Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 06:54 PM

#2639293 Jurco on Conditioning Assignment in GRs

Posted by Buppy on Today, 03:34 PM


Agreed. It is an upcoming problem. I have no solution. Krsmith's solution regarding Miller/Sheahan seems the best one to me right now. Still don't like it. Almost want to "ignore it".

Bottom line is I think Jurco has that "something". Don't wanna give him up. If we have to drop someone, Andersson or Miller has to be thrown out to the wolves. Not concerned about lineups at the moment my main concern is keeping that young chump Jurco in the organization. He needs a proper shot to dazzle.

For the record, no one needs to be waived once Jurco comes back. Players on conditioning assignment are still part of the active roster. We only need to move someone when Quincey comes back, or if Franzen does. 

#2639291 Jurco on Conditioning Assignment in GRs

Posted by Buppy on Today, 03:25 PM

It's going to be tough for him to crack that lineup for sure... This may not be popular with a lot of people but I'd bump Miller out. I know, it's not likely to happen but I wouldn't mind seeing something like this...


Abdelkader - Zetterberg - Nyquist

Larkin - Datsyuk - Pulkkinen

Tatar - Richards - Jurco

Sheahan - Glendening - Helm


I'm not anti-Miller by any stretch but he is very replaceable in the lineup and I'm hoping they lean toward not bringing him back after this season.\

He is one of our top penalty killers but plenty or guys can kill penalties. Glendening, Helm, Sheahan, Abdelkader, Richards, Larkin...

More or less what I was thinking as well. I'd prefer Larkin at center, but Richards should work too. I thought the Shea-Glen-Helm line was good the few games it was together.

#2638934 Ferraro on waivers

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 10:04 PM

 I was pointing out that Holland shouldnt be giving away our prospects for free. Trade them for ANYTHING. A 32nd overall pick is close to a 1st round draft choice. We just gave up an NHL calibur player for no reason. That's bad management. We could have placed 2 other players on waivers that wouldnt have been claimed (Andersson and Miller), and we could have received future considerations in a trade for Ferraro. Instead, Holland did NOTHING and let him go to Boston for free. Stupid.

At least you got your wish to see Ferraro replace a Miller on someone's roster. http://www.nhl.com/i...id=nhl:topheads

#2638912 Goalie Battle

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 07:40 PM


I have also noticed a tendency for Howard to let in the tying goal during the last ~5 minutes of the game.  Without looking up any stats, I assume Mrazek doesn't do this quite as often.  That's why Babcock started Mrazek in the playoffs last year and, hopefully, if they make the playoffs again this year Blashill will do the same.

Made me curious, so did some looking. Unfortunately, war-on-ice doesn't filter by time in game, so it's not quite conclusive.


Combined last year and this year, leading by one, with opposing goalie pulled, both are nearly identical. 2 GA for each, on 16 shots for Mrazek, 15 for Howard.


Leading by one, all situations there's quite a difference though:

Howard - 44 games, 548.5 TOI, 32 GA on 306 shots, 89.54 sv%

Mrazek - 32 games, 570.1 TOI, 16 GA on 293 shots, 94.54 sv%


The team is better defensively with Mrazek, but Mrazek is also much better. Better on all shot types too.


Low-danger (perimeter shots basically): Howard 7 goals/155 shots, Mrazek, 2/137

Medium (high slot/circles inside the faceoff dots): Howard 6/69, Mrazek 3/90

High (low slot/goal mouth): Howard 19/82, Mrazek 11/66


I figured there would be a difference, but I'm surprised by how dramatic it is. Among all goalies with at least 300 minutes in that situation (42 of them), Mrazek is 4th best, Howard is 3rd worst.


Oddly, when trailing by 1, Howard is 21st of 47 while Mrazek is 44th. Trailing by any amount, Mrazek is 56th of 61, with Howard 20th. Tied Mrazek is 2nd of 61, Howard 38th.


Granted, Howard wasn't great last year. Limited to just this year, they are much closer.


Overall, I don't know if you can say Howard is particularly prone to giving up late, tying goals. Not enough information available (unless someone cares to dig through game logs). But it does look like Mrazek, so far, is generally better in tied games or when protecting a lead, but more likely to get a bit rattled when behind.

#2638893 11/21 GDT : Red Wings at St. Louis Blues, 8:00 EST

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 05:20 PM

I haven't seen anyone blame him for a loss, the worst I've seen is people criticizing him when he can't hit the net, or get frustrated when he decides to tee his shot up and most of the time those guys aren't averse to eating a healthy helping of crow.

