Quickie today: over the last 4 games, Lundqvist's numbers have been impossibly good: a save percentage of .982, with a goals against average of 0.49. But before you get too excited, we've also given similar numbers to the aggregate 4-game goalie of Tomas Vokoun, Craig Anderson, Tuukka Rask, and Jhonas Enroth. These four goalies have combined against us, over the last 4 games, for a save percentage of .972, with a goals against average of 0.73.
Those are your numbers for today.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Revisionist Eastern Conference Playoffs 2010
So, with my methods well understood (I hope?), let's look at some data. Last season, you may well recall missing the playoffs by a point. Here's how that broke down:
1. Washington - 121
2. New Jersey - 103
3. Buffalo - 100
4. Pittsburgh - 101
5. Ottawa - 94
6. Boston - 91
7. Philadelphia - 88
8. Montréal - 88
--------------------
9. NEW YORK RANGERS - 87
I don't want to sound like a bitter fan, claiming we deserved a playoff spot last season, but let's take a look at what our new, sane point systems would have heralded. Here's the breakdown using the old-school points system (each game is worth two points):
1. Washington - 109
2. New Jersey - 95
3. Buffalo - 92
4. Pittsburgh - 88
5. Ottawa - 88
6. Philadelphia - 81
7. Boston - 77
8. NEW YORK RANGERS - 77
--------------------
9. Montréal - 76
And here's how it breaks down using the soccer-style system (each game is worth three points):
1. Washington - 164
2. New Jersey - 143
3. Buffalo - 135
4. Pittsburgh - 134
5. Ottawa - 128
6. Philadelphia - 123
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 121
8. Boston - 116
--------------------
9. Montréal - 112
Rather than looking at the benefits of the soccer system vs. the old-school system, here's what's interesting to me: these new systems seem to agree with each other more than either one agrees with the stupid system we use now. Both new systems agree that the Canadiens are the team that should have fallen short last season, and they agree that Philly deserved a higher ranking. They also agree that Buffalo should have beaten Pittsburgh in points (under the stupid current system, Buffalo was handed the #3 spot due to winning their division, but Pittsburgh actually had more points).
In fact, let's take a look at the one place the two new systems disagree: the #7 and #8 spots. They're actually tied in points: Boston is only handed the #7 spot because of my tiebreaker concession: they have more shootout wins. If we were to do away with the shootout entirely, that tiebreaker would fall to the season series victor, which was the Rangers, 3-1. Which means that without the shootout tiebreaker, the two new systems actually agree 100% on what the standings should have been, and it is not what they were.
I'm not saying we wouldn't necessarily have ended up with the goddamn Flyers representing the conference anyway. I am saying that it's interesting to note that the two sane systems I'm proposing agree with each other in terms of what the playoff picture should be, and that what the NHL actually does seems to disagree. And that we missed out on yet another Rangers-Devils first round.
I wonder if other seasons, or the Western Conference, will see a closer relationship between the old-school system and the soccer-style system than between either of those and the current, stupid system. More to come, when I get a chance.
1. Washington - 121
2. New Jersey - 103
3. Buffalo - 100
4. Pittsburgh - 101
5. Ottawa - 94
6. Boston - 91
7. Philadelphia - 88
8. Montréal - 88
--------------------
9. NEW YORK RANGERS - 87
I don't want to sound like a bitter fan, claiming we deserved a playoff spot last season, but let's take a look at what our new, sane point systems would have heralded. Here's the breakdown using the old-school points system (each game is worth two points):
1. Washington - 109
2. New Jersey - 95
3. Buffalo - 92
4. Pittsburgh - 88
5. Ottawa - 88
6. Philadelphia - 81
7. Boston - 77
8. NEW YORK RANGERS - 77
--------------------
9. Montréal - 76
And here's how it breaks down using the soccer-style system (each game is worth three points):
1. Washington - 164
2. New Jersey - 143
3. Buffalo - 135
4. Pittsburgh - 134
5. Ottawa - 128
6. Philadelphia - 123
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 121
8. Boston - 116
--------------------
9. Montréal - 112
Rather than looking at the benefits of the soccer system vs. the old-school system, here's what's interesting to me: these new systems seem to agree with each other more than either one agrees with the stupid system we use now. Both new systems agree that the Canadiens are the team that should have fallen short last season, and they agree that Philly deserved a higher ranking. They also agree that Buffalo should have beaten Pittsburgh in points (under the stupid current system, Buffalo was handed the #3 spot due to winning their division, but Pittsburgh actually had more points).
