Where Skaters Start and Pucks End Up
by J.P. on Aug 12, 2009 10:00 AM EDT
Email
Print
A couple of days ago we pointed to a post over at Puck Prospectus demonstrating that when teams lose draws in the defensive zone, they're asking for trouble. To paraphrase The Falconer, where you start shifts matters - all else equal, territorial advantage leads to outshooting opponents, outscoring them, and, eventually, planning Cup parades.
For the 2008-09 Caps, this territorial advantage at even strength was pronounced, with play starting in the offensive zone 33% of the time, as opposed to just 27% of faceoffs occurring in their own end. The result was that the Caps outshot their opponents by a 33.5 to 29.5 margin overall (despite opponents having 15% more power plays), which led to the eighth-best five-on-five ratio in the League, 50 wins, and so on.
But who was doing the heavy lifting at five-aside and who was coasting? A couple of charts should shed some light on that question.
This first chart (click to enlarge) shows individuals' Corsi Rating (defined here) against their average starting position for an even strength faceoff (for example, Jeff Schultz started 1.2 more even strength shifts per game in the offensive zone than in his own zone). [One thing to note is that these "faceoff positions" don't account for shifts started on the fly, but I'm not sure that would have much of an impact on the distribution in the charts below.]
So what do we see here (other than a nifty "trendline")? To begin with, Boyd Gordon started far more shifts in the defensive zone than at the other end of the ice, and his Corsi Rating (CR) showed it - it's difficult to establish much in the way of offense when you're starting most shifts nearly 200 feet from the opponent's net. David Steckel, on the other hand, also was used more in his own end, but managed a positive CR. Chris Clark got "bad" positioning and made things even worse. Other players - most notably Schultz (who played with high-quality teammates and against low-quality opponents) - didn't take advantage of their starting position, at least with respect to CR, while the usual suspects (i.e. Young Guns) did (and Mike Green was either utilized far more often in the offensive zone because of his skill set... or he was kept out of the D-zone for the same reason). Finally, guys like Sergei Fedorov, Eric Fehr and Karl Alzner did a lot with a little here.
Backing up for a moment to Green, it'll come as no surprise that he led the team's defensemen in 5-on-5 ice time. But not only did he have a more favorable starting position than his fellow blueliners (as shown above), but he also was on the ice for fewer defensive zone draws per game than any of them. By contrast, minute-munching forwards Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom each averaged more D-zone shifts than defensive specialist Steckel (though they obviously averaged a ton more offensive zone draws than Stecks, which is why they're so far out to the right on the chart above).
Of course, outscoring your opponent is ultimately what the game is all about, so let's take a look at individual players' 5-on-5 goals for per sixty minus their goals against, plotted against that same faceoff position axis:
The results are similar, but there are some important differences. First off, you'll see a trio of Caps in the lower right portion of the chart in what The Falconer calls "The Quadrant of Shame." These three - Matt Bradley, John Erskine and Viktor Kozlov - all started more shift in the offensive zone than in the defensive zone and managed to be on the wrong side of zero in terms of goals for/against. Not good. [On a sidenote, no Cap was in the opposite corner (The Quadrant of Heroism?) as generating a positive plus/minus with negative starting position, but that's exactly where you'd find the Flyers' Mike Knuble. Think he's an upgrade over Kozlov?]
Also standing out here are a couple of relatively small samples on the blueline, namely Tyler Sloan and Alzner. Sloan outplayed his Corsi Rating in this metric, while Alzner went the other way and ended up even, despite a strong CR.
There's a lot more to these charts, but getting a feel for who's going "above and beyond" and who's just along for the ride at even strength is helpful. Tomorrow: more on Faceoff Position.
108 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Totally fascinating. Makes a real argument for the import of David Steckel to this team.
