Buppy

It was the logic that I was disagreeing with, not your specific candidates. But I'm not going to argue semantics. I don't like the apparent reasoning you used. I don't believe improvement should be such a big factor, because I think a team can still have an excellent, or the best, coach or GM even if they were good the previous season too. You want to debate that, then debate that, not my choice of phrasing.

Why yes, I quoted an example of the type of reasoning I wanted to counter. Would have made much less sense had I said "this type..." without referencing anything. Granted, I was burning you in effigy in my backyard at the time, but since I'm reasonably positive that you don't live in my backyard I feel confident in saying you couldn't have known that. If I'm wrong and you do live in my backyard, I apologize. To make reparations, I'll build you a cross to climb on. Also, rent's overdue.

Most improved was just a shorthand way of saying "guy from a team that happened to improve a lot from the previous season". All I'm saying is you shouldn't automatically disqualify someone based on not sucking the year before.

I said 'this', not 'your'. Stop trying to play the victim. Also, Lebrun picked Babs and Holland to win, albeit he's doing so for the 'exceeding expectations' reason. But if it makes you feel better I'll henceforth refer to it as "the Lebrun­­ method™" Yeah, how 'bout those Flames. Only took two years of tanking to get to a slightly better level of mediocrity than they were at 5 years ago. They actually have a chance to make the playoffs. Remarkable.

Who said I was saying anyone said it was? Certainly I didn't. Might have been implied I suppose. Kind of like a list of 8 guys, all from teams showing significant improvement, and another list of guys you'd exclude (some of them with teams performing as well as, or better than, the guys from your first list) implies that you aren't really considering anything else. I don't care about your fallacious appeal to authority. The fact is, it is not a "most improved" award. Many voters seem to treat it that way, and I don't agree. Many voters treat the Norris like a "most points by a defenseman" award and I don't agree with that either. Might not be very a very popular opinion, at least among the award voters, but I never suggested it was. Not sure what you think was exaggerated about it. (And please don't resort to that trite old "stating your opinion as fact" bs. We all know most of what anyone says on this board is an opinion.)

Because their past performance strongly suggests that the team performance this year is more likely in spite of, rather than due to, those two. Again, it is not an award for "most improved". It's fine if improvement/exceeding expectations is a factor in picking the winner, but it shouldn't be the sole factor, just like it shouldn't automatically go to the team with the best record.

This kind of thinking is what's wrong with these awards. Essentially penalizing the best coaches and GMs for being the best, and rewarding the biggest surprises instead. May as well name it the "GM/Coach of the most improved team" award. So you get guys like Holland and Babcock who've never won these awards, while guys like Capuano and Snow are being mentioned. It's like, "Good job at not sucking as much as you used to!"

My wife has nicknames for a bunch of players: Zoidberg, Gadzooks, Fornicator, Nyquil, Tater, Frozen, Jerkoff, Pokemon, Cornhole, Dick, Quimby, Wallet... For the most part it's because she doesn't (or didn't at first) know the real names. I think she still doesn't know that it's Weiss and not White.

Lack of production in the sense that if he had 8 goals right now, yeah, maybe they'd find a spot for him. And if he had 38 they'd keep him over Datsyuk. But I don't think it warrants the negative connotation, as if he's being punished for sucking. 2 goals in 12 games is not particularly bad given his limited role. Hell, it's not all that far from where Helm and Abby are, and for the most part better than what we've gotten from other players in similar situations. Nor is it accurate to say goals are the only things that should be considered a contribution. He is generating offensive opportunities. Over the limited sample size, and albeit a significantly sheltered role, he's actually been better than most on the team. But he isn't a center, isn't big or physical, not particularly good so far along the boards or in the corners, nor great on defense. Two-thirds of the forwards are filling a different role than what he provides, and two of the remaining four are our two top goal scorers. The only real options for him to replace are Weiss and Jurco. Weiss has been very good for his limited role, and Jurco does have a dimension that Pulkkinen lacks. Basically, the positives of others on the team should not be construed as a negative against Pulkkinen's play.

To clarify, he's not actually missing the net unusually often. ~22% of shot attempts, which is not out of line with other goal scorers. The low shooting% is factoring only shots that are actually on net. So he's having a slightly high % of shots saved, rather than missing. And also remember it's a small sample size, thus easily skewed. He's had two shots that he put basically right through the goalie, but just didn't bounce quite the right way to make it into the net. Hit a post at least once too. A little more luck and one of those goes in, it bumps his shooting% from 7.5 to 11. It's not like he's shooting 2% for half a year. There isn't really enough readily available information to say his shot selection is particularly poor. Thoguh of course that doesn't mean he can't still work on it. And I don't think anyone has suggested that Pulkkinen should stay in the lineup, but I don't think he's being sent down because of a lack of production. He was an injury replacement, and now we have someone who should be able to fill that role better. But at some point, you have to put guys in situations where they can grow, even if you might have a better option for the short term. I wouldn't object to going with Pulkkinen over Weiss, even though it makes us a bit worse atm, it may pay off down the road. But I also don't have any problem with him waiting for next season.