Sometimes its hard watching all our smaller wingers get pushed around all game, get relegated to the corners or boards and end up losing the battles. Then they(Nyquist/Tatar) will go on an amazing run where it looks like no one can touch them. Pulkkinen brings a different dimension than then, as he is almost primarily there to shoot. But he isn't quick enough to create his own separation, so most of his shots end up as non threats.

I think pulks could turn into an awesome third line winger/pp specialist and as long as he understands thats all he is (even though he gets moved up and down the roster) and doesn't go searching for top 6 money, he should be a good depth scorer for us.

As for Kronwall, he'll be alright, hes had a revolving door of partners in smith, e, and green. Him and green look better together every game, as long as green can stay healthy and blash doesn't decide to give him another partner they'll start to gel.
Wasn't Nic Lidstrom -5 one year?

I think we're starting to see the team click, and its only going to get better as they get more experience with system.
This forum is pretty damn bi- polar though, when we lose the Sky's falling, when we win all the boo birds seem to disappear.

Certainly an exaggeration to say he's "blamed for all that's wrong", but I think he is turning into a scapegoat for the struggling offense. People nitpick him more than most players. Notice mistakes they'd overlook in others. Larkin has missed a lot of shots and had a lot blocked as well, no one notices. Every GDT has some form of "Pulkkinen sucks". People notice when he loses a battle or makes a bad play, but never notice anything good other than goals. Even those sometimes get comments like "I still hate Pulkkinen". It's irrational.


It's far too early to try to predict what Pulks can be. He's played 54 games. 11 goals and 18 points. At 54 games, Tatar had 11 goals and 21 points. Nyquist had 8 goals and 21 points, or 6 and 17 if you count playoffs. He's following the same trajectory as those two so far, and there's no reason to think he won't or can't improve the same way they did.  

#2638830 11/21 GDT : Red Wings at St. Louis Blues, 8:00 EST

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 04:45 AM

Lowest ice time of all forwards? Don't think that's right. Point is that Nyqvist and Tatar are clearly better players offensively and defensively. Nyqvist's minutes are going down despite having the most goals on the team (until Larkin got his eighth) We've got two 30 goal scorers playing the third line in favour of a guy that has less than 10 career goals that can't play D, forecheck or make any plays and is a midget. So either Blashill has a boner for him or he's being showcased

Lowest of our regular forwards. I suppose you could consider Andersson and Ferraro a regular though. 2.5 minutes less than Tatar and 3.5 less than Nyquist. In this game, he played just under 12 minutes, while Tatar and Nyquist played about 17. LA game he did play more than them, one of the few times this year. One game is hardly enough to call a trend, especially considering tonight's game.


You say he can't play defense, but his defensive metrics are among the best on the team, with similar usage to Tatar and Nyquist. You say he can't forecheck in the GDT for a game where his forecheck helped create two goals. Yeah, he's small, but no smaller than Nyquist or Tatar. And he's producing about as well as those two.


If it turns out that Tatar and Nyquist do start losing ice time to Pulks, and he's not producing enough to warrant it, then a change would be in order. But for now it looks like we might finally have three good lines. Nyquist-Sheahan-Tatar has been a good line in pretty much every game they've been together. As has Larkin-Z-Abby. Richards-Dats-Pulks has been together 2 games, been our best possession line both games, and got a goal tonight. Let it ride.


And he has 11 career goals.

#2638827 When does Larkin get the C?

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 01:59 AM

Captaincy in hockey is by far the most over-hyped, over-analyzed aspect of any sport. Whatever is in that bowl that I'm afraid to touch in the back of my refrigerator could be the captain and it wouldn't make any difference. Leadership makes a leader, not a letter on your chest. Larkin's play is already making him a leader. If he's similarly good off the ice, he's already becoming a leader there too. Whether he gets a letter tomorrow or in 5 years or never gets one, if he's really a leader, he will lead.

#2638826 11/21 GDT : Red Wings at St. Louis Blues, 8:00 EST

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2015 - 01:40 AM

I agree


We are too small and he's been gifted a top six role over better players that have proven something at the NHL level. If he didn't get that OT winner, he had a generally bad game in all three zones of the ice. Blashill utilizing him this way makes me genuinely concerned about his decision making if him and management don't have some plan for him. Swap Nyqvist/Tatar and move Pulks at third line and what happens? The second line is much better and the third line is much worse. What does this tell you about Pulkinnen? Why is this unproven rookie being carried to success over the good of the team?

