This generation of players -led by Crosby- will certainly go down in Canadian lore. That second Cup and most recent international gold vaults him into rarefied hockey air.
2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs
-
@Young:
No Gargantua this year?, well at least we won’t be subjected to empty declarations of impending victory.
I am not sure. He’s been MIA since I got a non-committal “Dare I do this again” email from him.
He did get his to me a little late last year, but it wasn’t an issue. I hope he joins again, he provided some very funny material last year.
-
I got a 4 point night out of Hornqvist (although I think lots of people took him in that garbage box).
-
@Young:
I got a 4 point night out of Hornqvist (although I think lots of people took him in that garbage box).
I did to and was happy that I took him. It was either Hornqvist or James Neal… but i am unsure of the NSH-ANA series. Plus James Neal is a petulant dirt bag… so, yeah. Hornqvist.
If you like Pittsburgh to beat the Rangers, Hornqvist is actually a pretty underrated pick. He could have easily been bumped up to the higher box, but it was too stacked. I suppose I could have knocked Nash down to box 3, what with the rather poor year he had.
-
I’ve got no problem with the way the boxes were done, you’re always gonna have one or two that guide your hand to some extent.
-
@Young:
I’ve got no problem with the way the boxes were done, you’re always gonna have one or two that guide your hand to some extent.
Yeah, it is always a bit of a challenge. I go through about a dozen different preliminary revisions before I settle on the final version. In no particular order, these are the attributes of each player that I must weigh:
- season point totals
- star status / widely known name
- known past playoff performance
- perceived team favoritism to go deep
- position played
- previous placement in the pool
- usage on the power play and penalty kill
- number of players available in boxes from a given team
- injury status (long, term, short term, best guess)
- balanced likelihood to start (goalies)
- I also try to balance the number of East/West conf players in each box, best as possible.
There is a lot to consider… After the tenth revision, I get pretty close to a perfect balance. Never totally satisfied though.
-
Go Stars! They may not be the favorites, but it is my team. At least, it is a good start. :-D
-
Go Stars! They may not be the favorites, but it is my team. At least, it is a good start. :-D
As I said to someone else, Minnesota is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
That takes nothing away from Dallas… if nothing else they will be the napalm that blows them up.
-
Go Stars! They may not be the favorites, but it is my team. At least, it is a good start. :-D
As I said to someone else, Minnesota is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.
That takes nothing away from Dallas… if nothing else they will be the napalm that blows them up.
Your probably right, because the Western Conference is so deep. Eastern Conference used to be that way, but it is kind of reversed now.
-
I’m heavy on Anaheim in the pool, but watching that Sharks vs Kings game last night (WOW!)… I got a little worried. If there is a team other than the Sharks or Kings that is going to the final… they will have to go through one of them first.
-
@Young:
I’m heavy on Anaheim in the pool, but watching that Sharks vs Kings game last night (WOW!)… I got a little worried. If there is a team other than the Sharks or Kings that is going to the final… they will have to go through one of them first.
Whoever goes to the Stanley Cup, will deserve it, because everyone is so good, at any given night.
-
@Young:
I’m heavy on Anaheim in the pool, but watching that Sharks vs Kings game last night (WOW!)… I got a little worried. If there is a team other than the Sharks or Kings that is going to the final… they will have to go through one of them first.
The West as a whole is ridiculously tough, both in terms of the physical play and the great talent involved.
But yeah, between the three California teams, they are all so dominant (or have the potential to be at any moment), it is hard to say which one will come out on top. I went with San Jose, Dallas and Washington mostly. Really hoping that this is finally the year for the Sharks. Goaltending there is the only concern for me. Jones is pretty untested, playoff wise. Maybe I ought to have reconsidered taking him as my goalie… at least that was my thought when I saw the .875 Save % from last night. Yikes. That has got to get better.
-
Axis roll looks like are Hawks are done. But we know they seem to like being down 3 to 1 first round. :x
Nice move by Shaw. :x :x :x :x
-
@SS:
Axis roll looks like are Hawks are done. But we know they seem to like being down 3 to 1 first round. :x
Nice move by Shaw. :x :x :x :x
I watched the 3rd period of that game, CRAZY!!!
-
I was looking forward to watching that game, but was so tired I fell asleep. Even before the Wings game was over.
-
Was talking to a buddy at work who is also in a “pick a player in each box” type of pool, and I was telling him how I picked Anaheim’s goalie Gibson, but was pissed when I found out it was Anderson who got the shutout last night. He told me that in his pool, you pick two teams and you get the goalie points for those teams no matter who is in net. This made a lot of sense to me considering that only half the teams in the playoffs have bonified #1 goalies while the rest have starters on short leashes, and equally capable backups ready to jump in, not to mention an early injury to a star goalie that might kill any poolies hopes.
-
@Young:
Was talking to a buddy at work who is also in a “pick a player in each box” type of pool, and I was telling him how I picked Anaheim’s goalie Gibson, but was pissed when I found out it was Anderson who got the shutout last night. He told me that in his pool, you pick two teams and you get the goalie points for those teams no matter who is in net. This made a lot of sense to me considering that only half the teams in the playoffs have bonified #1 goalies while the rest have starters on short leashes, and equally capable backups ready to jump in, not to mention an early injury to a star goalie that might kill any poolies hopes.
I have gone back and forth on this issue myself, because there have always been (and will always be) goalie controversies when doing this pool.
Currently, in the pool I run the assumed “starting” goalie for each playoff team is listed and you get to pick two… as you well know. I do my best to pick out who that goalie will actually be, especially given how reluctant teams are to publish that if there is anything approaching a “controversy”. If one of the goalies listed ends up not playing for any reason, you are kinda SOL. Which sucks. I do understand that.
It would be easier for me definitely) and for all of the pool players to just list the teams, say pick (2) of them and you get points for that team’s goalie(s) regardless of who it is or why they are playing.
However, my rationale for not doing so is this:
-
Everyone has the same choices and is therefore on equal footing. The same, obviously, can be said of the picking by the team method. But anyone can just pick two teams that they think are good or were in the regular season. The only two parts of my pool that really benefit from some level of NHL knowledge are the Wildcard and Goaltender boxes. This knowledge can be gained by anyone though, it just is usually had by those who pay attention to the league and are up on current happenings.
-
Simply picking goalies by teams (rather than by individuals) becomes more like a bracket and less like the type of pool that I find interesting.
-
Goaltender performance is an enigma and challenge to predict; that is true of most all teams, but definitely so for some teams in particular. This may be the result of long team history of goalie drama, goaltender inexperience, injury and poor late season performance, reputation as a playoff choker, among other factors. I believe that a pool such as the one I run, is simultaneously the most stressful and the most rewarding when you as the poolie have to weigh the factors of the individual goaltender you are choosing. This really makes you think about what teams you assume are going to do well.
- Take last year for example… I was one of the people who picked Corey Crawford and began cursing myself for doing so when Crawford had multiple terrible performances in the first round, to the point where he got benched and Scott Darling came in and began winning games. I very nearly thought I was ruined then and there, but fortunately they ended up starting Crawford for the rest of the playoffs. It was pretty inexplicable, but in hockey random stuff like that happens.
- Continuing from above, if only about half the teams in the playoffs have true No. 1 goalies who can be implicitly trusted as being “THE guy”, it forces you to predict what you think will happen. It is a hard thing to do, for sure, and most times it will be chalked up to a lucky guess, but you look really smart if you play it right… not to mention that your decisions can distance you from your competitors in a way that would be less possible if it was ‘pick by team’.
Ultimately, I think it more challenging and more interesting to weigh the pros and cons and play it safe on a reliable No.1 or gamble on a team/goaltender you just are not totally sure of. But like I said, everyone has the same choices, not everyone has the same knowledge or insight. That is where a degree of skill can benefit a longstanding hockey fan. There is a lot in hockey that is a crapshoot.
-
-
@Young:
Was talking to a buddy at work who is also in a “pick a player in each box” type of pool, and I was telling him how I picked Anaheim’s goalie Gibson, but was pissed when I found out it was Anderson who got the shutout last night. He told me that in his pool, you pick two teams and you get the goalie points for those teams no matter who is in net. This made a lot of sense to me considering that only half the teams in the playoffs have bonified #1 goalies while the rest have starters on short leashes, and equally capable backups ready to jump in, not to mention an early injury to a star goalie that might kill any poolies hopes.
I have gone back and forth on this issue myself, because there have always been (and will always be) goalie controversies when doing this pool.
Currently, in the pool I run the assumed “starting” goalie for each playoff team is listed and you get to pick two… as you well know. I do my best to pick out who that goalie will actually be, especially given how reluctant teams are to publish that if there is anything approaching a “controversy”. If one of the goalies listed ends up not playing for any reason, you are kinda SOL. Which sucks. I do understand that.
It would be easier for me definitely) and for all of the pool players to just list the teams, say pick (2) of them and you get points for that team’s goalie(s) regardless of who it is or why they are playing.
However, my rationale for not doing so is this:
-
Everyone has the same choices and is therefore on equal footing. The same, obviously, can be said of the picking by the team method. But anyone can just pick two teams that they think are good or were in the regular season. The only two parts of my pool that really benefit from some level of NHL knowledge are the Wildcard and Goaltender boxes. This knowledge can be gained by anyone though, it just is usually had by those who pay attention to the league and are up on current happenings.
-
Simply picking goalies by teams (rather than by individuals) becomes more like a bracket and less like the type of pool that I find interesting.
-
Goaltender performance is an enigma and challenge to predict; that is true of most all teams, but definitely so for some teams in particular. This may be the result of long team history of goalie drama, goaltender inexperience, injury and poor late season performance, reputation as a playoff choker, among other factors. Â I believe that a pool such as the one I run, is simultaneously the most stressful and the most rewarding when you as the poolie have to weigh the factors of the individual goaltender you are choosing. This really makes you think about what teams you assume are going to do well.
- Take last year for example… I was one of the people who picked Corey Crawford and began cursing myself for doing so when Crawford had multiple terrible performances in the first round, to the point where he got benched and Scott Darling came in and began winning games. I very nearly thought I was ruined then and there, but fortunately they ended up starting Crawford for the rest of the playoffs. It was pretty inexplicable, but in hockey random stuff like that happens.
- Continuing from above, if only about half the teams in the playoffs have true No. 1 goalies who can be implicitly trusted as being “THE guy”, it forces you to predict what you think will happen. It is a hard thing to do, for sure, and most times it will be chalked up to a lucky guess, but you look really smart if you play it right… not to mention that your decisions can distance you from your competitors in a way that would be less possible if it was ‘pick by team’.
Ultimately, I think it more challenging and more interesting to weigh the pros and cons and play it safe on a reliable No.1 or gamble on a team/goaltender you just are not totally sure of. But like I said, everyone has the same choices, not everyone has the same knowledge or insight. That is where a degree of skill can benefit a longstanding hockey fan. There is a lot in hockey that is a crapshoot.
Shut up… you had me at hello :cry:
-
-
@Young:
Shut up… you had me at hello :cry:
:wink: I know.
-
@SS:
Axis roll looks like are Hawks are done. But we know they seem to like being down 3 to 1 first round. :x
Nice move by Shaw. :x :x :x :x
Will be a tough climb back, if at all possible since St Louis looks to be a different team than in past seasons. Tarasenko is tough with that wrister.
-
Woohoo, Dallas pulled out of Minnesota with a win. Tough win. At one point it was 6 on 3, because one guys stick broke. Intense!!! :-D
Suggested Topics
