Predators 4, Red Wings 3: Pass It To Shea And Get Outta The Way!
by Dirk Hoag on Dec 16, 2011 12:45 AM EST
in Nashville Predators Game Recaps
Email
PrintThere are those who think that people like myself who get into the statistical analysis of hockey can suck all the fun out of the sport, but let me tell you, there's not much better than a game like tonight's against Detroit. By all rights the Red Wings should have run the Nashville Predators out of the building, as they played their typical puck-possession game and dominated the shot totals.
But when Shea Weber scored an unlikely goal in the final minutes to give Nashville the lead, and my youngest son literally jumped into my arms bursting with joy, well, that's the kind of moment that can stick with you for a long time.
Video highlights and reaction after the jump...
First the video:
Post-game audio is available from Barry Trotz, Shea Weber, David Legwand and Jordin Tootoo (click each name for the MP3).
It's late, so I only have a few random observations:
- Tonight's game reminded me very much of the famous "Miracle Speech" - 9 times out of 10, Detroit probably wins a game like that. But the Preds kept working hard, and were able to cash in the relatively few chances that did come their way.
- The up-and-down roller coaster of Jordin Tootoo's production is on the upswing again, and let's hope this lasts. The Preds need a credible 3rd line, and he's doing some good things alongside Colin Wilson. I'm not sold on Tootoo-Wilson-Spaling as an ongoing group, but Tootoo is certainly doing his part these days (and remember, he's playing for a new contract, too).
- It was funny to hear Stu Grimson chortle a bit when discussing Nashville's "potent" power play, but it sure connected again tonight, as Shea Weber scored just 22 seconds into the Preds' only opportunity of the night.
- On the other hand, the PK got torched twice. Just as the PP has surprised to the upside, the penalty killers haven't really found their groove yet.
190 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Man, its still crazy to me…. 2nd ranked power play… scored a PP goal in the last 7 games…. who is this team?
60% of the time it works every time
by Creeping Death on Dec 16, 2011 12:57 AM EST reply actions
YES!! Unfortunately, I don’t think Colorado would be that foolish
60% of the time it works every time
by Creeping Death on Dec 16, 2011 1:01 AM EST up reply actions
You think?
Look at the trades Colorado has pulled off in 2011…
You never know.
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
No, Lets get SOB back
then watch all the good PK work go to hell by him drawing one…..
by TSCinSFO on Dec 16, 2011 3:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Whoo! What a game!
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
Yeah, darn those Negative Nancy’s!
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 2:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Only thing that could have made this game better would have been being there. Something about this win with the energy of the crowd makes it emotional. What a great rivalry!
It was fantastic!
and I had 2 people in the group of 13 (including me) that I took to section 318 who had never been to a hockey game before. This was the first Preds vs. Wings game I’ve been able to make it to, and it was also the most exciting game I’ve attended yet! wish you all could have been there :-)
by Only Fan In J.C. ? on Dec 16, 2011 5:04 PM EST up reply actions
Shea Weber
Pretty good hockey player, I guess.
And by that, I mean What a Beast! Wow. Great win!
I'm that ''ignorant dumbass'' who writes with the ''whiny idiot homer'' over at Hockey Wilderness.
Twitter: BubbleWild48
Weber, Webeast, Webeard...
Call him whatever you’d like, dude has some serious talent.
Hands go uuppp..... AND THEY STAY THERE!
-nashvillepredators-
by davisca on Dec 16, 2011 4:05 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Klein had 3 shots, and an assist AND was a +2.
He had a great shot attempt on an awesome pass, but it was blocked. Still, it led to a goal, so there’s that.
He was third in TOI.
This has been your Kevin Klein update.
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
and don’t forget, he’s still number one in creepy mustaches on the team
60% of the time it works every time
by Creeping Death on Dec 16, 2011 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
And always will be.
Hands go uuppp..... AND THEY STAY THERE!
-nashvillepredators-
by davisca on Dec 16, 2011 4:05 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
is it better or worse
than Kleiner’s pointy goatee?
BTW, he’s playing some good hockey right now…
by Only Fan In J.C. ? on Dec 16, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
gotta love the nhl
nhl,com says Lucky Legwand for his goal and and Pretty so pretty for Zetterberg…wtf. annoying…its in the middle under Weber leads Preds. Was it because Leggy got his own rebound and was in the right place (granted he missed his first chance) and Zetterberg scored on first try?! still annoying. Only guy who ever gets decent credit is Weber Suter and Rinne…probably to up their value so it caps the Preds out of signing them. anyways what a great finish (sorry not by Pekka though he had a few nice saves as usual when we needed them.
NHL.com is stupid
they are known for TERRIBLE puns and bad alliterations. dont let it get under your skin
On the Red Wings "Winging it in Motown" site
they are blaming it on the ice. They are saying we got lucky bounces. I’ll say that the 4th goal was a bit of a lucky bounce, but a team that has been around as long as them should know that good things happen when you put pucks to the net… Or is that just a Trotz saying?
by Preds of State on Dec 16, 2011 2:31 AM EST up reply actions
last i checked...
both teams played on the same ice. so quityourbitchin…
TN Sports fan in Hoosier Country....
Are you denying the 4th goal was a lucky bounce?
As Dirk said in this very recap, this was a game the Wings probably should have won since they controlled play for the majority of the game. But the Preds capitalized on their chances and got some puck luck, so they won the game.
The funny thing is all of this talk about bounces would be moot if Datsyuk had just buried that cross-ice pass right before Weber scored his second goal. But, coulda woulda shoulda I guess.
luck...
Its not that the Preds got a “lucky” bounce, its more that its seems always to be the case. And the other team played well or got a great goal. whereas the preds got so lucky. Never that they worked hard to get it close or back to even or what have you. Thats more the point. Yes the Wings played better most of the game but the Preds fought hard after the Tootoo goal. And yes it wouldve been over most likely if Pavel buried that easy chance (its was bouncing, over his stick). It would be nice sometime to see the media (nhl.com in this case) say that it was a hard fought win for the Preds, They referred to Legwand as lucky…why?! it was a great pass by Smith to him as he got wide open on the side. Missed the first chance but cashed in on the rebound. Why is that lucky?
So you directed your entire diatribe at me because I called the 4th goal lucky?
It was a lucky bounce. Take it and revel in it. Lord knows if the Wings had won that way, I’d be happy and call it what it was.
The Wings had more shots, won more faceoffs, and had 4 less credited hits (on the road, where scorers are usually known to be more biased) and controlled the puck for the majority of the game. I give full credit to the Predators for sticking around and keeping it close. In fact, here’s the exact quote from my recap last night:
props to the Predators for never giving up and sticking around.
bounces went both ways last night
Detroits first goal was one of the 2 luckiest goals of the night.
