Frozen-Man

Nobody is saying guys like Chara, Lucic, and Avery don't play in the playoffs. The conversation is usually related to guys like Downey whose almost exclusive use is fighting. There is a reason those guys make $4-7.5 MILLION (I don't count Lucic because he is a draft pick/RFA guy) and Downey doesn't get picked up off waivers at a little over $1/2 million. Of course those guys play. BTW Boll got in Dats face but he didn't back down and Boll still got outplayed by a "soft" guy like Flip.

HaHaHaHaHaHa!!! It was YOUR report and you were bagging all over Mike and Co. for overpricing the ticket. BTW look back at my last post and see the price comparison there is not the disparency that you claimed. Makes me laugh you were even posting that the arena would be half full in other threads.

Ain't that the truth! Great job Ozzy!

That's what has been making me laugh. All the tickets on StubHub are already bought. The Wings have sold those tickets and now just some private joe is trying to sell tickets he already owns. Those aren't tickets that haven't been sold. Mike and Co. already got paid for them. I hear what you are saying about baseball tickets being cheaper but in part that is because they play basically twice as many games and have twice as many seats (the Tigers have about 40,000 seats and the Wings have about 20,000). To compare apples to apples (disclaimer* some prices are 07-08 and some are 08-09 it was the best I could find without more work than I want to do ): NHL Average Ticket Price - $48.72 Wings - $40.51 NFL Average Ticket Price - $67.83 Lions - $59.01 That's right it cost more to see a team that didn't win a single game all season than to see the defending Cup champions. NBA Average Ticket Price - $ 49.47 Pistons - $47.50 This is the most relevant (in my opinion) because they both play 82 games in relatively similar sized arenas. MLB Average Ticket Price - $25.40 Tigers - $25.28 Looking at that data all teams are below the league average but the only two that are substantially so are the Lions and the Wings. One, the Lions, can't win a game in an entire season and are one of the worst franchises over the last 10 years and have a winning % of .242 since 2001. The other the Wings have the 2nd best win % (.669) in all major sports since 1998 (this is through 2007 but I think we all know what they did in 2008) and the best in the NHL. The Wings don't over price their tickets, even compared to other Detroit teams.

I agree % matters but only to an extent. Some of the arenas how 25% more people than others do. For example Montreal's Bell Centre can hold 21,273 people whereas Edmonton's Rexall Place can only hold 16,839 people. That difference of 4,434 people is significant. You could split the difference and The Canadians would only be at 89% capacity (19,056 in attendance) which is still 2,217 fans more than the Oilers at 100%. The % gets severely skewed when you deal with drastically different sized arenas. E.S.A.D. has never let the facts get in the way of being able to bash some aspect of the current Wings franchise. Like you said Doc, Detroit is relatively low in team average. Here are the stats for regular season (I couldn't find playoff stats) League average in 2008 was $48.72. Detroit's average was $40.51 - 17% BELOW league average. But don't let that get in the way of bashing the franchise E.S.A.D.

QFT

His whole argument is silly, Carcillo has the 4th most fighting majors and the Yotes are bankrupt. E.S.A.D randomly picks any positive thing - like the huge crowd the Blue Jackets will likely have at their playoff games - and then attributes it to fighting - rather than the fact that the Blue Jackets are making their first playoff appearance ever or that they one have one pro sports team (of the big 4 pro sports) to rally around unlike Detroit who has all four. This is usually done in direct contradiction to the actual facts. For example, even with the all mighty crowd drawing Boll: Columbus was 25th out of 30 in overall attendance while Detroit was 4th; Detroit attendance was more than 4,000 people higher per game; including road appearances Detroit was at 101.7% of attendance capacity while Columbus was at 90.2%; and almost 650,000 more people were in attendance this year to see the Wings than to see the Blue Jackets. As a final note this is not a knock on Boll, his skill, or what he brings to his team - it is an attempt to accurately and correctly explain the outlandish claims that E.S.A.D makes and the lengths he will go to in order attribute every good thing that happens to fighting. *Edit - Also, interestingly Wings home attendance is up 5% from last year even though there were roughly twice as many fights last year and Downey played in 56 games last year and 4 this year.

