Another Reason to Believe in a Comeback Season - The 2010-11 New Jersey Devils by PDO
by John Fischer on Jul 24, 2011 7:59 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
PrintRegardless of what happens in these coming weeks, I think it's fair to say that all fans of the New Jersey Devils are hoping for a comeback season in 2011-12 after missing the playoffs in 2010-11. There's nothing wrong with dreaming, but is such a goal reasonable? Why should we believe this team should do better?
Well, one reason is the hope of fewer injuries - especially from certain player who wears #9. A full season out of him would be Another reason would be a new head coach. Whatever you may think of Peter DeBoer, there's little reason to think he'll flop as spectacularly as John MacLean. An additional reason would be the team's shooting percentage. It was absolutely horrid, to a point where I don't think it's out of the question to think it is unlikely it'll be as bad for a second straight season. This is a reason I personally believe in, at least.
Related to that, I'd like to offer another one: PDO. Like the shooting percentage, the majority of Devils players were so low in this advanced stat that many of them really have nowhere to go but up. I'll explain more after the jump.
PDO (which doesn't stand for anything) is a stat that just combines the on-ice team shooting percentage plus the on-ice team save percentage when that player is on the ice. It can be done for any situation, but it has the most meaning when only looking at 5-on-5 play, the most common situation in hockey. It's a sum that can quickly show whether a team or player is above the base value of 1; where higher than that is better and lower than that is worse. This is an important point, since PDO is usually an unsustainable value, as Tyler Dellow found way back in 2008. A team's or player's PDO will regress towards their true mean over time. The exceptionally talented player will be able to maintain a PDO above 1 consistently, whereas poor players will suffer.
It's not a perfect stat, however. A skater's PDO is going to benefit playing in front of a good goalie over a poor one, and as per Tyler Dellow, a skater isn't necessarily going to have a great effect on on-ice save percentage. He can suffer from a low on-ice save percentage from the first half of the season, benefit from a higher on-ice save percentage in the second half, and come out even despite not necessarily being any different, much less better. I think it works better as a "sanity check" - a quick and dirty way of seeing whether
That being said, the Devils were incredibly low in this stat last season. Behind the Net stores PDO, with 1000 as it's baseline, and notice how low it was for the 2010-11 Devils (minimum 10 games played). Only 5 Devils were above the baseline of 1000: Nick Palmieri, Jacob Josefson, Mark Fraser, Mark Fayne, and Mattias Tedenby. All except Fraser were rookies and most of them had the benefit of playing more under Jacques Lemaire than John MacLean. I find that to be quite interesting, as they haven't had enough experience at this level to really estimate their true value. I'm leaning on thinking it may fall just as a result of playing more games and still developing as players at this level; but I could be wrong.
The rest of the team were below the baseline. Vladimir Zharkov and Colin White just finished below the baseline, so I'm not concerned about that. I am concerned about the fact that 20 Devils that had PDO values below 985. That's pretty awful, and indicative of the some poor shooting luck that plagued the team on top of some poor on-ice save percentages. At the same time, Devils fans shouldn't look at that and wince. Most of these 17 players are veterans, such as Patrik Elias, David Clarkson, Ilya Kovlachuk, and Henrik Tallinder. Because they have considerable NHL experience, the fact is that they have had superior values in the past. I show that off in this post I did last year on the team's PDO. In general, you'll notice the PDOs in 2007-08 tended to be low as well, and those same Devils saw increases in the following season.
In retrospect, some of my expectations from that post - namely thinking Ilya Kovalchuk maintaining a high PDO by way of shooting percentage - turned out to be laughably wrong. However, it does have evidence that most these players have been more fortunate and been better in the past. Their 2010-11 PDO is not indicative of their true value, and it should rise up to their true value. That will mean better shooting percentages (which I believe will bounce back) and better on-ice shooting percentages (fewer errors by the guys in front of the goalie will help a little in this regard). It won't be across the board, I suspect Rod Pelley, who has finished around 980 before, will remain where he is; but I expect Kovalchuk, Zajac, Elias, Parise, Clarkson, etc. to see improvement in either stat - which will lead to a better PDO.
