Morning Links - (12/19)
by JuliaM on Dec 19, 2011 8:35 AM CST
Email
PrintDaily Blackhawks news and league-wide notables.
- Recaps and reflection. [nhl.com] [CSN] [Tribune] [ESPN] [Sun-Times] [Cheer The Anthem] [Madhouse Enforcer] [Third Man In]
- Brent Seabrook is injured after a nasty hit. [Tribune] [Sun-Times] [CSN]
- Make that a 9 game point streak for Patrick Sharp. [Sun-Times] [CSN]
- Role players are contributing lately. [ESPN]
- The Sutter-Blackhawks L.A. connection. [CSN]
- A very special post-game episode of the Puckcast. [Hockeenight]
- Salak's injured. Morin might not have been the only one considered for a call-up. [Third Man In]
- Morin's feelings about the call-up, his role therein. [CSN]
- Hackel thinks the the shoot-out is increasingly ridiculous. [SI.com]
- Friedman's latest 30 Thoughts. [CBC]
- ETA: Cimaglia on the good time boys being the best of the west. [MyFoxChicago]
362 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We're gonna need distractions from Seabrook's brain
So here’s the Fenwick rankings so far this season. Good to see the Hawks in the top 5. If laaaarmer reads this he’ll notice who is 2nd to last. Their fall back to the mean will be swift and painful.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 8:43 AM CST reply actions
Has MN played this Fenwick team yet?
The stat that is bothering me the most is goal differential. It would be nice to get that to a +20 in the next week. I believe it went up +5 this week.
Fucking Wings are +35 already. That scares the hell out of me.
Hold My Stones
The Alberta Nightmare skews that number greatly
Things will regress to their appropriate levels soon enough.
Second City Hockey
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a goddamn shame
But The Hawks had blow outs against VAN and CAL too
They go together. You cannot selectively subtract numbers.
Hold My Stones
The Hawks got spanked in that game
So even if they lost by a more palatable score of 6-2, it only changes the differential by 3.
The goal differential doesn’t bother me. The Hawks have an awesome record with an average goal differential. It is what it it, and what’s done is done.
The Hawks are still in the bottom half of the league in both Sh% and Sv%; that should likely come around. The underlying stats (that have a much, much larger sample size) show a strong possession team and that’s more important in the long run.
A team like Minnesota that has the same goal diff, but weak underlying stats needs to be much more concerned. Shot differential is much easier to sustain than Sh% or Sv%. and they’re in the top half of the league in both (#1 in Sv%).
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
Their +35 because Jimmy Howard has been possessed by Dominik Hasek
Once Christmas passes and he eats the rest of the forbidden donut, that +35 number should come down. We’ve seen Jimmy Howard for a few years now. Elite goaltender he is not. He’ll come back to Earth. Just like Crawford will rise from it.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 9:42 AM CST up reply actions
So maybe in the last 3/5 of the season they are +40?
So they will be plus 75 in 82 games. He will have regressed, but the team is still +75. Are The Hawks going to be +40 ove the last 3/5 of the season? It will be fun to watch. Lets hope luck is on their side.
Hold My Stones
Wings have the best shot differential in the league though
And even though their 5on5 Sv% is 6th, their Sh% is 27th. They’re probably about where they should be.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
funny comment from a non-stats guy
I would ask you, and everyone, how many meaningful goals the Hawks have scored and given up this year compared to last year. The three goals allowed the past two games- none of them came at a meaningful point in the game (a goal to tie or take the lead or even cut the lead to a goal). The Hawks could be +14 right now riding back-to-back shutouts. Would that make you feel ANY better? Not me.
We like our people!
Yes I would feel better
But you are right on with the stats thing. You are catching on Cliff. Who the fuck cares anymore with these stats? The Hawks have been lucky to win. Well the other teams have been unlucky to lose. If all it took was to direct pucks at the fucking net, everybody would have a chance at the Richard award. It isn’t and they don’t.
Hold My Stones
I think you're overestimating the impact luck has
That doesn’t mean you should completely ignore its existence.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 9:53 AM CST up reply actions
I don't deny the existence of the term luck
My point is that the term luck, when using numbers to prove a point makes your argument less valid. How much less valid depends on how much your argument is based on the luck argument.
If the Rangers shoot less, but more go in the net, the numbers say they will regress and less will go in the net, but the numbers also said those shots never should have gone in in the first place. How did they go in?
From a coaching point of view, I would say without even watching The Rangers that they moved the puck better than their opponents, creating better shots at more net. Or they passed the puck and got their opponent out of position. whichever way you like.
Hold My Stones
I know what you're thinking
“Did the Rangers fire six shots, or only five?”
To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
Let's Go Hawks!
by K_Dog on Dec 19, 2011 10:12 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
That comment popped up with a rec already
I’ll green it, but how can this happen?
K_Dog you are a luck mofo.
Hold My Stones
yeah
i be all over that shit
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
Let me put it simply
If nearly a quarter of my team’s goals were coming on the man advantage, my team had a goal differential of +20 and that happened to be exactly how many powerplay goals my team had scored while simultaneously being the 5th worst team in the league at getting shots on net AND being the 3rd worst at shots on net on the powerplay, I’d think my team was standing on some pretty shaky ground.
Then again, it’s not my team and I don’t have King Henrik.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
If you'd like me to create a similar narrative for the Wild
I’d be happy to do so. The picture is bleaker seeing as Minnesota is one of the 4 teams that gets less rubber on the 4×6 than NYR.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:24 AM CST up reply actions
When you play the Rangers the game plan should be
125 SOG against Henrik and no penalties.
You will win EVERY time then
Hold My Stones
Stats vs. Stats
remember Spy vs. Spy? Good times.
anyhoo, what if I told you this same team was 9-4 in clear victories, good for #2 in the East and #4 in the league?
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:26 AM CST up reply actions
whereas
the Wild are 6-5 in clear victories, good for only #7 in the West. uh oh.
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
WTF is a clear victory
Is that when you have more quality shots and more go in?
Do you get the 3rd point for a clear victory?
Hold My Stones
Right rail at C&B
Victories by more than a single goal. It does not count games that were won by 2 or more goals should an empty netter be scored to push the margin to 2 or more.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:35 AM CST up reply actions
simple idea
some games aren’t close and a lotta games are close. ‘Close’ games are more likely to come down to ‘luck’. The (debatable) assumption is that teams that do much better in ‘close’ games then in other games are considered lucky.
Last year, the Hawks were 44-29-9. In Clear Victory games, they were 16-8 (PPG 1.33). In close games, they were 28-21-9 (PPG 1.12).
This year, the Hawks are 21-8-4. In Clear Victory games, they are 9-6 (PPG 1.20). In close games, they are 12-2-4 (PPG 1.56).
See the difference?
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
addendum
Clear Victory games are always 2-point games. ‘Close’ games can often by 3-point games.
So, all else equal, a team should expect to harvest higher PPG from close games than from Clear games. The fact that the Hawks were so much worse in PPG during close games last year, well, y’all remember all those dreadful games don’t you?
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:47 AM CST up reply actions
I like the clear victories numbers
They change my opinion a little bit on New York seeing as their goal scoring numbers have increased over the last 30 days. I’d buy the Rangers 5 times before I’d buy into what the Wild are selling. At least New York limits chances (16th in the league) where as the Wild only have Dallas (another major regression candidate) behind them in SA/G.
Lundqvist gives the Rangers more sustainability without the peripheral numbers too. Mostly because he’s just plain better than Nik Backstrom.
I hope the Rangers continue their success. Torts is a good coach but he’s one of those guys who wears out his welcome by year 5.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:33 AM CST up reply actions
the role of luck, it's like our solar system
looks enormous, but in the big picture it is really quite small
If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal
i think you meant that our solar system
is so humangous beeg.
/bryz’d
Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you!
by Gozer the Traveler on Dec 19, 2011 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
What?
If the Rangers shoot less, but more go in the net, the numbers say they will regress and less will go in the net, but the numbers also said those shots never should have gone in in the first place. How did they go in?
No no no. You’re misunderstanding the argument. No one’s saying that any shots “never should have gone in.”
Similarly, no one’s saying that there’s no such thing as “shot quality”, just that “shot quality” doesn’t do a lot of explanatory work over the long term. If a team has a high shooting percentage, it’s bound to regress over time. The more games a goalie plays, the more his save% is an accurate measure of his ability.
People that don’t understand these concepts are twisting the idea to mean way more than it’s supposed to.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
You read it so you don't need the "What?"
