Everyone loves crappy athletes. Yes, you too. You love guys who are too small, too slow, too ugly to play professional sports. You love David Eckstein because he's too small, Muggsy Bogues because he's WAY too small, Darin Erstad because he tries hard, Fernando Pisani because his stomach hurts and he's good without the puck (I love F-Paz, he is great defensively but nobody ever talks about how good he is WITH the puck), and countless other overachievers. I guess we like them because of the reason people love the Force (shouldn't stretch those metaphors without warming up first, but here goes!). When the first three Star Wars came out the Force was pretty vague, the message was that anyone could become a powerful Jedi if they could focus their mind enough and make rock piles. George Lucas, who hates his original three films like old people hate skateboards, made it a priority to ruin the theologically egalitarian Force with the fascist Mitichlorian explanation, which stated that only certain individuals possessed the biological blueprint to become Jedis. The new Force divided rather than unified beings in the Star Wars universe, and as a result alienated fans. Sports are the same. Fans love to imagine that they too could play pro sports if it were merely a matter of work ethic, that it's not a matter of God-given physical gifts but effort and sacrifice that seperates millionaires from wannabes. That's why we love those little grinders, an adjective that now applies to any sport. They make us feel like we're not so different from our heroes.
The problem with this love affair with mediocrity is that it gets carried way too far. The Toronto Blue Jays signed David Eckstein to a one-year, $4.5 million contact to play shortstop this year. In seven seasons, Eckstein has a batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage of .286/.351/.362 (source: www.baseball-reference.com. They'll explain what those stats means better than I can). That's decidedly average, possibly below average. Their current shortstop from last season, John Mcdonald (recently re-signed to a two-year extension) hit .240/.279/.316. Eckstein hits a bit better but McDonald is a tremendous defensive shortstop. The Jays' problem last year was hitting, ostensibly because their better offensive players were hurt. With the Eckstein signing, they presumably decided that McDonald was not a great long-term solution at short even if the rest of the offense returns to form. An offense, by the way, that before last season was projected to be among the best in baseball. Enter Eckstein, a marginally better hitter who's worse defensively. A wash, in other words.
I bring up Eckstein for these reasons. The Cult of Eckstein runs rampant among sportswriters, most of which can't get enough of how he's managed to become such a wildly "successful" athlete despite his crippling handicap of being kinda small. I like David Eckstein, I think most baseball fans do, but come on, he's just a role player and doesn't need to be fawned over like he's Alex Rodriguez. As a result, you see a backlash against these types of athletes in all sports. The charm of guys like Eckstein, John McDonald, Pisani (most notably in the 2006 Finals run), T.J. Ford, Steve Nash, and the 2007 NHL Free Agent Class of Pretty Good, Ryan Smyth, Chris Drury and Daniel Briere is that they take you by surprise. Sports are all about emotion and seeing Pisani score 14 goals in the playoffs elicits an emotional response from both fans and sportswriters simply because nobody expects it. Yet after a while, the backlash kicks in as smarter fans get tired of reading about how fabulous Darin Erstad is and how Alex Rodriguez can't hit in the post-season (stats: .279/.361/.483. Not nearly as bad as some would have you think). The guys who are truly great just get check marks and the Grinders are lauded. I'm not saying guys who block shots, take charges, hold the offensive line and play beyond their natural abilities shouldn't be recognized. It's just that sometimes it just gets out of control and perspective is lost. That's the point I'm working towards here.
When you fall in love with a mediocre player, as we all do at some point, you'll defend them against any argument that they're really not that good. Any foible exonerated, any mistake rationalized, and all flaws forgiven.
*Side note: That only changes when they sign a big free-agent contract. Ryan Smyth was the heart of the Oilers, a tremendous overachiever, King of the Grinders until he signed a 5 year, $31.2 million contract. Now everyone still likes him but think he's overpaid and more willing to point out how he's never put up 70 points in a season. And in reference to the 2007 Free Agent Class, Smyth and Drury are Pretty Good, and unless Briere puts up 95 points again, so is he.
The career peak of these players is to be called "my buddy" by Don Cherry. Being one of Don Cherry's guys is like being a Made guy, you become untouchable. You can cross-check a player in the face, serve your suspension, play a few games then STOMP SOMEONE'S HEAL on purpose and have it all rationalize on Coach's Corner. The worst you'll hear is a feeble admonishment of how what you did was wrong and "broke the code." Don't worry though, you're a Made Guy, The Don will stick up for you by ripping on your victim's BROTHER in a completely seperate incident and use that as a justification for your actions.
I wasn't able to find a written transcript of Ron and Don's Five Minutes of Epilepsy Special from last weekend, but here's the link to the video. What's becoming a problem with Coach's Corner is the incredibly low standard of sports journalism we hold it to. When Don announces to all the importance of remembering that Christmas is about Baby Jesus and not to forget that, we laugh and remember to be more sympathetic to our own senile relatives. When Ron attempts to force the racism angle and Don rejects it, you feel like you're listening to two drunks in a bar, whittling down a sensitive political and sociological topic into one of two camps: First Nations Are Victims All The Time or Hey! Suck It Up And Get A Job! When Don gets upset because Andrew Ference cares about the environment and exclaims "This is Hockey Night In Canada, let's stick to hockey!" right before reminding everyone to support the troops, you wonder if this is supposed to be a parody and you should feel clever and chuckle like you're watching Stephen Colbert.
*Side note: Can I solve the puzzle, Pat? Can we resolve this right here, right now? EVERYONE supports the fucking troops. All of us, all the time. Even if you'd never join the army for any reason you still appreciate what they do. Canadian, American, anti-war, pro-war. We ALL support the troops so stop the grandstanding. It seems to me like some of us support the troops more than others though, since we'd rather less of them get shot and all of them came home sooner.
I still maintain that Don Cherry is a pretty good analyst of the game itself. He picks out the right examples of why the Leafs couldn't get out of their zone THIS time, offers good advice to young players, and when he's giving his Former Coach perspective there's some insight to be had. That has to be the focus of the show, otherwise it devolves into the convoluted, confusing, disorganized screaming mess that was last week's show, rather than a semi-convoluted, slightly less confusing disorganized screaming entertainment that we all enjoy.
