Jump to content

haroldsnepsts's Photo


Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Private

#2368364 Perry hit. Thoughts?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 March 2013 - 12:04 PM

And I am saying I don't think it necessarily will be, because you not only have to make contact with the head (principal point), but you also have to target the head.  I don't believe the head was targeted.  He could get suspended for interference though, that was actually the call on the play, not an illegal check to the head.

That's where it gets weird with the league.  


By their definition of "targeted" it doesn't have to mean the the player is clearly trying to hit a guy in the head.  There were cases where because of what they deemed was a recklessly thrown hit by the player, the head was essentially targeted.  Unintentional but reckless, so still targeted.  


Here's the NHL explanation video.  Talk of the hits starts about 3 mins in.  They show examples of illegal and legal hits to the head. 


#2368324 Why shootouts may be a bad thing

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 March 2013 - 10:09 AM

I was gonna mention the Kane thing too.  Look ma, I can skate 1/4 mph and stick handle!  When I play NHL 13, if I take too long, they blow the play down.  Why don't they do that in real life?  Is there supposed to be a time limit?

And that Canucks SO goal was bogus.



The league apparently has language specifically saying the spin-o-rama is legal for shootouts, but that Canucks goal it was so clear he came to a complete stop and was actually moving away from the goalie when he scored.  Neither the player nor the puck were moving forward when he scored. 



I'd love to think that if there's enough players scoring in ways that make it even less about hockey, eventually they'll get rid of the shootout.  I know it's a pipe dream though. 

#2368322 Perry hit. Thoughts?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 13 March 2013 - 10:06 AM

Zucker was admiring his pass but Perry's hit looks late, and he sort of throws his upper body up to try and catch more of him, which ends up just contacting more of his head. 


Aside from looking late, that's a tough angle to throw a hit.  Given the distance Zucker was from the boards, there's little chance this hit would end well.  If Perry had hit more of his body he likely would've sent Zucker flying head first into the boards.  


I don't think it was a malicious elbow or anything but it was a bad decision by Perry. 

#2367886 'Top Pairing D-Man

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 March 2013 - 11:25 PM

I can't remember who said it but pointed out that the loss of Lidstrom and Detroit's generally less talented blueline not only affects the defense.  The forwards will struggle because the puck is not being moved up ice as effectively.  


It's definitely true.  Defensively they've looked better, but they're still struggling to break out of their own zone and establish themselves in the offensive zone effectively. 


Lidstrom is obviously a huge loss in that department, but I think the loss of Rafalski was a huge blow that's now more visible since Lids is no longer there to pick up the slack. 

#2367885 Why shootouts may be a bad thing

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 March 2013 - 11:20 PM

To add to this... anybody watch Boston vs Ottawa... I would have to lose the game on a move such as that...

I thought for sure that's what this thread was about.  :lol:


there's no way that move should be legal. Not because of the way he puts his stick on the puck, that part only highlights how stupid the event is because guys can take their time and do whatever weird thing they want since they have all the time in the world.  It has little to do with hockey and should not decide a game.  


But it, and most spin-o-ramas I've seen should be illegal because he clearly comes to a complete stop right at the goalie and tries to jam it home.  He's no longer moving forward in any way.


And what's with the "may be?"  The shootout is definitely a bad thing.  ;)

#2367783 Kindl

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 March 2013 - 12:58 PM

To my surprise Kindl is actually starting to look like a legit NHL defenseman. He still has some trouble handling the puck sometimes, and is a little sloppy with his passing, but he has far surpassed my expectations in all other areas of the game. Even his slapshot has improved quite a bit. But more so I'm noticing he's become more solid defensively. At this point, I think it's safe to say Kindl has officially earned his Winged Wheel and will never see Grand Rapids again.

I think Kindl's one of the better D men at getting his shot off quickly on the blueline and getting it through.  Kronwall has become the king of firing it into shinpads. 


With Kindl it's always been about consistency and willingness to get hit to make a play.  

#2367739 Holland says those dreaded words, "Our Deadline Addition"

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 March 2013 - 09:27 AM

Colo wasn't insane, we had no defensive depth at all at that point. Imagine if Lashoff and Kindl didnt come out of nowhere this year, our D on paper is rough. Sammy, besides being a right handed shot, was a pure panic move though.

It's just frustrating that without all the injuries Lashoff wouldn't have even sniffed the ice in the NHL this year because of Holland's "overly ripe" philosophy.


Instead he's played 21 games averaging over 18 minutes and has looked surprisingly poised for a rookie. 

