tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51976560522495231792024-03-13T08:53:57.839-07:00Yet Another Canucks BlogLike the others except less awesomeMagicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-56438771162366118722008-05-13T18:38:00.000-07:002008-05-21T18:47:11.967-07:00It's the little things that hurt the mostToday I kept trying to get some Canucks stats off NHL.com, but every time I tried nothing showed up. Turns out it was because I had it set for playoff stats instead of regular season. Sigh...Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-83806968698892676242008-05-10T22:02:00.000-07:002008-05-13T17:18:22.102-07:00Yet another reason to love Alex BurrowsAccording to the data at <a href="http://forechecker.blogspot.com/2008/04/penalty-plusminus-final-numbers.html">The Forechecker</a> Alex Burrows has drawn more penalties than any other player in the NHL (with 67). Of course he's also comitted his share, but overall he's +18 in "penalty plus/minus" (penalties drawn minus penalties comitted). The Canucks converted on 17% of their powerplays this season, so that's 11 extra goals that they got because of Burrows' antics. This is especially impressive because most of the players around Burrows on that list are the top offensive forwards in the league, who force opponents into comitting penalties to stop them because they're so good offensively. Burrows drew more penalties than any of them(while also getting far less ice time) just by pissing guys off. So, you know, well done there.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-46891464573473818382008-05-10T21:11:00.000-07:002008-05-10T21:29:52.059-07:00The best division in hockey this year...These numbers represent the ammount of points the average team in each division had if you ignore games against division oponents(adjusted for an 82 game schedule).<br /><br />Atlantic:97<br />Northeast:95<br />Northwest:94<br />Pacific:92<br />Central 91<br />Southeast:80<br /><br />So it seems the Atlantic was the best division in hockey. More than that, this data gives us more prespective on just how mind-blowingly bad the Southeast is.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-4601162952357916552008-05-08T01:08:00.000-07:002008-11-13T11:35:32.466-08:00Which teams overachieved this season?This is a bit long-winded so please bear with me.<br /><br />You know how Bill James figured out that a teams won/loss record was directly connected to its total runs for/runs allowed for the season? Well there's no reason that the same thing shouldn't apply in hockey. In fact, if you graph the ratio of each team's goals for to its goals allowed against its points total for the past 3 seasons you get this fun little formula: 76.73X+13.27, where X=(total gf/total ga). Punch in your team's value for X and you should get a reasonable estimate of its points that season.<br /><br />The principle behind this is pretty simple (it works the same for the ratio, but i'll use the difference between gf and ga in the example coming up). If team A outscores its opponents by 0.5 goals a game, it should do better than team B, who gets outscored by 0.5 goals a game. Luck may fuck with this of course. For example, team A could win one a game by 5, then lose the next three by 1 each, while team B could lose a game by 5, then win the next three by 1 each. In this situation team A stilll outscores its oponents by an average of 0.5 goals a game (5-1-1-1)/4=0.5, while team B is still gets outscored by 0.5 goals a game, but nonetheless team A goes 1-3-0 while team B goes 3-1-0.<br /><br />If you assume that such variations are due to luck (i.e. that teams can't purposely apportion the goals they're going to score across different games as it suits them), then over the long run these breaks should even out, and a team's record should end up quite close to the record predicted by the formula. If a team's record is a lot better than its goals for/allowed would indicate, this is probably due to luck rather than some intrinsic ability on the part of the team to apportion its goals. Thus, the team is overachieving and its results should get worse as its luck evens out. Indeed, the four biggest "overachievers" last season based on this formula were Vancouver, New Jersey, Dallas, and Atlanta (all had many more points than the formula would indicate) and all 4 took a step back points-wise this year. (Of course it doesn't always work. The formula said Pittsburgh overachieved last year too.)<br /><br />So who overachieved this year and is due for a step back next season? Without further ado here's what each team's record would have been this year based on the formula above, compared with its actual record.<br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5197928529020976674" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sDfL7VP8tVU/SCLAdRQp_iI/AAAAAAAAAHA/Pc83o4ue36k/s400/predicted+team+stats.jpg" border="0" />Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-80809808924706975302008-04-03T22:43:00.001-07:002008-04-03T22:56:48.486-07:00Fuck.Fuck.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-32239032222785766132008-04-03T15:54:00.000-07:002008-04-04T09:27:27.891-07:00Stat of the daySo far this season only four Canucks players have played every game for the team. Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin, Markus Naslund and...Alex Burrows.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-37773091051505619412008-02-01T13:50:00.000-08:002008-02-01T14:22:18.847-08:00Team ValuesJust for comparison's sake, here's the most recent <a href="http://www.forbes.com/">Forbes</a> financial data for the 4 major sports.<br /><br />NFL:<br />Average team value: $957 million<br />Average team revenue: $204 million<br />Average team profit: $17.8 million<br /><br />MLB:<br />Average team value: $431 million<br />Average team revenue: $170 million<br />Average team profit: $16.5 million<br /><br />NBA:<br />Average team value: $372 million<br />Average team revenue: $119 million<br />Average team profit: $9.8 million<br /><br />NHL:<br />Average team value: $200 million<br />Average team revenue: $81 million<br />Average team profit: $3.2 million<br /><br />Supposedly for stocks the average price/earnings ratio is supposed to hover around 15. For the leagues mentioned here the team value/profit ratios are, respectively 53.7, 26.1, 37.9, 62.5. So either I'm missing something (that's probably it) or sports teams are grossly overvalued.