

Quote:

> >He would never be anywhere
> >near 100 points w/o being on Lindros' line ever.

finally some sanity

Quote:

> I never said he was. I hope you get over your intellectual
> neediness soon...

wow, that's really deep man, can I quote you? Geez.

Quote:

> Devon Williams

Andrew

by **Lisa Kriwon** » Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>I'm not entitled to state an opinion that openly lies about
>what someone else has done. That *very* transgression was
>committed by the poster you so vigorously defend against
>my response. Read and learn, Lisa. Andrew Baumann lied
>about what I sadi and attacked me for it. That's idiotic
>behavior in any book. I called him an idiot.

I am not defending Andrew's post. I am defending MY post.

Quote:

>Prove it. Be an *** about it. Let the
>world see, once and for all, how brilliant
>you really are.

Devon, we can match wits if you'd like. What makes you think you are the
only educated person on this newsgroup?

Quote:

>An interesting stat that any hockey scouting report (even the
>book by the same name) would pigeonhole with the utter ridiculity
>of comparing a player's stats from one period in his career when
>he was virtually buried on the third line with marginal NHL players
>(where are Leclair's Montreal centers now, Lisa?) and saw little
>power play time to another perriod in his career where he logged
>much more ice time and on the first line (not second or third)
>and first power play? This was pointed out, Lisa, but you and
>other brainwashed Flyers' fans seem unwilling to deal with this
>in any manner but 'gee, I don't think the numbers lie'. Well,
>guess what, there's more to those numbers than the pages you
>are reading them from, Lisa.

Once again for you.......I never said Lindros made LeClair. I've stated
more times than I want to argue that LeClair was played out of position
in Montreal and never had a Lindros to play with. LeClair was also a
much weaker player, especially his skating. He has worked on his
strength and skating since his arrival in Philly.

Quote:

>Yes, you have, but comparing his stats now to those he garnered
>in Montreal and chalking them up to playing with Lindros (alone)
>and utterly refusing to acknowledge other confounding circumstances
>is the trademark of an unreasonable 'situation' to say the
>absolute least.

I wasn't the person who compared the stats so before you throw insults
around, know who you are addressing.

Quote:

> >And to stick to your guns without admitting that,

*perhaps* >Lindros All-Star linemates (throughout his *entire* career)

Quote:

>could have had some effect on his success not accounted for
>in your earlier posts would have a difficult effect on those
>of us who have watched other excellent players fight through
>pilon linemates and tight systems to make their marks.

Once again, when did I argue that Lindros didn't play with at least one
top winger before LeClair? You debating topics in which I was never
involved.

Quote:

> >The choice is yours, Lisa. You can continue the vulgar and
>humorless attacks, but I don't think anyone here doesn't know to
>read your Lindros Newsletters here without a grain of salt
>(OK, maybe the whole canister).

>Devon Williams

Devon, I happen to think Lindros is a great player and one of the best in
Hockey. That's MY opinion as well as many others. If you dislike
Lindros, that's your opinion. It's a matter of preference. Personally, I
prefer Mario over Gretzky whereas others may prefer Gretzky. It's all
about OPINION. And quite frankly, I value Messier's opinion that Lindros
"is the best young player in the league", or Mario's opinion that he's a
great player and his statement that "it's your turn" or Forsberg statement
that Lindros "is his hardest player to play against" over your opinion. I
see Lindros play on a regular basis and I see a great player. I see a
player who makes his teammates better.

by **Devon Willia** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

coughs forth the following:

About Recchi

Quote:

>2. Not at all. The crazy eights were not excellent linemates. Feydk was
>flat out bad. As for Recchi, he is a good player, very good but not
>excellent. A point a game player on his own right, only stupendous
>because of the presence of Lindros (or in pitt: Stevens, Jagr, Francis,
>and Lemieux-you so convieniently forgot the former four when you analyzed
>the pitts situation)

Kevin Stevens sucks. Recchi didn't play with Francis much at all.

(snip)

Quote:

>Recchi broke Boby Clarke's record with Lindros as his center. He scored
>well there before lindros arrived but not nearly as well as with Lindros.
>As for pitts, read what I said above. What about Jagr, Stevens and
>Francis, you think they weren't good linemates? Perhaps you should stop
>ignoring that.

I addressed about Pittsburgh. I

Quote:

>> > W/o lindros in Montreal he scores at a
>> >point a game pace. It's simple. Don't talk about defensive systems or
>> >what not because philly has always played a relatively conservative
>> >system.

>> You really scored some fine hash this week, I guess. The
>> restrictiveness of Montreal's current system is NHL legend.
>> Not so with Philly, who, under Murray, has a very open
>> system (by all accounts) which emphasizes attack and puck
>> cycling.

