Return of the Dead Puck Era My Ass
by SkinnyFish on Feb 16, 2012 2:03 PM EST
in Maple Leafs Analysis
Email
Print
Friend of the blog Justin Bourne put up a post on The Score's Backhand Shelf that I disagree with. Let me tell you why. The post titled "The Sedins and the Numbers Agree: Dead Puck Era Hockey is Creeping Back into the NHL", references an article in the Montreal Gazette Vancouver Province by Ed Willes the meat and potatoes quote from which is:
This year, goals in the NHL are down for the third straight season.
Now, in and by itself, that development isn’t overly alarming. We’re talking about three-10ths of a goal per game between the 2008-09 season and this year. But it’s also part of a trend that’s seen a steady downturn in goal production since the 2005-06 season, and that is alarming.
I'll spare you most of the quick, thoughtless math and the whining by the Sedin Twins regarding the type of system hockey played by their Western Conference rivals that Ed uses to "back up" his headline, but here are some good ones:
"You look at every game now in the Western Conference. They're extremely tight and there aren't a lot of scoring chances." - Author note: One of the Sedins, I'm not exactly sure which. Nobody is.
So what happened?
Well, a couple of things. For starters, the new rules interpretations inflated the number of power plays. In 2005-06, there were 11.7 power plays per game. That number has decreased every year since and sat at 6.9 power plays per game after Monday's games.
We trust we don't have to explain the correlation between goals and power plays.
Oh but please do Ed. No? Odd, seems like you'd want to explain such an 'easy correlation' to further back up your claims. But Ed doesn't, most likely because Ed doesn't know how.
Follow me after the jump for more on Wille's unfounded hypothesizing, and my own theory behind the drop in goals since the lockout. (Hint: It's goaltending.)
Along with vague remarks about a drop in powerplays (Aside: What's more exciting to watch, a game in which the fluidity of hockey that we love so much is nullified by endless whistles and powerplays; or a game in which hockey is played as it is meant to be 5on5 with constant ebb and flow?), Willes also blames the coaches and the players for the lack of scoring:
The sense here, moreover, isn't that the officiating standard has lapsed. Players have simply adapted. They've been drilled in the new game for almost seven full seasons now and if we know one thing about the contemporary NHL, we know it's not under-coached.
Coaches, in fact, remain at the root of the problem. A few have embraced the spirit of change. The vast majority have opted for a defence-first system.
Sure, whatever. Enough of Mr. Willes' ode to a game played by the Sedin Twins in which merely looking at them funny gets you two minutes in the box. Let's get to the real reason behind the NHL's drop in goals, which is actually a real thing. Since the lockout, a team's average goals per games have fallen from 3.03 to 2.67 this season. Over a full 82 game season, that's 30 less goals scored.
That seems pretty significant. What could be causing it? Willes suggests lack of PP time (Author's note: BCWW) and/or defensively oriented systems (Author's note: The standard MSM uneducated go-to answer) being the reason(s) for this. I'm not sold. As the Lightning showed against the Flyers earlier this year, defensive systems are all about limited an opposing team's shots on goals. So it therefore makes sense to look at shots on goals since the lockout. If defensive systems and lack of PP are at fault, surely shots on goals will be down:
Uh......hmmm. Well uh..........hmmmm. So let me get this straight. Since the lockout, referees have been putting away their whistles, coaches have been playing the trap with greater frequency, and yet shots on goals has remained relatively unchanged; 29.98 in 2006 vs. 29.86 in 2012.
But but but Ed said.
Ed's dead....wrong baby.
So let's recap. Goals are going down, yet shots on goals remain the same. What comes become a shot on goal and a potential goal? Oh right! The goaltender! Maybe goalies have something to do with all this "goalless nonsense".
Ever watch a hockey game from the pre-Patrick Roy era? Total gong show. Goalies have been the last players in hockey to "evolve" their play style to catch up with the rest of the league's elite levels. Now that's not to say that the greats of old weren't great, they were, but the fire-wagon hockey of the 70s and 80s would have been a lot different have guys like Hasek, Brodeur, Roy, and Lundqvist been around back then. So let's look at how the goalies have been doing since the lockout shall we?
(Author's note: This data has had EN goals removed for proper save percentage calculations.)
There you have it folks, the reason goals are down in the NHL: Goalies are getting better at keeping pucks out of the net. (Author's note: That slight downturn for 2009? Two words: Vesa Toskala)
Need more evidence? Here's a list of the all-time best seasons by a goalie for save percentage ever. Four, FOUR of the top 10 seasons EVER are going on right this very moment. Another happened last season. Sure looks like goalies have gotten their collective shit together to me.
The Dead Puck Era was categorized by the relative freedom one enjoyed while clutching, grabbing, holding, and hooking whomever they wanted. That's a thing of the past. Powerplays were up after the lockout because players hadn't adapted yet and were getting called on it. Now they've realized doing so is a no-no and the game have opened up. Coaches have used the trap since the dawn of time, and shots on goal are relatively unchanged. Goalies however are better than ever before, and putting a puck past them is now truly an accomplishment. (Author's note: Seriously Gretzky is overrated.)
Shut up about the Dead Puck Era already, because like it's namesake, it too is dead.
All data can be found here. Compiled from NHL.com
Post script: Personally I don't find the current "lack" of goals to be a problem. I think hockey is better than ever. I don't want to watch a game where a full quarter of it is spent on special teams because that's real fucking boring. The longer the game goes between whistles the better. I wrote this post because I'm tired of reading what I consider to be terrible and pedantic articles that I feel only further ignorance within hockey's fan base.
226 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Many more teams are applying a more defensive scheme to protect leads. Teams play 1-2-2’s, 1-3-1’s, etc. more often. It’s effective, and that’s the bottom line. That’s the side-effect of parody in the league. Every point is precious, and teams are desperate to get points, even if it means trapping and playing “boring” hockey.
Also interesting: some people feel that the league is adding more secondary assists to goals this season, regardless of whether or not a secondary assist is deserving. That could hide the fact that scoring is down from a few years ago.
DownGoesAvery is a bizarre hockey blog: Down Goes Avery and on Twitter (@DownGoesAvery ).
Down Goes Avery on Facebook
Teams play 1-2-2’s, 1-3-1’s, etc. more often..
Shots on goal remain unchanged
some people feel that the league is adding more secondary assists to goals this season, regardless of whether or not a secondary assist is deserving. That could hide the fact that scoring is down from a few years ago.
How would an increase in secondary assists influence the scoring of goals?
