Saturday, February 27, 2010
USA Versus Canada For the Gold
OK. So what do I know? My Olympic hockey projections (see Feb 1, 2010 blog entry) have been blown out of the water. So now we are left with USA versus Canada. Here's some thoughts on the Gold Medal game.... the choice of Chris Pronger being selected instead of Mike Green will come to haunt Canada in this game....Zach Parise will prove why he is one of the best pressure players in the business....we will realize why the BlackHawks have a legitimate shot at the Stanley Cup this year as Toews, Kane, Keith, Seabrook all will make key contributions in this game.....goaltending from both teams will be superb with USA having the edge here.....both teams have great goaltending, highly mobile defensemen, and skilled forwards.....Canada has more talent, but the USA will make fewer mistakes.....close game but USA will win in regulation!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Did You Enjoy The Peanuts?
A few years ago, one on my friends was seated on first class flight next to a well known hockey executive. This executive, in the midst of waking up, began grabbing peanuts that were served to my friend. My buddy says "Did you enjoy the peanuts?" After a few minutes of conversation my friend finds out he is speaking with the GM for the Boston Bruins, Harry Sinden.
My friend, admittedly a "non-hockey person", asks Harry "Who was the greatest player ever?" Harry responds, "For those of us who know hockey there are really four great players: 1) Bobby Orr, 2) Gordie Howe, 3) Mario Lemeuix and 4) Wayne Gretzky."
Actually, I would agree with this list.
On behalf of us benighted hockey fans and because "you know hockey" Harry, I have a couple more questions for you:
- How come you drafted Dave Parro before Rod Langway in the 1977 amateur draft? Langway was three-sport all state player (hockey, football, baseball) who grew up less than 20 miles from North Station (Randolph, MA) and had a terrific career at the University of New Hampshire.
- How could you trade Joe Thornton?
- How come prospective players don't see the Boston Bruins as a great franchise to play for?
My friend, admittedly a "non-hockey person", asks Harry "Who was the greatest player ever?" Harry responds, "For those of us who know hockey there are really four great players: 1) Bobby Orr, 2) Gordie Howe, 3) Mario Lemeuix and 4) Wayne Gretzky."
Actually, I would agree with this list.
On behalf of us benighted hockey fans and because "you know hockey" Harry, I have a couple more questions for you:
- How come you drafted Dave Parro before Rod Langway in the 1977 amateur draft? Langway was three-sport all state player (hockey, football, baseball) who grew up less than 20 miles from North Station (Randolph, MA) and had a terrific career at the University of New Hampshire.
- How could you trade Joe Thornton?
- How come prospective players don't see the Boston Bruins as a great franchise to play for?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
NBC or IOC - Who Is More Inept?
On Sunday many of us watched the biggest hockey game in the past 30 years. I was on the West Coast and tuned into NBC where I watched a taped delay (without knowing) of Russia versus Czechoslovakia. I'm thinking it is live game which will be followed by the USA versus Canada game. While watching the game I get a phone call telling me the USA has gone up 1-0 against Canada. How could that be, the game I am watching is not over yet?
Could it have been too difficult for NBC to put a banner up in the Russia/Czechoslovakia broadcast that says "USA and Canada men's ice hockey has started - tune into MSNBC to view"?
Wait until the NHL re-negotiates the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Between the IOC and NBC I am not certain who is more inept!
Could it have been too difficult for NBC to put a banner up in the Russia/Czechoslovakia broadcast that says "USA and Canada men's ice hockey has started - tune into MSNBC to view"?
Wait until the NHL re-negotiates the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Between the IOC and NBC I am not certain who is more inept!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Detroit Is Hockeytown?
Everytime I watch a game at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, I kinda chuckle at the painting of the word "Hockeytown" on the ice. Who appointed Detroit "Hockeytown"?
I believe three (3) factors should be considered in determining what city is the real "Hockeytown":
- Success of local professional team(s)
Detroit has one of the best run franchises in all professional sports. They have won the most Stanley Cups of any of the NHL teams in the US and are third behind Montreal and Toronto overall.
