carpandean

Faceoffs are also one of the skills that a player can still develop at this age. Sidney Crosby wasn't great at them initially and decided to focus a lot of attention one year on improving; he's now very, very good at them.

His point and my response were very specifically addressing the killings, which while tragic, are getting disproportionate attention (sensationalized) compared to far more prevalent issues (like the one that you pointed out; even if related.) 1.2 million police officers in the US (perhaps, a problem in and of itself) interacting with 300+ million citizens 24-7-365 and there are but a handful of killings that raise real question (some are later exonerated.) Sure, there are probably more that we don't hear about, but even adding those, as a nationwide problems, it is statistically insignificant. It's like targeting so called "assault weapons" in the gun control debate; a highly sensationalized, but utterly insignificant component of any gun problem that this country may have. So much time and effort put into things that sound significant, but ultimately are miniscule in comparison. Please don't mistake my point. I consider any death, justified or not, by cop, by mass shooter, by whatever, to be tragic. Certainly, for those directly affected, there is no worse thing that could happen. Killing specifically based on race is particularly egregious. I just find that politicians and the media - not surprisingly - pick their targets for popular/political reasons, not for their actual effects on society. Real systemic problems are not addressed, while others are given far too much attention. Is it like asking whether money would be better spent on a terrible, fatal disease that kills 10 people each year or a wide-spread disease that causes severe, debilitating pain in 10's of millions of people each year. Or, perhaps, in this case, it's like focusing on treating the rare side effect (death) of the disease rather than the chronic disease, itself. Deluca trying to blame any problem with young, impoverished, single black mothers on cops killing the fathers is a ridiculous stretch. They are on completely different (by several) orders of magnitude. Again, a drop in the bucket.

It gets a lot of press and there are certainly many related problems with the system that need to be addressed, but actual cases of cops killing black men (even if you included the most clearly justified cases) wouldn't be a drop in the bucket numerically.

In my opinion, that quote has been misinterpreted by many. Here it is: To me, that translates to "we wanted to give peaceful protestors space to exercise their rights, but in doing so, unfortunately, we also gave space for those who wanted to destroy to do so." She said, specifically, that it is a balancing act. In other words, you can't do one without doing the other. As with many of our freedoms, ensuring that we all maintain them also means accepting that there will be some who unduly benefit from and/or take advantage of the system. I truly don't believe that she meant "we decided that if people wanted to destroy things then we should give them space to do so."

Literally literally doesn't just mean literally anymore.

Winnipeg: Swept

What's interesting is the difference between 2012-13 and 2013-14 ... 2011-12 36GP 2G 10A 12P 2012-13 38GP 14G 20A 34P 2013-14 31GP 5G 9A 14P 2014-15 41GP 21A 40A 61P Clearly, his senior year (1.488 PPG) was more than just progression, so that was likely the Eichel effect. However, he went from a 0.895 PPG player as a sophomore to a 0.452 PPG player as a junior.

This. I believe that it has been shown that, all else equal, higher shot against rates tend to lead to higher save percentages. With the bend, but don't break defense that allowed a ridiculous number of shots against from the outside, everyone came here and looked good.

True ... but the Sabres were still playing against the field in this case. For them, it was 20% that they win and pick first vs. 80% chance that the (anyone in the) field wins and they pick second. The Sabres losing was not unusual or unexpected; quite the opposite. In fact, there was a 60% chance of them losing both last year and this year. Now, what the Oilers did was thoroughly unexpected (though, clearly possible.) There was a only 0.5% chance of them winning the four that they did (and that was larger than it would be now due to the first two having the "can't move more than four spots" rule, which gave them a 48.2% chance of retaining the first pick vs. the current 20%.) Even if you look at the last six drafts, there was only a 2% chance of them picking first four times.