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
In reference to “scoring” as opposed to goals it makes sense but that’s not the context of this discussion. Additional secondary assists would artificially balance players point totals, but not affect the number of goals scored.
by canadaiscold on Feb 16, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Apparently the trap is being counterbalanced by some other offensive innovations that create shots… But regardless of whether the overall number of shots go up or down, the trap is definitely BORING. The game starts evolving into this highly structured affair with both teams repeating the same handful of strategies over and over, and it’s more about who makes a mistake first than who will do something breathtakingly athletic or creative.
Just a $.02
Actually, the trap is being countered by standing around doing nothing.
Sorry, I had to.
DownGoesAvery is a bizarre hockey blog: Down Goes Avery and on Twitter (@DownGoesAvery ).
Down Goes Avery on Facebook
by DownGoesAvery on Feb 16, 2012 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I would guess the trap means more perimeter shots (that modern goalie not named Toskala) can easily handle. Though I don’t think they have average shot distance going that far back to check.
Also the team shooting % has steadily decreased over time at the team level but this will not be accepted for the $200 award.
If team SV%
increases then team SH% has to decrease by corollary. That’s how it has to work… what we need to look at are EXPECTED SV% in aggregate for the entire NHL over the past 5 years. If the Expected SV% is dropping then shots are coming from crappier locations.
Now is that enough to explain the difference? Who knows.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
The return of the passive 1-2-2 was never more evident this season than in the Flyers-Lightning game, yet Tampa Bay sits at dead last in the league for GAA, at 3.32. Well above league average.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Their zombie goalie clearly needs MORE BRAINS
"They build a statue, they knock it down and piss on it, and now they will be out there building it again."
by ThickSkinnedAlive on Feb 16, 2012 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Correction: tampa was using the 1-3-1, not 1-2-2.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Correction: tampa was using the 0-5-3, not 1-2-2.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
teams are desperate to get points, even if it means trapping and playing "boring" hockey.
Not Burke hockey, apparently.
No no, dig UP stupid.
by nhlcheapshot on Feb 16, 2012 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Parody in the league. What a farce.
" No one wants advice - only corroboration " - John Steinbeck
by GreatKingRat on Feb 16, 2012 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
That’s hysatirical!
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator) CERTIFIED GRABBO LOVER
Twooting on Twitter: @warwalker
by jrwendelman on Feb 16, 2012 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Actually
Powerplay time being down would affect goalies SV%. There are fewer powerplays a game, and fewer Powerplay goals per game (decreasing since the lockout), which would increase SV% because goalies perform worse while shorthanded.
Even strength scoring has basically remained the same since the lockout (and from the few years before).
So yeah, powerplays being down has reduced scoring. I was in the middle of something on this too
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 2:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, the data shows that PPSH% is roughly twice that of ES and it does play a part. It’d be good to see the data for ES vs PP shots and goals since the lockout as a percentage of overall shots and goals. (wink wink nudge nudge)
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
I have a bunch of data on goals and situation time which I have been putting together (maybe I’ll finish it tonight) but I don’t have PP shots. I’ll look for that. Stay tuned
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 2:41 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
PP shots are on the Team Data page on NHL.com. Go to PowerPlay Time.
What’d be good is if you could use shooting percentages in situations to give an even strength equivalent. i.e. A PP shot is worth 2.3 ES shots or something like that. That way you could directly compare loss of PP opportunities, and subsequently their shots.
Then if you have TOI data, you could say that forever minute of PP time you get X number of ES shots, versus Y number of ES shots for normal ES time. You can merely say we lose PP shots, because that time that would have been spent on the PP is now played at evens and shots happen there. It’s a bit complicated, but I think you get it.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
That was basically what I was doing
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 3:10 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Somewhat so
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 3:10 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
All of that aside, I don’t think reduction in PK time by 3-4 minutes a games is the main driving force behind multiple goaltenders suddenly channeling their inner Haseks.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
I think if the number above is right – 11.7 versus 6.9 penalties per game – is right, and assuming these are all minors and lead to powerplays (no idea if this is true), then we’d have 4.8 more PP’s a game, or 9.6 minutes, which is roughly 16% of the game.
If this is the case, that’s a huge number, and could easily impact overall scoring I’d think.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
you looked at shot totals
just compare totals on the PP to totals at ES, and then look at SH% results.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
why no
just compare NHL ES SV% since the lockout – wouldn’t take long.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
If you watch goalies from the pre-lockout era, they look different.
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
by birky on Feb 16, 2012 2:14 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
They used to stand up and wore couch cushions as pads.
"They build a statue, they knock it down and piss on it, and now they will be out there building it again."
by ThickSkinnedAlive on Feb 16, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yup. I think it’s lazy analysts who blame goaltending pads. The width of the pads hasn’t increased significantly – in fact, in these shots, Roy’s and Richter’s pads look similar to today’s widths: only a couple inches of coverage beyond the calf. The major difference in leg pad size has come in the five hole coverage, and that’s limited by NHL regulations now.
And sure, you can look at the chest protectors of Meloche or Parent and they’ve got basically nothing, but look at Roy’s chest here – it’s fucking huge (compare this to Price’s chest now).
But it’s easier for people to say “pads” than it is to try and compare styles. Lundqvist and Luongo have both started playing deeper in net, minimizing the need for excess lateral movement and reducing the chance of getting caught out of the net. If you want to talk about the rise in SVP, I think there’s probably something there (though it’s almost impossible to quantify). Ignoring Thomas as an outlier, how many guys do you really see coming outside of the paint nowadays? How often do you see, during the course of regular play, a skater manage to get behind a legitimate NHL starter? I’d say it’s pretty rare nowadays. And if you’re trying to get scoring (or save percentage) to go back to the time of the 80s, you’re going to have to undo the widespread adoption of the butterfly – again, a stylistic change, not a gear change.
Oh, and if you want to talk about reducing pad size, try not to do it in a year when Chara fires a 108 MPH slapper.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
forgot to include some comparisons on the Roy/Richter width: Rollie, Henrik – yes, there’s more. Probably another one or two inches, mostly increased padding on the landing side (as I mentioned last night) to turn down the number of knee/hip injuries.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Of course all you goalies realize that IF it turns out to be reduced penalties (and thus, less PP time per game), which has caused the reduction in goals per game…. the other conclusion we’re left with is that modern goalies talk a huge amount of pseudo-tehnical shit, while remaining about as good, in truth, as a buncha Doug Favells.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
But if shooting is luck, then….
