2015-16 NHL Season Thread

[GabesCavesOfIce]

Hawks are still the class act in the NHL. I hope everyone understands that the Hawks lost this series because, in the last 7 years, they played about 80 more games than the Blues. And not just any games. Hard-fought, championship winning games. So, with rested superstars next season, the league will feel our wrath soon enough. In the meantime, Kane, behave. Toews, don't fall off a mountain. And Rundblad, I never wanna see you again.

 

Plus, cap issues forced the Hawks to let go of some players they would have liked to hold onto (continued thanks for Leddy, BTW). Building a championship team in the salary cap era is tough, and keeping that team together is even tougher.

I thought we had a good supporting cast this time around. Maybe a little thin on D, but Quenneville wouldn't give Ehrhoff a chance in the playoffs. He finally dug up Rundblad for game 5, sat him down in the second period because of all the mistakes he was making, then went back to him in games 6 and 7. Inexplicable. We needed some scoring punch and an offensive-minded defenseman like Ehrhoff could have provided an answer...

 

One of the greatest NHL dynasties of all time, the Gretzky Oilers benefited from defeating another team very worn out, who was wrapping up their own dynasty, on the heels of NINETEEN CONSECUTIVE SERIES WINS.That will wear out any dynasty.

 

Something only done by one team in the history of all major leagues. The NY Islanders.

 

If the Hawks were worn out? How bout the 1984 Islanders, the 19 consecutive series winner NY Islanders, the worn out team that lost in the finals to Edmonton. The HUGE benefit by Team Gretzky, Yet never mentioned in Oiler yore, and robbing us forever for the well deserved ONE FOR THE THUMB.

 

Back in those days, the first round of the playoffs was only five games. Short series. Still, reaching the finals for five straight years will indeed wear you out.

I don't think you can compare the two eras. In the early 80s, there were really only 2 or 3 teams with a chance to win the championship. When you had Bossy and Trottier on the same team, the rest of the league wasn't able to challenge that. That's why you had a lot of 10-0, 12-2 games, where a team like the Islanders could coast through the regular season, not losing much energy ( maybe during brawls ) Also, I seem to remember the no.1 seed playing the no.16 or 8 seed in the first round. Just a warm-up for the higher seed. Nowadays, you have to be ready right from the start or you're in big trouble. Look at the Pacific division this year. The top two seeds are already out. You could only dream of having something like that back in, let's say 1982.

 

 

 

You are smartly picking 1982 very carefully ;) Lets look at 1980 first.

 

That was a historically tough path to the cup. The Isles finished 5th in the regular season, and the top 4 were considered elite teams that season.

 

If u think this years Metro division bracket is rough, with the Pens Caps Rags and Bullies literally hacking each other to near death, go back and watch some of that 1980 Isles Bruin series, Gillies-O'Reilly bench clearing brawls.

 

In the semis the Isles had Buffalo, second overall that year, who also made the semis and finals a few times that era.

 

In the finals they had the Bullies...the the overall top seed, was that tough enough? Don't think any team in recent years had as tough a run to the cup.

 

 

At the beginning the Isles had to deal with the Habs dynasty albeit in the regular season, in the end, the Oilers dynasty. I dont think the Hawks have challengers like that.

 

Dont forget the Isles had to beat Messers Gretzky Messier, et al in two of their four cup years. Young yes, but nobody else was able to eliminate them back then.

 

In todays salary cap era, there is better parity, so the non playoff teams are much better now than then, but back then, the elite teams were rough. And thats who you typically had to beat in the playoffs.

 

Plus in a 1-16 reseeding system, the Isles played the 4, 2 & 1 seed consecutively in 1980. Not to mention the very difficult first round comeback against the Kings.

 

I'd be interested to find out if any other team in NHL history had a playoff gauntlet like that. That's almost impossible to do in the 1-8 format of the recent era, as well as in the current bracket system. They certainly earned that North Star matchup later on in their cup run!

 

19 in a row, nothing else like it in sports history!

You can't just pick one year and run with it. The Hawks have been at this for seven years, playing against much tougher opposition and star power than what the NHL could produce in the 80s. I will admit the Isles have the upper hand at the moment, but if the Hawks were to win four cups in eight years, it would at least put the two teams on par in the history of the league.

 

 

The 1970s - 1980s (edit) Islanders were a top four elite team for ELEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS (emphasis, not shoutin!) The ONLY other franchise in pro sports history to do that was the Yanks (ugh) of the 1950s.

 

As good as the Hawks are, they have lost throughout their seven year run, which is understandable.

 

But to say the 1974-75 thru 1984-85 Islander team did not have rigorous competition is inaccurate, and during their Cup run, 19 straight series wins, I am unaware of anything comparable in modern pro sports.

 

 

.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Gabrielgil513

[blackhawkrush]

Hawks are still the class act in the NHL. I hope everyone understands that the Hawks lost this series because, in the last 7 years, they played about 80 more games than the Blues. And not just any games. Hard-fought, championship winning games. So, with rested superstars next season, the league will feel our wrath soon enough. In the meantime, Kane, behave. Toews, don't fall off a mountain. And Rundblad, I never wanna see you again.