On this part: “By contrast, minute-munching forwards Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom each averaged more D-zone shifts than defensive specialist David Steckel…” it’d be interesting to see the data broken out by in-the-third-period, ahead-and-behind… that is, I suspect that 8 and 19 are only ‘competitive’ with Stecks there because they take every draw late in the third when the Caps are down, regardless of where it is. Those add up fast.
i don’t see how this makes a case for steckel as much as it makes the case against schultz, brash, bradley.
i realize that corsi is one of many metrics (and that schultz fares better in the GFON/60 chart), but shouldn’t we be looking at how far a player drifts below the trend line?
steckel manages a positive corsi despite starting ~.02-.03 more shifts a game in the defensive zone than in the offensive zone….but gordon and steckel are nearly identical in relation to the trend line. i think the point is that gordon ought to have a lower corsi because he’s at a relative disadvantage to steckel (and everyone else on the team, for that matter). neither player really separates from the pack in this graph.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 12, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m OK with my fourth liners and defensive stoppers having a negative GA 5/5. If Gordon is out all the time against the other team’s superstars, and he manages to reduce (but not totally stop) their scoring while supplying very little offense himself, that’s fine. That’s his role.
by Gould Old Days on Aug 12, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Very interesting post. It looks like this also highlights Fedorov’s subtle offensive contributions this past season.
If Knuble is in the context of replacing Kozlov, and B-Mo for Nylander, the real question mark for the team is who will step up and fill Sergei’s skates? He often felt like the most reliable two-way player, a solid face-off guy, and a great veteran. I feel like the team is going to be better overall, but is certainly not better for having lost him to the KHL.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
I saw BMo intended as being more of a replacement for Sergei. I mean, Nyls didn’t really play last year, so he shouldn’t need a replacement. If you also consider that Feds was brought in as a replacement for Nylander in the first place, then it makes sense.
He’s a replacement for both, I’d say. It would take a big year, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he alone matches their combined production from last season.
If all he does is replace Fedorov in terms of raw production, it’ll be a disappointment (either because he didn’t mesh, or because he got injured). Same with Nylander’s.
I could only pipe-dream that Bourque replaces Brashear and the cycle-a-minute squad starts netting chances.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
“Quadrant of Shame” will have to be incorporated into our Project review today somehow. It’s way too good not to…
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
And to complete a Simpsons reference, I suggest “Quadrant of Triumph” instead of “Quadrant of Heroism.”
A wise choice.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 12, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great work guys. I feel vindicated in maintaining that Kozlov was overrated all year and was not the rug that tied the top line together.
interesting though that kozy fairs so poorly in GFON/60 – GAON/60, and yet quite well in corsi rating. does this relate to the strength of his shot (to his shooting percentage)? as in, he’s putting shots on net but the net effect on his plus/minus is poor? this could be my elementary understanding of corsi speaking.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 12, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
It reflects that he played with AO, who shot a ton, but didn’t really do anything himself.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
clear now. for a second i was confusing corsi as a measure of shots taken by the player himself, not by his entire line/team while he’s on the ice. corsi also doesn’t factor shots actually on goal, correct? just shots “directed at net”? AO will continue inflating his teammates’ corsi ratings until he retires.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 12, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
So how does he get the high Corsi benefit of playing with AO but not have the benefit of the GF-GA/60? It would seem the difference between where Kozlov is plotted and where AO/Backstrom are plotted is going to come from when Kozlov is not playing with AO/Backstrom.
Right – he didn’t always play with AO, and when he didn’t (which wasn’t a ton), his GF-GA stunk.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
My initial answer is “It’s cuz Kozlov sucks and plays with no heart or stones.” I don’t know why the stats came out like they did, considering who he played with all year. What I do know is that he is an immense waste of raw skill and wasn’t all that valuable to the team last year (though no doubt he’d be top ten in our current rankings exercise). I don’t think it has to do with his shooting percentage, though.
It’s important to stress that “Faceoff Position” is as much a measure of Boudreau’s strategies as it is the skills of the individual players. Mike Green is on the ice for a lot of O-zone draws because he’s very good at getting the puck up the ice where it might be frozen, fly into the stands, etc. But he also sees a lot of O-zone draws because Boudreau asks him to jump over the boards when there’s a draw in the opponents’ zone.
by Gould Old Days on Aug 12, 2009 10:40 AM EDT reply actions
I tend to disagree – I think “Faceoff Position” here is more a measure of Boudreau’s strategies than is the skills of the individual players. On every single draw, he decides who he puts (or keeps) out there.