In fact, let's take a look at the one place the two new systems disagree: the #7 and #8 spots. They're actually tied in points: Boston is only handed the #7 spot because of my tiebreaker concession: they have more shootout wins. If we were to do away with the shootout entirely, that tiebreaker would fall to the season series victor, which was the Rangers, 3-1. Which means that without the shootout tiebreaker, the two new systems actually agree 100% on what the standings should have been, and it is not what they were.
I'm not saying we wouldn't necessarily have ended up with the goddamn Flyers representing the conference anyway. I am saying that it's interesting to note that the two sane systems I'm proposing agree with each other in terms of what the playoff picture should be, and that what the NHL actually does seems to disagree. And that we missed out on yet another Rangers-Devils first round.
I wonder if other seasons, or the Western Conference, will see a closer relationship between the old-school system and the soccer-style system than between either of those and the current, stupid system. More to come, when I get a chance.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Different Standings Systems
Hey, so, here's the first in what may or may not be a series of posts about possible systems of standings we could use instead of the really stupid system we use now. To start, let's talk about the really stupid system we use now.
Right now, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes into a 5-minute, 4-on-4 overtime period. If it remains tied after that overtime, it goes into a shootout, which is guaranteed to determine a victor. In the standings, the winner is given two points no matter what. The loser is given zero points if the game ended within regulation, but one point if the game was tied after regulation. This, as mentioned, is stupid.
It is stupid for exactly two reasons. One: the shootout is not hockey, and should not be used to determine points in the standings of a league that plays hockey. This is not immediately mathematically obvious, but is generally agreed upon by almost every single hockey fan that does not own a Sidney Crosby Snuggie. Two: some regular season games are worth more points than others, which is mathematically obviously a terrible idea.
In order to try to reduce some of the obvious stupidity, the GMs agreed to use "regulation plus overtime wins" as the first tiebreaker in the standings. In other words: if two teams are tied in points at the end of the regular season, the higher spot in the standings will go to the team that got more of those points not from the shootout. Good, that's a start. It actually resolves zero of the two issues I listed above, but it's a start nonetheless.
So, to further alleviate (or eliminate entirely) the really unbelievable stupidity, here are two other potential point systems we could be using, each significantly less infuriatingly stupid than the one we're using now. Both systems feature the benefit of using the same exact game structure we use now, just counting points differently.
System A: Old-School, or "do what we did before we started doing the stupid thing we do right now." If the game ends in regulation or in the overtime period, the winner gets two points, and the loser gets zero points. Because the winner won the damn game, which was worth two damn points. If the game remains tied after the overtime, each team gets one point (the two points are split among the two teams, who have tied). Then, because the NHL hates ties, have the shootout anyway, and use it to determine the "winner" of the game. This team gets no additional points in the standings, but records one "shootout win." We can use the shootout wins as the first tiebreaker, so they are not actually meaningless, but they're significantly less meaningful.
System B: Soccer-Style, or "just do what FIFA does, they are smarter than you." If you want to give two points to the winner and one point to the loser of every game that goes into overtime, fine. But then games are worth three points. So make a game worth three points! If the game ends in regulation, the winner gets three points and the loser gets zero. If the game ends in overtime or a shootout, the winner gets two points and the loser gets one. Holy shit two plus one is three you guys.
So, there are plenty of reasons that either of these systems would be all hells of kinds of superior to the one we use now. Most of them simplify to "the system we use now is stupid," so I won't go into that now. Here's what's cool, though: we can play "What If?" With the magic of arithmetic, we can find out how previous seasons since the lockout would have ended, if the NHL were using either of these obviously better systems instead of its astoundingly stupid one. Here are my methods:
First, the old-school system. If a game ended in regulation, we currently do exactly what we want in the old-school system (2 points to the winner, 0 to the loser), so no change needs to be made. If a game ended in the overtime period, we currently award 2 points to the winner and 1 to the loser, and we should award 2 to the winner and 0 to the loser, so each team needs to lose one point per loss within the overtime period. Then, if a game ended in a shootout, we still award 2 points to the winner and 1 to the loser, and we should give one point to each instead. So each team needs to lose one point per shootout win. So, for each team, if we subtract the number of times they lost within an overtime period and their number of shootout wins from their total points, we will get the number of points they deserve in the old-school system.