I'd love to be able to tie all this together but it might not be possible. This whole post was basically an attempt to tie together Don Cherry continuously and blindly defends the players players he likes, who are usually Grinders, with how sports journalism can both celebrate underdog athletes and act as the mechanism that creates the backlash against them. I'll presume I was not successful in this endeavour but I have a cold, my allergies are bugging me and I'm kinda short. Consider this post Grinded Out.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Mr. Cherry's Confusion Emporium
It's Christmas and I'm busy and travelling so no time to post anything. I do want to write about Ron and Don's hilariously absurd Coach's Corner from last weekend where they nattered on about all kinds of ridiculousness. I'm looking for a transcript to do a point-by-point response but no luck yet, if anyone out there finds one please send me the link. Until then...
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Fun with Dick and Kevin
It's a good thing haute culture does not consider internet sources to be relevent, since there's nothing more frustrating than not being able to find an exact article to use in your blog. Especially us sports guys, reading articles every day and having those random facts linger in the back of our minds awaiting a trigger word to activate them. We're like Manchurian candidates armed only with a few selective stats and the volume of our own voices.
The reason this springs to mind is because of rumors that Dick Tarnstrom is becoming more likely to be traded from the Oilers. With more healthy defencemen returning to the lineup and the emergence of Tom Gilbert, it would seem that Dick could be moved for, well, something. The Oilers need scoring and can't trade anything to get it. Torres is hurt for a while, maybe gone for the year. Stoll I don't think will go because he was their best player last year until he got hurt, kills penalties, blocks shots, wins faceoffs (best on the Oilers this year, 29th in the league at 52.6. Last year he was 9th at 55.6), and, as I've maintained since they drafted him, is captain material. Frankly, this team cannot afford to trade away any more leadership. Looking at the Leadership Exodus out of Edmonton since the end of 2006 is pretty ugly.
Back to Dick. I'm sure I read somewhere (hence the initial comments) that the reason he chose to come back to Edmonton for his NHL return was that his daughter has a medical condition and Edmonton's medical facilities would be the best place for her. So really, this isn't a trade one wants to see from a human perspective. Unless they package him with Stoll they won't get much for him straight up anyways (even packaging with Stoll you're trading away an impending UFA at $2 million and an impending RFA at $2.2 million. The only teams that would go for it are top teams looking for depth. You won't get roster players back and Stoll and Tarnstrom won't yield first round picks, so why bother). You can't trade him just to move salary because this team still thinks it's playoff-bound, which is certainly possible given their position right now and getting healthier (Disclosure: I picked them to finish in 8th because I'm a big fat homer). Besides, the only way this team makes the playoffs is with both those players healthy and playing to their potential. Before getting hurt, Tarnstrom was the Oilers' best defenseman and Stoll is still capable of pulling his game together and being a secondary scoring threat, both even-strength and on the powerplay. If the team falls off then of course things change, but trading Tarnstrom is just a bad idea for both hockey and PR reasons. Brian Burke made the bright point after trading Andy MacDonald, saying that trading recently-signed Mattieu Schneider (which was widely predicted) probably isn't a good way to attract UFA's in the future. Edmonton may be a lot of things to the rest of the league's players, but with the high turnover rate the last few years the Oilers don't need to create the kind of impression Burke was smart enough to avoid.
The reason this springs to mind is because of rumors that Dick Tarnstrom is becoming more likely to be traded from the Oilers. With more healthy defencemen returning to the lineup and the emergence of Tom Gilbert, it would seem that Dick could be moved for, well, something. The Oilers need scoring and can't trade anything to get it. Torres is hurt for a while, maybe gone for the year. Stoll I don't think will go because he was their best player last year until he got hurt, kills penalties, blocks shots, wins faceoffs (best on the Oilers this year, 29th in the league at 52.6. Last year he was 9th at 55.6), and, as I've maintained since they drafted him, is captain material. Frankly, this team cannot afford to trade away any more leadership. Looking at the Leadership Exodus out of Edmonton since the end of 2006 is pretty ugly.
Back to Dick. I'm sure I read somewhere (hence the initial comments) that the reason he chose to come back to Edmonton for his NHL return was that his daughter has a medical condition and Edmonton's medical facilities would be the best place for her. So really, this isn't a trade one wants to see from a human perspective. Unless they package him with Stoll they won't get much for him straight up anyways (even packaging with Stoll you're trading away an impending UFA at $2 million and an impending RFA at $2.2 million. The only teams that would go for it are top teams looking for depth. You won't get roster players back and Stoll and Tarnstrom won't yield first round picks, so why bother). You can't trade him just to move salary because this team still thinks it's playoff-bound, which is certainly possible given their position right now and getting healthier (Disclosure: I picked them to finish in 8th because I'm a big fat homer). Besides, the only way this team makes the playoffs is with both those players healthy and playing to their potential. Before getting hurt, Tarnstrom was the Oilers' best defenseman and Stoll is still capable of pulling his game together and being a secondary scoring threat, both even-strength and on the powerplay. If the team falls off then of course things change, but trading Tarnstrom is just a bad idea for both hockey and PR reasons. Brian Burke made the bright point after trading Andy MacDonald, saying that trading recently-signed Mattieu Schneider (which was widely predicted) probably isn't a good way to attract UFA's in the future. Edmonton may be a lot of things to the rest of the league's players, but with the high turnover rate the last few years the Oilers don't need to create the kind of impression Burke was smart enough to avoid.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
A non-hockey post!
December is a great time for baseball news, isn't it? The Mitchell report was released today and some very big names were mentioned as either having used illegally obtained steroids or human growth hormone. The 409 page report cast blame on the entire Major League establishment, including the league and the player's association, for being complicit in the seemingly enormous use of performance enhancing drugs. I say seemingly because George Mitchell, the former U.S. Senator, was able to acquire enough evidence to confidently announce names like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Troy Glause, Gregg Zaun (?) and others with no subpoena power, no cooperation from the players' association and no players coming forward. If he was able to get information like credit card receipts and personal trainer admissions with no real legal muscle, imagine what he could get with it and by extension, how much deeper the problem goes.
My guess is that Bud Selig will do nothing about this, won't suspend anyone and won't allow U.S. Congress another crack. He'll talk about what a dark day it is for baseball and because everyone was part of the problem the players won't bear the brunt of the punishment. The players will suffer in two places, the court of public opinion, which they probably won't care about, and the Hall of Fame. That's where the arguments will be at their most fevered since Clemens and Bonds are first-ballot Hall of Famers and arguably the best pitcher and position player ever. Around 1997-1998 both players allegedly began taking performance enhancing drugs so the obvious question is whether they were Hall of Famers before then. Let's say they didn't take anything. They'd put up slightly lesser stats and play few games over fewer seasons. Who knows exactly how many more runners allowed or homeruns would have been hit, but considering their pre-steroid performance they'd probably get in. The debate will be a lot more complex than that but that's the rationale I'd use if I was voting, though probably putting in a little more time at Baseball-Reference.com.