 

Plus, cap issues forced the Hawks to let go of some players they would have liked to hold onto (continued thanks for Leddy, BTW). Building a championship team in the salary cap era is tough, and keeping that team together is even tougher.

I thought we had a good supporting cast this time around. Maybe a little thin on D, but Quenneville wouldn't give Ehrhoff a chance in the playoffs. He finally dug up Rundblad for game 5, sat him down in the second period because of all the mistakes he was making, then went back to him in games 6 and 7. Inexplicable. We needed some scoring punch and an offensive-minded defenseman like Ehrhoff could have provided an answer...

 

One of the greatest NHL dynasties of all time, the Gretzky Oilers benefited from defeating another team very worn out, who was wrapping up their own dynasty, on the heels of NINETEEN CONSECUTIVE SERIES WINS.That will wear out any dynasty.

 

Something only done by one team in the history of all major leagues. The NY Islanders.

 

If the Hawks were worn out? How bout the 1984 Islanders, the 19 consecutive series winner NY Islanders, the worn out team that lost in the finals to Edmonton. The HUGE benefit by Team Gretzky, Yet never mentioned in Oiler yore, and robbing us forever for the well deserved ONE FOR THE THUMB.

 

Back in those days, the first round of the playoffs was only five games. Short series. Still, reaching the finals for five straight years will indeed wear you out.

I don't think you can compare the two eras. In the early 80s, there were really only 2 or 3 teams with a chance to win the championship. When you had Bossy and Trottier on the same team, the rest of the league wasn't able to challenge that. That's why you had a lot of 10-0, 12-2 games, where a team like the Islanders could coast through the regular season, not losing much energy ( maybe during brawls ) Also, I seem to remember the no.1 seed playing the no.16 or 8 seed in the first round. Just a warm-up for the higher seed. Nowadays, you have to be ready right from the start or you're in big trouble. Look at the Pacific division this year. The top two seeds are already out. You could only dream of having something like that back in, let's say 1982.

 

 

 

You are smartly picking 1982 very carefully ;) Lets look at 1980 first.

 

That was a historically tough path to the cup. The Isles finished 5th in the regular season, and the top 4 were considered elite teams that season.

 

If u think this years Metro division bracket is rough, with the Pens Caps Rags and Bullies literally hacking each other to near death, go back and watch some of that 1980 Isles Bruin series, Gillies-O'Reilly bench clearing brawls.

 

In the semis the Isles had Buffalo, second overall that year, who also made the semis and finals a few times that era.

 

In the finals they had the Bullies...the the overall top seed, was that tough enough? Don't think any team in recent years had as tough a run to the cup.

 

 

At the beginning the Isles had to deal with the Habs dynasty albeit in the regular season, in the end, the Oilers dynasty. I dont think the Hawks have challengers like that.

 

Dont forget the Isles had to beat Messers Gretzky Messier, et al in two of their four cup years. Young yes, but nobody else was able to eliminate them back then.

 

In todays salary cap era, there is better parity, so the non playoff teams are much better now than then, but back then, the elite teams were rough. And thats who you typically had to beat in the playoffs.

 

Plus in a 1-16 reseeding system, the Isles played the 4, 2 & 1 seed consecutively in 1980. Not to mention the very difficult first round comeback against the Kings.

 

I'd be interested to find out if any other team in NHL history had a playoff gauntlet like that. That's almost impossible to do in the 1-8 format of the recent era, as well as in the current bracket system. They certainly earned that North Star matchup later on in their cup run!

 

19 in a row, nothing else like it in sports history!

You can't just pick one year and run with it. The Hawks have been at this for seven years, playing against much tougher opposition and star power than what the NHL could produce in the 80s. I will admit the Isles have the upper hand at the moment, but if the Hawks were to win four cups in eight years, it would at least put the two teams on par in the history of the league.

 

 

The 1970s - 1980s (edit) Islanders were a top four elite team for ELEVEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS (emphasis, not shoutin!) The ONLY other franchise in pro sports history to do that was the Yanks (ugh) of the 1950s.

 

As good as the Hawks are, they have lost throughout their seven year run, which is understandable.

 

But to say the 1974-75 thru 1984-85 Islander team did not have rigorous competition is inaccurate, and during their Cup run, 19 straight series wins, I am unaware of anything comparable in modern pro sports.

 

 

.

All right, you didn't want to take my olive branch and call it a possible future draw, then let me say this: In the old days, most of the teams had three or four goons in the line-up, who barely knew how to put on skates. Stars of today would be running circles around them. Even a dumbass like Hitchcock knows he can't dress Ott and Reaves on the same night, because he'd get creamed. Just passing of the puck in the present time would mesmerize the best players from 40 years ago. Can you at least concede that it is harder to win a championship now than back in the day?

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Now that is Lightning Hockey TBL 4 NYI 1

Series 1-1

Go Bolts!!

