George_Costanza Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I would say there is a 50% chance. Kostopoulos had not won a fight in near 5 years until that bout, and Kevin does not like losing at all. I am aware of the injuries situation but would not be surprised at all to see this fight happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I would say there is a 50% chance. Kostopoulos had not won a fight in near 5 years until that bout, and Kevin does not like losing at all. I am aware of the injuries situation but would not be surprised at all to see this fight happen. Possibly, if Bxa challenges him again, I hope he remembers to duck after he mouths off. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoaltenderInterference Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 If he fights Kostopoulos, I hope Bieksa remembers to wear his fight strap for once. We don't need him getting caught like Rome did for extra penalty minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I really don't think he will. Bieksa's learned to keep his cool a lot better and he knows how big of a detriment it'll be to this team if a d-man goes down/gets taken out for a large amount of time. Rome only did it 'cause Neil pretty much forced his hand. Then again, this is all hypothetical. Y'alls can prove me wrong. But for the team's sake, I hope he won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I really don't think he will. Bieksa's learned to keep his cool a lot better and he knows how big of a detriment it'll be to this team if a d-man goes down/gets taken out for a large amount of time. Rome only did it 'cause Neil pretty much forced his hand. Then again, this is all hypothetical. Y'alls can prove me wrong. But for the team's sake, I hope he won't. I completely agree. Bieksa knows that he is being relied upon to play, not sit in the box for 5 or more, especially at this critical time where defensive depth is lacking. If he fights Kostopolous or anyone else, there will be a significant in-game reason for it that does not involve some misguided hope to save face on his part. Say what you want about the guy, he is a team guy and as one of the veteran leaders on the D and someone being relied upon a lot, there is little chance he would hurt the team that way. If Rome does something like that it is not as bad because Rome pretty much sucks. Bieksa is actually an important part of the D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0medyClub Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Bieksa would pound Kostopoulos into the ground given a second chance. All good fighters lose eventually and it was bound to happen for Kevin. GSP, Bader, Pacquiao, Odjick, Probert, and even Bieksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Say what you want about the guy, he is a team guy and as one of the veteran leaders on the D and someone being relied upon a lot, there is little chance he would hurt the team that way. Exactly. The last thing we need with our depleted D core is for Bieksa to bust a knuckle on Kostopoulos's helmet out of hurt pride alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 The trouble with you is that in your mind the present equals the past and the future. I would be very interested to know if over his very inconsistent previous seasons you were spouting the same type of BS that his present play erased his one good season earlier in his career. Somehow I doubt it. As a matter of fact I was: I've been "defending" him for a couple of years now. Not because I think he's been particularly good, but because I believe he's nowhere near as bad as a lot of people around here seem to think, and that there have been some mitigating circumstances contributing to his decline. Fair enough on saying you opinions were based on past seasons, however, your quotes were based in the present not the past(Bieksa is terrible, BIeksa is a terrible shot blocker) hence the confusion. OTOH, when I went back to the beginning of the thread to find the above quote, I noticed that you actually argued against some of the worst haters like Hank&dan, Lil' Fra and Buttock, so apologies if it appeared that I was lumping you in with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ... healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbllpp Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I dont know what kind of proof you want. On Dec 11th, Bieksa had a +/- of 0. On the same date, Daniel had a +/- of +5 and Kesler had a +/- of +4. To put that into context a bit as well, at that point Kesler had 12 goals and 20 points after 27 games. Since then, Kesler has 20 goals and 34 points in 28 games. I can look up the same for Henrik and Daniel if you want me to, but I think my point has more than been proven that the spike in +/- for Bieksa correlates pretty well with the spike for the Sedin and Kesler lines and with their sharp increase in production. Up to and including Dec 11th Bieksa with 1st line 8GF and 5GA +3 2nd line 7GF and 6GA +1 3rd line 5GF and 9GA -4 4th line 1GF and 2GA -1 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot: 22GF and 22GA +0 Ehrhoff 1st line 11GF and 8GA +3 2nd line 5GF and 3GA +2 3rd line 5GF and 4GA +1 4th line 2GF and 2GA +0 SH 1GF and 1GA +0 Tot: 24GF and 18GA +6 Since Dec 11th Bieksa 1st line 13GF and 3GA +10 2nd line 13GF and 2GA +11 3rd line 2GF and 2GA +0 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot 32GF and 8GA +24 Ehrhoff 1st line 13GF and 8GA +5 2nd line 6GF and 5GA +1 3rd line 1GF and 4GA -3 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 0GF and 1GA -1 Tot: 23GF and 19GA +4 If you think that the top lines own +/- stat can't thank the stellar defensive play of Hamhuis and Bieksa since Dec 11th as much as