The conclusion from the Mitchell report is that baseball has a serious steroid problem and it's the fault of everyone in the game. No records will be scrapped because there were no rules against steroids at the time and it's possible the Hall of Fame votes won't be affected since of the players named, only Clemens and Bonds were heading in anyways. At the end of the day all that'll happen is the league implements tougher and more frequent tests and the players hire smarter chemists. Just like the Olympics! If we're lucky, maybe Josh Beckett will be suspended for using cough syrup. I hate that guy.
My guess is that Bud Selig will do nothing about this, won't suspend anyone and won't allow U.S. Congress another crack. He'll talk about what a dark day it is for baseball and because everyone was part of the problem the players won't bear the brunt of the punishment. The players will suffer in two places, the court of public opinion, which they probably won't care about, and the Hall of Fame. That's where the arguments will be at their most fevered since Clemens and Bonds are first-ballot Hall of Famers and arguably the best pitcher and position player ever. Around 1997-1998 both players allegedly began taking performance enhancing drugs so the obvious question is whether they were Hall of Famers before then. Let's say they didn't take anything. They'd put up slightly lesser stats and play few games over fewer seasons. Who knows exactly how many more runners allowed or homeruns would have been hit, but considering their pre-steroid performance they'd probably get in. The debate will be a lot more complex than that but that's the rationale I'd use if I was voting, though probably putting in a little more time at Baseball-Reference.com.
The conclusion from the Mitchell report is that baseball has a serious steroid problem and it's the fault of everyone in the game. No records will be scrapped because there were no rules against steroids at the time and it's possible the Hall of Fame votes won't be affected since of the players named, only Clemens and Bonds were heading in anyways. At the end of the day all that'll happen is the league implements tougher and more frequent tests and the players hire smarter chemists. Just like the Olympics! If we're lucky, maybe Josh Beckett will be suspended for using cough syrup. I hate that guy.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Listen, all you kids out there...
It's fair to say that two of the most contentious issues in the NHL are the existence of shootouts and fighting. They're portrayed as representing opposite sides of the traditionalist vs. non-traditionalist duality that fight each other over every proposed rule change in the NHL. The irony is that they both exist, and will continue to exist, because of the exact same argument.
I love the shootout. It's the best way to end games because ties are a terrible way to reward fans paying $200 a ticket. Give me clarity or give me death! The reality of NHL games is that most of them look the same no matter who's playing. The keys to winning are always the same: establish your forecheck, maintain possession deep in the offensive zone, avoid giving the puck away in transition, cover your check in front, win the special teams battle, etc. Anything you want to add to that list will be the same for any time in every game against every opponent. Sure there's some specifics, like shoot high glove side against this goalie or play this defensive pair against that power forward, but when the game's over the winning team invariably did so because they performed the above. The shootout is the one place you see outright uniqueness and creativity, skills you probably won't see during the game (the penatly shot is, after all, described as the most excting play in the game by announcers for a reason), the kind of dekes players aren't able to perform during the game, the kind of saves goalies don't need to make all that often. Those who say that the shootout "isn't even hockey" are idiots, it's hockey boiled down to its barest essentials, shooter vs. goalie. Fans love the shootout, whether they admit it or not, because it's cut and dry, best shooter/goalie combo wins and when it's over there's no complaining over tactics, cheap shots, bad calls, etc. It's simply the cleanest way to break a tie. I love my team and if they're on TV I'll watch or if someone gave me tickets I'll always go but when you've seen playoff hockey at its finest, regular season games can be just plain boring. Shootouts give the fan guarenteed drama and excitment in what may have otherwise been a dull game. It's fullproof entertainment because everyone watches and nobody leaves during one. It goes without saying that the playoffs should be left alone, the shootout works in the season because it breaks up the monotony of a long season but playoff games with their long, long overtimes, with no commercial breaks(!), are one of the great spectacles in sports.
(Side note about regular season hockey games all looking the same: Baseball games each look different because you see different lineups, different pitchers, and different strategies. Football games all look the same but since there's so few each one is important. Basketball games tend to look similar but benefit from the kind of spontaneity and explosiveness that hockey lacks. This isn't meant to knock hockey, it's the greatest sport in the world, just meant to point out that because of the nature of the game the observer needs a pretty keen eye to notice the subtleties. In hockey, you don't see too many player beat their defender clean, whereas in basketball, players fake out defenders and blow by for huge dunks every other possession. That's exciting, because offense is always exciting in any sport, but when you see lots of it it's not as unique. Fans love one-timers, homeruns, alley-oops and Hail Mary's. They know how important defense is to winning and always appreciate blocked shots, double-plays, taking a charge and sacks but any fan would rather watch his team on offense than watch his team on defense. Hockey, by virtue of the speed of the players, the ability of defense to close off open space, sticks intercepting passes and goalies nearly the size of the net is a defensive sport, period. That's why it's hard to grow in the States (along with the obvious climate issue) and that's why it's a true sport for connoisseurs. That's also why when offensive does happen, it's a thrill because it's rare and takes so much work. It's the law of supply and demand.
Back to shootouts and fighting. Don Cherry likes fighting, for those of you who didn't know. He likes it a lot, and according to him so do you. The reasons for fighting to be in the game (cuts down on cheap shots, holds players accountable, referees can't call everything so some measure of vigilante justice is necessary, etc) are different than the reason why fighting is popular (people never leave their seats during a fight. I think that's the only one, but it's Don's favorite so we hear it a lot). The traditionalists who hate the shootout (pick any old GM, but most notably Bob Clarke when he was on TSN for a short stint, and also Pat Quinn because his team was awful at them. The more things change...) but want to get rid of the shootout tend to use the fans as it suits them. When the fans like something, then it's a reason to keep it. If the fans like something that's "not part of the game" then they dismiss the fans' opinions entirely. Sorry old guys, but the reality is that the shootout isn't going anywhere because as long as nobody leaves their seats during a shootout or a fight, they both stay.