[blueschica]

Pens over Caps tonight to tie the series at 1-1 !!

 

http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/Unknown-1_14.jpeg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/images-1_6.jpeg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/images-1_7.jpeg

Edited May 1, 2016 by blueschica

[KW84]

LET'S GO BLUES!!

:cheerleader:

[blackhawkrush]

LET'S GO BLUES!!

:cheerleader:

Roussel is an idiot. I had a feed from Serbia to watch this game. Very refreshing. :P

[KW84]

LET'S GO BLUES!!

:cheerleader:

Roussel is an idiot. I had a feed from Serbia to watch this game. Very refreshing. :P

You're lucky, I sat through that entire game with what's his name mispronouncing Pietrangelo's name for damn near 80 minutes!

[KW84]

BLUES WIN

 

4-3

 

:dweez:

Series Tied

 

Roll on Tues!!

:madra:

[blackhawkrush]

LET'S GO BLUES!!

:cheerleader:

Roussel is an idiot. I had a feed from Serbia to watch this game. Very refreshing. :P

You're lucky, I sat through that entire game with what's his name mispronouncing Pietrangelo's name for damn near 80 minutes!

You must've had the Zambian feed. :tsk:

[laughedatbytime]

But none of those things compare to clubbing a guy in the face, beating up a cab driver/raping someone, or trash talking a clearly injured person.

 

There's a certain level of human dignity that many Blackhawks are just flat missing.

 

Careful there. It's a good possibility, based on things we saw after that incident made the press, that the alleged victim and her mother were manufacturing the whole thing. Don't say Kane raped someone if it was never proven. You weren't there.

 

It fits in with his character.

 

Also, the US DoJ states that only 8% of rape allegations are false. Making you really wonder if this does fit into that 8%.

 

Factor that with the fact that the woman went through the trouble of performing a rape kit, only for that rape kit to be mishandled by the police... making a case against Kane sort of magically harder to pull off... that seems fishy as hell.

 

But okay, yeah. He wasn't proven guilty, so okay. He's not guilty of rape.

 

He still beat up a cab driver over... 20 cents?... When he makes millions.

 

Such a pillar of humanity, this "man."

Yeah, everything is rigged. Just like the series or the 2010, 2013, and 2015 playoffs. I'm rooting for Dallas. Solely because you're a Blues fan and I will enjoy the schadenfreude when they go for the 50th year in a row without a championship. Which is what you deserve. Of course you'll have some laughable excuse for why it happened. Most likely Toronto has it out for you.

 

Their 50th year is next year, not this year.

 

Ah, I see though. Some background is needed here.

 

Maybe the Blues don't go all the way this year. I certainly wrote them off last year.

 

You see, it had been pretty obvious that Hitchcock was getting out coached in the post season ever since the Chicago series in 2013. It's a good frame of reference for us to begin this post. Since you're a Hawks fan, and I'm a Blues fan. Mutual ground in that series.

 

You might remember that series as the one where Seabrook leaped into David Backes' face elbow first while he wasn't carrying the puck. He was clearly concussed from the unexpected, highly illegal hit. Then I think it was either Toews or Keith taunting Backes with the "wakey wakey" non-sense that proves these subhumans have no respect for a living being.

 

But, on the analytical side, the Blues didn't deserve to win that series anyways. There were a few things Hitchcock kept insisting the team do that playoff season that were clearly not working. One of the most notable things was the Power Play. Hitchcock insisted on throwing out an umbrella formation, despite it clearly not working. It was easily countered by Quenneville with a roving diamond. This neutralized the Blues' Special Teams.

 

Another problem was break out passing for the Blues that year. Hitchcock insisted they try a two-stage break out on the top lines, hitting a middle-man, locked winger at their own blueline along the boards. the idea was trying to pitch off the wall for extra positional support. Ability to bank a pass off the boards or outlet through open neutral ice, depending on how Chicago pressed. As Herb Brooks used to say, "what does that give us? Options." But Chicago read that, covered just inside that area by game 2, and neutralized their break out.

 

Ryan Miller was also terrible, but there were reasons for that. He was traded to the Blues that trade deadline, and then-goalie coach Cory Hirsch had told Miller to play a less theatrical style of goaltending. He wanted Miller to play a more conservative style, relying on the defense to push the offense to low percentage areas, and not have Miller sprawl and make desperation saves, or even come out of the crease to cut down angles. The idea was that, if Miller simplified, the Blues would be able to smother the puck in their own end.

 

And finally, the afor-mentioned "hit" from Seabrook. Hitchcock told the team to respond with possession after that. Exploit through the Power Play, flow the game positionally. Make the numbers plays, not the emotion plays.

 

Well, that didn't work so well obviously, although Tarasenko, who had been seeing very limited playing time from Hitchcock that series, was able to win the game on that specific Power Play. But it had the Blues on the defensive the entire series. Hole'd up in their own end.

 

Throughout this, Hitchcock refused to change tactics. he was easily read, and exploited, and the better-coached team won the Series.

