HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Game #26 Sharks vs Kings 7:30PM CSNCA KFOX "It's a me, Marileau!"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 03:01 AM
  #876
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
The only comparables are Rick Nash, Jamie Benn, Andrew Ladd. Not available big guys that can score and skate are hard to find.
This. Except Ladd doesn't deserve to be mentioned with those 2 IMO.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:01 AM
  #877
Negatively Positive
Save us Tomas!
 
Negatively Positive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The McMafia View Post
and Irwin should not play another game in the AHL the rest of the season.
Isn't he the only player who doesn't have to go through waivers? How many more games can he play before he's subject to waivers? If they need to open a roster spot for some reason, he's the only one who can be used without having to expose someone to waivers although I'm sure T-Mac wouldn't mind waiving Demers or Gali instead and just letting them go for free.

Negatively Positive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:06 AM
  #878
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
This. Except Ladd doesn't deserve to be mentioned with those 2 IMO.
Seen Ladd play lately? hes been a monster. Hes incredibly underrated and every bit as good as Benn.

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:06 AM
  #879
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
The Sharks scored 3 goals on 12 shots and played poorly for long stretches - 6 shots in the first and 7 in the third tells that story. If it wasn't for Muzzin's 4 minute penalty (during which the Sharks scored 2 goals), I think the Sharks lose this game.
You know even though you may be right, it does not matter, because muzzin DID take that 4 min penalty, which was caused by a great play by desi, and unlike other times this year, was also taken advantage of by our PP units.

You are NEVER going to be happy if you worry about what could have been when it comes to sports. All that matters is what DID happen.

In this case it was a hard fought and very exciting win.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:14 AM
  #880
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 40,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
You know even though you may be right, it does not matter, because muzzin DID take that 4 min penalty, which was caused by a great play by desi, and unlike other times this year, was also taken advantage of by our PP units.

You are NEVER going to be happy if you worry about what could have been when it comes to sports. All that matters is what DID happen.

In this case it was a hard fought and very exciting win.
Good post.

Gene Parmesan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:34 AM
  #881
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
You know even though you may be right, it does not matter, because muzzin DID take that 4 min penalty, which was caused by a great play by desi, and unlike other times this year, was also taken advantage of by our PP units.

You are NEVER going to be happy if you worry about what could have been when it comes to sports. All that matters is what DID happen.

In this case it was a hard fought and very exciting win.
If Muzzin hadn't taken the 4 minute penalty, the Sharks would have had ~20 shots for the entire game versus ~40 for the Kings. To overstate the obvious, that is a 2:1 ratio. A 20% shooting % and a 50% PP % simply isn't sustainable. I know what DID happen, but if you play that game 10 times, the Sharks lose 9 of 10 - the Sharks were lucky to win.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:39 AM
  #882
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
If Muzzin hadn't taken the 4 minute penalty, the Sharks would have had ~20 shots for the entire game versus ~40 for the Kings. To overstate the obvious, that is a 2:1 ratio.
Hockey isn't linear. If Muzzin didn't take that 4 minute penalty, who knows what would have happened. The Sharks definitely wouldn't have just played defensively for the last 10+ minutes of the 3rd period (hence having more shots and giving up less).

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:46 AM
  #883
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Hockey isn't linear. If Muzzin didn't take that 4 minute penalty, who knows what would have happened. The Sharks definitely wouldn't have just played defensively for the last 10+ minutes of the 3rd period (hence having more shots and giving up less).
So they Sharks have ~30 shots to the Kings ~40- what is the NHL win % for teams outshot 4:3?

Trust me, I was at the game and was absolutely ecstatic the Sharks won. I just believe they were lucky to have won, and I think there is good reason to believe that.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:47 AM
  #884
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
If Muzzin hadn't taken the 4 minute penalty, the Sharks would have had ~20 shots for the entire game versus ~40 for the Kings. To overstate the obvious, that is a 2:1 ratio. A 20% shooting % and a 50% PP % simply isn't sustainable. I know what DID happen, but if you play that game 10 times, the Sharks lose 9 of 10 - the Sharks were lucky to win.
Like I said you may be right but it doesn't matter. What happened did happen. Just like even though it's statistically slim an 8 seed, who could not score any goals all year, suddenly could go on a fricken rampage against the three best teams in the conference, and curbstomp them, to go on and win a cup is all that mattered last year. Even if they could never do it again.

The point youre making could have been the exact same argument made for the sharks last game against the blues. They lost that game in basically the exact opposite way they won this game. All that matters is the result it sports, not how the result occurred.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:52 AM
  #885
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,964
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Hockey isn't linear. If Muzzin didn't take that 4 minute penalty, who knows what would have happened. The Sharks definitely wouldn't have just played defensively for the last 10+ minutes of the 3rd period (hence having more shots and giving up less).
Conventionally, a team playing down will outshoot a team with the lead. So we don't really know what would have happened.

That said, the Kings are an elite possession team, and if I weren't so lazy I'd look up their Up-1 stats, but since I am I'll assume that the Kings are one of those rare teams that outshoot their opponents even with the lead.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:54 AM
  #886
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
The point youre making could have been the exact same argument made for the sharks last game against the blues.
Which was exactly the argument I made. What am I missing here?

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:54 AM
  #887
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
So they Sharks have ~30 shots to the Kings ~40- what is the NHL win % for teams outshot 4:3?
That had nothing to do with my point at all...
You can't say "If Muzzin didn't take the penalty the Sharks would have lost badly". Sports don't work that way. Every event changes the events afterwards. I could just as easily say, after that hit, the Sharks would have outright dominated the Kings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Conventionally, a team playing down will outshoot a team with the lead. So we don't really know what would have happened.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
My point was, we have no clue what would have happened. What I can say with some confidence is that, if the Sharks weren't leading by so much in the 3rd, they wouldn't have just chipped the puck out of the zone for the last 10 minutes. They would have had more shots and the Kings would have had less shots. That's why his argument of 20 shots vs 40 shots isn't a good one.


Last edited by WTFetus: 03-15-2013 at 04:00 AM.
WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:57 AM
  #888
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,964
vCash: 1379
Oh geez, coulda woulda shoulda. Yeah, the Kings are the (much) better team, but a win's a win and they didn't look terrible.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:01 AM
  #889
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
when sharks lose: burying your scoring chances is all that matters, the other team did that so they earned the win

when sharks win: the other team didnt bury their chances so the win is undeserved

sharski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:06 AM
  #890
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
That had nothing to do with my point at all...
You can't say "If Muzzin didn't take the penalty the Sharks would have lost badly". Sports don't work that way. Every event changes the events afterwards. I could just as easily say, after that hit, the Sharks would have outright dominated the Kings.
I get what you are saying, but if Muzzin and Desi just push and shove after the hit and for example get coincidental 2 minute roughing minors, it is a totally different game. What happened happened, but I do not think the Sharks deserved to win that game and I do not think they will win similar games going forward against similar opponents.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:14 AM
  #891
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,964
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharski View Post
when sharks lose: burying your scoring chances is all that matters, the other team did that so they earned the win

when sharks win: the other team didnt bury their chances so the win is undeserved
More like:

When the Sharks lost: NO excuses, they didn't execute and couldn't finish.

When the Sharks win: The other team was clearly better, the Sharks just got lucky.

Gotta love Sharks fans.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:15 AM
  #892
Mattb124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
My point was, we have no clue what would have happened. What I can say with some confidence is that, if the Sharks weren't leading by so much in the 3rd, they wouldn't have just chipped the puck out of the zone for the last 10 minutes. They would have had more shots and the Kings would have had less shots. That's why his argument of 20 shots vs 40 shots isn't a good one.
I agree, we wouldn't know. But the fact the Sharks were outshot 16-6 in the 1st might provide some insight. The Kings did have 2 pp's in the first but to my eye it was more the Sharks being outworked/outplayed than the PP chances that resulted in the shot differential. I have no reason to believe the Sharks would have fared any better in the 3rd 5 v 5 if the score was tied.

Mattb124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:47 AM
  #893
poppap527
Registered User
 
poppap527's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
So they Sharks have ~30 shots to the Kings ~40- what is the NHL win % for teams outshot 4:3?
This isn't baseball, Billy Beane. I know everyone is starting to get into Fenwick and Corsi and the odds in this and that situation, but this isn't always a sport that can be broken down by the odds and percentages and be cut and dry.

Look at the kings at the start of the year. They had some of the best advanced statistical ratios in the league and by a large margin, yet they struggled out of the gate.

The sharks took advantage of a good hockey hit by Desi. So the sharks are 1 out of 2 when given good hits by Desi, sure they got jobbed on the first call versus the Blackhawks, but they're only 50% when Desi lays a good hit. I don't know, that isn't the best odds, just a coin flip.

It was a great play by an individual and then a great ability by the team to capitalize on the situation that was presented. Those are the moments where hockey games are won and lost.

poppap527 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:20 AM
  #894
justinboo*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Man, watching burns play forward was FREAKING amazing tonight. I probably watched that turn over juke shoot, pass 10 times that was sweet as hell. like honestly he plays how a real sharks forward should play. He's like a great white shark up front. I hope it'll inspire some of our other forwards cough cough ryan clowe to man up n do some dirty work for those dirty goals he used to score all the time. cant wait for the rematch on saturday. it'll be interesting to see how they play after just beating them. n wth is there to complain about am i missing somethin?

justinboo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:30 AM
  #895
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
That had nothing to do with my point at all...
You can't say "If Muzzin didn't take the penalty the Sharks would have lost badly". Sports don't work that way. Every event changes the events afterwards. I could just as easily say, after that hit, the Sharks would have outright dominated the Kings.
Also, the refs were SUPER generous to the kings after that double minor and 2 goals. There were some pretty heinous non-calls. Without that 4 minuter, some of those could get called.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:03 AM
  #896
sharklife25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: College Park, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
If Muzzin hadn't taken the 4 minute penalty, the Sharks would have had ~20 shots for the entire game versus ~40 for the Kings. To overstate the obvious, that is a 2:1 ratio. A 20% shooting % and a 50% PP % simply isn't sustainable. I know what DID happen, but if you play that game 10 times, the Sharks lose 9 of 10 - the Sharks were lucky to win.
And if you take the Blues game we lost on Tuesday, we WIN that one 9 of 10 times... Enjoy the game man

sharklife25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:33 AM
  #897
vilpertti
Registered User
 
vilpertti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb124 View Post
I agree, we wouldn't know. But the fact the Sharks were outshot 16-6 in the 1st might provide some insight. The Kings did have 2 pp's in the first but to my eye it was more the Sharks being outworked/outplayed than the PP chances that resulted in the shot differential. I have no reason to believe the Sharks would have fared any better in the 3rd 5 v 5 if the score was tied.
The thing is, what happens matters.

Otherwise we might all be speaking Germanese.

vilpertti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:44 AM
  #898
slocal
Global Moderator
It stinks!
 
slocal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Osos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vilpertti View Post
The thing is, what happens matters.

Otherwise we might all be speaking Germanese.
Whoa, you totally reminded me of Philadelphia Experiment II. What a crappy movie

__________________

"there's nothing good about dubstep." - The Nemesis
slocal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:20 AM
  #899
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,206
vCash: 500
One thing I noticed is Burns has tremendous hand-eye. Several of the plays he made were knocking down aerial pucks, and not just knocking them aside but putting them down where he can make a play on them. Couple that with his very long stick ... Thornton is really the only other player on the team that does that to that level of effect.

This is something I notice a lot of other teams do better than the Sharks as a whole do.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 10:04 AM
  #900
crunchyblack*
juice monkey
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinboo View Post
man burns was playin like iginla ****in beast out there
I was thinking this too during the game lol.

crunchyblack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.