The point system, frustrating as it can be sometimes when one's own team isn't benefitting from it, is fine the way it is. Lots of people want zero points for any kind of loss and I can see why, but then you're giving way too much credit to the shootout and 4 on 4 overtime. You'd be saying that teams who survive sixty minutes, plus five minutes of panicky overtime, then fall in a contrived gimmic (of course it's contrived, doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Playoffs are about winning, the regular season is about entertainment) are just as bad as teams who lose in regulation. They deserve an extra point for making it that far so let them have it. At the end of the year it makes for a good indication of how many close games that team played and a better example of how that team stacks up with the competition. Let's say the Leafs finish this season at their current pace and finish with a record of 34-32-16. That would give them 84 points and likely a 10th or 11th place finish (one can only hope!). Take away all those points earned from OT/shootout losses and they finish with 68 points and probably near last place (since you'd have an even greater point spread across each conference). The league's salary cap forces parity and makes trades harder, so if you take away the OT loss point you'd have teams who are out of the playoff race in December but can't make trades because salaries are so hard to move. Keeping the OT point fits with the system of parity the league has created. Now if you don't like parity that's fine, (I don't really, I like great teams and dynastie) but you then have to create an economic system that facilitates rebuilding. Rebuilding is done by trading top players for draft picks and prospects, not salary for salary, and with the current system teams can't dump contracts and aquire draft picks and prospects in return. Parity is what we have so you need a point system that reflects the league's mandate. Under the current forced parity system, the OT loss system is appropriate.
You may agree or disagree with the OT point but the bottom line is that you probably agree whether you like it or not. There's a difference between what people would like in theory vs. what system they actually want in play, and that discrepancy is usually reflected in what will benefit vs. hinder their own team. Using John Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance and Original Position, I'll show you how each and every fan would choose the OT point system over a winner-take-all system. (Admission of guilt: It's really bad to used Wikipedia as a resource for political philosophical concepts but this is a blog and this is the internet.) The season starts with a complete fantasy draft, players are drafted throughout the league in a snaking system used in the 2005 draft after the lockout. In theory each team is now equal (with Mike Milbury no longer a GM, this is even more likely). Of course, at the end of the year some teams will prove to be great, some average, some terrible. You don't know how good your team will be at the beginning of the year, but let's say they can only be one of either great, average, or terrible. You're asked, as the die-hard fan of your favorite team, if you think the NHL should include a single point for OT losses. You know that lots of games will go to OT so this extra point will be valuable for average and terrible teams hoping to keep pace. Your team, based on the choices above, only has a 33% chance of being great, meaning it's more likely they'll be either average or terrible. That extra point looks pretty good for your team now doesn't it?
I love the shootout. It's the best way to end games because ties are a terrible way to reward fans paying $200 a ticket. Give me clarity or give me death! The reality of NHL games is that most of them look the same no matter who's playing. The keys to winning are always the same: establish your forecheck, maintain possession deep in the offensive zone, avoid giving the puck away in transition, cover your check in front, win the special teams battle, etc. Anything you want to add to that list will be the same for any time in every game against every opponent. Sure there's some specifics, like shoot high glove side against this goalie or play this defensive pair against that power forward, but when the game's over the winning team invariably did so because they performed the above. The shootout is the one place you see outright uniqueness and creativity, skills you probably won't see during the game (the penatly shot is, after all, described as the most excting play in the game by announcers for a reason), the kind of dekes players aren't able to perform during the game, the kind of saves goalies don't need to make all that often. Those who say that the shootout "isn't even hockey" are idiots, it's hockey boiled down to its barest essentials, shooter vs. goalie. Fans love the shootout, whether they admit it or not, because it's cut and dry, best shooter/goalie combo wins and when it's over there's no complaining over tactics, cheap shots, bad calls, etc. It's simply the cleanest way to break a tie. I love my team and if they're on TV I'll watch or if someone gave me tickets I'll always go but when you've seen playoff hockey at its finest, regular season games can be just plain boring. Shootouts give the fan guarenteed drama and excitment in what may have otherwise been a dull game. It's fullproof entertainment because everyone watches and nobody leaves during one. It goes without saying that the playoffs should be left alone, the shootout works in the season because it breaks up the monotony of a long season but playoff games with their long, long overtimes, with no commercial breaks(!), are one of the great spectacles in sports.
(Side note about regular season hockey games all looking the same: Baseball games each look different because you see different lineups, different pitchers, and different strategies. Football games all look the same but since there's so few each one is important. Basketball games tend to look similar but benefit from the kind of spontaneity and explosiveness that hockey lacks. This isn't meant to knock hockey, it's the greatest sport in the world, just meant to point out that because of the nature of the game the observer needs a pretty keen eye to notice the subtleties. In hockey, you don't see too many player beat their defender clean, whereas in basketball, players fake out defenders and blow by for huge dunks every other possession. That's exciting, because offense is always exciting in any sport, but when you see lots of it it's not as unique. Fans love one-timers, homeruns, alley-oops and Hail Mary's. They know how important defense is to winning and always appreciate blocked shots, double-plays, taking a charge and sacks but any fan would rather watch his team on offense than watch his team on defense. Hockey, by virtue of the speed of the players, the ability of defense to close off open space, sticks intercepting passes and goalies nearly the size of the net is a defensive sport, period. That's why it's hard to grow in the States (along with the obvious climate issue) and that's why it's a true sport for connoisseurs. That's also why when offensive does happen, it's a thrill because it's rare and takes so much work. It's the law of supply and demand.
Back to shootouts and fighting. Don Cherry likes fighting, for those of you who didn't know. He likes it a lot, and according to him so do you. The reasons for fighting to be in the game (cuts down on cheap shots, holds players accountable, referees can't call everything so some measure of vigilante justice is necessary, etc) are different than the reason why fighting is popular (people never leave their seats during a fight. I think that's the only one, but it's Don's favorite so we hear it a lot). The traditionalists who hate the shootout (pick any old GM, but most notably Bob Clarke when he was on TSN for a short stint, and also Pat Quinn because his team was awful at them. The more things change...) but want to get rid of the shootout tend to use the fans as it suits them. When the fans like something, then it's a reason to keep it. If the fans like something that's "not part of the game" then they dismiss the fans' opinions entirely. Sorry old guys, but the reality is that the shootout isn't going anywhere because as long as nobody leaves their seats during a shootout or a fight, they both stay.