Hamhuis and Bieksa can thank them for their stellar offensive you are crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Up to and including Dec 11th Bieksa with 1st line 8GF and 5GA +3 2nd line 7GF and 6GA +1 3rd line 5GF and 9GA -4 4th line 1GF and 2GA -1 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot: 22GF and 22GA +0 Ehrhoff 1st line 11GF and 8GA +3 2nd line 5GF and 3GA +2 3rd line 5GF and 4GA +1 4th line 2GF and 2GA +0 SH 1GF and 1GA +0 Tot: 24GF and 18GA +6 Since Dec 11th Bieksa 1st line 13GF and 3GA +10 2nd line 13GF and 2GA +11 3rd line 2GF and 2GA +0 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot 32GF and 8GA +24 Ehrhoff 1st line 13GF and 8GA +5 2nd line 6GF and 5GA +1 3rd line 1GF and 4GA -3 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 0GF and 1GA -1 Tot: 23GF and 19GA +4 If you think that the top lines own +/- stat can't thank the stellar defensive play of Hamhuis and Bieksa since Dec 11th as much as Hamhuis and Bieksa can thank them for their stellar offensive you are crazy. wow, correct me if I'm interpreting this stat wrong but does that mean Bieksa has only been on the ice for 8 goals against us in two months ? impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 wow, correct me if I'm interpreting this stat wrong but does that mean Bieksa has only been on the ice for 8 goals against us in two months ? impressive! Sure looks like it. And I think half of those came in the last 3 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Up to and including Dec 11th Bieksa with 1st line 8GF and 5GA +3 2nd line 7GF and 6GA +1 3rd line 5GF and 9GA -4 4th line 1GF and 2GA -1 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot: 22GF and 22GA +0 Ehrhoff 1st line 11GF and 8GA +3 2nd line 5GF and 3GA +2 3rd line 5GF and 4GA +1 4th line 2GF and 2GA +0 SH 1GF and 1GA +0 Tot: 24GF and 18GA +6 Since Dec 11th Bieksa 1st line 13GF and 3GA +10 2nd line 13GF and 2GA +11 3rd line 2GF and 2GA +0 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 1GF and 0GA +1 Tot 32GF and 8GA +24 Ehrhoff 1st line 13GF and 8GA +5 2nd line 6GF and 5GA +1 3rd line 1GF and 4GA -3 4th line 3GF and 1GA +2 SH 0GF and 1GA -1 Tot: 23GF and 19GA +4 If you think that the top lines own +/- stat can't thank the stellar defensive play of Hamhuis and Bieksa since Dec 11th as much as Hamhuis and Bieksa can thank them for their stellar offensive you are crazy. I applaud your work in compiling this. Two things jump out to me (aside from you calling me crazy): 1. Your stats prove exactly what I was saying, namely that the spike in +/- for Bieksa is a direct result of time with the top two lines. It is actually even more of a factor than I thought it was. Thank you for taking the time to prove what I was saying. 2. I never once said that no one elses +/- benefited from Bieksa and Hamhuis. That was not part of what I said at all. I was ONLY talking about point one above, to which some people decided to flame me and suggest that Bieksa plays very little time with the top lines and is almost solely responsible for his +/- numbers without the benefit of playing with the top offensive guys very much. Obviously not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 As a matter of fact I was: Fair enough on saying you opinions were based on past seasons, however, your quotes were based in the present not the past(Bieksa is terrible, BIeksa is a terrible shot blocker) hence the confusion. OTOH, when I went back to the beginning of the thread to find the above quote, I noticed that you actually argued against some of the worst haters like Hank&dan, Lil' Fra and Buttock, so apologies if it appeared that I was lumping you in with them. No worries. It is no secret that I have been very critical of Bieksa. Unfortunately, my apparent CDC status as a huge Bieksa hater seems to overshadow the fact that even in being critical of him I have quite often stated he is not nearly as bad as many claim he is and called out some of the more notorious guys to whom he can do absolutely nothing right. I try to be fair and objective but am human and can take my arguments too far on occasion or not word them the best way. But his play for the majority of the season is not anything like what I previously witnessed and criticized with him, so I have pretty much stopped criticizing his play now. To be honest, what I find most annoying about participating in this thread is to be constantly attacked even when I concede that he is playing much better and that I am happy that he is disproving my previous opinions of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I applaud your work in compiling this. Two things jump out to me (aside from you calling me crazy): 1. Your stats prove exactly what I was saying, namely that the spike in +/- for Bieksa is a direct result of time with the top two lines. It is actually even more of a factor than I thought it was. Thank you for taking the time to prove what I was saying. 