I can take baseball stats “over the long term” and they will give an average. You cannot make a statement about shot quality unless you define shot quality first. Taking all shots and averaging them does not make a statement about shot quality. It makes a general statement about save percentage and shot percentage. This is what I’m on about Brian C. Then the whole luck thing came in to explain something that can’t be explained with the numbers.
I said earlier I’m moving on to Butterfly style over use and I am.
How about that Huet?
Hold My Stones
You can move on
but dammit, I demand the last word when I enter into arguments!
Taking all shots and averaging them does not make a statement about shot quality. It makes a general statement about save percentage and shot percentage.
How do you seperate shot percentage and shot quality? If a team was able to systematically generate high quality shots, wouldn’t their shot percentage be consistently higher? But that doesn’t seem to be what research into the question has found.
Then the whole luck thing came in to explain something that can’t be explained with the numbers.
This doesn’t really make sense either. I don’t know what the “something” in this sentence is specifically referring to, but where are we seeing anything that can’t be explained with the numbers? Small sample sizes generate highly variable results. Far from not being explainable, they are expected. That’s why no one who knows what they’re talking about gets excited about the long-term prospects of Jeff Francoeur after he plays half a season at a HOF level, or Tim Tebow after throwing 150 passes in a row without an interception, or Shaq after hitting 10 free throws in a row (if he ever even did that), or the NY Rangers converting an unusually high % of shots on the PP.
Track records matter, is all.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
Cannot allow this to happen
The research did not define a quality shot. Or if they did I was too bored to even care.
Here is my point on this whole shot% quality shot argument.
Take two shots (or one bourbon one scoth and one beer). Shot 1 is from the point and Shot 2 is from the slot at the hash marks. EVERY player in the NHL, including Chara and possibly excluding Frolik will want to take shot 2. Why is that? Because it’s a better shot. The data even backed this up right? Shot distance does effect sh%. Luck does not trump shot quality. All shots are not created equal. This is why Toews has a career SH% of 15.2%, Kane has a SH% of 10.9%, Sharp 12.7%, and Hossa 12.8%. How can this be? These are career numbers. OK Hossa has taken 2300 more shots than Toews. Toews may come down, but he has taken 875 shots and these are his SH% numbers. You cannot deny this. Based on HIS numbers, why would he not continue to score at 15% rate? He has been lower for a season, but he has also been higher for a season. Isn’t that why his number is between? Kane has taken 1075 shots. Should we expect Toews to be at 10.9% after he gets to 1075? I hope not, but the argument is that he will because it all evens out. I have said this before. That is bullshit. Toews takes better shots than Kane probably because Kane is passing it to him, but also because Toews is a better shooter than Kane.
Stamkos in 3+ season is 16.1%.
Interestingly, Ocechkin has taken 2643 shots in his career and scored 311 goals or 11.8%. Marian Hossa has taken 3163 shots and scored 403 goals. So in Ovechkins next 520 shots, he should score 92 goals or 17.7% for them to even out.
You see, it’s bullshit.
Hold My Stones
by laaarmer on Dec 19, 2011 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
So do you have a team with 21 Toewses?
Again, you’re stuck in the micro, which no one disputes. It’s the big picture (team) everyone else is referring to.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 11:58 AM CST up reply actions
I am in the micro because this is how the game is played, in the micro
I would rather have Toews take all my shots, yes, that would be ideal. It is not happening any time soon. I don’t need numbers to tell me that Dan Carcillo is shitty compared to Toews in the goals scoring category.
Toews, Kane, Hossa, and Sharp account for 53% of the TEAMS goals. If they are expected to fall to the leaguewide average or the team average in SH%, then we are fucked beyond belief in the macro. Furthermore, Hossa, Sharp, Toews and Kane have taken 446 shots of the 1079 on the team (41%), yet they score 53% of the goals. This is the kind of stat I find interesting. the rest of the team takes 59% of the shots and scores 47% of the goals. Getting back to the macro thing. How many shots are taken from the point with no intent to score? Why are these shots calculated with the shots from the 4 players I mention? Are Hjammers shots intended to be goals or is he looking for a rebound/deflection? That is how your macro gets calculated. Hjammer’s SH% is 2.8% and except for Monty because he plays on the PP in another position at times, and Leddy because he is apparently a good shot, the other D are all in the same general area, below 3%. It’s ridiculous to compare SH% of a defenseman to a forward, but the macro includes all these numbers. So I don’t believe it’s a valid argument.
Look guys and girls, if you like doing the stats analysis, I don’t think any less of you as people or members of this little place. I read them all, well almost all. My issue is the the process with which the numbers are attained.
Hold My Stones
Toews
I would rather have Toews take all my shots, yes, that would be ideal. It is not happening any time soon.
This. Right there. You wrote it. Now take a moment to really understand the implications of it, and I think you’ll find that your objections disappear.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
No they will not
Stop trying to convince me that the MACRO numbers mean anything. I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it. You guys can continue to talk about it, but I will not participate, which may be what you want anyway.
Hold My Stones
If you can believe it
I agree with you. I understand the need for, but hate this need for stats guys to normalize everything by game situation and mash together players to get averages or adjust other players’ stats.
I’d rather look at numbers relevant for individual games or a few games, and by melding my understanding of randomness with what I actually see, draw my own conclusions from it.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 12:56 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I'm glad you don't think less of us for having a basic understanding of math
Now that that’s cleared up, I’m gonna sleep better.
And how can the “macro” not mean anything? On one hand, you suggest that it’s a fluid team sports unlike baseball and therefore stats can’t be applied to individuals. On the other hand, you argue that individual stats are all that matter and team metrics don’t apply.
That’s a neat trick!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
Correction. That's "a virus with shoes"
But hey, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You wanna spew nonsense without getting called out on it? Do that at home.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 3:29 PM CST up reply actions
laaarmer
are you ‘herblady’ from the comments section?
Find a good naturopath or herbalist! Conventional medicine or science will not likely help in the near future because they treat symptoms and never look for root causes. And there ARE ROOT CAUSES. I can say this because I was stricken with arthritis in my 30s and at age 61 I have not a trace. Its all in knowing how to remove the root cause.
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
you got as far as the comments?
my brain glazed over a paragraph in..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:39 PM CST up reply actions
she cut her arthritic leg off
didn’t she?.. now THAT’s “removing the root cause”
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
y'all play nice now
play naughty, and the mods might not be in a mood to pass around their Holiday Human Flavored Tofucken
If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal
The whole thing is obviously a hoax
It says it was developed by an MIT research team – stats guys!!!
It’s everywhere!!! Oh noes!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions
Hey they did say it works on all viruses
All viruses must be the same, like all shots. Over the long run that is.
Hold My Stones
Well, at least something is start to makes sense for ya
Glad I could be of ASSistance!
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 3:43 PM CST up reply actions
Sorry man.
We’ll see the next game.
It’ll be a good one. Hopefully with a Hawks extremely high SH% that we will have to justify somehow.
Hold My Stones
Individual players very much have differing shot quality. Andrew Brunette and John Scott are not comparable.
But at the team level, there’s very little in the way of shot quality – it is very hard to assemble 18 guys who all exceed average.
And there was much, much more rejoicing (larger sample size of rejoicing)
yay
Thanks Gabe. Btw, do have a “shot quality” alert that goes off when the topic is brought up any SBN site?
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 2:53 PM CST up reply actions
I will use no subject line too.
When doing your ’study" why were defenseman shots included with forward shots? It seems to me that you could get different results if you remove defensemen shots from the numbers.
Hold My Stones
Ah yes
A call to discard data that does not fit the predetermined conclusion … the hallmark of any serious approach to hockey and/or life.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
What's wrong with testing forwards and d men separately?
If you don’t there’s no way to test to see if they get different results with regards to their shot quality.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 8:57 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
That's not what laaarmer's talking about
He’s saying that the initial study is invalid because it included d-men shots.
If he had suggested it in the spirit of embiggening our knowledge, I would have kept my trap shut.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
I did not say that!
That’s what you heard
When doing your ’study" why were defenseman shots included with forward shots? It seems to me that you could get different results if you remove defensemen shots from the numbers.
I asked hawerchuk a question. Is that a problem for you now? Do I need to ask all questions through you?
It would probably not affect the numbers anyway. It was just a thought.
Hold My Stones
upthread
It’s ridiculous to compare SH% of a defenseman to a forward, but the macro includes all these numbers. So I don’t believe it’s a valid argument.
That, combined with the comment I was responding to, makes me think that I’m not being particularly ungenerous in my interpretation of your stance on the issue.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
Then you should reply to that comment.
