Datsyerberger

You're comparing mechanical factors to non-mechanical factors as well. Give said hockey player a half-broken stick and skates with dull and bent blades and see how well he performs then. It'll be ugly.. he'll still be able to compete, but no more than the racer with the inferior car. That's a mechanical factor. Now, non mechanical factor. Give a NASCAR guy a doofy crew chief that doesn't tweak a cars performance well. The driver might still be able to compete, but it will be difficult. Now give a hockey player a coach that can't run a power play to save his life. The hockey player and team may still be able to compete and generate plays on their own, but it will be more difficult.

It's a factor, just like changing the downforce of the vehicle is a factor. In either case, it's hardly the sole reason why someone wins. I really hope you don't stick by that statement. Seriously, saying to a NASCAR fan that Earnhardt won all his championships because his car was that much superior to everyone else's will get you the same sort of ridicule from NASCAR fans that the Pierre McGuire comment about Datsyuk getting that goal because of a gust of wind got him.

Now there's a statement which we should all agree with

And hockey players adjust the curves of their sticks. Some even do it to the point where its illegal, and I doubt they'd do that if it didn't give them an edge. Even within legal means, is it the hockey player that scored the goal, or the curve of his stick? The crew chief? What about when the coach adjusts tactics on the power play?

Complete ignorance. There are flabby hockey players who succeed at the NHL level to some degree, one of them just set a record for most wins ever as a goalie. There are players with underdeveloped upper bodies who skate fast and generate chances from that, there are players with strong upper bodies who are great checkers and shooters but have underdeveloped leg strength and/or coordination and thus poor skating. Meanwhile, there are flabby NASCAR drivers, some who don't have as good of endurance, some who aren't quite as quick as others reactively, and so on. However, I think we can both agree that the MOST successful hockey players are those with a combination of talent, skill, and overall physical conditioning. And if you look at NASCAR, some of the most successful and consistent drivers, especially in the last 10 years, are those not only with talent and skill, but those with the best overall physical conditioning. It's an increasing level of competitiveness as more and more of such starts to give them an edge, just like players in some sports turn to steroids for any sort of edge they can get. Finally, learning to race at top tier vehicular racing is probably one of the deepest knowledge and skill curves in professional sports.

1. i. Every bit can help in NASCAR, not just physical endurance, hand-eye, and so on, but also overall athletics. It's no coincidence that Mark Martin, widely regarded as one of the most athletic of NASCAR drivers, is also widely regarded as one of the most consistently successful over such a long time span. It's also no coincidence that many NASCAR drivers played other sports (basketball, baseball, football, etc) up to a collegiate level. ii. That's an inaccurate statement. I'd say all sports are fairly close in athletics to one another at the highest level, else the athletes of those sports wouldn't have to devote the majority of their life to playing and participating in that particular activity. What I WOULD agree with is the statement that "not all sports require as much overall athleticism as other sports". 2. i. Some sports rely on varying degrees of technology to be a viable activity. You don't really need anything besides a ball and your body to play football, though losing your helmet and padding may make it significantly more dangerous. But a hockey player with a broken skate blade is just as useless as a NASCAR driver with a car with a blown tire. They BOTH require athletic ability, and they BOTH require the proper maintenance and reliability of equipment. ii. a. I'd damned well say whether a pitch is a strike or a ball is up to a judge and a VERY important part of baseball. The same could be said for many of the rules of hockey.. penalties, icing, offsides. Saying that the performances of figure skating and the like are JUST up to the whatever the judge feels like takes away from the skill and performance of the skater, and is just as doofy as saying it doesn't matter how fast or accurately or tricky a pitcher throws a ball. 3. See the baseball - umpire reference. You might as well write off baseball and several other things that are accepted as major sports with that view, or at the very least MAJORLY change the nature of the games. Many a football and hockey game have been determined by the accuracy of officiating one way or another in determining whether a point was scored or not. Lastly, I can't stand NASCAR, but I find the amount of hokey malarkey like this it gets as irritating as the things I hear about hockey in the south. Believe it or not, I hear plenty of arguments for why it's not a sport or why its players aren't athletes, and many of them are structured very much like these arguments. As for swimming, up until recently with the advent of electronic means, who finishes first in a close race was determined solely by the eyes of judges

Haha, you were the first person to catch on to this. I initially made the error when I was managing one of my fantasy hockey teams, and decided to run with it once I figured out people were ignorant to the fact I was talking about Mark Martin... which kinda goes a way towards proving that particular point, doesn't it?

If course it's a macho thing, but please realize the absolute ridiculousness of this statement. Are you going to argue that hockey players aren't athletes because they're richer than you, are dumb enough to get in the way of 100 mph chunks of rubber, get slammed into boards, punch eachother's teeth out, and move at 20+ mph towards eachother with giant razor blades attached to their feet because it's just a macho thing? Of course not. As I've said many times in this thread, athletics isn't just muscle. Physical endurance, cardiovascular and respiratory conditioning, hand-eye, and reflexes are all athletic as well.