See, that is what is bothering me, you can't say definitively that the fact Downey was on the regular season roster is why the Wings were "tougher as a whole" in the playoffs. Just because an element was/is present does not mean that it is the cause of the result. That is why clinical trials ALWAYS have a control group and only change one condition, if they have two conditions that they want to test then they have a control, a group where one condition is changed and the other is not and a third group with the converse. You can't know that it happened because Downey was on the roster most of the year. It very likely could have happened because the Wings hadn't won the Cup in six years whereas this year they are the defending champs. There are too many variables and too many changes from last year to this year definitively say that the reason that something occurred last year is X. Yeah they were too soft to win last year as well, but when they won last year that changed the bar for when the Wings were considered "tough enough" and now last year's team is retroactively tough. CLASSIC! But what you don't realize is Cups don't matter, playoff appearances don't matter, wins don't matter, the number of fights is what is important that is why according E.S.A.D's standards this guy Should be on every NHL roster because that is what will fill the seats. *Edit - you know except for the whole steroids thing (although I guess that would give the game bigger fighters . . . Hmmm).

I am not sure that his point is valid. What I mean is (even though he made it all up) even though the Wings did have more fighting majors in the previous Cup wins they were still historically and comparatively low compared to the rest of the league. His statement that there were more fights in previous Cup teams is true but what does that prove. As I cited above in '98 when the Wings won the Canucks had 105 fighting majors - 318% more than the Wings. If the fights and "toughness" that they prove are that all fire important then why didn't the Canucks make the playoffs. Perhaps it is something else that the Wings had that was what really mattered in winning the Cup. The Wings even in the highest of the Cup winning years were still in the bottom 10% of league in fighting ('97 bottom 8.8%, '98 bottom 3.8%, '02 bottom 1% - dead last, '08 bottom 1% - dead last). Compared to almost every other team and using SureWhyNot's definition of "toughness" the Wings were always at the bottom and the two last Cups were the very lowest in terms of what he calls "tough," yet the win Cups. If they win this year there will be the argument that they had Mac for 13 games and Downey for 4 and that they were both part of the team. The fact is more than 72% of the past 11 Cup winning teams have been in the bottom half of the league in terms of fighting. I like fighting. It is great. It adds excitement, energy, and and an awesome element that other pro team sports don't have. I would be pissed if they ever took it out of the game and I hate the restrictions (and the negative stigma) that they are currently putting on it BUT I'm not going to let SureWhyNot make stuff up or draw unsubstantiated conclusions just to fit his predetermined outcome (especially when he can't even cite real stats to argue his point).

Not to mention that no team can win with a European captain since no team had done it before. Detroit was also the first team last year to win with at least 50% of the players being European. I believe that Cherry basically used those two arguments as to why the Wings could never win. I guess maybe it doesn't matter that much.

Beat me to it. I spent too long on my post.

