[TLG Limerick #3: Alex Reaches For His Goals (Game 2)]

These are all great. I hope to see more as the series progresses.

Sir Spam

[STILL NO TICKETS AND CANT BREAK THE BANK]

Supply and Demand.

[Mid-Season Awards]

That's a great point, that Anaheim's SA/G (34.2) is second worst in the league, although it's negligible because Boston isn't far behind with 33.8 SA/G, which is fourth worst. Both Hiller and Thomas have been fantastic, but I think Hiller has done more with less. He's kept the Ducks competitive and has been forced to play much more than Thomas because McElhinney has been much, much worse than Hiller or Rask. He's logged the second-most minutes and appeared in the most games. The Vezina should be awarded to the goalie most valuable to his team and that's Hiller. Stick Rask in net and the Bruins would still be pretty good. The same can't be said about Anaheim with McElhinney.

That's a bit unfair. Backup goalies shouldn't really in consideration. Although in fact, Mason has been really horrible for Atlanta this year, so based on your own point Pavelec ekes out everyone else (literally Mason's stats are scary at like .892 and 3.78 GAA D:)

Byfuglien and Enstrom equal to Anaheim's top pairing (pick your two of Fowler, Visnovsky, Lydman)? I don't think so. Atlanta's pair has combined for 81 points while Fowler and Visnovsky have combined for 60 and -5 combined. I should clarify that "(Byfuglien and Enstrom)" means that Pavelec is helped out by the highest scoring defensive duo in the league this year, something Hiller cannot say. The Thrashers aren't a great defensive team but they have arguably two of the best 'pickpocket' players in the league in Burmistrov and Little. What really hurts Pavelec is his wins (15, 18th) and given that he and Hiller have very similar GAA/SV% numbers, I'm going with Hiller.

Well, his less wins probably is a result of playing way less games. In actuality, the two top pairs of both teams are a lot closer tan you think. I've created a little list:

Lydman and Visnovsky

total blocked shots: 172

total hits: 119

combined +/- = 31

excess giveaways: 38

Enstrom and Byfuglien

total blocked shots: 141

total Hits: 96

combined +/- = 9

Excess giveaways: 13

So, in nearly every single category except giveaways the Ducks' D is in the lead. I don't buy the argument that Hiller has a weaker D.

Also, the fact that the Atlanta D is much more higher scoring whilst having worse +/- probably indicates the Thrashers are overmatched 5 on 5, which is not good for Pavelec's win potential. Again, proving he's playing in a harder situation.

LA is not playing well, but they are a good team. They've got great pieces and have been in a little bit of a slump. Quick has been good but he's not outplaying Hiller, Thomas, Luongo, Fleury, Lundqvist, or even Ward... There's plenty of better candidates (some I haven't mentioned) to choose from.

I love that you brought up Trotz because I've been saying he's one of the best coaches in the league. I've said that repeatedly. Trotz regularly turns chicken sh*t into chicken salad but I think he's had better years in the past. He's got some good, young talent this year (Cal O'Reilly, Cody Franson, Colin Wilson) and the only way he will ever be considered by the media is if they unseat the Red Wings (unlikely). However, I feel that the three guys I've named are more worthy. Boucher has turned TB around and they're no longer a joke. The Flyers made the playoffs last year as an 8th seed in a shootout but Laviolette has them sitting first in the East. AV has distanced the Canucks even further from their competition. They've done outstanding jobs so far. You could also make the case for John Tortorella, who like Trotz has turned into a rather average roster into a pretty good team.

When I picked the Selke/Norris winners, team PK was considered, but not the defining factor. If that had been the case it would've been easy to pick Letang for the Norris and Talbot/Adams for the Selke. PK is more a reflection of team play, I totally agree, but that doesn't mean PK should be thrown out the window. It should be, at the very least, taken into consideration. I will never pick a Selke/Norris player on a team with a pitiful PK, just as it's stupid to pick a MVP from a losing/non-playoff team.

I guess I will have to disagree with the italicized sentence. I think that team achievements are team achievements. So, if a guy manages to score 50 goals on a team without any decent centre, he has had a more valuable season than a guy who scores 60 playing with Sidney Crosby. I guess that's my outlook. Your argument about not making the playoffs is also wrong, in my mind. Why stop there? Why not just give the Vezina to the goalie who wins the cup? After all, that is the ultimate goal and he has had the most success. What's to stop me from disqualifying all forwards who don't play in the Stanley Cup Final? Your argument can be taken to some absurd levels, which makes it considerably weaker. When Ottawa beat New Jersey in 2007, did that mean Emery had outplayed or is/was better than Brodeur? Of course not, anyone who watched that series can attest. We'll have to just agree to disagree.

I knew I was going to take some heat for Girardi but here's my logic explained further. Hopefully it makes sense.

First, Big Z. He's a great player. One of the best defenceman in the league. The season Chara won the Norris was 2008-09 and he WAS an offensive juggernaut. His second consecutive 50-point season and 11 powerplay goals, a career high. Has he been as vital to Boston's defence as Girardi has been to his? I don't think so. (More later).

Okay, but that's somewhat a moot point; when I was referring to being an 'offensive juggernaut' I meant a nearly point-per game season; something that Mike Green has achieved twice in his career. Byfuglien and Lidstrom are also on pace to do that this year. Chara had 50 points the year he won; it's very unlikely that sort of production would lead the league. Heck, Edler is on pace for 50 points this season and no one is going around screaming "OMG EDLER IS DA OFFENSIVE BOMB".

Second, Lidstrom. I'm going to ignore the "retirement prize" argument because we're not throwing awards away. Is Lidstrom still good? Yes, in a pick-up game I'd probably pick him over everyone. But he does give away the puck. He has 17 recorded giveaways. He's not flawless, and comparing this season to year's past, he just hasn't been as good. Sometimes I think his reputation, not unwarranted, precedes him, but I think other players have been better this year. Case in point, Datsyuk winning the Selke last year, when I think, quite convincingly, Kesler was the superior two-way player.

Third, Bieksa. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I do think Edler's a more well-rounded defenceman. Bieksa's been great but he struggled early in the season while Edler's been his usual, quiet, dependable self.

On Girardi... Tortorella's teams thrive on playing the body and blocking shots. It's a big reason why they have such a stingy defence and a good PK. And the best player on their team at doing that is Girardi. The Rangers rely on him and Staal (wasn't considered because I think Girardi's been better, both offensively and defensively) more so than the B's on Chara and the Wings on Lidstrom. The B's have 4 players who average more than 2 minutes per game on the PK: Chara, Ference, Stuart, and Boychuk. The Wings have 2 with more than 3 minutes (Lidstrom, Stuart) and 2 with more than 2 minutes (Kronwall, Salei). The Rangers have 2 with more than 3 minutes (Girardi, Staal) but everyone else plays half that, with Rozsival (traded, so now Sauer) and Eminger rounding out the top 4. Because the Rangers' second unit PK is so weak (Eminger and Sauer... seriously?), Tortorella has had to rely much more heavily on his top pair than Babcock or Julien. Giradi's blocked shots and hits make up a higher % of the Rangers' total output than anyone else for their respective teams (as the chart clearly shows). Overrated by the defence beside him (laughable, other than Staal) and the goalie behind him? The Rangers do have Lundqvist, but Thomas and Howard have been good as well. It's not like Lundqvist is significantly better than either.

You make some great points here; I am beginning to understand some of your reasoning. I do have a candidate who fits my criteria, for best 'unheralded' Norris candidate: Stephane Robidas. I won't bother describing his stats but he's had some interesting numbers playing for a Dallas club which isn't exactly known for having good defenseman, nor for playing a defensive style (Remember Crawford?).

