Jump to content


Buppy's Photo

Buppy

Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:14 AM
****-

#2081028 Chicago fans last night

Posted by Buppy on 18 December 2010 - 07:58 PM

Well, I can't produce links. My sources are "people in the know". I don't blame you for not believing me. That's the way it happened, I'm sorry. My source actually likes Chelios and was likely one of the fans cheering him last night. Even if he is only guilty of changing his mind about detroit its still treasonous and he knows it....

Errrr he knows what he did.

I'll say up front that I don't know the whole situation regarding Federov but you guys booed him and he was one of the greats...Just read an article quoting Federov as saying they were call him a "commie" I guess... he said something like: "don't they know the Cold War is over?" LOL

He didn't "simply leave the team". I can go on and on about why they booed him. And I have but people don't get it. I just don't see how the fans are classless for booing and again it wasn't nearly 100%. There are still many people who respect what he did and those people cheered, I assume. Just not fair that Redmond painted all Hawks fans with the same brush, but I understand cause I know he loved Chelios and won 2 cups with the wings.


He didn't 'do' anything other than 'simply leave the team'. There is nothing 'treasonous' about playing for a rival. There have been literally hundreds of players to do so in NHL history. But that's really beside the point. Like I said earlier, there is a time and place for it. During an honors ceremony commemorating past crontributions is not it.

Booing a former player when he's playing against you as a member of a rival team, like Fedorov, is fine. But if Fedorov were to be honored here, or we hold some celebration of the Cup wins he was a part of, I wouldn't expect him to get booed, and would think anyone doing so was disrespectful and classless. As Chelios said, let bygones be bygones.

You even said yourself that he shouldn't have been booed, so what exactly are you defending?

Do you really think anyone is suggesting that every single Hawks fan is classless? Mickey made a generalization about the Hawk fans in attendence. I think he even said something to the effect of 'not all of them' but it doesn't matter. It was a generalization, and many fans here are doing the same thing.

Have we as humans devolved into such PC ******* that we can't suffer hearing a generalization, even though everyone knows that generalizations are not, nor are even intended, to be taken as absolutes? We're criticizing Hawks fans as classless for booing Cheli. If you weren't booing him, it should go without saying that the criticism doesn't apply to you. Should we have provided a list of names of those we're referring to, so no precious innocent feelings are hurt? Grow af****** shell.

Chicago fans should be embarassed by that display. It was classless. That doesn't mean every single fan is classless.

Chicago fans should be proud of the fantastic parade and celebration following their Cup win. That doesn't mean every single fan was a model of good sportsmanship and grace in victory. Did you run around the internet telling everyone praising the Hawk fans then not to make generalizations?


#2080997 Chicago fans last night

Posted by Buppy on 18 December 2010 - 05:58 PM

Alright Gnida is a maroon.

Hawks fans are not classless/disrespectful or whatever for booing him. There were half cheers and half boos any way. He knew he was going to get booed; he told his wife. And despite what you people think, he did in fact negotiate a trade to the red wings. After declaring his "hatred" for the wings. He's from Chicago. Hawks fans had every right to boo him. Just because a google search doesn't find any results for "chelios negotiated trade to detroit" doesn't mean it didn't happen. It did. He, in fact, asked someone else in the organization to talk to Wirtz. That person refused and Chelios had to ask on his own. Chelios then had his agent come up with the deal to detroit. He said he hated detroit and is from Chicago(Evergreen Park actually, its just outside the far southwest side)then subsequently went there when he realized the team was going to s***. Sorry, that is betrayal of the highest form and he got what he deserved and he knew it was coming.

...

First of all, no matter what the circumstances of his departure were, it's still classless to jeer a former player on a night you're supposed to be honoring them. It's a sports rivalry, not af****** holy war. (And at the time of the trade, and even now, it's barely a legit rivalry. Though I guess Chicago fans would have a different perspective.) Boo him as a player, fine. There's a time and place for it, but last night was not it. If you can't show some respect and appreciation, at least remain silent. If you can't even do that, you're an ass. End of story.

