AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 08/09 (III): The Home Stretch

[snoopy369]

Newsflash, Ben: Playoffs != Regular season

Calgary was swept by Detroit in '04 in the regular season, and dispatched them in 6 games in the playoffs, for instance.

I know the Flames (and probably the Hawks) far better than you do, Ben, because I actually watch hockey. From what I've been seeing, Columbus will give us far more trouble in the playoffs than Chicago will.

And WTFBen, Chicago has better goaltending? You really are out to lunch, you ****ing lunatic.

lol... Chicago COULD have better goaltending if the Bulin Wall showed up in his prime form. That hasn't happened much since he was injured, sadly... Maybe the additional rest of the playoffs will help there (there are more days off overall in the playoffs, right?)

[Asher]

Yes.

1. Calgary's Glencross is obstructing the goalie inside the crease, which results in a goal, top corner to the right.

2. Calgary's awesome goalie Kippersoft gets owned by a beautiful deflection by Holmstrom who doesn't come anywhere near to interfering with Kippersoft. He skates away before the puck trickles in through the 5 hole.

Look at it again Ben, this time with your eyeballs. Glencross is CLEARLY not in the crease when the goal is scored, nor is he touching the goalie! Further, if the "toe in the crease" rule was being enforced in today's NHL many thousands of goals would've been invalidated in the past years.

In Holmstrom's case, HIS SKATE ACTUALLY MAKES CONTACT WITH KIPRUSOFF'S SKATE, WHICH LEAVES SPACE FOR THE PUCK TO SQUIRT UNDER AS HE TRIES TO MAKE THE SAVE.

You're being ****ing ridiculous as usual.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know the Flames (and probably the Hawks) far better than you do, Ben, because I actually watch hockey. From what I've been seeing, Columbus will give us far more trouble in the playoffs than Chicago will.

I think the Hawks have the Flames all figured out. Doesn't seem to matter what the Flames do they get shut down.

And WTFBen, Chicago has better goaltending? You really are out to lunch, you ****ing lunatic.

Kippersoft 2.86 .903
McElhinney 3.73 .883

Huet 2.50 .910
Khabibulin 2.54 .915

I'll take either Huet or Khabibulin over Kippersoft. Markedly better.

Calgary has the worst goaltending of all of them. 2nd best offense (Chicago is better), worst defense, worst goaltending.

Mason 2.24 .918

Luongo 2.38 .918

[Asher]

I don't see how 'when the puck scored' matters... it should be the period from when the puck is shot to when the puck arrives at the goalie (approximately), if not all the way until the goal is scored. I suppose you could say the second push-in of the puck negated the interference in the first place, but I think that's a poor argument, as it probably goes in anyway, and clearly that interference set up the ultimate goal.

I'd probably rule both of those interference, but I'll freely admit I'm more likely to fall on the side of interference than not, and I definitely think the second goal was more obviously interference. In the first goal, the slight touching of the goalie is largely what I'd find objectionable, and having his skates in between the goalie's skates.

What are you on?

In the first goal, he's not at all touching the goalie -- let alone having his skates between the goalie's skates! All he did was provide a screen. He didn't touch the goalie, he didn't put his skate inbetween the goalie's skates...he stood infront of the goalie outside the crease and was called for it. Meanwhile, Holmstrom's skate pushed Kiprusoff's skate WELL inside the crease as he tried to make a save, and it's a goal.

What the hell.

[Asher]

I think the Hawks have the Flames all figured out. Doesn't seem to matter what the Flames do they get shut down.

Why don't you let the people who actually watch Hawks and Flames games talk -- thanks.

Kippersoft 2.86 .903
McElhinney 3.73 .883

Huet 2.50 .910
Khabibulin 2.54 .915

I'll take either Huet or Khabibulin over Kippersoft. Markedly better.

Except somehow Kiprusoff has more wins (even than Huet + Khabi combined) with lower GF.

The statistics don't mean everything, Ben. There's different defensive styles that can help or hurt sv% -- for instance, shotblocking. Teams do things different, some goalies see far more shots that are easy saves which pad the sv% while others (like Keenan) would rather see the d-men go down and block the shot when at all possible.

What ultimately matters is wins. Kiprusoff has more wins with less offensive support, which means a lot. I've also seen all of the goalies play in the playoffs, and Kiprusoff is the better one. He ups his game in the playoffs.

You're an utter fool if you'll make sweeping generalization based on regular season sv%/GAA. The kind of fool who would claim Linden was a better player than Iginla is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at it again Ben, this time with your eyeballs. Glencross is CLEARLY not in the crease when the goal is scored, nor is he touching the goalie!

He is obstructing the goalie inside the crease. That's why he's standing there. He needs to be outside the crease if he wants to block the goalie.

Further, if the "toe in the crease" rule was being enforced in today's NHL many thousands of goals would've been invalidated in the past years.

It matters when you are attempting to obstruct the goalie in order to score. If it's incidental, as it is in the Holmstrom goal (which was a beautiful goal, btw, thanks for the pic), it really doesn't matter.

In Holmstrom's case, HIS SKATE ACTUALLY MAKES CONTACT WITH KIPRUSOFF'S SKATE, WHICH LEAVES SPACE FOR THE PUCK TO SQUIRT UNDER AS HE TRIES TO MAKE THE SAVE.

Hmm?

Kippersoft is moving to the left to cover that side of the net. Holmstrom deflects the puck to the 5 hole, and the puck trickles in. Nice goal. I didn't think Holmstrom had hands like that.