Define athletic ability. Bulky muscles? Physical strength?

I played baseball as well. ADHD that I am, I never had the focus to do particularly well at it at any position except pitcher, though -- good hand eye, low power but accurate swing, strong throw. One thing you missed is that even though not all ball players do so, good leg build for sprinting, whether to run bases or catch a ball, can be beneficial. Most high end guys work on that, really. No, physical endurance and all-around muscle isn't as necessary to baseball as in other sports, but the amount of training, practice, and natural talent needed for the amount of reflexes and hand-eye you need in baseball is very athletic. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, athleticism isn't JUST muscle. If baseball players devoted most of their time for the more impressive-looking sort of athleticism needed for football, rather than training the sort of things needed for baseball, they wouldn't be very good baseball players. If NASCAR drivers put most of their time into developing a hockey player's athletic build and skills, they wouldn't be a very good driver. If a basketball player put most of their time into developing athletics needed for NASCAR, they'd be a crappy basketball player. If a hockey player put most of their time into developing their golf skills, they'd be Happy Gilmore or a Maple Leaf. All in all, all of these top end sports guys are all VERY athletic, even if the manner of their athleticism differs. I'd argue that hockey players are among the (if not the) overall most athletic of all sports players, but saying professional baseball players, or even golfers and NASCAR drivers aren't athletes or aren't particularly athletic is a slight to their devotion and skill.

Bold #1 -- That's the Wings this year.. well, except for the fact that our defense has been less than successful than in previous years. That's a great reason why shot blocking (and because of that, particularly Lilja) has become more necessary and valuable. IF we can eliminate that need for frequent shot blocking again, Lilja will become less valuable to us, and he can become an excellent asset to trade to a team which really needs shot blocking right now. My hope is that a combination of Ericsson and improved defensive play from Kronner and Stuart (edit: and to be fair, the team as a whole) are the catalysts behind this. Bold #2 -- f*** yea! Me too!

You managed to leave a key word out of quoting me, which more or less makes or breaks my statement. Bolded for reference. And actually, it does matter how you get it done. Success and shot blocking seem, on average, to have a reverse correlation (that is, greater success = less shot blocking and less success = more shot blocking. Not because shot blocking is bad, but because greater blocked shots shows a NEED for more shot blocking. Again, this is not saying shot blocking is bad, because, when NECESSARY, it's not. But it's more effective hockey to kill offense in a way besides shot blocking, if you can. Lilja's shot blocked totals show both a need for him to block shots to be effective, and his willingness to do so to be effective. Conversely, Lidstrom's or Datsyuk's lower shots blocked totals do not show a defensive ineffectiveness on their behalf, but rather, the opposite). Edit: To further build on that point, Detroit's overall low shot blocked totals compared to their low shots against and GAA in the last couple years show a lack of need for such to be effective. HOWEVER, because something has clearly dropped off this year in their defensive effectiveness, Lilja's shot blocking has gained a lot of value for the Wings this year, even though he hasn't significantly changed in one way or another -- and he's getting a lot of love for it.

Pitching is by far the most physically strenuous position in a ball game, as far as in-game performance goes. Baseball is rather weird in the fact that the vast majority of physical exertion used to play the sport is actually not even done so on the game, but rather, in working out. You spend a lot of time bulking up to exert one motion or one very small series of motions as hard as possible once every 20 minutes (hitting a ball, sprinting to catch and then throw a ball). Baseball, however, requires a great amount of mental stamina and focus during game time, rather like being a goalie for the Wings XD. It also requires some of the fastest reflexes in all sports (behind, what? Vehicular racing sports and hockey?), and possibly the most hand-eye. If you don't have spectacular hand-eye in hockey, you can still be effective playing the body or make up for it in skating. If you can't hit a ball and aren't a pitcher in baseball, you're @#$% worthless.

I heard we got some Eric Jonathansson guy for less money than Lilja, and that despite the fact he was touted as an offensive threat, he's done amazingly well at shutting down opposing forwards. In all seriousness, I think that if Ericsson continues his surprisingly effective defensive play, he can replace Lilja next year on the PK.. and that we won't miss Lilja's shot blocking because we have someone else who defends equally well, but in a different method.

I feel I should elaborate more on this position, because I don't want this to come across as a knock on Lilja, which is about the last thing he deserves at the moment. One main thing (possibly THE main thing) that Lilja has going for him is that he's very willing to commit the body to a shot block and will do so frequently. He also suffers from the problem that he has to do so frequently in order to be an effective player, because he has few other strong assets, but the fact that he's willing to play his best assets makes him a valuable player. However, it does not necessarily mean that large amounts of shot blocking = the most effective defense. In general, statistics would show that a Lidstrom-style defense of skating + positioning, plus stick checks and stick lifts, are more effective. Lidstrom doesn't block less shots than Lilja because he's less willing to do so.. he does so simply because of the fact he NEEDS to do it a lot less. He has other, more effective tools with which he can reliably defend. Ideally, I would rather have a player that stick-checks and skates effectively, and commits the body WHEN NECESSARY on the PK than Lilja. Throwing yourself in front of the path of a 100 mph chunk of rubber is an act of desperation, not the most effective means to an end. However, I think there are a LOT of teams in the league that could benefit greatly from Lilja's shot blocking, because his strong play to this particular asset is more than many teams have going for them.