Secondly, unless you can actually produce some evidence no one is going to believe any nonsense about Chelios negotiating his own trade. I'm sure he wanted to go to a contender. At the time that meant Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, or Dallas (and maybe St.Louis). I think I even remember Holland and Co. wanting to talk to him in person, to make sure he was willing to play here. But I've seen nothing to suggest he was guilty of anything more than changing his mind about never playing for Detroit. The unsubstantiated accusations sound even more petty and ridiculous than the jeering last night.

As for the picture, Chelios was a Wings player at the time the picture was taken, and the teams were actually playing later that night. Maybe it was a superstition thing.

And are Chicago fans really criticizing Chelios for taking the Cup to his hometown, like every other player does with their Cup day?


#2079673 Tomas Kopecky

Posted by Buppy on 17 December 2010 - 12:10 AM

As I said before, plus/minus is a worthless statistic. It can be affected positively or negatively without a player having any effect on the play.

Datsyuk wins the faceoff, passes to Zetterberg, Z shoots and scores. Homer, Lidstrom, and Stuart all get pluses also. Most of the opposing team's players wouldn't have had any chance to affect the play, yet they get a minus.

Tell me Crymson, what makes it such a wonderful stat when there's no way of telling how much effect a player actually has on it?

And there are times players are awarded assists without really doing anything to deserve them. There are times players deserve assists but don't get them. Hell, players can score goals without really doing anything. Hits, giveaways, and takeaways are all subjectively awarded.

Stats only tell part of the story. So what. You still only bothered to mention the stats that worked in favor of your argument. Somehow I doubt you'd have left it out if he was a +9.


#2078376 Babcock considers having 'warm, gooey spot' for Chris Osgood

Posted by Buppy on 15 December 2010 - 02:19 PM

Stats for last 4 starts.

Howard: 1-3-0, 15 GA, 3.79 GAA, 123 shots/108 saves, .878 save%
Osgood: 2-1-1, 9 GA, 2.22 GAA, 119 shots/110 saves, .924 save%


#2076773 Worst Jerseys Ever

Posted by Buppy on 12 December 2010 - 06:50 PM

Don we now our *** apparel...

I don't mind a little Christmas spirit, but that's going a bit too far. Seriously, did they not think the team name and logo were bad enough?

Makes me want to punch a kitten.


#2076546 Daniel Larsson's comments on Osgood&Howard

Posted by Buppy on 12 December 2010 - 01:05 AM

Everyone is getting all worked up but it is true. Does anyone here actually not think Ozzie is done? And he really did outplay Howard in Grand Rapids. Maybe he shouldn't have said it but what he said is true

Not really.

Larsson was hot for his first 20 games or so in the AHL. Then he cooled off and never got back to that level in the next season and a half. Howard had better stats for the year (except W/L record) and started for GR in the playoffs.

Ozzie has been solid in 5 of 6 starts this year. He was good at the start of last year with a couple exceptions. Even after Howard took the starting job, Ozzie wasn't as bad as most think.

Larsson's a ******.


#2071975 Teams of the Decade?

Posted by Buppy on 02 December 2010 - 06:22 PM

... The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

My point was that it doesn't matter.

Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one.

Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 200th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.

[edit: decades did start at 0]


#2071618 Democracy doesn't work

Posted by Buppy on 01 December 2010 - 04:54 PM

A solution would be one vote per email address

Not giving a damn is an even better solution. It's a completely meaningless hockey game.


#2068570 Babs says Miller and Eaves will both play

Posted by Buppy on 25 November 2010 - 06:57 PM

I have no idea where you get that idea from. If we trade him for someone his cap goes off the books whether it is today or at the deadline.
...

The cap is calculated on a day by day basis. There's 96 days until the trade deadline. Hudler's daily hit is $15,457. That's $1,483,872 in cap space we could bank for later use. Assuming no other roster changes, that money plus the $618,280 for the last 40 days after the deadline would be worth the equivalent of $9.775M in yearly salary. More than three times the space we would have if we waited.