What about the new additions of Eric Boulton and Cam Janssen? While I don't think either will contribute a lot to the Devils on the ice, I don't see a reason to be too concerned about their PDO. Per Behind the Net, Janssen only suffered a really bad PDO last season and Boulton has stayed above the baseline in recent seasons.
Ultimately, a better PDO is a quick-and-dirty sign that things are going better both in terms of luck and results for the team. Again, it's just a summation of on-ice team shooting percentage and on-ice team save percentage; and it regresses to it's true value over time. The 2010-11 Devils suffered across the board among it's veterans, with only a handful of rookies to finish above the baseline of 1 (or in Behind the Net's case, 1000). We know the veterans have done better in the past; so we know what they had in 2010-1 is not their true value. Knowing that, we should expect improvement - which will come with better performance and results. Hopefully, it will be enough to put the Devils back where we want them: contending in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
What do you think of this additional reason to believe that the Devils will go back to the playoffs in 2011-12? Do you think much of it, do you think it's just one more reason and that's all, or do you think this doesn't mean all that much? Please leave your answers and other thoughts in the comments. Thanks for reading.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like many of the advanced stats, but I’m not sure I think this is that significant. There are factors that players can’t control (well, same with +/-). I suppose that’s true with many, if not most stats, but hey, if it proves the Devils should be playoff-bound next season, I sure hope it’s a valid stat.
DownGoesAvery. Check out the hockey blog that's shaking the world: Down Goes Avery and on Twitter (@DownGoesAvery ). And now
Down Goes Avery on Facebook
It’s just a quick-and-dirty indicator that things are going close to normal, too horribly wrong, or too well to be sustainable. 99-101 is probably normal, once you consider goaltending, but the 09-10 Caps for example were at 103.1 (laughably high for a team without Hasek in net) and these Devils at .978 (insanely low for a team with a definite above-average goalie in net).
Corey Pronman did write a piece outlining your thoughts, but it seems he’s taken down his blog (“The Hock Project”).
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jul 24, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I find that to be quite interesting, as they haven’t had enough experience at this level to really estimate their true value.
there is no such thing as a true PDO value.
i assume the devils’ even strength shooting percentage will be closer to 8%, although they still have too many garbage shooters like rolston, clarkson, zharkov, and pelley. the real concern is the save percentage, with 2 goalies who are 39 and 38 respectively. the bottom could easily fall out of both guys.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
I really think we should just throw out the stats from last season. How much of the stats was the lack of a clear defined system by Mclean and how much was going back to Lemaire’s tried and true? It was so erratic that you really need a good season under the same coach to determine the stats.
Let’s see how they perform this year.
True, we definitely weren’t as bad as we were with Maclean and we definitely weren’t as good as that 23-3-2 run. Last season was a whole different animal and is one that stats won’t show as much as they would in more consistent seasons. (Whether it’s consistently good average or poor doesn’t matter).
Hockey used to be a game played by men until Bettman and his incompetent Marketing crew from the NBA office has tried to make it as an extention of the Ice Capes with all the rules to protect the smaller European imports. All of these new stats in Hockey are for losers who never played the sports and can be manipulated any which way you want !
Could you manipulate them for us plz? kthanx.
by Zelepukin on Jul 25, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hockey used to be a game played by men until Bettman and his incompetent Marketing crew from the NBA office has tried to make it as an extention of the Ice Capes with all the rules to protect the smaller European imports.
Besides being xenophobic and bordering on racism, this statement is markedly untrue. Let’s break it down:
- The Board of Governors, not Gary Bettman, approved the rules changes implemented after the lock out.
- Men still play the game. If you mean to not-so-subtly imply that hitting and fighting are the manly pursuits that have been legislated out of the game to protect those pathetically small Europeans, then you’re wrong. The year before the lockout there were 1611 major penalties issued. Last year there were 1346. Less? Yes (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing). Gone? Absolutely not (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing).
