Fantasy Hockey - Coming up on the Halfway Point

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sava
What a mediocre division.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Could be equally bad or equally good.

It's an interesting topic for discussion.

These are the stats for out of division play (incl. other conf.) / out of conference

Vancouver: 22 13- 9-0 .591 / 3 2-1-0
Calgary:   24 12-10-2 .542 / 6 2-3-1
Edmonton:  23 11-10-2 .522 / 3 2-0-1
Minnesota: 27 13-13-1 .500 / 4 1-3-0
Colorado:  23 10-12-1 .457 / 5 3-2-0

How does the NW compare to the rest of the conf. and the league?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither




It's an interesting topic for discussion.

These are the stats for out of division play (incl. other conf.) / out of conference

Vancouver: 22 13- 9-0 .591 / 3 2-1-0
Calgary:   24 12-10-2 .542 / 6 2-3-1
Edmonton:  23 11-10-2 .522 / 3 2-0-1
Minnesota: 27 13-13-1 .500 / 4 1-3-0
Colorado:  23 10-12-1 .457 / 5 3-2-0

How does the NW compare to the rest of the conf. and the league?

I think a couple of things are obvious

1. The NW has ZERO excellent teams. Some of the teams have pieces and all can show excellence at times but none have stepped up like Aanaheim and San Jose -- Dallas, Detroit and Nashville thus far

2. The argument about getting more games against weaker teams is tough to assess. Sure Anaheim will get 8 games each against Phoenix and LA but they will also have 8 games against San Jose and Dallas. So they get more easier games AND more tougher games than a NW club-- OH and the Central is no weak sister anymore. While St Louisi is very weak , both Chicago and Columbus have been playing better than .500 lately

Overall, Sava's observation of mediocity of the NW could be accurate if he means "1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; "-- I would dispute any connotations of "below average" though since all NW clubs are playing better than .500 hockey overall and all but one is at that level with teams outside their division. The teams in the NW have been decidedly average.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher
My talk of Kipper rarely having bad nights has made it happen. A few games in a row sub-par, but 4 goals against now vs Vancouver. That said, the whole team isn't playing well since the snow-day in Colorado...

You know though . . Kipper was not "bad" except maybe for one goal. Everything else was a quick pass across for a shot or a deflection in pretty close or whatnot. The winner looked like it hit TWO different Flames in front.

The flip side is he didn't make any big stops either. Vancouver pretty much scored on every good chance they had.

Bottom line is if KIpper had a normal night for him, the Flames win this one easily

[Flubber]

Other assessments of the Flames performance

- Tanguay is once again on the second line and Iginla was sleepwalking- Iggy got an assist on a nice play but otherwise was a non-factor. He played 27 minutes and got TWO shots on goal

-- The Flames may have a 3rd line with Amonte/Yelle/Moss. They only saw less than 9 minutes of time but I thought perhaps they should be out there more. Moss scored for the 3rd time in 3 games so I would give the kid some ice

-- Not the best night for Phaneuf-- he got caught on a pinch for one goal and failed to tie up his man when ancouver tied it late. He looked uncharacteristically hesitant and weas -3 on the night.

-- The team misses Hamrlik-- I posted repeatedly that he had been the Flames best d-man. Thankfully, Regehr seems to be coming back into form

-- Giordano is rounding out nicely into a regular d-man. Nothing spectacular but I don't think the team would lose that much if he was in for Zuyzin regularly. Since Zuzin makes 1.3 million to Giordano's 450,000, thats almost a million of cap room that could be freed up. If the Flames have a healthy blueline later in the season, I could see the Flames packaging Zuyzin and a prospect for a rental -- like an experienced playmaker

[Flubber]

In other news-- If the season stoppedn today-- each of Vancouver,Calgary and Edmonton would make the playoffs .