#2067268 Marc Staal destroys Matt Stajan

Posted by Buppy on 22 November 2010 - 11:50 PM

perron wasn't paying attention either

Perron was paying attention to the pass he was about to receive, Stajan was carrying the puck with his head down. Huge difference.

This hit looks pretty clean by the rules. Still, Staal could have easily aimed for the near shoulder instead of the chest and the hit would have been just as effective, but less injurious.


#2062936 Welcome to Detroit

Posted by Buppy on 14 November 2010 - 12:50 AM

Statistic's tend to sharpen with the amount of information gone in, using a hockey season is a lot different than judging hundred's of thousands of people. I probably should have used "practically" instead of "literally", that's my fault on the word usage concerning third world countries. But the amount of corrupt behavior I've seen in the active government, the lack of law-enforcement, the lack of basic modern human needs in the area just left me with very few comparisons. The homeless/crime etc. rate are worse in Detroit than those other cities, and there ARE less people, which makes it that much more depressing. It's not a matter of too many people for shelter, it's a matter of basic human survival needs for an area with room too support a large number of people, it's just been a complete mismanagement of local government.

I'm not making light of a third world control as I'm focusing the light on the real problems of the city, and to say I'm trolling about a situation that I care so much about is offensive.

I applaud my friends for their efforts, but I almost feel it's wasted energy when the real matters of the city lie in the government and schools. Sure having a nice downtown is great, but I almost see the problem spreading outwards from the city. Lincoln Park, and Dearborn for example have become even more dangerous the last 10-15 years, it's not just Detroit, it's spreading to surrounding border area's. Warrendale for example has been completely trashed, I went to a Catholic school right off Warren, and it's now just a complete disaster area. I just feel the pockets of perfection have no impact on the roots of the problems, I suppose it doesn't hurt, but to act like it's a gigantic leap and a huge victory for the city is sad and hurting the city more than it's helping it.

To think that Detroit isn't as bad as it's made out to be because you can walk a couple blocks in the downtown to me is besides the point, and almost masks the major problems within the city. That's all I mean by that, I'm sincerely not trying to be offensive, but basing this on my experiences and observations from growing up in the city. I'm not being a hater, I'm being realistic, and doing what I feel needs to be done so the area can become what it once was.

Highlighting the positives is a lot less damaging than those who act like stepping across 8 mile is akin to storming the beaches of Normandy.

Statistically speaking, there are far more safe areas in the city than there are dangerous ones. And even in the most dangerous areas, it is statistically unlikely that you'd be victimized, assuming you take the same simple precautions you'd take in any public place, and assuming you're not engaged in any shadiness yourself. In 2008, there were about 20,000 violent crimes reported, and about 60,000 property crimes. 900,000+ live in the city and who knows how many of the 5 million+ from the greater metro area visit or work there every day. Statistically, the danger is similar to driving a car.

I know several people who are afraid to go to the city, even in the day time. People who wouldn't even consider something like a hockey game at night. Accentuating the negative aspects of the city only serves to foster the stigma of fear attached to the city, and keep away the people and money that could help improve the area. Bad politicians are a problem, sure. But even the best politicians couldn't help anything if people are too afraid to visit.

The root cause of Detroit's problem is poverty, same as pretty much every 'bad' place on the planet. We need people with money to invest in the area. We need those people to not be afraid of making the investment. For that we need the regular people to not be afraid of visiting or relocating downtown. We need people to realize that while it may be relatively dangerous compared to some suburban areas, it isn't all that bad, and with more people and more money infused into the area it will improve. There's evidence of that in Foxtown, several riverfront communities, the new condos and townhomes along Woodward...and most of that happened under the reign of one of the worst mayors/city councils Detroit has ever had.

We don't need people visting the projects or sight-seeing around abandoned buildings or touring vacant lots and parks at night. Unless you're looking for crack or a $5 BJ there isn't any reason to anyway. So the worst areas are largely irrelevent. We want people coming to the best areas, the safest areas. The more people that visit and spend money in those areas, the more those areas expand and as a matter of consequence the worst areas shrink and are driven farther away.

