kipwinger

Agreed. If Ottawa doesn't go on the insane run that they did, Boston would have made the playoffs without a problem. You're not going to finish tops in the conference every year. Sometimes you're going to be at the bottom end. And usually you're pretty safe, barring some kind of insane Cinderella season from a bottom feeder. No need to s*** can a (reasonably) competent GM over it. Hell, there's a real possibility that we would have missed the playoffs the last couple years if any team below us had gone on a run like that. It happens. Edit: If I was San Jose I'd hire him tomorrow. Since they're stuck with Thornton and Marleau, might as well get a GM who knows how to build a team around them.

I absolutely hate the Boston Bruins and I want them to fail. Still, this is stupid. They should definitely not have done this. It's not too different that L.A. firing Lombardi because they missed the playoffs this year. Who's available that's better than Chiarelli and Julien?

f*** Steve Yzerman. He's not the Red Wings, and the Red Wings aren't him. He stopped getting the Gordie Howe treatment the second he associated himself with another active NHL hockey team. Particularly with one that we're playing in the playoffs. I hope we crush Stevie, the Lightening, the city of Tampa, and the whole state of Florida for that matter. Let an earthquake crumble it, let the fires rage, let it burn to ******* ash and then let the waters rise and submerge the whole rat-infested place, Stevie right along with it. This is playoff hockey.

Not a bad idea, and definitely a fun way to add something to the game experience. I've tried, on occasion, to track different stats myself. Gets hard if the game is exciting lol. Anyway, as I said before, wouldn't really surprise me if NHL.com is a little off on their advanced stats right now. Until recently they never kept track of these stats and only just started reporting them. Seems reasonable that you'd have some issues to work out when beginning to report significant amounts of new content.

Where does it say that hockeyanalysis gets its data from NHL.com? Because hockeyanalysis was keeping track of zone starts WAY before NHL.com started doing so. It's also much more comprehensive and actually gives you the total number of faceoffs a player has taken in each zone. I don't know where they'd get that number if they relied solely on NHL.com considering the league doesn't report out this number. To be clear, I don't think you're being deceptive or anything. I'd just like to understand the discrepancy. I've used hockey analysis for a couple of years and have never had a problem with the veracity of their data. NHL.com has only just started reporting on advanced stats, and if there's an inaccuracy I'm inclined to believe it's on their end. But I'd like to be sure. Edit: Nevermind, I just found it in the FAQ. This is just a theory, so don't take it to the bank. But hockeyanalysis says they get their info from "play by play, TOI tables and event summary pages". He accesses those from NHL.com. However, chances are that official score keepers employed by the home teams are the ones who generate this data, and then kick it up to NHL.com to analyze, as well as share. It doesn't seem like the raw data is flawed, but that the analysis (either by NHL or by hockeyanalysis) is flawed because the math being done on the same data, by two different sources, is yielding two different results. Again, I'm inclined to think the problem is with NHL.com, because across the board theirs seems to be backward. Unless you really think Pulkinen starts in the d-zone more than Glendening (for example).

Agreed. I just did the math on it, and there's no way those numbers are right. Smith started in the o-zone 391 times, out of a total of 1006 total starts...38%. Kronwall started in the ozone 419 times out of 1289 total starts...32%. They have them listed as 48% and 51% respectively. Not sure what's going on with NHL.com, but I suspect they're having some issues considering they've only just started tracking advanced stats in the last month or two.

It seems to be the exact inverse of what mine says. No way is Smith, Ouellet, or Kindl less sheltered than Kronwall, Dekeyser, Quincey, and Ericsson. That same stat says Pulkkinen starts in the offensive zone LESS than Glendening and Andersson. I don't know what the issue is. But those number contradict every zone stat I've ever seen regarding zone starts for this team. Maybe because it doesn't account for neutral zone starts. But I honestly don't know.

Not really sure where you're getting that. He starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time. That leads all our defensemen. Dekeyser (33%), Ericsson (30%), Kronwall (32%), Quincey (33%), and Zidlickey (35%), all get fewer offensive zone starts as a percentage of the total starts. Not surprisingly, he also starts LEAST in the defensive zone (26%). See for yourself (the second table down is 5 on 5 stats and zone starts are at the end). Smith: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1560 Dekeyser: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1764 Ericsson: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=909 Kronwall: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=96 Quincey: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=898 Zidlicky: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=263 Again, if you adjust for zone starts his individual corsi regresses to near the bottom of our regular defensemen. While I can't find a stat for zone start adjusted SAT, it's not hard to imagine that a guy who starts in the offensive zone 38% of the time, and the defensive zone 26% of the time while have a significant regression. He starts on top of the opposing goalie more than any other defenseman we have. It's easier for him to get a shot on goal than any of our other defensemen, and harder for the opposition to get one against him (because they have to go the length of the ice). Edit: Adjusted for zone starts, here's our defense's individual corsi. Smith: 125 (down from 161) Ericsson: 123 (down from 155) Kronwall: 93 (down from 114) Zidlicky: 160 (down from 185) Quincey: 159 (down from 202) Dekeyser: 144 (down from 159)