 

There were some bogus calls in that series, but the Blues lost it for the Blues.

 

This series, the message was different. relentless forecheck. 2 guys in the zone, one after the puck carrier, one after the passing lane. Force a turn over. Hold the red line. Pressure Keith and Seabrook into mistakes. Push their defense along the half-boards.

 

When the Blues executed this aggressive style, they were able to capitalize on Chicago in this year's series. Chicago's defense had no chance to read the situation when they got the puck, and they apparently weren't coached on how to buy time as a two-man unit to set-up a break out.

 

With the Blues, when the forecheck pressure was on, you'd see a defender making half-blind passes to rim it around behind the net to the other defenseman. Or you'd have a rushing forward drop the puck about the circles in their own end to a defenseman.

 

All of these plays were made without having to find the player they were setting up. Every now-and-then, Chicago was able to push a player into these set locations the Blues had and create chaos, but what the Blues gained out of this was a way to diffuse Chicago's forecheck just enough to maintain possession AND control the flow.

 

Chicago kept trying to rush the puck up conservatively, especially if there wasn't a stretch pass option available. Setting up a 1-2-2, with one of the neutral zone guys pushing the play. The idea was to have two defenders back in case something like Gustafsson's error happened. there'd be a recovery of two guys back.

 

Obviously this wasn't a constant, but it seemed to be the general rule.

 

The problem was the Blues' forecheck and tenacity made that conservative style difficult to execute. The faster the game moves, the harder conservative possession is to pull off.

 

Now, when I said we needed some background, this wasn't background on the series. This was background for two thing. 1) I can absolutely tell when the Blues are not playing well.

 

And 2)

 

I know

what

the f**k

I'm

talking

about.

 

Your patronizing tone is comical, not insulting. I've written A LOT of hockey analysis over the years for websites. I've dived into the advanced stats, and could spin your head with what I know and the math I've done.

 

Now, none of that means I'm infallible, but you clearly had no basis for knowing that I knew what I was talking about.

 

So look... I'm not saying I'm perfect or that you can't debate me.

 

I'm saying you better get your shit together before you try. You think I make an effort with politics, well let me tell you guy, hockey is my first analytic passion. I grew up around the game, come from a family in the game, and know this stuff like the back of my hand.

 

So with that said.

 

My sentiments about the league favoring Chicago were echo'd by A LOT of smart hockey people out there. Ken Hitchcock, Darren Pang, John Kelly.... of course, those are Blues guys. But you had the SportsNet guys in Canada saying the same thing during a round table after Game 4, where Crawford was awarded a Power Play for attacking Fabbri. Not to mention a lot of fans who know the game.

 

I would also say that the calls got A LOT fairer after Game 4. When Shaw created a huge PR snafu for the league.

 

Now I can break out example-after-example of Blackhawks bias by the league over the last 7 or so years. I seriously can do that. If you ask me to, I will.

 

But it's a lot easier to show you this chart:

 

 

Sports and politics analytic blogger FiveThirtyEight made this chart. He's a pretty reputable source on... being smart. Now, he made this graph to show which markets to expand into, and what markets they'd compare to. This data shows NHL market size, and percent "activation" of that market in NHL consumerism.

 

But I noticed an interesting correlation with this data.

 

Subtract the Canadian teams, who are clearly maxxed out. The data suggests that, for the NHL to make maximum dollar, they need to activate the customer base, sell the sport in the following US markets:

 

New York

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Boston

Los Angeles

Chicago

Pittsburgh

Detroit

 

Now, since the NHL lockout, guess how many of those markets have made the Stanley Cup Finals?

 

ALL OF THEM. The majority of those markets have made the Finals MULTIPLE TIMES in that 10-year span.

 

That's a hell of a coincidence, considering the amount of teams listed.

 

Now, with all of that data in mind, I want you to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbQcI42_iM

 

This is a late-season game between the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues in 2011. This game meant nothing to the Blues, they were already eliminated from the playoffs.

 

What this game did determine is whether or not the big market Chicago Blackhawks, or small market Dallas Stars made the 8th seed into the post season.

 

The following occurs in this video:

 

Marian Hossa intentionally redirects a puck towards the open net with his foot.

The puck is not touched by another player after that kick.

The puck does not completely cross the goal line.

 

After a video review where the league offices in Toronto have a long look at it, the NHL awards Chicago a goal.

 

Now tell me... how does a puck that does not cross the goal line count as a goal? How does a puck clearly kicked towards the goal intentionally count as a goal?

 

And if the league is so trustworthy to put the sport before the economics, who won the 2005 Stanley Cup?

I make more money doing advanced math in two months than you make in a year, so to say that you could do math that could make my head spin is in line with the rest of your delusions.

 

As far as the rest of it goes, tl;dr.

 

I'm done with you. You're not worth it. But I'm glad you wasted so much time on your post. And that you spend so much time doing analysis on something that's "rigged."

