eva unit zero

Let's compare the Wings' offensive performance, in games either goaltender has played vs Colorado. Hasek: 488 Mins, 22GF, 2.70 GF/G, 0 SO Osgood: 767 Mins, 26GF, 2.03 GF/G, 3 SO That difference can't be overlooked; Colorado shut out Detroit THREE times with Osgood in net for all or part of the game for Detroit. Detroit only scored four more goals in 279 minutes in games Osgood has played, than they did in the 2002 series. Hasek also faced fewer shots per 60 minutes than Osgood did; it was 20.7 for Hasek to 23.9 for Osgood. In other words, the primary between Osgood's games and Hasek's was a combination of two things; the difference between Detroit's offense from 96-2000 and 2002, and Colorado's defense/Roy's goaltending from 96-2000 and 2002. And the most recent series was 2002 for Hasek and 2000 for Osgood, and both goaltenders' play has changed dramatically since then, so to argue that it has any bearing on this series is silly.

And Hasek has never beaten Nashville. Theodore has never beaten the Wings, either. Turco has never beaten the Sharks, and Nabokov has never beaten the Stars. Price has never beaten the Flyers, and Biron has never beaten the Canadiens. Fleury has never beaten the Rangers, and Lundqvist has never beaten the Penguins. So, I guess nobody will be advancing past the second round. As none of the goalies involved have ever beaten their opponent, nobody will be doing so this time around. Might as well cancel the playoffs. Or, we could look at it this way. Osgood has played in series vs Colorado in 1996, 1999, and 2000. In 1996 Osgood was splitting net duties with Mke Vernon, and in 1999 he missed the first four games of a six-game series injured.

The Wings match up better against Colorado than they did with Nashville. That said, Colorado does have experienced veterans like Sakic, Forsberg, and Foote. It won't be enough though; Detroit is playing very well defensively and has gotten outstanding goaltending from Osgood. Plus the Wings know better than to look past a team like Colorado. Wings in five.

Here are my second round picks. Rounds in italics are actual results. And I think you left me out of your standings post, NFM... WESTERN CONFERENCE: (1) Detroit Red Wings 4 vs. (8) Nashville Predators 2 (2) San Jose Sharks 4 vs. (7) Calgary Flames 3 (3) Minnesota Wild 2 vs. (6) Colorado Avalanche 4 (4) Anaheim Ducks 2 vs. (5) Dallas Stars 4 (1) Detroit Red Wings 4 vs. (6) Colorado Avalanche 1 (2) San Jose Sharks 4 vs. (3) Dallas Stars 2 (1) Detroit Red Wings 4 vs. (2) San Jose Sharks 2 EASTERN CONFERENCE: (1) Montreal Canadiens 4 vs. (8) Boston Bruins 3 (2) Pittsburgh Penguins 4 vs. (7) Ottawa Senators 0 (3) Washington Capitals 3 vs. (6) Philadelphia Flyers 4 (4) New Jersey Devils 1 vs. (5) New York Rangers 4 (1) Montreal Canadiens 4 vs. (6) Philadelphia Flyers 2 (2) Pittsburgh Penguins 4 vs. (5) New York Rangers 2 (1) Montreal Canadiens 4 vs. (2) Pittsburgh Penguins 3 STANLEY CUP FINALS: (1) Detroit Red Wings 4 vs. (1) Montreal Canadiens 2

I've never walked around Downtown Detroit and worried even for a moment about being mugged. Please try and keep the misinformation to a minimum, k?

I stand by my statement. Nabokov is a good goaltender who played well all season. Brodeur played on a lesser team; the Devils' defensive system is generally a 'shot prevention' defense, in that the defense's primary aim is taking away the shot opportunity by blocking the puck or taking it away, and not allowing the puck to get near the net. The Sharks system seems aimed more for chance prevention; in other words forcing the opposition into bad shooting situations through positioning and taking away passing lanes, and forcing the opponent to the outside. Both are completely valid styles of defense, but I leave you with this food for thought; if performed to equal level, the Devils' style will result in fewer total shots, but a higher percentage of good chances. The Sharks' style will typically result in more shots, but it is not uncommon for such a defense to result in fewer scoring chances. Bearing that last thought in mind...the Sharks allowed considerably fewer shots per game than the Devils did. Using a system that tends to allow more shots. I don't think Nabokov played well enough to be considered for the Vezina, and I think people have looked at his number of games and the fact that he has been in net for a lot of wins as indicators that he has been a top goalie, when other stats don't even come close to suggesting that. Nabokov is a very good goalie...but as I said before...there are at least five guys I would put ahead of him based on performance this season.

Ozzie outperformed Kiprusoff and Ellis. He allowed 1 goal on 54 shots over more than 2 1/2 games. That's a better GAA and better save percentage than Ellis or Kiprusoff. The only goal Osgood allowed was of the 'unstoppable' variety, while Kipper and Ellis both allowed some stinkers. Ozzie carried a 1-0 lead into the third period in both of his starts. Of further notice...this series lasted 362 minutes, 154 of which were played by Osgood and 206 by Hasek. The Wings scored 6 goals and gave up 1 with Ozzie in net, compared to 11 and 10 with Hasek in net, or 11 and 17 for the Preds with Ellis in his 357 minutes. Basically, it works out like this: Osgood received 2.34 goals per 60 minutes in support, and won by 1.95 goals per 60 minutes. Hasek received 3.20 goals per 60 minutes in support, and won by 0.29. Ellis received 1.85 goals per 60 minutes in support, and lost by 1.01. Osgood would have won with the goal support of Ellis or Hasek. Ellis would have won with Hasek's support, but not Osgood's. Hasek would not have won with Osgood's or Ellis' support. Basically, Osgood played well enough to win even though the team wasn't scoring. By comparison, Anaheim lost their series and scored 2.17 goals per game, not far below what the Wings scored with Osgood in net.