Smith doesn't have the highest corsi on the team. Here's his individual corsi. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&pos=skaters&minutes=50&teamid=11&type=individual&sort=icorsi&sortdir=DESC What he has is a high "SAT" score. Which is a team measure. http://www.nhl.com/stats/advancedstats?season=20142015&gameType=2&team=DET&position=D&country=&status=&viewName=advancedStatsSkaterShooting&sort=&ord=&gp=1 And the reason why he has a high SAT, and not a high corsi, is because he gets put on the ice in situations where the team is likely to get a shot on goal anyway (i.e. he plays in the offensive zone a lot, like Zidlicky). Highly sheltered players are likely to have a high SAT (Kindl is third on the team by the way), but a low Corsi (Smith 11th, Kindl 20th) because they reap the benefits of playing in the offensive zone while not actually generating much offense themselves. The very definition of sheltered. Smith has 88 shots on goal. That's not much for a guy who gets favorable matchups all season long. That's why his corsi is low. The fact that his SAT is high is the product of sheltered minutes, not because he's a quality possession player. Edit: Also, when you adjust for zone starts, Smith's corsi plummets even lower, as does Kindl's.

He's given more offensive zone starts than anyone one the team. He's asked to defend against the other teams' worst players. How is he not being used to his strength? Babcock already shelters him more than every other defender we have. Despite this, he's our lowest scoring regular defenseman, and our second worst regular defensiveman in his own zone (behind Kindl). What's Babs supposed to do that he's not already doing? 100% offensive zone starts? 75%? 60% How sheltered does he need to be in order to be effective, and at what point are there diminishing returns on a guy like that?

Stephen Weiss will never play center for Mike Babcock. I don't know why, but he won't. So I don't even bother letting myself think about scenarios in which he hypothetically does.

Off topic question. Who wins in a back alley street fight, McGratton or Lesnar? Note: Paul Heyman does not get to interfere in this hypothetical altercation.

I mean, I think this is goofy. But at the same time, I'm for it. Lets start up a rivalry with these puds. They're like a cut rate version of the Red Wings anyway, plus they've got Stevie. Why not let antagonisms go? I'd love it if we had a team to hate again. And they sure don't seem to mind stirring the pot.

I guess I'm in a generous mood today as well. Then again, he has played well for long stretches of the season lol. Ask anybody...just don't bother to actually verify it.

Tell me again, when were these long stretches where he played great? Because what I saw was a defenseman who was heavily sheltered all season long, didn't score, didn't hit, and didn't play special teams. What was it that he was doing so well? And when? Edit: Or instead of answering any of these question, you could PM me and call into question my "fanhood" because I occasionally miss games and have to DVR them and rely on "stats" to inform myself about the team. Nice.

Finally, we agree on Brendan Smith. He has played poorly, and benching him was the right decision. Glad to see you've come to your senses.

Yawn. More excuses.

Especially considering the frequency with which he screws up. It must be exhausting trying to find ways to explain away all his gaffs. As I've said since forever. Brendan Smith is a third pair defenseman with upside. Nothing more.

Lol. Lets look at the number of excuses you can make for ONE, glaring, mistake. 1.It could happen to anybody. 2. It happens all the time. 3. If the refs wouldn't have seen it, nobody would care. 3.It shouldn't have been called. 4.Nobody would care if it hadn't ended in a goal against. The excuse making for Smith is getting comical. Nope. They're just better than Smith and Howard, according to the coach anyway. None of Ericsson, Quincey, Andersson, Weiss, or any of the other "whipping boys" lost their job to a rookie. Just Smith. And Howard.

Any minute now, Smith is going to breakout. Just you wait and see. He just needs the proper motivation and usage. That's all. After Babs "sends him a message", he'll be a stud. But only if he never has to play defense, gets 20 minutes a night, and powerplay time. But boy will you be eating crow once that happens!

I think he should leave hockey altogether and take up a career in public relations. I mean, his ability to deflect criticism is second to none. And people genuinely seem to like him, regardless of his actions. He's like that guy from the film "Thank You for Smoking". He lost his job to a rookie at the most important time of the year. Stop down playing it. It's REALLY significant. You know who else lost his job to a rookie heading into the playoffs? Jimmy Howard. You know why? Because he's played REALLY badly. Smith too.

He's just not being used correctly, that's all. He's an offensive defenseman. Babs needs to play to those strengths by using him as such. I mean, how good would he be if he got the most offensive zone starts, and least defensive responsibility of anyone on the team? Oh wait. He already does. Yikes.

I wouldn't get too cocky on the Smith/Marchenko topic if I were you. It would take about two minutes to track down numerous statements you made about how "Marchenko will never start over Smith", "There's no chance Smith gets scratched for a rookie", "Marchenko isn't better than Smith in any way", etc. Your boy lost his job to a rookie. He's just not that good. Get over it.

Average at defense huh? I see you're in a generous mood today bud.