Red Wings

[gjdodger]

Sure... and all those shots were good for 14th in scoring.

The GAA (which was best in league) was much more important. The shots on goal were not why the Devils won. End of story.

The shots on goal indicate their dominance on the ice, which was the reason they won. An interesting note is that only five of the top ten scoring teams last year also had top ten records. Hockey is like any other sport; it's not how many you score, it's how many you score compared to how many the other guys score. And if you're in their zone all night peppering them with shots, they're going to have fewer scoring opportunities. If I have a 1-0 lead, I'm better off pressing than sitting back on defense. And please don't bring back this "Devils won more games when they were outshot" meme, because I've already disproved that.

[chemiclord]

I said they had a better win percentage when they were outshot. Which they did. I didn't break down what games they did what.

[gjdodger]

Yeah, but as I pointed out with the Wings, it's such a small number of games that it's inappropriate to use it as any kind of proof. It looked to me like the Devils had only been outshot in nine games. Even if the winning percentage is nominally better, it still disproves your basic argument that the Devils won by sitting back and not pressing on offense. They outshot their opponents that year by something like 650 shots, for heaven's sake.

[Malto Marko]

STATISICALLY SPEAKING you only score on shots taken......

True. We teach at the youth level that if the shot is not on the net your chance of a goal is zero.

[chemiclord]

Yeah, but as I pointed out with the Wings, it's such a small number of games that it's inappropriate to use it as any kind of proof. It looked to me like the Devils had only been outshot in nine games. Even if the winning percentage is nominally better, it still disproves your basic argument that the Devils won by sitting back and not pressing on offense. They outshot their opponents that year by something like 650 shots, for heaven's sake.

Be sure to tell Martin Brodeur that he really wasn't needed during the Devil's success, k? All that mattered was the shots on goal, right?

EDIT: I'm leaving the above here while amending. I know this is not what you're really saying. What I am tired of is all this harping on shots. I equate it a lot to yardage in the NFL, or what ERA is to pitchers in MLB. It's become this "god" stat to trump all others when that's just a very uneducated answer. There's so much that factors a team and how they perform. To isolate one stat and make it the defining factor is stupid as fuck.

I am not saying Shots on Goal aren't important. I'm saying there are other (and in my mind better) ways to determine a team's dominance than one stat that can be somewhat misleading, especially with a team that plays a style conducive to generate shots by the bucket load.

[gjdodger]

I guess I don't follow hockey closely enough to know whether a lot of fans and reporters harp on shots on goal. It's just a fascination for Red Wings fans because they outshoot their opponents by such wide margins, 3 or 4 to one in some cases, all the time. I'm not interested in doing any more research, but I always thought of the Bowman Wings as being more intent on setting up good shots than constantly peppering the net.

[froot loops]

I didn't realize there was this outrageous thing going on that people were focusing on Shots on goal.

And focusing on yardage in football, egads. When I used to bet on games yards per play was the best determinant of winners, especially in college. If you were betting on a lot of games.

[THE STEE]

shots toward the goal means spending more time on one side of the ice than the other. If the other team spends more time on defense the odds rise that the team that puts more pucks to the net will score more.............

[Rocky Bleier]

NHL hypocrisy:

Avery's quote may have been described as crude by some, but nothing he said was muted, bleeped, deleted or censored by the majority of media outlets that covered the story, which is an indication of how tame it was considering the ultra sensitive media environment we currently work in. That Avery, after everything he's done during his career, was suspended for referring to his ex-girlfriends who have gone on to hook up with other hockey players as "sloppy seconds" is as silly as his quote. If anything a team-mandated fine would have been more in order for a player whose comments were more childish than "detrimental to the league or game of hockey," as Bettman said.
There is a litany of good reasons to dislike Avery but there isn't one good reason why he should be suspended six games (and possibly more) for what he said. Not with the NHL's laughable history of suspending players. Avery would have been better off if he had told the media that Ilya Kovalchuk will "get what's coming to him" and that "he's going to play with a target on his back," like Ian White, who wasn't suspended for his threatening remarks, did last week. He would have only missed four games if he had given a vicious two-handed slash to Mikko Koivu, breaking a bone in Koivu's leg and causing him to miss 24 games, as Mattias Ohlund did last year. And for an extra two games he could have stomped on Ryan Kesler's leg with his skate, as Chris Pronger, who has been suspended eight times, did last season.

[gjdodger]

He slurred specific women. A century ago down here, guys got hung over that. Six games is good. He sullied the League's public image.

[Sharkbait]

Rocky, did you say something?

[Rocky Bleier]

He slurred specific women. A century ago down here, guys got hung over that. Six games is good. He sullied the League's public image.

Yeah, and those other guys put a shiny gloss on it. And it's "hanged" by the way.

Cheli's take:

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2008/12/chelios_on_wdfn_cheli_expects_1.html

[gjdodger]

I agree those other guys should have received much harsher punishments; six games is still good for Avery. And I concede the grammatical correction. Just trying to be vernacularly loose.

[jaadam4]

The girl in Rocks latest pic is making my eyes sweat

[Rocky Bleier]

And I concede the grammatical correction. Just trying to be vernacularly loose.

Not trying to be a word policeman. You're one of the few I thought would appreciate it.