Faceoff Position is not meant to represent skill at all (though one can infer things by it), merely to note who’s starting where.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
And as noted here ad absurdem last season, few NHL coaches are more resistant to line-matching than BB.
If true, then who is on the ice is more a “random” event with respect to where they start (i.e., there is no “plan”), which would argue generally that position is important. It is the field position argument from football. The further downfield you start a drive, the better the chances you score.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Aug 12, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s entirely random – there’s a reason Poti led the team in D-zone draws per game and Green was last among D’s. But I do think that Gabby is less-prone to line-matching than his peers.
And yeah, this is starting field position, with a bit of scoring thrown in. Later this week I plan to look at who’s moving the chains, to continue the football analogy.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
and here’s some interesting data to back this up.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Aug 12, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Helps explain why Poti has had so little offense the last couple years. Though I’m not sure I agree with the “Hardest” and “Easiest” labels. Generating offense from the blue line ain’t any easier or harder than stopping goals.
by Gould Old Days on Aug 12, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he needs to line-match every shift, but having Gordo and the 4th line against a line like the Richards-Gagne or Crosby/Malkin lines is asking for trouble.
by red army line on Aug 12, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Eh. Gordon’s our best player for shadowing Crosby if that’s the game plan. I think the problem is that BB doesn’t make that the game plan, so the line doesn’t play the way it needs to.
I think Gabby doesn’t line-match because he’s not going to let the other guy dictate how much ice time his guys get. And, theoretically, Alex Ovechkin’s line has a better chance of outscoring Sidney Crosby’s line than Gordo’s line would (and if every line outscores their opposite trio, victory!).
Really, there’s a strong theoretical argument for not line-matching.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Yeah, no argument here. But there’s also something to be said for changing the game plan a bit more when your shutdown/defensive lines are out there, even if you’re not line matching.
What I mean is, it shouldn’t be asking for trouble to have Gordo out there against Crosby, because we know Gordo can shadow Crosby and be darn effective at it. If his line is used in that way when it’s on the ice (whether he’s matching specifically to a certain player in a certain situation, or whether he’s doing it for whomever is on the ice at the time) then it shouldn’t be a liability.
I don’t mean him specifically, but how good are Gordon’s linemates at shadowing?
by red army line on Aug 13, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions
And now 87 has wingers who can make plays themselves, meaning shadowing one guy won’t work
by red army line on Aug 13, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, wonderful post. I’ll be combing this concept over a couple times through to really make sense of it all, but it’s insight like this that sets the Rink so far above its peers.
+1.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 12, 2009 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
it’s insight like this that sets the Rink so far above its peers.
This. You could send this post out (and the secondary assist one, while I’m at it) and learn the opposition a thing or two.
Bubba approves.
from the house that Red Jesus built
by bigonetimer on Aug 12, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Do other SBN hockey blogs generate so much traffic?
by red army line on Aug 12, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Great data. Further evidence that no one does less with more than 92.
from the house that Red Jesus built
What I get from this (if my understanding of Corsi rating is correct) is that a lot of our D (Alzner, ShaMo, Juice, and Erskine) are starting plays in the offensive zone and the team is generating a lot of shots while they’re out there, but they’re also giving up goals at a troubling rate (all near or below 0). Could this be any kind of indication of bad positioning by our D (or crashing too far)? If I’m reading/understanding this correctly, hopefully that’s something the new coach can help improve.
It also stands out to me that Schultz has a much better GFON/60-GAON/60, but a lower Corsi Rating than those 4 (while, as noted, generally playing against better competition and also starting a lot more shifts in the offensive zone).
The data suggests that Jeff Schultz will be the most improved D in the NHL if he figures out what to do in the offensive zone.
I don’t think Schultz is ever going to do much in the offensive zone but I think MB_10 hit on a really good point. Schultz’s GF-GA/60 is better than his Corsi, which to me suggests that Schultz is keeping the quality of shots against down, even if there are more shots. That is a huge skill that isn’t easily quantifiable by statistics (until now?). It’s not just how many shots, it’s where they come from too (think about how many times the Caps put up 40 shots from the perimeter and got nothing).
by Rob Parker on Aug 12, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yup. Schultz’s positioning, size, smarts and reach keep guys outside. That’s the kind of subtle-but-critical play a good D makes that some fans miss.