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-18478376615022211262008-01-30T11:22:00.000-08:002008-01-30T11:34:52.988-08:00Well I'll be Jiggered<a href="http://forechecker.blogspot.com/2008/01/four-goalies-that-handle-heavy-load-and.html">The Forechecker</a> has taken a look at the<a href="http://nucksblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/something-strange.html"> goalies doing better when they face more shots issue</a>, and it seems like there isn't too much of an overall trend to speak of. Three other guys (Roloson, Kolzig and Khabibulin) show increases in save percentage when they face more shots, but that's it. Marty Turco shows a downward trend.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, two years ago when he was in Florida, Luongo showed no increase in his save percentage as he faced more shots. The trend only started occuring when he joined the Canucks. His backups so far on the Canucks also show the same increase when facing more shots. Sabourin last year had a 0.931 save percentage in games where he faced 25 or more shots, and a 0.872 in games where he faced less than 25. Sanford so far this year: 0.927 when facing 25 or more, 0.819 when facing less than 25. So maybe it's the team not the goalie.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-76350302718692780382008-01-29T00:21:00.000-08:002008-01-29T00:45:08.890-08:00You know what's stupid?Complaining about the quality of play in the all-star game. It's the fucking all-star game! It's not supposed to be real hockey. It's supposed to be a fun little divergence for the ordinary and nothing more. Who cares if there's no hitting? You get 1000 games a year that do have hitting. Do you really need one more that badly? I don't get where this weird consensus comes from that the all-star game is essentially a waste of time because it's not played the same way every single other game of the season is played. Guess what guys, if it was just another game it would be called regular season game number 382 and it would feature two random teams instead of the best players from each team in the league. It's not a regular game. It's a showcase of league talent and it's about everyone getting together and celebrating hockey and all that b.s. So just sit back and enjoy it for what it is.<br /><br />There, I feel better now.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-57618840484989583792008-01-22T23:25:00.000-08:002008-01-23T00:54:42.388-08:00Short Messages Adressed to Various NHL Players Just in Case They Randomly Stumble Upon This Blog<strong>Markus Naslund: </strong>Why do I get the feeling I'll be seeing you in a Ducks uniform next year?<br /><br /><strong>Miika Kiprusoff: </strong>Thanks for killing my fantasy teams you Finnish son of a bitch.<br /><br /><strong>Evgeni Nabokov: </strong>Are you aware that you've played every single minute for your team this year? That's quite impressive. Well done sir.<br /><br /><strong>Derek Boogard: </strong>I know I'm a bit late on this, but "pinky and the two brains"? What does that even mean? Is it supposed to mean they're like pansies or something? Are you saying the Sedins are smarter than Naslund? I just want to know. Everyone else seems to get it but me. It makes me angry and suspicious. Please, I'm begging you, just tell me.<br /><br /><strong>Chris Pronger: </strong>I don't care how many cups you win, you're still a douchebag.<br /><br /><strong>Jerome Iginla: </strong>Allright, im finally convinced. I will no longer call you overrated, and will stop going out of my way to point out that you were actually born in Edmonton. Tell Kipper to go fuck himself.<br /><br /><strong>George Parros: </strong>What's a moustache ride?Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-66800209258502986252008-01-17T09:43:00.000-08:002008-11-13T11:35:32.672-08:00Something StrangeI don't really know how to preface this right so I'll just say it. If you divide up Luongo's stats last season between games where he faced less than 25 shots and games where he faced more than 25 shots you get something kind of weird:<br /><br />His save% in games where he faced less than 25 shots: 0.888<br />His save% in games where he faced more than 25 shots: 0.931<br /><br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156511345633646066" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sDfL7VP8tVU/R4-bv5zD1fI/AAAAAAAAAG4/RUwAnHH3HXA/s400/aug2807_luongo_tt.jpg" border="0" /><br />What the fuck, huh? This is probably too big a difference to attribute to chance. It seems like Louongo actually plays better the more shots he faces(In fact, if you just look at games where he faced 40 shots or more, his save% is an even higher 0.941) This is a bit counter-intuitive. I think a lot of people might have guessed that he'd do better with a lighter workload. Then again, we've all heard announcers say that goalies play better when they get a lot of work.<br /><br />What I really want to know is wether this is just a fluke for Luongo, or wether it's a more general principle that applies to all goalies. If it does actually apply to all goalies, then it's pretty significant. Based on this, teams may want to rethink the belief that getting as many shots on net as possible is a good thing, for example. The problem's that I lack the necessary Excel/data mining skills to approach this in a systematic manner, so I really can't prove anything conclusively. If anyone who does wants to give it a shot, please, be my guest.<br /><br />Another thing I should mention is that even if it's established that goalies generally have higher save percentages in games where they face a lot of shots, this doesn't prove that facing more shots actually causes them to play better. There's also the possibility that games where they face a lot of shots are fundamentally different(more shots=lower shot quality, perhaps?), and goalies don't actually do better in these games <em>because </em>they face a lot of shots, but for other reasons(again, shot quality). To test which of these posibilities is true, it might be good to divide shots faced by goalies between "early game shots" and "late game shots" and compare their save % between those two shot types(i.e. compare goalies save% for the first 25 shots they faced in every game to their save % in the shots faced after shot 25) . If it's facing lots of shots that makes goalies better, then the "late game shot" save percentage should be significantly higher. Again, I lack the skills to do this myself, but it might be a nice little diversion for someone who knows what they're doing. (Thinking about it more, I guess there's a good chance that someone has already done this and I'm just wasting everyone's time. If anyone's seen anything like this done on another site please let me know in the comments.)