Jump to content


haroldsnepsts's Photo

haroldsnepsts

Member Since 11 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 11:42 PM
***--

#2203798 Crosby's 2012 Season now in Question

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 15 August 2011 - 11:59 AM

Karma for all the diving he did/does when he barely gets tapped....now he knows what a real hit feels like!

...besides, he come back and play half the season and they will "give" him another trophy, the Masterson Trophy. Then they will fill the NHL airwaves full of talk about what heart and dedication he has, and how he is the only "true champion" for coming back from his injury. I can see Eddie Olczyk (and Carmen) wiping the jizz off his face already.

I have no sympathy for him as a player (as a person I do hope he is ok to live a nice life,) this is what happens when you start believing the hype and think you are bigger than the game...the game stands up at the blueline and knocks you out...Eric Lindros part II...

I have several issues with this:

What has Crosby done to give indication that he is "bigger than the game?"
He didn't get his concussions from getting stood up at the blueline.
Lindros kept skating through the middle with his head down, probably from growing up playing against guys so much littler than him. This is no way the same thing as what happened to Crosby.
Crosby isn't even in the top ten of divers in the league. He did it more early in his career, but he's nowhere near what half the Vancouver and Sharks teams were doing in the playoffs.


True, but the only reason this is going to hurt the league, is because, as you pointed out, they've dedicated like 90%+ of their player marketing soley to Crosby.

I've always felt this was absolutely retarded, for this exact reason. What happens if he gets seriously injured and is out for a long period of time, or worse, his career is ended early? You screwed yourself. If they had decided to market a lot of great players instead of putting all their eggs in the Crosby basket, then if one of those players gets hurt, it doesn't have as adverse of an effect on the league. Hopefully they will learn from this, but honestly, they probably won't.

Losing one of the best players to ever play the game is going to hurt the league for more than marketing reasons.

I get sick of all the Crosby marketing and wish they'd spend more time promoting other players, but that's not Crosby's fault.

Honestly I hate the little f***. I think he's still kind of immature and he has some little-***** like quality that's easy to hate. But he's 24 years old. There's still time to grow up. And he's an incredibly talented player who works his ass off.

I just don't get how so many hockey fans would want one of the best players in the game not to be able to play. Even if just to hate him when the Wings play. I've hated a lot of great players over the year, in part for that reason, because they were great and they kept schooling my favorite players. But it makes it so satisfying when you defeat them. It makes for great rivalries.


#2203466 The best deal that NEVER happened

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 August 2011 - 12:39 PM

Not exactly a deal, but I think the best one that never happened is not getting Lafontaine as the #4 pick in 1983, so the Wings had to go with their second choice.


#2203460 Third line players who suck

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 12 August 2011 - 12:27 PM


From Dec 2nd through Jan 22nd, Savard played 25 games and scored 2 goals and 8 assists. In that same time span, Hudler scored 3 goals and 8 assists in 24 games. Remarkably similar stats. You can go on about a non-concussed Savard, but what about a Hudler that hadn't gone to the KHL? Maybe he's an All-Star scorer and Selke contender. We don't have the "maybe what if" numbers. If you want those, we can get Jason Williams' injury history involved.

So in his 13 season career, you're going to use 25 games where he was returning from a devastating concussion to call Savard a third line forward? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Hudler was playing professional hockey in the KHL, while Savard was hoping headaches and other concussion symptoms would go away so he could start working out again. It's not nearly the same thing. And unlike your example with Hudler maybe being an all-star scorer, Savard has actually been just that. Twice. It's not speculation. It's happened.

Before the 25 game sample you've cherrypicked between his concussions, Savard had 33 points in 41 games. Before that when he was playing pretty much full seasons his point totals were 88, 78, 96 and 97. In other words, take most of Hudler's stats and double them, and you'll be around Savard's totals.

If you're trying to make a case to people that Hudler isn't as bad as people say he is compared to other third line players in the league (which is a relatively sound argument) you only weaken your case and credibility with crazy ass things like including Savard in the mix.

And making threats about derailing this thread with your absurd Jason Williams argument doesn't exactly strengthen your case either. Unlike Williams, Savard has put up impressive points totals in one single season.


In terms of raw talent, Hudler is the third most talented forward on the team. He had a terrible start o last year, and followed it up with a stellar second half. What most people are ultimately upset about is the fact that he is so talented, yet hasn't brought a huge year because of his size and speed. I'm expecting Filppula to start getting the same kind of hate soon; we're already seeing the "trade Flip for a real top-six forward and give Helm his job" stuff, and Flip has yet to really prove he can really be a second line center, when he's been paid like one for years.