- Smaller European imports? Surely you must be referring to those wimps coming out of Slovakia, Zdeno Chara (6’9 255 lbs) and Boris Valabik (6’7 255 lbs), or that miniscule Kazakh Nik Antropov (6’6 230 lbs), or even those tiny Russians like Alexander Ovechkin (6’2 233 lbs) and even Ilya Kovalchuk (6’3 230 lbs). I mean, they hardly compare in size or toughness with those “home-grown” talents from North America like Brian Gionta (5’7 173 lbs), Martin St. Louis (5’8 176 lbs), Tyler Ennis (5’9 157 lbs) or Nathan Gerbe (5’5 178 lbs). Getting by with just their speed, skill and determination. Who wants to watch that? Buncha European sissies.
- Most of the other rules had little to nothing to do at all with the prototypical (stereotypical?) European style: shootout; goaltender pad-size reduction; trapezoid; shrinking the neutral zone by 4 feet; teams icing the puck can’t change personnel; shooting puck over glass is a penalty; tag-up offsides reinstated.
- It’s spelled “Ice Capades.”
Then there’s this nugget:
All of these new stats in Hockey are for losers who never played the sports and can be manipulated any which way you want !
Pray tell, how do you think coaches, GMs and team scouts analyze, sort and rate players, prospects and lines… gut-feelings and instinct? You are aware, are you not, that people as intimately involved in the sport as one can get (even ones who’ve played!!!) rely on statistics and the like to do their jobs, right?
These new-fangled stats you’re so belligerent toward are for helping understand the game on a deeper level… even if you haven’t played before (which, for the record, is perhaps the stupidest arguments against statistics I’ve ever heard). Ignore them if you wish, though in doing so in such a manner you come across as the neighborhood grouch standing on his front porch shaking his fist at the local kids and yelling at them to get off his lawn.
As to their being manipulated, I’m a bit perplexed by your stance here concerning this. Sure they can be, as anything can be, but this article is hardly trying to persuade people to one side or another of a heated debate through complex formulas, number crunching and lots of big, fancy words (admit it, those scare you). It’s merely, as the title suggests, a different angle to look at things that suggests that next year will probably be better than last year.
by elesias on Jul 25, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I’ll admit it, I wait for these EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed? - Il Duce
Disagree
The only stats that matter are grittiness, country of origin, and playoff-beard-growing-ability.
Status quo.
And, of course, being a wuss and being too young to understand how the game is meant to be played.
Do I miss the era where Scott Stevens could throw his perfect, clean, monster hits? Of course I do. Am I a grouchy old man who is scared of numbers? No. Am I…um…am I a loser who thinks only North Americans are good people/hockey players? No….no I am not. But someone here is.
Yeah, America is always number one at everything, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a wussy wuss wuss who loves bad hockey and is stupid and stuff. Why did all those kids pick on me in high school and why am I still angry about it? sobs quietly at the site of a European on the street in front of the house
Europeans are ruining hockey! They’re too good at it! Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble! They’re tekin er jobs!
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 25, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I love it when you rail against people like this grouchy old man. Hey, where is 68devils anyway? At least he starts off with an idea and presents it, however poorly. Then he gets pissy when you respond. This guy just gets preemptively pissy.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 25, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Don Cherry, is that you? Because we’d gladly be honored to have you comment on our site.
Hell on Ice/In Lou We Trust/Twitter
Talking toilet, you may call me Jane.
by Kevin Sellathamby on Jul 26, 2011 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the bottom line is that the Devils were unsustainably bad for a good portion of last year. I’m sure there are many stats to back that fact up.
Status quo.
I still don’t understand why people think that the team’s poor shooting percentage last season was largely the result of bad luck. Yes, I have read the stuff from Gabe Dejardins on this subject multiple times and, while I am willing to accept the idea that luck often plays a large role in shootig percentage, I am not willing to accept this idea being applied to an entire team that suffered low shooting percentages for a whole season.
The chances of an entire team having career low to near career low shooting percentages for almost every player of significance for an entire season largely due to bad luck is probably the same as one’s chances of winning the lottery. Honestly, how could one think this? I completely understand if someone thinks this is the case for an individual player, but when an entire team suffers this problem, it must be due to the entire team doing things that lower shooting percentages. Poor defense, poor offense, poor play, poor strategy, etc., can all contribute to lower shooting percentages. And while one might be able to show that none of these things contributes significantly to shooting percentage individually, all of them and more put together likely does.