</p>Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-36149941198810310862008-01-11T14:43:00.000-08:002008-11-13T11:35:32.901-08:00Canucks Points Per 60 Mins StatsI really, really wish there was some place to find these easily on the net. Anyway, here they are, for 43 games into the season. By the way don't take the pp/60 numbers for Isbister, Cooke or the other guys who don't get a lot of pp time too seriously because of the small sample size.<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sDfL7VP8tVU/R4fzzZzD1eI/AAAAAAAAAGw/obgIWOTIPMo/s1600-h/canucks.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5154356362972747234" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sDfL7VP8tVU/R4fzzZzD1eI/AAAAAAAAAGw/obgIWOTIPMo/s400/canucks.jpg" border="0" /></a>Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-87667474211420767522007-12-22T22:34:00.000-08:002008-01-19T18:17:54.620-08:00How not to fix the NHLRecently the Vancouver Sun ran a column called "12 Ways to Fix the NHL" which listed...12 ways to fix the NHL. Well, it was actually more of a re-hashing of the same old problems that always get thrown around, but anyway, the point is that I'm getting sick of a lot of these complaints about the NHL being repeated over and over. The league definetly has some real problems, but they're not necessarily the ones that get brought up every day in the newspapers and the talk shows. So, every once in a while I'm going to discuss one of these long-hailed suggestions/complaints and point out what I think is wrong with it. (Take that, media establishment!). For today we're gonna start with:<br /><br /><strong>Sugestion #1: Getting rid of the instigator. </strong>I don't have anything against fighting and I don't think the league should be trying to discourage it. My problem with this one is the argument that the instigator rule is the reason players don't respect each other anymore, and if we'd just let goons police the game things would magically return to the good old days when nobody ever got hurt playing hockey.<br /><br />First of all, I doubt there was ever a period in NHL history when the players respected each other to the degree that it's claimed they did. I'm not really sure enforcers ever laid off Bobby Orr or whoever just because he was Bobby Orr. That just smacks of "back in my day...." type bullshit to me. Even if there was smewhat more respect among players back in the day than now, I'm willng to bet it wasn't because of the firm handed yet effective policing of the game by the good squad, but because there were fewer teams, fewer players, and so you ran into the same faces a lot more often back then than you do now.<br /><br />Second of all, if someone goes after your best player and you want to punish him for it, there's a lot better ways to do it than fighting. It's not necessarily that easy to get someone into a fight. Even without the instigator, guys are still gonna be able to pull a Matt Cooke and avoid fights when challenged. Even if you do manage to get a player into a fight, he can just drop to the ice after one hit and let the linesman clean things up. If you really want to go after someone, a good hit is both more readily available and can do a lot more damadge. It doesn't even have to be a dirty hit. You can lay someone out pretty good with a nice clean check. Just ask Scott Stevens. So if players want to "police the game" there's still ways to do it. (Bonus side point: a hit's a lot more likely to leave a player injured than a fight, but by discouraging fights as a method of retaliation you're encouraging players to retaliate with hits instead. So the instigator rule actually encourages injuries.)<br /><br />Third of all, why is "letting the players police the game" even considred a good idea? Is it because that's how it allegedly was in the old days, and therefore it must by definition be a better way to do things? Because in the old days we also had goalies playing without facemasks, and I'm not sure that was a good idea. I guess you could argue letting the players sort things out is supposed to reduce violence in the game by threatening players who commit violent acts with the possibility that violence will be done to them in return. At the same time, though, isn't allowing players to violently punish each other for their transgressions as likely to increase violence by creating a never ending cycle of "im fighting you as revenge for that time you fought me as revenge for fighting you"-type things. There's a plausible argument to be made for either one of these interpretations, but everyone out there seems to take the first side of the argument and not even consider the second.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-20814438495598271622007-11-23T10:44:00.000-08:002008-01-23T00:58:06.337-08:00Canucks 21 Game Mark Awards<strong>Biggest Positive Surprise: </strong>Alex Burrows. Alex Frigging Burrows. The whole "he's a gritty, hard working player" thing gets thrown around a lot in the NHL. A lot of the time players getting this label don't work any harder than anyone else, but have no other discernible qualities so that's the only nice thing the announcers can think of to say about them. Alex Burrows is not one of those players. Alex Burrows genuinely works harder than everyone else, and that's the only reason he has an NHL career right now. I mean seriously, when Dave Nonis spent the off-season signing grinder/energy type players like he was Brian Burke, leaving the Canucks with approximately 23423 options on the fourth line, would you have predicted that Alex Burrows, who went undrafted and had all of 3 goals and 9 points last season, would have played every single game for the team this season and made a meaningful contribution? That's exactly what he's done, matching his goal total from last season (including 2 game winners) and putting up 8 points. So, you know, well done there.<br /><br /><strong>Biggest Negative Surprise: </strong>Kevin Bieksa. Even before the injury. Nothing else to say, really.<br /><br /><strong>Least Surprising Moment of the Season Award:</strong>Sami Salo's injury. It's just getting silly at this point. You'd think that eventually, just through the sheer force of probabilities, he'd have a season where he doesn't get injured, the same way normal players have seasons where they <em>do </em>get injured once in a while. Salo's had maybe two seasons without a major injury. In fact here's his games played every for every season of his career before this one: 61, 37, 31, 66, 79, 74, 59, 67. This isn't necessarily meant to be an insult, you can't really blame a guy for getting injured, and he doesn't seem like the type of guy who's always trying to sit games for every little thing. Still, it's just strange to see. And by strange I mean horribly frustrating.