Edited May 2, 2016 by laughedatbytime

[blackhawkrush]

But none of those things compare to clubbing a guy in the face, beating up a cab driver/raping someone, or trash talking a clearly injured person.

 

There's a certain level of human dignity that many Blackhawks are just flat missing.

 

Careful there. It's a good possibility, based on things we saw after that incident made the press, that the alleged victim and her mother were manufacturing the whole thing. Don't say Kane raped someone if it was never proven. You weren't there.

 

It fits in with his character.

 

Also, the US DoJ states that only 8% of rape allegations are false. Making you really wonder if this does fit into that 8%.

 

Factor that with the fact that the woman went through the trouble of performing a rape kit, only for that rape kit to be mishandled by the police... making a case against Kane sort of magically harder to pull off... that seems fishy as hell.

 

But okay, yeah. He wasn't proven guilty, so okay. He's not guilty of rape.

 

He still beat up a cab driver over... 20 cents?... When he makes millions.

 

Such a pillar of humanity, this "man."

Yeah, everything is rigged. Just like the series or the 2010, 2013, and 2015 playoffs. I'm rooting for Dallas. Solely because you're a Blues fan and I will enjoy the schadenfreude when they go for the 50th year in a row without a championship. Which is what you deserve. Of course you'll have some laughable excuse for why it happened. Most likely Toronto has it out for you.

 

Their 50th year is next year, not this year.

 

Ah, I see though. Some background is needed here.

 

Maybe the Blues don't go all the way this year. I certainly wrote them off last year.

 

You see, it had been pretty obvious that Hitchcock was getting out coached in the post season ever since the Chicago series in 2013. It's a good frame of reference for us to begin this post. Since you're a Hawks fan, and I'm a Blues fan. Mutual ground in that series.

 

You might remember that series as the one where Seabrook leaped into David Backes' face elbow first while he wasn't carrying the puck. He was clearly concussed from the unexpected, highly illegal hit. Then I think it was either Toews or Keith taunting Backes with the "wakey wakey" non-sense that proves these subhumans have no respect for a living being.

 

But, on the analytical side, the Blues didn't deserve to win that series anyways. There were a few things Hitchcock kept insisting the team do that playoff season that were clearly not working. One of the most notable things was the Power Play. Hitchcock insisted on throwing out an umbrella formation, despite it clearly not working. It was easily countered by Quenneville with a roving diamond. This neutralized the Blues' Special Teams.

 

Another problem was break out passing for the Blues that year. Hitchcock insisted they try a two-stage break out on the top lines, hitting a middle-man, locked winger at their own blueline along the boards. the idea was trying to pitch off the wall for extra positional support. Ability to bank a pass off the boards or outlet through open neutral ice, depending on how Chicago pressed. As Herb Brooks used to say, "what does that give us? Options." But Chicago read that, covered just inside that area by game 2, and neutralized their break out.

 

Ryan Miller was also terrible, but there were reasons for that. He was traded to the Blues that trade deadline, and then-goalie coach Cory Hirsch had told Miller to play a less theatrical style of goaltending. He wanted Miller to play a more conservative style, relying on the defense to push the offense to low percentage areas, and not have Miller sprawl and make desperation saves, or even come out of the crease to cut down angles. The idea was that, if Miller simplified, the Blues would be able to smother the puck in their own end.

 

And finally, the afor-mentioned "hit" from Seabrook. Hitchcock told the team to respond with possession after that. Exploit through the Power Play, flow the game positionally. Make the numbers plays, not the emotion plays.

 

Well, that didn't work so well obviously, although Tarasenko, who had been seeing very limited playing time from Hitchcock that series, was able to win the game on that specific Power Play. But it had the Blues on the defensive the entire series. Hole'd up in their own end.

 

Throughout this, Hitchcock refused to change tactics. he was easily read, and exploited, and the better-coached team won the Series.

 

There were some bogus calls in that series, but the Blues lost it for the Blues.

 

This series, the message was different. relentless forecheck. 2 guys in the zone, one after the puck carrier, one after the passing lane. Force a turn over. Hold the red line. Pressure Keith and Seabrook into mistakes. Push their defense along the half-boards.

 

When the Blues executed this aggressive style, they were able to capitalize on Chicago in this year's series. Chicago's defense had no chance to read the situation when they got the puck, and they apparently weren't coached on how to buy time as a two-man unit to set-up a break out.

 

With the Blues, when the forecheck pressure was on, you'd see a defender making half-blind passes to rim it around behind the net to the other defenseman. Or you'd have a rushing forward drop the puck about the circles in their own end to a defenseman.

 

All of these plays were made without having to find the player they were setting up. Every now-and-then, Chicago was able to push a player into these set locations the Blues had and create chaos, but what the Blues gained out of this was a way to diffuse Chicago's forecheck just enough to maintain possession AND control the flow.

 

Chicago kept trying to rush the puck up conservatively, especially if there wasn't a stretch pass option available. Setting up a 1-2-2, with one of the neutral zone guys pushing the play. The idea was to have two defenders back in case something like Gustafsson's error happened. there'd be a recovery of two guys back.