I was more speculating that pointing out in fact, but in all honestly, I would argue that it's a mix of both. He's relatively slow compared to most Wings players, not a great stick checker, and at times can be turnover-prone. His size and positioning (and history as a soccer goalie) make shot blocking his most valuable asset, followed by his physical play. My argument was more one that heavy shot blocking is not necessarily a trend of success, and that we might benefit more from a defenseman using his minutes that defends in a method that fits more with the Wings overall style of play (and that a team with a higher shots against average might benefit more than us from Lilja's shot blocking). The difference between Lilja's shot blocking and Lidstrom's shot blocking is that Lidstrom only blocks shots when he absolutely needs to because he has other (and less painful) methods of disrupting shots of play in which he is equally or more effective than Lilja, whereas Lilja does so frequently because it's his primary defensive asset, especially on the PK. The fact that he blocks more shots does not necessarily make him better at defense or the PK.

I agree with a lot of this, however, I would like to comment especially on the bolded part. This is really a problem that most teams have, because in most cases there's little that d-men can do without drawing a penalty. I see pretty chincy little things called watching various games around the league. The primary difference with the Wings that I've noted is not that we clear the front of the net particularly worse than anyone else, but rather that we have significantly fewer penalties called in our favor regarding front-of-the-net infractions. This is due to our primary screener's (Holmstrom's) reputation. We're all pretty familiar the kind of abuse he takes (particularly crosschecks in the back) without drawing a penalty -- when I see crap done like that in the majority of games to non-Holmstrom players, it's usually quickly called. This is furthermore compounded by Holmstrom taking phantom/reputation GI calls on a fairly regular basis. I've noted that when another of our players is clogging up the front of the net, like Franzen, we draw penalties with much greater ease. I'm not talking conspiracy nonsense here, I'm simply pointing out a reputation bias that even the Wings org has commented on. Fortunately, Homer is so good at what he does that the gains outweigh the losses.

Strangely enough, some of the best teams in the league since the lockout have been those with some of the lowest shot blocking (with Detroit frequently being #1 in the league and #30 in shot blocking). This is likely attributable to the fact that superior teams possess the puck more and allow fewer shots, thus a lesser need to block shots. It could therefore be argued that Lilja plays an inferior puck possession game and is therefore required to block more shots to be effective. Thus, it's my belief he has more value to a lower running team that needs shot blocking than he does to a puck possession team like the Wings.

Well hey Dab, I know when I've got you on my side against a matter of pessimism, I'm pretty sure we all know that the subject of discussion is a serious Debbie Downer

Lilja is a great PKer, but you're missing them thurrr Lidstrom and Zetterberg guys. Seriously though, there are players I'd rather see traded than Lilja (Cleary is one of them, though his NTC makes that difficult), but with a top 6 of Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, Ericsson, Stuart, and Lebda without him, I see him as one of the most likely candidates.

No, they just don't like being wrong.

Anyone who ever played with the Wings.

14 points in 13 games would be a substantially lower rate of scoring than his season so far. I see him doing 15-20 in the 13 games down the stretch, with 16 being the exact number I would guess at.

Unlike some around here, I hope being proven wrong will make you happy -- his agent has already been quoted at saying he's seeking long term between Zetterberg (6.083) and Datsyuk (6.700) money.

We can disagree on FA contracts all day long; I think an outside party that both of our estimates for Kopecky and Leino are within the realms of reason. On the cap situation for next year, finances for then will be largely determined by tickets/merchandise/escrow revenues from this year. '10-11 is the season we're likely to see a big drop (if that happens at all, but that's another debate entirely), based off the likely poor revenues next year. That's also the offseason in which several of our large contracts to veteran players expire, and the year the CBA expires, so what happens then is anyone's guess at this point. The GMs saying the NHL is not going to do anything with the cap until they're more certain about next year is not the same as the GMs saying the NHL isn't going to do anything with the cap. Again, that's a polite way to decline to comment. As for sources.. well, seeing as I already ran the numbers and that you then started throwing the salaries of players I didn't have on the roster onto it in an attempt to further your "impossible" agenda, I see little need to continue to carry the bulk of the load in this debate (seeing as I've already proven you wrong, with your only argument against my point a disagreement over how much 2 FA's will sign for -- noting that you raise their salaries just enough to make my numbers "impossible".) You've yet to show how my roster example with Hossa and Lebda absolutely cannot work. Curiously enough, one of them works even with Leino at $1.1m, Kopecky at .7 and the cap at 56.7 -- higher than your numbers. We can argue a $50,000 difference in a FA contract until the cows come home. Given that, I'm pretty sure our debate here is done until your provide numbers that prove that absolutely none of my Hossa scenarios listed are possible, or until you decide to start debating the effectiveness of the different scenarios rather than hard numbers.