As for soccer-style, if a game was tied after regulation, we currently do exactly what we want (2 points to the winner, 1 to the loser). However, if a game ended in regulation, we currently give 2 points to the winner and 0 to the loser, whereas we should give three to the winner (and 0 to the loser). So each team needs to gain one point per regulation win. For each team, if we add the number of times they won in regulation to their total points, we will get the number of points they deserve in the soccer-style system.
Coming up next (possibly): some results! (I've calculated them for the Eastern Conference for every season, I haven't done the Western Conference yet at all. I'll post these results if I have time today or tomorrow.)
Right now, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes into a 5-minute, 4-on-4 overtime period. If it remains tied after that overtime, it goes into a shootout, which is guaranteed to determine a victor. In the standings, the winner is given two points no matter what. The loser is given zero points if the game ended within regulation, but one point if the game was tied after regulation. This, as mentioned, is stupid.
It is stupid for exactly two reasons. One: the shootout is not hockey, and should not be used to determine points in the standings of a league that plays hockey. This is not immediately mathematically obvious, but is generally agreed upon by almost every single hockey fan that does not own a Sidney Crosby Snuggie. Two: some regular season games are worth more points than others, which is mathematically obviously a terrible idea.
In order to try to reduce some of the obvious stupidity, the GMs agreed to use "regulation plus overtime wins" as the first tiebreaker in the standings. In other words: if two teams are tied in points at the end of the regular season, the higher spot in the standings will go to the team that got more of those points not from the shootout. Good, that's a start. It actually resolves zero of the two issues I listed above, but it's a start nonetheless.
So, to further alleviate (or eliminate entirely) the really unbelievable stupidity, here are two other potential point systems we could be using, each significantly less infuriatingly stupid than the one we're using now. Both systems feature the benefit of using the same exact game structure we use now, just counting points differently.
System A: Old-School, or "do what we did before we started doing the stupid thing we do right now." If the game ends in regulation or in the overtime period, the winner gets two points, and the loser gets zero points. Because the winner won the damn game, which was worth two damn points. If the game remains tied after the overtime, each team gets one point (the two points are split among the two teams, who have tied). Then, because the NHL hates ties, have the shootout anyway, and use it to determine the "winner" of the game. This team gets no additional points in the standings, but records one "shootout win." We can use the shootout wins as the first tiebreaker, so they are not actually meaningless, but they're significantly less meaningful.
System B: Soccer-Style, or "just do what FIFA does, they are smarter than you." If you want to give two points to the winner and one point to the loser of every game that goes into overtime, fine. But then games are worth three points. So make a game worth three points! If the game ends in regulation, the winner gets three points and the loser gets zero. If the game ends in overtime or a shootout, the winner gets two points and the loser gets one. Holy shit two plus one is three you guys.
So, there are plenty of reasons that either of these systems would be all hells of kinds of superior to the one we use now. Most of them simplify to "the system we use now is stupid," so I won't go into that now. Here's what's cool, though: we can play "What If?" With the magic of arithmetic, we can find out how previous seasons since the lockout would have ended, if the NHL were using either of these obviously better systems instead of its astoundingly stupid one. Here are my methods:
First, the old-school system. If a game ended in regulation, we currently do exactly what we want in the old-school system (2 points to the winner, 0 to the loser), so no change needs to be made. If a game ended in the overtime period, we currently award 2 points to the winner and 1 to the loser, and we should award 2 to the winner and 0 to the loser, so each team needs to lose one point per loss within the overtime period. Then, if a game ended in a shootout, we still award 2 points to the winner and 1 to the loser, and we should give one point to each instead. So each team needs to lose one point per shootout win. So, for each team, if we subtract the number of times they lost within an overtime period and their number of shootout wins from their total points, we will get the number of points they deserve in the old-school system.
As for soccer-style, if a game was tied after regulation, we currently do exactly what we want (2 points to the winner, 1 to the loser). However, if a game ended in regulation, we currently give 2 points to the winner and 0 to the loser, whereas we should give three to the winner (and 0 to the loser). So each team needs to gain one point per regulation win. For each team, if we add the number of times they won in regulation to their total points, we will get the number of points they deserve in the soccer-style system.