Let's dump off 26 year old Kopecky to make room for the younger guys...like 36 year old McCarty?

The Wings' Round One grades should go: Datsyuk A Hudler A- Zetterberg B+ Holmstrom B Franzen B Draper B Cleary B Samuelsson B- Drake B- McCarty B- Filppula C+ Helm C+ Hartigan C- Lidstrom A+ Kronwall A- Rafalski B+ Stuart B- Chelios B- Lebda C Lilja C- Osgood A+ Hasek B-

Not including deadline additions: New Jersey's top four was Paul Martin, Mike Mottau, Colin White, and Andy Greene. San Jose's top four was Christian Ehrhoff, Marc-Edouard Vlasic, Craig Rivet, and Kyle Mclaren. I would take the Sharks unit ten of ten times; Martin is the only Devils defenseman who might crack the unit. Now consider that at the deadline, the Sharks added Brian Campbell on top of their unit, while the Devils' big name addition on the blueline was Bryce Salvador. Nabokov was phenomenal? No. Nabokov played well enough to win on a very good team. He wasn't one of the five best goaltenders to play 55+ games, and probably wasn't one of the ten best goalies overall this season. He should be nowhere near the Vezina, and wouldn't if he hadn't been in net for 40+ wins. Quantity should not trump quality.

If Brodeur wins this in anything other than a landslide, it's a joke. He's the only guy nominated for the trophy who is one of the five best goalies this year who started at least 2/3 of his team's games (55 games), which is typically an unofficial requirement for a Vezina win. The others, of course, being Roberto Luongo, Ilya Bryzgalov, Tomas Vokoun, and Jean-Sebastien Giguere. If Nabokov wins it...that would be just wrong. Brodeur played just as many games, has a comparable W-L record and GAA, but blows him away in save percentage. There is NO reason for Nabokov to win it over Brodeur except his slight advantage in shutouts. And if that's your primary deciding factor, it's Lundqvist's trophy. Nabokov should be a distant third of the three nominees.

I am going to argue on the side of Avery should have been penalized. Not for unsportsmanlike conduct, but for goaltender interference. Rule 78g: If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. (NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time. Avery's hands and stick were above the goal crease throughout the majority of his antics. It is pretty obvious that it interfered with Brodeur's ability to see the play or to stop the puck. Avery ABSOLUTELY should have been whistled for goaltender interference. I am more surprised that McKenzie wasn't aware of this part of the rule than I am that it is a penalty...if only because I am actually surprised McKenzie wasn't aware and didn't see it in his rulebook, as it is not a surprised to me that Avery's actions SHOULD have been penalized.

Lebda would be a much better fit with Edmonton than he is with Detroit. Detroit's game and Edmonton's game are similar fundamentally, but way different in practice, because Edmonton's game is designed around quick skating, while Detroit's game is designed around continued possession of the puck. Lebda would work in Edmonton because his one major asset is exactly what their offensive scheme is designed to use. In Detroit Lebda is serviceable because he has speed, but that doesn't make him fit the system. EDIT: Ideally, both Lebda and Lilja will be gone next year, with Meech and Quincey rotating with Chelios as 5/6/7, and Stuart returning as #4. Realistically, Lilja provides more to the team and is more likely to return if one of them does.

Based on points to ice time, Fedorov performed as well in 02-03 as he did in 93-94. Before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already do.

False! The last offer made to Fedorov was a 4-year, $32m deal. Had he signed that deal, his cap hit would have been the same $6.08m Anaheim saw. Meanwhile, Detroit DID have the cap hit of Robert Lang at $3.8m. So we're now only talking about a difference of $2.28m. Factor in that Fedorov would have been the first line center, while Datsyuk would have remained on the second line for the whole of 2003-04 instead of spending most of the year as the first line pivot, and that Zetterberg is likely on the second line wing, and it's not unlikely that most of that $2.28m can be cut out of Dats and Z's combined $6.55m. We might have seen Schneider and Shanahan sign for slightly less as well.

I've been saying it since Lebda first made the team...that he was just keeping the spot warm for someone like Quincey, Meech, etc. Lebda might be a good fit in Edmonton or San Jose, actually...both teams run systems that thrive on puck carrying, speedy defensemen and Lebda could find a place as a #4 with a team like that.

No, I am just getting turned around. Carolina in 2006 did lose their first two at home and go on to win the Cup just like the Wings in 2002. That said, I was simply trying to infer meaning, rather than trying to ascribe who was right about what.

Carolina started at home. In fact, they played all four rounds with home-ice advantage.

I'd still take Terry Sawchuk over anyone else. Until the past fifteen years or so, what was considered a 'shot' at one rink might not be at another...so the reliability of the stats was limited in that regard. Much like stuff like hits, giveaways, and takeaways now.

Get some Michigan tickets HC, if you want to practice that chant.

I think he meant Detroit was the only team to come back from losing their first two games in Round 1 on the road to win the Cup. Only six other times has a team lost both 1 and 2 at home in Round one and still won the ROUND, let alone the Cup. EDIT: One of those six occurences was 1992, when Detroit went down 2-0 and 3-1 vs Minnesota before securing the series in seven games. Perhaps the closest a team has ever come to being swept and still winning the series, as Detroit's game 3 victory was almost a defeat as well.

Those videos remind me of one thing.... Yost Ice Arena.

No, more like a blowfish.

You do realize that Don Imus is a comedian, a la Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle or Carlos Mencia? The only difference is that he's white, and therefore must be racist if he says anything that is not perfectly PC, while Rock, Chappelle, and Mencia are obviously not racist at all for making the same kind of comments.