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 17, 2012 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
“shooting is luck” is really short for a longer phrase which is this: “within the NHL, luck separates the players on shooting performance vastly more than skill does”.
You line me and Corlton Orr up, he will shoot infinitely better than me. You line up a bunch of NHL level players, though, and they’ve all maximized their skills to about the same level (goes the argument), so scoring more or less is mostly a matter of chance.
I liked
Where the article referenced every team in the western conference with the exception of Detroit and Vancouver as to blame for the “abomination”, because he’s from Vancouver, and Detroit fans will kick his ass.
Shot’s on goal isn’t telling you the whole story however. A defensive system isn’t always designed to limit shots. If you look at Phoenix’s system they traditionally don’t limit shots on goal but they do force those shots to the outside which limits their scoring potential. That doesn’t make the unknown Sedin brother right.
I think we should interpret Sedin’s comments for what they were. “I prefer a system that pads my stats as opposed to one where people defend against me.”. I’m sure he does, but that didn’t stop Vancouver carrying 8 D-Men to the final last year. Obviously their management knows how the game works even if their forwards don’t.
That’s a disingenuous statement about the Sedins. Henrik Sedin has been stressing the importance of Vancouver hanging in for 1-0 and 2-1 wins since the playoffs last year. They play for Alain Vigneault, a coach who has always stressed defense first and their point totals exploded under him. Vancouver was a defensive team for years. It’s only recently the team has gotten all the horses it needs to force the issue offensively.
It's all about the size of goalies and pads
Once a week I skate with an ex forward for the Sharks. He runs a Monday morning boot camp for rec players that want to improve their skill. Last week we we ended up in a conversation about just this topic, the week the Sharks played against St. Louis in what was really a brutally boring defensive game.
We both came to the same conclusion. If you want to increase scoring, you have to shrink the goalie pads. His point was that when he started playing, it used to be that when you came down the ice, you had net to shoot for. These days, you practically can’t see the net. Goalies are bigger, and the pads are huge. So scoring becomes much more a question of luck, screens and rebounds.
(My take…) If you are designing a team, are you really going to build an offensively oriented team, and count on scoring if that depends so much on luck? Or are you going to build a team like St. Louis? That’s how you win in 2012.
As for goalie safety, he had a good point – we can protect soldiers in the field from bullets with kevlar, but somehow we feel the need to give goalies 11" wide pads and giant gloves?
As an ex keeper myself, I laugh every time I hear an announcer talk about how “wide” modem goalies can get. Lunquist’s legs are only about 6 inches short of going post-to-post when he’s in the butterfly. But it’s all about the pads. Look at the giant above-knee pad extensions they use. What they let you do is have your legs spread wide open and not give up a 5 hole. Eliminate them (limit the pads to two inches above the knee, much as they were in the 70’s), and goalies will have to get much narrower and leave much more space or there will be a gaping 5 hole.
We don’t need a faster game, or a slower game, we need one that’s more fair to the shooters.
No kidding. Add in that they were also technically awful and it’s no wonder teams were filling the net.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Goalies are bigger, and the pads are huge. So scoring becomes much more a question of luck, screens and rebounds.
Wouldn’t this suggest that the goalies are better at depriving shooters of “good looks”? I mean, if the goalies have roughly the same level of talent, and it’s the changes in the pads that’re making the saves, then why do deflections and screens help? The puck would still be heading towards these “giant” pads – in fact, they’d be heading to the pads more frequently. Screens and rebounds are about limiting the goaltender’s ability to read and react to the play – in short, compensating for player skill.
And about leg pads? Limit pads to 2" above the knee, and then when I butterfly it’ll expose the thigh and knee. Can’t wait to take that 108 MPH slapper right on the top of my knee bone. That’ll be awesome, and probably career ending. Can’t wait.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
No worse than taking it in the arm. Any serious Goalie is already using knee protectors. You can have padding… just not 10" WIDE padding.
Uhhhh, taking a shot straight to the exposed upper thigh/knee would be way worse than taking it in the arm. It’s much easier to adjust which part of your arm the puck is hitting (I can’t remember the last time I’ve had a shot go off the unprotected elbow), while your knee is down on the ice and you’re definitely not about to lift it up. Besides: I’ve got padding on the arm of my c/a.
Any “serious” goalie’s knee protectors, nowadays, are the ones that are built in to the leg pads. Vaughn’s form fitting thigh guards have been fantastic for me so far. Here’s henrik using Bauer’s knee guards which you can see are stitched in to the pad, not just floating on his knee. They’re also not designed to be a regular stopping device.
And I’m not sure why the difference between 11" padding and 9" padding is supposed to make up for half a goal per game, or however much you’d like to pretend it’s cutting down on scoring. Someone else can do the math, but I’m pretty sure that the 2" by 30" difference at 11" off the goal line isn’t making up a ton of the net’s 240 square feet on any given shot.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Sports Science took a sumo wrestler, put pads on him, and stuck his fat ass in a net. George Parros took shots on him and never missed despite Yokozuna taking up 90% of the net. The sumo guy simply couldn’t react to the shots in time.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
It’s probably because they have him in older, smaller pads. I mean, duh.
From the blue line, a 100 MPH shot takes .3818 to get 56 feet, and .3886 seconds to get 57 feet. .4091 to go the whole 60.
So the recent trend has been to play a little deeper (Lundqvist, Luongo both the poster children for this swap, though Gustavsson has started playing deeper, and Reimer has always played deep). You lose net coverage by giving up that angle, but gain about .02 seconds to react (not much, really), and you also save time and energy when moving laterally/cross crease. I don’t really understand how it works (watching Lundqvist and Reimer play usually has me yelling at the TV), because they’re giving up some square footage, but it’s hard to argue with some players’ post-shift performance.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Parros has only scored 9 goals in his career
highlight of him making Toskala look stupid
www.twitter.com/CameronSorley
by CameronSorley on Feb 17, 2012 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry – I know that knee protectors are built in these days (i played goal for 30 years). I was just trying to explain it more clearly. I’m not saying just use your thigh to stop. I’m saying that having pads that far extended allows you to go deeper into the splits. That can’t be denied. Shorten them, and you have to keep your knees closer together, like you did 20 years ago. They haven’t grown because of safety. They have grown because they help you stop the puck when your stance is wide.
No one change is going to make the whole difference, but I as was pointed out, goalies were much less effective 30 years ago. Claiming that is all just because of improvements in skill is just plain unfair to those keepers. Gloves are also huge now. Go back and compare a 1980’s GM12 trap to a current one, and tell me that that doesn’t change your save percentage.
goalies were much less effective 30 years ago.