Between the North Stars and the Wild there is really not too much to work with here. The North Stars never won a Stanley Cup, though they did make it to two Stanley Cup Finals appearances - in 1981 and 1991. The Minnesota Wild have made only three playoff appearances since their inception and have advanced no further than the conference quarter finals. The Boston Bruins are a storied franchise but unfortunately, since the early 70's, they have not really done too much.
Winner: Detroit
- Success of local college team(s)
In the metro Detroit area you have the University of Michigan. Michigan has seven (7) NCAA championships. In Minnesota you have the Golden Gophers with five (5) championships. In Boston you have Boston University with five (5) championships, Boston College with three (3) and Harvard with one (1).
Winner: Boston
- Player success
(a) total number of players making the NHL
Minnesota=200
Massachusetts=163
Michigan=118
(b) total number of players entering the US Hockey Hall of Fame*
Minnesota 48/52
Massachusetts 35/37
Michigan 13/13
* first number is state of birth, next number is high school or prep school
The heaviest weight goes to this category.
Winner: Minnesota
So who is "Hockeytown" based on the numbers? I believe Minnesota gets the edge here with Boston not too far away in second. Detroit clearly is third. But hey, hats off to the Red Wings' marketing operations department - not bad self-appointed branding!
I believe three (3) factors should be considered in determining what city is the real "Hockeytown":
- Success of local professional team(s)
- Success of local college team(s)
- Player success (a) total number of players (by state) making the NHL and (b) total number of players (by state) entering the US Hockey Hall of Fame
- Success of local professional team(s)
Detroit has one of the best run franchises in all professional sports. They have won the most Stanley Cups of any of the NHL teams in the US and are third behind Montreal and Toronto overall.
Between the North Stars and the Wild there is really not too much to work with here. The North Stars never won a Stanley Cup, though they did make it to two Stanley Cup Finals appearances - in 1981 and 1991. The Minnesota Wild have made only three playoff appearances since their inception and have advanced no further than the conference quarter finals. The Boston Bruins are a storied franchise but unfortunately, since the early 70's, they have not really done too much.
Winner: Detroit
- Success of local college team(s)
In the metro Detroit area you have the University of Michigan. Michigan has seven (7) NCAA championships. In Minnesota you have the Golden Gophers with five (5) championships. In Boston you have Boston University with five (5) championships, Boston College with three (3) and Harvard with one (1).
Winner: Boston
- Player success
(a) total number of players making the NHL
Minnesota=200
Massachusetts=163
Michigan=118
(b) total number of players entering the US Hockey Hall of Fame*
Minnesota 48/52
Massachusetts 35/37
Michigan 13/13
* first number is state of birth, next number is high school or prep school
The heaviest weight goes to this category.
Winner: Minnesota
So who is "Hockeytown" based on the numbers? I believe Minnesota gets the edge here with Boston not too far away in second. Detroit clearly is third. But hey, hats off to the Red Wings' marketing operations department - not bad self-appointed branding!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Too Many Men On The Ice?
During the 1998-1999 season the NHL decided to randomly test certain games using a four official system by adding a second referee. Ordinarily, games are played with a single referee in a three official system. The impetus for adding another referee was to determine the effect on deterrence.
With twelve (12) players and four (4) officials on the ice simultaneously, there is a high amount of activity and traffic. One objective of adding the additional ref was to have less infractions go undetected. A second objective was to have less major penalties assessed. Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago writes an interesting paper entitled Testing the Economic Model of Crime: The National Hockey League’s Two-Referee Experiment . Levitt's paper concludes the second ref has little effect on the probability of punishment and the detection of deterrence. In addition, he finds there was no statistical significance with regard to the increase in major penalties assessed.
So why has the NHL and all professional leagues, with the exception of the ECHL, adopted the four official system? Not certain. If fighting were rampant I could see the rationale, however, instigator rules appear to be acting as a deterrent.
Officials are paid in a range between $115,000 (rookies) and $220,000 (after 15+ years) annually. Going to a three official system would allow you to reduce the number of officials from 76 to 57 (approximately 25%). A 25% reduction results in annual cost savings of approximately $3.2 million. This is a good chunk of change for an action which has a negligible effect on the game. Am I missing something?
With twelve (12) players and four (4) officials on the ice simultaneously, there is a high amount of activity and traffic. One objective of adding the additional ref was to have less infractions go undetected. A second objective was to have less major penalties assessed. Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago writes an interesting paper entitled Testing the Economic Model of Crime: The National Hockey League’s Two-Referee Experiment . Levitt's paper concludes the second ref has little effect on the probability of punishment and the detection of deterrence. In addition, he finds there was no statistical significance with regard to the increase in major penalties assessed.
So why has the NHL and all professional leagues, with the exception of the ECHL, adopted the four official system? Not certain. If fighting were rampant I could see the rationale, however, instigator rules appear to be acting as a deterrent.
Officials are paid in a range between $115,000 (rookies) and $220,000 (after 15+ years) annually. Going to a three official system would allow you to reduce the number of officials from 76 to 57 (approximately 25%). A 25% reduction results in annual cost savings of approximately $3.2 million. This is a good chunk of change for an action which has a negligible effect on the game. Am I missing something?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Just As I Thought It Was Okay to Like The Penguins
Being partial to the Boston Bruins and Washington Capitals, the Pittsburgh Penguins have been a nemesis for years. Adding to this problem, we have very good friends in Pittsburgh compelled to constantly (and at all hours) remind us of Penguins (and Steelers) success. Yesterday, the Penguins blew a 4-1 lead to the Washington Capitals which resulted in a 5-4 loss.
Prior to the game I said to myself, if the Capitals won I would not call our Pittsburgh friends to gloat. The reasons are simple. 1) I'm showing signs of maturity and 2) the Penguins are a class organization from top to bottom. Owner Mario Lemieux is a class act, one of the greatest players ever and a terrific owner who saved this franchise. GM Ray Shero is one of the best in the business. He's been exposed to the game at an early age from his dad, Fred Shero. Ray employs a modern style with a calm but firm management approach. The Pittsburgh coach Dan Bylsma is one of the premier coaches in hockey. Poised under pressure, Bylsma inherited a leaky boat last year and led them to the Stanley Cup.
So I'm feeling pretty good overall about the Pittsburgh Penguins, but wait....what's this? Yep, NBC had to show it. Cam Neely's career ending by hit by Ulf Samuelsson you can view it below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8cDxL_5IE
Do you feel the bile build-up as you watch? I got sick when NBC showed this video. So did Mike Milbury, his face turned beet red after Pierre McGuire played it. Look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQLj9H_aFQ&NR=1
Most guys wearing visors take it off in a fight, but not Ulf. Go to the dictionary and look up the word GOON - you will see a picture of Ulf Samuelsson!
That's it! I'm calling our friends in Pittsburgh tonight and rubbing it in!
Prior to the game I said to myself, if the Capitals won I would not call our Pittsburgh friends to gloat. The reasons are simple. 1) I'm showing signs of maturity and 2) the Penguins are a class organization from top to bottom. Owner Mario Lemieux is a class act, one of the greatest players ever and a terrific owner who saved this franchise. GM Ray Shero is one of the best in the business. He's been exposed to the game at an early age from his dad, Fred Shero. Ray employs a modern style with a calm but firm management approach. The Pittsburgh coach Dan Bylsma is one of the premier coaches in hockey. Poised under pressure, Bylsma inherited a leaky boat last year and led them to the Stanley Cup.
So I'm feeling pretty good overall about the Pittsburgh Penguins, but wait....what's this? Yep, NBC had to show it. Cam Neely's career ending by hit by Ulf Samuelsson you can view it below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8cDxL_5IE
Do you feel the bile build-up as you watch? I got sick when NBC showed this video. So did Mike Milbury, his face turned beet red after Pierre McGuire played it. Look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQLj9H_aFQ&NR=1
Most guys wearing visors take it off in a fight, but not Ulf. Go to the dictionary and look up the word GOON - you will see a picture of Ulf Samuelsson!
That's it! I'm calling our friends in Pittsburgh tonight and rubbing it in!
Monday, February 1, 2010
2010 Olympic Hockey Picks - What Say You Malcolm?
Malcolm Gladwell writes a terrific book called Outliers. In this book he discusses why some people succeed far more than others. Gladwell maintains if we want to understand drivers of why people succeed, we should spend time looking at things such as their family, their birthplace or even their birthday. Gladwell makes an interesting reference to Canadian hockey. He points out there are leagues for every age class whereby players are evaluated and the most talented are separated out and groomed for the next level. By the time players reach their mid-teens, the better ones get selected into the elite Junior Leagues such as the OHL, OHA or the QMJHL. Gladwell postulates these players are judged on their own individual merit – based on their own performance and ability. He also believes other factors may be at work and cites a study by Canadian psychologist Roger Barnsely. Barnsley hypothesizes that in any elite group of hockey players, 40% are born between Jan and March, 30% between April and June, 20% between July and Sept and only 10% between Oct and December. Barnsley looks at the NHL, the 2007 Czechoslovakian World Junior Hockey Team, even the 2007 Czechoslovakian National Junior soccer team as evidence to prove his hypothesis.
Why the higher frequency of elite players born earlier in the year? First, the cutoff eligibility date for age-class hockey is typically January 1. Gladwell maintains because travel teams are formulated when the kids are aged nine-and-ten – they select the biggest, most coordinated players who benefit from a few extra months of maturity. Secondly, these biggest nine-and-ten-year olds get the most coaching and practice. Gladwell maintains this small difference, initially, leads to an exponential difference over time as they go to the elite leagues such as the OHL, the QMJHL, the NHL or the Olympics. As we approach the 2010 Winter Olympics hockey tournament I decided to apply this logic to four participating elite teams.
Gladwell ..Jan-Mar=40% Apr-Jun=30% Jul-Sep=20% Oct-Dec=10%
Russia ...Jan-Mar=30% Apr-Jun=22% Jul-Sep=35% Oct-Dec=13%
Canada ..Jan-Mar=13% Apr-Jun=30% Jul-Sep=39% Oct-Dec=17%
Sweden..Jan-Mar=26% Apr-Jun=13% Jul-Sep=22% Oct-Dec=39%
USA ......Jan-Mar=35% Apr-Jun= 9% Jul-Sep=35% Oct-Dec=22%
Interestingly enough, the Gladwell/Barnsley data does not hold up for these four teams. So, instead of basing the gold, silver, bronze medalists on this hypothesis, let’s toss it aside and actually pick the winners on the basis of projected performance and ability.
United States
Strength here lies in goaltending. Ryan Miller is one of the best in hockey. Should Miller have an exceptional two weeks, the sky is the limit. We all remember from the 1980 Olympics what exceptional goaltending can do. As for scoring, I believe J.P. Parise, Patrick Kane, Paul Stastny and Phil Kessell will provide a reasonable offensive threat, but not enough for a medal.
As for defense I like Brian Rafalski, Mike Komisarek, Brooks Orpik and Ryan Suter. Paul Martin is a terrific defenseman but he may not be available because of injury. Erik Johnson is a well kept secret in St. Louis but he is young and inexperienced. I am still scratching my head on how Jack Johnson made this team.
My bias is for the U.S.A to win it all, although this is highly unlikely.
Russia
How would you like to coach this team? Evengi Malkin should center Alexander Ovechkin and Ilya Kovalchuk on the first line. Expect Pavel Datsyuk to center Alexander Semin and Alexander Radulov on the second. Ovechkin is a one man wrecking crew. Frankly, he’s the best player I have ever seen play the game and he’s motivated to prove Russia produces the best players in the world. Semin is a wild-card. If he’s on, you can expect flashes of brilliance. As for Kovalchuk, he’s ready to show the world (including the KHL) he’s an elite player worthy of a long-term, high paying contract. You really do not want to take too many penalties, this power play is formidable.