The point system, frustrating as it can be sometimes when one's own team isn't benefitting from it, is fine the way it is. Lots of people want zero points for any kind of loss and I can see why, but then you're giving way too much credit to the shootout and 4 on 4 overtime. You'd be saying that teams who survive sixty minutes, plus five minutes of panicky overtime, then fall in a contrived gimmic (of course it's contrived, doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Playoffs are about winning, the regular season is about entertainment) are just as bad as teams who lose in regulation. They deserve an extra point for making it that far so let them have it. At the end of the year it makes for a good indication of how many close games that team played and a better example of how that team stacks up with the competition. Let's say the Leafs finish this season at their current pace and finish with a record of 34-32-16. That would give them 84 points and likely a 10th or 11th place finish (one can only hope!). Take away all those points earned from OT/shootout losses and they finish with 68 points and probably near last place (since you'd have an even greater point spread across each conference). The league's salary cap forces parity and makes trades harder, so if you take away the OT loss point you'd have teams who are out of the playoff race in December but can't make trades because salaries are so hard to move. Keeping the OT point fits with the system of parity the league has created. Now if you don't like parity that's fine, (I don't really, I like great teams and dynastie) but you then have to create an economic system that facilitates rebuilding. Rebuilding is done by trading top players for draft picks and prospects, not salary for salary, and with the current system teams can't dump contracts and aquire draft picks and prospects in return. Parity is what we have so you need a point system that reflects the league's mandate. Under the current forced parity system, the OT loss system is appropriate.
You may agree or disagree with the OT point but the bottom line is that you probably agree whether you like it or not. There's a difference between what people would like in theory vs. what system they actually want in play, and that discrepancy is usually reflected in what will benefit vs. hinder their own team. Using John Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance and Original Position, I'll show you how each and every fan would choose the OT point system over a winner-take-all system. (Admission of guilt: It's really bad to used Wikipedia as a resource for political philosophical concepts but this is a blog and this is the internet.) The season starts with a complete fantasy draft, players are drafted throughout the league in a snaking system used in the 2005 draft after the lockout. In theory each team is now equal (with Mike Milbury no longer a GM, this is even more likely). Of course, at the end of the year some teams will prove to be great, some average, some terrible. You don't know how good your team will be at the beginning of the year, but let's say they can only be one of either great, average, or terrible. You're asked, as the die-hard fan of your favorite team, if you think the NHL should include a single point for OT losses. You know that lots of games will go to OT so this extra point will be valuable for average and terrible teams hoping to keep pace. Your team, based on the choices above, only has a 33% chance of being great, meaning it's more likely they'll be either average or terrible. That extra point looks pretty good for your team now doesn't it?
Monday, December 10, 2007
I'm a Man!
Lots of things are funny. Some things are funniest the first time then depreciate quickly like a first-generation Blu-Ray player (or Odyssey Resources stock). This rant has been around for a while now but like most coach's rants, it's funnier the more times you hear it. Coach's rants always need some time to sink in because the first time you hear it you're actually listening to the point they're making, is it right, is it fair, did that reporter deserve to be yelled at, was race an issue (even if the issue is something tame, like dogfighting). After a few times, you realize that the point they're arguing isn't actually very interesting or amusing anymore and you'd rather pick out odd phrases and yell them over and over with your friends at poker night.
Mike Gundy's rant is great because while he might not be right, in a dry moral-rational sense, he is doing the right thing. Sticking up for his players, taking the focus off them and putting on himself, defending their performance, challenging perceived unwarrented comments about his quarterback, those are all respectable things to do. After going back and forth on issues like how much criticism is fair to level at college-age players or to what degree can coaches take on columnists, the only conclusion you're really left with is that "I'M FORTY, I'M A MAN" is just oodles of fun to scream at someone.
Mike Gundy's rant is great because while he might not be right, in a dry moral-rational sense, he is doing the right thing. Sticking up for his players, taking the focus off them and putting on himself, defending their performance, challenging perceived unwarrented comments about his quarterback, those are all respectable things to do. After going back and forth on issues like how much criticism is fair to level at college-age players or to what degree can coaches take on columnists, the only conclusion you're really left with is that "I'M FORTY, I'M A MAN" is just oodles of fun to scream at someone.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Small Sample Sizes And Big Conclusions
So yes, I was wrong about Malkin being the best player on the ice against Edmonton, Sid was the best player in the third obviously and that was the game. Such a flashback to those Oilers teams who would always lose to Dallas in the first round, good enough to compete and make it close but just not the talent. Back then they'd make one mistake and would be doomed no matter the score and as soon as Gilbert gave the puck away in their zone, with Pittsburgh on a line change and with full puck control, you could just feel the game change completely. This was opposed to the previous three games where I thought they looked exactly like the 2006 team who defensively would bend all year but never break. They'd give the puck away in their zone but recover good posture, they contained top players to the perimeter, and while giving up lots of shots most were of the low-percentage variety.
(Stat: It's true that in 2006 the Oilers did allow the fewest shots per game in the league, but then in the playoffs they allowed the highest. Reason: they played Detroit in the first round, the Wings always outshoot teams, and the Oilers trapped and held everyone to the perimeter. After that, they realized they could allow as many shots as they felt like and still win. They also rarely allowed multiple chances because Pronger cleared the front of the net like Saskatchewan farmers clear wheat. And Pronger played ALL the time. That 2006 team was marvelously coached in the playoffs, for all you people who want MacTavish fired).
Four games is probably not a suitable sample size to fully evaluate this team but the styles seem similar. The conclusion, therefore, is that this year's team is somewhere between a team that went to the finals and defied amazing odds in each round and a non-playoff team who can't score 5 on 5 or on the powerplay, doesn't hit and won't fight. This was a useful exercise wasn't it?
(Stat: It's true that in 2006 the Oilers did allow the fewest shots per game in the league, but then in the playoffs they allowed the highest. Reason: they played Detroit in the first round, the Wings always outshoot teams, and the Oilers trapped and held everyone to the perimeter. After that, they realized they could allow as many shots as they felt like and still win. They also rarely allowed multiple chances because Pronger cleared the front of the net like Saskatchewan farmers clear wheat. And Pronger played ALL the time. That 2006 team was marvelously coached in the playoffs, for all you people who want MacTavish fired).
Four games is probably not a suitable sample size to fully evaluate this team but the styles seem similar. The conclusion, therefore, is that this year's team is somewhere between a team that went to the finals and defied amazing odds in each round and a non-playoff team who can't score 5 on 5 or on the powerplay, doesn't hit and won't fight. This was a useful exercise wasn't it?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
TSN: The Sidney Network
Ah, Pierre McGuire, we wish we hardly knew ye. I kind of like Pierre actually, his insight is pretty good and informative but PLEASE STOP SCREAMING AT ME. This is my HOME, my sanctuary and for last while, my workplace.
Sidney Crosby is in Edmonton tonight, and right now (during the pre-game anthem, nice ovation for Pisani when they showed him during the anthem) I'm predicting that Malkin will upstage Crosby and be the best player on the ice. Pierre is still giving Sidney huge props for being "spectacular" in handling all the attention, which I guess means he didn't intentionally spit on any children in wheelchairs. He does seem like a nice kid but really, do we really expect much from hockey players? If they're Canadian, thank your parents and teammates. If you're American, don't be any cockier than expected. If you're European, speak English (or French, if you're captain of the Montreal Canadiens). If you're Russian, speak English and be funny. We like to make it hard for the Russians.