This isn’t something that needs to be pointed out. It’s pretty clear that the hall-of-fame-worthy .887 career SVP of Grant Fuhr doesn’t even put you in the NHL today. What I’m saying is that if you gave Grant Fuhr modern pads and blocker, then said “go out there and play like you always do,” his save percentage would improve by significantly less than if he were to adopt a butterfly style, and spend time cutting down the angles rather than making, uh, this kind of save. I’m not suggesting that Fuhr would’ve said anything along the lines of “angles? I don’t believe in ’em”, but this idea that save percentage is going up primarily because pads are growing (when over the last 5 years, they really haven’t even been growing) really ignores the stylistic advancements in the past two decades, and even some of the stylistic changes in the last 5 years.
Sure, those pads grew in part to improve net coverage – look at Roy’s chest guard as I linked above, for example – but the NHL limited pads, and the reason they allowed goaltenders to continue extending the pad over the knee is because there’s absolutely a safety element involved.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Sorry. I think I’m being misunderstood. My fault for not being clear enough. I don’t think gear size (let’s make it more generic than ‘pads’) is the sole reason. It’s clearly not. I think it is one of the reasons though, and has allowed the profly style to become even better.
And more importantly, it is an aspect of the game that certainly can be modified easily to bring scoring back up.
I’m still not sold that knee extensions have to be full width padding to be protective. Moder materials are pretty amazing, and i think that if they were shorter one of the effects would be goalies not going as wide when they go down.
And more importantly, it is an aspect of the game that certainly can be modified easily to bring scoring back up.
This is definitely something I agree with. I mean, I dislike the lazy writer’s approach of “oh, goal scoring is down because pad sizes are up” for all the reasons I’ve mentioned, but I was sitting here thinking, “let’s say we do need more goal scoring” – already not something I’d agree with – but it’s not like you can force goalies to come out more, and arbitrary behavioral/limiting rules (like the non-trapezoidal area) are really fucking stupid (like the non-trapezoidal area) so I guess the only place that you can really make limitations would be on goaltender equipment, even though I don’t think you could maintain this level of safety and see a significant increase in the number of goals against.
Tough.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Someone else just suggested a larger net to me. I don’t think that will ever happen though. Too big a change with tradition.
I dislike the idea of larger nets. Fundamentally changes angles. I’d rather see the pad size dropped.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Claiming that is all just because of improvements in skill is just plain unfair to those keepers.
Goalies now are in better shape than goalies 30 years ago, when guys would drink beer all summer before playing.
Goalies now have better theory in what they’re trying to accomplish, and they all wear face masks which allows them to use more of their body to block pucks (I still think the face mask and the invention of the butterfly are tightly linked).
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I still think the face mask and the invention of the butterfly are tightly linked.
Without a doubt. Stand up goalies had their heads above the crossbar, which is where players aren’t shooting in order to score a goal. A butterfly goalie’s head is at or below the crossbar and in the way of a scoring area. Gonna get plunked.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
Indeed. If you listen to Dryden, he’ll tell you that in the early 70’s shooters were JUST starting to shoot high regularly. Before that there was a conscious effort on the part of the players to not fire at the goalies head (though it clearly still happened a lot). The invention of the mask made it acceptable to fire high. Once that happened it was also possible to start going down more.
Curved sticks made it easier to shoot high.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Ummmm..... might wanna check that math.
Looks to me like the net is 4 × 6 feet = 24 square feet (not 240!) = 144 square inches x 24 = 3456 square inches each
Downsized goalie pads (your figures) would open up 2″ × 30″ = 60 square inches per goalie
Which means 60/3456 inches of additional net space = 0.01736 or 1.736% more room to score
Take 30 shots at each goalie, equals 60 shots per game, x 1.736% more scoring and you’d have… 1.04 more goals.
Per game.
Might be a bigger deal than it initially seems.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Your math is right but your assumptions aren’t.
You’re adding 1.736% of the total net space, but really you’re increasing the available “scoring area” by way more than 1%.
I don’t know how big a goalie is, but let’s say he takes up 80% of the net, so 2764.8 in2 are covered and 691.2 in2 are open. Adding 60in 2 is really something like an 8.6% increase but I’m guessing there will be mitigating factors like goalies moving a little more, and I doubt that goalies make a ton of saves where the edge of the puck clips their pad.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I think it’s two ways of saying the same thing, isn’t it? I just ran the math one way, and got the increase in space, which led to 1 goal a game.*
You did it by estimating how much the space had increased, and finding 16% (or somesuch.) But that would be the same as finding a 16% increase in the number of goals scored in that space. Such as… going from 6 to 7 goals per game.
So I think the conclusion is that, amongst the many factors which could conceivably lead to an increase – or decrease – in goal-scoring, changing equipment size, although seemingly tiny, could in fact be a possibility.
* All figures correct +/-8000%.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think it’s two ways of saying the same thing, isn’t it?
No.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I think you’ll find it is.
One looks at total area, and then applies it to total shots.
The other looks at unblocked area (which is the area shots go through, and become goals), and then applies it to total goals.
So 1.74% of 60 shots gives you an extra 1.04 goals per game.
While you found 8.6% more scoring area opened up, which would produce, say 6 goals X 8.6% = 0.516 more goals per game. If you’d assumed 90% of the net was covered (because the 80% was a guesstimate, not a measurement, right?), then it would be 345 inches open, with 60 more inches added, or 17.2% more total goals, which would be… 1.03 more goals.
Whatever the real numbers are, these are the same thing I think, done two ways.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, I gotcha. Missed your part about using goals vs. shots.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Also
I think we have to take increased goalie size into account, when looking at it over periods of decades, but with precisely the same sort of math applying.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
This is also a factor. Glen Healy is 5’6".
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
and really shitty at hockey
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 4:43 PM EST up reply actions
and really shitty at hockey
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
on and off the ice
Dammit Gomez.
by elseldo on Feb 16, 2012 5:24 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Someone else can do the math
You fell into my trap. (and yes, the zero was a typo, not a terribly failed attempt at 4 × 6.)
And I’m pretty sure the 2×30 would have an even bigger effect in coverage, as you’re out from the net, not right on the goal line.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
The crease is what, four feet deep? Assuming a shot from 15 feet out 1 inch on each side of the goalie pad at the top of the crease is about 1.36" at the goal line.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
As for goalie safety, he had a good point – we can protect soldiers in the field from bullets with kevlar, but somehow we feel the need to give goalies 11" wide pads and giant gloves?
