Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 11:35 AM
****-

#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.




#2633854 Jeff Blashill = Dave Lewis 2.0 / Coaching Change

Posted by Buppy on 28 October 2015 - 09:26 PM

This thread...

 

You know, if my mother were alive today, I would ask her to make me some potato salad. Because the stuff they call potato salad at Meijer is crap. I bet it's not even made by Amish people. Liars. 




#2632818 Roster Moves by the Wings

Posted by Buppy on 24 October 2015 - 12:51 PM

Our whole organization and fanbase thinks our 4th line guys are irreplaceable. Its absurd. Why cant we score when we arent on the pp? We average 163 lbs per forward and we play slow, career 4th liners over fast, young guys. Its pretty simple.

Subtract Miller and Andersson.

Add Athanasiou and Nosek.

Immediate team improvement.

But Miller is so good on the pk. But Andersson is so good at faceoffs. But but but...

We need to FRIKING SCORE!!!

What's absurd is your obsession with Miller.

 

We have one of the fastest teams in the league, we're having a problem with puck movement, not skating speed. Our smallest line last night was by far our best. Only 4 of our 18 goals have come on the PP. You don't fix our scoring by replacing the 4th line with kids who haven't even shown they can score consistently in the AHL.

 

Quit with the stupid hyperbole. Miller is a good role player, and no one here would say anything more. 4th line winger is the least important position in the lineup. Even if he was a problem, which he isn't, he is literally the least of our problems.

 

The 2nd and 3rd lines looked good for once. Unfortunately they couldn't cash in last night, but if they keep playing like that they will. (I'd rather see Jurco on the 3rd, with Glendening bumping Andersson from the 4th though.) I would like to see AA get a shot if Richards is going to be out, give him a real opportunity rather than plug him in a role he's not suited for.




#2632456 Jeff Blashill = Dave Lewis 2.0 / Coaching Change

Posted by Buppy on 23 October 2015 - 03:06 PM

Bowman went 1-5 in his first 6 games here. Lewis was 4-2.




#2631957 10/17 GDT: Detroit Red Wings @ Montreal Canadiens, 7:00 EST

Posted by Buppy on 20 October 2015 - 09:45 AM

 

I really don't know how to make this more clear. Our team's goals against average is slightly above average (statistically).  And it's negatively skewed by our bad penalty kill (30% of the goals scored against us have been powerplay goals).  So our PK is bad.  Not our defense.  30% is terrible. 

 

For context, 13% of the goals we've scored have been on the PP.  30% for them.  13% for us. 

 

We also have the tenth most penalty minutes per game (most of which were taken by forwards). 

 

If you're shorthanded all the time, and you're not very good at killing penalties, you A) Don't get shots, B) Get shot on more often, C) Get scored on more (remember that 30%). 

 

Through 5 games, we've been abysmal offensively and on special teams.  Our goaltending and defense have both been decent to above average.  And that's why we're 3-2.  Any attempt to paint some "the defense is just as bad as the offense and special teams" argument is completely ignoring reality. 

 

Through 5 games, the defense is the least of our concerns. 

Over the last 3 years around 22% of all goals scored have been on the PP. 30% may look "terrible", and would be if it stayed that way for the whole year, but given it's so early in the year it's meaningless. It's one goal. If your stats can so easily be skewed by just one or two goals, you need to take them with a grain of salt. Shot attempts are a much better indicator at this point since they are much more frequent events. Even that, given how little time we've spent on special teams, isn't very good. 

 

I said in the other thread; pretty much everything has been bad this year. That includes the defense. Maybe not as inept statistically as the offense, but just as bad as special teams, and much worse than the goaltending.

 

Furthermore, I think most people would include the PK in the broader "defense" category. Certainly possible to be good on one but poor on the other, but they're not exactly separate.

 

Further-furthermore, there's "defense" in the sense of our ability to prevent goals, which is a product of both our defensemen and forwards (most people I think exclude the goalie from team defense). But I think when it was initially brought up, "defense" was meant in the sense of our group of defensemen, and includes both the defensive and offensive contributions.

 

Bottom line is we can't hold on to the puck. When we lose it, we have trouble getting it back. We have the same problem at every strength. It means we generate few shots, allow a lot, and take more penalties. 




#2631943 Roster Moves by the Wings

Posted by Buppy on 19 October 2015 - 09:35 PM

...

For the 5 games we've played, our defense hasn't been bad.  We haven't gotten scored on much, and when we have, a disproportionate amount of the goals (30%) have been powerplay goals. 

 

...

 

I agree.  One of the ways to get more shots, and stop the other team from taking shots, is to take fewer penalties and be more successful on your special teams.  Something we're currently not doing, and which is adversely affecting the team.  Much more so than the "bad defense" in fact. 

That first part isn't actually true. 2.6 GA is not good. 17th in the league, and compared with recent seasons would also be in the middle of the pack. Our team save% is 12th at 5v5, 10th or 11th all situations (war-on-ice and hockeyanalysis differ slightly). Relative to recent seasons, it's high. In the past three years, only 9 teams have finished with a higher overall save%, and none by much (Wings 92.22 .vs highest 93.34). 5v5, our current 93.7 has been bettered only once: 94.04 by Boston. Shots against are high relative to recent averages (likely inflating the save% some), and shots for is abysmal. 

 

I don't really want to get into the numbers, only 5 games in they're far too easily skewed. Fact is, pretty much every facet of the game has been bad. Our goalies have been excellent and our GF is good thanks to an unsustainably high shooting%. Everything else has been bad, and almost every player has been bad in at least some respects.

 

The fortunate, or maybe unfortunate, thing is that's it's all related. We have been a terrible possession team thus far. Every issue we have is the result of that. It's far too early to determine if it's a systemic problem, or just a bad stretch. If that gets better, and at least close to what we've done in the recent past, everything else should improve. Save% and GF might drop, but should at least stay pretty good.

 

Individually, Larkin, Pulkkinen, Nyquist, Quincey, and Zetterberg have been our best possession players. The only ones over 46% 5v5. Kindl, Sheahan and Abby not much below. Not coincidentally I think, those players have accounted for all of our 5v5 scoring. Pretty much the same for all situations. Quincey drops a bit, Richards and Green move up.

 

Pulkkinen, Nyquist, and Sheahan, despite decent percentages, aren't creating many opportunities. They aren't giving up many either, but just not doing quite enough to break through the defense. Larkin has been our best at generating offense, with Z and Abby a bit behind him. Tatar has been the biggest problem so far, though Richards, Green, and Kronwall all need to improve.

 

I think it's more an issue of just playing better rather than line combos, but I think we need a shakeup. I can't really come up with a set of lines that looks good to me without Datsyuk. I'd like to see Larkin or Helm with Pulk and Sheahan. Put Nyquist with Z and Abby, but that leaves Tatar and Richards together. Maybe Larkin or Helm could get them going, but that combo has been terrible so far. 

 

I don't know. Get well soon, Pavel.




#2631225 I think this might be finally it for the Mule, Sadly

Posted by Buppy on 16 October 2015 - 06:15 PM

I think the requirements for IR is seven days, not games. Don't think there is any game limit. To qualify for LTIR is 10 games and 24 days.

 

Also worth noting that LTIR isn't really a separate list. It's a cap relief exemption for players on IR for a long time. There's no point in claiming it right now, since we're already claiming Datsyuk. There's no benefit, and all it would do is make Franzen ineligible for a while. Teams never use LTIR unless they need it for cap reasons.

 

edit: It may not even be possible to claim LTIR for Franzen right now, since we're not even using all of Datsyuk's. Point is, we can't read anything into the "he's only on short-term IR" thing. 




#2631197 Why Is The Joe Half Empty?

Posted by Buppy on 16 October 2015 - 03:10 PM

I live in Detroit, but I work afternoons. Though I promise; the next weekday home game with a 1 am start, I'll be there.




#2631041 Roster Moves by the Wings

Posted by Buppy on 15 October 2015 - 07:00 PM

http://www.scientifi...n-glass-liquid/

 

Yeah, it's an amorphous solid: between solid and liquid.

Scientists with their words and anti-liquid agendas.




#2630876 Teams you didn't expect to still be winless

Posted by Buppy on 15 October 2015 - 12:18 AM

I can't really be too surprised by anything that happens over the course of a few games. But the Ducks scoring 1 goal in their first 3 games comes close.