Should make it easier for the Red Wings to knock them off next time they play then. It's been driving me nuts how lately we've been in a winning position then letting the foot off the gas and letting them back into for overtime.
I feel bad for Stammer, by all accounts he's super classy. Its sad to see anyone break their leg, let alone a player of his class/talent in the early stages of their career. Its crazy to think he's only 23.
I'm a Bruins fan in the Boston area, and he is one of the few players I will pay to see. I have all the respect in the world for him after he took a Boychuk slapshot to the face in the 2011 ECF and came back to finish the game off.
Sabres FINALLY fire Darcy as GM and Rolston and coach. Ted Nolan to be interim coach and Pat LaFontaine named president of hocker operations. Finally some big moves. Let's go Buffalo.
So shit is really bad in Edmonton right now and MacTavish threw himself in front of the media today. I figured this team would be bad when I saw them lose to a Dallas Stars team mostly filled with AHLers during the preseason in Oklahoma City but this is worse than I expected. Let's play armchair GM for a second. What would you do if you were GM of the Oilers? Trade Yakupov for a goalie? Get rid of an underachieving youngster for a defenseman?
The way the Oilers "rebuilt" their team reminds me of the way Matt Millen rebuilt the Lions. Offense doesn't alone doesn't win, and being a good guy who you have a feeling about doesn't count for much. Its hard to say blow up the team because there's no where to go, but clearly they need to understand to fix the problem they made will take time. I understand a team needs to have an identity, but in the NHL you can not win without consistent defense and solid goaltending. Offense is great, but if the backend doesn't hold up you will lose often. With that said, I'd trade some of the top end talent for some journey men defense to at least stop the bleeding. From there, they need to realize a team full young wingers doesn't create a team that wins in the NHL. Ideally they'd keep a few of their young talent players, but trade the rest for guys who can grind and play defense. If you look at the best teams in the league, they have a handful of game breaking players, and the rest try their best not to fuck up. If you look at the way teams turn around, its rare they draft high end player year after year. Sometimes they have a few high draft picks, then seek to consolidate that talent with veteran leadership and solid defense to allow the talent to play care free.
And he went 0-16, I'd say the 0-16 outweighs drafting Calvin Johnson. You can't undo going winless, its a type of permanent shame that never goes away.
It's excellent for the Hawks. They get a good player dirt cheap with the Panthers footing half of the bill. Fans love him and he seems like a great locker room guy. For half price, that's a damn bargain even if he doesn't return to pre-injury form. I'll give my $.02 on the Oilers situation. If I were them, I would trade Gagner and Yakupov to start. With Ganger they should be able to get a decent defenseman, as he had a solid year last year. Given the right situation I think he could live up to his potential. Yakupov needs to go. I think he's cancer with huge upside but is probably not a good fit for Edmonton given the current situation and his poor play. With him, go get a goalie. Rumors have been swirling for days about a potential trade for Hiller. That sounds good to me. Do it. The only problem is they just signed Bryz. I would also trade RNH for a legit #1 defenseman although this may take RNH plus a prosepect or a player. I know they are not interested in trading away RNH, Eberle, Hall, or Gagner but I beleive they should just keep Hall and Eberle, as I think they are better players and more suited to lead a team than the other two.
When I was talking about keeping some of the young top end talent I was thinking of Hall and Eberle as well. I just don't see Yakupov and RNH adding anything to the team defensively. Unfortunately while the game can be played offensively by young players, its still a mans game defensively.
Stats concerning shot quality and goaltending. Price vs. Rask. Thoughts? <a class="postlink" href="http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shot-quality-reveals-rasks-true-value/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/shot-qua ... rue-value/</a>
I've read the article twice now, and it is compelling, but ultimately statistically analyzing shot location gives some insight, it doesn't provide conclusive evidence into a goalie's effectiveness and how to rank that. I think because shots from every player are weighted equally, the stats are deceiving. Clearly a shot on the left wing from Ovi is more threatening and should be weighted more than a shot from the wing from Darren Helm. If anything, I think the graphics and stats provide a look into the teams defense. It shows where the shots are coming from, how far away, which reveals where the team breaks down. Unfortunately intangibles and things that can't be quanitifed matter a lot when measuring a goalie. For example, the stats don't differentiate a breakaway from a whacked rebound shot. How a goalie plays a breakaway matters, how a goalie handles a scrum matters. I think what screws modern goalies in comparison to their predecessors is that there is an accepted, very effective, method of goaltending now, there is less room to improvise and show individuality. If Hasek played now, he would he barked at because he doesn't powerslide and is out of position. Anymore goaltending really has a thin margin between good and great, the stats don't bear that out. So with that long winded tangent out of the way, Price vs. Rask, Rask everyday. Price is silky smooth but lacks the mental game Rask has.