You said he needs to work on getting his shot off quicker. That isn't true. It's just a cliche, "He's a rookie, so he must need to learn that...". But it isn't true and the stats show it. And no, the things he needs to work on are not just related to shooting. No player, no matter how well he shoots, is going to survive in the NHL with just that. Sometimes he's been unprepared to take a shot when the puck has come to him, but because it seems he didn't expect to get the puck, not because his shot is too slow. Beating NHL players means beating them on the boards, beating them on breakouts, beating them to open areas without the puck, beating them with passes, etc., just as much as beating them to create a scoring chance for himself, and does not at all mean that he needs to shoot quicker. Shot selection might need some work, though that's not what you said and not what I was refuting. But even that, if he can maintain his shooting volume, would be fine with me.

I think some people just quote things straight from a cliche book. Say what they think seems like it should be true rather than doing any actual analysis. He has the best shots/60 on the team, 10th best among all forwards in the league in fact (and 4th best 5v5 ZS adj.). The % of his shot attempts blocked is a little on the high side, but not terribly so (and having a shot blocked does not necessarily mean he didn't get it off quick enough). He's not really missing an unusual amount of shots either, so I'd say his aim is fine. The low shooting% is probably from poor shot quality (I would guess Babs has told him to just shoot the puck whenever he can). He's also had a few shots that have gotten past the goalie but just didn't quite make it in. The stats could be skewed by the small sample size, but that goes for the negative ones as well. He doesn't need to work on getting his shot off. Biggest need for him to work on from what I've seen is working with his teammates. Seems often to be unprepared when the puck gets to him, especially on the PP. Needs to work on beating NHL caliber players too. Unfortunately, he can't do either that well in the AHL and we have better options now. But at least he gets to be a major player in GR, and hopefully have a nice playoff run. Next year will be his opportunity to take his game up a notch.

From http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5294248 Ilitch never really wanted Yzerman over Holland.

You don't remember correctly. It was Dallas that lost the two leads. I don't have any inclination to check, but I suspect if I did I would find that the Wings give up a lead less often than most teams. That it's happened twice recently just skews the memory, as shown by your faulty memory of the Dallas game. Blowing leads is a problem that needs to be addressed in the same way that allowing goals or failing to score is a problem. You always want to be better of course, but that doesn't mean that every negative thing needs special attention.

Mrazek with a 2nd straight shutout and 3rd in 4 games. Meile up to 3rd in AHL scoring, Ferraro tied for 2nd in goals (though he's played more games than the guys he's tied with). Griffins have won 8 in a row, 10-0-2 in their last 12. The team has really turned things around from the early season struggles.

Knew a guy from NY once who described it as: Manhattan - The city Bronx - Yankee Stadium Brooklyn - The ghetto Queens - The airport Staten Island - New Jersey

Our record when leading after 1 and 2 periods is in line with where it's been in the past; better than some years, worse than others. Better than average league-wide. I suspect your premise is flawed. Regardless, momentum is big in hockey, and always has been. We just finished off our toughest road trip of the season with 9 out of 12 points, despite a couple key injuries. Relax and enjoy it.

I thought it looked like a dive at first, which would have been some hilarious karma. Reverse angle shows he just lost an edge, nothing to do with the push even.

On the right track, but more specific to Jon (nothing to do with the actor). I'll give you 7 more guesses.

Twas Our Lady Peace Try this one: Officer Jon Baker

Miele isn't really a prospect. He's almost 27, and likely a career AHLer. Might get a few more NHL games, but I'd be very surprised if he gets any with us.

I took a look at the contract agreement for playing a game with the alumni, and this is one of the stipulations :

Samsonov is a member of the Wings alumni association. Quite a few guys in there who never played for the Wings, most seem to have some kind of connection to the area or team. The alumni assoc. is a charity thing, they do a lot of events throughout the year. Not really alumni games in the WC sense, though I imagine the one against Nashville will be a bit closer than normal.

Which one? The last two sucked so that might not be that unpopular... Spaceballs wasn't that funny

Was only in GR a few days, didn't play any games. His last game was Jan. 31, but that game report doesn't mention any injury, and there's no news that I could find. No transactions since then, so still with the team.