<br /><br /><strong>The Ryan Shannon Memorial "Help Me I'm Stuck in the Minors Award"-</strong>The first iteration of this award goes to...Ryan Shannon. Two goals in three games! I think whatever point about defensive discipline the coaches were trying to make has been made already. Can we let him back up now? Hell, play him as a defenceman if we've got more room there. You can say it's some kind of ironic punishment for his defensive failings. Have I mentioned he scored two goals in three games?<br /><br /><strong>The "Good Stuff's Happerning, Let's Not Screw it up by Talking About it Award". </strong>This award goes to Luc Bourdon. Playing not horribly now that no one's actually paying any attention to him. Let's try to keep it that way. You hear that, Tony Gallagher? That's not Luc Bourdon. That's Ryan Shannon in disguise.<br /><br /><strong>Rookie of the Year Award: </strong>Alex Edler. I actually think it's gonna be a sad day when all our defencemen are healed up and back at it, because a lot of the guys who've stepped up right now are going to have to get sent down. Is there any team in the league that has more depth on defense than the Canucks right now? Every move right down to Mike Weaver has worked out well. Good times.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-59305641610615276872007-11-21T08:52:00.000-08:002007-11-22T13:56:25.457-08:00NHL Teams and Their Corresponding Teams in Other SportsDid you ever notice how certain NHL teams seem to have really similar counterparts other sports? Here's some, and their corresponding teams in other leagues.<br /><br /><strong>Ottawa Senators-Indianapolis Colts. </strong>Both are extremely good regular season teams defined by their lack of playoff sucess. Both play an offensive, run and gun style that doesn't necessarily translate well in the post season. Both get thoroughly disrespected for their inability to get it done in the playoffs. Yes, I know this comparison stopped applying after the Colts won, but before that the similarities were so strong that I'm still putting it up. Maybe this means good things are coming for the Sens.<br /><br /><strong>NY Rangers-Washington Redskins. </strong>Both are teams whose money is their greatest curse. They keep spending more than anyone else in the league attempting to assemble teams entirely out of (usually overpriced) free agents. One of the funniest subplots in the first couple of years after the lockout was that the Rangers weren't able to spend twice as much as anyone else in the league anymore and, ironically enough, that caused them to actually be good for a couple of years. Of course this year they went back to their old ways, overpaying for Gomez and Drury, and look what happerned.<br /><br /><strong>Toronto Maple Leafs-New York Yankees. </strong>Well, if the Leafs were actually good.<br /><br /><strong>Detroit Red Wings-San Antonio Spurs. </strong>Closest comparison I could think of. Both are venerable teams whose players are older, on average, than almost anyone else in their league and both have been good for as long as anyone can remember. Every year people predict that they can't possibly continue being as good, but every year the drop-off fails to happern. Championships as well as regular season sucess, although neither team won enough in a row to be considered a true dynasty. Both teams remain good even after making large changes to their rosters.<br /><br /><strong>New Jersey Devils-Atlanta Braves. </strong>Both teams were among the best in their respective leagues for most of the 90s and the early part of this decade. Both did it by playing a low-scoring, defensive style. Neither team was particularly exciting, and both had a lot less fan support that would be expected for teams that good. Both teams have fallen on hard times recently.<br /><br />Anyone got more? I'll be adding to this list as I think of more.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-27088158614779344502007-11-19T11:39:00.001-08:002007-11-19T12:09:36.759-08:00Well, shitOn October 26, with the Canucks floundering, I claimed on this site that "they don't have it this year" and kind of predicted the season was done. Since then they've gone 6-2-1 and looked solid. With that in mind I would like to take this opportunity to make a few aditional predictions.<br /><ul><li>We're not going to win the division</li><li>Dane Cook will have a long, distinguished movie career</li><li>The Middle East conflict will remain unsolved for decades to come</li><li>I will not hook up with Jessica Alba</li></ul><p>Here's hoping my predictive powers remain the same.</p>Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-57384805793828454352007-11-08T13:09:00.000-08:002007-11-19T12:26:33.885-08:00Brief Moments in the History of the NHLAnd now ladies and gentlemen, because theres nothing else to write about, I present to you the first of the soon to be critically acclaimed series: "Brief Moments in the History of the NHL"<br /><br />SCENE: The summer of 2007. Brian Burke and Todd Bertuzzi's agent discussing an offer for Bertuzzi.<br /><br />BURKE: We're willing to go as high as 4 mi-<br /><br />BERTUZZI'S AGENT: We'll take it.<br /><br />BURKE: You intrerupted me there. I was hoping to tell you more about the great playing conditions we'll have for Bert here in Anah-<br /><br />BERTUZZI'S AGENT: That's no need, we'll take it.<br /><br />BURKE: Don't you want to consult the other teams bidding for him?<br /><br />BERTUZZI'S AGENT(constraining laughter):No, we'll take it.<br /><br />BURKE: Allright, well come back in a couple of days and we should have the paperwork ready to sign.<br /><br />BERTUZZI'S AGENT: Is it allright if we speed up the process? We'd like to get this finished by the end of the night if at all possible.<br /><br />This has been a "Brief Moment in the History of the NHL".Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-71003977546147750772007-10-31T11:05:00.000-07:002007-11-19T12:30:41.701-08:00The Magicpie Power RankingsWell it's been about a month since the season's started. Time for more power rankings. As always the West leads off:<br /><br /><strong>1. Detroit. </strong>Every year I predict that this is the year they drop off, and every year I'm wrong. As a side note, I've thoroughly enjoyed Thomas Holmstrom's career progression so far: from random fourth liner, to good checking line forward, then legitimate secondary scoring threat, and now to playing with Zetterberg and Datsyuk on the first line. All this happerning slowly over about 10 years, not within his first two years as he was breaking into the league. Good to see someting like that. Also, doesn't it seem that Detroit is one of the only teams in the league on which things like this ever happern happern?