SB Nation User Blog: Back In Black

Cox is crossing the line

Back In Black — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:25:28 -0000

You know, generally I've always liked Damian Cox. It puts me in a bit of a minority in these parts. Still, for years it has seemed to me that he was good for a step-back look at the state of the Leafs. Most other Toronto writers were either too close to the team, too far, or too into making stuff up (you know you I mean). Recently he's even been pretty positive about the Leafs - which for a while I thought was simply 'fair'. So why do I think he crossed the line today? Well, you can follow the link and guess, but I've got more.

It's not like Cox hasn't been a flawed writer. He picks personal favourites, like Eric LIndros, who he praises and never criticizes. The worst recently has been Martin Brodeur; how many glowing Brodeur columns does a guy have to write before disclosing a personal friendship - and that Cox wrote his biography. Cox also occaisionally writes stuff (especially on his blog, which he seems to resent) for no other reason than to piss people off. Still, no writer is perfect and I agree with him on a number of subjects, such as goons in hockey, so I can overlook some flaws.

It's been a wierd year for Cox. After Fletcher (who he clearly despises) was replaced by Burke, there's been very little criticism of Leaf management. Looking back, it becomes quickly apparent that Cox likes/respects Burke as much as he hates Fletcher. Despite the fact that he doesn't like Burke's style of team, suddenly the Leafs have a GM who can do no wrong. Cox defends every move Burke makes.

But he doesn't like Ron Wilson, and that's the tipping point for me today.

Perception is everything in politics and sports, and in this case, there is a growing perception that Wilson would be safe even if the Leafs had zero victories because he has already by tabbed by Burke to coach the American Olympic team in February.

I call bullshit. "Growing perception" where? I read PPP regularly (I may not follow all the links, fanposts and columns) and I even read The Spin. I haven't read a single opinion that Wilson should be canned.

So is he making it up. No - there is one opinion, and that's Cox's. He started riding Wilson in September, when he announced that if the coach didn't play nicer with the media he was in for a rough ride. Ever since he's written every couple of weeks or so about how poor the Leafs have been since Wilson took over and how little improvement can be found. In other words, he's been repeatedly criticizing him and now he's effectively pointing to his own columns as evidence of growing criticism and hints at fan unrest; and even suggests an arbitrary 10 game deadline for improvement.

It's a one-man hatchet job and I lost a lot of respect for him today.

"The 6-foot-4, 225-pounder has reached 21 goals in each of the last three seasons, but that plateau...

Back In Black — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:36:43 -0000

"The 6-foot-4, 225-pounder has reached 21 goals in each of the last three seasons, but that plateau marks an obvious drop-off from what his draft package suggested."

Poni was drafted in the fourth round; evidently some people expect every draft to include 80 30-goal scorers.

Mark Zwolinski, Toronto Star

Are NHL coaches idiots?

Back In Black — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:23:35 -0000

It's 2003 (or thereabouts). The Leafs are in overtime with the San Jose Sharks, and have an offensive zone faceoff with less than one minute left. Given that a loss is as good as a tie (there's no shootout), and given that the Sharks play in the Western Conference, the obvious decision is to pull the goalie and try to get that extra point, right?

Quinn doesn't. I'm left asking (screaming) the question in the title.

Fast forward to 2009. Ron Wilson is not an idiot, and when he sees a chance to get his team a powerplay because Jason Spezza is using an illegal stick, he takes it. This prompts the TV announcers to make statements like "When was the last time you saw a stick measurement?" and "You could nab Ovechkin every game".

Which takes me once again back to the question in the title. Powerplay goals are the key to success in the NHL. Why the hell doesn't Ovechkin get busted every game? I came up with four answers in alternative to the premise that NHL coaches are idiots:

1) There's a disincentive: a delay of game penalty if you're wrong.

2) There's a tactical element: like Wilson last night and Demers in '93, the coaches are waiting until just the right moment to spring their trap.

3) Their own players use illegal sticks, and part of the coach's job is to make sure they're comfortable and able to use the equipment they prefer.

4) It's against the 'code' (I stole this one from Wyshynski after following PPP's Acountability link).