Its not a comfortable perch though as 3 teams are JUST behind them

[Flubber]

In the east

Montreal wins AGAIN. It was actually an impressive effort by the Habs. THis team is starting to look like it could be a real contender


Ottawa wins to continue its mediocre ways. They are now once again tied with Toronto and have the rest of the conference breathing down their neck. Its wild-- In the east EVERY team except one is within 4 points of playoff contention (although Florida is probably a non-contender given they have played 2-6 games more than anyone else)

Despite all the uncertainty I will stick with my predictions that Ottawa will find a way to make the playoffs and Toronto will find a way to miss them. Although, the way things are going, If I figure Boston makes the playoffs -- Adding them to Buffalo, Atlanta, Montreal, NJ and Carolina, that only leaves only two spots. There will be some immensely talented teams chasing them

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Flubber
In the east

Montreal wins AGAIN. It was actually an impressive effort by the Habs. THis team is starting to look like it could be a real contender

I reassert that Montreal has looked like a contender since the start of the season. There's a good reason they have a firm grip on 4th place, and have beat Buffalo a couple of times.

[cinch]

Looking at the Western Conference standings, I would say the NW Canadian Teams have--perhaps surprisingly--less to worry about concerning Colorado and Minnesota than concerning Chicago and Columbus.

Chicago's only a point behind Edmonton and Calgary, and if Havlat can keep up his stellar season, with a rejuvenated Bulin Wall... They could have strong second half.

Columbus is further back, but I have a funny feeling about them. It seems to have been one of those situations where a fresh coaching strategy was needed to kickstart an already-talented bunch. If Nash, Zherdev, & Co. can kick it up another notch, these guys could make a late-season push.

As for the Avs and Wild (currently 9th and 10th by a hair), for some reason, I just don't see either team excelling down the stretch. The Avs have flashes of brilliance (especially when the Wolski-Stastny line gets going), but I just think they're too inconsistent, and Budaj's too inexperienced to pull it off.

Unless Gaborik speeds up his recovery--and rushing this type of injury would be a *huge* mistake--I don't see the Wild making it in, either. They're reverting back to old Lemairian habits now that only Demitra and Rolston can score goals. That may be sufficient to win some games, but not enough, I think.

But who knows? I'm sure the second half has more than enough surprises in store for us...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by cinch
Looking at the Western Conference standings, I would say the NW Canadian Teams have--perhaps surprisingly--less to worry about concerning Colorado and Minnesota than concerning Chicago and Columbus.

Chicago's only a point behind Edmonton and Calgary, and if Havlat can keep up his stellar season, with a rejuvenated Bulin Wall... They could have strong second half.

Columbus is further back, but I have a funny feeling about them. It seems to have been one of those situations where a fresh coaching strategy was needed to kickstart an already-talented bunch. If Nash, Zherdev, & Co. can kick it up another notch, these guys could make a late-season push.

I believe my earlier opinions have so permeated your brain that you have adopted them

Seriously-- I have the same view on Columbus but I feel that enough teams of the big group ahead of them will be good enough that Columbus will fall just short. 7 points back with a half season to go is not much when you are chasing one or two teams but when you have to beat out three out of a grouping of 6, its a lot tougher. You can't reasonably hope they will all suck and its reasonably likely that an Edmonton or Calgary will get their act together and win more consistently. and you would be quite worried about Chicago since a 6 point deficet looks huige given how the Hawks are playing

[Flubber]

Oh and I wouldn't be feeling too confident if I was Vancouver right now. The FIVE teams that are a point behind them have between 1-3 games in hand.

The only big consolation is that the team is playing much better these days

[cinch]

Originally posted by Flubber


I believe my earlier opinions have so permeated your brain that you have adopted them

Great minds think alike.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ninot


I reassert that Montreal has looked like a contender since the start of the season. There's a good reason they have a firm grip on 4th place, and have beat Buffalo a couple of times.

While they have won reasonably consistently since the start of the season, I had difficulties seeing them as a contender. Early they had some nights when Huet wasn't that hot and they couldn't seem to beat the Sabres. They seemed to lack that killer instinct.