Coming up next (possibly): some results! (I've calculated them for the Eastern Conference for every season, I haven't done the Western Conference yet at all. I'll post these results if I have time today or tomorrow.)
Rollin' rollin' rollin'
Hey so last week was Matt Cooke Week and then I was in a wedding over the weekend, but a lot has happened that was Positive, from a Hockey Perspective!
We just keep on winning hockey games, first of all. We're 6-0-1 in our last 7, and we're 8-1-1 in the last 10. Meanwhile, the Canadiens have lost a couple, and the Devils have lost enough that even Kovalchuk admits they're probably done for the season. As we keep winning and the right teams keep losing, we're now tied in points and games remaining with Montréal, in 6th (admittedly, Buffalo is 2 points behind us with a game-in-hand). So if Buffalo wins that game-in-hand, 6th, 7th, and 8th are all tied in points and games remaining.
More importantly, we've got a growing gap between us and the 9th-place Hurricanes, and the other teams that we previously considered to be in the race are becoming less and less likely. Here's where things stand right now:
5. Tampa Bay - 91 pts, 7 GR
6. Montréal - 87 pts, 6 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 87 pts, 6 GR
8. Buffalo - 85 pts, 7 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 80 pts, 7 GR
I'm leaving Toronto, Atlanta, and New Jersey off from now on, barring miracles.
Tonight, nothing of import. Tomorrow night: Sabres at Toronto and Hurricanes at Washington at 7:00, Thrashers at Montréal at 7:30, and in case anyone is thinking about trying to catch Tampa (highly unlikely), the Senators are there at 7:30. Go Leafs, Caps, Thrashers, and Sens.
And as for our remaining schedule, not a lot of travel left: we're in Buffalo, on Long Island, and then in Philly before coming to play the Bruins, Thrashers, and Devils to finish the season. If I have time in the next day or two, I will try to post something more interesting than a standings update, but for now, this is good news!
We just keep on winning hockey games, first of all. We're 6-0-1 in our last 7, and we're 8-1-1 in the last 10. Meanwhile, the Canadiens have lost a couple, and the Devils have lost enough that even Kovalchuk admits they're probably done for the season. As we keep winning and the right teams keep losing, we're now tied in points and games remaining with Montréal, in 6th (admittedly, Buffalo is 2 points behind us with a game-in-hand). So if Buffalo wins that game-in-hand, 6th, 7th, and 8th are all tied in points and games remaining.
More importantly, we've got a growing gap between us and the 9th-place Hurricanes, and the other teams that we previously considered to be in the race are becoming less and less likely. Here's where things stand right now:
5. Tampa Bay - 91 pts, 7 GR
6. Montréal - 87 pts, 6 GR
7. NEW YORK RANGERS - 87 pts, 6 GR
8. Buffalo - 85 pts, 7 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina - 80 pts, 7 GR
I'm leaving Toronto, Atlanta, and New Jersey off from now on, barring miracles.
Tonight, nothing of import. Tomorrow night: Sabres at Toronto and Hurricanes at Washington at 7:00, Thrashers at Montréal at 7:30, and in case anyone is thinking about trying to catch Tampa (highly unlikely), the Senators are there at 7:30. Go Leafs, Caps, Thrashers, and Sens.
And as for our remaining schedule, not a lot of travel left: we're in Buffalo, on Long Island, and then in Philly before coming to play the Bruins, Thrashers, and Devils to finish the season. If I have time in the next day or two, I will try to post something more interesting than a standings update, but for now, this is good news!
Monday, March 21, 2011
I IS A POET YOU GUYS
So, sometimes I express myself creatively by writing poetry. My favorite form of poem to write is the double dactyl, which I enjoy for the same reasons all we little nerdlings enjoyed haiku in middle school: the rules are very simple to follow, and the form is short, so they often come out amusing. Here are three double dactyls I wrote today, following the announcement that Matt Cooke will be suspended for the remainder of the regular season as well as the first round of the playoffs.
On-the-ice, with-mal-ice,
Matthew David Cooke will
elbow your head or
collide with your knee.
Perspectivelessly,
he thinks that's okay 'cause
he gives to some charities
regularly.
--------------------
Flipacoin, rolladie!
Colin (That's l-I-n)
looked at Cooke's elbow of
Ryan McD.
Uncharact'ristically,
got this one right even
though he's a Pen and there's
no injury!
--------------------
Listen-up! Wisen-up!