Keys to the game: GA<GF
By that logic
Both of the Predators’ first 2 goals were “lucky” because the rebounds (after great saves by the mediocre Jimmy Howard) happened to go right out to Predator players and not into the corner to a Wing player.
no
the way the puck pinballed through the players in front and right to the side of RInne was a one in a million shot. the preds rebound goals were a product of the preds being in the most likely place for the rebound.
Keys to the game: GA<GF
Que?
If you shoot through a double-screen into a group of people out front at waist-height like Ian White did, the most likely place for the rebound is within five feet of the crease. If that chance were one-in-a-million, then Sergei Fedorov would still have more power play goals scored for Detroit than Tomas Holmstrom.
That chance is something like 1-in-4.
Which, by technicality, is still a “lucky” hit, but if we’re talking one-in-a-million, the knucklepuck goal was so much luckier that even comparing the two is absolutely ridiculous.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
And that's it for me
If you’re going to compare a rebound goal like Holmstrom’s as a “one in a million” shot when it happens a few times a week and use that as a basis for comparison to Weber’s bouncer off the ice, then it’s clear that our view of the game is so different that to discuss it would be a waste of time for both of us.
holmstroms goal wasn’t a rebound. It never reached Rinne as it went off of just about every player in the slot before landing and coming to a rest off to Rinne’s side. It was luck in the way that if just one of those many bounces happens another way or not at all, there is no goal. Bottom line both teams got a lucky goal. You take each one away and the preds still win.
But it is becoming apparent that it is important to the wing fans to think that the preds just got lucky in the win. So just enjoy the delusion.
Keys to the game: GA<GF
Your site’s author dances around outright saying it, but it’s not just Wings fans who will tell you this was a lucky win for the Preds.
I will happily accept it if you’d tell me Detroit will outshoot Nashville 40-21 in every game for the rest of the season.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 3:53 PM EST up reply actions
don't credit Dirk too much
he’s a somewhat re-constructed Wings fan himself… I don’t hold it against him, most of my family is from Michigan also (including one of my cousins who went with me to the game last night to cheer his Wings; at least he got the consolation Frosty courtesy of Captain Weber and some very nice ice)
;-)
One thing I did notice. I think the shot count for the Wings was artificially high. It seemed there were quite a few shots that went wide (but close) that Rinne didn’t actually make a save on – they should have been counted as missed shots instead of SOG. I have no empirical evidence of this, just a general impression. If true, this could be due to a reputation that the Wings have of being a precision club where as the Preds have a reputation for missing shots, so sometimes the SOG count is a little low.
This does not mean that I’m saying that the Wings didn’t have a more dominating Offensive zone presence.
by Only Fan In J.C. ? on Dec 16, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
There are several arenas where bloggers have noted inconsistent shooting counts
The Islanders play in one, as do the Wild. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if you were right about that part.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure the shot count was wrong. The wings throw a lot of rubber at the net, some of the shots appear to be made to get a faceoff in the offensive zone because they are good at them.
I realize the wings are all into shot count, but honestly, many of those shots are not scoring opportunities.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Also true
They don’t mind letting a slow-it-down goalie like Rinne do just that so they can utilize a line change and get a faceoff.
Is there a Preds fan taking part in the great scoring chance tracking project going on this season? The Wings guy who was doing it backed out of the project after only a few games. I don’t know what the official scoring chance count was, but I do feel that Detroit badly outchanced the Preds.
Still, the Preds did create a decent number of high-quality chances out of the relatively few shots they created.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not aware of anyone counting scoring chances for Preds games.
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
Now we're discussing things
It was luck in the way that if just one of those many bounces happens another way or not at all, there is no goal.
Again, throwing a puck at the net with traffic in front is a far cry from bouncing a puck off the ice and in the net. I don’t know what else I can do to make you see this. There are varying degrees of luck. Hell, almost any goal scored in the NHL involves some degree of luck, including both of those rebound goals by the Predators last night. I’ve never said that Holmstrom goal was some pre-designed play, but it was far more of a hockey play than Weber’s 2nd goal, which was the game winner.
Besides, if you want to play “luck vs luck”, then how about the unlucky circumstance of the puck bouncing over Datsyuk’s stick about 30 seconds before Weber scored? That’s luck too, except it went against the Wings (at least by your definition of “luck”).
sorry
wasnt blaming you I was just replying so everyone knew what as being discussed. My main point was that NHL.com was calling Preds lucky and the Wings great; simply put. Thats what annoyed me. Not you or a fan saying this or that was lucky or not. Basically the Preds seem to get belittled and not given much credit for their effort etc. The wings are holier than thou and do nothing wrong. They are great and do not get lucky. Its always skill or a pretty goal. My rant was more at the media for not giving props to the Preds. I swear Ill go to a nhl spot on a website (yahoo, cbs, nhl.com wherever) and in the list of 7 or so links, hardly ever is one about the preds game. If it is, its about them getting lucky or the other team getting unlucky. Its annoying.
That would be frustrating
The Wings definitely are a big-draw team, so when they’re playing against anybody but the other five teams the league is always trying to jam down people’s throats, they’re always going to get the benefit of the editorial slant.
Honestly, I know what the site traffic numbers say, but I consistently feel that the best source for info on what happens in hockey games is to go to the teams’ blogs. You’ll never see a combination of brutal honesty and well-informed opinions about any team on NHL.com.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
Its just frustrating hardly ever reading something decent about the Preds from anyone other than our own folks. We have been playing for over 10 years now. Playoffs the last 6 out of 7 years. Maybe its actually a good thing. I dont know.
Think we are on the same page now. I can see that the Wings are dissected like the Yankees every game. Has to be annoying too. I see that angle as well. Its only cause everyone is envious of the success.
Also true
The big outlets have been trying to correctly predict the Wings plummet into mediocrity since before the lockout even. That gets annoying, but it’s crossed into comical (well… kind of… the Wings are a bit on the edge of a scary precipice many feel, where Lidstrom is irreplaceable and Datsyuk/Zetterberg are getting older without their obvious heirs apparent having shown up.)
I’ll still tell you from a personal standpoint though, when the Wings and Hawks (two of the “Big” clubs) play, it even pisses me off to see how much NHL.com flowers over Chicago and gives Detroit the “oh yeah, they also exist”.