Anyway, I figured out my issue with this whole thing last night.
Shot quality is not disproved by any number that has been shown. It’s shooter quality. Since the “Macro” is for the team, and all players from the team are taken into account, the poor or lower SH% shooters bring down the team SH%. They may also be taking shots af less quality Frolik and Bickell come to mind.
Clearly, there is such a thing as a quality shot and it has been shown that distance plays a part in this. Screens and position relative to the center of the ice also play a part. How to deal with tip ins and redirects is another story. They are counted as SOG, so they have to be in there.
It’s not the shot quality it’s the shooter quality. I don’t believe the two are the same. You may say it is semantics, but for me it isn’t. The player may be in a good position to take a shot, making the shot a quality one, but he may be a poor shooter. We have some on The Hawks. We also have players who, because of their position, take an inordinate amount of non quality shots, which makes their SH% lower – Defenseman.
I hope this helps all of you understand what I have been attempting rather poorly to say.
Hold My Stones
Yep
So I still don’t see any revelation in the fact that there is a SH% for the team. Why do we need any drawn out process to tell us that? And how does a team average SH% prove that shot quality doesn’t matter? It does not. It proves that poor shooters will bring down the SH% for the team. However, the better shooters are on the ice more then the poor ones (at least the forwards are) and that needs to be accounted for as well. It may have been, but I did not see it.
Hold My Stones
The original context
was to show that the Hawks’ goalies were underperforming and that it wasn’t simply “the defense is playing poorly in front of them.” Some nights the D plays better than others, but we tend to fixate on the breakdowns that result in goals.
Something that may seem counterintuitive is that the worst teams in the league tend to have just as good or even better shooting percentages than the top teams (since the lockout, not sure about prior to that). I’m not sure why.
Why the drawn out process? Team Sh% is still important. Just because over the long run it tends to even out doesn’t mean that some teams don’t overperform/underperform in a given season. And that also has a bearing on and/or gives insights into other stats.
When some people see “tends to even out over time” they mistakenly believe everything will “revert to the normal.” That just isn’t necessarily true. Sure, it will eventually happen, but it may take 200 games. It might not happen in the 50 games remaining in the season. Why is a team first in Sh% one season and last the next? Appears more to do with “luck” than anything else.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 20, 2011 9:28 AM CST up reply actions
That's why I hate the term "reversion to the mean"
In the stats I’ve done at school/work the term is used to suggest that if you are above average, you are more likely to underperform, and vice versa.
This is not true in sports. If you are above average, you will probably get closer to the average because you will most likely to play average. Not worse.
by VerStig on Dec 20, 2011 9:37 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Don't get me started.
Team SH%. I will use the Hawks as an example
Toews plays in nearly all games and for 20:46 / game. During the time he is on the ice, the sh% for the position he is playing is 17.8%.
Duncan Keith plays in nearly all games and for 26:13 / game
During the time that he is on the ice, the SH% for the position he plays is 2.8%.
This comparison is ridiculous right?
It is not like baseball where each batter hits from the same place against nearly the same pitchers. Defensemen and forwards are very rarely in the same place to take a shot. It’s just the nature of the game.
If shot % reverts to normal after 200 games, what does that matter? It’s the 82 in the reg season and the 16+ games in the reg season.
Can the SH% of a team be a predictor? maybe. However, even Tim Thawmas will have a problem with SV% if his team is shorthanded a lot for a game against a team with a low SH%. He will also have problems if wide open shots from in close are allowed.
Hold My Stones
As Armand Hammer once wrote -
the harder I work and the more closely I pay attention to details so I can take advantage of the situations that arise, the luckier I get.
by stanfordron on Dec 19, 2011 11:52 AM CST up reply actions
you make some good points
but so do the stats guys. It’s like you’re talking right past each other.
Just from my eye test, I am convinced, for example, that the Hawks were very much a tough luck team last year, and their luck has been better than average this year so far.
The fact that there are relatively simple stats (like clear victory results) that support this eye test is a good thing, no?
Have you read Moneyball? I understand baseball and hockey are very different, but you have cast yourself, in the current argument, in the role of the old school scouts from that book IMO.
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:01 AM CST up reply actions
I don't read Cliff
When would I have time?
Billy Beane? Do they win? I mean championships not regular season games (VAN)
Hold My Stones
i understand
it’s now in movie form.
i’m not sure anything useful comes out of the shot quality discussion/analysis, but i’m not hostile in principle, capece?
We like our people!
by cliffkoroll on Dec 19, 2011 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
I was not hostile, but I'm getting there.
What set me off on this was the idea that shot quality doesn’t matter. That it all evens out.
So I will exit this discussion and any further discussion of shot quality / luck and get right in to butterfly goalie style and how it is over used and over taught.
I kid.
Hold My Stones
About half of you will enjoy
This short story by Mark Twain
If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal
by ratbite on Dec 19, 2011 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You stat nerds are obsessed with luck
….the New York Rangers (who’ve been incredibly lucky on the PP)
from the crapfest you linked to.
Hold My Stones
When you're 3rd to last in the league in shots on the powerplay
Yet you manage to convert on 16.5% of your chances, yes, some may refer to that as lucky. Shots on net is simple. The more you have, the more likely you are to score, regardless of situation.
Luck is real. It’s also one of the things a player/team has no control over. Having a positive impact on the things you can control (like SOG) is where the focus should be.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 9:17 AM CST up reply actions
Luck is real
Good teams win most of their games lucky or not.
I find this whole statistical discussion of luck to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. If you guys want to bring luck in to your stat analysis, then you have to measure it. Don’t give me the 100 shots 2 are lucky thing. How were they lucky? Did they go in off a leg? maybe the shooter was aiming at the leg. Nick Lidstom and other lucky D men regularly shoot the puck wide on purpose, yet those shots go in. Are they lucky? I think they are hightly skilled and they make their own luck, which means it is not luck.
Luck from Webster
Definition of LUCK
1
a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2
: favoring chance; also : success
Also from Webster
Definition of LUCK
intransitive verb
1
: to prosper or succeed especially through chance or good fortune —usually used with out
2
: to come upon something desirable by chance —usually used with out, on, onto, or into
I think a shot that deflects in when player shoots a puck toward the net is not a lucky shot. When I shoot, I intend to shoot the puck in the net, have the goalie give up a rebound so a teammate can shoot it, or have it deflect. Therefore when it deflects, it is not luck.
Hold My Stones
Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘wedding’ as ‘the fusing of two metals with a hot torch.’
We like our people!
Why get married
just find someone ya hate and buy them a house.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
by Timothy Fisher on Dec 19, 2011 10:08 AM CST up reply actions
I heard a women the other day asking
why buy the pig when you can get all the sausage you want for free?
Fighting stupidity since 1958 (its a much bigger project than originally envisioned).
Confusion will be my epitaph.
It needs more cowbell.
That only works
for women who just need the sausage rather than the sausage and the wallet.
When stats people use "luck" to mean "randomness"
they do measure it, using standard deviation. It’s not used to say “oh this guy is lucky” but rather to provide a reference point to judge whether a number is the real deal or not.
Like I said below people are making too big a deal out of this. It’s not like people should draw conclusions from “luck” but rather see how quickly they should jump to them. Stats are not hard numbers — it’s ALL in the interpretation. That’s what your eyes are for.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 12:52 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I think I just said basically this same thing down by the bottom
Depending on how you read it.
Hold My Stones
My HS football coach said
“Luck is when preparation meets opportunity”
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
by Timothy Fisher on Dec 19, 2011 1:19 PM CST up reply actions
I disagree with this
Luck is real
Luck is a puck bouncing off a stantion to a forward right in front of the net, or a puck hitting a skate center ice and going into the net because the goalie was playing a wrap in dump.
Most of what some call “luck” I see as a result of the situation one has put them selves in, based on skill, positioning and the likewise effects of the other team. Is it lucky a SOG went off a defenders skate in the net? Too some yes, but I see it as the defender was forced to be there, because of the positioning and or skill of another forward at the crease. The shooter got off a decent shot on net, into traffic and probably a screened goalie. Luck, maybe, but if the forward was not at the crease to begin with causing this distraction causing the defender to be there as well and the goalie screened, this shot never happens or goes in.
To me, “luck” is the result of hard work, skill and positioning to make these things have the chance of happening. Good teams are good at these Hard Work, Skill and positioning, this is why it “seems” they tend to have more “luck”, but it is actually as direct result of the effort they show and put on the ice.