I definitely agree that a guy like Drake would really help, and I would agree that some enforcers would help this team a lot. I just don't happen to think that a specific enforcer, Downey, would really help this team that much - I think this for a variety of reasons which we have discussed before but mainly because I think Babs and Kenny are smart enough to put him in the lineup if they thought it would help. I guess that is really my point that there is no way to prove that but for "Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty setting a tempo for the rest of the team with their physicality, we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year." There is no way to prove that it is true and no way to prove that it is not. I could just as easily say but for Ozzy being left handed or 5'10" we wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup last year. The problem is the reality that we actually did win the Cup last year so anything that the Wings had or did could be argued to be the but for reason that the result happened. If Ozzy were a couple of inches taller he might not have gotten down so quick and we might have gotten scored on more. There is no way to prove that statement true or false and using the ultimate result - that we won the Cup - doesn't make the statement any more or less true. Also, I agree that there is no way to apply a true proximate cause analysis and that is part of the problem, the legal field has always struggled to find and prove the actual cause of a result and that is the issue here, there is no way to prove the impact that Downey and/or Mac had on the team last year - yes they happened to be on the team and the team won the Cup but that doesn't prove that they were the cause (or even a significant factor) in winning the Cup, perhaps they were, but it is an exercise in futility to try to prove it. I know Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge" but I don't think he meant making "stats" up to "prove" your point. I think actual knowledge and facts would be more beneficial here. People don't get sick of you posting stats they get sick because they actually are silly because you either rip them out of context, twist them to fit your predetermined point of view, or usually completely make them up. They are not tangible proof of anything except that you cannot do thorough research. As I will show and actually give citations to you completely made up every single statistic that use used and thus your bull crap numbers are the ones that are actually garbage. 1996-97: 98 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 55 fighting majors, were 23rd out of 26 teams in fighting, and there was not any team in the league that had more than 90 fights. Your statistic is silly because you made up 43 (almost half) of the fighting majors to prove that other peoples arguments are garbage. 1997-98: 50 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 33 fighting majors, were 25rd out of 26 teams in fighting, while the "tough" Canucks had 105 fighting majors and did not even make the playoffs. They were probably exciting right up till the time that the playoffs started and then they were sitting at home watching the Wings actually play in the playoffs. Your statistic is silly because you made up 17 fighting majors. 2001-02: 30 Fighting Majors - The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league. Your statistic is silly because you made up 9 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics. 2007-08: 31 Fighting Majors - Wow, who would have thought, amazingly you made this number up as well. The Wings had 21 fighting majors, were 30th out of 30 teams in fighting. That's right they were last in the league again, that's right, last in the league in fighting yet still win the Cup. Your statistic is silly because you made up 10 (almost 1/3) of the fighting majors you claimed happened to prove your silly statistics. I can't believe the audacity to just make up 79 fights in 4 seasons of hockey and then claim your made up numbers prove other people's arguments are garbage. Finally, in regards to your statement: "I know people get sick of me 'posting these silly stats,' and I can see why. I too get annoyed when people come up with tangible proof which negates almost my entire argument[,]" I am not sure you know what the words tangible or proof mean. Tangible means real or actual, rather than imaginary - I'm pretty sure that if you make up stats that never existed they can't, by definition, be real or actual but have to be imaginary (hence the made up part). Proof mean the establishment of the truth of a thing - since the stats are made up I don't think you established the truth of your statement. I don't think you actually offered tangible proof of anything other that the fact that your post and "facts" are the real garbage.

Center Ice is working on Dish. Had all the games last night. The only problem so far is that the channel schedule is not coming out very far in advance. Hope they get it fixed for you. If not I would keep calling and tell them you want a credit on your bill because you paid to see the games and they are not being shown.

Come on Ozzie! Show em a run like last year!

Wow I really can't believe that you can even convince yourself that you were paraphrasing Holland. I can just see him now hey Hank, Lids, Mule, thanks for signing hometown contracts to help the team but you guys really You can have whatever opinion you want of the players on this team, and it is obvious from your many posts that you despise most of them but please don't pretend to put that on Holland as well. You have many times stated that you have that opinion of the team (which is fine to have your opinion) BUT you also know that your post was nothing even close to what Holland said or meant and to pawn it of as "paraphrasing" is a bastardization of the word and insulting to everyone you are trying to convince.

I know that you always bring this up in defense of an enforcer, but I just don't really see the relevance of the question or what it proves. There are several reasons for my contention. First, how many teams in the last 10 years have not dressed an enforcer for at least 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs, I don't know for sure (and obviously am not going to research it ) but I doubt that there are hardly any teams that don't fit that requirement. Second, whether you want to use the legal term proximate cause (and actually cause in fact as well) or the statistical term correlation does not equal causation - just because a condition exists does not mean that it is the cause of the the result. For example, (and this is just a hypothetical I have no idea if it is true) I could ask how many teams have won the Cup without at least one of their goalies being right handed, or left handed, or over 6', or under 6', or Canadian, or whatever factor you want to have. Since almost every team has your requirement of dressing an enforcer 10 games almost every Cup champion will have met your requirement but that still doesn't mean that they are a cause or the cause of the ultimate result. BTW, just so you know you are still one of my favorite posters to debate with and I always pause to read you posts even if I am just skimming - so kudos to you on making this board better.