No, Schultz sucks…don’t you read message boards?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Aug 12, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well he surely reads OFB so I think he got the message.
by Rob Parker on Aug 12, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I second that, especially in the light of our boys being down 3-1 to the fading Rangers in the first round. They did exactly that to us, allowing OV & Co. to “bombs away” from the perimeter with nary a quality scoring chance to be had. I hope the coaching staff picks up some lessons from that series and at least tries incorporating some of them to lock things down defensively. I don’t feel very comfortable with a Capitals team trying to win all their games 6-5 because they think they’re so bloody good on offense that they don’t need to take it up a notch on D.
Enter Coach Woods…
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
by war_capitals on Aug 12, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks F&B, this goes a ways to explain schultz’s data points.
by Natty Bumppo on Aug 12, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Good point – Would the data also suggest that Schultz will be the most improved D in the NHL if he gets better teammates on the ice when he’s in the offensive zone? If I remember correctly, Schultz was pretty middle of the pack, but still below people like Green and Morrisonn who have much higher Corsi ratings (but still somehow worse GF-GA/60 – so Schultz does more with less).
Also Alzner had pretty low quality teammates, but pretty high quality of competition, which could explain the horrible nosedive when comparing his GF-GA v. Corsi (i.e. the offense can’t score when starting in the offensive zone because they just aren’t good scorers period)
Most improved D in the NHL is out of his control. Who knows, maybe some other guy makes huge strides and becomes a stud out of nowhere. I do think that Schultz will continue to develop but I doubt he’ll ever do much in the offensive zone. Schultz won’t hit his 300th NHL game until 2010-11 at the earliest so he’s still got some progression to do based on the normal NHL D curve.
Feds
Fedorov actually had the highest Corso rating among all skaters last year (min 30 games). His Corsi rating was 24.8. And guess who was 2nd…Eric Fehr with 23.9
http://www.behindthenet.ca/2008/basic_5_on_5.php?sort=9&mingp=30&mintoi=&team=&pos=
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
by winterion on Aug 12, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ha. Nice. Looks like Mel Brooks.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
coached like him, too.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Aug 12, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I thought old football cards had these guys in funny action poses. If the most athleticism he showed was properly connecting his chin-strap, well… to the TV booth with ya.
I have my own personal ax to grind with this other Lee, since he’s been hating on my Mountaineers for 20+ years now…
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
by war_capitals on Aug 12, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Small sample size, but it suggests to me that Tyler Sloan doesn’t get enough credit either. I’d be curious to see what happens with a bigger sample size.
I’m going to read this through again when I’m not averaging 6 hours between work departure and work arrival time.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Delores Ibarruri
Serious work/life UNbalance!
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
- Ferris Bueller
by war_capitals on Aug 12, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Sixteen years, $70.4m? Last six years at $800 to 500k? It’s all the rage.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
50 years, $100 million? He’s durable and inspired enough. 500k/season for the last 40 years on that deal.
by red army line on Aug 12, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Fascinating to see Poti at the far left of the charts among defensemen, and Green on the far right. Really emphasizes what Boudreau was doing last year. If there was an o-zone draw, Green and his partner hit the ice. If it was a d-zone draw, Poti and his partner went out there.
It’s hard to blame Poti for his lack of offense after seeing this.
(and sorry if I’m repeating myself — just drawing connections between a couple of things)
J.P., Your interpretation of the second chart is off. It’s not really appropriate to criticize Bradley or Erskine just because they are in the bottom right quadrant, because they are very close to the line of best fit. They are not meaningfully worse in this metric than Alzner, Jurcina, Flash, Morrisonn, or Ovechkin. The players who look bad are Kozlov, Nylander, and Clark (Morrisonn’s not looking good either). What quadrant you are in is not as relevant as how far away you are from the line of best fit.