It’s nothing NEAR the same kind of stuff you guys have to put up with, but I’ll happily admit that it’s annoying.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
I don’t profess to know what it’s like to cheer for a small/non-traditional team, and the Preds have been a good team for the past few years.
again I agree
Its cool to cheer for a team that was created within the past 15 years and we have seen it all from its inception. Its awesome actually. Small market or not. You can see the mild success of the past 5-7 years of it and see the homegrown talent be our main guys now (ie Weber, Suter, RInne, Legwand, Erat, Wilson, Hornquist, Tootoo, etc) We are a team of our development unlike most teams. So its good and bad. Mainly lower cost but harder working players, The talent is mainly there, Just need to add a piece here and there. Hopefully our owners will cough up cash for Suter and Weber along with another piece or so. Time will tell. Its almost that time. Weber can be talked to in 2 weeks or so. Suter needs to get locked up as well. We have the money and they are worth it.
I just think luck had far less to do with the game outcome than the visiting fans seem to think. The first and last goals of the game were 2 of the luckiest have seen in some time, and in between bounces and luck went both ways for each team. After everything is said and done the luck probably balanced out, with the preds taking advantage of 1 more opportunity than the wings.
Keys to the game: GA<GF
Keep an eye on Patric Hornqvist
He’ll score 100 goals like the one Holmstrom scored before his career is done.
Shea Weber may score one more goal like the game-winner… if he’s lucky ;)
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
blame it on gravity
The puck was fluttering when it hit the ice so it would have bounced weird on any surface.
by Nick Quinn on Dec 16, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe if Datsyuk's elbow to Weber or the call that was missed when Kostitsyn's stick was being held would have been called then maybe y'all would've lost that game 4-1?
Did you think of that?
Don’t talk to me about luck, cause y’all had it in spades last night.
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 16, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
No, those were good hockey plays( huge dose of sarcasm)…..If it wasn’t for their goalie, you know the one with the great save percentage, all those wins and thier MVP so far this season leaving the crease to play the puck, unaware of what was going on around him, they wouldn’t have had a penalty all game.
Matter of fact, he had the hook on for what seemed forever before the ref lifted his arm.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
The ref card?
Your statement about Pavel’s “elbow” to Weber was shown to indeed be a shoulder, but both teams got away with a ton of stuff last night. I’m sure I could go back and find 4 or 5 instances where a Predators player should have gotten a penalty, but what’s the point?
You played the lucky bounce card.
Why wouldn’t I play the ref card?
I will say that the refs pretty much swallowed their whistles last night. Except for the first questionable “hook” on Suter and the other “hook” to Smithson. But those were a couple of weak calls that cost us goals. That’s all I’m sayin’. Y’all got what you deserved. A loss cause the PP goals y’all had weren’t even enough to stop the onslaught that is the Nashville “Death by a Thousand Bee Stings” Predators.
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 16, 2011 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well
at least now I know why, when you came over to WIIM to ask about that play, you made sure to mention you weren’t trolling.
The missed elbow was Erat’s on Zetterberg. We’ve already covered what happened on the Datsyuk/Weber hit.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
We're good dude.
And that post was from before I saw the replay.
And we won, so life couldn’t be any better :)
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 16, 2011 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
The Wings
got really lucky to get away with so many cases of interference, hooking, and boarding without the Preds getting a PP until late in the 3rd. The Wings got lucky that the Preds got called on those soft penalties and some soft offside whistles.
The Wings got lucky that Rinne was obviously daydreaming when Lidstrom shot his point shot into the goal uncontested in the 2nd period.
forget luck. 4-3. One team’s fans go home happy, the other team’s fans go home disgruntled. Division rivals always have a rematch.
by Only Fan In J.C. ? on Dec 16, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Legwand’s thoughts on his first shot: “Net half full :(”
Legwand’s thoughts on the rebound: “Wait, net half empty! :D”
by Stormyt on Dec 16, 2011 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
you could make a case that Leggy's goal
was planned to perfection. In addition to providing a rebound, his first shot also caused Howard to dive for the puck, thereby providing the empty net that Legwand needed to score. Hell of a thing to get an ENG in the 1st period… how many forwards around the league can do that?
by Only Fan In J.C. ? on Dec 16, 2011 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
That-was-awesome
clap clap clap-clap-clap
by JBoogie22 on Dec 16, 2011 1:37 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Rinne>Howard
It was mentioned in the goalie grading column yesterday, but it’s worth repeating here: imagine if we had the other teams goalie and they had Rinne?! Rinne kept us close enough to where we could pull this out late like we did. Howard’s numbers may look decent, but he’s definately the Wings achilles heel.
When Tootoo got it back to within a goal after 2 periods, it felt like we could pull a rabbit out of the hat even though we got seriously outplayed for 2 periods. Without that 2nd goal, this game was in the bag for the Wings.
Sometimes things go your way, as this and the Columbus game certainly have for us. Good things happen when you keep plugging away till the very end!
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 2:39 AM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Howard’s numbers may look decent, but he’s definately the Wings achilles heel.
He’s given up 2 goals or less in 20 of his 26 starts. He’s #1 in GAA for goalies who have played at least 20 games. Of the goalies ahead of him in SV%, only 3 have faced more shots than he has. He leads the league in wins. He’s also been the Wings’ MVP through the first 30 games of this season.
Rinne’s a hell of a goalie, but Jimmy Howard has been just as good this year. If you believe that he’s their “achilles heel”, then I’d counter that you probably have not watched many Wing games this year.
Rinne doesn’t have the team playing in front of him that Howard does. Howard is a mediocre goaltender on most teams in this league, just as Osgood was.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 11:31 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
And RInne is an overpaid goaltender on every team in the league.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
If you’ve got a link to an article she’s done which explains how there’s a goalie worth a $7M cap hit, I’ll happily read it with an open mind.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Nice passionate defense
…….now go ask Babs if he would trade Howard for rinne straight trade.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
Better yet
How about I ask Ken Holland? Then he can say “no” and take the $5M extra in cap space to sign a goal scorer or top-end defenseman and make the team in front of a very good goalie that much better.
by Amerinadian on Dec 16, 2011 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
That isn't the question though, is it?
There isn’t a GM in the league who wouldn’t take Rinne over Howard in a heartbeat. Howard will never get paid 7M a season for one very good reason: he’s not worth that much.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 11:29 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
No
The question you posed was would Babcock trade Howard for Rinne straight up. I posed your same hypothetical question to the GM of the Wings who (IMO) would say “no” because he likes what Howard brings to the team and would use the extra money to go out and make the rest of the team better.
I know you’re not about to say that cap hit = true value or talent level, right? Because that’s a path I don’t think you want to take.
I’m not here to compare Pekka Rinne to Jimmy Howard. I think Pekka Rinne is one of the pre-eminent goalies in the NHL. My point was simply that Howard is not the “mediocre” goaltender you believe him to be, and the fact that he’s been compared to Chris Osgood (above) further cements my belief that no Red Wing goalie is ever going to get credit for being good as long as the team in front of him continues to be successful.
