Doug Weight | The 3rd String Safety

US Olympic Team...

January 2, 2010, at 9:53 am

The US Olympic team should re-name themselves Team Ryan: Ryan Suter, Ryan Miller, Ryan Callahan, Ryan Kessler, Ryan Malone, and Bobby Ryan.

* * *

Why the big deal over Doug Weight, Bill Guerin, and Keith Tkachuk not making the 2010 US Olympic team? The US wants to win, right?

Weight had no goals in 11 games before being injured… again. His first game back was the night before the Olympic selections were announced. Guerin is actually scoring around the same pace he was in 2002 when the team won the Silver Medal, but he’s 39 and the chances that he’ll have anything left for 8 games in 11 days is very slim. Tkachuk hasn’t been a force on any team since before the lockout, and he would just be taking space for a young power forward – say, Ryan Callahan (or Ryan Malone).

Scott Gomez was an interesting name left off. He just turned 30 last week and he played well in the 2006 Olympics in Italy, but those of us who watched him the past 2 years (and anyone following him in Montreal this year) know that he just isn’t as good in another system as he was with the Devils.

I would also venture to guess that it came down to Gomez and Chris Drury fighting for a spot, and with John Tortorella as an assistant coach, Drury got the nod.

I like Callahan and Drury being on the team. I’m very excited for Callahan and I think the experience can only help him. As for Drury, he won’t play 20 minutes a night for them so he won’t come back burnt out. Plus, being there could inspire him to play better – he said so himself after being selected to the team.

As for Henrik Lundqvist and Marian Gaborik? Awful.

Remember how good the Rangers were playing in 2005-06 before the Olympic break? They were 20 games over .500, then ended the season 9-11-4 after the break. Lundqvist came back grinding his teeth and with migraines and was utterly awful in the playoffs against New Jersey (he’ll admit it). Jaromir Jagr came back hurt from a Jarrko Ruutu check; on top of that, a nagging hip injury was made worse by the lack of off-days in the compressed Olympic schedule.

Without Jagr and Lundqvist, that team was just a bunch of role players who played great together and had a dream season.

Without Gaborik and Lundqvist, this team is a bunch of young players who haven’t really meshed yet (and a few overpriced veterans who are just waiting for their careers to end).

What happens if Lundqvist gets hurt? The season is officially over. What if Gaborik gets hurt? So far, he hasn’t injured anything that was hurt in previous seasons, but you shouldn’t press the matter. An injury to him in Vancouver could have negative effects on him – and this team – for the next 4 years.

Plus, Hank could use the rest for 3 weeks before the stretch-drive.

Four reasons I am very against NHL players playing in the Olympics…

1) It should be an amateur competition.
2) You’re stopping an exciting NHL season for 3 weeks and expecting people to pick off where it left off 21 days later.
3) The chance for injury is too great. (Ask the Ottawa Senators how the rest of their season was when Dominik Hasek was injured in the Czech Republic’s first game in ‘06.)
4) It can be a career-maker for a young kid. Paul Kariya and Peter Forsberg in the 1992 Olympics in the shootout was an instant classic. I’d much rather have that than see Chris Pronger snuff out Evgeni Malkin in the bronze medal game because they’re division rivals.

NHL

On Face(off) Value

By Bryan Berg

October 30, 2009, at 7:35 am

Leave your comment

When you’re a fan of a losing team, you generally don’t watch them expecting to win. Instead, you watch hoping you’ll see something amazing. For example, even though the Mets were out of playoff contention in July, I still watched them most nights, just in case they finally pitched a no-hitter (yeah, I know) or did something particularly special. In hockey, there are no milestones that would compare to a no-hitter, so I hope for very memorable games, the kind that transcend a losing season. Last year, beating Detroit and Chicago on the road were such games, and Opening Night would have been such a game had the Islanders pulled it out.

Wednesday night’s game against the Rangers would certainly qualify as what I’d call a memorable game. If the Islanders to produce a 2009-10 highlight video, highlights of Wednesday night would be heavily featured. The Islanders played their game, were intense throughout, and won their first regulation game by sheer will. The Islanders also won because of a growing trend in their play – their success in the faceoff circle.

Over the summer, I read Moneyball by Michael Lewis. Moneyball, for those who don’t know, explains how the small-market Oakland A’s of Major League Baseball were able to stay competitive with teams like the Yankees by building their team around undervalued assets like walks and on-base percentage. As I read Moneyball, I tried to figure out what statistics in hockey could be the basis for a winning team in today’s NHL. One of these days, I’ll post my thoughts. For now, though, perhaps the most important stat I’d build around would be faceoff percentage.

Think about it. There are approximately 60 faceoffs in a game. The average team, of course, wins 50 percent of those faceoffs, meaning that they begin play with the puck 30 times a game. A team that wins 60 percent of their faceoffs, on the other hand, begins with the puck 36 times. That’s twelve times more than their opponent. So, not only do you have the edge twelve more times than your opponent, that’s twelve times that your opponent can’t score until you give up the puck.

As of right now, the Islanders sit at third in the NHL with a success rate of 54.1% in the faceoff circle, with the Isles dominating faceoffs in their past few games. And while this success hasn’t resulted in wins just yet, there’s plenty of reason for optimism – aside from the Islanders (.409), Minnesota (.250) and Nashville (.458), every team over 50% in faceoffs has earned more than half of the points it could have possibly earned so far this season. What’s particularly telling about the Islanders’ success is that it’s been widespread. Every eligible Islander is over 50% in faceoffs this year, including John Tavares at 50.3%, Josh Bailey at 53.9%, and both Doug Weight and Nate Thompson at 58.8%.

What does all of this mean? Simply put, if the Islanders are better than their opponents at controlling the puck off the draw, they’re that much more likely to control play and potentially generate good scoring chances. In addition, their opponents will have to make more plays on defense than usual in order to get the puck. And if the Islanders can get past their third period hiccups – as they did on Wednesday night – their faceoff skills can help them become a truly dangerous team.

Calendar

Blog Networks

US Olympic Team...

On Face(off) Value

Twitter Updates

Recent Posts

Login