What Do You Think?
The Kovalchuk Saga: Assigning Blame
by Tom Stivali on Sep 2, 2010 8:58 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
39 comments
I had planned to write about Nick Palmieri, the Devils overall right wing system depth or minute distribution on the power play but I just can’t. Not when the contract negotiation to retain Ilya Kovalchuk has gotten to the far reaches of absurdity, and I really can't focus on other issues right now. Normally I love the hockey offseason and all the speculation and forecasting that comes along with it, but as we approach training camp (you all realize training camp starts in 15 days, right?) the top focus for fans and even team management’s minds is: Ilya Kovalchuk’s contract approval or lack thereof.
How did we get here? The Standard Player Contract (SPC) is 11 pages. Here is the CBA. Turn to page 244 and see for yourself. It's standard, very little editing. This process of negotiating a second contract, acceptable to the Devils, Kovalchuk and the league has taken over a month. So I think all of them deserve a certain amount of blame in why this process has dragged on. So, as I repeatedly hit refresh on my blackberry or twitter in search of news on a process that never seems to end, I decided to think about and write about who to assign blame to in this situation. Read on after the jump for my thoughts!
Which New Jersey Devils Will Be Protected in the SBN NHL Mock Expansion Draft?
by John Fischer on Aug 30, 2010 6:21 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
17 comments
SBN NHL has been setting up a mock expansion draft in the past few days. Fans have been able to vote on the cities as well as the nicknames of those cities in this Storystream. The people collectively decided upon Winnipeg and Quebec City as the teams, and nicknames could very well be the "Jets" and the "Nordiques." I suppose nostalgia is too hard to resist even for an extensive thought experiment. So much for forward-thinking. Anyway.
Now, the fun begins and where we come in. Every blog on the network will come up with their protection lists for their respective teams. For those who are unaware, when the NHL expanded in the past, the current clubs were allowed to protect only part of their roster. The unprotected players would be available for the expansion teams to select to fill out their inaugural roster. The last expansion draft was done for the 2000-01 season for the Minnesota Wild and the Columbus Blue Jackets. While I'm sure there would be additional factors for an expansion team to consider if there's one today, such as the salary cap floor, SBN NHL has decided to use those regulations for this mock expansion draft.
At a minimum, this is a fun exercise to determine which New Jersey Devils are valuable enough to keep around and who you'd like to see dumped. I can already guess of one name that comes to mind. Find out what the rules are; see who Kevin, Tom, and I protected if we were in charge of New Jersey; and discuss who you would protect. All of this after the jump.
8/31 Update: Matthew has a protection list, so I have added it to this post. Remember to make your comments because I'll make my consensus list tomorrow night!
Learning About the Dallas Stars Offseason from Defending Big D
by John Fischer on Aug 24, 2010 8:00 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
9 comments
The SBN Hockey (SBNH?) group has a series of posts up recently where one blog asks each other about their team's offseason. The group did this last summer, as I was paired up with Five For Howling to talk about the Phoenix Coyotes. Call it "summer filler." Call it an "outside the conference experience." Call it what you want. If nothing else, it was a chance to learn about what another team was doing.
For this summer, In Lou We Trust was paired with Defending Big D, the SBN blog about the Dallas Stars. You may remember the Stars as that team who the New Jersey Devils beat in 6 games in the Stanley Cup Finals to win their second Stanley Cup in 2000 - including this amazing Cup-clinching goal. You may remember the Stars as the team the Devils got Jamie Langenbrunner and Joe Nieuwendyk in exchange for Jason Arnott and Randy McKay a few years later. You may remember the Stars as the team that came to the Rock in this past season and got pounded 4-0 in January. Whether or not you remember all of that, do check out Defending Big D for all Stars-related analysis.