I’m guessing he doesn’t have a ton of training in the science of impact protection. He may consider staying out of said field.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Fun fact: being hit with an assault rifle bullet in the chest while wearing “kevlar” (modern vests would use ceramic plate) normally stops your heart from the impact force.
The armor keeps you alive. Hockey gear is supposed to keep you totally safe, it’s a sport not a death wish.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
His point was simply that materials have changed. We should take advantage of them.
If you go flat (old-skool style) on your pads your knee is exposed no matter how long your pad is. I have the bruises to prove that :-) Nobody is suggesting exposed knees.
Yes, 2" was just me overstating a point, but reducing the length of the extension above the knee limits how wide a stance you can go into without opening the 5 hole. NHL pads these days are incredibly tall compared to what they used to be.
The point is, you don’t need a 10 or 11" wide pad to stop a puck hurting you. You need some good padding, but it doesn’t have to be a pillow. That’s just there to make stopping easier.
That’s just one change though. The size of traps is much bigger too. I’m sure there are others.
His point was simply that materials have changed. We should take advantage of them.
His point isn’t well made. These are NHL athletes. They’ll use $1,000 worth of sticks a game. If someone could make kevlar pads that were even 3% lighter than normal pads they’d exist and NHL players would use them.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
I WANT SOME KEVLAR PUCKS, AND I WANT THEM NOW. - Alexander Ovechkin
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
Right. What I’m saying though is that to protect your thigh, you don’t kneed an 11" wide pillow that also happens to stop pucks and allow you to split from post to post without opening up.
They will spend to get the best protection and advantage within the rules. I’m suggesting changing the rules. And yes, the keepers would have to adapt their play a bit.
If you play goal (at least in my experience), you are always aware of what is protected and what is not. You play within those limitations. (extreme example – don’t turn your back to the shooter :-)
Nobody is suggesting just a piece of kevlar. But the outer 5 inches (combined both sides) of a goalie pad is not there for protection – it’s there to stop pucks.
They probably could make said equipment, but there’s just no justifying the huge research costs.
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
Also, if anyone does have several million dollars they’d like to spend on R&D of next gen goalie pads I know a guy at DuPont who would be happy to take your money.
Pension Plan Puppets
I hope YouTube comes down to film this.
Again: bulletproof vests basically stop the bullet from penetrating your buddy. They can’t do anything to lessen the impact, but the bullet doesn’t physically tear through your chest.
Hold a piece of plexiglas up to your chest, press it right up there with nothing in between. Let an NHL player take a slap shot at it and let us know how that goes when they let you out of the hospital.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
why would I give my bullet proof vest to someone else? even if he is my buddy? I dont want to get shot!
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
I know people freak you about this idea Chemmy, but… if you’re a catcher, in serious baseball or fastball… and the guy is whipping them in at 80-90-100 mph… and in fastball, he releases the ball about 36-38 feet from the plate…. and it swerves, dips, bounces and rises on its merry way… and then some dumb shit is standing in front of you swinging a round stick at it… so that he often tips it back, directly into you…. and it’s always always always your job to stop said ball… and all I ever used was a wire-mesh mask with a thin pad behind it…. and as I moved up, some shin pads… but for many years, no shin pads, just work to deaden the shin… and no chest protector even, in an era when that was a point of pride… the human body can take some awfully hard wallops…. and handle it.
With a puck (and while not a goalie, I took one heap of a lot of shots to the body, blocking them, deliberately and non), it seems to me that the big thing is that it has an edge. Which concentrates the cutting surface. It’s not actually coming faster than a baseball or fastball, funny enough. And I have spent time standing in a net, easily gloving my buddies shots, with no gear, from a catcher’s crouch.
It’s that when it hits you, if tipped or you’re otherwise screened, the edge… cuts. A baseball can break bones, depending where it hits you, hands and feet and faces, certainly.
But the cuts seem to me to be the thing.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
Which is all a way of saying....
I’m not sure the plexiglas thing works. Pay me some money, and damn straight, I’d stand there with plexiglas over my body and let Chara shot at me. Seriously.
It’d be the equivalent of standing pressed against the end glass, wouldn’t it?
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Let's talk energy now!
E=1/2mv^2
E = .5 * .165kg* 45m/s ^2
E= 167 Joules of energy
Further plexiglass is incredible rigid and I’d say it’d dissipate only 10% of that energy, the rest going into your chest.
To put that into perspective, that’s the same amount of energy that a puck dropped from 100m in the air (ignoring wind resistance) has on your chest. Still want to stand in front of that with a rigid piece of glass pressed against you?
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
But people do… at hockey games…. when the silly buggers get up against the glass.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
1. They’re not pressed all the way against the glass.
2. The stanchions take most of the impact.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Well… I’m just going by what Jared’s Mum does.
More seriously. The original question was, would holding a piece of plexiglas up protect you against an NHL slapshot – as in, keep you out of hospital.
My answer is, pretty much, yeah. Goalies have been hit for 30-40 years with big slappers, 90 mph plus, with shitty gear on, and on the the bare or thing areas between the gear. Defencemen and shot-blockers have as well. And tonnes of accidental hits on forwards in front, etc.
And yes, sometimes they get injured, but most of the time, it’s not “hospitalization” and such. They get bad bruises, bone brusies, cuts, etc. But the damage depends more, I’d say, on where they get hit. Precisely. You hit me with a 90 mph slapper right on the collarbone, it’ll probably snap. You hit me in the fat of the shoulder, it’s a bone bruise most likely.
Any goalie (or catcher) knows this. I could take pitch after pitch in the calf, or right on the shin. Doable. but the top of the foot? Things break more easily.
So…. it’s really not so much the speed of the puck… or the force calculations…. because we know, pretty much, how hard they hit… It’s where you get hit, whether the puck hits edge-on or flat, that sort of thing.
And give me a pice of plexiglass, and hells yeah, for an NHL goalie’s wages, I’ll take the hit. Be bruised as shit, but hospitalized? Nope.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Solution!
Let’s test.
With Chemmy.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
puck is 160-170 grams, baseballs are 142-149.
So if we take one in the middle of each range, puck
E = .5 * .165kg* 45m/s ^2 = 167 Joules
Baseball
E = .5 * .145kg* 45m/s ^2 = 146 Joules
So the buck has about 12% more energy… which is more, certainly, but not masses more.