Whatever. Wing fans (and those that watch the Wings with any sort of regularity) will say that Howard has been very good this year, and you all can enjoy having a quality goaltender like Rinne tending your net. I invite you to watch more than just the games that Howard has played against the Predators, because then you’d see that he is indeed moving his way up among the goaltending ranks in the NHL and will soon be mentioned among the elite.
Actually........
I didn’t ask the question, but you tap danced around the question someone did ask. Rinne>Howard…….live with it.
Howard is a mediocre goaltender (and yes, I’ve watched him many times). Not a terrible goalie, but not an elite one either.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 6:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Fine
You want to believe Rinne is better? That’s great. Like I said, I’m not about to debate the point, because it’s an exercise in futility.
However, your point about Howard being a mediocre goalie is based on what? Your opinion? I’ll trust his stats and the fact I’ve seen every game of his this year over someone who I can guarantee has not watched him as much as I have.
But, if you want to go over this further, come on over to WIIM and we can talk about it.
I'm so scared now!
How ‘bout we do this, you tell me how long you’ve played at the goalie position and I’ll tell you mine. My guess is that I’ve played longer than you’ve been in existence.
And yes, my opinion is that if Howard didn’t play on a team as good as the Wings, his numbers would be average at best.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 9:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Howard gives up too many rebounds, not enough puck control, and goes down a little early. Other than that he is okay.
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
by cisar on Dec 16, 2011 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
whining it in motown
Ok…ask Ken Holland if he would trade Howard for Rinne…straight up. Because the answer would be yes, if for no other reason than Pekka Rinne knows how to stop the puck on “bad ice”…LOLOLOLOLOLOL
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The way that puck lands on the ice
it would have taken that bounce on just about any surface. Good ice, bad Ice, a shot like that should usually be blocked by the Goaltender.
by Preds of State on Dec 16, 2011 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Here is a good slow motion shot of that goal
http://www.smashville247.net/2011/12/one-more-thing-power-play-stays-hot.html
Its from the Redwing feed last night where they thought it was a deflection from Spaling.
by Preds of State on Dec 16, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
So it wasn’t tipped…..proving thier goalie should have made the stop. He looked quite upset with himself. Probably a little out of position. I guess its what you get when you believe money spent on goalies is a waste. LOLOLOL
But…but…but….his numbers are great!!!!! LOLOLOL…… We need our money to spend on scoring and lively boards in our barn so we can pass it off the boards!!!!
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
Hilarious
coming from a fan of a team who, in one more game, has scored 23 fewer goals and allowed 16 more that you’d have the discussion set on the best way to spend money as an organization.
Since two Stanley Cup-winning goalies since the lockout had a cap hit of less than $1M and zero cup-winners have had one higher than $5M, I’m going to trust that insane money thrown at goalies is insane.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
Why you gettin' all worked up dude?
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 16, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
worked up
He is all worked up because he understands the wings ( cough, cough, hasek, cough, cough) used to pay 8 mil a year.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 17, 2011 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
short memory
My god, you are right….detroit (cough, cough, hasek, cough, cough) has never paid big bucks for a goaltender…….LOLOLOL
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Capped Era, friend
Dominik Hasek was paid $2M the last year he played for Detroit. The year the Red Wings won both the Stanley Cup and the Jennings trophy.
Their total goalie spending that year was $2.85M to win a Stanley Cup. Even adjusting for 5% inflation, that’s less than half of Rinne’s cap hit.
If you want to go back to 2002, then fine. It’s a poor comparison and not worth consideration in this discussion.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
What is a good comparison is that both the goalies for last seasons Stanley Cup finalists were big dollar goalies. Something to consider.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 12:40 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Both had smaller cap hits than Rinne.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
how long are you gonna use the smaller cap hit excuse…..The bottom line is the two Cup teams had elite goalies making large amounts of money.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 17, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
And the year before you had Chicago’s Antti Niemi ($827K) vs. a collection of Philly goalies at $1.5M or less in the 2010 Final.
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
So at the end of the day, there really is no right or wrong opinion on whether a big dollar goalie is the right way to go or not. My personal preference would be not to spend that much on the position, but if you have a team like ours that can’t win without great goaltending, you kind of need to have a Rinne between the pipes. Not the way I would build a team, but I’m only a blogosphere GM, LOL!
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 2:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
So then we agree?
Building a team around a $7M goaltender is not something either of us would do?
Glad we could come to an accord on that.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
You probably weren’t around here during the summer, but as I said in the post below this one, my position has been that if we pay all of our big 3 the mega-bucks to stay here, all we’ll be is a tough team to play against and nothing more. Poile has built a team that can only win if our goalie out performs the opposing teams goalie, often by a big margin. I don’t believe you can win a Cup with that recipe.
That being said, it may come down to where Rinne is the only one of the big 3 who we’ll be able to keep here, in which case his 7M deal won’t be all that big a deal in the whole scheme of things. You have to keep the players who want to stay here.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 2:43 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I agree with you
Knowing full well that, as a Detroit fan, this isn’t the kind of attitude that other people want to hear, but it doesn’t seem as though Nashville currently has the luxury to spend to being a cup contender. However, I’m still happy to admit that my opinions on whether Nashville should even have a hockey team has done a complete 180 in the last two seasons (for all the good that means to you guys, that is.)
All things considered in context, The Rinne deal could very well turn out for Nashville similar to how the Brian Campbell deal worked for the Hawks. That guy was overpaid by a TON more than I think Rinne is now, but it was an organization showing that they’d be willing to spend money on players, and that made a difference for the Hawks that I think goes underappreciated.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
Seeing that we’re currently just a hair over the cap floor in spending doesn’t give the blather we heard this summer about “spending more than we ever have” much credibilty at the moment. But there’s still time for ownership to back up their words with action (which I’ll believe when I see).
Campbell is a good example of a guy who is overpaid but is also a valuable player as well. Sure has made a difference for the Panthers this season.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 3:01 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Uh, not exactly
I just offered that to counter your example from the 2011 Final. The preponderance of evidence these days points to long-term big-money goaltending contracts as being a poor choice.
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
Tim Thomas points in a different direction though, does he not? The Bruins, despite all their talent, don’t win the Cup without him between the pipes.
Again, I’m closer to your position on this, but it’s not a slam dunk argument in either direction.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 3:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
And Chicago let him go because of a 2.75 mil arbitration.
If teams like detroit or chicago were built around defense first, Id buy the " don’t pay too much for a goalie" argument.
Look at chicage this year…..Scored a lot but gave up a lot too….They can get by with less goaltending. If we were scoring in the high 90’s in goals, I’d also wonder why we need a very good goalie.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 17, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions
If teams like detroit or chicago were built around defense first, Id buy the " don’t pay too much for a goalie" argument.
Detroit won the Jennings when they won the cup with cheap goaltending.