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
This is a misunderstanding, too
People use the word “luck” pretty quickly but it’s really only applicable in this discussion to describe small sample size fluctuation that is bound to be corrected. I don’t think your example is really the kind of “luck” that statheads are talking about.
I mean, if a team shoots at a 20% clip over a few games, no one expects that to continue long term. And of course it never does. It can happen for a few games at a time but it’s simply not sustainable. We can talk all we want about how well guys are positioned and how great the puck movement was. But the bottom line is, if it was all due to ability, teams would be able to sustain it over the long run. They just had a few days of particularly good fortune, and it’s bound to end just like it began – out of nowehere, and for no apparent reason.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
They do sustain it over the long run and that is why they get to go to the playoffs
Then the team that suatains the W-L ratio the best ove 4 series gets to win the cup. The next season is the next season and has no actual correlation to the last.
Hold My Stones
wut
I will grant that W/L records do not carry over season to season. Great find there, detective.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
You could say the same thing about "randomness"
Nothing is truly random… if a butterfly flaps its wings in China…
But I think the goal is to separate what players/coaches can control, from what they can’t. If you can quantify the former, then you’re into something. If not… well, at least you have a better idea what to look for.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 1:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
And Emery has the highest Sv% in the NHL for the month of December
How does that happen in front of our shitty defense? Was there a trade? Or are they just giving up low percentage shots?
Hopefully he can do something though to at least make it into the creamy middles this week. Doh!
Ride the hot hand, but still would like to see Crow in there once or twice this week.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
Q should start him in MTL
It’s his hometown.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:36 AM CST up reply actions
Too bad they aren't playing there
Why Q, why?!
"Watching a shootout is like admitting you watch Survivor or search the internet for porn."
I even have tickets for this game
So I have no idea why I thought it was away.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:39 AM CST up reply actions
If they were away tickets you would have remembered
You have to take a French test to go to the games now. No English speakers allowed
Hold My Stones
la langue Anglais est interdite dans la Province de Quebec!
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 10:42 AM CST up reply actions
I really want to go to Bell Centre at some point
Probably not for a Hawks game though. I’d like to make it out alive.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 10:48 AM CST up reply actions
handy quide to la belle Langue..
“TIIIIIIREEEEEZ!!” = SHOOOOOOOOOOT!
“FRAPPEZ!” = HIT HIM!!
“Non, meci, je ne veux pas la poutine” = No, thank you, I still have tastebuds
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
aussi, tres importante:
Aie! Ma voiture est incendie!" = You mean they WON this playoff game?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 11:02 AM CST up reply actions
....did you just insult poutine?
POUTINE IS DELICIOUS.
SCH Narc - check yo'self before you wreck yo'self.
Who puts gravy on french fries?
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
by FrankStallone on Dec 20, 2011 8:33 AM CST up reply actions
I do!
Poutine is yummy! I’m sad I can’t get cheese curds in Mexico. :(
Turco was good, but Crawford has a force field...
by Coz_Bulls_Fan on Dec 20, 2011 9:14 AM CST up reply actions
I so want to try it
Curator of Dark Side of the Five Hole
I like our guys, especially these guys.
Unapologetic apologist for hockey South of the Mason/Dixon
I live in Montreal and been to the last three Hawks game at Bell Centre with my Hawks jersey.
People are nice. First, Hawks usually lose but especially since there is no rivalry people were very friendly. Probably wouldn’t be the same if I was wearing a Bruins jersey though.
by LavalPhantom on Dec 19, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions
morning, all..
Bourque faces the Shanahammer today
two games, anyone?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
Two games at the least
Hit him in the back and charged to do so. Didn’t leave his feet though. Bourque doesn’t have any suspensions in the past for boarding hits, although he probably should have been suspended for spearing Doughty last season.
Two is definite. Would not be surprised if it is longer.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 9:27 AM CST up reply actions
with the injury
I’d say more. Guessing 6.
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
hopefully...
does Bourque have priors?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
I think Bourque will get 4 or 5...
Has there been any word about Comeau leaving his feet to hit Hjammer in the corner? Seeing as how his elbow contacted him in the head I thought that one might get reviewed too. More for the act of it being a poor decision rather than resulting in injury.
You are next.
yeah
thought that as well.. didn’t really get to see a replay though
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions
I think it should be but have heard nothing about it thus far
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 12:39 PM CST up reply actions
Hey after the fellating of Shanahan on this blog, it's probably safe to assume Rene is going away for awhile.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 19, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
I was talking about Comeau
Also, I don’t think there is any garuantee that Rene will be gone. Shanahan could just as easily say what Mike did below – that it was Seabs getting tangled with the official, and Rene didn’t “intentionally” do it – and let him go. I like a lot of what Shanahan has done this year. But he has not been consistant and he has let some stuff go with some ridiculous explanations that I just can’t agree with. I mean didn’t he suspend someone for a high sticking incident – wherein the player that was hit actually lifted the guys stick into his own face – because he needed to be in control of his stick the whole time. Meanline he lets a knee on knee go because it was just reactionary. If you have to control your stick, you’d damn well better have control of your body.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
At least two games, no more than four
Was an awkward play made worse by Seabs getting tangled with the official, and Rene doesn’t have a history.
Chicagoan in the Lou.
by Mike Martin on Dec 19, 2011 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
I'm on board with the same guess 2+ and not more than 4 (unless repeat offender status is invoked)
Fighting stupidity since 1958 (its a much bigger project than originally envisioned).
Confusion will be my epitaph.
It needs more cowbell.
how about a week?
that play wasn’t even close to legit – he just launched Seabs into the boards. If Shanny is really getting concerned over the concussion issue (and he sure as he should be at this point in the season), then make him stay off the ice for a time period that will really turn heads around the league. This is Seab’s 3rd concussion now and all of them have come from dirty as hell hits – if he wants to stop this then start now.
Q on the PK
“We’re not taking a lot of penalties, first of all, and at key times we’re making big kills,” Hawks coach Joel Quenneville said after Saturday’s practice. “We’ve got the good rotation with the forward groups and the (defensemen) are more aware of those plays around the net. (We’re getting) big saves at big times, clears (and) pressuring. There’s been more of an emphasis on not letting teams set up and get organized and keeping the heat on.”
Hold My Stones
So, Bickell fights after a clean hit but nobody does anything after Seabs got paralyzed.
I just don’t understand hockey.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
well, Bourque stayed down too..
and then he was gone..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 10:55 AM CST up reply actions
He's a good player I guess
But we talk about a bag of dicks here a lot. He is one no? always has been right?
Hold My Stones
don't know so much about him..
was he liked when he was here?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
Who's Rene's best friend on Calgary?
COLLATERAL DAMAGE MOFO’S!
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 19, 2011 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
You wanted someone to start pounding on Bourque
while he was laying on top of Seabs?
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 11:07 AM CST up reply actions
Havlat all over again!
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 11:09 AM CST up reply actions
I didn't say they should, just that this seems all backward.
Also, human beings have the ability to pull someone 3 feet in any direction away from the body….
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 19, 2011 11:11 AM CST up reply actions
they were probably more focused on Seabs 'lights out, noone's home' expression, then pounding anyone
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 12:40 PM CST up reply actions
We need a back-up Seabs.
How’s Dylan Olsen doing so far?
by stanfordron on Dec 19, 2011 12:43 PM CST up reply actions
i think they realized seabs head/neck was fucked when he was out cold on the ice
you don’t want to aggravate those sorts of things, especially with his history
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
Bickell is ....well........mentally all "fudged" up
that check finally broke Bickell. Frustration boiled over and that was the best I have ever seen him fight. Up to now he has been the good soldier-towing the company line.
Seabs, I think stunned the team..Rene ain’t a turd and Seabs went down like someone skated in from the blue line and hammered him. Now Rene is still responsible for his actions.
H'8ter Proof™
Scott said
Bicks has been looking for an opportunity to mix it up.
I'm beginning to think Seabs might seem nice but actually be a jerk
Why else would he always get rocked by ex-teammates?
I don't think that hit on Bickell was clean
Plus who was actually on the Ice when Seabs went down?
Curator of Dark Side of the Five Hole
I like our guys, especially these guys.
Unapologetic apologist for hockey South of the Mason/Dixon
i couldn't tell whether the Bickell hit was clean or not...
watched it 4-5 times and I’m more inclined to say it was a clean hit. Calgary really took it to us physically (as they should against this Hawks team) and yet we prevailed. Should be interesting to see how we neutralize Pittsburgh’s physicality tonight. We’ll learn a lot about who the Hawks are as a team during this game.
did you review the Hjammer hit a few times as well? curious to see what you think about that one.
