Drake_Marcus

I really, really hope Conklin starts the 3rd, but only if it's because they don't want to make Ozzy's injury worse. If it's because Ozzy's already made the injury from game 3 worse then we're in trouble.

You're clearly unfamiliar with how humans move. Osgood is clearly favoring his left leg. Watch him- he's struggling to push off and move laterally, can't get up and down in the butterfly quickly. Go back and rewatch the way Ozzy is moving. He's definitely not feeling right. I'm not quite sure why Babs didn't pull him after the 3rd(?) goal when he struggled to stand up. Ozzy's been off since he made that save in the last game and took forever to stand up afterwords. Ken and Micky are saying the same thing right now as well.

The sad thing for Panthers fans is that both teams ended up with identical W-L-OT but Flordia ended up with the better goal differential. Soooo the Pathers missed the playoffs based on Montreal having more points in the head to head series. That's the 3rd option in the tie-breaking procedure... the fourth was better goal differential. So basically, the Panthers missed the playoffs by such a close margin that it came down to the order in which the apply the tie-breaking procedure. That's pretty damn close.

For anyone who appreciates good statistical analysis I recommend the following site's look at the "quality of competition" for defensemen: http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/basic_5_on...team=&pos=D Brent Seabrook plays against really high end players compared to Duncan Keith... I was pretty surprised by that. I figured they'd both play about the same minutes against the best players on their opponent's team. That site will also give you some appreciation of how outstanding Rob Blake's season was this year (I knew he had a great season, but not that great).

This. I'd love to see something along those lines. Maybe not a direct 50% discount, but at least have the incentive there. Maybe give teams a limited number of player discounts that can be applied to players that have been with that team from their rookie years onwards (so someone like Versteeg could get that treatment- his rookie year is in Chicago but he was drafted by Boston). What happens to a guy like Mats Sundin who wasn't drafted by the Leafs? He was their heart and soul for years, even if he was originally a Nordique. Maybe give teams the option of having 3 home brewed players on the team that only partially count towards the cap? A team could appeal to the NHL head offices and make a case for players that they feel is a case where that sort of designation would be fitting (Draper for example). Exceptions could then be granted on merit (in other words- if Sundin still played for the Leafs they could appeal to the league asking to have his status moved into the discounted category). I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I do know that this will likely be something GM's discuss with the league in the future. As it stands now there are a few young clubs that have a huge clusterf*** of paydays coming up for players they've developed and drafted. Chicago is one good example of that- they'll implode in 5 years time if something along these lines isn't instituted- too many of their players entered the league as stars/semi-stars all around the same time.

No need to worry too much- I'm actually not a huge stats freak in real life. Of the dozens of math courses I've taken, intro stats was by far the least exciting. I just like backing my opinions up with stats when it comes to hockey. To be honest, the part of that stats post I made before this round started that I found most fun was collecting and calculating the stuff that wasn't already done on NHL.com (i.e. the head to head stats). I'm just a math/physics/engineering nerd at heart

Given Green's age and experience I think it's safe to assume this isn't his peak.

Yup.

Great read- thanks for posting this.

Quoted for truth. "The James Norris Memorial Trophy is an annual award given to the defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position." --NHL.com

Agreed... If the Sharks come back from this series against the Ducks they'll be very, very, very hard to stop.

Agreed.

This is too tedious. I can't stand you and you can't stand me. I think Green fails to meet the expectation of defensive excellence inherent in the definition of a Norris winner. You strongly disagree with that. Neither one of us is going to change their position and nothing is going to bridge that gap, so who ******* cares? Let's go back to ignoring each other again. (god knows I wish I could find the ignore function for these forums)