Chicago was the #6 team in the league the year they won the cup with cheap goaltending.
You were saying?
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Chicago was the #6 team in the league the year
For goals against, to be specific.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
I get rebuffed for making this point here, but like the Hawks and Wings, if you have the puck in the other teams Dzone for large parts of the game, they can’t do much offensively against you. A good puck possession offense makes you better defensively as well. The ability of the Wings and Hawks to play that type of game allows them to not have to have all world type goaltending.
We’d get killed if we had less than all world goaltending. :/
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 4:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It's my favorite thing about hockey
having the puck doesn’t mean you’re on offense and not having it doesn’t mean you’re on defense. Detroit’s spent the better part of a decade exemplifying that. It’s just so hard to have a puck possession offense that’s so tight that you really do see such a big difference defensively. Teams like the Capitals (back when they were scary) never got it right. I think the blueliners have a lot to do with it.
Still, I don’t think goaltending is as easy to define. There’s something strong to be said about a goalie who will only see 24 shots a game or fewer and can stay sharp on the few very good chances teams will get.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’m going to use it as long as it’s apt, and it’s still apt. The difference between $5M and $7M in cap dollars is a young middle-six winger with 20-25 goal potential.
Or the difference between having Martin Erat as your highest cap-hit forward and having Jonathan Toews.
The cap difference looms even larger when you compare relative salary spending of a $5M goaltender on a team up against the cap versus a $7M goaltender on a team that doesn’t spend within $8M of the cap.
How long are you going to bury your head in the sand? There are big money goalies and then there are goalies who make 140% of what the big-money goalies make.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your overall point here, it should be noted that guys like Thomas and Loungo signed there respective deals when the cap ceiling was quite a bit lower. Rinne’s deal reflects what the current market pays for a goalie like him, not what it was 2 or 3 years ago.
As everyone on this board knows, I’d rather have Parise at 7M a season and Lindback between the pipes……..but no one listens to the bear. :(
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 2:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comparing hit-to-cap does make it closer
Luongo’s deal has him at a $5.33M cap hit (down from $6.75M the previous year). Thomas’ is a flat $5M. Both of those deals were signed in the 2009 offseason. There’s a slight difference between the two because Thomas’ was signed in April and Luongo’s in October – Basically, Thomas’ deal was signed in consideration of the 2008-09 cap ($56.7M) while Luongo’s was signed in the context of the 2009-10 cap ($56.8M).
The bigger of those percentages is Luongo’s, with his cap hit taking up about 9.4% of the team’s cap. Rinne’s deal this year assuming no cap movement is 10.9%.
It seems minor, all things considered, but 1.5% in real-world millions is a lot of dough. If you gave Rinne the same percentage-to-the-cap that the ’Nucks gave Luongo in 2009, it would a $6.04M salary. That may very well be the difference between people saying that Poile got Rinne at just the right price and Poile overpaid for him.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
I’m of the opinion that Poile felt he had to make sure he at least kept one of the big 3 here, so he overpaid a bit to get that done. He knows full well that keeping Weber or Suter is no better than a 50/50 propisition right now.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 2:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
By the same token, seeing as this is just the 7th season with a salary cap, we still have an awfully small sample size to say that you can’t win a Cup with a $7 million dollar goaltender. The cap has also seen a significant rise since the 05-06 season. A $4.2 million contract that season would have eaten up the same amount of cap space as a $7 million contract this year.
It is an awfuly small sample size
But the fact that “cheap” goaltending has won it more often than expensive goaltending shows a trend that isn’t exactly bucked by last year.
Really, the trend in how to put together a championship team is to have a superstar player or two who hasn’t yet qualified to escape the entry-level contract, so you’ve essentially got a $6+M player whose cap hit is just over half that (See Seguin, Toews, Kane, Malkin, Crosby)
I also don’t see the cap trending upward next year. With the expiration of the CBA, I feel there’s going to be a rollback in player salaries which will bring the cap down a bit. I don’t think it will be horribly severe, but I feel it will be four or five years before it comes back to being as high as it is now. Of course, if salaries roll back, Rinne’s hit won’t still be $7M, but it will still likely be comparatively higher than any cup-winning goalie. In the 2006 finals, the highest paid goaltender was Dwayne Roloson and his $1.672M salary.
The other thing to consider among that is the team’s internal budget. A $5M goaltender on a team which spends to the cap takes up about 1/13th of his team’s spending. Meanwhile, a $7M goaltender on a team which is capped by the midpoint ($56.3M) – and assuming that the cap goes nowhere, takes up about 1/8th of the team’s salary spending. That leaves significantly fewer pieces of the pie to share with forwards who can score enough goals to get wins out of an incredibly good GAA and team defense.
Nashville will either need to break their internal budget or will need to acquire a can’t-miss superstar on an entry-level deal to have a decent chance of even being in consideration to compete for the cup. Rinne’s cap hit next year is going to make it even more difficult.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Do you have a slow motion shot of any other puck taking a bounce that severe or is one-in-a-million good enough for you?
You’re right that the puck would have taken that bounce on just about any surface… good ice just isn’t one of them.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 16, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
That is a bunch of bull!
So you are on the Redwings? You were down there skating with them? Heck, you’ve EVER skated on the ice at Bridgestone Arena? You are the only one coming over here talking about bad ice, and the only time the guys at WIIM started whining about it was when we scored. I can guarantee that if Detroit had won there would be no word about bad ice or anything of the sort.
One bounce doesn’t go your way, a bounce that your goalie should have had, (he did look really disappointed with himself when he let that one in) you start crying about how the ice sucks in Nashville.
Stop crying and take the loss, and hope your team can pull it out in the next one. Till then, GO PREDS!
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
and no
I’m not going to sort through the archives of every freaking goal scored in the history of the NHL to find another goal similar to that.
It’s one thing to support your team, and its another thing to be a poor sport.
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
So what you're saying
is that you have absolutely no evidence to support your theory that the puck would have bounced like that on any rink in the NHL? That’s a good starting point at least.
I’ll save two replies here. The idea that somebody has ever had to skate on the ice at an arena to get a feel for how the ice is compared to other surfaces is a ridiculous statement. No, I’m sorry; it’s not just ridiculous, I’ll say it’s an absolutely stupid statement. There is no way anybody who watches any significant number of hockey games per season cannot tell the difference in ice surfaces. The Bridgestone ice is not nearly as bad as the crap they’ve got in Dallas or Los Angeles, but it’s choppy enough to be considered “bad ice”.
I can guarantee that if Detroit had won there would be no word about bad ice or anything of the sort.