"Why not choose a defenseman who manages to be great defensively on an defensively challenged team? That would indicate a better talent."

Because there's no one worthy of picking from Atlanta, Edmonton, Tampa Bay, Colorado, or the Islanders. A defensively challenged team has nobody that has been great defensively. I would rather much rather pick the defensive MVP on a good defensive team, one that obviously doesn't work by committee, but rather an alpha dog top pair/player. And picking a defenseman who manages to be great defensively on a defensively challenged team may be an indication of TALENT (still very unlikely), but not PRODUCTION.

Well I certainly think my question poses an interesting challenge. I do think Mark Streit had a great season two years ago where he was a +6 on a horrible Isles team, and he had more than 50 points. (I just checked, he was +5 with 56 points! He led the team in scoring. He also had 100+ blocked shots AND hits. He had 17 excess takeaways, which isn't all that bad considering he played 25 minutes a game on that horrible team.)

No one every talked about him, and the fact he makes only 4.1 m would attest to the genius of that signing. It's too bad we couldn't have acquired him; for that money he would be a great addition to our team.

I'd just like to mention that I do like your blog posts; having a good debate is always fun for me. Hope to see more from you Jason. Cheers.

[Mid-Season Awards]

Hrm.. I think I'm one of those people that disagrees with you on everything. Mostly because a lot of the picks (in my mind) are not logical or don't follow what you're saying.

I still think the Vezina should go to Thomas, if he can keep up his numbers over the entire season. The only thing holding him back at this point is the smaller number of games played. I've watched plenty of Boston games, and although their team defence is better than Anaheim, Thomas has been playing lights out. Amazing saves game after game and a raging competitive spirit has kept him going. Hiller has played great too, but the greater number of shots allowed inflate his save percentage. Luongo had one season in Florida where he had a .931 save percentage because the team had set a NHL record for shots allowed. A similar theme in Anaheim. Yet, I doubt Luongo played 'fantastically' better that season than this season.

Byfuglien and Enstrom are great offensively, but defensively I'd say their equal to the top pairing of Anaheim. Pavelec's numbers are a true reflection of his play. As you said yourself, the GAA of the thrashers as a team is pretty bad. Most of the forwards are poor defensively and they have no true shutdown guys. You yourself state they are not Norris-quality defensemen. But somehow they are good enough that they disqualify Pavelec from Vezina considerations? You can't have it both ways.

L.A. has 47 points in 43 games. They are not playing like a 'good team'. Quick is playing remarkably well given the circumstances.

So you want the Norris trophy to go to a guy that's not just about offense. Okay, I agree with you, that's better than just handing it to Mike Green. Lidstrom is an elite defenseman on both sides of the puck. But supposedly Girardi is a better candidate as an all-around defender? Complete BLASPHEMY! What about the Slovak giant, mr. Z Chara in Boston? That guy is literally a monster. He's already won the Norris, and that season he wasn't an offensive juggernaut.

When's the last time Lidstrom gave the puck away? Or allowed a breakaway? Or took a miserable penalty? The guy's play is almost SPOTLESS and he's doing it at age 40. I think a Norris trophy could be a great (possible) retirement prize. Oh, and also Detroit has middling GAA, so it's not like Howard or the rest of the defense has been playing all that well beside him. Whereas NYR has a great defensive system and a superstar goalie in Lundqvist. You keep talking about how goalie shouldn't be overrated by the defense in front of them... well Girardi is most likely overrated by the defense and goaltending beside him. Why pick him? Why not choose a defenseman who manages to be great defensively on an defensively challenged team? That would indicate a better talent.

Bieksa has been great defensively this year and is on pace for 12 goals. I'd pick him over Edler on this team. He had 28 minutes of ice time last night and he didn't even lose a step whilst shutting down Ovechkin, Backstrom, and Semin.

In terms of the Jack Adams Award... there is only one true contender. And that is Barry Trotz in Nashville. No one ever raves about the guy, so I will start. I don't know how he manages to take a team that can barely afford to ice a full roster and keep them competitive. This is happening even when they are losing talented players year after year (Forsberg, Timonen, Hartnell, Vokoun, Zidlicky, Hamhuis). The exodus just keeps on growing as the team can't keep all its stars signed. Every year he manages them as a hard working defensive club, which usually makes the playoffs, or is at least competitive. The 'best' coach is the one that can maximize the utility from his players. He has done that this season and in years past.

Ranking a player's defensive ability by looking at the team's PK rate is blindingly stupid. Luongo had a great season in 06-07 which was the major reason we led the league in penalty killing (20th in shorthanded shots allowed). But by your reasoning, that means that Kesler and burrows were the class of the league defensively? Team stats are not necessarily an indication of individual performance, and I can give you many examples of proof.

[Worst commentators ever.]

One of my pet peeves is when a announcer overrates a players' action or supposed skill level. For example, the Dallas play-by-play man (I forget his name) practically drools over himself whenever Ribeiro scores using a dirty dangle or a creative shootout move. Except, he commentary is so stupid and arrogant it makes me want to puke. It's like they forgot the standards of professionalism when they hired him.

I don't find the NY Rangers guy particularly partisan but his calls are so BORING. Literally, he says the same things over and over again, i.e. 'IT'S A POWERPLAYH GOAHL'. He's the least creative commentator I've ever heard. Same criticism goes towards Peter Loubardias, who's voice I also find annoying sometimes.

My favourite announcer has to be Rick Jeanneret because he injects the viewer with his own passion and reverence for hockey; it really reflects how much he loves the game. Plus, it's amazing how many calls he's managed to completely improvise into something magical (i.e. 'May Day' or 'Vapour Trail') It's hard not to jump out of your seat when he's commentating, sometimes I have to remind myself I'm not a Sabres fan. I am a RJ fan, for sure. I'll be very sad the day he retires.

Bob Cole is a mixed bag for me; he has some very famous and well thought out calls but often he's behind the play; I was not dissapointed when CBC replaced him with Hughson for the SC Finals. I do respect him though for the many years he has spent serving the game and the fans.

[What We Have Learned...]

Interesting points. I think it's a bit premature to make predictions about things 5 years down the road, as a lot can happen. I mean, what if the Kings semi-implode in a Chicago-like fashion due to cap issues? It could happen if they're not really smart about their contracts. Just compare the Canucks now to where we were 5 years ago. I bet people were thinking Auld = goalie of the future and that the West Coast Express would tear it up post-lockout. Or that naslund would stay with us for years and eventually retire, or that the Sedins would never pan out to their high draft positions.

I think Toronto's problem right now is that Brian Burke is just a bit too impatient. He's a honest guy who wants a great team but he's a little too easy with dealing out draft picks and doesn't know that it will have to take time to build up a team. It seems he's reluctant to admit that (see 'The Hour' interview). I like his personality, but he's more of a GM who can step in to a near-contender and add the final touch, rather than rebuild (after all he was successful in Anaheim). It's still too early to make a decision about the Kessel trade. I think Burke's notion of the team that wins a trade is the one that gets the best player is true. And for now, Kessel is better than Seguin.

Florida doesn't seem much of a surprise at all, given that at the moment they are on pace for a similar total as last year. A hard-working team which seems to lose talented players to other teams (see Jokinen, Bouwmeester, Horton, Luongo, Jovanovski) for better or for worse. DeBoer is a good coach and Vokoun gives them a chance most nights.

It's interesting what you said about Ovechkin doing something 20 times even if he failed the previous 20, and I find Kovalchuk is exactly the same way. I was watching a highlight video of Kovalchuk and it was all the same play. I do think though that Ovechkin's physicality and unreal release give him enough unpredictability; he's the best sniper in the league in terms of his consistent scoring.

Oh, the Adams should go to Craig Ramsay, not Guy Boucher.