Sir Super Mario:
Campbell did his part, now
it's up to you.
The question now is if
unjustifiably
Cooke sees one second of
ice in round two.
On-the-ice, with-mal-ice,
Matthew David Cooke will
elbow your head or
collide with your knee.
Perspectivelessly,
he thinks that's okay 'cause
he gives to some charities
regularly.
--------------------
Flipacoin, rolladie!
Colin (That's l-I-n)
looked at Cooke's elbow of
Ryan McD.
Uncharact'ristically,
got this one right even
though he's a Pen and there's
no injury!
--------------------
Listen-up! Wisen-up!
Sir Super Mario:
Campbell did his part, now
it's up to you.
The question now is if
unjustifiably
Cooke sees one second of
ice in round two.
A lighter note
Highlights from Puck Daddy's latest What We Learned (which is to say, if it wasn't clear, that all the following funny things were said by Puck Daddy and not by me):
Atlanta Thrashers: Say you're fighting for a playoff spot and have a game against a team you're only four points back of. A good way to help your cause is not to give up an 8-spot to them. I'm just sayin'.
Edmonton Oilers: This just in: Taylor Hall is pretty good. Now with math!
New Jersey Devils: Marty Brodeur on the Devs' Friday loss: 'It's a setback. We were doing well.' Problem is, one more setback and the season might be over. Sucks having to win 10 of 11, but maybe next time don't start out the season 0-184-3 or whatever MacLean did.
New York Rangers: Don't look now, but the Rangers have won four in a row and look fairly comfortable in their playoff position. What do you mean, 'games in hand'?
Philadelphia Flyers: The Flyers became the first team in the East toback into clinch a playoff spot. Playing nothing but garbage teams for the past two weeks has really helped bring their game together.
Pittsburgh Penguins: 'Penguins players approve of a committee to study head hits.' Maybe that group will send a CSI team to scrape Matt Cooke's elbow for samples of Marc Savard's and Ryan McDonagh's brain matter.
Atlanta Thrashers: Say you're fighting for a playoff spot and have a game against a team you're only four points back of. A good way to help your cause is not to give up an 8-spot to them. I'm just sayin'.
Edmonton Oilers: This just in: Taylor Hall is pretty good. Now with math!
New Jersey Devils: Marty Brodeur on the Devs' Friday loss: 'It's a setback. We were doing well.' Problem is, one more setback and the season might be over. Sucks having to win 10 of 11, but maybe next time don't start out the season 0-184-3 or whatever MacLean did.
New York Rangers: Don't look now, but the Rangers have won four in a row and look fairly comfortable in their playoff position. What do you mean, 'games in hand'?
Philadelphia Flyers: The Flyers became the first team in the East to
Pittsburgh Penguins: 'Penguins players approve of a committee to study head hits.' Maybe that group will send a CSI team to scrape Matt Cooke's elbow for samples of Marc Savard's and Ryan McDonagh's brain matter.
In Which Mario Lemieux Probably Does Not Write Another Letter
A note before we begin: it is more important that you read these two articles by Larry Brooks than that you read this. Go read those. Then, if you still have time to read about the Rangers, come back here and read this. Thank you.
Man, I used to hate going to the Igloo, but I fucking love going to the Consol Energy Center.
Game started out with a few "huh?" calls: a missed goalie interference here, a trip-that-wasn't-a-trip-at-all there, Dustin Jeffrey sent to the box for something Matt Cooke did, and so on. Nothing remarkable, but a pretty good hockey game. By the second period, which Torts rightly called "brutal," the action was all Pens, all the time. There was no way we were winning this game on our own.
So the Penguins did us a favor and once again became the Flyers, despite Coach Dan Bylsma's continued, appropriate scratching of Arron Asham in the face of slightly more man-games lost to injury than even the Rangers have had this season (I believe the count was 288 for the Pens, 280 for us). I'm not here to debate the cleanliness of Matt Cooke's hit on Ryan McDonagh, which can be seen in all its glory here. Thankfully, few are defending this hit. But imagine me sitting in that arena, watching Cooke go off to the locker room, hearing an arena of Pens fans boo.