Can you guarantee that the same way you can guarantee that the puck would have bounced exactly like that on any of the 29 other NHL rinks, despite having absolutely zero proof that a goal just like that has EVER been scored? Your guarantee is worth as much as your Twitter follower count. If you can guarantee that, can I go ahead and guarantee that if Weber’s flukey goal wouldn’t have gone in and Datsyuk’s flukey miss would have, that there would be no question about whether or not the Predators were lucky to have even been in a game they were dominated?
What’s there being a poor sport though? I’m actually less mad that the Red Wings lost on a flukey goal than if they had given up the game-winning goal on a defensive breakdown. Bad ice does tend to benefit the teams who skate on it more, but that doesn’t concern me. If Detroit and Nashville meet in the playoffs this year, there won’t be more than three games on the Bridgestone surface.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 10:04 AM EST up reply actions
The twitter account blast is low, dude :/
I will admit it was a fortunate bounce for Nashville, but if you look at the video you can see the way it hits the ice is why it bounces that way on the ice. You are being a poor sport by saying Nashville has bad ice when in reality Howard should have gloved that one easily. Like I said, I’m not going to look through every video between now and the beginning of the NHL to find a goal like that. One of my favorite Pulp Fiction quotes is “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence,” basically saying that just because I don’t have any evidence, that doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist. Since you have the time to survey the ice in Nashville, I’ll pass it to you to find evidence that a goal like that has never happened, since you are the one who is claiming that in the 94 years that the NHL has existed, there has never been a goal scored like that.
I’ll also charge you to find history of “bad ice” in Nashville. The only reference to bad ice I can find for Nashville is last season near the beginning of the playoffs when Nashville was having a heat wave. In that situation, the players were saying the ice was getting bad, and management took steps to fix and prevent the problem from continuing.
And, sitting here saying, if this chance had gone this way, and this one had gone the other is an exercise in futility. They chances went the way they went. I was at the game, and I didn’t see one team dominate the other. I saw two teams play very physical. Detroit plays a puck possession game, and it is no secret that Nashville spends a lot of time in the Defensive zone, but Nashville is a defensively minded team, so I don’t see it as a secret as to why we spend more time in our D-zone, and could also be a reason why I keep hearing everyone say that other teams “dominate” us yet we still get the win. We are a defensively minded team who works hard, and cashes in on our chances.
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
It's not being a poor sport to state a fact.
Nashville has bad ice. That is a fact. Nashville has bad ice regardless of whether the Predators won that game. My history of “bad ice” in Nashville is seeing the puck take bounces it shouldn’t take on good ice.
Useless platitudes penned by a coke fiend do not turn the onus of proof to me. The argument is that a bounce like that never happens on good ice. The evidence is every single hockey game I’ve ever watched. You can “believe” what you want to believe about there being a million bad-bounce goals on good ice surfaces without actually going through to look at it and sleep well having hammered a square peg about faith in God into a round hole about actual happenstance in hockey. Do you have proof that no hockey player ever has ever transmutated into a gerbil? I mean, it seems like there would be some evidence if that had ever happened, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?
Here’s a platitude in response: Pretending that
I was at the game, and I didn’t see one team dominate the other.
You clearly were not watching the game then. The idea that you want your team to spend a lot of time in their own zone and be badly outchanced to eke out wins based on bounces off of bad ice is a very terrible hockey strategy. It’s no wonder they’re fighting for a spot in the playoff race.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s a platitude in response: Pretending that
Pretending that “show me every single game played on good ice surfaces to prove that bad goals like that don’t happen there” is a good tactic is foolish.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Nashville having bad ice is a fact? Can you link some articles to support that position?
You claiming Nashville having bad ice as a fact because we can’t prove it is good is like John Steigerwald claiming that Ovechkin is on steroids because no one has shown that he isn’t.
Player Poll
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/allstar/poll/arenas-and-teams/which-rink-has-the-best-ice/
Five arenas with the best ice:
1. Edmonton
2. Montreal
3. Detroit
4. Minnesota
5. Vancouver
Five arenas with the worst ice:
1. Florida
2. New York (Rangers)
3. Tampa Bay
4. Anaheim
5. Los Angeles
Now let’s pretend like we’re actual human beings who are capable of seeing similarities with things and try to guess where Nashville would land if the 318 players polled there had been asked to rank the arenas 1-30.
Let’s see… which of those lists does Nashville have more in common with as far as that which should be considered to have an effect on ice quality?
I’m claiming Nashville’s ice is bad because of the bounce that puck took on Weber’s goal. Something which I’ve argued from point one does not happen on good ice. I’m claiming Nashville’s ice is bad from personal experience having watched games on Nashville’s ice. I’m claiming Nashville’s ice is bad because Nashville is in a region where it is significantly harder and more expensive to make good ice.
To compare that evidence to a Steigerwald claim is is dumb. There is nothing to prove that Nashville has good ice because Nashville doesn’t have good ice. This is more akin to the claim that John Steigerwald’s brother is a horrible homer. It is something that can be gleaned from direct observation.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
Because I'm sure you've watched more games in Nashville
than everyone else here at OtF. No, you’re right. We don’t watch the games here, we just watch the highlights. We haven’t watched for the entire time this team has been here. No, you’re right. You have more experience watching games at Bridgestone.
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
We haven’t watched for the entire time this team has been here.
Considering the pedantic bent the discussion has taken over the last few comments, there’s a very low jab to be taken here that I trust I don’t have to make.
The fact that you’ve watched more games at the Bridgestone and still have the opinion that the ice there isn’t in the bottom half of the league for ice quality doesn’t really do anything to change the argument. Apparently, it just makes you angry that people who don’t take personal ownership of the ice quality don’t agree with your assertion (which I suppose I should take with the same grain of salt you threw at me in regards to having never actually skated there and therefore not being able to have an opinion on it, right? Remember when you said that? Ah, good times…)
That it was claimed that puck would have bounced that way on any surface is the argument and we’ve seen it happen twice on Nashville’s ice and zero times anywhere else has more to do with the argument than how many games you feel it takes to be able to compare it to other surfaces around the league.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
I just realized J.J is talking about that shot Shea Weber made from the upper deck that took that crazy bounce. This whole time I thought he was being serious.
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
by cisar on Dec 17, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes I do remember when I said that
And I stand by it. The fact that you are the only person coming here talking about ice conditions doesn’t help your argument either. In the post above you talk about having the opinion of bad ice, and in the poll you presented (which didn’t have Nashville on it so that point is moot) was an opinion poll. You can’t say something is a fact then talk about it being an opinion.
You’ve been saying we have bad ice. That goal was scored in the 3rd period at the end of the game. You’re quote:
I’ve not denied that. I’d figured it was self-evident that the ice deteriorates as the game goes on.
and
Good ice deteriorates into bad ice.
Goes to show that using your language, Nashville has good ice that deteriorated into bad ice at the end of the game. The same way it does at The Joe. In the quote that cisar gave, (i’ll bring it back here)
But ice conditions are subjective. TV announcers repeatedly referred to the deteriorating ice conditions in the overtime game in Detroit, and the puck was bouncing a lot in last week’s games at Mellon Arena, an indication that the surface gets choppy and rutted by the wear and tear of extended play.
They said the puck bounced a lot. By this assertion, your arena has the same ice conditions as Bridgestone. So either we both have good ice that deteriorates like any other arena due to wear at the end of the game, or we both have bad ice. Which is it?
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Bad ice deteriorates into worse ice. Worse ice is still worse than bad ice, but for a level of definition, it’s still "bad ice. That’s why I’ve never seen a bounce like that happen in Edmonton, but I’ve seen two in Nashville. Do you expect that I should have come in here complaining about Nashville having “worse ice”? This is the thing about nuance that I was talking about earlier. It’s not reasonable to assume I think Nashville’s ice and Detroit’s ice are the same, so it’s not even a question.
The fact that you are the only person coming here talking about ice conditions doesn’t help your argument either.
False evidence. I’ve got a post somewhere online where I claim bigfoot is made up of a hundred littlefoots all standing on each others’ shoulders. The fact that you’re not there to dispute that makes it true, right?
in the poll you presented (which didn’t have Nashville on it so that point is moot) was an opinion poll. You can’t say something is a fact then talk about it being an opinion.
The point is not moot if you use the reason you’re trying so hard to prove that you’re capable of having to look at the similarities between Nashville and four of the five surfaces on the “worst” list.
Here’s the thing about “opinion is opinion and fact is fact and never the twain shall meet” – it’s not the truth. “Nashville has bad ice” is a statement wholly dependent upon the definition of bad ice. My definition is that bad ice is definitely ice in which the specific shot from Shea Weber in question could do what it did. The concept that you’d throw 318 opinions out of the argument (opinions of people who actually DO meet your criteria of having played on the Bridgestone ice surface… well we can assume they do at least) is a little haphazard.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
Where am I throwing out 318 opinions?
As it stands now I’m just throwing out yours.
So your definition of “bad ice” is ice that when Shea Weber makes a shot from the point, it bounces over the goaltender? Ok, lets take Shea all around the country and have him take that shot 32 times to see which rinks have bad ice and which rinks have good ice. I will admit to the fact that ice deteriorates near the end of the game. I refuse to admit your opinion that Nashville has bad ice based on one shot that did not bounce the way you want it to. Take it or leave it, it is not a “fact” that Nashville has bad ice. It’s your opinion, which you have the right to have.
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, lets take Shea all around the country and have him take that shot 32 times to see which rinks have bad ice and which rinks have good ice.
Can we go ahead and say that shot was something which any NHL defenseman could do and not just limit that to a skill possessed only by Shea Weber alone?
Because if we can do that (and it would be reasonable to do so), then we could also assume that a shot like that has been made at all the arenas around the league in all sorts of real-game conditions and that a goal like that has not been scored on another arena.
Then, if we can still use the non-exhaustive definition that “bad ice” is a surface where a goal like that could be scored, we can sufficiently say that “Nashville has bad ice” is a fact.
We’re careful to say the definition of “bad ice” is non-exhaustive of course, because I don’t want some jerk to make a wild assumption that I think Nashville is the only arena with bad ice or or that Nashville even has the worst ice in the league, because neither of those are true.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
(psst… Just move along, move along)
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
BTW
We won again… On “bad ice”… Just saying…
by Preds of State on Dec 18, 2011 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
Be careful here.
As many people in the hockey business know, the Hurricanes had some of the best ice in the league prior to their ice caretaker passing away earlier this year (not sure if they’ve been able to maintain the same level of ice since his passing). So using regions of North America to determine who has good or bad ice is a risky thing to do.
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 17, 2011 2:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
It’s no wonder they’re fighting for a spot in the playoff race.
We’re 30 games into the season. Everyone is still fighting for a playoff spot.
True
and they’ll all still technically be fighting for a playoff spot 60 games into the season. We’re too far in to say that we haven’t seen enough hockey from any team to get a good feel for what kind of team they are.
Nashville is even for goal differential and on pace for a 95-point season. They’re on pace to make it into the playoffs right now. That pace last season wouldn’t have gotten them in. I would say that Nashville is fighting for a playoff spot more than Chicago is. Does language have no nuance around here or do I have to type everything out like a character from Speed Racer, describing EXACTLY what everything means EXACTLY in its context?
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
That is funny. A Red Wings fan preaching nuance.
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
I'm not a preacher
Your statement is factually incorrect.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
So…what you are implying is detroit isn’t a very good team adapting to the conditions. I know teams go into detroit, they must adapt to the cheap, springy boards the wings use to gain an advantage over thier opponent. You’d think detroit would correct that problem.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 17, 2011 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Well here's a good spot to be pendantic
If you want to run with an implication based on one hockey game, be my guest. I’d let Detroit’s road record the past five seasons tell you more about their ability to adapt to conditions before I’d let a fluke bounce describe that.
Nice try though.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
You mean, like you have over one bounce? LOLOLOL
And I’m not implying detroit has cheap, springy boards…..everyone who has ever watched a game, even one game, knows it to be correct.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 17, 2011 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Oh no
The Wings have won games on lucky bounces before.
I’ve just never gotten all up in arms about it when somebody has been right calling it for what it is.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
But you aren't just calling it a lucky bounce
You are calling it a bad bounce due to bad or “worse” ice. There is a difference. It didn’t seem to be an issue tonight ( OT win against Blues)
by Preds of State on Dec 18, 2011 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
Whatever
The Wings have won games they should not have won in the past due to luck.
When that happens, I don’t seem to have the same problem admitting that sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.
The fact that the Predators didn’t score a fluke goal two games in a row doesn’t surprise me. It shouldn’t surprise anybody. It proves nothing that fits into the argument we’ve been having the last few days. But, I definitely appreciate that in tonight’s recap, the author of that post again hinted that Nashville was lucky to have gotten another two points.
The thing about luck? It runs out.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 18, 2011 1:38 AM EST up reply actions
I believe most people here feel
It had less to do with luck than it did with Rinne. You don’t stop 40 shots and stone all three shoot-out shooters with just luck (well maybe that last crossbar shot was a bit lucky). When you are a defensive minded team that needs a spectacular goalie to win games, you sometimes have to bite the bullet and pay the man that gives you the best chance to win.
and to clarify, I did get a bit up in arms, which I should apologize for. You have the right to your opinion, and that’s fine. And, I’ll also admit that it was a lucky bounce that lead to the Nashville goal at the end of the Detroit game. I will further that by saying I still believe, even with an odd bounce, Howard should have probably grabbed that one. There can be a lucky bounce and it still be a soft goal. My point is that I don’t believe it was due to our having bad ice in our arena. You can have your opinion on that, though. I won’t fault you for that.
In terms of luck in the St. Lewis game, I don’t know if we were really all that lucky. We gave up a lot of shots, which Rinne gobbled up, we took one of the more stupid penalties you can make in hockey, never got the chance to be on the PP which would most likely should have had at least 1 shot, made a bad change which lead to the tying goal, and all but one of our shooters got stoned by Halak. In that game we had to work for everything that we got.
by Preds of State on Dec 18, 2011 5:25 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
I would agree that Rinne had a lot to do with Nashville’s win over Detroit. He definitely gives your team a chance to win more games where they get drastically outshot than most other goalies in the league. You do have to put yourself in a position to get lucky most nights in the NHL and Rinne helped Nashville do that. I’m guilty of overstating the effect of luck on this game. I don’t want to take credit away from Rinne.
I didn’t credit the goal as soft considering the severity of the angle that it bounced, but I agree that you can both a lucky bounce and a soft goal on the exact same play. I feel the Cloutier example made previously is a very good one.
I didn’t watch much of the NSH/STL game, but I was glad to see the Blues lose.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 19, 2011 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
How bout the "bad hop goal" by Detroit against Dan Ellis in the playoffs a coupla years ago?
I’d say that qualifies.
But I doubt you thought that was lucky.
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 17, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
That puck didn’t bounce three feet off the ice.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
Here is that goal, and another in the same video. This goal is Exactly the same type of goal.
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Hahaha
The same goal on the same ice surface.
Noticing a pattern about the quality of the ice?
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
So
Vancouver has bad ice too? Because the second goal in that video was against Vancouver…
by Preds of State on Dec 17, 2011 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
I take it you actually watched the goal on Cloutier, right?
I mean, you saw it make a miniscule change in direction and not the “bounce three feet off the surface” like it’s done two documented times on Nashville ice, right?
Because comparing those two is weird. The Lidstrom goal on Cloutier still goes in under his glove.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
But ice conditions are subjective. TV announcers repeatedly referred to the deteriorating ice conditions in the overtime game in Detroit, and the puck was bouncing a lot in last week’s games at Mellon Arena, an indication that the surface gets choppy and rutted by the wear and tear of extended play.
You might remember this from 2008 Cup Finals, from the Post-Gazette
World Wide Weber.
There is no tenderness or humanity in fanaticism.
~Joe Strummer
I’ve not denied that. I’d figured it was self-evident that the ice deteriorates as the game goes on. That’s kind of why they run the Zamboni’s out during intermissions and then give the ice additional treatment between games, yes?
Good ice deteriorates into bad ice. Bad ice deteriorates into worse ice. Pucks don’t bounce weird on good ice.
by J.J. from Kansas on Dec 17, 2011 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
and now I have to wear it to every other game I go to...
by Preds of State on Dec 16, 2011 2:44 AM EST up reply actions
Do they make Preds socks? That’ll get us 2 more goals per game! ;D
Defense keeps you in games........offense wins them!
by Grizzledbear on Dec 16, 2011 2:46 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Eh, just wash them with some new jeans.
Hands go uuppp..... AND THEY STAY THERE!
-nashvillepredators-
by davisca on Dec 16, 2011 4:07 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Try shoes!
Something I posted over at Hockey Gear HQ:
http://hockeygearhq.com/2011/11/nashville-predators-reebok-zig-dynamic-training-shoes/
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
hey Dirk
I forgot, do you own Hockey Gear or just work foe them?
It's my side project
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
No problem
You’re probably just concussed because I beat people over the head with it all the time!
Managing Editor of On the Forecheck, SB Nation's blog covering the Nashville Predators, and a guy who can help you save money on all things hockey-related at Hockey Gear HQ.
Used to have a deal with smithwick for socks…….but don’t think we have it anymore..but I do have a couple pair of socks.
My hockey team is better than your hockey team
by Predator Don on Dec 16, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Looks like you need to figure out how to wear 10 to the game
They have Preds running shoes now, y’know!
on a similar note...
i did NOT wear any preds clothing. hopefully i have something non-preds for Saturday….
TN Sports fan in Hoosier Country....
WHAT A FRICKEN BLAST!!!! man that was such a good game and the crowd OMG did they really show up loud tonight. Sounded like a playoff game there. Weber played fantastic tonight. The team as a whole seems to be really jelling as a group. Wilson and toots on the same line was interesting tonight. HB was just badgering everyone it seemed like. So many great moments from this game and the best part….it was the RED WINGS
I am so freaking mad I had to miss this game!
It looked AWESOME – especially the end. Of all the games to miss… On the plus side, however, I wrote about 25 pages for my final papers… so there’s that, haha. Ink definitely be here on Saturday! I’m actually going to introduce the 3 little girls I babysit to hockey, so it should be fun! Go Preds :)
Hands go uuppp..... AND THEY STAY THERE!
-nashvillepredators-
by davisca on Dec 16, 2011 4:10 AM EST via mobile reply actions
**I’ll
Hands go uuppp..... AND THEY STAY THERE!
-nashvillepredators-
by davisca on Dec 16, 2011 4:11 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I was at the game and I sure didn't see a
boat race where the Preds were wildy outplayed and won a game that they didn’t deserve. Preds were the much more physical team, played great in transition, and managed to create solid scoring chances the entire game. Not the perfect game by the Preds but if Howard doesn’t cold stone Toots, Spaling, and Badger in the first we could have easily been up by 2 or 3 after 1.
by Marcus Newman on Dec 16, 2011 8:52 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Those uni's are awful.
Those would be the uniforms Lavern and Shirley would be wearing in the rollerderby episode.
Good job on taking down those Wings.
LOL.
I had to go and buy my nephew a T-shirt so I left my seat to go to the sports shop with 9 min left and we were down 3-2. I missed it live and had to see it on the TVs in the arena.
I did the same thing for the Pittsburgh comeback a coupla years ago.
Ugh!
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is where the Stanley Cup can be found.
by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Dec 16, 2011 12:02 PM EST reply actions
sports shop
Is open for like thirty minutes after the game. No need missing any action.
by djzielin on Dec 16, 2011 12:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on On the Forecheck
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
About OTF
Dirk Hoag is the Forechecker, churner of NHL stats & analysis, and managing editor of On the Forecheck.
Follow @Forechecker
Got a question, a suggestion, or are interested in advertising here to reach thousands of Nashville Predators fans? Feel free to email the.forechecker@gmail.com.
Featured Stories
Are you new here? Read this first!
Check us out on iTunes!
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