<br /><br /><strong>2. San Jose. </strong>Good teams know they're good, allright? They don't need to actually start off the season well to prove that to people. They're not insecure like that. They leave that stuff for the Minnesotas of the world.<br /><br /><strong>3. Minnesota. </strong>Started the season 7-0-1, went 0-3-1 over their last 4. I'd still pick them over anyone in the NW though.<br /><br /><strong>4. Calgary. </strong>They've scored the second most goals in the conference as of today. They've also allowed the third most, with 37 (two teams have 38). What the fuck has happerned to the Calgary Flames??? It seems to be working for them, though. At least for now.<br /><br /><strong>5. Columbus. </strong>Allright you caught me.<strong> </strong>I just go by the standings. I'm as disturbed at having them here as anyone else, and I'm not even sure there aren't laws against this, but how much lower can I reasonably put them?<br /><br /><strong>6. Colorado.</strong> This is the only team in the NHL from which you can pick second line players on your fantasy team and have absolutely no fear that they're not gonna produce.<br /><br /><strong>7. Los Angeles. </strong>They're a good team, damnit.<br /><br /><strong>8. St. Louis. </strong>They're no Columbus, but they also get the job done.<br /><br /><strong>9. Vancouver</strong>. Of the three Western playoff teams currently underachieving horribly (Dallas and Anaheim being the others) they probably have the best chance to turn things around as things stand right now. But the expectations for the season have officially been lowered significantly. Sixth seed here we come.<br /><br /><strong>10. Anaheim. </strong>The biggest thing I want to know about them is how much of this is due to the Stanley Cup Hangover, and how much of it is due to Scott Neidemayer and Teemu Selanne being MIA. I'm saying it's more the hangover.<br /><br /><strong>11. Chicago. </strong>They've got a pretty good (for them) record of 6-6-0 so far, but they pulled this crap last year too and still ended up at the bottom of the league in the end. The future certainly looks bright with Towes and Kane, but the future's not here yet.<br /><br /><strong>12. Dallas. </strong>Everyone predicted their colapse this year, but they're still clinging to a .500 record, refusing to go gently into that good night. It's coming though. Sticking them down here in anticipation.<br /><br /><strong>13. Edmonton. </strong>The league's most entertaining train wreck. Lots of teams fail, but no other team's failiure is so entertaining to watch.<br /><br /><strong>14. Phoenix. </strong>At 4-6 they're probably overachieving. At least we get to find out what it would be like if an AHL team was allowed to play in the NHL for one year. For some reason I really want them to do well, though. This team having a movie-script-type season and somehow finishing third or fourth would be a really cool thing to see happern. And you know what, I don't rule it out. They're so bad, and expectations for them are so low, that in a weird way it kind of makes you feel like anything's possible. Yes, I know that makes no sense. Stop looking at me like that.<br /><br /><strong>15. Nashville. </strong>Assuming that the team would be moved in the end no matter what, do you think Nashville fans would have chosen "slow protracted struggle spanning years, with the team essentially tanking the whole time" or "just get it over with as fast as possible"? Me too. Look, I know what's gonna happern, you know what's gonna happern, everyone knows what's gonna happern. Why are we torturing these people like this?<br /><br />I would do my Eastern Conference power rankings now, but I don't really care about the Eastern Conference. There I said it.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-27946767252587877342007-10-26T13:20:00.000-07:002007-10-26T16:13:45.033-07:00They don't have it this yearBill Simmons, one of my favourite sports writers, used to have a running story in his column about a yearly ritual between him and his dad. A few months into every baseball season, after yet another losing streak, and Bill would ask his dad what he though about the Red Sox that year. His dad would respond with "They don't have it this year." and they'd start talking about something else. Over time this yearly pronouncement came to mark the unofficial end of the Red Sox season for Bill, the point at which he kind of accepted that, while there were still games to be played, the season was done.<br /><br />So what does this have to do with the Canucks? Well, ten games into the season there's a defenite sense of "they don't have it this year" about this team, what with the weird snap personel moves three games into the season, Markus Naslund's emergence as media whipping boy, and the lack of a full 60 minute effort during any game so far. The "20 guys who genuinely got along and played hard every night" vibe that this team gave off last year doesn't look like it's there this time.<br /><br />In my oppinion chemistry, or "a team working together" or whatever you want to call it, is a huge factor in hockey, more so than the other 3 major sports (just look at how a 6th or 7th seed gets hot for 2 months and makes it to the cup final every year). Comparing this year's team with last year's kind of provides an example of that. I think most people would agree that this year's team's got a better overall lineup, but for whatever reason they just don't have it together the same way they did in 06/07, and the result has been a far worse team on the ice.<br /><br />This isn't to say I'm writing off the season. Just the first half. Every year there's always a couple teams that aren't quite up to snuff during the first half of the season, but get their shit together right about the time of the all-star break and finish things up on tear. Here's hoping that happerns.<br /><br />(And yeah, I know this is exactly what happerned last year: crappy team hovering around .500 for the first half, awesome team tearing up the league in the second half. The difference, though, is that last year's team was playing hard from the begining. The issue for them during the first half of the season was just everyone learning their roles and overcoming huge scoring slumps from a lot of the forwards. This time around it's the playing hard that's the problem.)Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-70505043115653168962007-10-14T22:13:00.000-07:002007-10-14T23:16:22.562-07:00Yet Another Random Thoughts Post<ul><li>Does anyone else get the impression that the whole point of those "after hours" interviews at the end of Hockey Night in Canada is to dig up as many embarrassing pieces of information from the past of the person being interviewed as possible? Last night it was Willie Mitchell and they had: a picture of him as a wrestler when he was like 11 years old, the revelation that he used to take figure skating (complete with his former instructor calling in), Roberto Luongo noting how he actually has more points than Mitchell right now (he picked up an assist on friday), and like 3 other things I can't recall off the top of my head. Why do the players even subject themselves to such shabby treatment?<br /></li><br /><li>Speaking of Hockey Night in Canada, it's good to see Sean Burke working again.<br /></li><br /><li>That shift the Sedins had midway through the second Edmonton game, where they kept the puck in the Edmonton zone for the entire powerplay before finally scoring after 2 mins and 15 seconds, was probably the coolest moment of the season so far.<br /></li><br /><li>Is it just me or does Roberto Luongo look kind of tentative/twitchy in net? He's getting the job done for now, but something seemed a bit off about him the past two games. I blame Aaron Miller. And society. Always good to blame society.<br /></li><br /><li>The strangest sub-plot of the season so far? Minnesota bringing all the players moms to their games. I could actually research why this happerned and maybe find out that it's a moving and heartwarming story. Or I could just point and laugh. Hmm.<br /></li><br /><li>As of this writing, the Canucks have the 6th best powerplay in the league. By the way, the worst pp in the league, at a woeful 4%, is Edmonton. Considering a lot of people's reaction after they brought in Pitkanen, Souray and Tarnstrom was probably "Well, at least their powerplay will be good", this is not a good sign for them.<br /></li><br /><li>I still expect great things from the LA Kings. (Hey cool that rhymes) Just wait till they get the kinks out. Every year there's one or two teams that go insane after the All-Star Break, and this year the Kings will be one of them. This will happern. It will. I keep telling myself this.<br /></li><br /><li>One of my favourite things about the first few weeks of the season is the yearly ritual that is the "so and so is on pace for 234 goals right now " jokes. By the way, Brendan Morrison is on pace for a 50 goal season. Just saying.<br /></li><br /><li>Everyone who took Markus Naslund in their pool is feeling pretty smart right now.<br /></li><br /><li>Overall for some reason I just don't feel as good about this year's team as last years. Whenever they score too many goals they make me uncofortable. That's just not the Canuck way.<br /></li><br /><li>By the way, did you hear that Minnesota's players brought all their moms to a game? HAHAHAAHAHA. </li></ul>Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-64852981129414820992007-10-05T09:54:00.000-07:002007-10-05T13:15:59.738-07:00Canucks Season PredictionsBiggest Dissapointment: Taylor "I'm not with the Sedins anymore" Pyatt. Although he still has one thing both Shannon and Raymond lack, namely size, and that may be enough to put him back in his old role this year. If he's not with the Sedins, they should consider playing him with Naslund where he can fill in as a worse version of Todd Bertuzzi.<br /><br />Biggest Positive Surprise: Trevor Linden. Yes hes old, but for the love of God, <em>he's not that bad</em>. He's still an effective 3d/4th line player. He's still as effective as almost everyone else on the team on a points/60 mins basis, he just doesn't get the ice time needed to put up better numbers.<br /><br />Biggest Surprise That's Not Really That Surprising: Ryan Shannon ends up being pretty good.<br /><br />Markus Naslund Points Prediction: 75.<br /><br />Kevin Bieksa Points Prediction: 35. Just have a bad feeling about him for some reason (that's my hard-hitting, in-depth statistical analysis for you).<br /><br />Sami Salo Games Played Prediction: 65.<br /><br />Canucks End Of Season Lineup Prediction: Sedin-Sedin-Shannon, Naslund-Morrison-Pyatt, Cooke-Kesler-Raymond, Cowan-Linden-Burrows.<br /><br />Aspect of the Team That Will Be Better Than People Think Prediction: Secondary scoring.<br /><br />Aspect of the Team That Will Be Worse Than People Think Prediction: The Bulis-less PK. No seriously. Shut up. Stop laughing.<br /><br />Playoff Finish Prediction: Third Round Exit.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-84105293461835521552007-09-30T17:29:00.000-07:002007-10-01T12:05:52.942-07:00Division-Adjusted NHL StandingsEver wonder how much playing in a strong/weak division has affected your team in the standings? Well here's what the Western conference standings would have looked like last year if you ignore divisional play (taking only the 50 non-division games each team played and expanding the rate at wich they gained points in those 50 games into a full 82 game schedule). Sorry, my excel/word are currently messed up, so I couldn't put these into a graph.<br /><br />Team Actual Points Division Adjusted Points Difference<br />Detroit..........113.......103....-10<br />Nashville.......110......107.....-3<br />Anaheim.......110.......110......0<br />San Jose........107.......115.....+8<br />Dallas.............107.......95.....-12<br />Vancouver....105.......115.....+10<br />Minnesota.....104......102....-2<br />Calgary..........96..........97....+1<br />Colorado........95..........92....-3<br />St Louis.........81..........87...+6<br />Columbus......73..........77....+4<br />Edmonton.....71..........80....+9<br />Chicago.........71..........69....-2<br />Los Angeles..68.........72....+4<br />Phoenix.........67.........72....