Hey, Todd! 3rd round picks?
I got three of four last time.
I pick the Wild and Ottawa. Hehhehheh.
(Okay, the Wild is because I think that the prospect of a Disney franchise winning the Cup will spell apocalypse and doom, with locust plagues and volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, and hockey in FLORIDA.
Oh... wait...)
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
The politics of rooting
cee made me do it... unfortunately Blogger was down ca. May 5th and I forgot to post it until now.
auk: come ON, Vancouver.
cee: yeah... we're watching the simpsons
auk: 4-1, she says despairingly. What, have they caught the Avs' 7-game-itis?
cee: FOUR! Minne scored two more??
auk: yeah, one of which was fuckin' ilLEGAL
cee: que?
auk: Marshall was in the crease AND the Wild was running over Cloutier
cee: ohferchrissakes
auk: I was trying to explain the hierarchy of hockey-rooting to poor Denise. *G*
cee: oh dear
auk: Sunbelt teams?
cee: well, you start with your fave, of course
auk: Never. Unless they are playing other Sunbelt teams that deserted the North for the Sunbelt.
cee: then you've got your consolation prizes
auk: And then only until they beat that Sunbelt team.
auk: Original Six over any other team.
cee: and then you've got the teams that are right out
cee: yup
auk: Canadian teams trump all others.
auk: Never root for Phoenix.
auk: Always root for MN, unless they are playing a Canadian team
auk: because they replaced the deserter team.
cee: Canadian teams trump all others. unless it's the Rangers or the Wings
auk: and it's okay to root for the Avs because they were the Nords. And the 'Canes cause they were the Whalers.
auk: And if they're an Original Six Canadian team, they are the default fave you gotta root for.
cee: LOL
auk: Unless they're the Leafs.
auk: Cause we hate the Leafs.
auk: Cause they suck.
cee: you should put this in the hahckey blahg
auk: Denise said I needed an algorithm for it *G*
cee: heh heh
auk: now 5-1
cee: oh god
auk: they have definitely inherited the Avs 7 games or bust disease
cee: Jovo! new plan!
cee: KILL THE FUCKING REF!
auk: YEAHHHH!
auk: Sasquatch, you get him on the right; Jovo, you go left.
cee: jeeheezus
auk: 6-1, she says, going for the razor
cee: <-chanting 'it's not over 'til seven
auk: sobsob
cee: we're going to be fine
cee: we ARE going to be FINE
auk: whew - 6-2
auk: yeah yeah pull it out...
cee: (out of context, um... heh)
cee: here, go look at the naked snowboarder
cee: LOOK AT THE NAKED SNOWBOARDER!!
auk: lookit the crazy snowboarder, dude
cee: lookit his ASS
cee: I'm telling you, if that ass doesn't cheer you up, nothin' will
auk: yah
cee: yeah baby, I'd tap that
auk: okay, so, back to the algorithm. All teams that DO play where there's naturally occurring ice start out on an equal footing with one another but above the Sunbelt. Original Six teams get a +6 modifier, and old WHA teams get a +3 modifier
cee: LOL!
auk: Canadian teams get a +10 modifier
auk: Sunbelt teams get a -10 modifierif they were stolen from a northern state or Canada
cee: that's awesome
auk: or a -5 if they play country music during intermissions.
cee: what about the Flames? Used to be Atlanta, are now Canadian
auk: teams with good music during the games (Sens, Devils, Hawks) get a +1
auk: teams that move north get a +10 modifier
cee: *g* and here I thought I'd stumped you.
cee made me do it... unfortunately Blogger was down ca. May 5th and I forgot to post it until now.
auk: come ON, Vancouver.
cee: yeah... we're watching the simpsons
auk: 4-1, she says despairingly. What, have they caught the Avs' 7-game-itis?
cee: FOUR! Minne scored two more??
auk: yeah, one of which was fuckin' ilLEGAL
cee: que?
auk: Marshall was in the crease AND the Wild was running over Cloutier
cee: ohferchrissakes
auk: I was trying to explain the hierarchy of hockey-rooting to poor Denise. *G*
cee: oh dear
auk: Sunbelt teams?
cee: well, you start with your fave, of course
auk: Never. Unless they are playing other Sunbelt teams that deserted the North for the Sunbelt.
cee: then you've got your consolation prizes
auk: And then only until they beat that Sunbelt team.
auk: Original Six over any other team.
cee: and then you've got the teams that are right out
cee: yup
auk: Canadian teams trump all others.
auk: Never root for Phoenix.