Then after Huet heated up to exceptional play, they had some wins where frankly, they were outplayed. But most recently I have seen a team that does show some abilities to dominate. Goaltending is stellar and that is important but they are not a weak team that rides a top goalie

I still wish they had a more physical presence but overall I am pleased with their results and progress

[Flubber]

Originally posted by cinch


Great minds think alike.

have you heard the other half of that saying



" and fools seldom differ"

[cinch]

Some random-ish thoughts:

I was just reading on TSN.ca (in one of Scott Cullen's columns, to which I am addicted) that, given the latest '8/7 division split' plan devised by the NHL, a bit more expansion might be on the horizon. Now, I'm not a big proponent of expansion, as the talent pool needs no further dilution. Still, if they're gonna balance the schedule, make more moolah, and spread the popularity of the game (perhaps hopefully even winning back the ESPN contract), it may be a viable option. We are, of course, talking long-term here, like a 10-year plan.

Now, the places that keep getting mentioned are Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Houston. I've also heard Oklahoma City, but come on--they only kind of have a basketball team, and they have no other major sports franchises. I guess people might come to watch hockey for lack of anything better to do, but I just don't see it.

Anyway, depending on how the Pittsburg situation turns out (Bob McKenzie says it's still 50/50 they stay), Kansas City will probably get a team one way or another. If they get the Penguins, then that leaves Houston and Las Vegas as the most viable options.

I think a team could work in Houston. Dallas seems to be successful enough (probably because they've had so much success), and a Houston NHL affiliate should break even based sheerly on the number of people in the city alone--and then there's the massive amounts of corporate sponsorship opportunities.

The second team for expasion [the NHL would be adding two teams to bring the total up to 32, with four 8-team divisions] would then likely go, I suppose, in Vegas. That I have a tougher time seeing. I just don't know if there's the population base to support it. I know it's growing very quickly, and the minor league team does well enough, but if I were the NHL, I would hesitate to be the first major league to roll into town.

One last question I have:

I get why Portland, despite its being a good hockey market, won't get a team: lack of corporate support, and the lone Crazy Billionaire already owns the TrailBlazers and has no plans to expand into hockey. But what I don't understand is why a Seattle team has hardly ever been mentioned.

WHL hockey seems quite popular in Washington state. They have a hockey-esque climate, and they're represented in the 3 other major sports leagues. So why is a hockey team in Seattle so far out of reach?

Ditto Milwaukee: represented in the NBA and MLB (plus Green Bay in the NFL), good hockey territory (huge college following), and yet never a sniff of an NHL franchise. Has the whole world gone mad, or just me?

[Kontiki]

Vegas getting a team would be a travesty on so many levels, it isn't even funny. First, a southern desert city is the antithesis of a real hockey market, and they can't even really lay claim to snowbirds like Phoenix (not that I think they should have a team either). Second, there's casino money, but I don't see much else on the corporate radar. Third, it's a transient tourist town. People throng there for gambling and the spectacle, not to see hockey games, and the population is overwhelmingly employed in providing services to those tourists. I don't see much in the way of a fan base. Fourth, it's too small. Sure it's been growing like gangbusters, but it's still only got maybe 1.5 million in the metro area and not much in the way of a population in the surrounding area (and certainly not one that would be considered hockey fans). Fifth, if there was (a somewhat unfounded, as it turns out) concern that the Ducks were going to be a bit of an embarassment with the Disney factor, imagine how much of a rediculous spectacle a team based in the global mecca of cheese would be.

As for Seattle, I don't think it is a hockey town. In fact, it really isn't that hot a sports market overall. The Mariners topped the league in attentance when Safeco field opened, but have seen it plummet in the following years - and it wasn't that hot pre-Safeco. The Sonics aren't a top draw and play in one of the crappiest arenas in the NBA (not to mention they were bought last year by an investment group from Oklahoma City). The Seahawks are the only consistent draw.