I thought it was dirty (left his feet and hit the head), but I only saw it twice
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 20, 2011 1:09 PM CST up reply actions
24/7
I’m sure it’s been discussed in the last week when I haven’t been lurking much but how awesome is Bryz after seeing the first episode of 24/7 last week?
“The solar system is like so humongous beeg.”
by Indian_sweaters on Dec 19, 2011 11:16 AM CST reply actions
So is his contract
but compared to the universe, it’s sooo small.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 11:28 AM CST up reply actions
It kinda sucks
that 4 of the top 6 teams (Hawks, Scum, Minn & StL) will be in the same division next year
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
and nashville isn't too far behind
Why Q, why?!
"Watching a shootout is like admitting you watch Survivor or search the internet for porn."
Dallas isn't that bad either
Oh well we still get the Jackets and Jets.
Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'Sir' without adding, 'You're making a scene."
jets only have 4 less points than nashville
they seem much better than last season
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
Schedule
Man, the teams we play the 2nd half of December are much cooler than the teams we played in the 1st half.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
also that brutal 9 game road trip in Feb
Why Q, why?!
"Watching a shootout is like admitting you watch Survivor or search the internet for porn."
Detroit
Finally we soon get to battle Scum. Have we even played them yet this year in regular season? It feels like Detroit isn’t even in the same division, it’s been so long!
Let's Go Hawks!
No. Super strange to not have played them yet.
But we’ve played the boring ass Phoenix 3 times and the Islanders twice. Go figure that out.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 19, 2011 12:27 PM CST up reply actions
It's like the opposite of the time
when we were done playing Nashville by December…
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 12:45 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
That same year, we didn't play St. Louis until December 16
And we were done with Nashville by December 27. (Well, at least until the playoffs…)
I don't know
if it is available, but the post-game interview on WGN radio with John Scott yesterday was hilarious. At one point Troy had to remind him that people may be listening.
I loved when he said...
“I was wide open on Montador’s goal but he was too selfish to pass me the puck”
Also, “Q doesn’t like me out there against the Ingilna line.”
He also said he was open on Hjarms' goal and when he pointed it out to him afterwards...
Hjarms said that he saw him but wasn’t going to pass to him… the whole interview was very entertaining
Man, this would be hilarious if weren't so fucking sad.
So 13 mins a night, the Hawks have a guy on the ice who other players refuse to pass to.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
i think it was tongue in cheek by hjammer really
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 1:46 PM CST up reply actions
Especially considering
that rather than passing to Scott, Hammer scored instead.
On the way to the bench afterward,
Scott told Hammer he was open. Hammer replied, I saw you but I didn’t want to give it to you.
And (considering the source) giving Hammer some shit
for having gone 45 games without a goal.
by stanfordron on Dec 19, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
that's awesome. I really like Scott as a person.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
Most people do...
The only problem is too many reviews of his game are “he has a long stick,” and “He limited his mental errors.”
I was thinking this morning though – it seems when he dresses, the hawks are a bit chippier-nastier, out on the ice. I’m probably imagining this, but a little of that “Your in our building and you don’t touch daddy’s puck in our building,” attitude is necessary in kicking ass and taking names in the NHL.
They were talking about Scott's corner of the locker room.
Lepesto is there also. Supposedly it is the life of the pre-game party.
He is starting to punish people around the net.
….he wasn’t allowing Jackman any where near the net. Low checks still topple him but he has been fun to watch.
H'8ter Proof™
Dan Roan and Pat Foley
I don’t often make remarks on the aesthetics of broadcasts (unless trolling Canucks fans on Jim Hughson’s verbal felating of their team) however last night was simply awful.
First of all… Please take Dan Roan out on the Stugotz and Bompensiero him please. That guy is way past his expiration date. I felt bad for Hjalmarsson during the postgame interview. Roan was just rambling. He’s like the Blackhawks version of Dave Otto. Drier than Jake Blue’s favorite meal.
As for Foley… I love the man. Don’t get me wrong here. However, when Stajan went into the boards last night he might have called him Jokinen SIX TIMES. He’s really been getting bad this season when it comes to calling players by the right name. Used to be sharp as a tack when it came to that but it’s been really noticeable this year. Sucks that both he and Doc are starting to suffer from this.
/end rant
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 12:27 PM CST reply actions
I liked it when Roan forgot who the Hawks were playing Wednesday . You could see the panic on his face.
Basically, Pat Foley is on the road to Harry Carayville and there isn’t anything we can do to stop it. After all, we demanded this shit!
I also noticed the Jokinen thing and posted it on Twitter. Foley also screws up anyone with similar numbers on uniforms. Hossa is often Kane, Bickell is Stalberg…etc etc.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 19, 2011 12:33 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
This, sigh
Rec’d for “Harry Carayville”.
Which is dead on because like Foley, when in his prime Caray was the best play-by-play man around. People who heard him only in the closing daffy-old-grandpa phase with the Cubs don’t believe it but it’s true.
by Paul the Fossil on Dec 19, 2011 2:36 PM CST up reply actions
22 & 28
He’s always confusing Mayers & Smith (when Smith is here)
Honestly
you have to give them a break, they are basically sitting on the roof of the largest stadium in the country and 13 looks a lot like 18 from 5 bazillion feet away. Even the beat writers though it was Jokinen. Also, i completely agree with you on roan, hes just a douchenozzle.
by Kissmyanthia on Dec 20, 2011 12:26 AM CST up reply actions
Pat and Edzo have fantastic seats. You could argue they are best in house.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
by HjammerTime on Dec 20, 2011 12:37 AM CST up reply actions
The Calgary announcers
made that mistake as well actually. I thought it was him as well just based off the numbers I saw on my feed.
Curator of Dark Side of the Five Hole
I like our guys, especially these guys.
Unapologetic apologist for hockey South of the Mason/Dixon
Late to the lucky party again
I think people are reading too much into the use of “luck.” All the argument is saying is when you look at a player or team with particularly good numbers, to take them with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do everything right, but some of it could be due to natural variation — what people call “pucks bouncing your way” or “going on a hot streak.”
It’s a piece of advice intended more for stats people (especially those starting out who don’t have as much a feel for how much things regress to this mythical "mean). If you don’t believe in or don’t follow stats you should just ignore it because it’s not useful to you.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 12:42 PM CST via mobile reply actions
How can you not believe in stats
It’s not the stats that you don’t believe in, it’s the conclusion derived from the stats.
Hold My Stones
Fine
If you don’t believe in mainstream stats analysis? For the record I am a skeptic — hence the debates I had with CNS and DH. I lost most of those debates but it doesn’t make me any less skeptical. The reality is that conclusions don’t come easily out of numbers that vary so much, and there aren’t many good alternatives that can tell you much at the single-game level (to corroborate your eye test).
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 1:00 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Nope he shot it for the 5 hole all the way
What really happened is Leighton was the goalie
Hold My Stones
Laaarmer, you are a man of the world, you actually believe in mysticism, that is what you have been trying to say all along...
Luck and Black Magic are cousins, but only Magic is magic…
No Swagger, No Dagger
So Dallas should give back their Cup
since they were “lucky” that the NHL chose to ignore the “in the crease” rule that was in place at the time on the winning goal?
Lets take unemployment for example
Here in Michigan when the rate goes down, the party in power takes it as a positive, but the other party says those unemployed people just gave up.
I believe in mainstream stats analysis. Who will be my sponsor?
Hold My Stones
and I believe the future is our children
because the greatest stat of all is happening to me.
Maybe it's booze, maybe it's glue, maybe it's gasoline. Maybe it's a gunshot to the head. But something. Something to relieve the pressures of their everyday life, like having to tie their shoes.
My main problem with the 'luck' and 'shot quality' debates
is that there is a difference between saying ‘we cannot assess shot quality and luck in a statistically powerful/relevant manner’ and saying ‘we normalized all shot opportunities by distance, and conclude that shot quality has no effect’.
Shot quality is hard to quantify, and thus hard to analyze statistically – granted. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or doesn’t have a huge effect on shot% and sv%, and that players and teams can have their collective shot% and sv% affected by shot quality. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Yeah, but people like making bold statements
especially on the Internet.
Reminds me of a stats post trying to explain how Bolland shut down the Sharks’ top line. I couldn’t come up with anything statistically, so I basically said “there’s nothing in the numbers other than the fact that he provides sneaky scoring.” I could have said he was lucky to do so well in the face of being outshot badly, but I’d rather be forthcoming about what I could or could not find.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 1:12 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Well IMO
Shot Quality does exist in the numbers. If all shots by distance were equal, why on the PP is the SH% higher for the same distance, and lower in other situations? Though this does not prove it is in fact shot quality, but it does tend to prove that not all shots are equal and the same, that variables effect them. Now quantifying these variables is proving to be a real pain in the ass!