auk: Always root for MN, unless they are playing a Canadian team
auk: because they replaced the deserter team.
cee: Canadian teams trump all others. unless it's the Rangers or the Wings
auk: and it's okay to root for the Avs because they were the Nords. And the 'Canes cause they were the Whalers.
auk: And if they're an Original Six Canadian team, they are the default fave you gotta root for.
cee: LOL
auk: Unless they're the Leafs.
auk: Cause we hate the Leafs.
auk: Cause they suck.
cee: you should put this in the hahckey blahg
auk: Denise said I needed an algorithm for it *G*
cee: heh heh
auk: now 5-1
cee: oh god
auk: they have definitely inherited the Avs 7 games or bust disease
cee: Jovo! new plan!
cee: KILL THE FUCKING REF!
auk: YEAHHHH!
auk: Sasquatch, you get him on the right; Jovo, you go left.
cee: jeeheezus
auk: 6-1, she says, going for the razor
cee: <-chanting 'it's not over 'til seven
auk: sobsob
cee: we're going to be fine
cee: we ARE going to be FINE
auk: whew - 6-2
auk: yeah yeah pull it out...
cee: (out of context, um... heh)
cee: here, go look at the naked snowboarder
cee: LOOK AT THE NAKED SNOWBOARDER!!
auk: lookit the crazy snowboarder, dude
cee: lookit his ASS
cee: I'm telling you, if that ass doesn't cheer you up, nothin' will
auk: yah
cee: yeah baby, I'd tap that
auk: okay, so, back to the algorithm. All teams that DO play where there's naturally occurring ice start out on an equal footing with one another but above the Sunbelt. Original Six teams get a +6 modifier, and old WHA teams get a +3 modifier
cee: LOL!
auk: Canadian teams get a +10 modifier
auk: Sunbelt teams get a -10 modifierif they were stolen from a northern state or Canada
cee: that's awesome
auk: or a -5 if they play country music during intermissions.
cee: what about the Flames? Used to be Atlanta, are now Canadian
auk: teams with good music during the games (Sens, Devils, Hawks) get a +1
auk: teams that move north get a +10 modifier
cee: *g* and here I thought I'd stumped you.
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Cee has a strategy for Marc Crawford
We got guys who can score. We got a Sasquatch. Here's the plan. Huddle up. Guys who can score? Get out there and score. Todd, we can solve our problem with one five minute major. Just slam Marian Gaborik into the boards, put him in the hospital, the series is ours. To recap: you guys who can score, score. Todd, hospital. Dan, just keep doing what you're doing. Jovo, no changing the plan. Got it?
Friday, April 18, 2003
Friday, April 11, 2003
Dunno where this came from... realitycek found it. It explains a LOT.
NHL Refereeing 101
Somebody wasn't paying attention during refereeing school. Detroit's Chris Chelios marvels at the gall of an official who dared to penalize the Wings during their playoff series against the Canucks.
The scene is a classroom where a group of young men sit clad in striped sweaters. The teacher, an older gent with curiously immobile hair, stands in front of his desk. On the blackboard are the words "NHL Refereeing 101."
The teacher speaks.
"Good point there, Thompson. I prefer a gel for a firm hold but some of you might look into a mousse or a hair spray. Any other questions?"
For a moment there is silence as the students look at each other. Then an arm is slowly raised and a timid voice is heard.
"There's just one thing, sir," the youngster begins. "I think I understand hooking, holding and the other penalties. But I was a little confused over that formula you were talking about. Do you mind
going over it again?"
The teacher rolls his eyes. He fixes the young man with a cold stare, starts to say something, then changes his mind.
"OK, Hunter, for you I'll go over it again," he says. "In the first half of the game, you call everything by the book. A hook is a hook. Interference is interference. Got it?"
Twenty heads nod in unison.
The teacher continues: "That's unless a team is up by two goals. In that case the next call goes against the team that is leading, and the team that's trailing pretty much has to commit a capital offence to get a penalty. You can, of course, use your judgment on that one."
He pauses. Fewer heads nod this time.
"Now, that all changes if you've just called two or three penalties on the same team. When that happens, those guys get the license to kill and the next power play goes against the other guys."
Another hand is raised. A new voice is heard.
"But what if the team that just took the three straight penalties is also ahead by two goals?"
The teacher stares again. There is another uncomfortable pause.
"I wish you guys would pay attention," he finally says. "Three straight penalties and a two-goal lead is a wash so you go back to calling it by the book. For at least five minutes. Then the next call goes against two-goals. How much simpler can it be?"
The question is met by silence. The sound of a solitary cricket is heard in the background.