+5<br /><br />So, if you don't like looking at that graph type thing up there, here's what the Western Conference standings would have looked like if you ignored divisional play:<br /><br />1. Vancouver (115)<br />2. San Jose (115)<br />3. Anaheim (110)<br />4. Nashville (107)<br />5. Detroit (103)<br />6. Minnesota (102)<br />7. Calgary (97)<br />8. Dallas (95)<br />9. Colorado (92)<br />10. St. Louis (87)<br />11. Edmonton (80)<br />12. Columbus (77)<br />13. L. A. (72)<br />14. Pheonix (72)<br />15. Chicago (69)<br /><br />As expected, Detroit benefits quite a bit from its easy division, getting roughly an extra 10 points from facing its easier division opponents. Dallas is the team most helped by its weak division (or strong divisional play, depending how you want to look at it) gaining a whopping 12 points. In contrast, Vancouver, Edmonton and San Jose are all hurt the most by their division schedule, losing 10, 9, and 8 points because of their divisional record. Despite changing teams' point totals by up to 12 points, though, division schedules did not change who made the playoffs. Every team that made the playoffs using the regular points sytem still makes it using their division-adjusted point totals.<br /><br />DISCLAIMER- What I did is only meant to compare how well teams did within and outside their divisions. It is in no way meant to provide a fairer version of the standings that ignores differences in schedule (instead of playing Columbus twice as much as a regular team, Detroit doesn't play them at all in these standings, so we're not improving things just moving them to the other extreme). This is meant as a fun little exercise and nothing more.<br /><br />One thing these numbers are good for, however, is figuring out what the best division in hockey was last year, basically by adding up the points that the 5 teams in each division had versus non-division opponents (adjusted for 82 games). Here are the results:<br /><br />Northeast: 494<br />Northwest: 486<br />Pacific: 464<br />Central: 443<br />Atlantic: 441<br />Southeast: 413<br /><br />It seems that the Northeast did in fact have the Northwest beat just slightly as the best division in hockey last year, although I guess you have to take into account that they play in the weaker Eastern conference.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-59982321841954784602007-09-30T09:20:00.000-07:002007-09-30T15:44:37.297-07:00The Magicpie Power RankingsTime for my first edition of the power rankings. Because I'm a lazy, lazy man this first batch of power rankings will also double as my season predictions. I'll do a separate set of power rankings for the A.L and N.L....I mean Western and Eastern conferences because they barely play each other anyway so there's no point trying to rank Western and Eastern teams against each other. For all we know the west might have 8 of the league's 10 best teams or something. Anyway, first the Western rankings:<br /><br />1. <strong>San Jose.</strong> By default. Every team that finished ahead of them in points last season has taken a step back, they're the only ones that haven't. Should be a fun year for them.<br /><br />2. <strong>Detroit.</strong> I only have them this high because I still think they'll win their division, and will have more points than whoever comes out on top in the Northwest. Other than that I'm predicting a major step back for them this year. Once the inevitable Hasek injury strikes all bets are off. I'm not even that sure they'll be able to hold off St. Louis and win the division, but I'm not quite at point where I'm willing to predict that.<br /><br />3. <strong>Vancouver.</strong> They won the division last year and remain innocent untill proven guilty, but I'm not that confident about this pick. Arguments in their favor: the first few months of last season, when they were playing .500 hockey, were a feeling out period, and the real Canucks team we're gonna see this season is the one that had the best record in the league after Christmas. Markus Naslund is in a contract year. They haven't lost anyone significant and have added a few pieces, so if you go by the whole "if a team stays together they play slightly better each season because of some crazy synergy" theory then they should be better. Arguments against them: everyone in their division improved (even Minnesota improves by having a healthy Gaborik). They were lucky in OT/the shootout last season (17-7, best record in the league), and might not be able to keep that up this time around. Last season was one of those feel-good seasons where everyone buys into the team concept and plays hard every night, and you don't get two of those in a row very often. It could go either way but I'm leaving them here for now.<br /><br />4. <strong>Colorado. </strong>They were one of the best teams in the league to finish last season and they've made some significant improvements. Goaltending's still a problem but I don't think they plan on winning many games 2-1 this year.<br /><br />5. <strong>L.A. Kings. </strong>For the record I've been saying this long before they beat the Ducks in the season opener(besides, as I write this Anaheim's leading the second game 1-0). They're my favourite sleeper team this season. They have one of the best defenses in the league, and one of the best groups of young forwards in the league (at least 4 guys on that team could average one point per game this season). Best of all they didn't make any major "let's save our season with this one move" type signing/trade last season, instead choosing to bring in a few medium names to fill holes as neccesary. I love it when teams do that. Mark my words, they'll be up there this year.<br /><br />6. <strong>Minnesota. </strong>This might actually be a bit low for them but I'm not confortable putting 3 NW teams in a row on top of these standings. Last year was kind of an off-year for them, and they didn't make a single major move this off-season because they know they have a solid team. They should be much better playing one complete year without major injuries. Maybe the most underrated good team in the league.<br /><br />7. <strong>Anaheim. </strong>That's right, behind the Kings. Never, ever underestimate the power of a Stanley Cup hangover.<br /><br />8. <strong>St. Louis</strong>. Finished the season up strong last season, and made lots of improvements. I'd be surprised if they didn't make the playoffs.<br /><br />9. <strong>Nashville. </strong>Up until writing this I actually thought they still had enough to make the playoffs. Then I changed my mind. So there. I really can't think up a scenario where they manage to sneak in, aside from one where St. Louis and L.A. aren't as good as I thought they would be...but that would be crazy. Their crappy division saves them from going any lower.<br /><br />10. <strong>Calgary. </strong>One really good team had to get left out of the playoffs in this preview and they were the odd man out. This is mostly because what they did this summer is more of a sidegrade than anything, and Mike Keenan is not the coach you bring in to turn your team into a winner, he's the coach you bring in to punish them for slacking off last season (which they did). Also, I couldn't have 4 Northwest teams making the playoffs, as cool as that would be if it happerned.