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 1:17 PM CST up reply actions
And there was much rejoicing - Yay!
What is a quality shot?
That is what we should define
1. Clear breakaway
2. has to be the open / clear shot fro the hashmarks in the slot.
Hold My Stones
I'm with you on this topic.
Having said that, I’ll be brief with this comment.
How many pristine chances don’t even amount to a being a “high quality shot”? That is, how many wide open nets are missed from the slot. Posts and misses skew the “high quality shot” arguement down IMO as they are not even recorded in the advanced metrics that are calculated. Ifsofacto… getting the shot on net eliminates luck. In getting it on net, you are doing your job, regardless of how “lucky” the deflection is that puts it across the goal-line.
You are next.
by M7 on Dec 19, 2011 4:35 PM CST up reply actions
Not armed with a link from my phone
but this is why I’ve highlighted “on-net percentage” as a stat worthy of futher investigation.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 8:59 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Was thinking about this earlier too
but I would initially assume that the percentage of missed shots from the slot is much lower than from the point. (and M7 is wrong to state that missed shots aren’t recorded in advanced metrics) So I’m not sure how “posts and misses skew the high quality shot argument”?
Actually I’m very confused. Who is arguing “against” individual shot quality? Just like Gabe’s chart in your fanpost shows, shots from closer to the net go in a higher percentage of the time. So I’m not sure what everyone’s trying to disprove?
But maybe this below offers some middle ground….?
Hey M7, is this something in line with what you’re stating?: Sh% doesn’t factor in missed or blocked shots. Therefore the discrepancy in what I’ll call “Total Sh%” (all shots directed at net) is much greater than what (standard) Sh% suggests.
For instance:
Distance 20ft 40ft
Sh% 8% 3%
At Net 100 100
Miss 10 20
Block 10 20
SOG 80 60
Goals 6 2
At Net/G 6.40% 1.80% 356%
SOG/G 8.00% 3.00% 267%
The number of missed shots and blocked shots are assumptions, but that’s not entirely important. I think it’s safe to assume that the number of missed and blocked shots increase as you move further from the net. Therefore the drop off in “Total Sh%” is always going to be steeper than what is simply reflected in standard Sh%.
So in this example, Sh% predicts that a player is 2.67 times more likely to score from 20ft than 40ft – but that only includes shots that are “on net.” But because the target is more difficult to hit and more bodies are in the way from 40ft, when you consider EVERY shot directed at the net, a shot from 20ft is actually over 3.5 times more likely to result in a goal. (based on these assumptions, but the basic premise holds up even if the numbers are revised)
Not trying to prove or disprove anything, but it does show that shot distance is more important than what Sh% alone tells us.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Hmm that's an interesting point
My previous work had only considered that On-Net% was a better indicator of team performance than shot differential… I never thought to combine it to make a more comprehensive shooting percentage measure!
I wonder if doing so would reduce the variance enough to make even distance work as a measure of “shot quality.” That would be mind-blowing!
Still digesting a bit, but yeah...
Your first bold statement basically spells out what I was thinking.
I guess this leaves me thinking something along the following lines:
If a shot is missed or blocked from a great distance (top of circles along the fence or point shot etc.) it’s no great loss to the shooting team. Taken another way… magnitude of that miss isn’t very large (unless it’s off the shins for a breakaway in the other direction). However, a miss or block from the slot/crease may well cost you the game. I think some effort to standardize the magnitude of the miss would be needed to make this stat more comprehensive.
You are next.
No one ever said
that “all shots are equal and the same”. Please!
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
I get you do not like my opinions
But try not to read that much into it to (appearingly) to disagree. All shots are the same, meaning they even out as laarmer stated, meaning on the average a shot at a given distance has such a chance to score, obviously that is not a total one-size fits all.
When you start breaking out different situations, those SH% for distance change from the mean, meaning something else changed to effect that outcome. If all shots were equal (see above statement) it would mean it does not matter what the situation was, the curves should nearly overlap on top of each other, but they do not, they are different.
I liken proving Shot Quality to proving a Black Hole exists. You can never directly observe or measure a black hole itself, we do not have the understanding or science to do that yet. But we can observe its effects through Hawkins Radiation, Gamma and X-Rays, Super heated material outside the event horizon and its gravity on nearby stars. The fact that the SH% changes in different situations does not prove it is shot quality, but does proves SH% is not entirely dependent on distance alone, something or things else effect it as well. Would you expect SH% to increase in situations with high Shot Quality, yes, but does this prove it is no. Just does not disprove it does not, but is in itself circumstantial support if it does exist.
This may be a method to prove Shot Quality exists and has an impact on the game, not by proving it directly, but by observing its effects indirectly with what we would expect it to do. I just do not think Hockey Stats and Data are to the point to directly observe it, but are too the point to indirectly substantiate it is there and has an impact.
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 2:14 PM CST up reply actions
That said...
macro numbers can be very much useful. I was as guilty as anybody in jumping to conclusions based on Hjammer’s indecision with the puck. Finding out he was facing top competition and coming out on top forced me to “recalibrate my eye test” and see his improved stickwork, usually good positioning, and the fact he isn’t in fact giving up possession every time he touches the puck.
But then again, you could also point to Bryan Bickell’s really good numbers last year. Was he “lucky”? Did Bolland drag him into line? Why is he not doing well this year? The macro numbers don’t help you so much here.
by VerStig on Dec 19, 2011 1:22 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
That is a different analysis though.
And you didn’t conclude form the numbers that other teams were lucky.
Hold My Stones
You're just being stubborn now
This whole luck thing is a parenthetical aside from a post that wasn’t even about luck. If you choose to disregard luck, that’s your decision. It is not, however, a universal rebuttal to valid points brought up through empirical work.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 1:35 PM CST up reply actions
It is not an aside, it is a term used to describe how a team has a SH% above some percieved mean
Like the Rangers PP%.
Hold My Stones
Valid questions
“we don’t know” is a valid answer.
From that "Mad House Enforcer" guy...
“Their stars got a couple of looks each, but that’s all they need to make a team pay.”
Sharp, Hossa, Toews and Crazy Eighty Eights – the Blackhawk equivalent of Muderer’s row?
death row records
i vote that to be how that group is referred to from now on.
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 1:47 PM CST up reply actions
Seabrook going with team to Pittsburgh
NHLBlackhawks Chicago Blackhawks
Per #Blackhawks media relations: Brent Seabrook traveling with the team to PIT, Daniel Carcillo is not. #Blackhawks
I still don’t believe he will play, but that is an encouraging sign.
BTW, what happened with Carcillo? I remember seeing him congratulate Kaner after his black magic shootout goal, but now his “not serious” injury has him out for a 3rd straight game? I’m not worried, it’s just weird how something seemingly minor could possibly keep a player out for more games than a nasty hit like the one Seabs took.
yes, but remember when he traveled with the team on the circus trip?
granted that wasn’t a head/neck injury, which traveling can affect quite a bit but still
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 1:49 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, but he played on the trip
He missed the first 4 games but played the last 2. They didn’t know how soon he’d be ready, but he traveled because he was expected to be ready to play at some point on the trip.
I’m not sure if injured players typically travel with teams, especially for short, 1-game trips. I would think that he’d only travel if there was some chance that he’d be able to play, which would make this good news (even if he doesn’t end up playing). If he’s traveling without any expectation of playing (i.e., for moral support), then it’s certainly not bad news but it’s not necessarily good news, either.
traveling with a serious concussion is a BAD idea
I think this is a good sign
Fighting stupidity since 1958 (its a much bigger project than originally envisioned).
Confusion will be my epitaph.
It needs more cowbell.
Great news that he feels well enough to do so. Still think I want him to sit out though, just in case.
It worries me for the players who play quickly and then feel the post concussion symptoms and are out for months after and are totally messed up.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
Also with Carcillo, wondered if it is the elbow he took to the face that is keeping him out.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
i...don't even know what this means
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 2:02 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe
he is being pushed out from underneath by a superior talent.
He'd still fly with the team in that case
Even if only as insurance in case of a game-day injury.
Carcillo is still injured, no reason to read any more into it than that.
I don't know. I'm assuming he's hurt and it has nothing to do with wanting to play a "superior talent"
I mean last game, Smith was called up and sat in favor of John Scott. Your theory definitely doesn’t hold there
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 2:34 PM CST up reply actions
Did Smith get sent back down again?