QFT Yeah everything including no salary cap so they could buy and spend whatever they wanted to stack the team as fully as possible with all types of players without regard to the cost. Not to mention that they luckily had some pretty special guys who are not exactly a dime a dozen in this league and demand an arm and a leg for their ability to have skill and fists. We may not have won every year but since 1997 we have won twice as much as anyone else (New Jersey) and any other team that has won, the Ducks included, have only won once. Sounds like the Wings way, while not guaranteeing a Cup is working better than any one elses. I guess that if that is the criteria we are fine. We dressed Mac 13 games and Downey 4 so we are well over your mark. Here is some more trivia, how many teams have been first fighting majors and won the Cup (in the last 11 Cups)? Answer: 1 The Ducks (year before last) How many teams have been last in fighting majors and won the Cup (in the last 11 Cups)? Answer: 2 The Wings (2008, 2002) What ranking did the Cup champs have in fighting majors for the last 11 Cups? 2008: 30th out of 30 2007: 1st out of 30 2006: 28th out of 30 2005: No Cup 2004: 24th out of 30 2003: 18th out of 30 2002: 30th out of 30 2001: 14th out of 30 2000: 10th out of 28 1999: 21st out of 27 1998: 25th out of 26 1997: 23rd out of 26 In 11 Cups only 3 teams have been in the top half of fighting majors and won the Cup while 8 have been in the lower half and won the Cup. Of those numbers only 1 team out of the last 11 Cups has been in the top 5 in fighting majors while 5 have been in the bottom 5 in fighting majors. I enjoy fighting in the game, I would like to have a guy like Shanny or even Mac in his prime (or especially Proby), I will be pissed if they ever take it out of the game and hate the restrictions that they keep putting on it, but I just don't buy it when posters try to convince me that it is so necessary to winning the Cup. The numbers just don't back it up, most of the teams to win the Cup (over the last 11) have been much closer to the bottom of the fight column than have been near the top.

Yeah that Holland is a moron who has no idea how to put a team together, I hope we can replace him with Burke sometime soon. Nice to know you think so highly of the players on your favorite team.

Thanks so much. I have to miss the first 15 minutes of tomorrows game and was starting to panic that I couldn't figure out what channel it would be on so I could record it.

I haven't been able to find the center ice playoff schedule. Where did you find it?

And at least it wasn't a slap shot from Sammy to the face to the face! Hopefully it won't be for too long.

Great work. Thanks so much!

Awesome! Thanks for doing the game again this year, I know it must be a lot of work and is greatly appreciated. I like the new changes they should really help. Here are my picks: SJS/ANA 4-2 DET/CLB 4-2 VAN/STL 4-2 CHI/CAL 4-3 BOS/MTL 4-2 WSH/NYR 4-2 NJD/CAR 4-3 PHI/PIT 4-3 WC Champion: Detroit Red Wings EC Champion: Boston Bruins SC Champion: Detroit Red Wings DET/BOS 4-2 Edit: fix bolding

Makes this signature line "A true Detroit Red Wing fan; not the new Bandwagon fan that doesn't understand hockey" funny since its so condescending to other people.

I don't think that his point was in regards to the hunger. It has been pretty much established all around that the team that is fighting just to make the playoffs (with 2 more games to go in the season) was going to be much more hungry that the team basically locked into the second seeding. His point (I think) was in regards to the other part of the statement: It think the correlation=causation statement was in response to the insinuation that looking "'pretty' with our passing, scoring" was the reason that we lost rather than the desperation of the team we were playing. Furthermore, the hungerier team could not even win during the actual game and won by being better i.e. "prettier"/skillful in the shootout (or having a goalie who made better stops) than the fact that they were hungrier in the shootout. Pav or Hank did not try their absolute hardest in the shoot out - that's just the way it goes sometimes in a shootout.