[Asher]

Back on the ignore list you go, Ben. You're either massively stupid or an annoying, humourless troll -- I'm not sure which is worse. Either way, it's a tired act.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except somehow Kiprusoff has more wins (even than Huet + Khabi combined) with lower GF.

Calgary has massively favourable pythagorean wins. +10 and 18 games over .500? I don't think so. Over the course of the season, we'd expect those numbers to drop. Canucks are about where they should be as is Chicago.

Calgary should be battling it out with Minnesota for a playoff spot right now.

The statistics don't mean everything, Ben. There's different defensive styles that can help or hurt sv% -- for instance, shotblocking. Teams do things different, some goalies see far more shots that are easy saves which pad the sv% while others (like Keenan) would rather see the d-men go down and block the shot when at all possible.

Which is why Calgary has ****ty stats for goals against? Sorry, not buying it. Calgary is by far the worst of all the playoff teams, although they do compare favourably with Colorado.

What ultimately matters is wins. Kiprusoff has more wins with less offensive support, which means a lot.

Umm ok. Calgary and Chicago have nearly identical stats wrt to goals. Calgary has about 30 goals more over the season, which amounts to nearly a half a goal a game greater, and you are claiming that Chicago has worse goaltending?

Calgary has a very weak back end, hence allowing 230 goals against.

Kippersoft has a SVP of .900, and a GAA of 2.85. While not as bad as Osgood, he's bailed out by his team up front.

I've also seen all of the goalies play in the playoffs, and Kiprusoff is the better one. He ups his game in the playoffs.

That was a far different team then this one. We shall see. Kippersoft isn't at his best form, but neither then is Bulin. Bulin even in his worse form is better then Kippersoft.

You're an utter fool if you'll make sweeping generalization based on regular season sv%/GAA. The kind of fool who would claim Linden was a better player than Iginla is.

He was the better player. At least he lead his team in playoff points two years ago.

[Asher]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that post was filled with massive stupidity and astounding ignorance.

[snoopy369]

What are you on?

In the first goal, he's not at all touching the goalie -- let alone having his skates between the goalie's skates! All he did was provide a screen. He didn't touch the goalie, he didn't put his skate inbetween the goalie's skates...he stood infront of the goalie outside the crease and was called for it. Meanwhile, Holmstrom's skate pushed Kiprusoff's skate WELL inside the crease as he tried to make a save, and it's a goal.

What the hell.

I know you're aggravated both from this goal being disallowed and from arguing with Ben, but please try to remember that not everyone on this forum is Ben

It looked to me like he just glanced off of the goalie's right pad right at the crucial point. He was in the crease at that point, so I'd probably consider it interference. I'm not sure I'd have called it that way on the ice - that's very little, after all - and I'm not necessarily sure that there was contact, as we only have a 2-D view that's not really perfect for indicating whether the contact occurred or not. But it looks to my untrained eye like it might have been interference.

But yes, I'd agree that Holmstrom's interference was much more blatant. The only argument I could understand there is that the goal technically was scored on a subsequent 'shot' (afterwards pushing it over the line), which might in the rulebook negate the interference, but I'd certainly think that's a flimsy argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Snoopy.

The first goal is interference. You cannot screen a goalie inside the crease. He wasn't in the crease very much, but he was in the crease.

[Asher]

I strongly suggest you take a look at the GIF again. At the point where the puck was being shot, he was very clearly outside of the crease.

He was not touching the goalie or inside the crease as the puck was being shot. I do not understand how you can pretend that he was.

[snoopy369]

I think they objected to RIGHT before the shot, though. I'm not sure precisely when the shot was (it's shot from off-picture, after all, and I didn't see the original play), and I'm not sure how much that's slowed down if any (so I don't know how fast the shot is coming, and I'm terrible at judging speeds). But it looks to me that the slight contact occurs, in the crease, within a second or less of the shot taking place (probably 1/2 second if it's at the speed I think it is). I'd call that interference (again, with an untrained eye, and knowing I'm going to tend to err on the side of interference, at least when it's not my own team )

[Flubber]

Two things:

Chicago ****ing sucks.
NYE is dangerously close to winning this playoff round using Yahoo's arbitrary tiebreak system (if he gets 1 more goal and I get no more goal, we're 4-4 and he wins due to the extra goal).

While I got wiped out in both semis (I got destroyed in the goalie categories) the arbitrary tiebreak system propelled me into the finals of my third league. The score in categories was 4-4-2 and in addition goals were one of the tied categories-- So I advanced due to a higher number of assists !!



Oh ya and I salute the semi-nude ball -dereliquers-- Congrats to both

For me, I know where I went wrong-- nabokov was not the best choice as a premier goalie-- I had thought and hoped being on such a strong team would have meant a great sv% and wins but it never came to pass and this week when I needed him, he was 1-2 with a relatively awful GAA and sv%.

Oh well-- perhaps next year I will get a higher draft pick and be able to draft a top forward

[Kontiki]

For me, I know where I went wrong-- nabokov was not the best choice as a premier goalie-- I had thought and hoped being on such a strong team would have meant a great sv% and wins but it never came to pass and this week when I needed him, he was 1-2 with a relatively awful GAA and sv%.

Oh well-- perhaps next year I will get a higher draft pick and be able to draft a top forward

On the contrary, I think Nabokov was an excellent choice as a premier goalie, save for the last week when you needed him. All players are going to have up and down weeks, it just turns out his timing sucked for you. Overall, though, there wouldn't have been many better choices for a goalie at the time of the draft (I picked up Mason as a fluke a little into the season - who could have known how that was going to turn out?) and I'd still put him very high on the list for next year's draft.