He has the lowest ice-time of all our regular forwards, and has played more games with Miller/Andersson as a linemate than he's had with Datsyuk. Despite his limited use, he's one of the top producers on the team. He's not being carried to anything. He's earning everything. Except the irrational dislike so prevalent here. Definitely not earning that.

#2636838 Pulkkinen fined for diving

Posted by Buppy on 13 November 2015 - 04:01 PM

Sorry, maybe I said it in an unclear way. To me, it does seem to me that Nyquist draws a lot of penalties. He was caught for the dive of course, but I've noticed him do the chicken wing 'hold the stick so it looks like he's hooking me' thing a few times. Then there's been a bunch were he's gone down, but didn't look like a dive.


I was just hoping to see if anyone had numbers to show how many calls are with him involved. 

According to war-on-ice, Nyquist has drawn 7 penalties this year. Pulks is 2nd with 5 (tied with Larkin). Probably not a coincidence.


Like I said with Nyquist last year, the fines are a good start, but I think more needs to be done. Diving is effective, and will continue as long is it stays that way.


Good chance for Blash to set a precedent here. Give Pulks a day off, tell him to knock that crap off.

#2636062 Athanasiou recalled by Red Wings

Posted by Buppy on 09 November 2015 - 12:50 PM

+/- isn't a good stat to judge much of anything, especially in a short time frame. The issue I have with him is that he's a small one dimensional offense only winger. Doesn't skate well, not physical, no defense.

The real issue is his linemates though. Sheahan and Andersson are softer that Persian kittens, Andersson has little skill and is at best an average skater, and Sheahan is looking like he's peaked. Give him a couple guys who are better skaters and Pulk wouldn't stick out as much.

Yeah, +/- isn't worth much. But he's a pretty good skater and his defense is no worse than Tatar or Nyquist. He's leading our team in takeaways, 3rd lowest Corsi against, and been on the ice for only 3 goals against, 2 of those being empty nets.


He hasn't been playing with Sheahan by the way. Andersson and Helm for a couple, then AA replacing Helm last game. He also played with Tatar and Larkin for a few games. Plenty of good skaters. Hasn't stuck with anyone for more than a few games.

#2636058 Athanasiou recalled by Red Wings

Posted by Buppy on 09 November 2015 - 12:35 PM

Trading him is one thing. I'd have no problem with that if it were for someone who'd make us better or more balanced. But I don't get the people who think he's been bad.


As far as AA goes, I thought he was OK. Not sure he's any better than Jurco would be though. 

#2636011 Athanasiou recalled by Red Wings

Posted by Buppy on 08 November 2015 - 10:07 PM

From what I saw, aa moved up and helm got demoted.

That's when you seen helm start to turn into a wrecking ball.
I wish i could find a gift, but helm coming back and stealing the puck in the offensive zone amid a flurry of his ice spray was a beautiful photo opportunity.

I want athanasiou to be developed properly, and I don't want him to be in the position Jurco is, but if he can push helm into being a better player then it will be worth keeping him here. His speed is too good to ruin him completely anyway.

He played awesome today.

Miller-Glen-Helm was together from the start. 


... I don't know why Pulkinnen is gifted that third line scoring role with PP time he's probably our worst forward

Not sure what your problem with Pulks is. By pretty much any statistical metric, he's been one of our better forwards. 


I have a feeling he's going to be our new Franzen. No matter how well he does, some people will always think it's not enough.

#2635313 All purpose Mike Babcock thread

Posted by Buppy on 05 November 2015 - 07:46 PM


You mean aside from Dan Bylsma.  Who did the exact same thing, in the exact same year, only better.  He had even more injuries that year and won his division, and a playoff round. 


Actually, maybe Dan Bylsma is the best coach in the world when I think about it.  I mean, he's got a better win percentage than Babs AND Quenneville.  Just as many Cups as Babs (but who cares about those when evaluating coaches anyway), and he WILLED his team to a division title, the playoffs, and a first round win despite massive amounts of injuries to key players. 


Now that's impressive. 


I'm completely sour on Q now.  All he ever did was win 3 Cups and is 20 wins away from overtaking Al Arbour (in fewer games) for second all time in wins.  Which I've been reliably informed isn't all that impressive because Quenneville has coached for a long time. 


1.  Bowman

2. Bylsma

3.  Babcock

4. Arbour

5.  Quenneville. 


Seems just as plausible as any other top five eh?

Really, Kip?


Joe said nothing about Babs being the best. He even made a point to stress the "among". Yet you feel you have to attack him. Is no one allowed to say anything positive about Babcock unless they qualify it with other coaches who've done the same or better, without you mocking and belittling them?