DBD writer Art Middleton asked us some questions, and Kevin, Tom, and myself were more than happy to respond. Art has all of that over at DBD, so please go there to see what he asked about NJ and what we responded. Kevin, Tom, and myself also had a number of questions about Dallas including their current ownership issues, the status of a few restricted free agents yet to be signed, Loui Eriksson, prospects, and a little more than that. Art was more than kind to give his take on all of the questions we sent him, which appears after the jump.
The (Unintentional) Genius of Lou Lamoriello
by Kevin Sellathamby on Aug 12, 2010 6:31 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
81 comments
It's been nearly a month since Ilya Kovalchuk's 17 year, $102 Million contract with the Devils was rejected by the NHL. It's been about 3 days since Richard Bloch upheld the NHL's decision to reject said contract after the NHLPA had filed a grievance about it. A few days after the contract's rejection, the NHL re-opened investigations for the contracts of Marc Savard, Marian Hossa, Roberto Luongo and Chris Pronger, who all have heavily frontloaded deals, ones similar to Ilya Kovalchuk's deal. After giving myself a few days to calm down, vent my frustrations and think, I decided to look back on some of the quotes Lou Lamoriello made about the signing of the contract. One quote came to mind, and that was Lou's thoughts about the contract (Via Tom Gulitti)
"But there is nothing that we have done wrong. This is within the rules. This is in the CBA. There are precedents that have been set. But I would agree we shouldn’t have these. But I’m also saying that because it’s legal and this is something that ownership felt comfortable doing for the right reasons."
When I first read that quote, I thought that Lamoriello was taking a jab at how the CBA has loopholes bigger than Vesa Toskala's five hole. My perception on the quote changed as the events unfolded. After Bettman rejected the contract, I began to think that Bettman was offended by Lou's comments. But after the NHL re-opened the contract investigations on Pronger and company, my view on that quote changed once again.
Ilya Kovalchuk, A Contract Rejection, A Filed Grievance, and Two Outcomes: A Poll
by John Fischer on Jul 26, 2010 8:06 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
80 comments
Today, the National Hockey League Player's Association, the union, did file a grievance to the NHL's rejection of the $102 million/17 year contract between Ilya Kovalchuk and the New Jersey Devils.
I've written at length for the past few days explaining why I don't think the contract violated Article 50, which defines the Upper Limit (a.k.a. the salary cap ceiling) and the Maximum Player Salary. The two areas the NHL claims that was circumvented I've also explained that the events done so far - the rejection of the contract (per Article 11.6.(a)(i)), the wait for the NHLPA to file a grievance, and the NHLPA actually filing a grievance - all fits under the provisions of Article 11.6(a). There will be an arbitration hearing to determine whether the NHL's rejection was valid. Therefore, the provisions being followed are under Article 11.6(a) and will continue flowing down that path.
I've also written a second post later that day on why Article 26.13 does not apply to this situation at this juncture. Unless the NHL has conducted an investigation into whether the Kovalchuk contract was circumvention in some form (Article 26.10); the NHL met with all parties involved in a joint discussion for possible circumvention to reconcile the issue (Article 26.12); and attempts at reconciliation failed, the NHL (or the PA) filed for the Systems Arbitrator, and said arbitrator agrees with the NHL's claims within 7 days (Article 26.13(a)), then and only then do the penalties described in 26.13(c) apply. That's a lot to happen completely under the radar, so unless there's some news of some of this or all of this happening, there's no reason at all to worry about Article 26.13. On top of that, Article 26 isn't even called out in Article 11. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
You don't even need to believe me. Here is a PDF of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Read through Article 11 and 26, compare what has happened to what is described in each, and decide for yourself what provisions are being followed. I think you'll agree that it's Article 11.6 and not any part of Article 26.13.
To that end, let's have an entirely informal poll. At some point in the future, the NHLPA and the NHL will go in front of an arbitrator and argue whether the rejection is valid or not. How do you think they'll decide? I've cited the two possible scenarios under Article 11.6(a) after the jump in case you're interested in the actual text of the CBA. While I can't control how you vote, please vote on what you think will happen - not what you want to happen.
Please feel free to elaborate on what you will think will happen in the comments. If I am mistaken in my citation of the CBA, please point out where exactly I got it wrong and I'll correct this post accordingly. As far as what to do in the meantime, may I suggest relaxing while you wait? There's no need to get worked up over something that hasn't happened yet, in my opinion. All the same, thanks for reading.
What is the Benefit of Andrew Peters Fighting for the New Jersey Devils?
by John Fischer on Jun 2, 2010 10:00 AM EDT
in What Do You Think?
52 comments
ASIDE: Hey, you have less than 5 days to submit an audition post to become a ILWT writer. Get them in soon! Especially if you're interested in the minor leagues or prospects. And now for something completely different, here's a smattering of thoughts on Andrew Peters.
Some still hold that teams today need an enforcer. A big man to do the dirty work of upholding codes and honor and whatever else by punching another, willing man in the face on the ice. To stick up for a teammate. To show that he and his team will not be intimidated. To do the one thing they're largely paid to do, drop the gloves, have all the hockey stop so they can tussle, and then be done with it by sitting in the box whilst both teams at their benches bang their sticks against the boards to show support or something.
Admittedly, I'm not a fan of fighting in hockey. But we'll agree to disagree on all of that. More importantly, I'm not a fan of Andrew Peters' performance last season. From my eye, he was quite slow, he didn't play much, and didn't do much hitting like Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond or "energy" play like streaking into corners like Vladimir Zharkov. He's drawn no calls and taken 5 at even strength this past season according to Behind the Net. Also, Peters' GVT last season was dead last on the team at -1.5, below replacement level. In fact, he's always been below replacement level as a contributor to his teams throughout his career per Tom Awad's all-time GVT list. On top of and he put up this glorious stat-line for the New Jersey Devils in 2009-10.
Let us be frank, Peters has one purpose: to bust up dudes with his massive fists. He's an enforcer, a goon, a fighter, &c. That is his role.
Mind you, I've met Peters, I have no personal issue with Mr. Peters, and I never want to have one since his biceps are bigger than my fat head. He's a genial enough fellow and I bear no ill will towards Andrew Peters, the man. Still, let me raise this question: What benefit does Andrew Peters' fighting provide to the team? Did the Devils perform any better after each of the 9 fights Peters had in this past season?
Here's a quick and simple way. What was the score before the fight, how many goals were scored and conceded by New Jersey in the period after the fight, and what was the final score of the game? If Peters' fights led to, say, the team scoring more goals, then I'd say that would suggest a benefit. The team gets pumped up, momentum goes their way, and so forth. That momentum should lead to goals for it to have a true impact on the game, no? (Note: I'm limiting it to within the period since attitudes and momentum can change during intermission.)
To find out, I went through Peters' game log at NHL.com to find out the answers. The results come after the jump.
What Makes a #1 Defenseman a #1 Defenseman?
by John Fischer on May 18, 2010 10:02 AM EDT
in What Do You Think?
43 comments
One of the larger questions I've grown to ponder over the last week when putting all of these posts together about Paul Martin (recap: here, here, here, here, here, ultimately concluding that he's the most effective defenseman available on the marker this summer and concluding that the Devils should re-sign him) was what makes a #1 defenseman a #1 defenseman? Prior, I had the notion that the ideal defenseman would be an impact player at both ends of the rink, able to put up a significant amount of points whilst providing solid defense. Someone who can command a game from the back and generally be in the right position all the time.
However, the more I think about it, the more I think that such a defenseman may be so exceptional and so rare that the meaning is obscured somewhat? Isn't a #1 defenseman someone who can lead a blueline, regardless of flaws? Given that the most important role for a defender is to actually, you know, defend, wouldn't such a definition of a #1 defenseman shut out all the top defensive defensemen in the league?
In any case, I'm interested in two questions:
- What criteria determines if a defenseman is a #1 defenseman?
- Is Paul Martin a #1 defenseman? If so, why? If not, why not?
I know on-ice impact isn't the be-all, end-all of measuring a defenseman's skill. There are other stats out there that help determine it, but I would think that a defenseman who plays against tough competition and generally ranks among the best at even strength play in terms of on-ice impact, especially, in terms of reducing shots against says plenty about a defenseman's effectiveness.
Incidentally, here's how Paul Martin ranked in on-ice impact (and adjusted Corsi/60) in 2008-09 and 2009-10 among all NHL defensemen who played 20 games and had a time on ice per 60 of at least 15. I wish I did that in Part 1 and Part 2 from last week, but here it is now for your table-reading enjoyment. Sorted by the number of ranks in the top 30 in each season, followed by quality of competition. Only Nicklas Lidstrom and Duncan Keith (italicized in both tables) factored better than Martin in both seasons. So I'm confident in saying that Martin has an on-ice impact like a #1 defenseman. What more does he need to do?
Let me know your answers to each in the comments. Remember, I'm most interested in criteria that determines who really is and is not a #1 defenseman as well as whether Paul Martin meets it or not.
Groupthink & New Jersey Devils Fans
by John Fischer on Mar 29, 2010 6:00 PM EDT
in What Do You Think?
32 comments
Over at the Copper and Blue, Derek Zona put together a very detailed post highlighting the ever-present reality of "groupthink" among hockey fans and why the growth of stats is important in fighting it. Here's the most important bit:
In the world of sports fans, confirmation biases abound. It's impossible for individual fans to record, catalog, process, analyze and interpret the results of hundreds of independent events occurring constantly throughout a game, but it's much easier to pick out those events and sequences of events that support their conclusions. Any hockey fan that has sat silently shaking their head while the crowd piles on an undeserving player recognizes this immediately. It's a powerful psychological force, especially in a setting like sports. Fans can confirm their biases for themselves and immediately fall back on thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of fellow fans to confirm what they already know. This is the very foundation of groupthink:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that can occur in groups of people. Rather than critically evaluating information, the group members begin to form quick opinions that match the group consensus.
Because it's impossible to critically evaluate those hundreds of independent events, fans end up rallying together in support of or against the lowest common denominator in observational terms. And this is why statistics and the analysis of those statistics is crucial. Statistics, at the lowest level, are simply a vast collection of events. Even though the fans' understanding and analysis of the game continues to grow (thanks to people like Vic, Gabe, JLikens and Tyler), there remains a vast majority of fans, people who know better and simple-minded folks that wallow in ignorance, sometimes willfully.
To be fair, Zona was referring to specific events and past arguments within the Oilers community; and it's not that groupthink is always wrong. It's just that it's not always justifiable all by itself. Often times, the emotions that hockey games bring out of most fans lead to emotional responses - regardless of how true they are or not. We forget past events to focus on what just happened, both good and bad.
For example, after the Rangers game, you'll notice a number of comments late in the GameThread and the recap lamenting how the Devils tend to give up leads late in the game or that it was familiar. Some immediately pointed to the late loss to Los Angeles earlier this season and the infamous Game 7 of last year's playoffs. But is it true? No, not by a long shot. Tom Gulitti actually looked up the stats in the comments to this post at Fire & Ice and found that the LA game and the recent shootout loss to the Rangers were the only two times the Devils lost all season by giving up a late goal. Twice out of 75 games is hardly "always." It's actually been quite rare in 2009-10. But at the time, no one wanted to look up the numbers - they wanted to vent and in doing so committed themselves to a hive mind.
Showing 1 - 8 of 18 Older
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Headlines: NHL/NHLPA agreement approves Kovalchuk deal
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Boston Bruins
- Hilary Duff to attend Pittsburgh games; also, Comrie signs with Pens
- Kittens: The key ingredient to any intimidating KHL goalie mask
- Puck Daddy chats with Paul Bissonnette about his triumphant return to Twitter, plans for a bum tattoo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