I think the elbow and the fight he had took Carcillo’s lust for life away for a while. He got his ass kicked twice. I think it does him good to sit once in a while. Kind of recharge the batteries in a sense.
Hold My Stones
Yes. Was called up, sat that game, and then was sent back down to Rockford
I don’t mind it. And sometimes players need a kick in the pants to get back in gear anyway.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 3:11 PM CST up reply actions
I certainly don't doubt that
It’s just weird that he seemed perfectly fine at the end of the Minnesota game and never left for the dressing room. If he got injured in-game, you’d think he wouldn’t have been around at the end.
well the elbow was towards the end of the game, wasn't it? so maybe he was ok with the hit at that moment
but as was playing and finishing out the rest of the game, he started feeling it? idk.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 2:33 PM CST up reply actions
This whole fiasco in Montreal about their new coach not speaking French
Is absurd. RDS is making a big deal out of nothing. The fact that Molson had to release a statement makes this even more asinine.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 19, 2011 2:05 PM CST reply actions
its the stupid quebecois region
its actually borderline nationalism.
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 2:34 PM CST up reply actions
but without the "nation" part of course
Fighting stupidity since 1958 (its a much bigger project than originally envisioned).
Confusion will be my epitaph.
It needs more cowbell.
well yea
but i couldnt think of the word that would be used instead, same idea behind it
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 4:47 PM CST up reply actions
and to think that Montreal...
really isn’t that bad compared in comparison to Quebec City or Edmundston, NS (in terms of language protectionism). I think reports are a bit overblown but whatever. It’s a similar mind-set than those Americans who fear people who continue to speak their mother tongue when they emigrate here.
That's a damn beautiful horse you have.
What office is she running for?
Mayor..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 5:31 PM CST up reply actions
Swish!
See if you can guess what I am now.
by IndianHeadCrest on Dec 19, 2011 5:31 PM CST up reply actions
Problem is, on election day - all of her supporters voted "neigh"
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"
provincialism
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
Have they said officially whether Seabs does have another concussion?
Wondering that because of the speculation today in Philly: that being done only for this season may be Pronger’s best-case scenario. As opposed to ending up on this list:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1103/nhl-careers-ended-by-concussions/
by Paul the Fossil on Dec 19, 2011 2:33 PM CST reply actions
They've just been calling it a UBI
we’re assuming concussion because he was knocked out.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 2:35 PM CST up reply actions
but.. but..
he plays for Boston! they’re allowed to maim people
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
i was pretty surprised actually.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 2:55 PM CST up reply actions
I assume that's sarcasm
The tinfoil hat people claiming conspiracy because of Colin/Gregory Campbell are pretty annoying.
sarcasm..
but more referring to Lucic , Marchand and McQuaid getting away with non-suspensions this season.
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
Al Had an interesting tid bit about Fluffy today
Steve Montador scored a goal and played 18:31. Montador was teamed with John Scott, who saw only 11:32 of ice time even though Seabrook missed the final two periods. Scott has to be shielded from top players so it is almost impossible to lessen the load on other defenders while he is in the lineup.
SCH moderator.
yup
this we know.. and, on the road, at the mercy of the line changes.. well, I doubt we see Fluffy in Pittsburgh
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
I hope not
but with Seabs down the 3rd pairing could get ugly regardless of which one of Fluffy, OD, or Lepisto sits. I really hope it’s not Lepisto, because OD and Fluffy paired together would be a painfully slow grouping
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
by FrankStallone on Dec 19, 2011 3:13 PM CST up reply actions
Oh but hey guys he seems really nice and were all tired of talking about him so we might as well just accept it.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
with Seabs down
I’m more concerned with how the top-4 holds up. C’mon Monty.
I would anticipate light minutes from the third pairing regardless.
We like our people!
It's going to be interesting to watch that game
PIT really works hard and they are relentless on the puck
Hold My Stones
Fantastic hockey team. Deep as hell too.
Last year they tore it up without Sid or Geno for a LONG time.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
yeah
the loss of Sid doesn’t seem to be holding them back, does it?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:19 PM CST up reply actions
yeah, this
other three BOS/DET/PHI by any chance? I’d be on that page.. BTW correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the first time we’ve faced a genuine article Cup Contender since Boston (maybe SJS?)
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:24 PM CST up reply actions
True enough..
might be a long old night… but then again, we’re the team to to beat so I’m sure PIT are feeling some fear too..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:30 PM CST up reply actions
they're not the team they were last year...
but that’s still a talented squad. I’m not a big Booth fan, but they should be better once he comes back from injury.
I expect them to be rolling by playoff time.
They haven’t been totally healthy either.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
yeah, they'll be in the mix alright
that team is still capable of destroying pretty much anyone if their heads are right and the bodies are healthy.
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:34 PM CST up reply actions
Philly still very good...
but I worry less about them sans Pronger. I also like the Rangers this year. That’s a solid squad.
Philly still very effing good
and, yes, Pronger is a disaster for them.. but I still see them there or thereabouts. NYR I don’t know what to make of yet..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:31 PM CST up reply actions
rangers are my team in the east, they are doing pretty darn well
now if only dubinsky could pick it up some
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
I like the Rangers this year...
But the lack of the Norwegian Hobbit is starting to piss me off.
I do stuff for CheerTheAnthem
hah you a big fan of zuccarello?
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 4:09 PM CST up reply actions
if the Hawks can keep their mojo rolling
it could be epic*.
* license to use banned word applied for.
We like our people!
it's OK..
use ‘Epic’ in the sense of ‘Lengthy Narrative Poem’ .. it still applies and you’re still correct. I’m looking forward to it but will make sure I have some strong drink to hand..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
there you go..
the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest recorded narative in the world.. so that’s Odie sorted out..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:42 PM CST up reply actions
More importantly,the oldest reference to hockey was made by Pierre le Cocq (whose descendant sits now Inside the Glass), thusly...
In 1799, William Pierre Le Cocq, in a letter written in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, England, provides a reference to the game hockey: "I must now describe to you the game of Hockey; we have each a stick turning up at the end. We get a bung. There are two sides one of them knocks one way and the other side the other way. If any one of the sides makes the bung reach that end of the churchyard it is victorious."13
No Swagger, No Dagger
Are you sure that was "bung"
and not “bong?”
Later, they placed a net at each end of the ice. They called them "bungholes".
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"
...which brings us back to Pierre le Cocq and his bald- headed bambino, I believe...
No Swagger, No Dagger
if.. and let's hope its only an 'if'..
Seabs is out.. what are our top two pairs? Keith/Leddy and Hammer/Monty?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
I like that line too..
.. But will Q revert to the early season Keith pairing? He’s got to make sure he’s not jeopardising his no.1 D-man.. but, as you say, the Pens come at you from everywhere so it’s going to be a balancing act.. and on the road too..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 3:22 PM CST up reply actions
I feel like 11:32 is a high for Fluffy.
But yeah, pretty much. I’m assuming we’ll see Lepisto and OD flip flopping, but I’ve been wrong about that very often.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
Does anyone know...
why Saad didn’t play on Saturday? I wonder if his hand has been giving him ongoing problems but he’s certainly not the same player that was lighting up the OHL prior to the injury.
how long has he been back for?
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 3:18 PM CST up reply actions
4-5 games (two weeks)
Could the World Jrs be the reason?
oh maybe, didn't think of that
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 4:11 PM CST up reply actions
If I recall,
he started out very hot last year. Then he got injured and never regained his touch. That is why we got him in the second round.
what do you mean? didnt he have something like 8 points in 4 games
when he returned earlier in the season?
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 3:56 PM CST up reply actions
Was that when he returned there from the Hawks
or returned there from his injury?
I'm pretty sure he's at WJC Training Camp.
The US hasn’t announced their final roster yet but I think they’ve had camp for at least a week now.
Shanahan
seems to think that Seabs isn’t hurt.. this is good, right? The league would have asked the hawks about any injury?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
Is that why he said its 2 games?
1) because he’s not feeling crappy now doesn’t mean he won’t feel the symptoms later
2) I don’t agree with the notion that punishment length should be dependent on injuries. And I mean this overall, not just in reference to Seabs. If a player does something really stupid and dangerous, he should not get a “pass” by only being suspended for a few games, just because he was lucky enough to not kill the other player.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
Ok that might be a little dramatic, and I guess I'm ok with 2 games
I just don’t always like BS’s reasons for his punishments (or lack thereof)
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 5:39 PM CST up reply actions
2 games seems right
and I’m hoping this is positive news about Seabs..
and I agree completely about the injury thing.. a dirty/reckless play is a dirty/reclkess play whether or not there’s an injury..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 5:42 PM CST up reply actions
I agree completely
A stupid play is a stupid play, just because no one got hurt shouldn’t mean less punishment.