If a baseball catcher can take similar speed balls off their knee pads and chest protectors (not that they would have to take them nearly so regularly, so I’m sure their threshold for pain will be a fair bit higher), then in theory you could have a hockey goalie survive in a slightly more full-body version of catcher pads. Even if you extend catcher pads to cover the full frontal body, and beef up the padding in them a bit, that’s not nearly the stopping surface area that goalies currently have.
A fast pitch ball, which is what I mostly caught, averages 188 grams. So probably around 10% more energy….. ;-)
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 17, 2012 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
The thing is, speed matters more than weight (the speed term is squared), and pucks go faster than fast pitch balls
80 mph = 36 m/s.
105 mph = 47 m/s.
E 80 mph fast pitch = .5 * .188kg* 36m/s ^2 = 121 Joules
E 105 mph slapper = .5 * .165kg* 47m/s ^2 = 182 Joules
Getting in front of an OHL level slap shot scares the living crap out of me, but I’m a wus.
I’ve seen upper end speeds for fast-pitch ranging from 80 mph to 118 mph. There was a video up last year of a young woman, good chucker, throwing 80, in some lab. Also, I find it’s much harder to catch than a baseball being thrown at high end speeds.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 17, 2012 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure the plexiglas thing works.
You play hockey. Ever take a puck in the toe of the skate?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Hurts like a motherfucker. Weird, the toe is steel, it’s not dented. What happened?
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Momentum
A bullet from an AK-47 weighs 0.008 kg (0.08N) and travels 700 m/s.
A puck weighs .165 kg (1.65N)and travels 45 m/s (Chara slapper).
Bullet – 56N*s
Puck – 74.25 N*s
That’s 32% more momentum for the puck that has to be dissipated on your chest.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
It should be expressed as a function of pressure.
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
No, it shouldn’t.
One of us here has a degree in bio-mechanical engineering and I’m pretty sure it isn’t you.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
I have a degree!
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
lettuce, tomatoes, bread, Salt and Pepper
BLT’s for dinner!
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
it could be me. I’m very mysterious
Dammit Gomez.
by elseldo on Feb 16, 2012 6:22 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
You said the magic word. Chest.
The original argument here (way up above before it became a physics discussion) was that you didn’t need 10" wide, pillow form thigh protection going up 8 inches above the knee for protection. The proof is in the chest protector. NHL Goalies routinely take shots in the chest just as hard as the thigh, and they are protected. Wrap that level of protection somehow around the front of the thigh and you are protecting without creating a big wide stopping device. I used the term kevlar (actually the NHL player I was talking to used it) I assume because that is what I have read is being used in modern NHL shoulder pads. This isn’t rocket science.
Nuff said?
by psantangeli on Feb 16, 2012 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This isn’t rocket science.
When you get into the math of impact analysis, it might as well be. Modern day hockey equipment isn’t being designed by Joe Blow in his garage. It’s being designed by engineers with millions of dollars put into R&D. I can understand why an NHL hockey player wouldn’t understand that though.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
but it’s being designed by engineers who are trying to maximize two outcomes not one:
a) The ability to absorb a puck impact comfortably
b) The ability to prevent the puck from going past you.
If they were only maximizing (a) they would just wrap the let in nice rounded pads that would deflect pucks away, so the leg doesn’t take the full impact. Instead they build a nice wide flat, slightly concave pad surface. That part is ALL about (b), and nothing to do with (a). If the NHL wanted to change the parameters on goalie pads without sacrificing goalie safety there is PLENTY of room to do so.
This is all irrelevant even if correct (which I have no reason to doubt)
The protection on the lower thigh and knee doesn’t need to be wider than the leg. That’s the point.
Wrap that level of protection somehow around the front of the thigh and you are protecting without creating a big wide stopping device.
Wrap that level of (more rigid) protection and you’ll be getting knee and hip injuries from the force of repeatedly driving your knee into the ice.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Solved
You seem prone to knee problems, Mr Bower. We have here an arrangement of artfully-plcaed bungee cords, from which you may dangle…. to your heart’s content.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 7:04 PM EST up reply actions
If the two of you had a child, he might be the re-incarnation of Gary Carter.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Feb 16, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Best way to save your knees is to tie yourself to the crossbar.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
I knew this girl once…. well, not so much a girl as my sister…. and she liked to be tied up and…. oh shit. Can I delete that? Where’s the delete button? Those fuckers can read what I’ve written anyway though, can’t they? Even if I fucking delete it. Ok. Stay calm, man, and think.
pause
Anyway. It was sick, what we did, with my sister. So. Now you know.
Signed,
Jared. (Visiting at Norm’s house and using his computer, without his knowledge or permission.)
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
..
What am I reading?
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:24 PM EST up reply actions
schizophrenia
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
Ever notice how there’s two “i’s” in schizophrenia?
Two i’s.
Fucking spooky, man.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
I’d be insane to disagree with the claim that goalies have some say in the decreased goal totals, but the third graph in this post (league save %) doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know from the previous two, and conclusions ought not be drawn from it.
As has been pointed out, too, a decrease in goals without a corresponding decrease in shots needn’t be attributed entirely to goalie skill. A team can play a defensive system that gives up lots of low percentage shots.
Also, re. the PP: PPG/Team in 06-07: 68.23. PPG/Team in 10-11: 52.37. So that’s roughly 16 goals fewer per team, or half of the 30 goals per team overall.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
low percentage shots
Gabe Desjardins has $100 for you if you can prove shot quality.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
Pretty sure he later specified that shot quality isn’t the same as shot location.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
So if a team could get opposition shooters to shoot from lower percentage areas would Gabe agree that that team could suppress shooting percentage?
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
My new goal: To get the nickname Hebrew Hammer for Mike Brown to take off.
0% of me would like to speak on behalf of Gabe.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
Hahaha fair enough
I should ask him…. Because I still believe that a good defensive team can boost a goalie’s save percentage.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
My new goal: To get the nickname Hebrew Hammer for Mike Brown to take off.
I do, too. Either that, or I need to find the magic lamp that Brian Elliot got his hands on.
RIP Former-and-forever Leaf Wade Belak
Me on Twitter
The fact that Brian Elliot is on pace for the second-best season of ALL TIME is incredibly telling.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
Luck guys.
it exists.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:46 AM EST up reply actions
and before anyone disputes that
difference between .909 Brian Elliot and .940 Brian Elliot is would be 22 goals against this season spread out over 27 gp… or less than a goal per game extra.
