eva unit zero

Anaheim only has three good defensive defensemen...Pronger, Niedermayer, and O'Donnell. Schneider we all know is mediocre defensively, Huskins is a B version of Lilja, and Beauchemin is horribly overrated in his own end. And even O'Donnell is only 'above average' defensively. Compare that with the Wings' group of Lidstrom, Rafalski, Kronwall, and Chelios who have played damn well defensively this season and it's not hard to see which team will be harder to score on.

Ok, so what happens if we are looking at something like this: Jiri Hudler plays 12.83 minutes per game, and has scored 11 goals in 49 games. That means he scores .22 goals per game, and 1.04 goals per 60 minutes, including special teams play. Averaged to 20 minutes per game, that would project him to 28 goals on a full season. Pavel Datsyuk plays 21.4 minutes per game, and has scored 17 goals in 49 games. That means he scores .35 goals per game, but only .97 per 60 minutes. Averaged to 20 minutes, that projects to 27 goals on a full season. Who's the better goal scorer, Hudler or Datsyuk?

Does it have to be a Canadian? Because Justin Abdelkader is coming along pretty nicely in that regard, and he's a better prospect than Matthias anyway.

You'll notice that I said it's unlikely that we get him for what I proposed; simply that that is what I would be WILLING to give up. You really need to take a reading comprehension class if you didn't understand that part of my post.

I agree that we would probably have to give up Kronwall to make it happen; that's why it won't happen. However, if the Thrashers are willing to take a package of something like Emmerton/Meech/2nd for Hossa...then I'll do it even if we don't get him signed. Because he could have more impact in that one playoff run than we might ever see from what we would be trading away. Again, though...it's unlikely.

We have no Hossa type players; Hossa is a big strong winger who is damn near impossible to knock off the puck, and has GREAT puck skills. If the Wings can get Hossa and sign him long term without killing the cap...that's pretty much something they HAVE to do. The last time Detroit had a winger like Hossa was 1997, when Fedorov was playing the wing. If we can get Hossa on a reasonable long-term deal and only have to give up one of Filppula, Hudler, and Kindl and not give up Kronwall, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, or Datsyuk...at that point you pretty much have to pay the price because it's still a deal in Detroit's favor. BTW..Hossa is 6-2, 210. In other words, he's only a hair smaller than Brendan Shanahan. And Hossa is in his prime. EDIT: I don't think it could happen, but my ideal potentially realistic trade for Hossa would be one of Hudler/Filppula (doesn't matter which) plus Howard and Meech/Quincey/Lebda plus a 2nd round pick. Thats plenty of potential plus some hype and a pick but it deals from positions of strength for the Wings and doesn't get rid of anyone we can't afford to lose.

The NHL used to use winning percentage. The problem is the OTL point. People generally agree that losers shouldn't get a point. Except that "diehard" hockey fans don't want to see a shootout win given the same value as a regular win, so we would still run into the different value games quandary, where a team can make the playoffs and have a good chance to win their division if they manage to win 25 games and don't lose in regulation. It all comes back to my initial post; it's either move to a 3-point system where regulation and OT are 3 to the winner, but shootouts are 2 to the winner and 1 to the loser, or move to a system where any kind of win is worth points, and losses are not. The second system could, alternatively, be a move away from a point system as all wins would count the same and all losses would count the same, and those would be the only available outcomes.

The Coyotes have the same problem the Kings do. None of their defensemen are good defensively; they have a stable full of guys known for their offensive skills. It's the same problem Toronto has, also, except for Kaberle. Notice how all three teams are terrible?

You're right, it does say even strength in there. But it still doesn't account for who is on the ice... how do we know that most of Lilja's offense hasn't come with Lidstrom and the ZDH line on the ice?

I've given up complaining about it. Even though Trammell was just as good as Ripken and Smith, and those guys were locks, Tram gets no respect.

That doesn't solve the problem of games counting for varying amounts of points, which is the point of this thread.

The only problem I have with this is the way it's presented; It does not account for differences in PP, PK, or ES. All goals scored are just lumped in and divided by total ice time; this doesn't account for the fact that top defensive forwards play a lot of minutes shorthanded against the other team's best offensive players--the Wings' top four penalty-killing forwards are all above the team's average. It also doesn't account for the fact that players can benefit from their linemates' abilities without doing anything themselves. A good complementary stat would be something showing which linemates were on the ice for whatever average of goals; Zetterberg's linemates might look like Datsyuk 2.4, Cleary 1.6, Hudler 1.4...or something like that. That and splitting it up between man-advantage and even strength situations. I bet if you take away PP goals against, Franzen is not the top defensive forward...and Lidstrom is that much further ahead of everyone else.