"Let's move on to the third period," the teacher says. "The third period is a little different but if you follow the formula, you won't have any problems. For example, if the score is tied you're home free. I mean, Ray Charles could referee because there are no penalties unless a corpse can be produced. Same with overtime. I love overtime."
The teacher then stares off dreamily into space. After a time he speaks again.
"Now, what you have to remember is that thing about a team with a two-goal lead in the first half of the game applies to a team with a one-goal lead in the third period. I've got this rhyme that helps me remember that one: 'Goal up in the third/Means it your turn.' OK, it doesn't rhyme but it's catchy, isn't it?"
The sound of nervous laughter drowns out the cricket.
"But here's the tricky part," the teacher continues. "If a team is up two goals in the third period, then the other guys automatically get a five-on-three for at least 45 seconds. Remember that. The only exception there is Detroit. We'll cover Detroit in another lecture. They'll take some time."
The teacher moves back behind his desk, looks up at the clock, then closes the books on his desk.
"Well, that's it for today. I want you to review Chapter 12 on league directives. We're going to get into some history there -- the obstruction controversy of the early '90s, the man in the crease debate from the late '90s. If we've got time we'll get into goalie interference."
"Oh, there's one other thing. Remember when I said it will take some time to explain Detroit? The same thing applies to Colorado. What can I tell you? Sometimes the rules change."
NHL Refereeing 101
Somebody wasn't paying attention during refereeing school. Detroit's Chris Chelios marvels at the gall of an official who dared to penalize the Wings during their playoff series against the Canucks.
The scene is a classroom where a group of young men sit clad in striped sweaters. The teacher, an older gent with curiously immobile hair, stands in front of his desk. On the blackboard are the words "NHL Refereeing 101."
The teacher speaks.
"Good point there, Thompson. I prefer a gel for a firm hold but some of you might look into a mousse or a hair spray. Any other questions?"
For a moment there is silence as the students look at each other. Then an arm is slowly raised and a timid voice is heard.
"There's just one thing, sir," the youngster begins. "I think I understand hooking, holding and the other penalties. But I was a little confused over that formula you were talking about. Do you mind
going over it again?"
The teacher rolls his eyes. He fixes the young man with a cold stare, starts to say something, then changes his mind.
"OK, Hunter, for you I'll go over it again," he says. "In the first half of the game, you call everything by the book. A hook is a hook. Interference is interference. Got it?"
Twenty heads nod in unison.
The teacher continues: "That's unless a team is up by two goals. In that case the next call goes against the team that is leading, and the team that's trailing pretty much has to commit a capital offence to get a penalty. You can, of course, use your judgment on that one."
He pauses. Fewer heads nod this time.
"Now, that all changes if you've just called two or three penalties on the same team. When that happens, those guys get the license to kill and the next power play goes against the other guys."
Another hand is raised. A new voice is heard.
"But what if the team that just took the three straight penalties is also ahead by two goals?"
The teacher stares again. There is another uncomfortable pause.
"I wish you guys would pay attention," he finally says. "Three straight penalties and a two-goal lead is a wash so you go back to calling it by the book. For at least five minutes. Then the next call goes against two-goals. How much simpler can it be?"
The question is met by silence. The sound of a solitary cricket is heard in the background.
"Let's move on to the third period," the teacher says. "The third period is a little different but if you follow the formula, you won't have any problems. For example, if the score is tied you're home free. I mean, Ray Charles could referee because there are no penalties unless a corpse can be produced. Same with overtime. I love overtime."
The teacher then stares off dreamily into space. After a time he speaks again.
"Now, what you have to remember is that thing about a team with a two-goal lead in the first half of the game applies to a team with a one-goal lead in the third period. I've got this rhyme that helps me remember that one: 'Goal up in the third/Means it your turn.' OK, it doesn't rhyme but it's catchy, isn't it?"
The sound of nervous laughter drowns out the cricket.
"But here's the tricky part," the teacher continues. "If a team is up two goals in the third period, then the other guys automatically get a five-on-three for at least 45 seconds. Remember that. The only exception there is Detroit. We'll cover Detroit in another lecture. They'll take some time."
The teacher moves back behind his desk, looks up at the clock, then closes the books on his desk.
"Well, that's it for today. I want you to review Chapter 12 on league directives. We're going to get into some history there -- the obstruction controversy of the early '90s, the man in the crease debate from the late '90s. If we've got time we'll get into goalie interference."
"Oh, there's one other thing. Remember when I said it will take some time to explain Detroit? The same thing applies to Colorado. What can I tell you? Sometimes the rules change."