The defense is not quite as flashy as the offense, but is certainly workable. Sergei Gonchar is always an offensive force when on the ice. He will be the quarterback of the Russian power play. I expect Gonchar to be paired with the defensive-minded Andrei Markov.
Goaltending is solid with Nabokov expected to be the starter.
Sweden
Remember, Sweden is the defending gold medalist from the 2006 Turin Games. For a small country, Sweden has outstanding hockey talent. There’s a lot of pressure in Sweden for these guys to win. This is an interesting team. Like the Russians and the Canadians, they are loaded with talent. We can start with Henrik Lundqvist, perhaps the premiere goalie in this tournament. The Sedin twins and the most under-rated player in hockey, Nick Backstom, are a huge scoring threat whenever they are on the ice. With Niklas Lidstrom anchoring the defense corps, the power play is impressive. I also like defensemen Henrik Talinder, Niklas Kronwall and Johnny Oduya.
Injuries are a big question mark for Sweden. Peter Forsberg’s foot problems are well chronicled. Daniel Alfredsson is expected to play after a recent shoulder separation. Henrik Zetterberg has been nursing a sore shoulder. Kronwall has been out with a knee injury since November. Fredik Modin is just coming off a knee injury.
This is perhaps the last Olympics for many players on this team. Sweden is an older and experienced team.
Canada
Canada has the greatest talent depth of all Olympic participants. Canada could field two teams and both could come away with a medal. This depth puts tremendous pressure on selecting and coaching this team. Canada has three solid goaltenders though I expect Martin Brodeur to see most of the action. Roberto Luongo and Marc-Andre Fluery should also see some playing time.
Forwards Sidney Crosby, Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Ryan Getzlaf, Dany Heatley, and Rick Nash lead the offense. I do struggle with some of the picks on this team namely, Patrice Bergeron (sorry folks in New England) and Scott Niedermeyer. Tell me, will Bergeron help this team more than Stamkos, St. Louis or Lecavalier would? OK, St. Louis and Lecavalier are not lighting it up, but Stamkos is. The second issue I have is all defensemen selected, but one, are from the Western Conference. That one exception is Chris Pronger, formerly of the Western Conference. Can someone buy Steve Yzmerman a ticket to an Eastern Conference game? Not selecting Mike Green and Jay Bowmeester are oversights, though I believe this team is still good enough to win it all.
So, here are the projections:
1. Russia
2. Canada
3. Sweden
4. USA
What say you Malcolm Gladwell?
Why the higher frequency of elite players born earlier in the year? First, the cutoff eligibility date for age-class hockey is typically January 1. Gladwell maintains because travel teams are formulated when the kids are aged nine-and-ten – they select the biggest, most coordinated players who benefit from a few extra months of maturity. Secondly, these biggest nine-and-ten-year olds get the most coaching and practice. Gladwell maintains this small difference, initially, leads to an exponential difference over time as they go to the elite leagues such as the OHL, the QMJHL, the NHL or the Olympics. As we approach the 2010 Winter Olympics hockey tournament I decided to apply this logic to four participating elite teams.
Gladwell ..Jan-Mar=40% Apr-Jun=30% Jul-Sep=20% Oct-Dec=10%
Russia ...Jan-Mar=30% Apr-Jun=22% Jul-Sep=35% Oct-Dec=13%
Canada ..Jan-Mar=13% Apr-Jun=30% Jul-Sep=39% Oct-Dec=17%
Sweden..Jan-Mar=26% Apr-Jun=13% Jul-Sep=22% Oct-Dec=39%
USA ......Jan-Mar=35% Apr-Jun= 9% Jul-Sep=35% Oct-Dec=22%
Interestingly enough, the Gladwell/Barnsley data does not hold up for these four teams. So, instead of basing the gold, silver, bronze medalists on this hypothesis, let’s toss it aside and actually pick the winners on the basis of projected performance and ability.