<br /><br />11. <strong>Dallas. </strong>This has all the makings of turning into a rebuilding year for them. After however many first round exits in a row, they probably know that they don't have enough to go far with their current team. Look for them to make some major shake-ups at the first sign of trouble this year.<br /><br />12. <strong>Columbus. </strong>They were actually a fairly good team on paper last year, and a full year with Hitchcock will likely improve things (just don't pick anyone except their goalie for your fantasy team). The only problem is that the teams in front of them are pretty good too.<br /><br />13. <strong>Chicago. </strong>Maybe next year.<br /><br />14. <strong>Edmonton. </strong>The sad thing is that they actually improved (at least on paper) this off-season. Being in the most competitive division in hockey doesn't help.<br /><br />15. <strong>Pheonix. </strong>The only teams that I'm truly confident will not make the playoffs this year are Edmonton and Pheonix...and I'm not so sure about Edmonton.<br /><br />And now for my Eastern power rankings:<br /><br />1. Pitsburgh.<br />2. Ottawa.<br />3-15. Everyone else, in no particular order.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-69277405623336380652007-09-23T09:01:00.000-07:002007-09-23T09:29:33.676-07:00The Don Taylor Play-By-Play Drinking GameWell as you all likely know by now, the most notable thing about last night's Sharks-Canucks pre-season game was that Don Taylor was doing the play-by-play. I thought he settled in pretty well after some early jitters, but judging by the Canucks.com boards oppinion was more mixed than that. One brilliant idea that made its way out of there, though, was that of a Don Taylor drinking game. Every time he says one of his regular Sportsnet News lines as part of the commentary you have to take a drink, with more unusal lines requiring more drinks. For example:<br /><br />Refferences to players' old jersey numbers ("and there goes so-and-so wearing so-and-so's old number 22")-1 drink<br /><br />"Brouhaha"-1 drink<br /><br />"Boondoggle"-1 drink<br /><br />"The _______-ian spinorama"-1 drink<br /><br />"With a rapier-like glove hand"-1 drink<br /><br />"In _________-ian fashion"-1 drink<br /><br />"They're loving it in _______" 1 drink<br /><br />"Gingerly"-1 drink<br /><br />"Bulges the twine"-2 drinks<br /><br />"Ripples the mesh"-2 drinks<br /><br />"Top shelf where mom keeps the peanut butter"-2 drinks<br /><br />"Markus Naslund skating like a modern day _________."-2 drinks<br /><br />(in Marv Albert voice)"And it WAS a GORGEOUS move"-3 drinks<br /><br />"Nyayahay"-down the whole bottle. Seriously, if he lets one of these out randomly during a play-by-play it will be one of the greatest moments in Canucks announcing history.<br /><br />Any I missed? Thanks to the guys at the canucks.com message boards for reminding me of many of these.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5197656052249523179.post-2050631159419465442007-09-17T00:06:00.000-07:002007-09-17T01:06:47.260-07:00Jan Bulis We Hardly Knew YeThis is my farewell post to Jan Bulis. It was actually one of the items in the "random thoughts" post before this one, but it ran a little long so I decided to make it its own post.<br /><br />Well anyways, as was expected, Jan Bulis is now officialy gone. He signed with a Russian team for about the same ammount he was getting with the Canucks last year. You may not have heard about this because it was hardly mentioned even among the Canucks blogs, and the only official article relating to his deparutre was from a Russian website (and thus written in Russian...I don't exactly know what people were trying to accomplish by linking to it).<br /><br />Count me among the people who are actually sad he's gone. I actually bought the story he told in that Province article, the one about him calling his dad for advice after making his trade demand and his dad basically telling him, "It's not them, it's you", with that being the reason he straightened up. Bulis's whole problem, as many have pointed out, was that he wanted to be more than he is. He had the ability to be a very solid defensive player, but he wanted to put up big numbers, so instead of playing like a very good 2-way forward he ended up playing like a very bad scorer for most of his career. During the second half of last season, after the whole trade demand episode and the call to his dad, though, he surprised pretty much everyone by turning things around. He didn't put up big points, but he played good, effective two-way hockey, earning the praise of the same people in the media who were his biggest detractors two months before.<br /><br />I actually think we saw a fundamental change in Bulis'mindset in those last few months. It looked like he was done trying to be a scorer and had instead decided to accept the role given to him and contribute that way. One other quote that stuck out at me from that same article was Bulis saying that he used to actually want to play for a bad team, so that he'd get more ice time and have a better chance at putting up points, but by the end of the season he didn't really think that way anymore. Maybe I haven't yet grown jaded enough about the questionable pronouncements of hockey players, but that actually rang true for me. Besides, I don't think a player would actually admit to something like that if he hadn't made a serious commitment to change his ways.<br /><br />I think it's pretty true that in life people almost never change. If someone was lazy 20 years ago, they're probably still lazy. If someone was an ass 20 years ago, they're probably still an ass. It's pretty rare to see someone actually make a fundamental change to how they approach any aspect of their life, and even more rare to see them actually stick with this change in the long term. That's why I would have really wanted to see Jan Bulis in a Canuck (or failing that any NHL) uniform this year, to see wether he'd be able to keep up the same kind of play for the entire year or if he'd go back to being the old Jan Bulis.<br /><br />It may be worth mentioning at this point that, as far as I know, most European contracts do have an out clause if the player wants to go back to the NHL, and Nonis has said that if his other moves don't pan out before the season starts, bringing back Bulis is still an option. So maybe all is not lost. Here's hoping.Magicpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13336108199096031681noreply@blogger.com0