Unfortunately, none of these hold up:

1) When was the last time you saw someone call for a stick measurement? Ask yourself when was the last time someone was wrong? I've never seen it outside of a minor hockey gamble. Players and coaches know. Wilson says he knew about Spezza's stick all season.

2) Do you know when the best tactical time to give Spezza an illegal stick penalty is? The first time Ottawa takes a penalty while he's on the ice. 5-on-3s are much more dangerous than 5-on-4s. A goal in the first period counts just as much as a goal in the third. Failing that, take away the first Ottawa powerplay. In either case, Spezza gets to play the rest of the game without his game stick.

It used to be that players smarter than your average Cayuga resident (I'm looking at you, McSorley) would use the clever trick of changing sticks near the end of close games to avoid exactly this tactic. Now you've missed your chance, Wilson. Waiting is risky.

3) Suppose I'm coaching Carolina against Washington in the playoffs, and suppose Eric Staal uses illegal sticks. By punishing Ovechkin, I might be hurting Staal! Gee, tough choice; it's like the two minute penalty is a bonus.

4) The 'code' is funny, but this is just ridiculous. We're talking about a league where sprained wrists are called "upper body injuries" so that players don't start taking deliberate hacks, but it's dishonourable to take advantage of catching an opponent cheating?

Most likely a modern-day Fred Shero will eventually start calling out star players like Ovechkin every game until the rest of the league catches on. Until then, can any of you think of a better reason than these four? Or are NHL coaches idiots?

Scoring race

Back In Black — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:05:48 -0000

Scoring race

Interesting note: In the seven seasons in the 21st century, the Art Ross Trophy has been won by seven different players. Malkin could make it eight this year.
There has never been a ten year span in the history of the trophy with such diverse scoring.

The Leafs should return Schenn to junior

Back In Black — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:21:07 -0000

Nobody asked me, but there's a platform here, so I'm telling you.

There are two main arguments that I've seen for keeping 18-year-old defenceman Luke Schenn with the Maple Leafs: (1) He's one of their top four defenceman and playing 20 minutes a night; and (2) His development might be hurt by returning to junior as a man-amongst-boys.

I'll answer the second point first because it's simplest: there is no evidence that an extra of junior will spoil an 18-year-old defenceman. The Leafs should be happy if Schenn turns into a top-level defenceman like Duncan Keith, Mike Komisarek or Braydon Coburn. None of these guys seems to have suffered from extra years in junior, NCAA and even the AHL. To the contrary, they were all able to establish themselves quite quickly as NHL regulars. By comparison, Jason Bouwmeester and Andrej Meszaros were rushed into the NHL, but their careers haven't advanced any faster than other defencemen from their draft year. They struggled with consistency even as their contract status ticked toward free agency.

Schenn is a very good defensive player who has a lot of trouble with the puck. More time at a lower level might really help him. Some playoff experience would be good too.

The first point is more relevant: he can play, so he should play. But what good does that do the Leafs? They're longshots to make the playoffs anyway. If he's going to be a star, they should hang on to his entry-level status until he can contribute to a good team. Furthermore, the Leafs have other young defencemen that they're going to need to evaluate for the future: Carlo Colaiacovo, Jeff Finger, Anton Strahlman, Jonas Frogren, Ian White, Staffen Kronwall. Let those guys have some top-four minutes and see who can handle it. Not all of them can, but they've had their minor league experience and it's time to find out.

Plus, Schenn's doing fine now, but that may not last into February. He's never played an 80-game season, and certainly not while banging against full-grown men. Teams will start to key on him, and he'll probably start to struggle.

None of this is about what's best for Schenn. What's best for him is to make a six figure salary rather than toiling in junior for a lousy per diem. But the Leafs should put their long-term success first.

In closing, I haven't been able to see much of the other 18-year-old defencemen currently being pushed into NHL duty, but this still applies equally to them. Perhaps in St. Louis they have playoff dreams and see Pietrangelo, AlexAlex Pietrangelo as an injury replacement for Erik Johnson. But for the rest: send them back.