I agree with that. But I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize guys who started with beneficial positioning and managed to be on the ice for more goals against than goals for. As little as, say, Nylander did with his advantageous starting positions, he still was on the ice for more goals for than against, which ultimately is the name of the game.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I strenuously disagree. Bradley’s performance in this metric is almost identical to Ovechkin’s and much better than Nylander’s. You are failing to account for context. If Bradley and Nylander swapped starting positions, you would see that Bradley is basically average while condemning the Nylander disaster. The players have no control over their starting positions, so we can only judge them on the basis of how they performed relative to the expectations for their opportunities.
If you ignore context, you’re right that Nylander being on the ice appeared to be better for the Caps than Bradley being on the ice. But the whole point of your post was to account for context. When you acknowledge the effect of starting position, you have to credit Bradley for the relatively unfavorable position he was given and criticize Nylander for doing little (not nothing, but far less than he should have) with his favorable position.
I think the expectation is that if you’re starting shifts in the offensive zone more often than in the defensive zone, you’re going to be on the ice for more goals scored than allowed by your team. Nylander did less with his starting position than you’d expect of someone given that positioning, and was definitely crappier relative to the expected performance than Bradley was relative to his, but he still had a positive +/- here and Bradley did not, which is ultimately what matters.
But I hear what you’re saying and probably should’ve noted it in my analysis, but I couldn’t resist using the term “Quadrant of Shame.”
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I hear you with regard to the catchiness of the “Quadrant of Shame.”
Still, having a positive +/- is not ultimately what matters. Nylander was on the ice when more goals were scored for than against, but that did NOT help the team. It hurt the team because his presence prevented another player from being on the ice who could have contributed to an even better goal differential. Bradley was on the ice for more goals against than for, but if he was replaced by another player the performance would have been largely the same.
What ultimately matters is how a player performs relative to what would happen if his icetime was given to someone else. In that respect, Bradley was adequate and Nylander failed.
I think we can agree that Nylander failed, but on what do you base the assumption that his “presence prevented another player from being on the ice who could have contributed to an even better goal differential”? Taken to its logical extreme, you’re assuming that swapping Bradley in for AO would produce the same amount of offense, since the distance from each to the Trendline is about the same.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I see two mistakes:
1. We’re not talking about just offense, we’re talking about offense+defense. No one is saying Bradley could be a star offensive player, but he can be a decent overall player (within the limited minutes he plays) if given the chance. You’re saying his performance was bad. I’m saying he was dealt a crappy hand and he managed about as well as would be expected.
2. Obviously Bradley couldn’t handle the minutes given to AO. I probably shouldn’t have said “icetime” because really what I meant was “opportunities with favorable position vs those with unfavorable position.” I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that if Bradley took all his faceoffs in the offensive zone that his GFON-GAON per 60 would be quite high (way higher than Nylander’s, for example). His forechecking game would lead to very few goals against, and his line would chip a few more in as well. His offense wouldn’t be as good as AO, but his overall contribution to the team (per 60 minutes) could be as high. Remember, this is a stat in which Fehr outranks AO. It’s not a measure of talent, it’s a measure of per-minute efficiency.
Let’s say the Caps are up by 1 goal with a minute left. Would it be crazy to put Bradley on the ice for an offensive faceoff? Would you rather have AO for a defensive faceoff? I’d rather have Bradley in both situations, despite AO’s much higher GFON-GAON per 60. (I certainly would take either of them over Nylander.)
AO actually plays a lot in the final minute of 1 goal games. Anyone else remember him destroying Mike Richards before clearing the puck to ice game 1 in ‘08? AO is a beast, and I’d rather have him on the ice than any other player at any moment. Unfortunately he can’t play that much, so his ice has to be rationed. In the final minute that’s not a concern, so throw his ass out there.
I’d rather have AO at either end because I think he gives you a better chance at gaining and maintaining possession of the puck (and, quite possibly, making good on that possession).
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Fair enough. But you didn’t answer my point- would it be crazy to use Bradley? Is there any way to justify using Nylander instead of Bradley? You’re arguing that Nylander was better per-minute than Bradley. I’m calling BS because of context.