I think it's obvious that shot quality exists, but I still don't think we're particularly close to being able to measure it. You've got to account for position of the defense, teammates taking up goalie attention, screens, etc. All that stuff has a major impact on whether a shot is high-percentage or low-percentage. If they ever get something like PitchFX/Hawk-Eye for hockey, then you could probably make some headway with that data.
What do you guys think of the stadium series? Personally I think it was the dumbest thing the NHL could've done. Instead of having one showcase outdoor game and a canadian outdoor game (which made sense) they've now diluted the product to the point where theres a game in fucking Dodger Stadium, two in Yankee Stadium, a game in Wrigley and a few I'm forgetting, in addition to the now worthless Winter Classic.
Agreed. I love the Winter Classic, it's now ruined because of these novelty games. I get TV ratings and that the game in Dodger Stadium is intended to bring in revenue and grow the sport but let's be real. The NHL has taken a great idea, the Winter Classic, and gone overboard. An outdoor game is no longer special. This, after the game at the Big House has been a highly anticipated matchup between the Leafs and the Wings in a massive fucking stadium. Leave it to the NHL to ruin something great. It's been rumored that the NHL would like to expand expand by adding two teams and could do so for the 2015-2016 season at the earliest. Thoughts on this? Good or bad? Do you believe the argument that the NHL is watered down? Or are there more people playing hockey so it balances out?
Hockey, in its essence is a regional sport. Because of that, having teams in regions that don't support them is stupid. Bettman likes to point out the players coming out of California, Texas, and other non traditional markets, however a few kids popping out of these states could be the result of transplants moving south and west (which is the general population movement trend) or it could be the result of an NHL franchise in the area. I generally don't believe having an NHL franchise in the area promotes young kids playing hockey, I think having a strong youth hockey organization in the area does. Kids play football in Alabama and Wyoming even though there are no NFL teams. The franchise in Phoenix is stupid, especially when you consider LA is a days drive away. The NHL adding two more teams is stupid, they need to take care of the ones they have instead of expand. The majority of NHL teams are in the red, very few make a profit. No reason to compound the problem by adding more franchises. If anything the NHL should relocate Phoenix and Miami and possibly Nashville. Consolidate what you have then expand. I don't disagree with a team in Seattle, however moving an existing franchise there would be better. Is the NHL watered down? Yea probably. I wonder if the expansion of kids playing hockey has more to do with people moving west than the NHL having teams in the area.
Why is it a bad thing? Seeing the game played outdoors, and in historic stadiums is awesome. I don't understand the reasoning at all saying that it's "the dumbest thing the NHL could've done". Exposing the game to new audiences in (LA) non-traditional markets is a bad thing? So what if it's a gimmick? It's cool. If every game on New Year's Day was outdoors I'd be all for it.
From a branding/marketing perspective I don't really mind the stadium series. MLB did "Turn Back the Clock" and "Turn Ahead the Clock", and that's more or less what the Winter/Heritage Classic and the Stadium Series are. A massively successful marketing attempt at that. If you make each outdoor game special (and there are only 6 a year at this point), then I don't see the problem. I think we're still far away from the 'saturation point' for outdoor games. This would be sweet. Screw expansion, they should look at relocation first. The league isn't doing well enough to expand again. Move the Panthers, Coyotes, Predators or Kings -> Seattle Metropolitans and Kansas City Scouts. Done. - Seattle just hasn't had that much in the way of pro sports, which I think is part of the reason MLS is popular there. No Sonics anymore, Mariners are terrible, and the Seahawks were historically subpar; meanwhile, Seattle is the biggest soccer market/fanbase/whatever in the US. Hockey being a niche sport and Seattle being a cold-weather town, it could thrive and further the Seattle-Vancouver rivalry. - Kansas City, from what I've heard, has a pretty decent hockey culture to it, with a fair amount of people playing, infrastructure, etc. If they had their own team, I think people would watch. The above is fairly unbiased. Personally I would bring back the Whalers and keep Phoenix, on the condition they change their logo back to this guy. Spoiler
The NHL had a good thing, a widely popular thing, and they decided to dilute it. What makes the WC more special than the game in LA? Aside from the promotions, nothing. The game is already exposed to new audiences and has been for a while. The Kings have been around how long? Same with Miami and Tampa. Putting an outdoor game everywhere doesn't expose new audiences, its a cash grab for those advertising dollars. The hype for the WC use to start at the beginning of the season, and now I've hardly heard it mentioned. There use to be a palpable excitement to the game, now its just another game. If the NHL wants to expose the product to new potential fans then it should put a large emphasis on developing the youth leagues.