Get over your Babcock hate.

#2635293 All purpose Mike Babcock thread

Posted by Buppy on 05 November 2015 - 03:50 PM

Its absolutely less asinine because it happens to be supported by the fact that Quenneville has more wins, and more championships than any other active coach. All opinions are not equally valid. You seem to be saying that any two opinions are, in effect, equally legitimate because they are both opinions. Which is absurd. If I said Sidney Crosby was the leagues best player, and you thought it was Steven Stamkos, your opinion would be less legitimate based on the fact that a number of facts seem to suggest otherwise.

Any opinion is only as valid as the support for it. And the profundity of evidence in this case suggests that mike Babcock isn't the leagues best coach.

The profundity of one specific, mostly arbitrary, criterion you mean. Q has more wins because he's coached 18 years to only 12 for Babs. They both have similar winning %s. Even given the wins, it's still only two criteria. I think coaching is a bit more complex than that, and it takes more than two numbers to make a valid comparison.


And no, I'm not arguing that ALL opinions are equal. I'm saying these two specific opinions are. (Granted, that in itself is only my opinion.) Don't strawman and don't misuse analogies. Even if you think they aren't exactly equal, you say yourself that you believe Babcock is one of the best. So why is it so absurd that someone might think he's better than Q that you're so offended by the suggestion?

#2635232 All purpose Mike Babcock thread

Posted by Buppy on 04 November 2015 - 11:16 PM


Lol.  Way to rewrite history.  Babcock had as good, or better, teams that Quenneville for the vast majority of his career.  Quenneville has NEVER coached a single player better than Datsyuk, Zettererg, or Lidstrom. Babcock had all three, in their primes, at the same time.  Babcock had 2 Hall of Fame goalies (yes, Osgood will get in), Quenneville has had none.  And you're trying to make it seem like he had nothing to work with.  Lol.  Even the last few years Babcock has had playoff caliber teams.  He wasn't coaching the Buffalo Sabres into the playoffs.  He was coaching a perennial winner with a number of stars, some of whom were occasionally hurt. Big deal.


The year we had the 2nd most man games lost to injury we limped into the playoffs and lost in the first round.  That same year the Pens had the MOST man games lost and won their division...and a playoff series.  Yet nobody says Bylsma is the greatest coach in the league (despite having as many Cups and a higher win percentage than Babcock I might add). 


You're selectively remembering the past to support an untenable argument.  And I don't understand why.  Canada DOES have the best coach in hockey.  A guy who consistently wins.  A guy who consistently brings out the best in his talent.  A guy who displays, and expects, excellence.  His name just isn't Mike Babcock.  Embrace it. 

Rewriting history?


You do know Quenneville started coaching before Chicago, right? Without getting into a debate on Hull-Turgeon-MacInnins-Pronger-Fuhr or Kane-Toews-Sharp-Hossa-Kieth vs what Babcock has had, Detroit was a top contender for only four years with Babcock. Another two or three as a second-tier team, and the last three being middle-of-the-pack. Not much different than Quenneville's tenure with Chicago and Colorado. True, he's had more playoff success in Chicago, but he also had a lot of failures in St.Louis. He went to Chicago with 11 years of NHL coaching experience, including several very good teams in St.Louis, plus a couple as an assistant with the Avs first Cup team. Babcock had two years. Maybe if Babcock had had more experience when he took over with the Wings, we would have had more success. Maybe not.


But really, picking a best coach is pretty much impossible. It's too hard to quantify the coach's impact. It's practically impossible to pick a best player, even with a boatload of individual stats to help. There are no individual stats for coaches. Only team results. No two coaches are ever in the same situation, so you can't even make direct comparisons. Best you can do is look at a guys general success level and say "he's one of the best". That's all most people actually say about Babcock, and also what most people say about Quenneville. That one or two people here may hold the opinion that Babs is the best is no different than you believing that Queneville is. It's an opinion and nothing more.


Both are great. Both have missed the playoffs only once (so far). Q had a bubble team the year he was fired in StL, but they did end up making it even though they didn't really improve any after he left. Both have made the finals 3 times. Similar winning% both regular season and playoffs. Both have had a PT winner lose in the first round. Both usually have only been beaten by better teams in the playoffs, with several losses to eventual Cup winners between them. Basically the only difference is Q has won a couple big games where Babs has lost a couple, and Babs succeeded in a couple big opportunities than Q was never given. Whether the results would have been any different if the roles were reversed is something we can only guess at. Your guess is no more valid than anyone else's. Personally, I think guessing at all is silly. A team would be lucky to have either of them.