United States
Strength here lies in goaltending. Ryan Miller is one of the best in hockey. Should Miller have an exceptional two weeks, the sky is the limit. We all remember from the 1980 Olympics what exceptional goaltending can do. As for scoring, I believe J.P. Parise, Patrick Kane, Paul Stastny and Phil Kessell will provide a reasonable offensive threat, but not enough for a medal.
As for defense I like Brian Rafalski, Mike Komisarek, Brooks Orpik and Ryan Suter. Paul Martin is a terrific defenseman but he may not be available because of injury. Erik Johnson is a well kept secret in St. Louis but he is young and inexperienced. I am still scratching my head on how Jack Johnson made this team.
My bias is for the U.S.A to win it all, although this is highly unlikely.
Russia
How would you like to coach this team? Evengi Malkin should center Alexander Ovechkin and Ilya Kovalchuk on the first line. Expect Pavel Datsyuk to center Alexander Semin and Alexander Radulov on the second. Ovechkin is a one man wrecking crew. Frankly, he’s the best player I have ever seen play the game and he’s motivated to prove Russia produces the best players in the world. Semin is a wild-card. If he’s on, you can expect flashes of brilliance. As for Kovalchuk, he’s ready to show the world (including the KHL) he’s an elite player worthy of a long-term, high paying contract. You really do not want to take too many penalties, this power play is formidable.
The defense is not quite as flashy as the offense, but is certainly workable. Sergei Gonchar is always an offensive force when on the ice. He will be the quarterback of the Russian power play. I expect Gonchar to be paired with the defensive-minded Andrei Markov.
Goaltending is solid with Nabokov expected to be the starter.
Sweden
Remember, Sweden is the defending gold medalist from the 2006 Turin Games. For a small country, Sweden has outstanding hockey talent. There’s a lot of pressure in Sweden for these guys to win. This is an interesting team. Like the Russians and the Canadians, they are loaded with talent. We can start with Henrik Lundqvist, perhaps the premiere goalie in this tournament. The Sedin twins and the most under-rated player in hockey, Nick Backstom, are a huge scoring threat whenever they are on the ice. With Niklas Lidstrom anchoring the defense corps, the power play is impressive. I also like defensemen Henrik Talinder, Niklas Kronwall and Johnny Oduya.
Injuries are a big question mark for Sweden. Peter Forsberg’s foot problems are well chronicled. Daniel Alfredsson is expected to play after a recent shoulder separation. Henrik Zetterberg has been nursing a sore shoulder. Kronwall has been out with a knee injury since November. Fredik Modin is just coming off a knee injury.
This is perhaps the last Olympics for many players on this team. Sweden is an older and experienced team.
Canada
Canada has the greatest talent depth of all Olympic participants. Canada could field two teams and both could come away with a medal. This depth puts tremendous pressure on selecting and coaching this team. Canada has three solid goaltenders though I expect Martin Brodeur to see most of the action. Roberto Luongo and Marc-Andre Fluery should also see some playing time.
Forwards Sidney Crosby, Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, Ryan Getzlaf, Dany Heatley, and Rick Nash lead the offense. I do struggle with some of the picks on this team namely, Patrice Bergeron (sorry folks in New England) and Scott Niedermeyer. Tell me, will Bergeron help this team more than Stamkos, St. Louis or Lecavalier would? OK, St. Louis and Lecavalier are not lighting it up, but Stamkos is. The second issue I have is all defensemen selected, but one, are from the Western Conference. That one exception is Chris Pronger, formerly of the Western Conference. Can someone buy Steve Yzmerman a ticket to an Eastern Conference game? Not selecting Mike Green and Jay Bowmeester are oversights, though I believe this team is still good enough to win it all.
So, here are the projections:
1. Russia
2. Canada
3. Sweden
4. USA
What say you Malcolm Gladwell?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)