Maybe you were booing Matt Cooke for doing something stupid that could end a guy's career. Or at least something stupid that puts his team in a really bad position to win a hockey game. Maybe you were booing your coach for putting the 'A' on Cooke's sweater, thus lifting him up as an exemplar on the Pens. Or your hypocritical management, for using its creepily close relationship with Gary Bettman to whine about this kind of behavior while continuing to employ it. 'Cause there is no way you were booing Cooke's penalties, right?
Anyway, a few minutes later when Matt Niskanen irresponsibly got his stick up in Ryan Callahan's face, cutting open his nose (again, Penguin fans, I assume you were booing due to your disappointment in Niskanen?), the Rangers finally decided to start shooting the puck (the 5-on-3, which started 7:54 into the period, gave us our first shot of that period), and the whole game turned around. Once again, Penguin fans leave the building in shock, and I leave happy.
The question, of course, now becomes how long Cooke gets suspended for. No one is even debating how dirty that hit was, but no one knows what the NHL would do. If we are to listen to the Penguins, through either the owner's complaints that are so well-known by now, or the fans who complained that Trevor Gillies's recent 10-game suspension was too short because he's an obvious repeat offender, Cooke deserves at least the rest of the regular season, and probably however far the Pens go into the playoffs, as well. However, McD skated away fine, and this is a league that historically suspends to the injury, not the action. So, we'll see.
And stop calling them the "'Guins." It sounds stupid.
One more thing: 20-goal scorer watch! I off-handedly said to my girlfriend during some game in December or January, "you know what I would love? If this season, the Rangers had no 30-goal scorers and like 6 20-goal scorers. That would just be awesome."
Well, here we are, with nine games to go in the regular season. Our leading scorer, Ryan Callahan, has 23 goals. Behind him are Gaborik with 22 and Dubinsky and Boyle with 21 each. Stepan's at 19 and Anisimov's at 18. So, a new thing I'm gonna root for is at least one more for Step and at least two more for Arty. I'd love to be rooting for a team with six 20-goal scorers and no 30-goal scorers, wouldn't you?
Anyway, the point is: we come away from Pittsburgh with another two points, and we breathe that much easier coming into the stretch. Nine games to go.
I love going to Consol Energy Center.
Man, I used to hate going to the Igloo, but I fucking love going to the Consol Energy Center.
Game started out with a few "huh?" calls: a missed goalie interference here, a trip-that-wasn't-a-trip-at-all there, Dustin Jeffrey sent to the box for something Matt Cooke did, and so on. Nothing remarkable, but a pretty good hockey game. By the second period, which Torts rightly called "brutal," the action was all Pens, all the time. There was no way we were winning this game on our own.
So the Penguins did us a favor and once again became the Flyers, despite Coach Dan Bylsma's continued, appropriate scratching of Arron Asham in the face of slightly more man-games lost to injury than even the Rangers have had this season (I believe the count was 288 for the Pens, 280 for us). I'm not here to debate the cleanliness of Matt Cooke's hit on Ryan McDonagh, which can be seen in all its glory here. Thankfully, few are defending this hit. But imagine me sitting in that arena, watching Cooke go off to the locker room, hearing an arena of Pens fans boo.
Maybe you were booing Matt Cooke for doing something stupid that could end a guy's career. Or at least something stupid that puts his team in a really bad position to win a hockey game. Maybe you were booing your coach for putting the 'A' on Cooke's sweater, thus lifting him up as an exemplar on the Pens. Or your hypocritical management, for using its creepily close relationship with Gary Bettman to whine about this kind of behavior while continuing to employ it. 'Cause there is no way you were booing Cooke's penalties, right?
Anyway, a few minutes later when Matt Niskanen irresponsibly got his stick up in Ryan Callahan's face, cutting open his nose (again, Penguin fans, I assume you were booing due to your disappointment in Niskanen?), the Rangers finally decided to start shooting the puck (the 5-on-3, which started 7:54 into the period, gave us our first shot of that period), and the whole game turned around. Once again, Penguin fans leave the building in shock, and I leave happy.
The question, of course, now becomes how long Cooke gets suspended for. No one is even debating how dirty that hit was, but no one knows what the NHL would do. If we are to listen to the Penguins, through either the owner's complaints that are so well-known by now, or the fans who complained that Trevor Gillies's recent 10-game suspension was too short because he's an obvious repeat offender, Cooke deserves at least the rest of the regular season, and probably however far the Pens go into the playoffs, as well. However, McD skated away fine, and this is a league that historically suspends to the injury, not the action. So, we'll see.