#2366605 anyone else kinda happy about the injuries this year?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 March 2013 - 09:56 AM

and if Sammy wasn't signed, Nyquist or Tatar could have started the season here.  but he's injured, so it's all good in da hood.  maybe this will send a message that the Wings need to play younger, more durable players and not give multi year deals to old news.

especially ones with No Trade Clauses. 

#2366500 anyone else kinda happy about the injuries this year?

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 March 2013 - 10:07 PM

If Lashoff had ever gotten the chance to play before, Kenny might have realized he didn't need to sign guys like Cola and/or Huskins.

The overly ripe philosophy definitely has its drawbacks. It's unfortunate it requires injuries for them to even get a shot but it's nice to see the younger guys getting a chance.

#2366034 Holland says those dreaded words, "Our Deadline Addition"

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 March 2013 - 11:30 AM

Honestly if they do make a move It better be a big one with someone who has years on their contract.  Because unless something dramatic happens with this team over the remainder of the season, they are not one playoff rental away from a deep Cup run.  That should've happened the last two seasons.


 If Holland is going to give up assets it should be for a guy who'll be here for a while and help the rebuild.  

#2366029 Should Visors Be Mandatory In The NHL

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 07 March 2013 - 11:17 AM

His PREMISE that gives the NHL player the right to choose whether or not he wants to wear a visor is being a grown man playing a tough sport. That is true, correct?

The thread is "Should visors be mandatory in the NHL." 


His post was:

Grown men, playing a tough sport so it should be 100 % the players choice, if they want to wear one. Having said that, as with Kevlar socks I think after the first major injury if they still refuse to wear more protection like gear they should pay a bit of their insurance by themselves (based on their salary).
It's pretty clear he is saying in regards to visors he thinks it should  be 100% a players choice.  He made no claims about other sports or other protective equipment.  Your post claiming he's saying NFL players shouldn't have to wear helmets has nothing to do with his statement.
You either misinterpreted what he was saying or misrepresented it just to argue.  I'm not going to diagram it out for you any more than that so I suggest you drop it. 

#2364738 Babs on last night's D: "...best we've had all year."

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 04 March 2013 - 02:32 PM

Relax, Snepts!

+/- is a meaningful stat to rate a player at his position. You cant say Quincey is better than Kronwall because of the +/- gap. What you can say is that it appears Quincey is shutting down the 2nd and 3rd lines of the other teams, while it appears Kronwall is just breaking even about against the other teams' top line. What is more valuable? Kronwall breaking even against the top lines of other teams, in my opinion. Id love to see Kronwall a +2 with 31 points this year and Quincey a +19 with 11 points. That would mean our defense is holding its own across the top 3 lines of other teams. Especially with our piss poor offense this season.

The more you explain what Quincey's plus-minus shows, the more you make my case about it being mostly useless and widely misinterpreted.  


You're using the stat to demonstrate something it's absolutely not built for.  Here's a decent explanation of the weaknesses and common misuses of the stat. 



#2364581 Babs on last night's D: "...best we've had all year."

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 03 March 2013 - 10:03 PM

not a useless stat. All of you who say that are retarted. sure it does not define someone but its not useless

First, if you're going to call someone retarded, it carries more weight when you spell it correctly. 


Second, it's best not to call anyone that here, especially not a moderator.  Here's the forum rules for reference. I'd focus on the personal attack and respecting moderators stuff.



Third, it is a mostly useless stat.

#2364366 3/3 GDT : Blackhawks 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 03 March 2013 - 03:27 PM

I guess it depends on if you like the shootout or not.  I like them.  I am assuming you don't like them by your statement.


I would much rather have a game ending with a winner/loser in a shootout than a tie.  I thought the amount of ties in hockey before the shootout were absurd.

I'm  not just reacting to Kane and the shootout loss.  I've always hated the it. 


It's a terrible way to decide a game and by its artificial nature requires keeping the loser point.  I'd much rather have ten minutes of 4 on 4 OT, then just call it a tie if no one scores and both teams get a point.  


If someone does score then two points to the winner, no points for losing. Ever. 


I grew up watching hockey in the 80s so there were ties.  It really only got bad in the clutch and grab era.  Watching a slow boring hockey game ending in a tie.  

#2364338 3/3 GDT : Blackhawks 2 at Red Wings 1 (SO)

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 03 March 2013 - 03:17 PM

What?  Skate slowly toward the goalie and score?  No other player has the skill to do what Kane does thats for sure.


I'm not sure what your point is in regards to my post.  I wasn't questioning Kane's skill.  He takes the rules to the limit and uses his skill to score.  


When in a hockey game would you be able to come to an almost complete stop for that much time to make that many moves?  Never.  Someone would bury you.  


My point was using an artificially constructed event to decide a hockey game, and Kane's near stops highlights the absurdity of it.