 

Obviously this wasn't a constant, but it seemed to be the general rule.

 

The problem was the Blues' forecheck and tenacity made that conservative style difficult to execute. The faster the game moves, the harder conservative possession is to pull off.

 

Now, when I said we needed some background, this wasn't background on the series. This was background for two thing. 1) I can absolutely tell when the Blues are not playing well.

 

And 2)

 

I know

what

the f**k

I'm

talking

about.

 

Your patronizing tone is comical, not insulting. I've written A LOT of hockey analysis over the years for websites. I've dived into the advanced stats, and could spin your head with what I know and the math I've done.

 

Now, none of that means I'm infallible, but you clearly had no basis for knowing that I knew what I was talking about.

 

So look... I'm not saying I'm perfect or that you can't debate me.

 

I'm saying you better get your shit together before you try. You think I make an effort with politics, well let me tell you guy, hockey is my first analytic passion. I grew up around the game, come from a family in the game, and know this stuff like the back of my hand.

 

So with that said.

 

My sentiments about the league favoring Chicago were echo'd by A LOT of smart hockey people out there. Ken Hitchcock, Darren Pang, John Kelly.... of course, those are Blues guys. But you had the SportsNet guys in Canada saying the same thing during a round table after Game 4, where Crawford was awarded a Power Play for attacking Fabbri. Not to mention a lot of fans who know the game.

 

I would also say that the calls got A LOT fairer after Game 4. When Shaw created a huge PR snafu for the league.

 

Now I can break out example-after-example of Blackhawks bias by the league over the last 7 or so years. I seriously can do that. If you ask me to, I will.

 

But it's a lot easier to show you this chart:

 

 

Sports and politics analytic blogger FiveThirtyEight made this chart. He's a pretty reputable source on... being smart. Now, he made this graph to show which markets to expand into, and what markets they'd compare to. This data shows NHL market size, and percent "activation" of that market in NHL consumerism.

 

But I noticed an interesting correlation with this data.

 

Subtract the Canadian teams, who are clearly maxxed out. The data suggests that, for the NHL to make maximum dollar, they need to activate the customer base, sell the sport in the following US markets:

 

New York

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Boston

Los Angeles

Chicago

Pittsburgh

Detroit

 

Now, since the NHL lockout, guess how many of those markets have made the Stanley Cup Finals?

 

ALL OF THEM. The majority of those markets have made the Finals MULTIPLE TIMES in that 10-year span.

 

That's a hell of a coincidence, considering the amount of teams listed.

 

Now, with all of that data in mind, I want you to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbQcI42_iM

 

This is a late-season game between the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues in 2011. This game meant nothing to the Blues, they were already eliminated from the playoffs.

 

What this game did determine is whether or not the big market Chicago Blackhawks, or small market Dallas Stars made the 8th seed into the post season.

 

The following occurs in this video:

 

Marian Hossa intentionally redirects a puck towards the open net with his foot.

The puck is not touched by another player after that kick.

The puck does not completely cross the goal line.

 

After a video review where the league offices in Toronto have a long look at it, the NHL awards Chicago a goal.

 

Now tell me... how does a puck that does not cross the goal line count as a goal? How does a puck clearly kicked towards the goal intentionally count as a goal?

 

And if the league is so trustworthy to put the sport before the economics, who won the 2005 Stanley Cup?

I make more money doing advanced math in two months than you make in a year, so to say that you could do math that could make my head spin is in line with the rest of your delusions.

 

As far as the rest of it goes, tl;dr.

 

I'm done with you. You're not worth it. But I'm glad you wasted so much time on your post. And that you spend so much time doing analysis on something that's "rigged."

The highlight of that post was the Hossa goal. You knew Olczyk would take St.Louis' side. Gotta love soccer. :cheers:

[KW84]

LET'S GO BLUES!!

:cheerleader:

Roussel is an idiot. I had a feed from Serbia to watch this game. Very refreshing. :P

You're lucky, I sat through that entire game with what's his name mispronouncing Pietrangelo's name for damn near 80 minutes!

You must've had the Zambian feed. :tsk:

If you mean NBCSN then yes! Edited May 2, 2016 by KW84

[New World Kid]

But none of those things compare to clubbing a guy in the face, beating up a cab driver/raping someone, or trash talking a clearly injured person.

 

There's a certain level of human dignity that many Blackhawks are just flat missing.

 

Careful there. It's a good possibility, based on things we saw after that incident made the press, that the alleged victim and her mother were manufacturing the whole thing. Don't say Kane raped someone if it was never proven. You weren't there.

 

It fits in with his character.

 

Also, the US DoJ states that only 8% of rape allegations are false. Making you really wonder if this does fit into that 8%.

 

Factor that with the fact that the woman went through the trouble of performing a rape kit, only for that rape kit to be mishandled by the police... making a case against Kane sort of magically harder to pull off... that seems fishy as hell.

 

But okay, yeah. He wasn't proven guilty, so okay. He's not guilty of rape.