>Well your previous commentary is evidence enough that you pay very little
>attention to the Flyers. Every time Murray talks about his system he
>stressed defense.

Since Murray talks about defennse, his system is as restrictive
as Montreal's?

(analysis, snipped, every team does better when they forecheck well,
and a complete lack of knowledge of the Pittsburgh lines revealed)

Quote:

>Exceptionally well? Know, not at all. Point a game about. That's good,
>but not exceptional.

Point a game is excellent. opinion.

And now, the real honker...What I said to him after he
blatantly misquotes me:

Quote:

>> I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
>> challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
>> a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
>> you feel better;
>unfortunately I don't have your original post saved.

Exactly, pal. But you could read up the thread and find your
folly, the one verifiably proveable element in our discussion.

Quote:

>However I'm sure
>someone else does.

Yes, Mr. Baumann, it's called DejaNews and you are welcome
to get looking for it. Buy yourself a clue, now.

Quote:

> If anyone wants to find his exact quote please do...
>You said something to the effect that the reason Brind'amour didn't score
>this year was because of deterioration fromt he passing of time. That
>would be what other than aging? Please tell me.

I said nothing about tha passage of time. Goodnight!

Quote:

>Why so testy Devon? Is it because you're realizing how terrible your
>arguments really are and thus you have to result to thsoe immature
>personal attacks?

I don't think so.....

Recchi is an excellent player. All-Star MVP this year
from Montreal. You Philly fans think you can stare at the stat
pages and promote your boy.

Quote:

> fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the
>> second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
>> this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
>> about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
>> could be affected by numerous other things than whether
>> he played with Lindros. This could include:

>> 1. reconfiguration of the second line with players like
>> Falloon and thus a reduction in ice time at even strength;
>> 2. similar reduction in power-play time;
>> 3. any unreported nagging injuries or personal problems.
>Brindy had 80 points once w/o Lindros. When he was with lindros for one
>year he scored near 100. What does that tell you? Fine, he's played well
>alone in the past but his production when way up w/ Lindros. You can tell
>me it's a coincidence but then you're completely biased.

That tells me Brind'amour benifitted from better linemates
and better ice time one season. I made the point about
his eighty point season in response to Ms. Kriwonos assertion
that Brind'amour had ~50 pts. this year but near 100 with Lindros.
I said he has posted ~80 without Lindros and should be considered
an excellent player in his own right, and that the ~50 pts.
output could be attributed to many other factors; her analysis
was confounded. That's it. Go find the lying fluff you claim and
prove me wrong or admit your sorry sack here before everyone.

I have never said Eric Lindros was *anything* but an elite
hockey player in this forum, from his skillset to his stats.
Period. Ms. Kriwonos and others persist in making it look
like Lindros has brought up everyone who played with
him without stressing that Lindros, too, benefits from
All-Star linemates at every turn. that has alaways been
my point. Whatever personal garbage you care to read into
it and whatever lies you care to fabricate are your business
and yours exclusively. You have lied about me once and
mis-read my points. You can't read an article and comprehend it's
points, and then lie about its content. That about puts
your credibility where it belongs.

One last time; Lindros' efect on his linemates' stats as
analyzed in a one-dimensioanl manner by L. Kriwonos is biased
in that it leaves out the synergistic improvement to be
expected when more than one great player is on a line.

Your opinions about Mark Recchi as just 'above average' are
in direct and great contrast to the scouting reports culled
from GMs and professional scouts. I hope you feel good about
this. You have your opinions, I have mine, and they have theirs.
I trust theirs a hell of a lot more than yours.

Devon Williams

by **Bill Halverso** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> Key difference, I use facts and admit Lindros is a fine
> player.

Your facts are a tad skewed, and incorrect in some areas. I will
clarify:

Quote:

> 1. Good linemates have a synergistic effect on EACH OTHER;
> 2. Lindros has never played without excellent linemates.

Fedyk was NOT an excellent linemate.

Quote:

> >Just look at the arguments Lisa posted, please. You ignore them so
> >easily. W/ Lindros in philly (and Feydk so he had a crappy opposite wing)
> >Recchi was a 110 point scorer.

> Recchi was s similar scorer in Philly without Lindros and
> with little time with the oft-injured Mario, who missed almost
> an entire season, I think, when Recchi was there due to back
> problems. Keep ignoring this all you want, that doesn't change the
> facts.

He scored 123 points with Lindros. He's not come close otherwise.
Ever.

Quote:

> You really scored some fine hash this week, I guess. The
> restrictiveness of Montreal's current system is NHL legend.
> Not so with Philly, who, under Murray, has a very open
> system (by all accounts) which emphasizes attack and puck
> cycling.

