How many times can we fail to score in empty nets? What a mess.
So here's the situation. We now need a little help from either the Thrashers or Tampa Bay (or both the Flyers and the Blue Jackets). Here's the playoff bubble picture, with 1-2 games left:
7. Buffalo - 92 pts, 2 GR
8. NEW YORK RANGERS - 91 pts, 1 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 89 pts, 2 GR
And we're back to the last game of the regular season having playoff implications. Surprise, surprise. Here's how it breaks down for our game against the Devils on Saturday afternoon:
If we lose to the Devils in regulation: If the Hurricanes gain 2 or more points in their final two games of the season (tomorrow night against the same Thrashers that will be tired from beating our asses tonight, and Saturday night against the Lightning), we finish in 9th, out of the playoffs. If they gain 0 or 1 points in those two games, we still finish in 8th.
If we lose to the Devils in OT or a shootout: If the Hurricanes gain 3 or more points in their final two games of the season, we finish in 9th. If they gain 2 or fewer in those two games, we finish in 8th.
If we beat the Devils in a shootout: We want the following two things to happen:
a) The Hurricanes do not win both of their final two games.
b) The Sabres lose both of their final two games in regulation (tomorrow night against the Flyers and Saturday night against the Blue Jackets).
If both of these things happen, we finish in 7th; if exactly one happens, we finish in 8th; and if neither happens, we finish in 9th.
If we beat the Devils in regulation or OT: We want the following two things to happen:
a) The Hurricanes do not win both of their final two games, or they do but both wins are in the shootout.
b) The Sabres lose both of their final two games in regulation.
Again, if both of these things happen, we finish in 7th; if exactly one happens, we finish in 8th; and if neither happens, we finish in 9th.
There's the simplified breakdown for ya. Good night.
Showing posts with label standings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standings. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Here, let me explain
OK, before we get into it, how about a big old FUCK YEAH RANGERS after last night's win. Fuck. Yeah. Rangers.
So, I wasn't gonna post this since it changes every damn day, but then I got some questions about it, so here's the total situation as it stands right now. Our final two games are Thursday night against Atlanta and Saturday afternoon against the Devils.
6. Montréal - 91 pts, 3 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 91 pts, 2 GR
8. Buffalo - 90 pts, 3 GR
---------------------
9. Carolina - 87 pts, 3 GR
(Yes, Toronto could still technically make the playoffs, if they win out and Buffalo loses out, but they can't pass us, so I don't care. We're ending up somewhere between 6th and 9th.)
So, here is the situation, by team, of how we end up ahead of or behind them in the standings. What we absolutely must do to make the playoffs, of course, is finish ahead of at least one of these three teams. If we finish ahead of two, we end up in 7th, and if we finish ahead of all three, we end up in 6th. Naturally.
The Canadiens: Tied in points with us, with a game-in-hand. To beat them, we absolutely must be ahead of them in points, which means we must gain more points in our final two games than they do in their final three. Those games are tonight against the Blackhawks, Thursday night against the Senators, and Saturday night against the Maple Leafs. So, if they gain at least 4 points in those three games, we can't pass them. If they gain 3, we have to win out; if they gain 2, we have to gain 3; and so on. If we lose out, obviously, they stay ahead of us.
The Sabres: A point behind us, with a game-in-hand. To stay ahead of them, we almost certainly must be ahead of them in points, which means we must gain at least as many points in our final two games as they do in their final three. Their final three games are tonight against the Lightning, Friday night against the Flyers, and Saturday night against the Blue Jackets. So, if they gain 4 points in those three games, we'd have to win out; if they gain 3 points in those three games, we'd have to gain 3 points in our two games; and so on. If we lose out, they'd have to lose out as well. However, there is one exception in which we have the tiebreaker: if the Sabres gain 5 points in their next 3 games, and we win out, we end tied in points, which usually means the Sabres win the tiebreaker. However, in that particular scenario, if both of our wins were in regulation or overtime, and both of Buffalo's wins were in the shootout, then we win the tiebreaker over them. Unlikely, but still plausible. Failing that scenario, we have to end ahead of them in points.
The Hurricanes: This is the only team over whom we actually control our own destiny. Four points behind us with a game-in-hand, this is the team about whom we can say that if we win out, we will definitely finish ahead of them. In fact, if we gain 3 points in our final two games, they can't possibly catch us. Down from there, they can. If we only gain 2 points in our final two games, by winning a game in regulation or overtime, we stay ahead of them unless they win out the season and at least two of their wins are in regulation or overtime. If we gain 2 points in our final two games without a win in regulation or overtime (a shootout win and a loss, or two overtime losses), we stay ahead of them unless they win out the season and at least one of those three wins is in regulation or OT.
If we gain only one point in our final two games of the season, Carolina beats us if they win out. They also beat us if they gain 5 of a possible 6 points in their final three games, provided that at least one of their 2 wins was in regulation or OT. Even if we lose out our final two games, Carolina needs to get 5 of a possible 6 points to beat us for sure. If they get 4 of 6, they beat us provided that those 4 points included at least one regulation or overtime win. If all 4 points are from shootouts and overtime losses, we get the playoff spot anyway. The Hurricanes' final three games are tomorrow night against the Red Wings, Friday night against the Thrashers, and Saturday night against the Lightning.
So, there's 100% of the standings situation for us, in way more detail than you wanted. Let's Go Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Red Wings, Senators, Flyers, Lightning, and Maple Leafs. And Let's Go Thrashers on Friday night, but not on Thursday night. And, of course, Let's Go Rangers.
So, I wasn't gonna post this since it changes every damn day, but then I got some questions about it, so here's the total situation as it stands right now. Our final two games are Thursday night against Atlanta and Saturday afternoon against the Devils.
