@Cernovich@bourscheid this is the perfect response. @elonmusk net worth is only about 1/5 of the US Gov't budget, right? That budget is YEARLY - and those are the people saying we need to take Elon's worth!? It's insane.
Demand more from your gov't, people.
@raidersal62@barstoolsports Canes won in 06. But if they give Montreal chances like they are in this series against Buffalo, i may hop on board this bus you drivin'
@JoeYerdon Street smarts and lame NHL reffing and ops. It is stupid to waste all that time on the "was it goal" when it was going to be interference anyway. That call on Thompson was very bad. Weak. Next thing you know it's FIFA diving BS up in here.
@BizNasty2point0 i love hockey, been watching since '86. But these are the BS things that make the NHL ugly and dumb. Why didn't Toronto look at the interference and not stop play!? Montreal got jump and the crowd got a ton of energy. Buffalo played well, only to have that lame call on Tage.
the goalie thing is so overblown - every goalie that goes there gets lit up and ends up looking like they are trying too hard.
Tim Thomas for Boston shows it all - behind that defense, Thomas could take smart risks on the shooter cause he basically didn't have to worry about passes. He looked like a God. He was pretty average everywhere else. So many, Chris Osgood, Cam Ward, Antti Niemi, Crawford, Kuemper...
Edmonton has a D problem. If they had a LaCombe, things would have been quite different.
You know what sucks - when the D locks the puck against the boards to kill time. It killed the end of game 7 of the finals two years ago and now every team does it to kill the end of a period or more. It needs to be blown dead quickly or make it a penalty if the D does it. It's no different than the old clear the puck over the glass. Lame for the game.
@NHL@Buccigross@BizNasty2point0@PKSubban1
The only problem with this - it inflates goalie influence. Like, the going take right now is - Hellebuyck won that game - change the entire team in front of him to Finland or Germany and they still get the win...if not, at least the OT. Where the shooter puts the shot is the biggest indication of goal likelihood. And the top three for Canada failed when the chances were great. Mackinnon missing the empty net...game over. That ugly breakaway by McDavid - 90% save. Celebrini with his golden touch put that shot on the ice right between five-hole and post - every goalie saves that. Not to mention the desperate GREATEST SAVE of the Olympics stick save that we see other (Adin Hill) goalies make - BAD SHOT Toews (Nick Cousins). We all know Canada outplayed the US. But the US broke up a lot of cross passes that would have been high Q scoring chances. Matthews on the backcheck was HUGE. The US eked out a gritty, determined win. These always make a goalie look great. All to say - xGF/xGA is as blurry as +/- or any hockey stat. There is just no easy way to gauge shot quality. We can see it, though, when we watch. (a stat guy's most hated idea - watching the game tells you more than your numbers). Hockey ain't moneyball.
Where you shoot from on the ice...is dumb. That works in basketball...er...not really, it depends A LOT on WHO shoots the ball from where.
I bet a Staples Shot Q ranking of shots would be more valuable than location. We all know, shots that are above the pad and on the post - HIGH Q no matter where they are shot from - from a pass...almost 100%. Top corner placement HIGH Q (Kyle Connor, Johnny Hockey, Draisatl...) ...from a pass or a nice deke for clean shot - 100%.
Anyway, peace. Sorry to clam up your thread - i like your takes, so i felt obligated to clarify a disagreement, i guess.
@lumme_s@chrispronger@JoshuaRey00 i always have said your name (in my head when i see it) as "Hree-ki Loo-may" - is this correct?
Underrated name for an underrated d-man.