It's like Brian Rafalski. People loved the signing, until he got older and was not one of the top five or ten best defensemen in the league. Then he became an overpaid liability and the worst defenseman on the team, even though he was still getting Norris votes.

Third?

Who is he in front of? Zetterberg? Franzen? It's sure not Dats.

Flip does get hate here, but even when he's underperforming offensively year after year, he's a solid two way center who can handle the second line. Hudler has zero other positive attributes other than scoring. So when he's not doing that, he's dead weight in the lineup. Especially when you consider that Flip only makes $125k more than Hudler, and they put up virtually the same point totals.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone is eagerly waiting for Flip to produce more offensively, but when he's not, he's at least still useful.


#2203284 Jason Williams signs 1 year contract with Pittsburgh

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 11 August 2011 - 11:20 AM

I said "a second liner, ideally a power forward". If I were saying he was a power forward, I'd have simply said "A second line power forward".

Think. You're smart. Use your brain.

Wow. Really? That's you're response to this simple misunderstanding?

Forget it Eva. All the s*** you get from people here you bring on yourself with dickish responses like this one.


#2203184 Jason Williams signs 1 year contract with Pittsburgh

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 August 2011 - 05:31 PM


Williams averaged over 20 goals and 50 points every 82 games he played from 2005-06 through 2008-09. It didn't affect his play, but it might have affected his health. In 2009-10 and 2010-11 his production slipped considerably compared to that average, although he didn't play many games or many minutes. If he gets a scoring role in Pittsburgh, he could post excellent numbers and be one of if not the best signing of the offseason.

I should have figured you made this same baseless claim in the this thread.

It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. Williams has in no way averaged 50 points PER SEASON which is all that really matters.

Williams turning out to be the best signing of the offseason would be awful, because it could only mean that some tragedy wiped out a massive number of players in the NHL before the season started.


If you want to have the Franzen and Gretzky arguments (I'm not sure how they got involved in a Williams discussion) maybe you should start a new thread.


#2203183 Brett Lebda traded to Nashville

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 10 August 2011 - 05:22 PM

<_< Can't we keep the Jason "Friggin'" Williams talk in the Jason "Friggin'" Williams thread?

good point.

If I want to beat my head against a wall about Williams, I should be doing it in that thread. Sorry for the derailment.


#2203063 Carcillo opens his yapper...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 09 August 2011 - 07:25 PM

Perry was not embarrassed. He won that fight.

No he didn't. It was a draw.

And for Perry to fight to a draw against Datsyuk is almost as bad as a loss for him.

He had an opportunity to lay a beatdown on one of the Wings star players. A guy he had a considerable size advantage over and one who isn't even a fighter.

And Perry managed a friggin draw.


#2202927 Brett Lebda traded to Nashville

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 August 2011 - 08:17 PM

Williams' 58 point season was his highest point total season in that span, but he scored 36 in 43 for Chicago in 2007-08 - pace for close to 70 points on a full healthy season, and 47 in 80 games between Atlanta and Columbus (29 in 39 in Columbus) in 2008-09.

So Williams' offensive output was pretty consistent as a 50+ point player, aside from his 2006-07 season when he scored a measly 32 points.

As for the "Eva math" comment; that 20-31-51 is his total output from 2005-06 through 2008-09, averaged down to 82 games. It's not the "let's project 11 games to 82" that I am often criticized for.

Jason Williams scored over 50 points once in his 10 year NHL career. I can't believe I even have to say this, but that does not make him a consistent 50+ point player, no matter what kind of fuzzy math you use. In the real world, playing real hockey, he cracked 50 points in a season one time.

And averaging his career output since 2006 down to 82 games makes as little sense as projecting 11 games to 82. It in no way is any indication of the kind of goalscorer he was.


#2202916 San Jose Sharks

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 August 2011 - 07:01 PM

I disagree with this, in fact there are cases where it appears to be extremely unequal, but I also think that it doesn't really matter. If you get all the lucky breaks and win, you still win; if all the bounces go against you and you lose, you still haven't accomplished what you wanted. But it also doesn't mean you can't be successful with that lineup. If two teams are evenly matched one will still lose.

Although I also agree that the Wings were outplayed and got what they deserved especially in Games 1 and 2 last season. And in general didn't get enough scoring from their secondary guys while the Sharks did.