Open system?? Montreal restrictive?? Who's smoking hash??
First of all, Murrays system is defensive. It is not 'open.
Secondly, Montreal relies on open offense, they do not play
a defensive style at all. Recchi has open license to play
offense, as do most of the Montreal forwards.

Quote:

> >Recchi is a goo player on his own but Lindros made him better.

> Recchi played as well or better in Pittsburgh.

This is patently false. He has not come close to the numbers
he put up with the Flyers, either with Pit. or currently.

Quote:

> But still exceptionally well. When has Lindros not had an All-Star
> on his wing? Never, so you can't say how he benefits others alone
> but doesn't receive comparable benefits.

Renberg, Fedyk.

Quote:

> I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
> challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
> a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
> you feel better; fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the
> second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
> this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
> about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
> could be affected by numerous other things than whether
> he played with Lindros. This could include:

And he scored 97 with Lindros. Thats 15 more than 82. That
qualifies as a signifigant difference.

Quote:

> 1. reconfiguration of the second line with players like
> Falloon and thus a reduction in ice time at even strength;
> 2. similar reduction in power-play time;
> 3. any unreported nagging injuries or personal problems.
> For lisa to chalk this entirely up to playing with or without
> His Holy Hockiness, Lord of the High Stick and the Flase Guarantee,
> is irresponsible at best.

Lisa has always been one of the most objective posters I've seen.
You feeling a little defensive??

Quote:

> >He would never be anywhere
> >near 100 points w/o being on Lindros' line ever.

> I never said he was. I hope you get over your intellectual
> neediness soon...

> Devon William

Well, at least you're able to argue a point and not resort to
mindless insults and childish name-calling.

--
Bill

You know, I don't think math is a science. I think it's a religion ...
All
these equations are like miracles. You take two numbers and when you add
them, they magically become one new number! No one can say how it
happens.
You either believe it or you don't. This whole book is full of things
that
have to be accepted on faith! It's a religion! ... As a math atheist, I
should be excused from this." - Calvin to Hobbes

by **Devon Willia** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>Your facts are a tad skewed, and incorrect in some areas. I will
>clarify:
>> 1. Good linemates have a synergistic effect on EACH OTHER;
>> 2. Lindros has never played without excellent linemates.
>Fedyk was NOT an excellent linemate.

The whole point is that Lindros played with Recchi at the same time.
I guess Recchi would be the excellent linemate I was referring to,
eh? Go ahead, miss all you want!

(previous posts, snipped)

Quote:

>He scored 123 points with Lindros. He's not come close otherwise.
>Ever.

He bested 100 points twice in Pittsburgh TWICE. That's close enough.

Quote:

>Open system?? Montreal restrictive?? Who's smoking hash??
>First of all, Murrays system is defensive. It is not 'open.
>Secondly, Montreal relies on open offense, they do not play
>a defensive style at all. Recchi has open license to play
>offense, as do most of the Montreal forwards.

This 'analysis' is your opinion versus mine. I don't think we'll
agree or convince each other, but I think manby hockey people
will show you something else about Montreal's system. They
have a very complex and conservative system and its use is
well-publicized. Lately, their defen*** have executed it poorly.

Quote:

>This is patently false. He has not come close to the numbers
>he put up with the Flyers, either with Pit. or currently.

See above.

Quote:

>> But still exceptionally well. When has Lindros not had an All-Star
>> on his wing? Never, so you can't say how he benefits others alone
>> but doesn't receive comparable benefits.
>Renberg,

He played with LLeclair at the same time. Thanks for
playing. Mentioning ONLY Renberg shows glaring bias.
There are three forwards to a line, and Lindros has cheifly
played with one All-Star forward or another at all times in his
career.

Quote:

>Fedyk.

Recchi....you've shown your bias again.

Quote:

>> I never said so, idiot. Go find where i said that, I
>> challenge you. You won't. I didn't. You'd like to make up
>> a little scenario in your mind that proves you right and makes
>> you feel better; fine. Brind'amour had ~80 points on the
>> second line without Lindros earlier in his career. I said
>> this means he is plenty good in his own right. Nothing
>> about his age; just that his lower point toal this season
>> could be affected by numerous other things than whether
>> he played with Lindros. This could include:
>And he scored 97 with Lindros. Thats 15 more than 82. That
>qualifies as a signifigant difference.

Not in question, although I'd like to sdee the T-stat
you calculated to pronounce it significant. Oh, that's your
opinion being stated as fact again, I see.......

(my listed confoundments for using Brind'amour's scoring stats
as a stand-alone argument)

Quote:

>Lisa has always been one of the most objective posters I've seen.
>You feeling a little defensive??