The idea that just about every significant player on a team suffered drastically lower-than-usual shooting percentages for a whole season due mostly to luck seems ridiculous to me. It’s a big enough sample size and it’s over a period of time long enough to say that it was largely the result of poor play, strategy, and other factors. I just don’t understand how an entire team can do that based mostly on luck. It doesn’t make sense.
Sometimes it seems like we put too much stock in statistical analysis. I love statistical analysis — it’s one of the main reasons I read this site — but they simply cannot account for some things, and too rely too heavily on them is folly and often leads to ignoring the root problems. Rather than say this is based on luck, we should accept the fact that the Devils played poorly for a good portion of last season and their shooting percentages suffered as a result.
I think the best and simplest argument for my position is this: the Devils did not play poorly in the first half of last season (and, let’s not forget, most of the last ten or so games) in large part because their shooting percentages were low. Anyone who watched that team knows that they had problems in just about every possible area. When you watch a team struggle in every element of hockey, saying that their shooting percentages were low because of luck just seems crazy. If everything else sucks, the fact that one other elements sucks shouldn’t be attributed to luck. There was ample evidence of suckitude throughout, so I don’t see why anyone should attribute suckitude in the area of shooting percentages to luck.
Most of it was probably how they were worked in practice, and their desire. I’m pretty sure that our mentality was shoot first think later which was backed by our shooting numbers in those games and that really never works. To get a good shot on net you need to be in a scoring position or have traffic or indeed have some luck involved. The thing is most of the time you control your luck, as we’ve seen many many times before. There is a reason why you can anticipate a goal coming once pressure mounts.
Exactly. And if you control your own luck it’s not luck. Luck isn’t something you control. When good things happen because you play the game right, it usually isn’t luck; it’s the result of you playing good hockey.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 25, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a reason why you can anticipate a goal coming once pressure mounts.
this reason is called confirmation bias.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
by Triumph44 on Jul 25, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yes. while goals often happen when pressure mounts, goals also often don’t happen when pressure mounts.
the idea that you control your luck is ridiculous on its face, but i don’t expect someone who thinks that washington changing their system was the cause of them shooting much worse, percentage-wise, to admit that.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
And how does the system change doesn’t make sense, if you have a system where you have more of defensive liabilities but have your forwards significantly higher in your own zone or up in the neutral zone, you get more oddman rushes / breakaways/ rush chances. Those rushes are high quality scoring chances, which would obviously increase your shooting % rather than if you have a defensive system get into the offensive zone and try to break through the opposition’s defenses. It makes sense in my eyes, you have different beliefs.
right well they must’ve changed it the year before too, you know, since their shooting percentage was the exact same in 2008-09 as it was in 2010-11. but i’m sure boudreau changed the system in 2010 – why he didn’t keep the same system where Washington had a PDO of 1038 the year before, that just doesn’t add up.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
we went over this already. all even strength:
2007-08: 8.1%
2008-09: 8.2%
2009-10: 11.0%
2010-11: 8.1%
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
Well then, not sure what to think of it, but still I don’t believe what so ever that goals come from mostly luck. That would mean Kovalchuk is a luckier player than Rod Pelley.
that’s not what’s being argued, and kovalchuk has legitimate, proven shooting talent.
shooting percentage has a large element of luck, especially in a given season. what doesn’t have much of a chance element is generating shots. the more shots you generate, the more chances the puck has to go in. furthermore, getting to better spots on the ice, that’s big too, and that’s not really controlled by luck either.
Arctic Ice Hockey on shooting percentage
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
Ok agreed, but claiming the difference between the first half and the second half shooting to be luck is not reasonable.
sure it is. the second half shooting wasn’t particularly good, either.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
Sometimes it seems like we put too much stock in statistical analysis. I love statistical analysis — it’s one of the main reasons I read this site — but they simply cannot account for some things, and too rely too heavily on them is folly and often leads to ignoring the root problems. Rather than say this is based on luck, we should accept the fact that the Devils played poorly for a good portion of last season and their shooting percentages suffered as a result.
but this is just two sides of the same coin. the point is that whether or not the devils were playing poorly or getting unlucky, they were a much better team than they showed during that time.
http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - the blog with three first lines
by Triumph44 on Jul 25, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, I have read the stuff from Gabe Dejardins on this subject multiple times and, while I am willing to accept the idea that luck often plays a large role in shootig percentage, I am not willing to accept this idea being applied to an entire team that suffered low shooting percentages for a whole season.
