Jump to content

toby91_ca's Photo


Member Since 28 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:12 PM

#2310102 Shanahan snubbed from HoF induction

Posted by toby91_ca on 26 June 2012 - 02:55 PM

this is really emberassing. Sundin over Shanny...

yep... talk about HHOF offices being in Toronto and this being no how correlated with votes... :)


If you think about it though, what arguments do you have for Shanahan over Sundin? Yes, he scored more goals, but Sundin still had 564 goals. Sundin scored the same number of points (give or take a few) in almost 200 less games. I also think Sundin's international experience is a little more accomplished than Shanny's.

I think Shanhan's very low points per game stat hurt him. He'll get in eventuall though. If you look at this year's list, I could argue Shanny over Sundin, Oates or Bure, but you could argue the other way too. The only non-argument would be that Sakic is a lock over them all.

Oates...much better ppg than Shanny, but after that, not much to say.

Bure....the question mark there is the fact his career was cut short....did he do enough? I think his talents were superior to Shanahan's, his gpg and ppg stats blow Shanny's out of the water, but that has been shown in the past not to matter much when you are talking about shorter careers. Bure waited awhile to get in though.
  • Nev likes this

#2301762 Standing sections in the NHL

Posted by toby91_ca on 17 May 2012 - 09:11 AM

??? - I've always had a seat to games I've gone to, but I think most rinks in the NHL sell standing room only tickets.

#2288797 Retribution for clean hits...

Posted by toby91_ca on 16 April 2012 - 10:04 AM

Burrows is anything but a goon. He's a spot-picking rat. Had a "goon" been on the ice, I doubt Burrows goes after Kopitar.

But yes, the rough stuff after clean hits is annoying as hell. In essence, it deters hitting.

That's exactly the point. When someone on your team gets hit hard....clean or not, you want to send a message that they will need to pay whenever they do that.....try to deter hitting the future, that's exactly what they are trying to accomplish. To be honest, I'd be unhappy if my team didn't respond to hard hits, you have to show that you won't get pushed around.

Another thing to think about....I bet that hit isn't made of it wasn't Sedin...they target star players and try to punish them, you need to respond. If the hit is dirty, the response would be a lot more violent.

#2276829 Playoff seeding & Divison winners

Posted by toby91_ca on 01 April 2012 - 09:17 PM

Some already benefit from weak division, and why should they benefit even more. Pens and Flyers playing in the first round is kind of silly for example.

#2273177 Another Ref Called Out By Vancouver

Posted by toby91_ca on 23 March 2012 - 02:12 PM

the responses on here are hilarious. this one is my fav:

"All the american teams,cannot skate or play hockey with the Canucks , so they try to even things up by sending their goons after our star players. Nowadays it is the dirtiest , filthiest team that is 'awarded' the Stanley Cup , notice i did'nt say 'win' the cup , cause no american team is capable of 'winning' the Stanley Cup."

Now, I'm assuming that response is from a Canadian....I am now embarrased to share a country with someone like that, but anyway, his/her statement is so ironic:

Last year's playoff teams:

Vancouver - 14 Canadians, 5 Americans
Boston - 15 Canadians, 1 American

#2273117 Do the Pens Have the Cup Locked Up?

Posted by toby91_ca on 23 March 2012 - 09:09 AM

Well let's take a look at this.

The '96 Wings team lost to another power house, the Avs. It's not like the Avs snuck into the playoffs, they were #2 in the west by a large margin.

The '09 Sharks lost to Anaheim, a team that was 2 years removed from a cup. The same team that came close to beating the Wings.

The '09 Wings lost to the Pens, in game 7 of the finals. The Pens were #2 in the East, and had made the finals the year prior.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is those examples don't really showcase the "anything can happen" mentality. The teams that won had every right to win. You rarely see low seeds winning the Cup. They are a low seed for a reason. The '09 Anaheim team is probably the best 8 seed in the past decade.

Couple comments:

'96 - yes, teh Avs were #2 in the West, but the West was pretty s***ty, #3 had 94pts. They were 10pts up on #3, but Detroit was 27pts ahead of them.

'09 - Anaheim was not only the 8th seed in the West, they were actually the worst team (points wise) going into the playoffs (East and West combined) that year.

It is true...anything can happen in a 7 game series, nothing is guaranteed. There are several examples of that, some of which apply to Detroit (2006 is another good example). How about the '86 Oilers. They scored 424 goals in the regular season, they finished 30pts ahead of the team that beat them in the playoffs.

#2272330 Crosby

Posted by toby91_ca on 20 March 2012 - 09:52 PM

He's easily the best 3rd line Centre in the league right now. Wonder how much better he'll get when his minutes increase and he gets better linemates.

