You shifted the goalposts twice there.
The initial postulate was that too many games could wear Dostal down. If the backup sucks, Cronin will overplay the starter, because losing gets coaches fired. Nobody has a crystal ball, but he’s never stayed at a top level for anywhere near 50 games. He may maintain, he may fall off. SOME goalies, when they get shelled asa young player, get ruined. Having a safety net is prudent.
Teams do not try to lose at this point in the rebuild. They want players to think there’s a chance of playoffs for the franchise, and either won’t sign or will force their way out otherwise - see : Sabres, Buffalo.
I did not shift goal posts and you are incorrect about the "initial postulate." I said that: (i) in a gibson trade, the ducks would end up with a passable (not "bad") backup which is all they need (e.g., Gorgiev); and (ii) the ducks having an above average backup (as they do currently) really doesn't matter. This is not a playoff team.
It was Hockey Duckie who moved the goal posts with a digression of what a bad goal tender might mean and speculation about Dostal playing too much.
If Dostal is your starter then he needs to learn to play 50+ games. That isn't ruining him. He's 24, not 20. And again, the ducks will have an average or better backup in my view.
Its fine for you to disagree. But don't claim I've moved the goal posts.
I guess by your logic, Dostal giving up 14 goals in three non-back-to-back games is the norm. Gonna be hard to sell that perspective to the masses.
For someone who says "Stats are lies", you are gonna have to prove "Consistent with how Gibson has started most seasons" with actual facts. People tend to have biased memories when it comes to recalling events, which is why we rely on recorded facts. Anyhow, this ploy of yours is called deflection and moving the goal post because you are neglecting what has already transpired this year that doesn't fit your projected thought.
Don't hate the numbers when it's reflective of recorded history. Recorded history isn't biased nor fiction.
This is a prime example of how you use "statistics" to dissemble. Yes - Dostal has had bad games.
So you're going to focus on those 3 games (not back to back) rather than the overall numbers (which are very good). Cherry picking at its finest, particularly when you consider that a goalie can play well and still give up a lot of goals (particularly on recent ducks teams).
And then you're going to take a 10-15 game sample and interpret it w/o any context - the exact context I provided which goes against your narrative (i.e., the atypical structure of the ducks schedule, with fewer games of the stated period, made playing Dostal a lot the correct choice). Notably, you didn't address this.
By analogy, I could claim that playing Dostal as the ducks did is "obviously" a good thing because his save percentage is .922 which I believe is top 5 in the league. He's also leading the league in goals saved metrics. I mean, the results speak for themselves, don't they? The ducks are obviously doing the right thing - after all its recorded history that Dostal has played VERY well this year before Gibson returned!
You think your "numbers" are dispositive. They are not, particularly because you cherry pick the numbers to reflect your narrative. You are selecting the "recorded history" which fits your narrative. This is not the first time.
Interpretation of raw data (as you attempt to do) has nuance and doesn't dictate solely one clearly correct conclusion. That is why "statistics lie" and your charts convince no one - most people understand what your doing here.
If the goal is to have the best possible record this season, you keep Gibson. If the goal is to build a better roster in order to be a playoff contender, you trade him now when he has value. It’s pretty much that simple.
I think this is correct. It does depend on what the return is for Gibson but, like you, I'm assuming its not much to help the NHL roster this year.