 

He still beat up a cab driver over... 20 cents?... When he makes millions.

 

Such a pillar of humanity, this "man."

Yeah, everything is rigged. Just like the series or the 2010, 2013, and 2015 playoffs. I'm rooting for Dallas. Solely because you're a Blues fan and I will enjoy the schadenfreude when they go for the 50th year in a row without a championship. Which is what you deserve. Of course you'll have some laughable excuse for why it happened. Most likely Toronto has it out for you.

 

Their 50th year is next year, not this year.

 

Ah, I see though. Some background is needed here.

 

Maybe the Blues don't go all the way this year. I certainly wrote them off last year.

 

You see, it had been pretty obvious that Hitchcock was getting out coached in the post season ever since the Chicago series in 2013. It's a good frame of reference for us to begin this post. Since you're a Hawks fan, and I'm a Blues fan. Mutual ground in that series.

 

You might remember that series as the one where Seabrook leaped into David Backes' face elbow first while he wasn't carrying the puck. He was clearly concussed from the unexpected, highly illegal hit. Then I think it was either Toews or Keith taunting Backes with the "wakey wakey" non-sense that proves these subhumans have no respect for a living being.

 

But, on the analytical side, the Blues didn't deserve to win that series anyways. There were a few things Hitchcock kept insisting the team do that playoff season that were clearly not working. One of the most notable things was the Power Play. Hitchcock insisted on throwing out an umbrella formation, despite it clearly not working. It was easily countered by Quenneville with a roving diamond. This neutralized the Blues' Special Teams.

 

Another problem was break out passing for the Blues that year. Hitchcock insisted they try a two-stage break out on the top lines, hitting a middle-man, locked winger at their own blueline along the boards. the idea was trying to pitch off the wall for extra positional support. Ability to bank a pass off the boards or outlet through open neutral ice, depending on how Chicago pressed. As Herb Brooks used to say, "what does that give us? Options." But Chicago read that, covered just inside that area by game 2, and neutralized their break out.

 

Ryan Miller was also terrible, but there were reasons for that. He was traded to the Blues that trade deadline, and then-goalie coach Cory Hirsch had told Miller to play a less theatrical style of goaltending. He wanted Miller to play a more conservative style, relying on the defense to push the offense to low percentage areas, and not have Miller sprawl and make desperation saves, or even come out of the crease to cut down angles. The idea was that, if Miller simplified, the Blues would be able to smother the puck in their own end.

 

And finally, the afor-mentioned "hit" from Seabrook. Hitchcock told the team to respond with possession after that. Exploit through the Power Play, flow the game positionally. Make the numbers plays, not the emotion plays.

 

Well, that didn't work so well obviously, although Tarasenko, who had been seeing very limited playing time from Hitchcock that series, was able to win the game on that specific Power Play. But it had the Blues on the defensive the entire series. Hole'd up in their own end.

 

Throughout this, Hitchcock refused to change tactics. he was easily read, and exploited, and the better-coached team won the Series.

 

There were some bogus calls in that series, but the Blues lost it for the Blues.

 

This series, the message was different. relentless forecheck. 2 guys in the zone, one after the puck carrier, one after the passing lane. Force a turn over. Hold the red line. Pressure Keith and Seabrook into mistakes. Push their defense along the half-boards.

 

When the Blues executed this aggressive style, they were able to capitalize on Chicago in this year's series. Chicago's defense had no chance to read the situation when they got the puck, and they apparently weren't coached on how to buy time as a two-man unit to set-up a break out.

 

With the Blues, when the forecheck pressure was on, you'd see a defender making half-blind passes to rim it around behind the net to the other defenseman. Or you'd have a rushing forward drop the puck about the circles in their own end to a defenseman.

 

All of these plays were made without having to find the player they were setting up. Every now-and-then, Chicago was able to push a player into these set locations the Blues had and create chaos, but what the Blues gained out of this was a way to diffuse Chicago's forecheck just enough to maintain possession AND control the flow.

 

Chicago kept trying to rush the puck up conservatively, especially if there wasn't a stretch pass option available. Setting up a 1-2-2, with one of the neutral zone guys pushing the play. The idea was to have two defenders back in case something like Gustafsson's error happened. there'd be a recovery of two guys back.

 

Obviously this wasn't a constant, but it seemed to be the general rule.

 

The problem was the Blues' forecheck and tenacity made that conservative style difficult to execute. The faster the game moves, the harder conservative possession is to pull off.

 

Now, when I said we needed some background, this wasn't background on the series. This was background for two thing. 1) I can absolutely tell when the Blues are not playing well.

 

And 2)

 

I know

what

the f**k

I'm

talking

about.

 

Your patronizing tone is comical, not insulting. I've written A LOT of hockey analysis over the years for websites. I've dived into the advanced stats, and could spin your head with what I know and the math I've done.

 

Now, none of that means I'm infallible, but you clearly had no basis for knowing that I knew what I was talking about.

 

So look... I'm not saying I'm perfect or that you can't debate me.