Spoonfed what, exactly? 1) Nobody had to tell me that the post-2007 "core" was made of players who were better suited to be complementary, not the heart of the team. 2) It was pretty clear that getting top-tier talent through trade is extremely difficult (certainly, if you expect to get all of your top talent through it) and through free agency is pretty much impossible these days. 3) Tearing down, acquiring assets and building through drafting and trading seemed a very reasonable approach (again, came to that conclusion myself, long before they did it.) 4) Every in-the-know scout spoke of two potentially-generational players before this year even started. The second-rated one, though projected slightly below the other (and with the uncertainty of projections could end up being better), stepped into a new level of competition this year and absolutely dominated. In any year, he would be an exceptional acquisition. 5) Even a basic working knowledge of probabilities and logic should tell you that you can't set as a goal something (getting McDavid) that you can achieve at best a 1-in-5 chance at obtaining (the rest is up to luck), but you can aim for something (achieving 30th) that both gives you a 100% of one of those two and the highest chance at the bonus prize. Again, didn't need help to figure out that Jack Eichel's existence in this draft is what made "tanking" worth it. Without him, it's 20% (at best) chance of McDavid and 80% chance at Marner, Stohm or Hannifin (probably spelled one wrong, but they are far enough below the other two to not make it worth looking up.) 6) Without anyone having to spoon-feed me anything, I knew that what was achieved over a week ago in Columbus was by far the most important part of it; we eliminated the 66.5% chance of picking third. That was far-and-away more important than the extra 6.5% at McDavid or even beating those 5-to-1 odds against finishing first. I would have to be unable to think for myself (i.e., need to be spoon fed) to accept that McDavid was the one and only goal this year, because it takes about two seconds to blow big holes in that argument.

Never been a fan of the C-LW-RW line notation, but I'd make an exception for the Jack-Evander-Tyler line.

You can't trade money anymore. That was a Gretzky-era thing (which is why the "any player can be traded" argument doesn't really work.) I believe that it went away with the salary cap (don't quote me on that.) The closest thing that you can do now is retain some cap/salary in player trades.

Just one?! Weak. :P

Please.

Well, he did have a better chance of winning last year. ;)

Is it too late for an "almost surely you can't be serious" joke?

Well, we're the least free state, so that's like #1.

I disagree. Hit your thumb with a hammer and your arm will reflexively jerk back just like that. Seems like a totally normal reaction to ...

I guess that I could see McDavid and Eichel, because they would instantly know which teams they are going to. However, since there really isn't a consensus #3, the rest of the guys wouldn't know anything except who they're not going to.

That #1 goal by Nyquist was like a scene out of a movie where the hotshot comes in and won't pass to any of his teammates, so they walk away pissed off and he eventually learns that he needs them, too.

Porn is free ... at least, that's what I've heard. :angel:

If this were a V8 commercial, something would have just bonked you on the head. Of course you go!

Season (series for Tanks) finale charts posted. Input sheet overview: As for the playoff target line, I definitely think that this year was an outlier. Too many teams giving away points at the bottom (an extreme year on that end, too.) I have it set at 93 and it's usually not off (in either direction) by more than a point or two. Edit: by quick count, three teams with 9 wins in the second half of the season (of note is that Sabres had 14 in the first half, Coyotes had 15, but the Maple Leafs had 21!)

Bad news: 27 years old, 0 playoff games (team's fault, as much as his.) Last playoff experience? 2007-08 AHL Calder Cup Run. Good news: The Wolves won that (I believe) and his numbers looked good, so he certainly didn't choke under pressure. Also, these most recent games are probably the only really meaningful games that he's played in since, so playing well in them is a very good sign. Maybe, he elevates under pressure, but simply hasn't had the opportunity to show it.

If you're team Latvia, you want Nolan coaching a Olympic run, because he can get that s**t talent to play hard enough over a short period to beat some better teams and give Canada a game of it. If you're team Canada (or USA or any other talented team), well ... they could have hired Nolan, but they chose Babcock. We've had a Team Latvia; time to get on with building a Team Canada. Seriously, though, not surprised by the move and have no problem with it. Just because Ted was in a tough spot doesn't mean that he couldn't have show Tim that he wasn't someone that he could work with. This is the perfect time to make a change.