#2271356 Crosby

Posted by toby91_ca on 18 March 2012 - 09:32 AM

Crosby is arguably the best offensive player in the game right now. But He's not far and away better than others. Gotta be careful how we can get carried away with that. There are talents close to that level as well in the NHL.

With that said, I'm looking forward to him getting Kronwalled in the finals :).

If you are talking pure offensively, yes, he is far and away better. If he hadn't gotten hurt last year, he would likely have scored close to 65 goals and won the scoring title by 30+ points. If healthy this year, probably even more than that.

#2271354 Crosby

Posted by toby91_ca on 18 March 2012 - 09:24 AM

17 pts, +12 in 10 games. Pretty impressive after all the time he's missed. What he showed before getting hurt last year and in the small sample size this year, no one is even close offensively. He's good defensively as well, just not the best. Why do so many people try to argue defensive ability is so much more important than offensive when you are talking about best all-around forward? I can understand when you are talking about a one-dimensional player, but he's not.

Another point of reference....the players voted him the best a few weeks ago even though he had only played 8 games a few months before the poll.

#2270580 Need to get Lidstrom back soon

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 March 2012 - 12:07 PM

last time nick was out an extended period of time (8 games) something sweet happened that year.

chill the f*** out.

It was 6 games, not 8, but that's not the point. I can't speak for everyone else, but it's not this year that I am worried about....at all.

#2265368 Lidstrom to win Norris trophy?

Posted by toby91_ca on 01 March 2012 - 10:59 AM

This to a "T"

They will never vote Lidstrom an 8th trophy just because that would mean that people would have to admit that Lidstrom is just as good as or even better than Orr ever was. So by that fact alone, Lids will retire with 7 Norris Trophies.

On that note, if I am making a team and picking players from their prime, Lidstrom gets picked before Orr...

I think that is absolutely asinine. If you want to argue that people won't give him Norris because they don't want to admit Lidstrom is just as good or better, those same people could just fall back on this:

Orr, ignoring his rookie year, effectively played 8 seasons in the NHL, in those 8 seasons he has won:

- 8 Norris trophies
- 3 Hart trophies
- 2 Conn Smythe trophies
- 2 Art Ross trophies

Some would argue that if his career was not cut short, he could have won 15-20 Norris trophies.

His offensive stats have been great, his defensive stats have been meh.

The problem is that there really are no defensive stats. Any stats you find that you can try and present as defensive stats are subjective at best.

That's the problem I always have with trying to determine who the best is defensively. You can do that with the Wings because you watch them play all the time. You can't really assess a player's defensive play without watching them all the time. Unless you watch every player just as much as every other player, you will never be able to form an objective view.

#2257179 Blackhawks' Losing Streak: Nine Games and Counting

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 February 2012 - 01:26 PM

I think they are just trying to get a record of their own since the Wings just got one. Another 9 losses in a row and they'll have the record.

#2257165 22 is the actual record

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 February 2012 - 12:53 PM

Doesn't Detroit hold the record for most consecutive road wins, also?

Yes...look back a few posts :P

#2257093 22 is the actual record

Posted by toby91_ca on 15 February 2012 - 10:05 AM

Yeah, i'm not sure why they were all types of up in arms about it. It's that and the fact that 4 of them have been OT/SO winners. The Wings can never just get a pat on the back, haters gonna hate. I was hoping someone had alittle more of a background story about it though.

The OT/SO (especially SO) is a legitimate point though....it's impact is quite huge. That doesn't keep anyone from patting them on the back though...it's jut pointing out a fact.

#2256438 Rinaldo gets two games for the charge on Big E

Posted by toby91_ca on 14 February 2012 - 10:05 AM

OK. Rewatched. The difference might be that Kronwall turned to his back and didn't target the head.

Rinaldo didn't target the head either though. I agreed with everything Shanny said, it was clearly a charge, which is why it should have been a penalty. I don't see why there is a suspension though. I guess what Rinaldo did last week weighed heavily into this as I don't see how what he did is worse than what Kronwall has done...see earlier video in this thread.

Leaving your feet to make a hit does not = suspension automatically. In a lot of cases, such a hit may target the head and will be suspensions, but when they don't, I think it's just a charging penalty.

He didn't target the head and the NHL agrees he didn't, otherwise, he would have gotten more than 2 games. If they wanted to suspend him, they should have done so last week.

dont know if that deserved a suspension... Ericsson shouldn't have been looking behind him. These concussion rules are so dumb (not that this was a hit to the head).

You are correct, Big E shouldn't have been doing what he did, but that doesn't mean he should get hit the way he did. I agree with no suspension though.