But this isn’t using one guy vs. one guy because the stats account for everyone else who was on the ice with each of these guys. So if the question is “Bradley-Gordon-Brashear” or “AO-Backstrom-Nylander,” I think I take Nylander.
Additionally, talking only d-zone draws or o-zone draws here is a bit nonsensical because these stats consider both. If I had the stats for each individual’s +/- broken out by zone in which the shift started, I could give you a better answer on Brads vs. Nyls.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
The fact that Nylander played with better linemates than Bradley (which he did, according to behindthenet.ca) is a point in my favor, not yours. If Bradley+linemates is not as good as Nylander+linemates, that doesn’t mean Nylander had a better performance than Bradley. It means Nylander APPEARED to have a better performance than Bradley. Just like the relative locations of their faceoffs make it APPEAR that Nylander was better. In both cases the appearance is misleading.
All I’m saying is Bradley would look better than Nylander if he had a comparable ratio of offensive to defensive draws. Free Bradley!
I’m just not convinced that given the additional opportunity – and we’re talking about one additional offensive zone 5-on-5 faceoff per game – that Bradley would, in fact, have a better +/- than Nylander because there’s no chance he’d create as much offense. Granted, his personal GAON/60 would be better, too, but I’m still not sold on this being completely positionally-dependent.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
Perhaps not. But just eyeballing the data, it looks like a pretty high correlation to me. You rarely see relationships like this in sports where the line of best fit matches up so nicely. (Actually, because you have the numbers, can you run a correlation to determine the strength of the relationship? I’d like to see it.) The simplest explanation for that apparently strong relationship is that faceoff location indeed has a large impact on +/-.
And one more offensive draw per game is 82 more draws with a good chance of goals for and low chance of goals against. That’s not a small amount.
In fact I can’t… but only b/c of my limited Excel skills. I’d be happy to email the Excel sheet to you, though, if you’d like to hack and whack it.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I strenuously disagree.
Oh, well, if you strenuously disagree, then I should take some time to reconsider.
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 13, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I usually go with “vociferously disagree”, but that’s just me. =)
That said, I have to kind of agree, insofar as I didn’t see Bradley’s place as terribly awful, especially given his line and his position. The big losers on that chart to me are Nylander, as if we should be surprised, and Kozlov, who is way out there in Failtopia by himself, and was pretty generously placed on higher lines during the year.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
I wholeheartedly agree that I should have crapped on Nylander more. But I didn’t. Oh well.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
pretty generously placed on higher lines during the year.
Son, we live in a world that has lines and those lines need to be skated by men with sticks. Who’s gonna do it? Flash? You, Lieutenant Aucoin? Kozlov had a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 13, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
This sounds like a quote, but I can’t place from what.
Winterion Game Studios
Visit us online at : http://winterion.com
Yes, boo, indeed. And I only did this quote to illustrate that my original reply (“strenuously disagree”) was also from the movie, because winterion seemed to take it seriously.
by Scott in Shaw on Aug 14, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Looks a lot better with the diagonal line in place. Wish I could have gotten my program to do that!
All things Thrashers + stats: www.birdwatchersanonymous.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
51 | 24 | 16 | 11 | 59 |
|
Washington
|
52 | 27 | 21 | 4 | 58 |
|
Winnipeg
|
54 | 24 | 24 | 6 | 54 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
51 | 23 | 23 | 5 | 51 |
|
Carolina
|
54 | 20 | 25 | 9 | 49 |
(updated 2.7.2012 at 3:17 AM EST)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Sharks’ Drew Remenda, Owen Nolan tributes, accidental head-butts
- How dare the Boston media ask Claude Julien for Nathan Horton health updates
- Hockey Hugs: Grumpy Dion; Perrault’s surprise party; creepy Taylor Hall
- Here are the 32 hockey teams asking to be a part of 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics
- Who has the most expensive defense in the NHL?
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Sabres coach Ruff day to day after breaking 3 ribs
- Sabres coach Ruff misses practice day after breaking 3 ribs in on-ice collision
- Sabres coach Ruff absent day after breaking 3 ribs
- Capitals centre Brooks Laich back skating again, 2 days after hurting left knee
- Capitals' Laich skates, 2 days after hurting knee
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