2. I never once said that no one elses +/- benefited from Bieksa and Hamhuis. That was not part of what I said at all. I was ONLY talking about point one above, to which some people decided to flame me and suggest that Bieksa plays very little time with the top lines and is almost solely responsible for his +/- numbers without the benefit of playing with the top offensive guys very much. Obviously not true. It doesn't say anything about ice time. How do you know he has played with them MORE than the first 2 months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It doesn't say anything about ice time. How do you know he has played with them MORE than the first 2 months? Actually, that is fair enough. I suppose I should have said that his spike in +/- is a direct result of the spike in 5 on 5 production from the top 2 lines during that period of time. Well, I actually did say that too. EDIT: Nowhere in my response that you quote did I say he played more time than anyone else or than he did previously. I just said that it was a result of time playing with them. I dont see how that is a false statement. I would bet that he has received more time with the Sedins and Kesler lately than he had previously though. EDIT 2: I also love it when this is the only thing people can find in my post to refute considering my point that you guys were arguing has now been statistically proven to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Actually, that is fair enough. I suppose I should have said that his spike in +/- is a direct result of the spike in 5 on 5 production from the top 2 lines during that period of time. Well, I actually did say that too. EDIT: Nowhere in my response that you quote did I say he played more time than anyone else or than he did previously. I just said that it was a result of time playing with them. I dont see how that is a false statement. I would bet that he has received more time with the Sedins and Kesler lately than he had previously though. EDIT 2: I also love it when this is the only thing people can find in my post to refute considering my point that you guys were arguing has now been statistically proven to you. It is absolutely helped by a spike in goal production from the top 2 lines. But it is also helped by a lack of production from the opposition. First edit: I took it to meant that it is because he is playing with them more. Which may or may not be true. We don't know. Second edit: It was the only thing in your post that I "refuted" because it was the only part I had issue with. I had no problem with anything else you said. In hindsight maybe I should have started with "I mostly agree, except for the following point". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It is absolutely helped by a spike in goal production from the top 2 lines. But it is also helped by a lack of production from the opposition. First edit: I took it to meant that it is because he is playing with them more. Which may or may not be true. We don't know. Second edit: It was the only thing in your post that I "refuted" because it was the only part I had issue with. I had no problem with anything else you said. In hindsight maybe I should have started with "I mostly agree, except for the following point". Actually it seems AV is going head to head tops lines more often. And Bieksa/Hamhuis are out against the oppositions top line. In turn that means more time playing even strength behind the Sedin line. Certainly not all the time, but more so than the first 30 games or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbllpp Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I applaud your work in compiling this. Two things jump out to me (aside from you calling me crazy): 1. Your stats prove exactly what I was saying, namely that the spike in +/- for Bieksa is a direct result of time with the top two lines. It is actually even more of a factor than I thought it was. Thank you for taking the time to prove what I was saying. 2. I never once said that no one elses +/- benefited from Bieksa and Hamhuis. That was not part of what I said at all. I was ONLY talking about point one above, to which some people decided to flame me and suggest that Bieksa plays very little time with the top lines and is almost solely responsible for his +/- numbers without the benefit of playing with the top offensive guys very much. Obviously not true. Bieksa pre Dec 11th 4 ES points 22 ESGF Bieksa post Dec 11th 12 ES points 32 ESGF this is a 8 point difference in points and +10 difference to his +/- give the guy some credit to his +/- stat for his own increase in production Bieksa pre Dec 11th 22 ESGA<br />Bieksa post Dec 11th 8 ESGA that's a +14 to his +/- stat from improved defensive play (Hamhuis has 11 ESGA against since Dec 11th so don't go trying to pass the credit that way) furthermore I've shown that Ehrhoff's +/- stats have changed very little between pre and post Dec 11th. You would think the top offensive defenseman would also benefit from increased production of the top lines. No doubt Bieksa's +/- has benefited from production of the top lines but why haven't Ehrhoff and Edler? To address your first point one could just as easily state that the improvement +/- stats of the first 2 lines is a direct result of them playing with Bieksa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Bieksa pre Dec 11th 4 ES points 22 ESGF Bieksa post Dec 11th 12 ES points 32 ESGF this is a 8 point difference in points and +10 difference to his +/- give the guy some credit to his +/- stat for his own increase in production Bieksa pre Dec 11th 22 ESGA<br />Bieksa post Dec 11th 8 ESGA that's a +14 to his +/- stat from improved defensive play (Hamhuis has 11 ESGA against since Dec 11th so don't go trying to pass the credit that way) furthermore I've shown that Ehrhoff's +/- stats have changed very little between pre and post Dec 11th. You would think the top offensive defenseman would also benefit from increased production of the top lines. No doubt Bieksa's +/- has benefited from production of the top lines but why haven't Ehrhoff and Edler? To address your first point one could just as easily state that the improvement +/- stats of the first 2 lines is a direct result of them playing with Bieksa Not only that, it also shows in the last two months, while playing 5 on 5, Bieksa has brought more or equal offensive production to all four lines in comparison to Ehrhoff. All while allowing less or equal goals against for each of the lines. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.