I guess the above really spells it out. You are probably also
a hard-core Philly fan, you must be to denote her as one
of the 'most objective posters'. Again, my assessment against
yours. I'm tired of stating the facts that lead me to my opinions
and being told I'm ignorant by someone famed here and in other
newsgroups (see the Rangers one for some comic relief if you don't
believe me) for her bias.

Devon Williams

by **Chri** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

"When he first came to Pittsburgh, he didn't have a lot of success,''
said Lindros of Lemieux. "They built a solid team around him.''

This was taken from the USA Today NHL section.

If Lindros is talking about individual success, he's dead wrong. Lemieux
did very well the first few years (100, 141, 107, 168, and 199 points
for the first five years of his career).

The "team", however, didn't have much success the first few years of
Mario's career. I hope this is what Eric was talking about.

-Chris

by **Chris Grovi** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>"When he first came to Pittsburgh, he didn't have a lot of success,''
>said Lindros of Lemieux. "They built a solid team around him.''
>If Lindros is talking about individual success, he's dead wrong. Lemieux
>did very well the first few years (100, 141, 107, 168, and 199 points
>for the first five years of his career).
>The "team", however, didn't have much success the first few years of
>Mario's career. I hope this is what Eric was talking about.

I'm sure this is what he was talking about...the management putting
a solid team around Mario so they could win those championships. For
as great as ML was, he couldn't have done it alone.

-chris.

"I may be going to hell in a bucket baby, but at least
I'm enjoying the ride." - B. Weir

http://www.personal.psu.edu/cxg202

by **Devon Willia** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>He bested 100 points twice in Pittsburgh TWICE. That's close enough.

Excuse me...he bested 100 pts. once (113 pts.) and subsequently
scored on a >100 pt /season pace for the 53 games he played the
next season.

Recchi was an extremely accomplished player when he
was in Pittsburgh, prior to coming to Philly. Playing
with Lindros did *not* radically change his scoring habits.

Devon Williams

by **Bill Halverso** » Thu, 01 May 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> The whole point is that Lindros played with Recchi at the same time.
> I guess Recchi would be the excellent linemate I was referring to,
> eh? Go ahead, miss all you want!

> (previous posts, snipped)

> >He scored 123 points with Lindros. He's not come close otherwise.
> >Ever.

> He bested 100 points twice in Pittsburgh TWICE. That's close enough.

Uh. Opinion. As you're fond of writing.

previous disagreemants snipped

Quote:

> He played with LLeclair at the same time. Thanks for
> playing. Mentioning ONLY Renberg shows glaring bias.
> There are three forwards to a line, and Lindros has cheifly
> played with one All-Star forward or another at all times in his
> career.

> >Fedyk.

Perhaps I mis-understood your point. I wasn't leaving out Leclair
with Renberg, or Recchi with Fedyk. I mis-interpreted what you were
asking as: When has Lindros ever played with ANY players who weren't
all-stars. My bad. In connection with your 'accusation' of my bias.
Why do you attack and insult those who do not agree with you?
I am very cognizant of what bias is, and while a Flyer fan, I certainly
am objective.
Lindros is a great player. Agreed
Lindros does not 'make' his linemates. Agreed.
I do think he makes them better.

Quote:

> >And he scored 97 with Lindros. Thats 15 more than 82. That
> >qualifies as a signifigant difference.

> Not in question, although I'd like to sdee the T-stat
> you calculated to pronounce it significant. Oh, that's your
> opinion being stated as fact again, I see.......

In fact: A correlation exists between Lindros' playing with certain
players, and an increase in offensive numbers for those players.
That is scientific fact. It does not prove cause/effect. But a
correlation certainly exists. It is not my opinion that Lindros
'made' Recchi or Leclair (or Renberg for that matter), but since you
seem so interested in facts........there you go.

Quote:

> >Lisa has always been one of the most objective posters I've seen.
> >You feeling a little defensive??

> I guess the above really spells it out. You are probably also
> a hard-core Philly fan, you must be to denote her as one
> of the 'most objective posters'. Again, my assessment against
> yours. I'm tired of stating the facts that lead me to my opinions
> and being told I'm ignorant by someone famed here and in other
> newsgroups (see the Rangers one for some comic relief if you don't
> believe me) for her bias.

The above paragraph from you really spells it out, all right.
I'm neated labeled now, so you can place me in a category
and reply as such. Thats ridiculous. As I stated above, bias
is familiar to me. I've seen the biased postings on the Flyers NG,
as I've seen objective posts from Lisa. No, I'm not stating that
she is objective, or that she's never offended anyone. I can only answer
from my experience.
--
Bill

Sport Today

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best

Lindros Is The Best