Sorry for getting so political, and yeah, this thread should probably be moved now.


#2057834 Get ready folks, hitting is about to exit our game

Posted by Buppy on 05 November 2010 - 03:29 AM

Are we really going to have one of these threads for every penalized hit this season?

Just to save time, here's the Reader's Digest quotable quotes:
"End of hockey as we know it"
"Blindside headshot, what's the problem?"
"Clean hit, should have kept his head up"
"Clear elbow, 2 games"
"Soandso is dirty"
"Players today have no respect"
"Get rid of the instigator rule, problem solved"

There, that pretty much sums up the 200 threads we'll have on this subject throughout the season.

It's a new rule, there's going to be a period of adjustment for the refs, the players, and the fans. Deal with it.


#2057547 How about these lines?

Posted by Buppy on 04 November 2010 - 02:20 PM

Ericsson-Kronwall-Kindl
Helm-Rafalski-Modano
Howard-Osgood-McCollum
Stuart-Franzen-Zetterberg
Datsyuk

Filppula-Eaves
Draper-Bertuzzi
Cleary-Abdelkader
Lidstrom

Holmstrom
Hudler


No offense, but that's stupid. Relying far too much on goalie chemistry for that third line. I know Ozzie is tied for third all-time in goals by a goalie, but he can't carry a line by himself. Swap Stuart and Howie, and McCollum needs top-line minutes in GR to develop. Salei is a stud, no idea why you left him out. And why on earth would you have a dinosaur like Homer starting in goal when we have Miller? Do you not know who Miller's brother is?


#2046286 Hjalmarsson Cheap Shot on Jason Pominville

Posted by Buppy on 14 October 2010 - 04:40 AM

...As for the Hjalmarsson hit. It was called boarding on the ice. If it was a hit from behind, why wasn't checking from behind called? I don't know how you can hit someone from behind with your feet in front of the player while playing the puck at the same time. Pominville looked at him coming twice(TWSS). But he didn't brace for the hit at all which caused his dome to bounce off the glass. Which btw, is seamless and I'm sure didn't help... And he clearly didn't charge or leave his feet or elbow him. There is no way in hell this was a dirty hit, btw. Not af****** chance. No malice whatsoever. It is quite obvious that Hjalmarsson is not a dirty player, with no previous notorious behavior. I don't see how it is anything but a knee jerk reaction. I'm not trying to sound biased(I know I though) but it honestly just doesn't look like a hit that is worthy of a 2 game suspension. ...

His upper arm was squarely between Pominville's numbers. Pominville wasn't wearing his jersey backwards, so that is a hit from behind. It wasn't called checking from behind because it was called a boarding major. Checking from behind is rarely called in the NHL, since it is normally superseded by a boarding call. I'm not sure why you seem to think boarding can't happen on a hit from behind. Checking from behind and a boarding major both have the same on ice penalties, and both are subject to suplementary discipline. Both are among the most serious penalties. This hit could have been called either way, not that it makes any difference. Boarding is still a dirty hit worthy of suspension.

And just because Pominville saw Hjalmarsson coming (assuming he actually noticed him) doesn't mean he knew the hit was coming. Perhaps the reason he didn't brace himself is because Hjalmarsson was coming from behind him, and he knew he shouldn't have been in danger of being hit like that. 'He should have protected himself' is not an excuse for a cheapshot.

It was a dirty hit. That's why everyone outside Chicago has been calling it a dirty hit. That's why he was suspended.


#2045805 10/12 GDT: Avalanche 5 at Red Wings 4 (SO)

Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2010 - 02:06 AM

...The facts are simple: you posted about how Howard was solely at fault, ...

Normally I wouldn't intrude on a nice argument, but I just had to post my appreciation of the fantastic irony of your complaint when your initial response to him was to do the exact same thing, just calling out a different player. Bravo. :clap: