Posts

Showing posts from February, 2013

"Shoot the Puck!" Or...Don't? An NHL Analysis

As a young hockey player growing up, I was always instructed to “shoot the puck!” So, I did. But I didn’t always score. Was there a chance I’d score? Sure, there was. But one thing I always noticed but, apparently, coaches never did was it wasn’t always about how much you shot, but when you shot. Or how . Or where . Case in point: Sunday’s Detroit Red Wings vs. Los Angeles Kings game. The LA Kings fired 47 shots at Red Wings netminder Jimmy Howard. He stopped 45 of them. The Red Wings, on the other hand, only shot the puck 31 times. Kings goalie Jonathan Quick stopped 28 of them. That’s a Kings loss. So, how much does a large number of shots really matter? Now, some people might say that a little luck was involved with the win – posts were hit, the Wings’ winning goal barely snuck over the line, etc. But the bottom line is this: the team that shoots the most doesn’t always win. In fact, when you look at the numbers, there’s a really no correlation between the number of

Red Wings Three-Week Check-Up

Well, kids, here we are.  Three weeks (that's it!?!) into the 2012- 2013 NHL season.  There have already been a number of highlight moments.  5 point nights from Thomas Vanek.  An incredible, acrobatic save-of-the-year-candidate save from Kari Lehtonen.  The return of a healthy Sidney Crosby, and the Houdini act, and not in a good way, of Alex Ovechkin. Through the first three weeks, the NHL's Central Division has proven that it will be a dogfight until the very end.  There are a lot - and I mean A LOT - of good teams in the Western Conference.  At this point, it seems very unlikely that 4 teams from the Central will make the playoffs.  Given that there are 5 teams in the division, and given that Columbus is a perennial dumpster fire, that means that one of Chicago, Detroit, Nashville, and St. Louis may finish the year on the outside looking in. The Red Wings have taken the "hard road" to third in the division.  Now, that may seem like an outlandish statement, giv