2008/2009 Hockey Thread v2.0

[alldaws1]

On top for 3 & 1/4 periods and then that meltdown in the final five minutes. Ridiculous. I'd also love to know what Valiquette was doing when he came out for that one goal, the fourth I think it was, there was no need. Shame to waste the solid defense that had gone on up to that point.

[Clawson]

We outplayed you guys all game long, it was just a matter of time before we scored one. I didn't expect 5 though.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

I'll admit I was only watching parts of the first and second, but I sure didn't see it as the Leafs outplaying the Rangers. They just couldn't get anything going at all.

[alldaws1]

We outplayed you guys all game long, it was just a matter of time before we scored one. I didn't expect 5 though.

lol, blind bias.

[The Sultan of Swank]

Montreal makes the awesome comeback... much better than Toronto's haha . Down 4-1 going into the third, they showed minimal signs of life all game long, I'd like to know what Carbo said to the team in the dressing room because Montreal comes out huge, they hold the Islanders to ZERO shots in the first nearly thirteen minutes of the period. Kovalev = BEAST! 4 points, that entire line turned it on tonight, they absolutely embarassed the Isles in the third period.

4 goals, a 3 goal comeback against the lesser New York team... althogh they did pull a 5 goal comeback in about 25 minutes against the better Rangers last season... anyways. That was fucking awesome to watch. I had written off the Canadiens completely after going down 4-1... they just didn't look like they had it in them. The second they got that first goal in the third, you just knew that they were going to push... HARD and lord did they ever.

8-1-1. 17 of 20 points to start the season... that's pretty awesome.

EDIT: Remembered to put a after the haha so Be wouldn't take a fit.

Edited November 2, 2008 by The Sultan of Swank

[IAceI]

I watched the first period and then left, very frustrated. They were 2-1 up and had done barely anything against us. It was all us creating the chances but just not getting that final shot at the goalie off and if you don't shoot you're not gonna score are ya?

Good to see we made a comeback though - even though it was against the fucking Islanders. A wins and win.

[The Sultan of Swank]

Yeah, I was really frustrated that we were getting beat by the Islanders... but then again during the first two periods there was no rhythm to the Habs game, it was just a lot of sloppy passes and trying to make the pretty plays. In the third they found their game in a huge way and turned it into a really exciting game.

Maybe, as Joël Bouchard suggested on RDS, the stars are in alignment for your Montreal Canadiens.

They spend half the night in the Minnesota penalty box and still manage to beat one of the best teams in the Western Conference.

Then, against oe of the worst teams in the league, the Canadiens four goals in seven and a half minutes, staging a comeback reminiscent of The Game against the Rangers.

As was the case last February, the fifth goal – in this case, the winner – was scored by Alex Kovalev. He didn't slide on his back this time.

Kovy, Kovy, Kovy. Is he a beauty or what?

How many times does the first star of the game score twice, pick up two assists – and give the puck away SEVEN times.

Canadid, as always, in his post-game remarks, Kovalev said other teams would "destroy" the Canadiens if they played as badly as they did for 40 minutes ast night.

Kovy cited New Jersey as a team that probably wouldn't have blown a 4-1 lead.

But the Islanders are not the Devils. And the Wild, who had three 5-on-3s, were not the Detroit Red Wings.

So maybe the stars are beginning to spell out a big "CH" in the sky.

After 10 games, the Canadiens have one loss in regulation – fewest in the NHL.

They lead the league in goal differential at plus-13.

And after a Sunday off and off-ice training tomorrow afternoon, the team returns to practice Tuesday morning. There's much to discuss and a lot to work on, but at least the whole city won't be spending the week moping about a loss to the lowly Islanders.

The Canadiens scored the first goal last night and figured it would be easy.

Wrong.

Through two periods they were outhit, outhustled, outskated and outworked. The Islanders were consistently first on the puck, won every battle, controlled the neutral zone and gained the Canadiens' blueline with dismaying ease.