6. Montréal - 91 pts, 3 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 91 pts, 2 GR
8. Buffalo - 90 pts, 3 GR
---------------------
9. Carolina - 87 pts, 3 GR
(Yes, Toronto could still technically make the playoffs, if they win out and Buffalo loses out, but they can't pass us, so I don't care. We're ending up somewhere between 6th and 9th.)
So, here is the situation, by team, of how we end up ahead of or behind them in the standings. What we absolutely must do to make the playoffs, of course, is finish ahead of at least one of these three teams. If we finish ahead of two, we end up in 7th, and if we finish ahead of all three, we end up in 6th. Naturally.
The Canadiens: Tied in points with us, with a game-in-hand. To beat them, we absolutely must be ahead of them in points, which means we must gain more points in our final two games than they do in their final three. Those games are tonight against the Blackhawks, Thursday night against the Senators, and Saturday night against the Maple Leafs. So, if they gain at least 4 points in those three games, we can't pass them. If they gain 3, we have to win out; if they gain 2, we have to gain 3; and so on. If we lose out, obviously, they stay ahead of us.
The Sabres: A point behind us, with a game-in-hand. To stay ahead of them, we almost certainly must be ahead of them in points, which means we must gain at least as many points in our final two games as they do in their final three. Their final three games are tonight against the Lightning, Friday night against the Flyers, and Saturday night against the Blue Jackets. So, if they gain 4 points in those three games, we'd have to win out; if they gain 3 points in those three games, we'd have to gain 3 points in our two games; and so on. If we lose out, they'd have to lose out as well. However, there is one exception in which we have the tiebreaker: if the Sabres gain 5 points in their next 3 games, and we win out, we end tied in points, which usually means the Sabres win the tiebreaker. However, in that particular scenario, if both of our wins were in regulation or overtime, and both of Buffalo's wins were in the shootout, then we win the tiebreaker over them. Unlikely, but still plausible. Failing that scenario, we have to end ahead of them in points.
The Hurricanes: This is the only team over whom we actually control our own destiny. Four points behind us with a game-in-hand, this is the team about whom we can say that if we win out, we will definitely finish ahead of them. In fact, if we gain 3 points in our final two games, they can't possibly catch us. Down from there, they can. If we only gain 2 points in our final two games, by winning a game in regulation or overtime, we stay ahead of them unless they win out the season and at least two of their wins are in regulation or overtime. If we gain 2 points in our final two games without a win in regulation or overtime (a shootout win and a loss, or two overtime losses), we stay ahead of them unless they win out the season and at least one of those three wins is in regulation or OT.
If we gain only one point in our final two games of the season, Carolina beats us if they win out. They also beat us if they gain 5 of a possible 6 points in their final three games, provided that at least one of their 2 wins was in regulation or OT. Even if we lose out our final two games, Carolina needs to get 5 of a possible 6 points to beat us for sure. If they get 4 of 6, they beat us provided that those 4 points included at least one regulation or overtime win. If all 4 points are from shootouts and overtime losses, we get the playoff spot anyway. The Hurricanes' final three games are tomorrow night against the Red Wings, Friday night against the Thrashers, and Saturday night against the Lightning.
So, there's 100% of the standings situation for us, in way more detail than you wanted. Let's Go Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Red Wings, Senators, Flyers, Lightning, and Maple Leafs. And Let's Go Thrashers on Friday night, but not on Thursday night. And, of course, Let's Go Rangers.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Gifts
The right teams keep winning, and they keep doing it in regulation time. With the more-likely-out-of-the-picture Leafs beating the closest-to-breaking-in Hurricanes in regulation last night, here's what our little corner of the standings looks like right now:
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 78 pts, 11 GR
8. Buffalo - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 74 pts, 11 GR
10. Toronto - 72 pts, 11 GR
11. New Jersey - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. Atlanta - 70 pts, 12 GR
(Atlanta is included mostly because I have a soft spot for them: they've got a hell of a hill to climb.) This is a 4-point cushion over 9th place right now, which is a more comfortable place to be than the one we've been in the last couple of weeks. We're back to well in command of our own destiny, and if we can get another few gifts and win another few games, we might even earn ourselves "breathing room," which is a thing I've read about: apparently some teams don't spend the last week of the season scrambling to make it into 8th. Sounds cool, right?
Anyway, here's a thing I might continue doing: looking at what this same set of standings would be if we used a sane point system. I think it might be fun to watch the ending scramble to get into the playoffs as it should be, while comparing it to what actually happens in the crazy land of bad math that is Bettman's NHL. Comment if you have an opinion one way or another about whether or not this remains interesting.
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 68 pts, 11 GR
8. Carolina - 65 pts, 11 GR
--------------------
9. New Jersey - 64 pts, 13 GR
10. Buffalo - 64 pts, 12 GR
11. Toronto - 63 pts, 11 GR
12. Atlanta - 62 pts, 12 GR
No commentary on that from me for now. Draw your own conclusions. I'll probably keep showing this.
Oh, right! Tonight's games! Flyers at Atlanta, Devils at Ottawa, Leafs at Florida, and if you're still crazy enough to think we can catch the Habs (who have 5 points and a game-in-hand on us), the Lightning are in Montréal. Also some other hockey: there are 11 NHL games tonight. If you've got nothing to do, sit at home and watch hockey!
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 78 pts, 11 GR
8. Buffalo - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 74 pts, 11 GR
10. Toronto - 72 pts, 11 GR
11. New Jersey - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. Atlanta - 70 pts, 12 GR
(Atlanta is included mostly because I have a soft spot for them: they've got a hell of a hill to climb.) This is a 4-point cushion over 9th place right now, which is a more comfortable place to be than the one we've been in the last couple of weeks. We're back to well in command of our own destiny, and if we can get another few gifts and win another few games, we might even earn ourselves "breathing room," which is a thing I've read about: apparently some teams don't spend the last week of the season scrambling to make it into 8th. Sounds cool, right?
Anyway, here's a thing I might continue doing: looking at what this same set of standings would be if we used a sane point system. I think it might be fun to watch the ending scramble to get into the playoffs as it should be, while comparing it to what actually happens in the crazy land of bad math that is Bettman's NHL. Comment if you have an opinion one way or another about whether or not this remains interesting.
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 68 pts, 11 GR
8. Carolina - 65 pts, 11 GR
--------------------
9. New Jersey - 64 pts, 13 GR
10. Buffalo - 64 pts, 12 GR
11. Toronto - 63 pts, 11 GR
12. Atlanta - 62 pts, 12 GR
No commentary on that from me for now. Draw your own conclusions. I'll probably keep showing this.
Oh, right! Tonight's games! Flyers at Atlanta, Devils at Ottawa, Leafs at Florida, and if you're still crazy enough to think we can catch the Habs (who have 5 points and a game-in-hand on us), the Lightning are in Montréal. Also some other hockey: there are 11 NHL games tonight. If you've got nothing to do, sit at home and watch hockey!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Not the worst weekend
So, this will mostly serve as a standings update, and the news is pretty good. As you recall, last week, teams had enough games-in-hand over us that, if they won them all, we'd have been out of the playoff picture. However, as they say, you have to win your games-in-hand for them to count, and this was a pretty decent week for them not doing that. The Hurricanes have earned one point of a possible eight in their last four games. The Leafs have earned three of eight in the same stretch. Even the Sabres and Devils lost games in regulation.
Meanwhile, we escaped California with two of a possible four points, in playing zero of a possible two good games. Yes, we battled for a while in San Jose, and yes, the Sharks are very good at hockey. But I can't help feeling like the third and overtime periods were just past our bedtime. Still, we played physical hockey and got enough lucky and enough Lundqvist to earn our way into the silly post-game fun-time that earned us a second point and time to exhale on the plane back to Eastern Standard Time. All things considered, I'll take it.
The bad news is, of course, Erik Christensen scored. He actually looked decent in his return in San Jose: the fact that he's soft was made up for by the rest of our forwards playing physical hockey, and he was able to do some good things with his stick on more plays than just the goal he scored. That would be good news even though I don't like him, except it makes it that much less likely that Sean Avery will be in the lineup as we need him to be down this stretch. Blah blah blah, the usual rant. I'm right, the end.
So, we stole a couple in Cali, the right teams lost now and again, and here's where we stand:
7. Buffalo - 76 pts, 13 GR
8. NEW YORK RANGERS - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 72 pts, 13 GR
10. Toronto - 70 pts, 13 GR
11. Atlanta - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. New Jersey - 68 pts, 14 GR
The Devils still get included, as if they win their game-in-hand, they pull exactly even with Toronto and Atlanta with 70 points and 13 games remaining. So, yes, everyone still has a game-in-hand over us, but it's only the one. And if they all win them, we still end up in 8th, 2 points ahead of the 9th-place 'Canes, and 2 points behind the 7th-place Sabres. Things are tight, but we're definitely in a better place than we were a week ago, despite playing less-than-stellar hockey on the West Coast. So far, so good.
Not much on the docket for tonight: just the Bolts in Toronto. Not the biggest deal, but Tampa could use a big win over a lesser team, and if Toronto could lose a couple more, it would be one fewer team we'd have to seriously worry about. Tomorrow night, on the other hand, lots of shit goes down. We host the Islanders back at the Garden, which is going to be lots of fun. They've been playing good hockey lately (4-0-2 in their last 6), and they always play up for us. We need to come back home and put points on the board - if we try to rely on the Islanders being an inferior team, we will be surprised when we are down by a couple of goals.
At the same time, the Thrashers will be at the Devils, and the 'Canes will be at the Sabres. For those of you paying attention, we want all four of those teams to lose as much as possible. What's most important, of course, is that neither game goes into overtime and therefore gets rewarded with extra points in the standings. Outside of that, clearly, let's go Thrashers, because fuck the Devils. Then, there's Carolina-Buffalo. Thoughts? If Buffalo wins, it gets that much harder to climb into 7th. If Carolina wins, though, we're back to one game from out of the playoffs entirely. Let's go regulation-time endings!
One more thing of note: our goal differential is +27 on the season. That's good for 4th in the conference and 7th in the league, one behind the goddamn Detroit Red Wings' +28. However, like the Chicago Blackhawks (+33 and in 7th), that isn't exactly turning into the wins you'd expect it to: ahead of us in the standings are Washington (+18), Montréal (+12), Buffalo (+2), and Tampa (-5). I'd like to take a look at goal differential compared to total points this season, and I'd like to see how that comparison would look if we used a rational standings system (replace the current point totals with 2 for an OT win, 0 for an OT loss, 1 each for getting to the shootout regardless of victor).
A statistical master named Nilesh's findings here lead me to believe that, in general, goal differential tends to still be a pretty good indicator of total points in the NHL, even with the shootout nonsense (in fact, he found that the Pythagorean Expectation model actually works better than it does in baseball). So are we and the 'Hawks just outliers? More on this, if I find the time to do math this week.
Meanwhile, we escaped California with two of a possible four points, in playing zero of a possible two good games. Yes, we battled for a while in San Jose, and yes, the Sharks are very good at hockey. But I can't help feeling like the third and overtime periods were just past our bedtime. Still, we played physical hockey and got enough lucky and enough Lundqvist to earn our way into the silly post-game fun-time that earned us a second point and time to exhale on the plane back to Eastern Standard Time. All things considered, I'll take it.
The bad news is, of course, Erik Christensen scored. He actually looked decent in his return in San Jose: the fact that he's soft was made up for by the rest of our forwards playing physical hockey, and he was able to do some good things with his stick on more plays than just the goal he scored. That would be good news even though I don't like him, except it makes it that much less likely that Sean Avery will be in the lineup as we need him to be down this stretch. Blah blah blah, the usual rant. I'm right, the end.
So, we stole a couple in Cali, the right teams lost now and again, and here's where we stand:
7. Buffalo - 76 pts, 13 GR
8. NEW YORK RANGERS - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 72 pts, 13 GR
10. Toronto - 70 pts, 13 GR
11. Atlanta - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. New Jersey - 68 pts, 14 GR
The Devils still get included, as if they win their game-in-hand, they pull exactly even with Toronto and Atlanta with 70 points and 13 games remaining. So, yes, everyone still has a game-in-hand over us, but it's only the one. And if they all win them, we still end up in 8th, 2 points ahead of the 9th-place 'Canes, and 2 points behind the 7th-place Sabres. Things are tight, but we're definitely in a better place than we were a week ago, despite playing less-than-stellar hockey on the West Coast. So far, so good.
Not much on the docket for tonight: just the Bolts in Toronto. Not the biggest deal, but Tampa could use a big win over a lesser team, and if Toronto could lose a couple more, it would be one fewer team we'd have to seriously worry about. Tomorrow night, on the other hand, lots of shit goes down. We host the Islanders back at the Garden, which is going to be lots of fun. They've been playing good hockey lately (4-0-2 in their last 6), and they always play up for us. We need to come back home and put points on the board - if we try to rely on the Islanders being an inferior team, we will be surprised when we are down by a couple of goals.
At the same time, the Thrashers will be at the Devils, and the 'Canes will be at the Sabres. For those of you paying attention, we want all four of those teams to lose as much as possible. What's most important, of course, is that neither game goes into overtime and therefore gets rewarded with extra points in the standings. Outside of that, clearly, let's go Thrashers, because fuck the Devils. Then, there's Carolina-Buffalo. Thoughts? If Buffalo wins, it gets that much harder to climb into 7th. If Carolina wins, though, we're back to one game from out of the playoffs entirely. Let's go regulation-time endings!
One more thing of note: our goal differential is +27 on the season. That's good for 4th in the conference and 7th in the league, one behind the goddamn Detroit Red Wings' +28. However, like the Chicago Blackhawks (+33 and in 7th), that isn't exactly turning into the wins you'd expect it to: ahead of us in the standings are Washington (+18), Montréal (+12), Buffalo (+2), and Tampa (-5). I'd like to take a look at goal differential compared to total points this season, and I'd like to see how that comparison would look if we used a rational standings system (replace the current point totals with 2 for an OT win, 0 for an OT loss, 1 each for getting to the shootout regardless of victor).
A statistical master named Nilesh's findings here lead me to believe that, in general, goal differential tends to still be a pretty good indicator of total points in the NHL, even with the shootout nonsense (in fact, he found that the Pythagorean Expectation model actually works better than it does in baseball). So are we and the 'Hawks just outliers? More on this, if I find the time to do math this week.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Torts Good and Bad (and whom to root for tonight)
I really don't wanna dive too deeply into this Zdeno Chara/Max Pacioretty stuff. My take is this: it is super-unfortunate. I've seen the hit, which I won't link to here, and it looked totally clean to me. I think labeling it with intent to injure is silly, and I think this news about Montréal police starting an investigation is kinda nonsense. That said, the injury that transpired was horrific, and could easily have been even worse. Everyone's outrage is understandable.
I'm not going to make a statement like "this is the NHL's fault." That's too black-and-white. And I support their decision to not suspend Chara further. However, in general, the focus on supplementary discipline is exactly the problem here. The "New NHL" has made a slight grab around the shoulder or stick tap anywhere on the body an automatic two minutes. In the ideal world of the New NHL, how was Chara supposed to take Pacioretty down? He had the jump on him, and surely, as a defenseman, Chara's job is not to watch Pacioretty skate on by. So, what: hit him softly and see what happens? In 1990, I think Chara sticks an arm out to slow him down a little. But no: the New NHL says that's illegal. So Chara has no choice but to throw his whole (gigantic) body at the guy. And it happens to be in an unfortunate location on the ice (where the New NHL's new boards have a lot less give than they did in the 90s, by the way).
Anyway, I started by saying I didn't really want to get into that. It sickens me, and I think it's another example of how the NHL actively makes decisions that end up making the sport more dangerous. I only bring it up because Torts made some comments on the subject that it's worth reading. He talks about the players "not [being] allowed to police themselves," and I think that's exactly the right way to put it. How many times in the last few seasons have you seen officials break up a fight before it happens? What about assigning an instigator penalty (which is now an automatic 17 minutes, by the way) to the guy who cleanly challenges an opponent who did something nasty to a teammate, while letting "choreographed, pre-arranged" fights (there's a stoppage of play, the coaches line up their "fighters" next to each other, the announcers say "oh boy, I think I know what's coming," and they're off) get off with 5 minutes each? Like that's the good kind of fight?
Now, think hard. When you see officials break up a fight before it happens, or when you see one of these nonsense instigator penalties, do they tend to clean up the game? Does it inspire players to cool down? Or does it make them more agitated, because they didn't have the opportunity to settle things like real men, like hockey players do? Does it maybe cause the game to get more out of hand? (YES, IT DOES.)
The point is: cheers to John Tortorella for calling that out to the media. May more coaches and GMs start to say shit like this, and may the Bettman/Campbell bonehead bifecta ever start to listen to the people who actually know hockey (or, like, retire?).
And, as the post title implies, jeers to Tortorella as well, for the usual: shafting Sean Avery. On a night when absolutely no Ranger forward was good, and when the Wolski-Stepan-Zuccarello line was particularly atrocious, Torts defaulted to his old standby and responded by benching Sean Avery. Avery, who looked no worse than anyone else (Dubinsky and Callahan notwithstanding), and who looked better than many, got a team-low (what else is new?) 8:28, including only 2:01 in the third. This 8:28 was a full 1:50 behind the next-lowest, perennial non-factor Ruslan Fedotenko. For comparison, Wolski, Stepan, and Zuccarello got 12:32, 14:34, and 15:05, respectively, while Avery's "linemates" got 14:36 (Prospal) and 14:48 (Gaborik, who scored despite being unimpressive).
Worse, all signs point to Avery being scratched Saturday night in San Jose, in favor of Erik Christensen. I won't go on another rant here about Avery and Christensen, because it will look like a dozen other posts this season. In short: fuck Erik Christensen, and fuck that move.
Anyway, standings. The Flyers did us a favor and beat the Leafs in regulation last night, but the Bruins gave up a 3-2 lead in the third (with some help from the officials) and lost to Buffalo in overtime. Which puts Buffalo at 74 points, tied with us, with two games-in-hand. Someone needs to start beating these guys, please. As for tonight, we've got the 'Canes in Washington, where Alex Ovechkin really needs to stay hot and win a game in regulation for us. If Carolina wins, the standings become a little more honest, and we officially drop to 9th. We've also got Atlanta at New Jersey. Go Thrash, because if the Devils can lose another game or two, this goddamn "miracle run" talk will end, and we can all go back to laughing at Ilya Kovalchuk a little bit.
I never know how to end blog posts.
I'm not going to make a statement like "this is the NHL's fault." That's too black-and-white. And I support their decision to not suspend Chara further. However, in general, the focus on supplementary discipline is exactly the problem here. The "New NHL" has made a slight grab around the shoulder or stick tap anywhere on the body an automatic two minutes. In the ideal world of the New NHL, how was Chara supposed to take Pacioretty down? He had the jump on him, and surely, as a defenseman, Chara's job is not to watch Pacioretty skate on by. So, what: hit him softly and see what happens? In 1990, I think Chara sticks an arm out to slow him down a little. But no: the New NHL says that's illegal. So Chara has no choice but to throw his whole (gigantic) body at the guy. And it happens to be in an unfortunate location on the ice (where the New NHL's new boards have a lot less give than they did in the 90s, by the way).
Anyway, I started by saying I didn't really want to get into that. It sickens me, and I think it's another example of how the NHL actively makes decisions that end up making the sport more dangerous. I only bring it up because Torts made some comments on the subject that it's worth reading. He talks about the players "not [being] allowed to police themselves," and I think that's exactly the right way to put it. How many times in the last few seasons have you seen officials break up a fight before it happens? What about assigning an instigator penalty (which is now an automatic 17 minutes, by the way) to the guy who cleanly challenges an opponent who did something nasty to a teammate, while letting "choreographed, pre-arranged" fights (there's a stoppage of play, the coaches line up their "fighters" next to each other, the announcers say "oh boy, I think I know what's coming," and they're off) get off with 5 minutes each? Like that's the good kind of fight?
Now, think hard. When you see officials break up a fight before it happens, or when you see one of these nonsense instigator penalties, do they tend to clean up the game? Does it inspire players to cool down? Or does it make them more agitated, because they didn't have the opportunity to settle things like real men, like hockey players do? Does it maybe cause the game to get more out of hand? (YES, IT DOES.)
The point is: cheers to John Tortorella for calling that out to the media. May more coaches and GMs start to say shit like this, and may the Bettman/Campbell bonehead bifecta ever start to listen to the people who actually know hockey (or, like, retire?).
And, as the post title implies, jeers to Tortorella as well, for the usual: shafting Sean Avery. On a night when absolutely no Ranger forward was good, and when the Wolski-Stepan-Zuccarello line was particularly atrocious, Torts defaulted to his old standby and responded by benching Sean Avery. Avery, who looked no worse than anyone else (Dubinsky and Callahan notwithstanding), and who looked better than many, got a team-low (what else is new?) 8:28, including only 2:01 in the third. This 8:28 was a full 1:50 behind the next-lowest, perennial non-factor Ruslan Fedotenko. For comparison, Wolski, Stepan, and Zuccarello got 12:32, 14:34, and 15:05, respectively, while Avery's "linemates" got 14:36 (Prospal) and 14:48 (Gaborik, who scored despite being unimpressive).
Worse, all signs point to Avery being scratched Saturday night in San Jose, in favor of Erik Christensen. I won't go on another rant here about Avery and Christensen, because it will look like a dozen other posts this season. In short: fuck Erik Christensen, and fuck that move.
Anyway, standings. The Flyers did us a favor and beat the Leafs in regulation last night, but the Bruins gave up a 3-2 lead in the third (with some help from the officials) and lost to Buffalo in overtime. Which puts Buffalo at 74 points, tied with us, with two games-in-hand. Someone needs to start beating these guys, please. As for tonight, we've got the 'Canes in Washington, where Alex Ovechkin really needs to stay hot and win a game in regulation for us. If Carolina wins, the standings become a little more honest, and we officially drop to 9th. We've also got Atlanta at New Jersey. Go Thrash, because if the Devils can lose another game or two, this goddamn "miracle run" talk will end, and we can all go back to laughing at Ilya Kovalchuk a little bit.
I never know how to end blog posts.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Oof.
My band had a gig last night, so I didn't even get home and start watching the game until like 12:30. What a waste of staying up until 3 in the morning! Man, that was depressing.
First of all, what are the chances you give up three goals in the first period off of deflections off of your own men in front of the net? 'Cause that was one off of Girardi's skate, one off of Staal's shoulder, and one off of Anisimov's stick. On the first one, I thought, "you know, at least Girardi is making sure there aren't any Ducks in front of the net to deflect pucks in." In general, I guess that's a good sign? The Staal one was weird, but by the Anismov deflection, it was pretty clear that the Ducks were also doing something right. Say, that Bobby Ryan feller is pretty good at the hockey.
You know what the worst part is? Well, no, the worst part is obviously the standings. Of course, the Thrashers-'Canes game went to OT last night. And, as you know, that means Gary Bettman rewards both teams for "keeping the game exciting" by making their game worth more points than a normal, regulation game. So, that sucks. But you know what the second-worst part is? Giving a win to Dan "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems" Ellis! Fuck Dan Ellis! In our long-standing tradition of making goalies look better than they are, we let Dan Ellis make the most saves he's made so far in a game with Anaheim! And he's a jerk-butt!
Anyway, no real constructive comments here. We're a young team, we gotta learn to win games like these, and we will with time, if we stick to the plan. Meanwhile, as far as this season is concerned, things are looking grim. Here are the standings as of this morning:
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 74 pts, 13 GR
8. Buffalo - 72 pts, 16 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 72 pts, 15 GR
10. Toronto - 68 pts, 15 GR
11. Atlanta - 67 pts, 15 GR
12. New Jersey - 64 pts, 16 GR
It's that "GR" thing you should be looking at. We've played 3 more games than Buffalo and the Devils, and 2 more games than everyone else behind us. So, theoretically, if we were to sit still and let everyone play their games-in-hand, and they all won those games-in-hand, the standings would look a little bit more like this:
7. Buffalo - 78 pts
8. Carolina - 76 pts
--------------------
9. NEW YORK RANGERS - 74 pts
10. Toronto - 72 pts
11. Atlanta - 71 pts
12. New Jersey - 70 pts
That's us, on the outside, looking in. Not too far behind, but outside the playoff picture nonetheless. At that point, we'd all be looking at 13 games to go. Time to catch Carolina and possibly also Buffalo, but we're really going to have to start to get hot down the stretch here. Buffalo, Carolina, Toronto, and New Jersey all have, and if we keep playing this way-under-.500 hockey, we could find ourselves in, like, 11th by the end of the season. Just sayin', that 7th-place thing is kind of a lie.
Anyway, we're off again until Saturday night at the Shark Tank. Meanwhile, tonight, the Sabres are in Boston and the Flyers are in Toronto. If Philly and the Bruins can do us some (regulation-time) favors, the pressure lessens a little. Late season playoff push: here we go again!
First of all, what are the chances you give up three goals in the first period off of deflections off of your own men in front of the net? 'Cause that was one off of Girardi's skate, one off of Staal's shoulder, and one off of Anisimov's stick. On the first one, I thought, "you know, at least Girardi is making sure there aren't any Ducks in front of the net to deflect pucks in." In general, I guess that's a good sign? The Staal one was weird, but by the Anismov deflection, it was pretty clear that the Ducks were also doing something right. Say, that Bobby Ryan feller is pretty good at the hockey.
You know what the worst part is? Well, no, the worst part is obviously the standings. Of course, the Thrashers-'Canes game went to OT last night. And, as you know, that means Gary Bettman rewards both teams for "keeping the game exciting" by making their game worth more points than a normal, regulation game. So, that sucks. But you know what the second-worst part is? Giving a win to Dan "Mo' Money, Mo' Problems" Ellis! Fuck Dan Ellis! In our long-standing tradition of making goalies look better than they are, we let Dan Ellis make the most saves he's made so far in a game with Anaheim! And he's a jerk-butt!
Anyway, no real constructive comments here. We're a young team, we gotta learn to win games like these, and we will with time, if we stick to the plan. Meanwhile, as far as this season is concerned, things are looking grim. Here are the standings as of this morning:
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 74 pts, 13 GR
8. Buffalo - 72 pts, 16 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 72 pts, 15 GR
10. Toronto - 68 pts, 15 GR
11. Atlanta - 67 pts, 15 GR
12. New Jersey - 64 pts, 16 GR
It's that "GR" thing you should be looking at. We've played 3 more games than Buffalo and the Devils, and 2 more games than everyone else behind us. So, theoretically, if we were to sit still and let everyone play their games-in-hand, and they all won those games-in-hand, the standings would look a little bit more like this:
7. Buffalo - 78 pts
8. Carolina - 76 pts
--------------------
9. NEW YORK RANGERS - 74 pts
10. Toronto - 72 pts
11. Atlanta - 71 pts
12. New Jersey - 70 pts
That's us, on the outside, looking in. Not too far behind, but outside the playoff picture nonetheless. At that point, we'd all be looking at 13 games to go. Time to catch Carolina and possibly also Buffalo, but we're really going to have to start to get hot down the stretch here. Buffalo, Carolina, Toronto, and New Jersey all have, and if we keep playing this way-under-.500 hockey, we could find ourselves in, like, 11th by the end of the season. Just sayin', that 7th-place thing is kind of a lie.
Anyway, we're off again until Saturday night at the Shark Tank. Meanwhile, tonight, the Sabres are in Boston and the Flyers are in Toronto. If Philly and the Bruins can do us some (regulation-time) favors, the pressure lessens a little. Late season playoff push: here we go again!
Friday, March 4, 2011
Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu
It's getting ridiculous. Once again, we manage to play an entire game from behind, even when we score first. This time, we outshot the Wild fucking 41-19 (they didn't get a shot at all in the first 17:17) but still lost 3-1 (no, I'm not ready to throw Hank under a bus just yet, but the numbers do say that that's a save percentage of .842, to Jose "yes, he's still around" Theodore's .976). This was yet another incredibly frustrating loss.
At the risk of petitions (you know, from my countless readership) to rename this little Slice of Internet "Play Sean Avery," we really need to talk. Our only goal of the game went to The Artist Formerly Known As The Grate One, 3:13 into the first. He was rewarded for this effort with 7:07 of ice time throughout the remainder of the game, almost 3 and a half minutes less than any other Ranger. A whole 1:37 of this came in the third - in fact, Avery was given a total of only 3:49 once we were trailing - and none whatsoever came on the power play (if it can be called that), which went an unsurprising 0-for-4 in 8 full, uninterrupted minutes of shitty.
WHY? Seriously, a cookie to anyone who can give me a theoretically reasonable explanation for Avery's astoundingly limited ice time. For real, I will mail you a goddamn cookie if you can explain this to me rationally.
To clarify: playing Sean Avery is not the answer to all of our problems, which are many and mounting. All I'm saying is that it would fucking help. Those problems, by the way, are finally taking shape in the standings, for those of you who haven't been paying attention. With Carolina's win over Buffalo last night (yes, of course it went to overtime, so it was a 3-point game), we've officially slipped into 8th. Meanwhile, Montréal (whom it's becoming a joke to keep in the conversation about our standings) and Toronto both won as well. And they all still have games-in-hand over us. Let me spell this out for you:
6. Montréal, 77 pts, 17 GR
7. Carolina, 71 pts, 17 GR
8. NEW YORK RANGERS, 70 pts, 16 GR
---------------
9. Buffalo, 68 pts, 19 GR
10. Toronto, 67 pts, 17 GR
11. Atlanta, 63 pts, 17 GR
12. New Jersey, 60 pts, 19 GR
Yes, I'm including the Devils on this list. Guess what. If they win their 3 games in hand on us, they will be 4 points behind us. Two games. You don't think they can win two more games than we do down the stretch? Wake up call time.
So there's the reality of the situation. The playoffs, still considered a pretty sure thing as recently as a couple of weeks ago, are more and more in doubt every day. We've still only won two non-shootout games since January 19 (we've played 18 since then). Two points up-for-grabs last night: we got none. Four points up-for-grabs this weekend: two from Ottawa tonight, two from the Flyers on Sunday afternoon. Could we please start winning some goddamn games?
At the risk of petitions (you know, from my countless readership) to rename this little Slice of Internet "Play Sean Avery," we really need to talk. Our only goal of the game went to The Artist Formerly Known As The Grate One, 3:13 into the first. He was rewarded for this effort with 7:07 of ice time throughout the remainder of the game, almost 3 and a half minutes less than any other Ranger. A whole 1:37 of this came in the third - in fact, Avery was given a total of only 3:49 once we were trailing - and none whatsoever came on the power play (if it can be called that), which went an unsurprising 0-for-4 in 8 full, uninterrupted minutes of shitty.
WHY? Seriously, a cookie to anyone who can give me a theoretically reasonable explanation for Avery's astoundingly limited ice time. For real, I will mail you a goddamn cookie if you can explain this to me rationally.
To clarify: playing Sean Avery is not the answer to all of our problems, which are many and mounting. All I'm saying is that it would fucking help. Those problems, by the way, are finally taking shape in the standings, for those of you who haven't been paying attention. With Carolina's win over Buffalo last night (yes, of course it went to overtime, so it was a 3-point game), we've officially slipped into 8th. Meanwhile, Montréal (whom it's becoming a joke to keep in the conversation about our standings) and Toronto both won as well. And they all still have games-in-hand over us. Let me spell this out for you:
6. Montréal, 77 pts, 17 GR
7. Carolina, 71 pts, 17 GR
8. NEW YORK RANGERS, 70 pts, 16 GR
---------------
9. Buffalo, 68 pts, 19 GR
10. Toronto, 67 pts, 17 GR
11. Atlanta, 63 pts, 17 GR
12. New Jersey, 60 pts, 19 GR
Yes, I'm including the Devils on this list. Guess what. If they win their 3 games in hand on us, they will be 4 points behind us. Two games. You don't think they can win two more games than we do down the stretch? Wake up call time.
So there's the reality of the situation. The playoffs, still considered a pretty sure thing as recently as a couple of weeks ago, are more and more in doubt every day. We've still only won two non-shootout games since January 19 (we've played 18 since then). Two points up-for-grabs last night: we got none. Four points up-for-grabs this weekend: two from Ottawa tonight, two from the Flyers on Sunday afternoon. Could we please start winning some goddamn games?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The lay of the land
I should really start blogging on weekends, too. This is too much to take.
Last night, nothing important happened. I mean, the Thrashers won their sixth straight, beating the I-told-you-these-guys-were-in-total-freefall Capitals by the are-you-sure-you're-reading-that-right score of 5-1, which led to me having a dream in which the Thrashers won so many in a row that we had to start including them in talks about the bubble, and they became another team that could knock the Rangers out of the playoffs......
but, the point is: nothing that actually matters to the Rangers' playoff chances happened.
I'm easing myself into the myriad topics I actually want to talk about here, very few of which I will actually end up covering by the end of the day, due to my having a job that isn't to write this terrible thing, so let's start with a quick bubble-standings update, after the weekend's games.
Saturday, we and the Canadiens lost in regulation, and the Pens, Sabres, Panthers, and 'Canes all lost in shootouts. Sunday, we and the Pens won, and the other 4 were inactive. Yesterday, as I mentioned, we were all resting. Incidentally, does the NHL hate Mondays? Is this a trend? 2-game Mondays, 12-game Tuesdays? Whatever. The point is: The Canadiens picked up nothing in 1 game, the Sabres, Panthers, and 'Canes each picked up 1 in 1 game, we picked up 2 in 2 games, and the Pens infuriatingly picked up 3 in 2 games. Here's where that leaves us, as of this afternoon:
5. Pittsburgh, 82 pts, 11 GR
6. Montréal, 80 pts, 13 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS, 80 pts, 12 GR
8. Carolina, 79 pts, 11 GR
-----------------------
9. Florida, 78 pts, 13 GR
10. Buffalo, 76 pts, 13 GR
I'll get into tonight's games a little later, but there are two thoughts about these standings that I want to leave you with first:
1) I am still not putting the Flyers on the chart yet, because we have enough problems without worrying about home ice, and they're still pretty out-of-reach, when you consider games-in-hand: they are sitting on 84 points, with 14 games remaining. But, as some kind of saying probably goes, you need to actually get points out of those games-in-hand for them to matter. With the Flyers in Detroit tonight, the standings really could keep shifting in such a way that they'll need to be included in this. And Torts does keep telling us to look up, not down. Not yet, though - one thing at a time.
2) This is all bullshit. I feel like I've been posting these standings for long enough now that I need to throw out that disclaimer. There are different reasons you could be looking at these standings, and I feel obligated to steer you from the wrong ones. The actual summary of the standings is: There are 10-15 games left in the season, and 5th through 10th are all within a few points of each other. That's what matters. If you're worrying about which side of that dashed line we fall on on a given day in this stretch, you're doing it wrong.
I post these for two reasons. One is to give you an overall picture of where we're standing, why each game is so important, and which other teams' games are also important. The other is because I'm a crazy fucking geek, and putting together numbers like this appeals to me on a very raw level. So, the point is: read these standings for those reasons. If you find yourself thinking anything like "oh crap, yesterday we were in 8th and then we didn't play last night and now we're in 9th," chill. This has been your "how you are supposed to think" lesson for the day. Thanks for tuning in.
Last night, nothing important happened. I mean, the Thrashers won their sixth straight, beating the I-told-you-these-guys-were-in-total-freefall Capitals by the are-you-sure-you're-reading-that-right score of 5-1, which led to me having a dream in which the Thrashers won so many in a row that we had to start including them in talks about the bubble, and they became another team that could knock the Rangers out of the playoffs......
but, the point is: nothing that actually matters to the Rangers' playoff chances happened.
I'm easing myself into the myriad topics I actually want to talk about here, very few of which I will actually end up covering by the end of the day, due to my having a job that isn't to write this terrible thing, so let's start with a quick bubble-standings update, after the weekend's games.
Saturday, we and the Canadiens lost in regulation, and the Pens, Sabres, Panthers, and 'Canes all lost in shootouts. Sunday, we and the Pens won, and the other 4 were inactive. Yesterday, as I mentioned, we were all resting. Incidentally, does the NHL hate Mondays? Is this a trend? 2-game Mondays, 12-game Tuesdays? Whatever. The point is: The Canadiens picked up nothing in 1 game, the Sabres, Panthers, and 'Canes each picked up 1 in 1 game, we picked up 2 in 2 games, and the Pens infuriatingly picked up 3 in 2 games. Here's where that leaves us, as of this afternoon:
5. Pittsburgh, 82 pts, 11 GR
6. Montréal, 80 pts, 13 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS, 80 pts, 12 GR
8. Carolina, 79 pts, 11 GR
-----------------------
9. Florida, 78 pts, 13 GR
10. Buffalo, 76 pts, 13 GR
I'll get into tonight's games a little later, but there are two thoughts about these standings that I want to leave you with first:
1) I am still not putting the Flyers on the chart yet, because we have enough problems without worrying about home ice, and they're still pretty out-of-reach, when you consider games-in-hand: they are sitting on 84 points, with 14 games remaining. But, as some kind of saying probably goes, you need to actually get points out of those games-in-hand for them to matter. With the Flyers in Detroit tonight, the standings really could keep shifting in such a way that they'll need to be included in this. And Torts does keep telling us to look up, not down. Not yet, though - one thing at a time.
2) This is all bullshit. I feel like I've been posting these standings for long enough now that I need to throw out that disclaimer. There are different reasons you could be looking at these standings, and I feel obligated to steer you from the wrong ones. The actual summary of the standings is: There are 10-15 games left in the season, and 5th through 10th are all within a few points of each other. That's what matters. If you're worrying about which side of that dashed line we fall on on a given day in this stretch, you're doing it wrong.
I post these for two reasons. One is to give you an overall picture of where we're standing, why each game is so important, and which other teams' games are also important. The other is because I'm a crazy fucking geek, and putting together numbers like this appeals to me on a very raw level. So, the point is: read these standings for those reasons. If you find yourself thinking anything like "oh crap, yesterday we were in 8th and then we didn't play last night and now we're in 9th," chill. This has been your "how you are supposed to think" lesson for the day. Thanks for tuning in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)