 

I'm saying you better get your shit together before you try. You think I make an effort with politics, well let me tell you guy, hockey is my first analytic passion. I grew up around the game, come from a family in the game, and know this stuff like the back of my hand.

 

So with that said.

 

My sentiments about the league favoring Chicago were echo'd by A LOT of smart hockey people out there. Ken Hitchcock, Darren Pang, John Kelly.... of course, those are Blues guys. But you had the SportsNet guys in Canada saying the same thing during a round table after Game 4, where Crawford was awarded a Power Play for attacking Fabbri. Not to mention a lot of fans who know the game.

 

I would also say that the calls got A LOT fairer after Game 4. When Shaw created a huge PR snafu for the league.

 

Now I can break out example-after-example of Blackhawks bias by the league over the last 7 or so years. I seriously can do that. If you ask me to, I will.

 

But it's a lot easier to show you this chart:

 

 

Sports and politics analytic blogger FiveThirtyEight made this chart. He's a pretty reputable source on... being smart. Now, he made this graph to show which markets to expand into, and what markets they'd compare to. This data shows NHL market size, and percent "activation" of that market in NHL consumerism.

 

But I noticed an interesting correlation with this data.

 

Subtract the Canadian teams, who are clearly maxxed out. The data suggests that, for the NHL to make maximum dollar, they need to activate the customer base, sell the sport in the following US markets:

 

New York

New Jersey

Philadelphia

Boston

Los Angeles

Chicago

Pittsburgh

Detroit

 

Now, since the NHL lockout, guess how many of those markets have made the Stanley Cup Finals?

 

ALL OF THEM. The majority of those markets have made the Finals MULTIPLE TIMES in that 10-year span.

 

That's a hell of a coincidence, considering the amount of teams listed.

 

Now, with all of that data in mind, I want you to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWbQcI42_iM

 

This is a late-season game between the Chicago Blackhawks and St. Louis Blues in 2011. This game meant nothing to the Blues, they were already eliminated from the playoffs.

 

What this game did determine is whether or not the big market Chicago Blackhawks, or small market Dallas Stars made the 8th seed into the post season.

 

The following occurs in this video:

 

Marian Hossa intentionally redirects a puck towards the open net with his foot.

The puck is not touched by another player after that kick.

The puck does not completely cross the goal line.

 

After a video review where the league offices in Toronto have a long look at it, the NHL awards Chicago a goal.

 

Now tell me... how does a puck that does not cross the goal line count as a goal? How does a puck clearly kicked towards the goal intentionally count as a goal?

 

And if the league is so trustworthy to put the sport before the economics, who won the 2005 Stanley Cup?

I make more money doing advanced math in two months than you make in a year, so to say that you could do math that could make my head spin is in line with the rest of your delusions.

 

As far as the rest of it goes, tl;dr.

 

I'm done with you. You're not worth it. But I'm glad you wasted so much time on your post. And that you spend so much time doing analysis on something that's "rigged."

 

So... I'm supposed to believe that you didn't read my post, despite picking out a sentence that was embedded in the middle of it?

 

I call bullshit. You did read it. And you've got no way to respond to it that doesn't compromise your position. So you just started insulting me instead.

 

It's just so you. Either too cognitively lazy or cognitively deficient to actually respond to something counter to your position, so just flail around with personal attacks instead.

[Crimsonmistymemory]

What B S!!! call that was a Lightning score!!! Edited May 4, 2016 by Crimsonmistymemory

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Can't take that one away!!!

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/lightning-over-new-york-city-vii-clarence-holmes.jpg

[Disembodied Spirit]

St Louis is at home tonight

Will we have more boobies behind the visitor bench??

Let's pray ..

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Zebras on skates wearing blue & orange underwear!! I hate blue & orange underwear!!!

:hockeygoon:

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Yesssss! Lightning goal!!!!

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Crimsonmistymemory

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Let's GO Lightning!!! 3-3

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Let's GO Lightning!!! OT @ the Barc

http://hqworld.net/gallery/data/media/23/lightning_over_new_york_city.jpg

[Crimsonmistymemory]

Yesssssss Lightning WIN!!! In Over Time!!! What a sorry attempt for an offside call...

 

http://sallanscorner.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/brooklyn-bridge.jpg

Edited May 4, 2016 by Crimsonmistymemory

[blueschica]

Murray is the man in goal for the Pens! :) :)

• 
   
  

[blueschica]

And Pens are up by a goal! :) :)

[blueschica]

Pens win in overtime and take a 3-1 series lead!

 

http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/images-1_7.jpeg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/5fabcbf822121618bc7144f29759fb93.jpg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/Unknown-1_14.jpeg

[blackhawkrush]

Pens win in overtime and take a 3-1 series lead!

 

http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/images-1_7.jpeg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/5fabcbf822121618bc7144f29759fb93.jpg http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp338/plantfan40/Unknown-1_14.jpeg

The choking in Washington continues. Sorry to be so SOCN. :outtahere: