eva unit zero

Ok, strength of schedule modification: Take the playoff opponents for each Wings team. Multiply the Wings' goal differential ratio (GF/GA) by the opponent's total against all other opponents. This will yield a value greater than 1 if the Wings played better than the team's other opponents, and a value lower than 1 if the Wings played worse. For example; if the Wings scored 14 goals and gave up 13 against St.Louis in six games in round 2, and St.Louis had advanced against Phoenix despite giving up 14 and scoring 13, Detroit would score a 1 for the series. Take the average of each 'series' score to determine the updated 'clutch' modifier. Obviously, no 'strength of schedule' modifier can be applied to first round opponents with this method. These updated modifiers, round by round and yearly average, are as follows: 1996: Col 1.16; StL 1.93; Wpg 2.0, Avg 1.70 1997: Phi 4.17; Col 2.51;Ana 1.63;StL 1.08; Avg 2.35 1998: Wsh 2.76; Dal 2.01; StL 3.54; Phx 1.33, Avg 2.41 2002: Car 2.76; Col 2.04; StL 3.31, Van 1.38, Avg 2.37 Now divide by two and add this modifier to the 'clutch' modifier from earlier, and apply the resulting total to the normalized output from earlier; basically replace the initial step involving the clutch modifier. 95-96 Wings playoffs: 1.7/2+0.36=1.21 96-97 Wings playoffs: 2.35/2+1.47=2.65 97-98 Wings playoffs: 2.41/2+1.79=3.0 01-02 Wings playoffs: 2.37/2+1.40=2.59 Final scores 95-96 Wings: 131 x 1.21=159 96-97 Wings: 53 x 2.65=140 97-98 Wings: 57 x 3=171 01-02 Wings: 70 x 2.59=181 So the most dominant Wings team of recent memory is the 2001-02 team, having performed well against strong opponents. The 2002 team managed to step up well over a strong regular season performance, and to do it against strong competition.

Flash in the pan seems to be the best descriptor. His 2001-02 season was remarkable, winnign the Hart and Vezina. But he only won the Vezina on a tiebreaker, and Roy beat him out for the first team All-Star selection. Theodore only has had two other seasons with a save percentage better than .910, while he has been below .900 four times. He is currently carrying a .920, but has only played a handful of games. Notable stat: only twice in Theodore's career has his GAA been beneath 2.50; not coincidentally, it is in the same three seasons as his sv pct. was better than the .910 mark. I think Theodore is most closely related to Bill Ranford in his circumstances; he had one stellar year, and although he embellishes it is not to a horrible degree. However, since people saw his 'amazing' play that one season, they give him the benefit of the doubt and think 'oh, he's not embellishing, he's just great.' Even when his actual performance says otherwise.

Razzle dazzle doesn't mean you're a better goaltender. If you embellish an average save, it doesn't turn it into a great save. Unfortunately, razzle dazzle (or lack thereof) has resulted in many goaltenders being overrated and others being underrated. Bill Ranford, Tommy Salo, Fred Brathwaite, Trevor Kidd, Marc Denis, Jocelyn Thibault are some of the thoroughly mediocre goaltenders who have been overrated due to flair. By contrast, there are goaltenders such as Chris Osgood, Mike Vernon, Martin Brodeur, Evgeni Nabokov are some very good goaltenders who have at times been called a 'product of a good defense' due to their relative lack of embellishment.

It would be more insane if they were from different teams. if you are a player on a bad team, you will have a worse plus minus than a comparable player on a good team. A bad player on a bad team? well, that will lead to pretty bad plus minus. It's not unlikely that the three guys mentioned played quite a bit together; but more noticeable Washington scored 181 goals and gave up 446...a differential of -265. If you consider that the worst guys nowadays are around -20 or -30 with differentials of only -100 on their teams...well, then a -70 is not as bad as it seemed.

Impeding progress doesn't have to mean 'yanked backwards in such a manner as it caused the opposing player to slow considerably'. Just the presence of the stick is enoug hto impede; it restrains the arm and limits the movement options the hooked player has. Stick off ice and on body intentionally is a real penalty in 100% of cases. Just so you know.

I didn't say he didn't make good saves. I said he didn't make truly spectacular saves...the kind that stop what should be a goal. That is a WORLD AWAY from saying an average goaltender could have done the same thing. It is also a WORLD AWAY from Dom being the Cup guarantee you and loo seem to be portraying. Dom was a factor in 2002, but he was far from our most valuable player as is being suggested. Lidstrom, Yzerman, and Fedorov were easily the top three, with Hull, Shanahan, and Chelios as important or moreso than Hasek. The shots per game was basically the same; however, as was mentioned before Nashville and Calgary are not big offensive teams known for taking many shots; yet they mustered the same kind of offensive attack as offensively skilled teams like Colorado and Vancouver. Yet Joseph still posted better numbers than Hasek in every regard except shutouts. Ah but you did basically say that any average goalie could've shut out the Avs in Game 6 on the road. Since Hasek didn't make a single save that any normal goalie wouldn't have stopped. Ozzie finished 2nd in Smythe voting. Hasek didn't. Ozzie's Cup team was almost identical to Mike Vernon's, except for the fact that Osgood had Anders Eriksson as a top-four defenseman instead of Vladimir Konstantinov. That, and I can think of exactly one goaltender who was an 'average' guy most of his career who has won the Cup in my lifetime; Bill Ranford, who was the 1990 version of Cam Ward-hot young backup goalie comes in for injured starter and plays out of his mind to win the Cup and the Conn Smythe. It's as I have said in the past...the only way you can win the Cup with anything short of a very good goaltender is for that goaltender to play well above his normal level in the postseason. I heard a while back the Wings were outbid. Weird. Ozzie started the 00-01 season very poorly, he even lost time to Legace. But from the tail end of December on, Ozzie posted strong numbers (2.49, .910) despite seeing an increase in shots--Oz saw more shots per game in his 00-01 season than any other, and he saw more per game after December 20th than before. And the Wings bombed. If you are going to make the argument that Ozzie's 340 wins and his Cup are the result of his team playing well, you can't the turn around and claim he lost all by himself. Ozzie's postseason numbers were much better than Cech's...so if Roenick was going based mainly on playoff goaltending, he'd have chosen Ozzie. Only one team has scored more than Detroit. Big names like Gomez, Drury, and others are not scoring. Perhaps you haven't noticed in your blind rage, but I haven't once said Hasek can't break out, nor have I said his slump is our biggest issue.

Just for those of you slamming MacInnis...he DID switch to a composite. But the he switched back because of the reasons he mentioned. It's called first hand experience.

You're right; a strength of schedule modifier is probably needed; perhaps modify the differential from each series against that opponent's differential vs other opponents? For example, Detroit went 14-11 against St. Louis in 2002; St. Louis went 13-5 vs Chicago. That might merit some adjustment upwards...more when I have time.

Crosby caught Z because of the way their games were distributed...Z played more games early, and then had a long break of no games. Crosby caught up to Z in games played during that break, and also in points. They have played what, two games in the past week?

There are really four contenders for this. The 62-win team in 95-96 is the only non-champion team worth considering, and the Cup champs in 96-97, 97-98, and 01-02. So let's go through and consider what we need to evaluate; Offense, Defense/Goaltending, Clutch play. We'll take a look at each of those three categories. First off, as the number of goals per game fluctuates from year to year, we'll see how the Wings compared to the average of all other teams rather than using a straight number. We'll start by establishing the benchmark averages for GF and GA. 95-96 average GF: 255 96-97 average GF: 239 97-98 average GF: 215 01-02 average GF: 213 Average GF: 230.5 95-96 average GA: 260 96-97 average GA: 241 97-98 average GA: 217 01-02 average GA: 216 Average GA: 233.5 So now that we've established offensive averages for the other teams, we can normalize the offense by adjusting based the percentage. Normalized output: 95-96 Wings: 294 GF, 163 GA, +131 differential 96-97 Wings: 244 GF, 191 GA, +53 differential 97-98 Wings: 268 GF, 211 GA, +57 differential 01-02 Wings: 272 GF, 202 GA, +70 differential Now that we've established comparable offensive and defensive markers, we can move on to clutch play. We will establish clutch play by taking the team's average goal differential in the postseason and comparing it to their actual goal differential in the regular season. 95-96 Wings: +144 differential, +1.76 per game 96-97 Wings: +56 differential, +0.68 per game 97-98 Wings: +54 differential, +0.66 per game 01-02 Wings: +64 differential, +0.78 per game 95-96 Wings playoffs: +12 differential, 19 games, +0.63 per game, 0.36 clutch modifier 96-97 Wings playoffs: +20 differential, 20 games, +1.00 per game, 1.47 clutch modifier 97-98 Wings playoffs: +26 differential, 22 games, +1.18 per game, 1.79 clutch modifier 01-02 Wings playoffs: +25 differential, 23 games, +1.09 per game, 1.40 clutch modifier Now we will apply the clutch modifier to the normalized differential: 95-96 Wings: +47 96-97 Wings: +78 97-98 Wings: +102 01-02 Wings: +98 So we have established that, when all major factors are taken into consideration (offense, defense, goaltending, and clutch performance) that despite having lost Konstantinov, the 1998 Wings were the best overall team.

I have a two-piece graphite, as well as some wood sticks from brands such as Hespeler, Lousiville, and Sher-wood. I can't speak to how one-piece composites are, but I know with my graphite stick (purchased for 20 bucks at Play It Again Sports, tyvm) does not allow for the same kind of precise 'feel' of the puck, which leads to sloppy stickhandling and inaccurate shooting when compared to how I perform with the wood stick. As my slap shot is probably the weakest part of my game, having some extra power would be nice. Unfortunately, my slapper is weak due to poor technique and I haven't experienced much difference in power between the two types of stick.

Grigs is 16th on the prospect list, between Ritola and Larsson. Look harder.

That's because American Idol is a singing competition, where the primary factor in winning or losing is/should be vocal quality, based on covers of (usually) well known music. If it were a competition for best ORIGINAL music...you can be damn sure a young Yorke would make it. But that's a different animal.

Boyd has a thing for one-eyed chicks?

I agree...the only situation where 'it was the ******* refs' is a tolerable excuse for fans of any team is when the situation would have directly, definitively and unchangably altered the final outcome. This is pretty much reserved for referee mistakes that prevent/allow a scoring play when it shouldn't have been that way, and the mistake occurs late in the game with the score close. One example would be a last-second field goal attempt to win the game that is blocked due to the defensive player being offsides. Or a team that is four points down has a throw picked off with two minutes remaning and returned 100 yards for a touchdown, but was made possible due to pass interference that wasn't called.

Rule change: Instead of the stupid trapezoid...goaltenders can play the puck anywhere on the ice, except in the goal crease! Now THAT would create some scoring!! Poor Toronto...McCabe would be an unstoppable offensive machine....

One time where it wasn't a 'the goalie should usually stop that puck' situation. Here's a hint...highlight reel saves are often meaningless. If two goalies have similar numbers, the one with more highlight reel saves is the WORSE goaltender, not the better goaltender...highlight reel saves are often the result of the goalie being out of position in the first place. I didn't say Dom played poorly; he made the stops when he needed to and that's important as we've seen goalies, including Oz and Dom, not do that very thing. And Hasek had the two best defensemen in the NHL at the time. That kind of helps. Saying Dom was not replicating the tasks of Hercules is not the same as saying anyone could have easily done it. That sort of argument is usually reserved for the Ozzie bashers who think the Wings could have won in 98 with Kris Draper in goal. Wasn't Roenick offered like 2m more by the Flyers? Because the Flyers had second year veteran Roman Cechmanek, who was far more infamous for his 2001 playoff meltdown. It is a dead end argument to say 'Osgood sucked because JR said so' since that leads to JR as having deemed Checkman as Cup-caliber, which destroys his credibility for evaluating goaltenders. In terms of point per game, Samuelsson is top 90 an Huds and Cleary are top 180...meaning we have six 'top-six' scoring forwards and four first liners, based on offensive output.

I've mentioned this before...but there was exactly one time in games 6 and seven in that series when the AVs actually managed to break through the Wings defense and get the kind of scoring chance that is better than average. The result of the play? Chris Drury tipped the puck through Hasek's five hole, and off the inside of the right post. That was the only play in the two games that wasn't of the 'NHL goalies should make the save' variety...and he didn't. Oh, and IRC he was third star in one game and not selected as a star in the other...hardly a 'Dom rescued us' type of performance. He was third star twice and not selected four times in his six shutouts, so please don't act like he had no help from the defense because that's a flat lie. Joseph posted better numbers than Hasek, and he did it when the team in front was playing like crap. Hasek had the team firing on all cylinders and posted worse numbers than CuJo. So as I said..CuJo's INDIVIDUAL performance in 2004 was better than any of Hasek's. Because they are talented, fast, and physical. The Wings beat the Sharks because they played a much grittier game than people expected. Hasek didn't will an undeserving Wings team to the WCF. The WHOLE TEAM got them to the WCF. Osgood was the Wings' best player in the 2001 playoffs. If you want a bomb from that series, he was wearing #20. As I said before...Hasek has never started this slow; the concern is that it is more than just a slow start. Some people are overreacting as to how bad he is playing...but he is not playing well.

This is exactly why I tried to find two similar pictures of the same goaltender from two different periods. Trying to compare pads on two different goaltenders in different positions is pointless; you can't get a good feel for size because the player is a different size and so the scale is off.

Joseph's 2004 performance was better than anything Hasek has come up with in a Wings uni. While true Legace did not perform well, advancing beyond the first round in 2002 and 2007 but failing to do so between then was in most years a case of the skaters and whether or not they performed. 2006 might be the only season in recent memory where poor goaltending was a factor in an early exit. Ozzie was back for one season without Dom. He spent the first month of the season injured, and then outplayed Legace down the stretch but Babcock had already made his choice in January that Legace would play in the playoffs. If anyone would have said that had Hasek left, they'd have been morons. Hasek played very well last year, but he didn't take the Wings further than they should have gone. And had he retired...he'd be retiring a 6-time Vezina winnner, Stanley Cup winner, and top 15 all-time in wins and among the leaders in shutouts. Anyone who would have called him a quitter would have needed a reality check. Hasek was asked to come back because of how well he played last season...the Wings brass wanted Howard to spend one more year in the AHL. This means they needed another goaltender to play with Osgood. Hasek's base salary is about 2m, if he hits bonuses it's about 4m...they weren't going to get anyone near as effective as Hasek was expected to be for anything less than 5m base salary, and to acquire that kind of goaltender they would have had to give up assets to acquire a guy, likely in his late 20s, who would either be around long-term (meaning Howard gets dumped off) or would leave as soon as possible, meaning likely the Wings wouldn't get full value from the deal. Give up less or the same amount of money and no assets to keep a guy close to retirement that you expect to play very well? Easy choice. The other option was to pick up a veteran backup for Ozzie...and there wasn't a veteran backup who was available who would realistically be a better use of cap space, playing time, and assets than just playing Howard in the role. Hasek may or may not climb back on. Ozzie may or may not continue his streak. But ultimately, we all have to realize that what will happen is that Babcock will do what he feels best for the team. If Babcock feels Hasek is on the verge of finding that rhythm, he'll probably see a few games in a row. If Babcock feels that Hasek ISN'T looking like he'll be finding his rhythm, and Ozzie keeps up his strong performance, we will see a lot more Osgood. I think they should probably get a 50-50 split at this point, moving to a ratio more in favor of the guy who is looking better if there is a clear difference.

Osgood has always been one of his team's two or three best players in the playoffs...the only playoff years that doesn't apply are his rookie year, 97, 2006, and 2007. In other words: when Ozzie has gone into the postseason as the starter, he has been one of his team's best players. Without exception.

Mike Vernon, Manny Legace, Dominik Hasek are the other guys who have been 'the starter' in Detroit while Osgood was the backup. All of them have posted losing seasons elsewhere on weaker teams. Osgood has not. Osgood's worst season in terms of winning percentage was .545, earned during his injury-plagued 02-03 season when he posted the worst GAA and save percentage of his career. The thing about Osgood is that he has ALWAYS found a way to win games, and that is what makes a great goaltender. Ozzie has a much better resume than Cujo in terms of playoff performance and regular season awards. If he gets the same kind of wins numbers Cujo has, there is no maybe. Cujo is only a maybe because aside from 446 games, he has won NOTHING. "I'm gonna come out and completely disagree with you, not really back up my side with much other than 'well, other guys who might be in the Hall of Fame did just as well! and then beg you not to reply." Maybe. Ozzie started for five that qualify, plus one that was close. But, just to make you happy, we'll change the statement. Osgood is the ONLY goaltender in team history to start for the Wings in five or more seasons where the team's GAA was 2.5 or lower. Is that a better claim for you?

A rule that would help limit overly defensive play: Regulation/OT win: 3 points Shootout win: 2 points Shootout loss: 1 point. Regulation/OT loss: 0 points. This puts more emphasis on winning the game instead of not losing it; teams will kill off the end of OT with overly defensive hockey if they think they have a better chance for the same points in a shootout. This would make for much better overtimes, especially in conference games; If you are competing for playoff position with your opponent, you would rather win in regulation or OT and gain 3 points, as opposed to win in a shootout and gain one point.

His leg pads are about an inch wider, and significantly longer. In both pics his knees are together; in one the leg pads are touching and in the other there is a significant gap. His chest padding is significantly larger; in the first pic he is wider in the torso than at the pants, in the second he is thinner in the torso. His trapper is a good two inches longer diagonally from the wrist to the end of the netting. His shoulder pads are notably beefier...in both pics Roy's right shoulder is raised; in the Avs pic his position skews that even moreso. But in the Avs pic, Roy's LEFT shoulder rises higher than his right shoulder in the Habs pic, despite the fact the kind of movement that would be used to put oneself in that position would LOWER the left shoulder. No, it's not like the kind of equipment difference you see between Giguere and Sawchuk. But it's enough to change the outcome of several shots over the course of a season. Interesting stat: Roy led the league in save percentage four times(.900 in 88, .908 in 89, .912 in 90, and .914 in 92), three of which resulted in Vezina trophies, and the fourth, 1988, should have. Yet in Roy's four best statistical seasons (94, 97, 2002, and 2003) he finished 3/3/2/4 in Vezina voting and 3/3/1/6 in All-Star voting, respectively. Could there be a reason that Roy was the clear-cut best goaltender in his 'worse' seasons and only competing for the honor in his 'best' years?

The problem is that Hasek hasn't looked good all year. People are saying 'Hasek always starts slow, he'll bounce back and dominate.' Well guess what; Hasek has NEVER started this slow, and his performance has generally been in decline for the past few years. There is no guarantee Hasek CAN bounce back from this start; previous turnarounds were better starts for a younger goaltender. Hasek has looked slower this season than I can remember EVER seeing him. I hope he turns it around because I want to see the whole team succeed, but acting like it's a guarantee is a mistake.