TSN has also pointed out numerous times that there's "not a seat available in the house" for tonight's game, the translation of which is "This game is so important Edmontonians felt the need to leave their oilwells to watch this game! Please Greater Toronto Area, stay up a little later!" The Oilers, of course, sell out every game regardless of the opponent. Their rink is tiny, the unemployment rate is 3.8%, lowest in Canada (every one of that 3.8% lives in the six block route between where I park and where I work out) and the Eskimos, who barely overlap into hockey season (though not as much as they were supposed to!), just make people here mad, so there really isn't much else to do here in the winter.
Scores! Pitkanen makes a great pass and Nilssen one-times it. I've watched each game since Pitkanen came back from his injury and he has been terrific. As tired as I am of hearing the phrase "puck-moving defenseman," he really does it. Skates well, good passer in the offensive zone and big enough to make a difference in his own end. And isn't Smid suddenly the nasty bugger in front of his own net!
I remember after 9/11 reading reaction acticles by sports journalists, all of whom were attempting to lend some legitimacy and relevence to their job in the wake of ample evidence to the contrary. They talked about what role sports play in the aftermath, should various events still be played and how we can never use words like "heroic," "war" or "warrior" to describe athletes and their performance again. The last point is the one that interested me the most and I'd like to write more about it later, but for now I just want to put forward the assumption that Pierre McGuire did not read that particular article and does not subscribe to that line of thinking.
Enjoy the game, Greater Toronto Area!
Sidney Crosby is in Edmonton tonight, and right now (during the pre-game anthem, nice ovation for Pisani when they showed him during the anthem) I'm predicting that Malkin will upstage Crosby and be the best player on the ice. Pierre is still giving Sidney huge props for being "spectacular" in handling all the attention, which I guess means he didn't intentionally spit on any children in wheelchairs. He does seem like a nice kid but really, do we really expect much from hockey players? If they're Canadian, thank your parents and teammates. If you're American, don't be any cockier than expected. If you're European, speak English (or French, if you're captain of the Montreal Canadiens). If you're Russian, speak English and be funny. We like to make it hard for the Russians.
TSN has also pointed out numerous times that there's "not a seat available in the house" for tonight's game, the translation of which is "This game is so important Edmontonians felt the need to leave their oilwells to watch this game! Please Greater Toronto Area, stay up a little later!" The Oilers, of course, sell out every game regardless of the opponent. Their rink is tiny, the unemployment rate is 3.8%, lowest in Canada (every one of that 3.8% lives in the six block route between where I park and where I work out) and the Eskimos, who barely overlap into hockey season (though not as much as they were supposed to!), just make people here mad, so there really isn't much else to do here in the winter.
Scores! Pitkanen makes a great pass and Nilssen one-times it. I've watched each game since Pitkanen came back from his injury and he has been terrific. As tired as I am of hearing the phrase "puck-moving defenseman," he really does it. Skates well, good passer in the offensive zone and big enough to make a difference in his own end. And isn't Smid suddenly the nasty bugger in front of his own net!
I remember after 9/11 reading reaction acticles by sports journalists, all of whom were attempting to lend some legitimacy and relevence to their job in the wake of ample evidence to the contrary. They talked about what role sports play in the aftermath, should various events still be played and how we can never use words like "heroic," "war" or "warrior" to describe athletes and their performance again. The last point is the one that interested me the most and I'd like to write more about it later, but for now I just want to put forward the assumption that Pierre McGuire did not read that particular article and does not subscribe to that line of thinking.
Enjoy the game, Greater Toronto Area!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
JFJ
While the chaos out of Toronto has stiffled somewhat in the last few days, possibly due to no nationally broadcasted games since Saturday and none on the Pay Attention To Us We Have Headlines TSN since the 27th. The controversy over whether the Leafs dysfunctional upper management will fire John Ferguson Jr. is both absurd and frustratingly typical of Toronto media. Here's all my reasons why this is all stupid:
Paul Maurice is a good coach, Stanley Cup finalist in 2002, and judging from the success by those average-at-best Hurricane teams, an above average strategist and motivator. Yet when you watch the Leafs this year, which even in Western Canada is sometimes impossible to avoid, they've failed when they take too long to get the puck out of their zone, their defense doesn't react fast enough, they don't take the easy play off the glass, and their forwards start moving up ice too soon leaving a gap that forces long and risky passes. The solution, of course, is to fire the GM. Wait. What?
It's true that General Managers never used to receive the kind of scrutiny they do now, the salary cap has forced their attention to detail to be much more finely tuned than in the past. Knowing that players will inevitably leave via free agency means they have to pick and choose which players they'll keep long-term and which ones they can afford to let go. That responsibility is doubled since any player you commit to long term you run the risk of them not panning out and becoming untradable. Draft record is also more important since younger players, being cheaper, are more likely to be thrown in right away since free agency has been cut back to 25. This evolution means that GM's are judged more on short-term success than before and thus is the argument used to justify firing JFJ. There's logic in this type of GM evaluation of course, but look at the reality of the JFJ noise. The rumours were at their highest following Toronto's shootout loss to Montreal last Tuesday, with predictions that if they didn't win in Atlanta he would be fired, and have since subsided with the Leafs winning their last two. If they lose another three in a row, you can bet TSN will be debating JFJ's firing all over again. The issue is stupid because it reflects the panicky nature of Leafland, not any kind of rationality. Yes GM's are now judged more on a short-term basis, but not THIS short-term, not game to game or week by week. The team's losing because Blake isn't scoring (except for a couple recently, but he's on pace for just 9), the team defense is poor, the goaltending isn't good enough to consistantly win games on their own, and their powerplay is awful. Underperformance from the players is the reason why they're losing, and that's the coach's responsibilities. But no, Maurice is exempt from firing rumours because he's funny with the media?
In this past off-season, JFJ upgraded his goaltending and brought in a 40 goal-scorer to play with Mats Sundin. Last year Raycroft was pretty harshly criticized and the Leafs' secondary scoring has always been an issue, so two holes were seemingly filled. The expected improvement from Wellwood, Steen and Stajan meant that Maurice was probably justified in saying before the season started that they were a playoff team. Wellwood's injury was a considerable setback that really hurt them on the powerplay and McCabe's inability to avoid mistakes at the point turned last year's formidable powerplay into this year's liability. Basically, the problems with this team are detail problems, not GM problems. Firing GM's midway through the year isn't helpful, it won't "jump-start" the players, and it won't bring back draft picks and prospects lost through the years (yes lots of those were JFJ's fault, he's not perfect by any stretch). Judge your GM at least a year at a time, if they don't make the playoffs this year you can legitimately move on and go in a different direction since it has been four years. Stop leaving him in limbo, stop coming out and saying hiring him was a mistake, if you're not firing him then tell the hockey world that nobody's being fired and stop wasting our time with stupid rumours from the stupid Leafs when we should be blogging about the Oilers first three game win streak of the year.