Once again- you're trying to pin me as an obsessive compulsive stat freak simply because I understand and appreciate the use of statistics to support opinions. So we come full circle to the "I don't understand it it must be trivial" argument on your part. You don't understand the significance of the statistics so you call me a obsessive nutter simply because I understand something the meaning of something you dismiss. Your argument to dismiss the validity of PK minutes played relies on following assumption: --An NHL coach doesn't put his best defensive players on the PK the most. Think about that for a second. My "harping" on about that stat is based on my faulty assumption that you would understand who a coach puts out on the PK and why. If only Babcock understood how wasteful it is to be using Lidstrom and Datsyuk on the PK! He could be saving them so he could double shift them on the PP Again, if you understood how hockey is played you'd understand how flawed your argument is. Not surprisingly, you've missed another point I made: Green has the second highest number of turn-overs for defensemen (behind Markov) and the 4th highest number of turn-overs in the entire league. Ok. Time for you to try convince us that turn-overs have nothing to do with defensive skill. This will go nicely with your theory that the best defensive players aren't the most likely players for a coach to put on the PK. EDIT: Don't forget that his rate of turning-over the puck is higher than Markov when you factor in that Markov played more games.

Amazing- you still don't understand the argument you think you're arguing against. It's fascinating to watch you argue with your strawman while completely ignoring the point I, and many others, have been making. Do you even read the posts you think you're arguing against? As for the bold part, well you obviously lack the insight to understand how amazingly ironic that is. No, I just have a math degree so I don't struggle to place those frustrating little numbers in context. Anyone who understands statistics must be beholden to them and utterly obsessed with them. Everyone around you must seem like a fetishist. Oh yeah, that must be it! Green is so above and beyond Lidstrom, Chara and Neidermayer offensively that his coach dare not waste his ice time on something as meaningless as the PK. I guess Lidstrom must've played almost no PK time when he scored 80pts in '06. Surely no one can contribute that much offensively while still playing on the PK! Yes he has. He puts Green out on the PK the least out of the top 6 defensemen. When you're the top d-man on your team and your coach puts you on the PK the least that's not a vote of confidence. Ok, do it then. Given how quickly you dismiss them they must not tell any part of the story. Apparently statistics are all just a bunch of gibberish because you don't understand something as simplistic as average PK minutes played per game. I'm able to work on my grad studies on my own schedule so I've always considered myself lucky to get to watch so many hockey games. I only watch 1-2 NHL games per day in the regular season and 2-3 per day in the playoffs. Apparently that's a paltry total compared to you. I had no idea you were so well informed of my watching habits. What's the arbitrary level of games watched that allows one to suddenly comprehend the games at the amazing level you do? Based on your posts I'd guess the answer is 5 games per year, but go ahead and enlighten me. f*** this pissing contest BS. Your presumptions of my hockey knowledge are as imaginative as your hockey analysis. How about you quietly wait and see what others say about our respective viewpoints in this thread? I know that reading and analyzing is counter to your ignorance-based believe system, but give it a shot nonetheless.

Again- you've just backed your opinion up with cherry-picked opinions from the pool of voters. Unless you think Green will win by a landslide (in which case your cherry-picked links and quotes are representative of the average voter's opinion) you've failed to advance your argument (yet again). Perhaps the voters don't live in a world where knowledge of statistics and astute hockey viewership aren't mutually exclusive concepts? It boggles my mind that you honestly believe Green being his coach's last choice on the PK doesn't reflect very poorly on his defensive ability. Maybe you feel like he's doing good defensively when you watch him, regardless of his coach's obvious distrust in his defensive ability (see defensive PK minutes played). Maybe you feel like his extremely high turnover rate isn't reflective of poor defensive ability (he's top 3 in the league for defensive turnovers and he played fewer games than both players above him on that list). These feelings you have aren't necessarily reality. The NHL tells the voters to list their top three choices for the "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position". I have to assume that you either don't understand what "all-around" means. Or maybe the NHL doesn't understand their own intentions? You should definitely let them know that they gave the wrong instructions to the voters! If they were then you'd do it. Instead you flail about, repeating your original point and barking insults and insinuations. You are R. Kelly in "Fishsticks".

Shoreline- don't bother trying to argue your point with me unless you can back it up with something quantitative than cheery-picked quotes and links to other opinions that agree with you. Here's an idea- go to NHL.com and dig through the stats then form an opinion that has a basis in reality.

Quoted for truth. If you don't believe MacK- see the first paragraph of the article. The idea itself is pretty retarded though.

By all means- continue to tell yourself that. I've shown the stats- I've backed my opinion up with reality. Green is a subpar defenseman who can't even break the top half of his own team's defensive core when it comes to defensive ability (otherwise he wouldn't be dead last in defensive penalty minutes per game- or do you think the coach puts the worst defensive players on the PK the longest?). You? You'll just cherry pick another opinion piece from some internet pundet that only proves the very thing I've been arguing- that hockey writers are enamoured with Green's offensive stats. Finding someone who shares your view (especially when you're picking the most popular viewpoint) is hardly challenging, nor is it something that makes your point any more valid. You'd have a blast screaming your opinions into the Grand Canyon. The best part is that you'll think you were proven correct if Green wins the Norris. All that will prove is that you've failed to grasp the substance of the argument you're trying to refute. Being unable to force you to see reality isn't close to "eating crow". It just means your delusions are more persistent than expected. Parroting your personal views of me doesn't make them real- it's just talking point bulls***. The facts still back me up and not you. Once again- I'm correct and you're reduced to petty name calling and similarly inane tactics. If I've really eatten so much crow recently you would've mentioned the specific situations when I was wrong. But that's not your style- you don't mess with 'facts' when you can just 'think' with your gut. Once again it bears repeating:

Heck yeah- he's as untouchable as Gretzky was. He's just one more of those players who can't possibly be traded under any circumstances (just like Greztky!).

Much worse stuff than that gets said on the ice by players like Maltby and Chelios (well, vintage Chelios).

In that situation it was definitely much different. It's silly that they created that rule without stippulations to keep guys like Rinne from slipping through the cracks. The problem with Makarov's winning the Calder at age 31 was he was already an international superstar by the time he entered the NHL. Before entering the NHL Makarov had the following on his resume: -> 2 World Junior Championships (not unreasonable for an NHL rookie! Otherwise they'd be disqualifying many Canadians) -> 1 World Junior MVP -> 8 World Championships -> Part of the famous KLM line (the most dominant line in international hockey history) -> 2 Olympic Gold medals -> 1 Olympic Silver medal -> 11 USSR hockey league championships -> 8 Player of the Year awards in the Soviet league -> 3 MVPs in the Soviet league -> 9 time point leader in the Soviet league -> 3 time goal leader in the Soviet league So I can definitely see why a 31 year old Makarov winning the Calder felt wrong in hindsight! The problem is that age limit is that it doesn't just weed out players like Makarov, it hurts guys like Rinne who hasn't really had a huge advantage compared to some of the Canadian players that have been groomed by Hockey Canada since their early teens.

Opps- I forgot to mention that he's streaky and his play away from the puck is questionable. On the plus side he's got a ton of heart and is a great leader who steps his play up at the right times. He's got tons of positives, but the problem is he also has a decent number of negatives. He's not a write-off, he just needs a team to hold onto him, develop him and give him a chance to make an impact. Being a journeyman doesn't help your career- it just makes your life tougher. I suspect that there are lots of people in the NHL and AHL that would be really pleased if he could make the next step and stick with an NHL team- he's definitely someone that people would like to see succeed.

Haydar is woefully undersized and a poor skater, but definitely has talent. He isn't someone that's flown under any radars, however. He's a former AHL MVP- many people have taken long looks at him. I'm not too sure why he isn't in someone's system still, though. He has 8pts in 20 career NHL games (all with the Thrashers). Last season he stepped up in Atlanta after they had some injuries and put up 1 goal, 7 assists and a +4 over a 16 game span that year. That's not bad at all for a call-up. His first call-up was a 4 game stint with the Thrashers the year before that (he didn't manage to put up points that time).

True story. Of course he ended up looking much better in the NHL (obviously no one's counting Stamkos or Turris out just yet, though). What's sadder? The Bruins traded him to the Blackhawks for Brandon Bochenski. Bochenski was a certified journeyman at the time... and nothing much has changed since. Interestingly, the Hawks got Bochenski for Tyler Arnason and a 2nd rounder from the Sens. So the Hawks turned a crappy deal into a sweetass deal.