Then you need to read Gabe Desjardens’ articles again and notice that the Devils as a whole shot 6.7% for the entire season – the worst percentage in the league by a team in the last four seasons, a depth that the Devils haven’t come close to hitting prior.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 25, 2011 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand how that supports your argument instead of mine. The Devils had the worst percentage in the league by a team in the last four seasons. Great! So, when we saw them playing horribly under Maclean, they hit basically one of the lowest points in franchise history I imagine. We all know that they were playing terribly, right? So why claim that it was largely coincidence that their shooting percentage was also historically low?
Historically bad play = historically low shooting percentage. Period.
And I don’t need to read his articles again. You think his stuff is gospel. I think it’s good but not always right. For some reason, you continually refuse to accept the fact that my view of his work is different from yours. And it’s not that different, considering that I have repeatedly accepted that luck has a role. I simply don’t believe that it plays as large a role as he claims in every instance, all the time. I don’t believe that. I don’t need to read his stuff again because I understood it. Why do I need to put as much stock in a blogger’s work as you do?
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 25, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re arguing the same thing. A coaching change and plain regression to the mean can look identical by the numbers. We can’t quantify how or why coaches are constantly making changes on the fly. They just are, and it shows up as “luck” when it’s not our everyday “coinflip-style” luck. We do know that if things are going horribly wrong in terms of shooting percentage, either by plain coinflip luck, small changes, or a combination of the two, the percentages will get back to normal within a fairly short period of time.
Applying the research on shooting and save percentages here doesn’t get us to the conclusion that the Devils can do the exact same thing as in 10-11 and get much better results. It gets to the conclusion that you can be pretty confident the Devils will be better because somehow, their shooting (and probably save) percentages will improve drastically.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jul 25, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
We do know that if things are going horribly wrong in terms of shooting percentage, either by plain coinflip luck, small changes, or a combination of the two, the percentages will get back to normal within a fairly short period of time.
(emphasis added)
Exactly! The fact that it didn’t until a new coach was brought in, the players were whipped into shape (remember, it took a few games after Lemaire came in, which is more evidence because it shows that the team had to understand and implement his changes first before improving), and the team started playing better shows that it was the result of poor play instead of luck. Moreover, the shooting percentages still didn’t go up to normal, which reflects what we all know: the Devils really weren’t quite as good as their “miracle run” might suggest. So many games were 1 goal games, overtime wins, etc.
The fact that the percentages didn’t get back to normal within a short period of time AND didn’t really improve until drastic changes were made demonstrates that luck wasn’t the largest factor. The only way it could have been was if (1) it was largely a coincidence that their historically low shooting percentage occurred at the same time as their historically bad play, and (2) it was largely a coincidence that the percentage rose when they made changes and, by extension, improved their play.
by Dr. Witticism on Jul 26, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
(remember, it took a few games after Lemaire came in, which is more evidence because it shows that the team had to understand and implement his changes first before improving), and the team started playing better shows that it was the result of poor play instead of luck.
Regardless of whether this is right or not, it depends on your bias, I guess. Hawerchuk predicted (implicitly in his comments/posts) that N.J would bounce back, although not to the extent they did. He didn’t predict when. We don’t know whether the coaching change and percentages regression have simply a coincidental or causal relationship. The timing makes the story fit well, that’s for sure.
On the other hand, Lemaire last coached the team in 2009-2010, right? I think they could pretty easily have switched systems back.
Bottom line, I really think you’re wrong if you think the true talent of the Devils under Maclean was the abysmal record and percentages they were getting. Outshooting teams usually rise to the top, and I think 4 times out of 5 the Devils won’t be that terrible and Maclean is still coaching them today. I think it was mainly a matter of time. Such terrible percentages don’t last very long.
Moreover, the shooting percentages still didn’t go up to normal
It did get pretty close. 7.8% is a little below average for ES. Give them three more goals and it’s average (just under 8%, as far as I know). But that save percentage rebounded big time. I don’t think Brodeur was the replacement-level talent he played like for half the season (if you argue defensive breakdowns and whatnot, well, that all did happen, but were the Devils in your opinion actually worse than teams like Ottawa, St. Louis, and Edmonton?). Luck, I think.
Whether you think that’s coming on the short end of too many coinflips or some short term issues like lack of confidence or poor conditioning is up to you.
The fact that the percentages didn’t get back to normal within a short period of time
Depends on what you define “short” as. Half a season sounds pretty short to me.
The fact that the percentages didn’t get back to normal within a short period of time AND didn’t really improve until drastic changes were made demonstrates that luck wasn’t the largest factor. The only way it could have been was if (1) it was largely a coincidence that their historically low shooting percentage occurred at the same time as their historically bad play, and (2) it was largely a coincidence that the percentage rose when they made changes and, by extension, improved their play.
This is essentially a tautology, no? You’re equating bad results—caused by bad percentages—with bad play, and saying this coincided with the bad percentages.
Again, I think everyone agrees here more-or-less that NJ’s sh/sv% numbers were unsustainable. By some combination of changes to tactics, personnel, and plain old shooting luck, they’d whip back into shape sooner or later.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jul 26, 2011 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh right, one more thing...
I’m starting to think that Eric Boulton is a bit better than we (or at least I) thought. His stats are actually pretty good for a fourth liner. Does anyone agree?
they’re very 4th line. I don’t have a problem wiht him replacing Mair. I have a problem with him making more than Mair and playing for a team that also signed Cam a few days before. But the Devs certianly could have done worse.
The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed? - Il Duce
I have a problem with him making more than Mair and playing for a team that also signed Cam a few days before.
Well that’s definitely true!
Is there a stat that differentiates between shots and quality shots? I know that which constitutes quality shooting is subjective and any shot on goal can lead to a positive outcome but perhaps such a distinction may be helpful.
What you may be looking for are scoring chances, which some fans record game-by-game for their respective teams.
As far as I know, no one records scoring chances for Devils games. I’d love to see it myself, but I’m not sure I want to put in that much work game-per-game. Though, if someone else wants to, I’d love to help them out.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Jul 25, 2011 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
There is one site that tracks shot quality with regards to shot type and shot location, which I think is a pretty good model (at least at ES). It appears as though the site has been down for some time now, though, not sure why. The author’s blog is hockeynumbers.blogspot.com
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jul 25, 2011 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
No No NOO!
Everyone has it all wrong!
The poor shooting percentage last season has nothing to do with poor shots, poor strategies, luck or law of averages or voodoo dolls!
Last season the Kovy contract was finally the last straw with Bettman, The hockey media and league officials. This might seem ludicrous, but trust me! This is what went on last season.
It was ordered by Bettman and competition committee that Devils opponents could use smaller nets. 5 1/2 × 3 1/2 feet. Also the pucks used during Devils games were bigger and heavier. Not by much. Just enough so that when they flew into the stands, fans didn’t notice.
I know what your thinking….“I didn’t notice the nets being any smaller.” See it was real hard to tell from TV or in the stands. Because it was only one net on the ice that was smaller. Also at the end of every period they would move it to the other end of the ice and switch it with the other net. This made it very difficult to spot.
There is also the rumor that all opposing goalies where allowed to wear their pre2008 goalie equipment. This one I’m not sure about. But it is probably true.
See so you can stop with all the other bogus theories.
I’m in the middle of gathering all my proof right now! As soon as I present it to the Devils corporate office. They won’t have this problem next season.
Shooting Percentage doesn't matter
Why does shooting percentage matter? Sure it looks nice on the stat sheet but every game is different. Sometimes it takes 40 shots to win and other times it takes 15. We have to start putting the puck in the net more and not worry about how many shots we are taking vs. the goals we are scoring.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
Related FanShots on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Shawinigan wins, advances to Memorial Cup semifinal
- Cataractes romp to 6-1 win, eliminate Oil Kings from Memorial Cup
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