Roughly 4 extra goals against ever 5 gp. He could improve that much due to luck…two or three really bad games would do that to him.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
heck you could
just take his 5 shut outs, and make 4 of them games where he gave up 1 goal against… that alone would reduce his SV% from .940 to .934… and on it could go.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Feb 17, 2012 9:50 AM EST up reply actions
So are you suggesting that all shots are equally easy to stop? I’ve never really understood the claim that shot quality isn’t a real factor.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
because it is impossible to track?
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
No, it’s that on a team level it all averages out in the end. A breakaway is harder than a shot from the red line, but teams give up relatively equal distributions of shots.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
You have shown that goalie save percentage has increased but i am just not sure what the cause is. You say it is increase in skill but i don’t see the evidence for that. The amount of goalies with above 0.925 this year seems really high to me. As well isn’t it odd that it looks like the best single season save percentage record was broken last year and looks like it will happen again ( Thomas last year and Lundy this year). In fact two goalies have better save percentages this year than Thomas’ last year ( Elliot and Lundy)
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
My new goal: To get the nickname Hebrew Hammer for Mike Brown to take off.
Chris Boyle did some stuff on this at EOTP around the time Jacques Martin was fired and noted in the comments that PP time and goals have dramatically decreased since the lockout (at the time of that post, PIM were projected to be down by about a third from 2005-06). It was noted in the context of fewer weak-Fenwick teams making the playoffs with each passing year, but it’s probably also relevant to the overall discussion here.
I’d love to see a breakdown of EV/PK SV% since the lockout. I bet the trend there is non-significant.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
you guys are so smrt.
Dammit Gomez.
by elseldo on Feb 16, 2012 5:25 PM EST via Android app reply actions
Smart enough to not marry a Habs fan.
/low blow
//that too was a Habs joke
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
by SkinnyFish on Feb 16, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think any drop in goals is probably to do with a lot of things. A sudden spike in the evolution of goaltenders? In the last three years? I don’t find that any more convincing than “Ed’s” theories.
Missing Sidney Crosby from the league probably has more impact on goals scored across the NHL as does goalies techniques improving.
I would love for someone who really knows goaltending to watch a St. Louis game and let us know what the hell is going on with Brian Elliot. Is he really just playing incredibly good hockey this year, or how much seems to be the team playing around him?
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
St. Louis has a league best 26.4 SA/G. Pitt is in 2nd with 26.6.
Elliott has gone nuclear while Fleury has a .911
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
But the amount of SA/G doesn’t really affect sv%. I just find it hard to believe that he suddenly figured out how to be one of the best goalies of all time.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
Prior to this year his best season was a .909. I guess he could be the Jose Bautista of goalies.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
I gotta ask the question: why did you all waste your money buying jerseys with the likes of Sundin and Kessel’s names on the back, when you could have had an Elliott?
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Feb 16, 2012 6:33 PM EST up reply actions
I gotta ask the question: did Ottawa trade Elliott because they knew he was taking some performance-enhancing drug, possibly the one from the Bradley Cooper film Limitless?
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
Not familiar with that film, but the image of Bradley’s dreamy eyes is enough to enhance anyone’s performance.
And by enhance, I mean like how Ben Johnson’s performance was enhanced – speed and efficiency.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Feb 16, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
True story
Back in high school, I used to get detentions fairly regularly for skipping class. The rule with detentions was that you had to show up on time (or within 5 minutes if the teacher was nice) or you would be marked down as having skipped.
One day, with about half an hour to go, a kid came bursting through the door of the detention room out of breath. He apologized over and over to the teacher, explaining that he’d been having lunch at home, and that when he remembered he was supposed to be in detention, he’d ran to the school “like Ben Jonson”.
The teacher paused, stared into the kid’s eyes, and said with absolute sincerity “So you’re telling me you’re on drugs?” The kid stood there for a full 30 seconds before he could think of what to say. It was incredible.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
OT - I know not everyone here are baseball fans, but this is some sad news
HoF Catcher and former Expo Gary Carter passed away at 57.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.
My bedroom, as a child, was adorned with a signed poster of Guy Lafleur on one wall, and Gary Carter on the opposing wall.
Fuck Rusty Staub. Gary Carter was the Expos.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Feb 16, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions
Notes for the file: former Habs fan.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Notes for the file: Chemmy doesn’t take good notes.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Feb 16, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
even more OT
the picture linked by not norm ullman above
would be a glorious third jersey
.......................
say yes to Rick Nash.
by OffTheChest on Feb 16, 2012 6:43 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Yeah those 70’s-80’s unis are awesome
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts.
by Self Destructive Zones on Feb 16, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
This is giving me a weird boner…
I am boobs.
True Appreciator of the Dumba Train
by Thor the Clunge Destroyer on Feb 16, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
Goaltending equipment improved but flex sticks and skater equipment has improved
Goaltending technique improved but quick release wrist shots and shot accuracy improved
So
1. The improvement to goaltending SV% might be larger to offset the improvement to skaters SH% (and the number shots are not affected much by either).
2. The improvement in goaltending SV% = improvement in shooting SH%, and the observed increase in SV% is from the “trap” defence that forces shots to lower quality areas on the ice (perimeter shots)
Or some combination of 1. and 2.
More hooking and holding, but shots coming in from weak positions.
Bigger goalies with still too big equipment.
Yes, the game is going back to slow, slow, slow.
Please prove your first two statements.
As for the third, would like you like put a height restriction on goalies?
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
no more butterfly! no more goalies over 6 feet tall!
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
Nassssty Hobbitses. 1.73 GAA.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
Defensive Systems can substantially limit shot location
http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=247
Thats Gabe in 2009. I don’t know whether or not he has gone back on this, but I don’t think he has. Anyways, if more coaches are adopting this style, it would indeed lead to a higher savePCT for goalies.
Why are so many people against a trade for Nash? The assets we would have to give up have a very slim chance to become the impact player Rick Nash is right now. I can’t understand how people can defend the Kessel trade, and at the same time argue that Nash would cost too much. I would gladly give up Kadri, Gardiner, Kuli and a 1st for him. I thought this was supposed to be a rebuild on the fly.
I would gladly give up Kadri, Gardiner, Kuli and a 1st for him
that is insane
you are insane
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I have a hard time believing that any one of those three have as much value around the league as people on here seem to think. I’m not even sure Howson would take that deal, but looking at the way he built his team he might.