I know what you're saying, but I would also argue that the better team is usually the one getting these "lucky breaks" or at the very least they're less affected by bad bounces. Also, a lot of times a team can look like they're not getting a break because they're getting soundly outplayed.


#2202862 San Jose Sharks

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 08 August 2011 - 12:37 PM

They're built to get lucky bounces and help from the refs against the Wings? Cool story, bud.

C'mon Crymson, you're making me agree with a guy named stinky fish taco for chrissakes. Sometimes the Wings actually lose playoff games because they got outplayed.


Stop making excuses. It makes us Wings fans sound like some pathetic losers.

Sharks beat us both times. Plain and simple. They won 4 games in both series and we didn't. We had our chances to win and didn't get it done.

This whining about bounces and refs is getting old.

this. Over a 7 game series the bounces and questionable calls generally work themselves out.

i agree with u but u have to admit that those first 2 games were very close and sj seemed to get alot of luck while the wings got none. those first 2 games anyway.

The team working the hardest tends to have the most luck. In 2008 that was the Wings.


#2202261 Weber Arbitration hearing...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 03 August 2011 - 04:28 PM

http://www.nhl.com/i...od-rr-headlines

its all over. well we can always make a stab at him next year (though theyll prolly just take him to arb again), or go for suter. 7.5 mill is alot of money

This part of the article blows my mind.

Weber, who earned $4.5 million last season, when he was a finalist for the Norris Trophy, reportedly asked for an $8.5 million reward while the Predators countered at $4.75 million.


Unless the term was 15 years or something, they might as well just offered a bag of pucks. It would have been equally insulting.


#2201072 Osgood should(n't) be included in the HoF...

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 26 July 2011 - 11:56 AM

Here are some interesting stats I found on a different site. Just some points to possibly consider:

Out of curiosity, what site?

I think Ozzy is on the bubble for getting in, but holy misuse of statistics. How about a little context?

Interesting stats regarding Chris Osgood, when arguing with pro-Hall people:

- Without the shootout, he would have 391 wins, not 401

- The Red Wings had a .629 win percentage with him in net, but .640 when he wasn’t in the net


what's the sample size? Are you talking about when he was on the team but not starting?

- During Osgood’s career, the average save percentage of all goalies in the NHL was 0.9059. Osgood’s was 0.9051. Call it even. But that means half the goalies were better, half worse.

It doesn't mean that actually. And I'm curious who compiled the list of save percentage for every goalie in the league during the specific time of Ozzy's career, minus his stats of course. Seems unlikely they got that right.

- On Osgood’s various teams, his career GAA was 2.49. The other goalies on those teams during that time boasted 2.47.

Doesn't mean much. It compares backups to starters. Backups usually face easier competition and don't start as many games. And again, it seems unlikely that someone piled that exact stat, accounting for the games where Ozzy started versus the other goalie on the team.

- While he was the DET goalie, he won three cups in 14 seasons (one as a backup). But during the three years that he was not in Detroit, they still won one. So winning Cups 21% of the time with him there (less if you consider he was backup once)…versus winning the Cup 33% of the time with him not there.

This "stat" makes no sense. You're trying to make him look bad by using percentages where it's not a relevant measure. I could just as easily say that of the 4 Cups the Red Wings have won in the last 50 years, Osgood was there for three of them. So there seems to be a high correlation between Osgood and the Wings winning the Cup, right?

- He’s eighth in career playoff wins. He’s also 11th in career playoff losses.

That looks pretty damning, but I guess you forgot to list who was in front of him for losses. Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Cujo, Hall, Moog, Vernon, Barasso, Esposito and Fuhr. Not exactly bad company. When you're in the playoffs a lot, you're going to lose more than a lot of goalies. Ty Conklin must be a great goalie because he's only ever lost one playoffs game, right?

- He’s clutch? His regular season win percentage is .603.

Actually a site I found had him listed at .539. That's still good enough for 6th on the all time list, ahead of Roy and Hasek. Dryden was #1 with .650. Dryden was a great goalie who spent his career on one of the greatest dynasties of all time.

His playoff win percentage is .574. He is 2-4 in Game 7 games. Yes, pretty clutch

You didn't mention that puts him at #14 all time, with many of the goalies in front of him playing significantly fewer games. or that Hasek is at .546, Brodeur is at .547. I guess they don't belong in the hall either?

- He lost the starting gig to Manny Legace and Garth Snow. I don’t think a Hall-of-Famer ever lost his starting job to anybody ever while in his prime.