Last note to the Leafs and media: the Leafs' GM position is not the equivalent of Head Sunscreen Applicator for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Inc. You can't just name a bunch of to names and expect them to leap at the honour and priviledge of running your crummy team with hysterical fans and dysfunctional boardroom. Brian Burke just won a Stanley Cup in California and therefore his life, despite a crippling coprolalia affliction, is perfect. Kevin Lowe, as suggested by Sportsnet's Alan Adams last year as a "must-hire" for the Leafs, is also not interested and signed a four-year extention in Edmonton. Neither are Scotty Bowman, Wayne Gretzky or Jesus, they have better things to do than sweat their employment and reputation over a six-game losing streak in November.
***Edit: What I really want out of all this is for JFJ to quit on his own and take a job with either Ottawa or Montreal.
Paul Maurice is a good coach, Stanley Cup finalist in 2002, and judging from the success by those average-at-best Hurricane teams, an above average strategist and motivator. Yet when you watch the Leafs this year, which even in Western Canada is sometimes impossible to avoid, they've failed when they take too long to get the puck out of their zone, their defense doesn't react fast enough, they don't take the easy play off the glass, and their forwards start moving up ice too soon leaving a gap that forces long and risky passes. The solution, of course, is to fire the GM. Wait. What?
It's true that General Managers never used to receive the kind of scrutiny they do now, the salary cap has forced their attention to detail to be much more finely tuned than in the past. Knowing that players will inevitably leave via free agency means they have to pick and choose which players they'll keep long-term and which ones they can afford to let go. That responsibility is doubled since any player you commit to long term you run the risk of them not panning out and becoming untradable. Draft record is also more important since younger players, being cheaper, are more likely to be thrown in right away since free agency has been cut back to 25. This evolution means that GM's are judged more on short-term success than before and thus is the argument used to justify firing JFJ. There's logic in this type of GM evaluation of course, but look at the reality of the JFJ noise. The rumours were at their highest following Toronto's shootout loss to Montreal last Tuesday, with predictions that if they didn't win in Atlanta he would be fired, and have since subsided with the Leafs winning their last two. If they lose another three in a row, you can bet TSN will be debating JFJ's firing all over again. The issue is stupid because it reflects the panicky nature of Leafland, not any kind of rationality. Yes GM's are now judged more on a short-term basis, but not THIS short-term, not game to game or week by week. The team's losing because Blake isn't scoring (except for a couple recently, but he's on pace for just 9), the team defense is poor, the goaltending isn't good enough to consistantly win games on their own, and their powerplay is awful. Underperformance from the players is the reason why they're losing, and that's the coach's responsibilities. But no, Maurice is exempt from firing rumours because he's funny with the media?
In this past off-season, JFJ upgraded his goaltending and brought in a 40 goal-scorer to play with Mats Sundin. Last year Raycroft was pretty harshly criticized and the Leafs' secondary scoring has always been an issue, so two holes were seemingly filled. The expected improvement from Wellwood, Steen and Stajan meant that Maurice was probably justified in saying before the season started that they were a playoff team. Wellwood's injury was a considerable setback that really hurt them on the powerplay and McCabe's inability to avoid mistakes at the point turned last year's formidable powerplay into this year's liability. Basically, the problems with this team are detail problems, not GM problems. Firing GM's midway through the year isn't helpful, it won't "jump-start" the players, and it won't bring back draft picks and prospects lost through the years (yes lots of those were JFJ's fault, he's not perfect by any stretch). Judge your GM at least a year at a time, if they don't make the playoffs this year you can legitimately move on and go in a different direction since it has been four years. Stop leaving him in limbo, stop coming out and saying hiring him was a mistake, if you're not firing him then tell the hockey world that nobody's being fired and stop wasting our time with stupid rumours from the stupid Leafs when we should be blogging about the Oilers first three game win streak of the year.
Last note to the Leafs and media: the Leafs' GM position is not the equivalent of Head Sunscreen Applicator for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Inc. You can't just name a bunch of to names and expect them to leap at the honour and priviledge of running your crummy team with hysterical fans and dysfunctional boardroom. Brian Burke just won a Stanley Cup in California and therefore his life, despite a crippling coprolalia affliction, is perfect. Kevin Lowe, as suggested by Sportsnet's Alan Adams last year as a "must-hire" for the Leafs, is also not interested and signed a four-year extention in Edmonton. Neither are Scotty Bowman, Wayne Gretzky or Jesus, they have better things to do than sweat their employment and reputation over a six-game losing streak in November.
***Edit: What I really want out of all this is for JFJ to quit on his own and take a job with either Ottawa or Montreal.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Game Recap
Trying this for tonight's game, probably won't make a habbit out of it but hey, it's Sunday, what else is there to do. The plan is to write period recaps in the intermission, with no going back in time for edits! That's what liberals do!
1st Period: Pretty solid start, Pisani played quite a bit and had a long bout on the penalty kill. Is it me or does Anaheim just look slow? They looked like they were just waiting for things to happen, not forcing the play on the forecheck. They threw some big hits but more like followup hits, not forecheck hits. On the Ducks only powerplay, there was a moment where Reasoner had a chance to clear and didn't, putting it right on Pronger's stick. That's death usually, especially since Edmonton's forwards were all up high out of position. Instead the play settled right back down, the Oilers settled back into their box and resumed control. Offense is always created by taking advantage of space created as a result of defensive-side lapses. If you're given a lapse, you have to move your ass!
Ray Ferraro is a great analyst, puts Glenn Healy to shame. So glad he does Oiler games and not Flames'.
2nd Period: Two more for the good guys, that makes TWO powerplay goals! In one game! 4th goal was a lovely pass from Gagner, nice finish by Gilbert. They've got to lock him up, he's a keeper. Killed off a long 5 on 3, again mostly because Anaheim just couldn't execute. Three time they tried a triangle play with Pronger playing middle-point, pass to Schneider on his right who would pass through the box to Getzlaf for the one-timer. Three times they tried to set up this simple play, botched it each time with bad passes. Garon made a few nice saves too, but very uninspired play by the Ducks, settling for long one-timers instead of working down low. They have HUGE forwards, Bertuzzi owning the front of the net and they settle for slow puck movement along the point. That's always driven me crazy, teams with a 5-3 who settle for one-timers. Fine, if you have Souray or Pronger or Lidstrom back there, guys who can pick corners and set up tips, but otherwise just set up the backdoor. Two goals from the defense, now five points for Horcoff in the last two, excellent containment defense both 5 on 5 and on the penalty kill. Perfect road game up to this point, you have to expect Anaheim will come out hard in the third.
3rd Period: Uneventful, Oiler powerplay work was more stagnant than at other points in the game but MacTavish was playing the younglings and they were trapping anyway, so nothing to read into. Surprised that Anaheim didn't try to pick fights with the game out of reach but given that they had little energy for anything else perhaps not a surprise at all. Very well-played game by the Oilers, surprisingly good actually. They limited cross-seam passes on the penalty-kill, played disciplined and mobile man to man coverage, and took advantage of some breaks on the offensive side. Onto Los Angeles tomorrow night where they'll try to avoid the let-down.
1st Period: Pretty solid start, Pisani played quite a bit and had a long bout on the penalty kill. Is it me or does Anaheim just look slow? They looked like they were just waiting for things to happen, not forcing the play on the forecheck. They threw some big hits but more like followup hits, not forecheck hits. On the Ducks only powerplay, there was a moment where Reasoner had a chance to clear and didn't, putting it right on Pronger's stick. That's death usually, especially since Edmonton's forwards were all up high out of position. Instead the play settled right back down, the Oilers settled back into their box and resumed control. Offense is always created by taking advantage of space created as a result of defensive-side lapses. If you're given a lapse, you have to move your ass!
Ray Ferraro is a great analyst, puts Glenn Healy to shame. So glad he does Oiler games and not Flames'.
2nd Period: Two more for the good guys, that makes TWO powerplay goals! In one game! 4th goal was a lovely pass from Gagner, nice finish by Gilbert. They've got to lock him up, he's a keeper. Killed off a long 5 on 3, again mostly because Anaheim just couldn't execute. Three time they tried a triangle play with Pronger playing middle-point, pass to Schneider on his right who would pass through the box to Getzlaf for the one-timer. Three times they tried to set up this simple play, botched it each time with bad passes. Garon made a few nice saves too, but very uninspired play by the Ducks, settling for long one-timers instead of working down low. They have HUGE forwards, Bertuzzi owning the front of the net and they settle for slow puck movement along the point. That's always driven me crazy, teams with a 5-3 who settle for one-timers. Fine, if you have Souray or Pronger or Lidstrom back there, guys who can pick corners and set up tips, but otherwise just set up the backdoor. Two goals from the defense, now five points for Horcoff in the last two, excellent containment defense both 5 on 5 and on the penalty kill. Perfect road game up to this point, you have to expect Anaheim will come out hard in the third.
3rd Period: Uneventful, Oiler powerplay work was more stagnant than at other points in the game but MacTavish was playing the younglings and they were trapping anyway, so nothing to read into. Surprised that Anaheim didn't try to pick fights with the game out of reach but given that they had little energy for anything else perhaps not a surprise at all. Very well-played game by the Oilers, surprisingly good actually. They limited cross-seam passes on the penalty-kill, played disciplined and mobile man to man coverage, and took advantage of some breaks on the offensive side. Onto Los Angeles tomorrow night where they'll try to avoid the let-down.
First Past the Post
Or as Kyle Brodziak would say, "First Past the Crossbar." Remember Mario Lemieux missing that open net in Salt Lake in 2002? No? Because they won, that's why. Poor Kyle, good player, hopefully still in the mix when the walking wounded get back.
So first post on the new blog, still fiddling with the format so it might change. Comment as you like, I'll keep adding links as time goes by. My preference is for links that might be a little off the map rather than for the Score or Sportsnet since those are easy to find. Yes, I did link to TSN and FoxSports, but those are my essentials so I have to have them. Content will mostly be hockey for the next while but I'll hit everything at some point. The colour scheme reveals my fan affiliation, and likely the bulk of the content, but it's not strickly an Oilers blog. Hopefully something for everyone, I'll try to improve the quality over time but really, no promises, this is the internet after all.
Oilers game tonight, on Sportsnet West of course. Following Friday's great win (a great win because it was a blowout, at home, against Anaheim, following an awful loss in Denver, and KBoz scored to make up for the other night's CLANG), tonight's rematch is an even bigger game in my mind. They have to come up with a big effort at least, winning three straight against the defending champs would be a lot to expect, but they have to show that they were at least good enough to win. Otherwise, they'll be that team all year long: just good enough to keep their losses interesting and hard to watch. I still think they could be a playoff team if they get everyone back and nobody gets hurt ever again and Horcoff gets 100 points and choir of giant talking broccoli stalks replace Paul Lorieau. I did predict an 8th place finish in a very small and exclusive hockey pool so it's possible. Isn't it?
Pisani back in the lineup tonight, according to The Source. My goal is to watch the game and write some reaction during the game, but Life might get in the way.
So first post on the new blog, still fiddling with the format so it might change. Comment as you like, I'll keep adding links as time goes by. My preference is for links that might be a little off the map rather than for the Score or Sportsnet since those are easy to find. Yes, I did link to TSN and FoxSports, but those are my essentials so I have to have them. Content will mostly be hockey for the next while but I'll hit everything at some point. The colour scheme reveals my fan affiliation, and likely the bulk of the content, but it's not strickly an Oilers blog. Hopefully something for everyone, I'll try to improve the quality over time but really, no promises, this is the internet after all.
Oilers game tonight, on Sportsnet West of course. Following Friday's great win (a great win because it was a blowout, at home, against Anaheim, following an awful loss in Denver, and KBoz scored to make up for the other night's CLANG), tonight's rematch is an even bigger game in my mind. They have to come up with a big effort at least, winning three straight against the defending champs would be a lot to expect, but they have to show that they were at least good enough to win. Otherwise, they'll be that team all year long: just good enough to keep their losses interesting and hard to watch. I still think they could be a playoff team if they get everyone back and nobody gets hurt ever again and Horcoff gets 100 points and choir of giant talking broccoli stalks replace Paul Lorieau. I did predict an 8th place finish in a very small and exclusive hockey pool so it's possible. Isn't it?
Pisani back in the lineup tonight, according to The Source. My goal is to watch the game and write some reaction during the game, but Life might get in the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)