One stat said it all: The home team did not take a minor penalty until 12 minutes into the second period.

You don't have to hook players who aren't skating. You don't have to hold players who aren't moving their feet. You don't have to cross-check players who won't fight for positions. You don't have to trip players who aren't about to beat you. And you don't have to elbow or board players who give the puck up without a fight.

Several brutal line changes, an indicator that the guys on the bench are not alert and into the game.

Zone coverage? Puck support? As the outnumbered Islanders' fans at the Nassau Coliseum might say, Fuhgedaboudit!

When Frans Nielsen scores two goals from close in, there's something rotten in the state of Dane marking.

Look, the superior roster won the game last night. The Canadiens have the firepower to get 16 shots and four goals in 20 minutes against a young, nervous, non-playoff team.

The Canadiens are abundantly talented, but there will be night, many nights when skill won't be enough. They'll need hard work, dedication and intensity to beat teams better than the Islanders ... and that meanss almost every team in the league.

Random observations:

• Christopher Higgins should stay on the Saku Koivu-Alex Tanguay line.

• They have a problem with righhanded faceoffs:Robert Lang was 2-10, Maxim Lapierre 4-6. And lefty Tomas Plekanec was 8-13.

• Aside from faceoffs – and he was winning them in the third period – Plekanec was brilliant. The big line is coming to life.

• Opponents got a great deal on screwing up the Brothers Kostitsyn: Injure one, get one free. But AK46 turned on the jets to setup Pleks' second goal, and if he's back maybe Sergei will come to ife.

• Guy Carbonneau doesn't know what to do with Georges Laraque. He played seven shifts, 5:21. It's becoming obvious that the Canadiens' best energ line is Max centring Tom Kostopoulos and Mathieu Dandenault.

• Another rough night for Ryan O'Byrne, who was minus-2. The big galoot is a work in progress, but I really wonder how much upside he's got.

• Carey Price was furious with himself after the Jon Sim goal. But how about those saves in the final minute?

• Maybe Alex Kovalev should be cut in every game.

• How about five even-strength goals for a team that lived and died with its power play for the last two seasons?

Canadiens are 8-1-1. Their top line of 2007-'08, MIA since the season began, had nine points last night.

Twenty minutes of hockey, and the Canadiens saved us all a rough week.

But if they play like that at the ACC on Saturday ...

From Habsinsideout.com

I thought this article is the best review of last night.

Also I have a question. Teams like to say they have a winning record if they're say..... 5-3-3 or 6-4-3. What I don't understand is that in sports, a winning percentage is the fraction of games or matches a team or individual has won. It is equal to wins divided by wins plus losses (wiki). I mean a winning record doesn't mean that you have points in 8 of 11 games, it means that you won more games than you've lost.

Example, The Toronto Maple Leafs... I use them only because I know their record off hand and not because I hate them. They have a 5-3-3 record. Writers in Toronto and fans everywhere would have me believe that they're either 2 games over 500 or have a winning record... but their winning percentage is .454... not over 500, they've lost more games than they've won. Not a winning record.

It's one thing to have points in most of your games, but it doesn't mean you have a winning record. It's just something that irks me a little bit, it's just falsely manipulating statistics to get a warm feeling in your heart about your team. The other thing I don't understand is that say with Montreal... 8-1-1. With the shootout loss, do I count that as a win? or do I just ignore it all together? Because in the eyes of many it's not a loss somehow or we can just ignore it because we got 1 point out of the deal?

Edited November 2, 2008 by The Sultan of Swank

[Cactus Drags]

We outplayed you guys all game long, it was just a matter of time before we scored one. I didn't expect 5 though.

Wow, that's approaching Chase K-esque levels of homerism. Leafs outplayed the Rangers for the final 5 minutes. Valiquette won it for Toronto.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Also I have a question. Teams like to say they have a winning record if they're say..... 5-3-3 or 6-4-3. What I don't understand is that in sports, a winning percentage is the fraction of games or matches a team or individual has won. It is equal to wins divided by wins plus losses (wiki). I mean a winning record doesn't mean that you have points in 8 of 11 games, it means that you won more games than you've lost.

Wins/Wins + Losses, eh? Know what I don't see there? ANY PROVISION FOR TIES. Idiot.

[The Sultan of Swank]

Hahaha, oh wow Be. You're just so gosh darn cute. Really, you put such a big smile on my face...

Um... Really... Ties... You know what there hasn't been since about 2005 or so...

So when Montreal LOST to Buffalo 2-1 in a shootout. That's a tie?

Oh fuck! Take a few wins away from Toronto buddy, they ended in shootouts... Fuck that means it's a tie! Or is it only a tie if you go to shootout and lose? Or is it only a tie if it's a team you like, otherwise it's a loss? Wow this whole tie business is so complicated now. So... Montreal has lost only 1 game this year? And Toronto has a record of 4 wins 3 losses and 4 ties right?

Uh Oh, Montreal isn't REALLY 8-1-1. They have a record of 6 wins, 1 loss and 3 ties. Or do we get to keep 2 of the Wins because we won in Shootout and I happen to like the Habs... so that's a win right? So we're back to 8-1-1? I don't understand.

I also can't find the tie column... You need to show me on the NHL.com website where the column for ties is, all I see W L and OT... OHHHHH OT must mean games that went into Overtime, so they have to be ties right?

A loss is a loss is a loss... no matter if you get a bitch point for it or not. One team still wins and one team still loses.

You sir... are a complete fucking moron. You just made my day.

Idiot.

Edited November 2, 2008 by The Sultan of Swank

[IAceI]

I don't really know what the general consensus for this sort of thing is, as hockey isn't covered by television over here, but as far as I'm aware then I've always assumed

5-3-3 is a losing record.

6-3-3 would be a .500 record.

7-3-3 would be a winning record.

If the regular losses and overtime losses combined are greater than the winning column, then to me that's a losing record. Why - how do television stations cover it?

[Clawson]

5-3-3 is a winning record.

Stupid? Yes, but thats how it goes.

And for the Rangers/Leafs, both of the Rangers goals were against the flow of play. The second period was evenly matched but to suggest it was only 5 minutes of Leaf dominance. Well clearly you didn't watch the whole 3rd where Valiquette made multiple saves to keep it 2-0 before the explosion.

[The Sultan of Swank]

I fail to see how it's a winning record. A loss is still a loss no?

The team still has points in the majority of the games, but their winning %age is still less than .500. Despite what Be would have us believe.

Edited November 2, 2008 by The Sultan of Swank

[alldaws1]

And for the Rangers/Leafs, both of the Rangers goals were against the flow of play. The second period was evenly matched but to suggest it was only 5 minutes of Leaf dominance. Well clearly you didn't watch the whole 3rd where Valiquette made multiple saves to keep it 2-0 before the explosion.

I see you've changed your tone from 'the Leafs outplayed the Rangers all game long'

[NobBe Nobbs]

Oh good, I see Basha is still as closed-minded as ever. I was referring to the way the NFL does it, where they take into account ties, but apparently hoping you will extrapolate a point is beyond you so I'll simplify - WHERE IN YOUR FORMULA ARE OVERTIME LOSSES ACCOUNTED FOR? Regardless of your desperate attempts to make Toronto seem worse, overtime losses =/= losses because overtime losses give points, you chronic moron.

[Clawson]

And for the Rangers/Leafs, both of the Rangers goals were against the flow of play. The second period was evenly matched but to suggest it was only 5 minutes of Leaf dominance. Well clearly you didn't watch the whole 3rd where Valiquette made multiple saves to keep it 2-0 before the explosion.

I see you've changed your tone from 'the Leafs outplayed the Rangers all game long'

I was riding a high after watching 5 minutes of the best hockey I've seen the Leafs play in 5 fucking years. Give me a break.

And Basha, according to the NHL the Leafs winning percentage is .625.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Clawson

[The Sultan of Swank]

Oh good, I see Basha is still as closed-minded as ever. I was referring to the way the NFL does it, where they take into account ties, but apparently hoping you will extrapolate a point is beyond you so I'll simplify - WHERE IN YOUR FORMULA ARE OVERTIME LOSSES ACCOUNTED FOR? Regardless of your desperate attempts to make Toronto seem worse, overtime losses =/= losses because overtime losses give points, you chronic moron.

For Be. Let's go point by point... shall we?

Oh good, I see Basha is still as closed-minded as ever.

Always a good way to start a rebuttle. With insults. Way to go grade 3 on me.

I was referring to the way the NFL does it, where they take into account ties,

I didn't know that "Wins/Wins + Losses, eh? Know what I don't see there? ANY PROVISION FOR TIES. Idiot." was actually such a well constructed even if irrevelant sentence in disguise. Do you want to know why it's irrevelant? Because in hockey there are no ties. So the NFL's system is not applicable.

but apparently hoping you will extrapolate a point is beyond you so I'll simplify

Please do...

WHERE IN YOUR FORMULA ARE OVERTIME LOSSES ACCOUNTED FOR?

Be put on the big boy pants here. He's typing in ALL CAPS. When I type in ALL CAPS IT MEANS THAT I'M YELLING RAWR!

But to answer the question. Your sentence actually answers it for me. See where you said overtime losses... or rather OVERTIME LOSSES? See the second word you used? Losses. They are accounted for in the losses part of the formula. Shockingly simple.

Regardless of your desperate attempts to make Toronto seem worse

I even stated that "Example, The Toronto Maple Leafs... I use them only because I know their record off hand" See where I say example? It's because I'm using facts to make a point. It usually works better than name calling which you use a lot. I'll admit I do it a lot too, but at least I try to back up my schoolyard attacks with facts. FACT, Toronto has a 5-3-3 record. This is useful for my EXAMPLE(see I used ALL CAPS to show that I'm talking slow and loud for you), because it means that Toronto has a 5-6 record but is considered to have a winning record of 5-3 with 11 games played. Not as you put it a "desperate attempt"

overtime losses =/= losses because overtime losses give points

So you're saying that overtime losses... emphasis on LOSSES(Again, ALL CAPS for your convenience), aren't actually losses? It doesn't matter if they give a point or not. It's not % of games in which a team registers points, It's winning percentage. % of games won.

you chronic moron.

Actually I'm pretty sure, I just went point by point and wrecked your ass. I'm aware you're going to now do the same thing, get all pissy about it. But... yeah, I did what you asked, I expanded on your points and explained why you are wrong. I asked a question in an earlier post, expanded on what I meant by it. Clawson understood what I was trying to say, so did IaceI. You saw Leafs, the fact that I was infering that they're really a 5-6 team and immediately went into your defensive shell.

Finally, Clawson.

No. Nobody should give you a break, for the amounts of times that you have gotten annoyed at me for doing the same thing, and the amount of times that Be and Plubby have gone off on insulting rants about it

so I have to do this... but all in good fun.

Edited November 2, 2008 by The Sultan of Swank

[NobBe Nobbs]

Yeah, I've had enough of this. Basha, you make this thread not worth reading sometimes, so baw baw baw your ass is ignored.

[Clawson]

Stop being a cunt Be.

And Basha for fucks sake, you hold your views the whole damn time. 10 to 20 minutes I can look at the game again and go this is what really happened. You'd run around like your team is King Shit if you beat a team of 9 year olds 1-0 bragging about how much better your 7th defensemen is than everyone else in the league.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Clawson

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

So no more personal attacks in here, mmkay?

(That includes Basha-style mitigating the attacks by intertwining them with actual hockey talk.)