Eva took care of this last one.


#2200907 Kris Draper announces retirement

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 25 July 2011 - 01:14 PM

This one has been picking up some minuses, but how could you disagree?

We needed these guys to bow out at some point, and these guys (Malts, Drap, Raffi, Ozzie) showed alot of class and humility when they decided to hang them up.

Just because the guys who are replacing them havent shown what they can do yet, they will this season. They just need their chance.

Im really looking forward to this season.

Much like the Ozzy thread, it's more about not being an ******* than the actual truth of the statement.

I think it's best for the Wings to give young guys a chance and for Drapes to hang 'em up. But he's been a warrior for the Wings and no matter what's best for the team, it's at the same time a little sad to see him go.

So there's a time and a place to dance a little jig about him retiring. Unless you're doing it just to bait people and troll, this pretty clearly isn't the place.


#2200478 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 July 2011 - 06:28 PM

If you put the standard as Yzerman and Lidstrom and applied it to other teams, you'd have to tear down a lot of numbers. If you put the standard as Osgood for goalies, you'd have to tear down some numbers.

What is significant?

You have to go back to 1973-74 season to find a player other than Yzerman, Lidstrom, or Sergei Fedorov who has played more than a decade in Detroit, started his career in Detroit, and was a key player and top player for as long as Osgood was. The player in 1973-74? Alex Delvecchio. Before that, it's 1971 and Gordie Howe.

Norm Ullman in 1968 is deserving, and should have a banner - especially since his number is already retired anyway. But that probably won't happen.

Osgood is definitely a Hall of Fame goalie. A 400-game winner with six 30-win seasons, two Cups, three finals appearances, one of the best winning percentages of all-time, and his only losing season was his second-to-last year, when he was fighting injuries the whole season on a team with the second-most man-games lost to injury that season.

There is a major difference between the unofficial retirements of Fischer, Aurie, and Konstantinov's numbers. Fischer and Konstantinov only played here a few years. Konstantinov may have deserved retirement had he not had his accident. Fischer likely not, although he was very good and on the verge of becoming an elite defenseman. Aurie's number was retired by the club, but no banner was ever hung and it now is not considered retired; it is simply not available for use. Osgood's contributions to the team were greater than any of those three.

At which point, naturally, comes the Shanahan argument. Why shouldn't Shanahan's number be retired? Shanahan wasn't as important as Yzerman or Fedorov, for one. He also didn't begin his career as a Red Wing, which does seem to have an effect on consideration. Finally, would you consider the third-best forward or the starting goaltender more important to a team, whether that team be good or bad? I vote goalie. Very few dominant teams in history, if any, have been so with a bunch of star forwards, one or two good defensemen, and a mediocre goalie. Edmonton is the closest example I can think of, and both Fuhr and Moog were among the better goalies in the league. The team was so stacked they could have kept Gretzky, and started trading some of the less important assets around him for cash, picks, and inferior players. Why not trade Messier and Fuhr instead of Gretzky?

Retire #30.

Osgood's personal achievements are light. That's the knock against him in the HHOF and retiring his number. He has an impressive resume, but he was never really a star in this league. He was never really considered among the top of his position.

I really don't get your line of reasoning. It's as if you're trying to prove Ozzy's number should be retired by naming people who shouldn't have theirs retired. And what does trading Messier or Fuhr have to do with anything??

You're also putting way too much weight on being a Wing for a long time. Yes that's a factor, because you want to retire a number of a player who is associated first and foremost with that team and considered synonymous with the organization (unlike the Avs retiring Bourque's number), but it requires a lot more than that.

And to be clear, I like Ozzy. I've been a fan over the years and defended him here countless times. But I still don't think he warrants having his number retired.


#2200475 Chris Osgood announces retirement

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 22 July 2011 - 06:18 PM



Very few players have played as long for the Wings as Osgood has. Even fewer have been top players for the Wings as many years as Osgood was. So the "so many guys, so few numbers" argument is invalid. With that argument, you could have two teams that are both twenty years old, both have won two Cups in that time and have had similar success. One has constantly changed its roster, six or seven new guys per year, while the other typically sticks to the sme roster, maybe one or two tweaks at most. Which team is more likely to retire a player's number?

Actually that doesn't invalidate that argument, you just disagree with it.

Because Ozzy played for the Wings for a long time and racked up an impressive resume does not some how erase the significance that in their entire history, the Wings have officially retired six numbers. The point still holds that the Wings use an extremely high standard for retiring numbers.