And stop calling them the "'Guins." It sounds stupid.
One more thing: 20-goal scorer watch! I off-handedly said to my girlfriend during some game in December or January, "you know what I would love? If this season, the Rangers had no 30-goal scorers and like 6 20-goal scorers. That would just be awesome."
Well, here we are, with nine games to go in the regular season. Our leading scorer, Ryan Callahan, has 23 goals. Behind him are Gaborik with 22 and Dubinsky and Boyle with 21 each. Stepan's at 19 and Anisimov's at 18. So, a new thing I'm gonna root for is at least one more for Step and at least two more for Arty. I'd love to be rooting for a team with six 20-goal scorers and no 30-goal scorers, wouldn't you?
Anyway, the point is: we come away from Pittsburgh with another two points, and we breathe that much easier coming into the stretch. Nine games to go.
I love going to Consol Energy Center.
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!
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Interesting
Lineup for tonight appears to leave Christensen centering Prospal and Gaborik, but Avery is making the lineup after all. The healthy scratch? Wojtek Wolski, and we should expect a line of Avery-Stepan-Zuccarello. Okay, weird choice, but I'll have fun watching them. Also, looks like Eminger in for Gilroy.
Monday, March 14, 2011
I don't know why I did this
Let's imagine a restoration of sanity: if regulation time ends and the game is tied, the teams play an overtime. At the end of that overtime, the game is over. If either team has won, that team gets two points, and the other team gets zero. If neither team has won, they tie, and each team gets one point. Therefore, overtime games are not worth more than regulation games, which is silly. Also, no shootout.
So, we can actually calculate what this would look like, right now. Today, if a team wins within an overtime period, it gets two points, as it should. No change there. If a team loses in an overtime period today, it gets one point, whereas in the sane system, it should get zero. If a game goes to a shootout, we should pretend it ended there, in a tie. Therefore, each team should get one point. Today, the loser does get a point, but the winner gets two, and would only get one in the sane system.
So, for each team, if we take their total points, subtract one point per loss within an overtime period, and subtract one point per shootout win, we will get the number of points that team would have in a sane point system. Let's take a look!
These are the Eastern Conference standings, right now (listed with goal differential, also ignoring the division-winning thing):
1. Philadelphia (+37) - 91 pts, 14 GR
2. Washington (+18) - 90 pts, 12 GR
3. Pittsburgh (+30) - 88 pts, 12 GR
4. Boston (+41) - 85 pts, 14 GR
5. Tampa Bay (-5) - 85 pts, 13 GR
6. Montréal (+12) - 83 pts, 13 GR
7. Buffalo (+2) - 76 pts, 13 GR
8. New York Rangers (+27) - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina (-13) - 72 pts, 13 GR
10. Atlanta (-29) - 70 pts, 13 GR
11. Toronto (-30) - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. New Jersey (-28) - 68 pts, 14 GR
13. Florida (-18) - 65 pts, 13 GR
14. New York Islanders (-27) - 65 pts, 12 GR
15. Ottawa (-58) - 59 pts, 13 GR
Here's what they would look like using my sane point system:
1. Philadelphia (+37) - 85 pts, 14 GR
2. Washington (+18) - 82 pts, 12 GR
3. Boston (+41) - 80 pts, 14 GR
4. Pittsburgh (+30) - 78 pts, 12 GR
5. Montréal (+12) - 77 pts, 13 GR
6. Tampa Bay (-5) - 75 pts, 13 GR
7. New York Rangers (+27) - 66 pts, 12 GR
8. Buffalo (+2) - 64 pts, 13 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina (-13) - 63 pts, 13 GR
10. New Jersey (-28) - 62 pts, 14 GR
11. Atlanta (-29) - 62 pts, 13 GR
12. Toronto (-30) - 61 pts, 13 GR
13. Florida (-18) - 56 pts, 13 GR
14. New York Islanders (-27) - 56 pts, 12 GR
15. Ottawa (-58) - 53 pts, 13 GR
What does this show us? Not much, I guess. The same eight teams would be in the playoff picture, but we and the Sabres would be switched. It also puts the ranking much closer to goal differential order. My initial inclination is that this would be a much better way to express how good a team is at hockey, but at the end of the day it gives a team somewhere between 4-5 points (Minnesota, New Jersey) and 11-12 points (Nashville, Buffalo), so it's only responsible for up to an 8-point swing, which is big for teams on the bubble, but statistically unlikely to make a big change in which teams make the playoffs.
Specifically, it shows us that Boston, as their goal differential shows as well, should be higher in the standings than they are, and that we belong a bit ahead of Buffalo. It also shows us that the Devils should be way closer to the playoffs than they are. Fuck the Devils and all, but it's shit like this that makes the NHL kinda bullshit. If overtime games weren't worth more points than regulation games, the Devils' basement-to-the-playoffs run would be realistic, which is shitty 'cause they're the Devils (and fuck them), but it's kinda cool for hockey.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I did this, or what it proves, if anything. But there it is. If I have time, I may go back and analyze the five completed seasons since the lockout to see what ought to be different, if anything.
So, we can actually calculate what this would look like, right now. Today, if a team wins within an overtime period, it gets two points, as it should. No change there. If a team loses in an overtime period today, it gets one point, whereas in the sane system, it should get zero. If a game goes to a shootout, we should pretend it ended there, in a tie. Therefore, each team should get one point. Today, the loser does get a point, but the winner gets two, and would only get one in the sane system.
So, for each team, if we take their total points, subtract one point per loss within an overtime period, and subtract one point per shootout win, we will get the number of points that team would have in a sane point system. Let's take a look!
These are the Eastern Conference standings, right now (listed with goal differential, also ignoring the division-winning thing):
1. Philadelphia (+37) - 91 pts, 14 GR
2. Washington (+18) - 90 pts, 12 GR
3. Pittsburgh (+30) - 88 pts, 12 GR
4. Boston (+41) - 85 pts, 14 GR
5. Tampa Bay (-5) - 85 pts, 13 GR
6. Montréal (+12) - 83 pts, 13 GR
7. Buffalo (+2) - 76 pts, 13 GR
8. New York Rangers (+27) - 76 pts, 12 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina (-13) - 72 pts, 13 GR
10. Atlanta (-29) - 70 pts, 13 GR
11. Toronto (-30) - 70 pts, 13 GR
12. New Jersey (-28) - 68 pts, 14 GR
13. Florida (-18) - 65 pts, 13 GR
14. New York Islanders (-27) - 65 pts, 12 GR
15. Ottawa (-58) - 59 pts, 13 GR
Here's what they would look like using my sane point system:
1. Philadelphia (+37) - 85 pts, 14 GR
2. Washington (+18) - 82 pts, 12 GR
3. Boston (+41) - 80 pts, 14 GR
4. Pittsburgh (+30) - 78 pts, 12 GR
5. Montréal (+12) - 77 pts, 13 GR
6. Tampa Bay (-5) - 75 pts, 13 GR
7. New York Rangers (+27) - 66 pts, 12 GR
8. Buffalo (+2) - 64 pts, 13 GR
--------------------
9. Carolina (-13) - 63 pts, 13 GR
10. New Jersey (-28) - 62 pts, 14 GR
11. Atlanta (-29) - 62 pts, 13 GR
12. Toronto (-30) - 61 pts, 13 GR
13. Florida (-18) - 56 pts, 13 GR
14. New York Islanders (-27) - 56 pts, 12 GR
15. Ottawa (-58) - 53 pts, 13 GR
What does this show us? Not much, I guess. The same eight teams would be in the playoff picture, but we and the Sabres would be switched. It also puts the ranking much closer to goal differential order. My initial inclination is that this would be a much better way to express how good a team is at hockey, but at the end of the day it gives a team somewhere between 4-5 points (Minnesota, New Jersey) and 11-12 points (Nashville, Buffalo), so it's only responsible for up to an 8-point swing, which is big for teams on the bubble, but statistically unlikely to make a big change in which teams make the playoffs.
Specifically, it shows us that Boston, as their goal differential shows as well, should be higher in the standings than they are, and that we belong a bit ahead of Buffalo. It also shows us that the Devils should be way closer to the playoffs than they are. Fuck the Devils and all, but it's shit like this that makes the NHL kinda bullshit. If overtime games weren't worth more points than regulation games, the Devils' basement-to-the-playoffs run would be realistic, which is shitty 'cause they're the Devils (and fuck them), but it's kinda cool for hockey.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I did this, or what it proves, if anything. But there it is. If I have time, I may go back and analyze the five completed seasons since the lockout to see what ought to be different, if anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)