Komisarek Blows
its not about how valuable those players are around the league, its about how valuable those players are to the Leafs, which is very
Hawson would take that deal before Burke could get his senses back
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
also, Kessel was a 21 year old RFA who could have a contract negotiated under the Leafs terms
Nash is a 28 year old on a 7.8 million dollar contract for the next 6 years
it is sliiiiightly different
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not arguing that but if the whole basis of the Kessel trade was win now I don’t wanna wait, why is it any worse to trade future prospects/picks for Nash. This team with Nash in its top six look a hell of a lot more like a playoff contender.
Komisarek Blows
no it wasn’t. the Basis for the Kessel trade was to get an elite scoring forward who had not yet entered his prime that you could lock up for his prime at a value contract
Trading an ass load of youth for a guy who is probably peaked and already locked in to a contract he can never live up to that extends past his useful years.
No argument that Nash gives the Leafs a better chance to win NOW, but combining that with a gutting of NHL ready youth and a high pick would be damaging to the Leafs in every year after this one
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
I realize that Kessel was quite a bit different. It would be like trading for Nash 6-7 years ago. The only one one I really would think twice about giving up would be Gardiner, and I really like Kadri. I’m just thinking that assuming Kessel continues to be amazing, combined with Lupul maybe going into a small window of being an elite player, maybe the time to strike is now. Everyone loves to talk about these unicorns at free agency which inevitably dont sign here. How valuable is Kulemin gonna be in 3-5 years? I dunno he really hasn’t looked great this year. Even a player with the upside of Gardiner, is this team going to be close when he’s 25-30? This isn’t going to be a high 1st I dont really see the downside. If I plugged Schenns name in instead of Gadiner does that make it more tolerable?
Komisarek Blows
I pretty much described the downside
Nash is good, but not good enough to warrent taking that hit in players AND cap space till 2018
replacing Gardiner with Schenn makes it better, but it’s still too much
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
I know its all hypothetical but I’m not even sure it would take that much to get him out of Columbus, just look at that awful roster Howson put together. And I know on here the prime age for a player seems to be between ages 10-14, but I don’t think getting Nash between the ages of 27-33 is that bad or that much of a gamble. He isn’t Gomez. I’ve just seen alot of messages saying it would cost too much, when in reality the prospects etc that people are throwing out there aren’t really that great. The Leafs could easily get by without any of the names I mentioned, and I bet most teams have pretty similar prospects.
Komisarek Blows
most teams who are shopping for Nash are closer to contending and have prospects that columbus is more interested in (or at least should be) so the Leafs would have to pony up more
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
Absolutely. But thats why I can’t understand why when I see all these hopeful unicorn dreams, everyone seems to think that they can be had for next nothing or in free agency. I think history has shown that for some reason no top free agents want to come here. I like all the guys I named but I don’t see how else Burke is going to able to land one of these unicorns. Unless the Leafs fluke into some crazy good, unexpected superstar. I just don’t want them to be a crappy bubble for team for a bunch of years and then have to start over.
Komisarek Blows
no one here thinks unicorns can be had for peanuts
but if you don’t want the leafs to be a crappy bubble team for years, then you probably shouldnt want them trading all their top level youth talent for a guy whose production will probably only stay at a high level for another year or two and then start to decline all the while clogging up the cap so the team is not able to bring in younger better talent and plug other holes
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
As much as understand and kinda agree with you
I’m kinda tired of waiting for a winner. I want one now
Komisarek Blows
so do we all
Rick Nash will not make the Leafs a winner
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
I paid for their crappy Leafstv
I demand satisfaction
Komisarek Blows
by jd90 on Feb 16, 2012 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
then you picked the wrong team
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Feb 16, 2012 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
What part of “paid for Leafstv” do you not understand?
There’s an implied guarantee on their part.
Clear signal, fast service, Rick Fucking Nash.
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 9:29 PM EST up reply actions
Damn straight
Why else would I get it? To watch 70s Leaf games? Fuck that shit
Komisarek Blows
by jd90 on Feb 16, 2012 9:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
but the question is, what would you be willing to give up for nash?
would you give up kadri+1st rounder? what if they agreed to take on komisarek?
i feel like nash to the leafs actually makes a lot of sense and that there’s a trade out there that would work out for both sides. maybe something like kadri+kulemin+aulie+komisarek?
Not even Howson would take on Komis terrible contract. Only hope is for an amnesty buyout.
Komisarek Blows
by jd90 on Feb 16, 2012 9:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Cox, is that you?
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
thanks alot
now i have to change my signature, again.
.......................
say yes to Rick Nash.
by OffTheChest on Feb 16, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
That’s why I chose something very hard to disagree with.
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
wow
there is no definition for Lebda in urban dictionary yet.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lebda
I would like to submit one but there are so many possibilities… what should be the first entry be, any ideas?
how about 1: the Least amount of anything?
.......................
say yes to Rick Nash.
We have a few here at PPP
- Abandon hope all ye who Lebda
- Lebda has the league record for being a -3 before the anthems
- Lebda is an anagram for Le Bad
Add on as you see fit.
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Lebda is injured. Columbus’ playoff chances have increased from -3% to 0%.
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Columbus Blue Jackets – Well, at least that annoying glass-half-full guy who responds to every loss all season long by saying “It could be worse, we could have Brett Lebda” will shut up now.
-Down goes Brown
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Leafs Sign Lebda for 1.45/yr. Wings fans die laughing.
-Somebody
At least it's not Lebda.
by Nifty Mittens on Feb 16, 2012 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Lebda little-known fact
The last name Lebda is Greek in origin, translating to English as
“Yeah, but can he ever skate!”
We can't win at home, and we can't win on the road. My failure as a coach is not finding another place to play -- Harry Neale
by El Timbo Libre on Feb 16, 2012 11:34 PM EST up reply actions
if you go by history
any team would be stupid not to take any draft picks offered by the leafs. any picks we trade away end up becoming elite for some reason.
.......................
say yes to Rick Nash.
Beauty of a post. Probably one of my favourite analyses done on this site in a while, really agree with this and like the way the data progressively proved the point throughout the post. 100% agree.
Flugenweb, space code, twit zone, ass mode, check ze tweets.
Except the conclusion is incorrect
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
Except the conclusion is incorrect
I shot a moose once, in upstate New York.
by not norm ullman on Feb 16, 2012 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
Rule one
never read Ed Willes.
There is no rule two.
Lead writer of nothing, commenter on everything.
Interesting note: 5on5 goals per 60 minutes (of 5on5 time) has basically stayed constant since the lockout, and prior
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
by Semi_Colon on Feb 16, 2012 11:50 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pension Plan Puppets
Related FanShots on Pension Plan Puppets
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
