toby91_ca

Gold Booster
  • Content count

    4,259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

toby91_ca last won the day on June 5 2013

toby91_ca had the most liked content!

About toby91_ca

  • Rank
    Hall-of-Famer

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

9,984 profile views
  1. Half of those players are either on non-playoff teams now as well, or in the AHL, so we won't be watching them come playoff time either.
  2. No, it looked really late, only reason I used a stop watch at all was because the unofficial timing was brought up of 0.6 seconds, so I decided to see how long it was.
  3. You may be right, perhaps it just looks worse than it is because of the position the player was in. I tried using a stop watch, which is not entirely precise, but I was consistently getting just under .5 seconds (actual would be a little more, but unlikely to be greater than 0.6). The 0.6 isn't official of course and it's not in the rulebook at all. The problem is that you want players to be able to finish their checks, which is why you need to allow some time because it's tough to avoid contact if you are already committed to the check and the puck is gone. That's why there is some arbitrary amount of time that is considered reasonably enough time to avoid the hit. I have zero experience with KHL rules though, but I suspect they are harsher when it deals with hitting.
  4. His elbow actually looks to be up a bit, could be a bit of follow through, hard to tell...but if nothing else, it's definitely a late hit, so not clean. It's also retaliation for sure, doesn't have to be the same player. Not sure why I'm arguing this point as it doesn't really matter to me whether it is or isn't, but he got hit, fell to ice and looked to be hurt, but that bounces right up a sec or two later (I didn't like that at all, you are either hurt or you're not...was he trying to buy a call) and then immediately skates over and hits the first player her sees. Again, not sure about the elbow, hard to tell, but assuming it's down, I love the hit, other than the fact is was too late, he took the shot from well above the circles, gets on net, goalie makes save and puck ends up in the corner and that's when contact takes place. That's not clean even in NA.
  5. They'd prefer to come up. Apart from just playing in the NHL, $ would be a big driving factor. For most of them, their pay would increase by a factor of 10.
  6. This is where I'd differ...extremely and this is what I want to avoid with these advanced stats. I'd prefer the eyeball test 100 times out of 100. I don't want someone voting for an award having never watched a guy play. Stats are needed as well, but especially for this award, way to dangerous to try to simply use advanced stats to judge. The issue is that it's the best defensive forward award. A forward's main purpose is to score, so if they don't score, I don't think they deserve this award. Gainey put up respectable enough numbers, certainly not a big scorer.
  7. I think there are a ton of flaws in using some of these stats to try and hand out a best defensive forward award. I have no issue with considering the stats, but if you start placing too much reliance on it, that's when I have a problem. Way too much in some of those stats that are way beyond the control of the player in question.
  8. Other than the obvious timing flaw here.....where did this come from? I haven't seen any such comment from Bob (unless it was from years ago)
  9. The biggest issue is that no teams are in any hurry to unload 1st round picks.
  10. He has 3 acting credits, latest being in 1992. He came back to the family business and served as President of the Real Estate business, however, he left the business about 5 years ago to pursue other interests (no idea what). He's part owner of the Red Wings though.
  11. He was saved by his lack of dirty history and the fact there was not an injury. Personally, I think far too much weight is placed on whether an injury occurs or not, past history does make sense, unless you basically give nothing because of no history. In this case 6 games isn't nothing, but could have been a lot worse if someone else had done it.
  12. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it will be 6 at the absolute minimum and should be more...which will be consistent with past infractions of this nature. Same can be said about the Marchand incident....consistent with the past, they don't punish severely for slew footing....you can argue they should, but at least there is some consistency here.
  13. The other consideration is that these guys are all getting paid right now, no rush....they may look to see how things shakeout in the post-season...perhaps the Blackhawks are looking for a coach then. However, and it's a big however, these guys, the guys you want, don't like being away from the game, so waiting around isn't in their DNA.
  14. I think Nyquist's was worse...at least Keith only had one hand on his stick (though he did get some pretty good torque on it). So, I'm thinking 6 games is the minimum, especially if you are sitting in the camp that think stars get treated differently (Keith).
  15. The other big problem is that the Wings have only 16 wins in regulation, the 8 teams they need to get past all have been 20-24.