Downie's hit on McAmmond was one of the dirtiest things I've seen in a while. However, this hit was a perfectly clean and legal play...and a nice hit at that. Downie seems to be getting the Bryan Marhcment treatment here; he's got a reputation as a dirty player, so even if he hits someone cleanly, if they don't get up right away it was obviously dirty and intent to injure and he needs to be banned. It's like when Marchment wrecked Doug Weight cleanly at open ice.

I don't know, but I bet he used a permanent marker to sign it.

Boyes, Holmstrom, Kane, D.Sedin, and others are all much more likely to get in than Cleary.

My view is the only reason to award fewer points for a shootout win is if you award points for a shootout loss; otherwise it's the same problem of varying point values for games, but with a different variable. If you don't award a point for a shootout loss, shootouts should be worth the same as a regulation win; if the loss is equal, so is the win.

Former Wings forwards currently performing better than Shanahan: Ray Whitney Robert Lang Sergei Fedorov Slava Kozlov Former Wings defensemen currently performing as well or better than Shanahan: Mathieu Schneider Anders Eriksson Aaron Ward

To me, there are two valid options, and which one is chosen depends on the answer to the question of 'Do you award a point for a shootout loss?' If your answer to that question is YES: Then the only valid option is what has been suggested many timesi nthis thread, and something I have mentioned many times before; 3- Regulation/OT win 2- Shootout win 1- Shootout loss 0- Regulation/OT loss A loss in OT should NOT be given an extra point; we've seen during the time of the OTL that rewarding a team for not losing in regulation just shifts the 'playing not to lose' to the end of the third rather than to the overtime period, and doesn't really make for better hockey overall. Getting three points for an OT win instead of 1 point for a SOL or 2 for a SOW would cause teams to play more offensive hockey during the overtime as the point spread would be a greater difference between winning in OT and going to the shootout. If your answer to the initial question is NO; You award 2 points for a win, and zero points for a loss. Using this method, one could even abolish points entirely; as a win of any kind would be the only method of receiving a point, the wins column would be just as capable of determining standings as the points column. I personally favor the former system as it allows for a distinction between shootout wins and regulation wins, rather than counting a shootout victory as equal to a regulation victory. As far as the shootout in the playoffs is concerned...The 1994 Olympic Gold Medal was determined by shootout. I have never once heard someone argue that it was invalid for that reason. World Cups have been decided on penalty kicks before; nobody argues that "it's not soccer" and refuses to watch. I would rather see endless overtime, but realistically we have to accept that a shootout is a likely future change for the playoffs, more than likely happening after at least one 20-minute, 5-on-5 overtime.

What I've wanted to see for quite some time is a shift away from the All-Star GAME to an All-Star tournament using division all-star teams. With a six division setup, it would work somewhat like the NFL conference playoffs. Top overall division record in each conference receives a bye. Remaining four teams are seeded based on overall division record. Winners would then be reseeded to face the top two division teams. There would be a total of five games, that could be scheduled as such: Thursday: Quarterfinals, two games Friday: Semifinals, two games Saturday: Skills competition Sunday: Finals While this would mean six times as many players (but only twice as many goalies) would be 'All-Stars' it would make for a more entertaining All-Star break that drew in more fans. And isn't that the point? For example, the Central Division roster could be: Hudler/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Filppula/Datsyuk/Cleary Nash/Arnott/Kane Kariya/Legwand/Boyes Lidstrom/Rafalski Kronwall/Keith Zidlicky/Hainsey Osgood Leclaire

That probably depends on whether it's waking up in a bed, or waking up on the ice...

Foote and Blake are less physical than Lilja now...and Markov is much more physical than Lilja.

Markov is an above average skater. He's no Lebda or Niedermayer, but he is also a much better skater than a guy like Luc Robitaille. As far as his puck skills, he's not the best offensive defenseman, but he can play the puck possession game, which is something guys like Hatcher and Kuznetsov failed at.

Even if we had drafted him...there's a good chance he wouldn't be on the roster right now. He wasn'tgood enough to earn a spot on the Caps blueline in 2005-06. Our defense this season includes six ofour top seven from last season, plus Derek Meech. The only chance Green had is if he was THAT GOOD that he forced the team to put him on the roster. Green is no better than Kronwall, Lidstrom, or Rafalski offensively, so he wouldn't have seen much PP time and would not have been used in a major role even if he were in the top six. I guess I just don't see what kind of impact he would have on our team for the next few years that can't be duplicated by, say...Lebda, Meech, Kindl, or Quincey.

The solution would be to actually name the best players to the game rather than represent every team. However, that would have resulted in a Western team dominated by the Wings, as the Wings have six players who deserve to be in the game if rosters are chosen in that manner.

The answer lies in the fact that the All-Stars vs Cup champs was played in the original six era; meaning the All-Star team was comprised of players from just five teams. That's an average of four players per team. Assume the bottom two teams put mayb only one or two players on the team each, and you now have five or six players per team for the top three. Not hard to see how chemistry could already exist between such a large piece of a single team.