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Monday, March 24, 2003
http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/2003/0323/1528428.html
Sunday, March 23
Hull says he'd consider a return to St. Louis
ST. LOUIS -- If he becomes a free agent at the end of this season, Detroit's Brett Hull said he'd seriously consider returning to the Blues, according to a report from weekend anchor Dan Eassa at KPLR television station in St. Louis.
"I had a lot of great years there," said Hull, who played for the
Blues for 10 years, from 1988-98. "Obviously, that would be a place
that I would definitely listen to."
Hull can become an unrestricted free agent July 1, or, if he scores 35 goals, a clause will be triggered in his contract giving him another season at $4.5 million. To date, Hull has 33 goals.
Okay, what's wrong with *this* picture?
"If you score 35 goals we'll give you another 4.5 million. Never mind that the Rangers paid Bobby Holik $9 million a year to score <--checks -- uh, SIXTEEN goals with five games left to play in the season. No, no, sorry, Brettski, you're just not worth as much as Bobby Holik."
Okay, bear with me - if Brett scores 35 goals a year for the next five years, he will meet/surpass Wayne Gretzky's goals record.
Are you with me?
Brett Hull - 4.5 million a year. 712 (and counting) lifetime goals.
Bobby Holik? 9 million a year for the next four years. 240 (and counting) lifetime goals.
*snarl*
Sunday, March 09, 2003
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
He said it, not me...
After the tribute, the Avalanche presented the veteran goaltender with a regulation-sized silver stick, and the NHL passed along a piece of crystal, both to commemorate Roy's unprecedented 1,000th career game.
Smiling, Ray Bourque watched from a private box upstairs.
A few minutes earlier, Bourque had addressed the Avalanche, offering more of an affirmation of belief in his former team than a pep talk. As he stood in the middle of the room, Bourque could look over to the doorway, where his beleaguered friend sat at a stall. Bourque didn't need to say it. Roy knew it. Bourque still believes that the has-Patrick-lost-it debate is premature, and that Monday night's thousandth-game commemoration didn't deserve to be thought of as a tribute to a career in decline.
Bourque's longtime friendship with Roy deepened in their season and a half as Colorado teammates, and in the championship celebration that sent Bourque into retirement. One of the prerogatives of retirement is the right to go flying downhill without worrying about violating contract clauses, and Bourque and his family have traveled from the Boston area for a Colorado ski vacation.
"It worked out great," Bourque said in the box. "I hadn't seen the guys yet this season, and I wanted to come around and see things for myself. It was perfect timing for Patrick's 1,000th, and that was pretty remarkable.
"The thing is, not too many forwards or defensemen have played 1,000 games and now a goalie has. ... More important, look at the way he's played them, with the numbers he's put up in other areas. He's had a phenomenal career, and he just keeps adding on and adding on."
As Bourque helps coach his sons' hockey teams and is involved in several business ventures back in Boston, he hears the rumblings about Roy. And he also talks often with his former teammate.
After the tribute, the Avalanche presented the veteran goaltender with a regulation-sized silver stick, and the NHL passed along a piece of crystal, both to commemorate Roy's unprecedented 1,000th career game.
Smiling, Ray Bourque watched from a private box upstairs.
A few minutes earlier, Bourque had addressed the Avalanche, offering more of an affirmation of belief in his former team than a pep talk. As he stood in the middle of the room, Bourque could look over to the doorway, where his beleaguered friend sat at a stall. Bourque didn't need to say it. Roy knew it. Bourque still believes that the has-Patrick-lost-it debate is premature, and that Monday night's thousandth-game commemoration didn't deserve to be thought of as a tribute to a career in decline.
Bourque's longtime friendship with Roy deepened in their season and a half as Colorado teammates, and in the championship celebration that sent Bourque into retirement. One of the prerogatives of retirement is the right to go flying downhill without worrying about violating contract clauses, and Bourque and his family have traveled from the Boston area for a Colorado ski vacation.
"It worked out great," Bourque said in the box. "I hadn't seen the guys yet this season, and I wanted to come around and see things for myself. It was perfect timing for Patrick's 1,000th, and that was pretty remarkable.
"The thing is, not too many forwards or defensemen have played 1,000 games and now a goalie has. ... More important, look at the way he's played them, with the numbers he's put up in other areas. He's had a phenomenal career, and he just keeps adding on and adding on."
As Bourque helps coach his sons' hockey teams and is involved in several business ventures back in Boston, he hears the rumblings about Roy. And he also talks often with his former teammate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)