On another note, I’m wondering if the Hawks were keeping a little quiet about Seab’s injury so Bourque might get a stiffer punishment. Why come out and say Seab’s was fine if you know it will likely mean less punishment for Bourque?
Game theory -
we’d like Borque suspended for when we play them. We do not want him suspended for other games since his team is so far behind us in the standings.
get the idea..
but a nightmare to put into practice..
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:06 PM CST up reply actions
I get your point
but they could also be trying to get the league to up the ante on suspensions for bad hits so there are fewer bad hits on their own players in the future
I'm okay with 2 games
As for the injury aspect, it could and should be used as a mitigating factor in determining length of the suspension (to a degree), but not if the suspension itself is warranted.
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
Upcoming photoshop: The Shanahummer
by ChicagoNativeSon on Dec 19, 2011 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
pray, continue..?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:11 PM CST up reply actions
If the NHL really wants to stop these type of hits
it’s very simple – your ban is as long as the guy you hit is out.
You want to take out Crosby for a year, you sit for a year no pay.
If it takes Seabrook 5 games to come back, that’s your ban for Bourque.
You might think of holding up a bit before you blind side a guys head into the boards if you think “hmm, if I put him out for a month, I’m out for a month.”
I get the reasoning
but it would be impossible to put into practice and a farce
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
and a farce?
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 6:43 PM CST up reply actions
OK.. bit of a harsh word
but picture the (potential) situations…
the player you hit is out for nine months (like Sid).. he comes back, so you do too.. then he goes down again with symptoms from the original hit.. what then?
or
a player is day-to-day as a result of your hit.. how does your coach prepare for game without detailed knowledge of the opposition’s medical reports?
or
the opposition’s star player is serving a ban for a hit on one of your journeymen.. your guy is good to go really, but you’re playing them again next week
etc etc etc..
like I say, I like the thinking but it can’t work.
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:48 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with that, thanks for explaining.
For whatever reason your comment didn’t make sense in my brain.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 6:51 PM CST up reply actions
Also, Sid's intial concussion was the result of the hit in the Winter Classic
And a game 3 days later. Who gets punished?
yeah that's why this method of punishment is questionable
but there should be some type of consistency
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 7:46 PM CST up reply actions
The case surrounding Sid's concussion would be pretty murky
Because the first hit in the winter classic from Steckel wasn’t a hit, it was incidental contact between 2 players that didn’t see each other, and the second hit from Hedman a few days later wasn’t exactly dirty or particularly hard but since Crosby was likely already concussed that hit only served to exacerbate the situation.
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
by FrankStallone on Dec 19, 2011 10:57 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
Poor judgement in a moment in time, that is not terrible overall can result in a players career being over (especially if that player is on the borderline to begin with), that does not mean the offending player does also warrant a suspension of the same.
Example: DiPietro’s first game back, Toews is in the slot, Farts into DiPietro’s face, DiPietro moves back, and breaks his femur, humorous and 5 ribs as a result. This is obvious roughing or GI on Toews and a " Flatulent flagrant penalty. Does this mean Toews should also be banished for as long as DiPietro next IR stint? (if you prefer substitute Fart with bumps into Rick)
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 6:50 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
see, this is why you're the brains
and I’m the looks.. excellent example! One little quibble.. doesn’t DiPetro usually break all those bones signing himself out of the Hospital?
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
He has a Power of Attorney
Less chance of a major injury
by Toews-makes-funny-faces on Dec 19, 2011 6:54 PM CST up reply actions
ah I see!
thanks for clearing that up…
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:56 PM CST up reply actions
and on that note..
night, all!
enough of the niceties: time for the eye-gouging..
and yes, I probably *should* be asleep right now!
by mightymike D on Dec 19, 2011 6:57 PM CST up reply actions
Don't know that that would work. Do think the stakes need to be higher though
I mean, much as it pains me to say this, has Cooke had any incidents this year? If he has, I’ve missed it, but if not, then what his coach/GM said (he changes the way he plays or he’s out) must have made an impression on him. Like I think a cleaner style a play is something that needs to be taught and enforced within the team.
Also wish there was like a clear cut list that determined length of suspension, to take the bias (purposeful or not) or judging based on eye test and assumptions, out of it
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 6:49 PM CST up reply actions
2 games is too few...
To clamp down on hits like this there needs to be a rule change which includes an automatic suspension regardless of injury or not on the play.
I disagree with an eye for an eye, as many games as a player is out, that just won’t work. To actually make a player accountable there needs to be some type of automatic suspension and I think it should happen in football also. If someone is literally blindsided then it’s a cheap shot correct?
If someone is literally blindsided then it’s a cheap shot correct?
No. There really is a duty for a skater to keep his head up and know where danger is on the ice. One of the best examples of a blind side hit that is totally legal was Willie Mitchell’s hit on Toews two years ago, and Mike Weaver’s hit on Sharp a few months later. Neither player saw the hit coming, but they’re totally clean.
Chicagoan in the Lou.
by Mike Martin on Dec 19, 2011 10:50 PM CST up reply actions
If the NHL really wants to stop these type of hits
It’s very simple – you multiply by 5 the number of games suspended. Trust me, the players would understand (although the player’s union wouls never accept that).
by LavalPhantom on Dec 19, 2011 8:44 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Ok I can't remember the thread where we were talking about it so posting it here
According to a feature on Blackhawks.com, Kruger was in Rockford at the start of the season!
Kruger had high hopes to make the Blackhawks out of training camp, but he opened the 2011-12 season in the AHL. He was recalled in time for Chicago’s second game of the season, but he says that his reassignment gave him some perspective on his career.
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
maybe just due to timing? idk
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 6:44 PM CST up reply actions
yes he was
smith had the roster spot but gettin brained in that pre-season game lost him it
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 19, 2011 6:18 PM CST up reply actions
Yes, as I recall, it became a Saad situation...
And with Carcillo suspended, somewhat Pirri-lous.
"What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"
"uck" tally as of 8:45pm:
“fuck”: 9
“puck”: 21
“luck”: 69
WTL??
If graffiti changed anything it would be illegal
others
Duck – 8
Canuck – 2
suck – 3
stuck – 1
Alan Ruck – 0
Author of The Cubs Transaction Report
Ducks-Stars game getting pretty chippy now at the end
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
Perry has such a terrible face
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 9:35 PM CST up reply actions
so say we all
"Well now you're just talking like Foghorn Leghorn!"
by justforkicks on Dec 19, 2011 9:41 PM CST up reply actions
dicks from across the land
cringe at the thought of that comparison
Lead writer of nothing, commenter on everything.
Does anyome have
The NHL game center app for Android? I should note I’m referring to the free version as well.
by BodomSlayer on Dec 19, 2011 10:46 PM CST via mobile reply actions
The Central Division
Looking very strong at the top:
pts (nhl) (conference rank)
Chicago 46 (1st) (1st)
Detroit 43 (5th) (3rd)
St. Louis 42 (6th) (4th)
think its going to end up like the pacific last year with 4 teams from the same division in the playoffs?
by putmeinthemadhouse on Dec 20, 2011 12:01 AM CST up reply actions
maybe...
but I’m not too sure about Nashville making it. At some point L.A. will have to take over and snatch a spot, right?
you would think they would
but they have just been terrible. We will see how Sutter does behind the bench
Why Q, why?!
"Watching a shootout is like admitting you watch Survivor or search the internet for porn."
won't be the case next year when Dallas is in our division or conference or whatever they want to call it...
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
by FrankStallone on Dec 20, 2011 8:34 AM CST up reply actions
The fuck?
How did this happen? If any of you buy it, you’re getting saran wrapped to a tree and having pucks fired at you by Shea Weber.
by JesusMarianHossa on Dec 20, 2011 9:15 AM CST reply actions
$10 says it was self-published...
There are three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
by FrankStallone on Dec 20, 2011 9:26 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Second City Hockey
Related FanShots on Second City Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Game Show Friday, Bobby Holik, Game 6 preview, NHL ratings debate
- Trending Topics: In praise of Jeff Carter, Mike Richards; ‘While The Men Watch’ criticism
- The John Tortorella origin story, including ground balls to the face
- NHL investigates Coyotes; Shane Doan explains tense Game 5 handshake with Kings’ Brown
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
