BobL

Member
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. How much of an opportunity does a guy need? It might click for him elsewhere, but clearly he wasn't going to here. Hope the pick is good... couldn't really be worse (not saying he's awful, just that he clearly didn't have a role here).
  2. Pittsburgh was thought to be a potential landing point for Smith, yeah? How does their trade for Ron Hainsey affect that? I don't know much at all about his game... seems like he's probably a fair bit different than Smith, but signing him means they probably aren't looking for more.
  3. He's young, he's to a large extent proven... weak draft class... I'd take him. By the time he peaks in 4 - 6 years maybe the team can be turned around.
  4. I was going for more 'man, they are both terrible', so we might be on the same page anyway.
  5. Two games in hand, six worse on goal differential and 3 points ahead is hardly a better record...
  6. We have tickets to go see the Wings play them next month in Denver... might be a sad game all around.
  7. There's no killing what can't be killed!
  8. Always want the win, always disappointed in the loss... still love watching the game, and understand that if they do lose, it'll probably be better in the long run... but my lizard brain keeps thinking suddenly the current roster will be magically awesome.
  9. Marchenko stood out as having a bad game to me... kept dumping pucks up ice without looking for a man, and handing it to the blackhawks. The call on Abby was always going to be made - but I did think the Hawks got away with a bunch of hooks and slashes earlier in the game, similar to calls the Wings went to the box for... not that our PP would actually score if given the chance, but it did rob 5 on 5 ice time where I thought the Wings were moving the puck well for a change. I like the forward lines pretty good now, to be honest... Tatar and Nyquist are slumping, but as mentioned Z/Mantha and Vanek/Nielsen/AA are playing great together. Abby/Larkin/Tatar could be a real threat if they have time to develop it.
  10. So... I'm not entirely sure the data supports what you are saying... Comparing teams based on last year (because that's the closest representation of the current team/system that it can provide), I see the data a little differently... Average shot distance: Wings are at 31.79ft - Tamp is 36.3ft, Washington was at 34.24ft, Pittsburgh at 32.73ft. So we aren't shooting from further out than other teams that turned in a better GF count. I think you have to look at both tip ins and deflections to get a better picture of net front performance, and while tip ins are low, deflections are high for the wings. When I look at the heat map for goals, I show the Wings scoring from net front more often than Tampa is scoring (proportionally) from net front - if anything Tampa is scoring from the high slot more often. Tampa has 57 tip-in/deflection goals to 61 from the red wings over a similar number of (all strength) goals (96 TBL v 95 DET). Add in wrap arounds (which are aggressive, at the net types of goals as well), and you get 66 TBL v 76 DET. Looking at PIT/WSH, they do seem to score from right in close more than DET does. Certainly all of these graphs reinforce that you score from in close. I think an interesting team to look at in comparison there is the Rangers - they had a great shooting percentage for the available data (which, interestingly enough creates some parity in overall goals examined due to the partial nature of the 15/16 data). 10.43%. They had an enormous # of tip-ins (56 tip ins, for 50% of goals scored). Their 'in close' goals (deflections/wrap arounds/tip ins) is at 81, so 73% of goals scored... but those same categories for the Wings are at 80%. Anyway... look at the heat charts for shots between NYR and DET there, and they are incredibly similar. The snap shot thing is interesting, and it reinforces the idea in my head that TBL created more high quality chances with time and space, whereas DET was pressured and had to take a quick snap shot more often - this would be my impression of the eye test as well - when the Wings put a puck on net, it is often a low quality chance under pressure from the opposing D... which a person might associate back to low quality first passes from our D, and maybe issues with positioning from the team as a whole - i.e. not getting a puck to a guy in a spot where he has the time and space to create a high quality chance either for himself, or for a teammate. My impression is that with so many fast forwards who should be able to enhance their time and space with speed vs. the opposition, the fault is even more likely to fall on first passes, D, and positional shortcomings (which a guy might lay at the feet of the coaching staff...) Your links were certainly interesting... thanks for sharing.
  11. Yeah, the chemistry is very visible, great to watch. Glad Z is clicking with someone. Hopefully the regularity of that line ends up uncorking Tatar at some point as well. I think that Vanek/Larkin/Nyquist has the potential to really start clicking as well - there are some great moments there. Fingers crossed, I guess.
  12. Pulk was waived to try to send him to GR, and had to clear waivers, but was claimed, so couldn't just send him down - his contract had become one way. Frk was exactly the same situation, but since no other teams made a claim when Carolina waived him, Wings can move him to GR since that's what they were trying to do in the first place - no point in them claiming him on waivers if no other teams do, then immediately placing him on waivers when they waived him in the first place. This is my understanding of how it works.
  13. I'd like to see AA in the spot Sheahan has been occupying...
  14. In NHL 17 I was able to trade Ericsson, Bertuzzi and Frk for Trouba. Too bad we lost Frk or they could've just done that.
  15. That is what I remember as well.