A little late to the party, but I was away all weekend. I couldn't get in on the PPPPPPPPPPPPwhateveritscalled, but I will participate by making my picks here. Only two picks to make, but let's recap the last two rounds first.

Continue reading this post »

Ok, so I decided I would watch the first round, at least selectively, and boy was I glad I did. There were some awesome games to watch. The last two games of the Vancouver/Chicago series were great. Even though I think he'll regret saying it, or at least revise it, I completely understand why Luongo said it was a bigger win than the Olympic Gold.

So before I pick the next round, here's a recap of what I did in the first, in case you don't want to click back to the previous post and see for yourself.

Washington vs. Rangers: Caps in 6. Got the team right and the games wrong (Wash in 5)

Philadelphia vs. Buffalo: Flyers in 6. Again, team right, games wrong (Philly in 7)

Boston vs. Montreal: Bruins in 6. (Bruins in 7)

Pittsburgh vs Tampa Bay: TB in 6 (TB in 7)

Vancouver vs Chicago: Hawks in 7 (Nucks in 7--wrong!)

San Jose vs LA: Sharks in 5 (Sharks in 6)

Detroit vs Phoenix: Coyotes in 6. (Wings in 4--really wrong)

Anaheim vs Nashville: Ducks in 7. (Preds in 6--wrong).

So maybe I just don't watch enough Western Conference action. But 5-3 is not so bad, especially considering how close I was to 6-2. I could have been 2-6 as well, with some bounces, so clearly the result is not from my own skill at divining hockey prowess. In fact, I'd say no one is really any good at guessing what will happen in sports, no matter what stats you might have at your disposal.

Might as well try it again! Instead of a hate meter, this time I'm going to go with Heart/Head: who I want to win, and who I think will win.Let's start in the East:

Washington vs TB. I am actually having a tough time picking this one. My heart is torn. I still want Ovie to win a Cup. But I really like Guy Boucher's coaching style, and I want to see him win, just to kind of stick it to Traditional/Old Boy coaches. That said, my heart does not want a team from Florida to win the Cup again. So my Heart is going to say Washington in 7, but my head says TB in 6.

Philadelphia vs Boston. Oh boy. My Heart says 7 knock'em down, drag'em out games where there are only about 4 players left on each bench by the end of it, with Boston coming out on top to redeem their loss from last year. My Head says Flyers in 5.

The West. Maybe I will have better luck this time.

San Jose vs Detroit. Oh boy. I think Heart and Head are in agreement this time. It is going to be a long, close series, but I think Detroit will come out on top in 7 games. Then again, my Heart would like to see some friends of mine from SoCal be happy, so the Heart is going to pick Sharks in 7. Either way, this will be a good series.

Vancouver vs. Nashville. Head says the Canucks can't be stopped. They will have a bit of a dip in the first game, but they are too strong to lose to a Nashville team that probably works harder than Chicago, but doesn't have the top-end skill. They don't have anyone like Toews who can just decide, like he did, to tie the game in the last minute. Unless you count Steve Sullivan. My Heart wants Nashville to win for lots of reasons: to make Canucks fans sad. Pekka Rinne (also a good reason why they might actually win). Barry Trotz. That guy is awesome. I know they play the trap and all, but they are a hard-working little team. They'll lose in the Conference finals anyway.

I had also picked Boston as my Cup Champ and Tim Thomas as my Conn Smythe winner. I don't think that's going to happen. Watching them sputter their way to a 7-game win against Montreal has convinced me that Boston is going no further. I think the Nucks will actually do it. I don't want them to, but I think that's the smart call right now. And since the Sedin's have done nothing, Luongo has been weak, I'm going to say Ryan Kesler for Conn Smythe. Maybe Lou gets back on track, though, we'll see.

Anyway, that's how I see it for round 2.

I've been having a hard time deciding if I should watch the NHL playoffs this year. It's a bit of an issue of too much of a good thing. I feel like I could watch every game, and probably enjoy it, and get into it, even though the Leafs are not involved. But then I realise that my girlfriend has been counting the days to the end of the regular season, looking forward to the three extra nights per week when we can watch something on tv together (instead of me watching the game on my laptop and headphones, and she watching Grey's Anatomy on the bigger screen--it's not quite "quality time" you could say), or even go out into the increasingly warming nights and enjoy Montreal (at least until the cop cars start burning).

I don't know yet if I will watch or not. I may end up watching the Habs-Bruins series, because that is something she would watch. But of course I'd have to cheer for the Bruins, so maybe that's not the best way to get closer...Anyway, if I do get into the playoffs, I will want to have clear rooting interests, or at least I want to have some investment in the games, so I've joined the PPP Playoff Prognostication Pool. Here are my picks and why.

Continue reading this post »

In the last month one of the main sources of discussion around here has been the value of UFA contracts. Colby Armstrong gets $3M. Brett Lebda gets $1.45M. With a few exceptions, it is not so much the addition of the player that has created controversy, but whether they were worth the money spent. Those who would say the Leafs have overpaid point to the stats, compare the hard numbers, and come to the conclusion that these guys are not worth that much. On the other hand, some (seems like fewer, though maybe the stats-heads are just louder and more self-righteous in their pleadings) suggest that the value of these players lies not in the stats alone, that there are certain intangibles that fill out the value beyond PPG, Corsi, and GVT.

I want to give my perspective on this. I am a coach in a sport that is certainly much more purely stats based than hockey. I coach distance running, specifically cross country. The stats are simple. There are no other prizes for gentlemanly running, or for best middle lap, or anything other than 1) finish place and 2) finish time. Despite that, in building my team, I rely quite heavily on the intangibles different players can bring. The way we "score" a team is simple: you add up the placings of the top 5 runners from each team, and the lowest score wins. In this way, you would think that intangibles such as how well teammates get along, how funny one guy is, leadership skills, intelligence, life skills...that shouldn't matter because essentially it is an individual sport, masquerading as a team game. Yet it does. I have seen time and time again that the group can become larger than the whole. Runners don't get paid, but in terms of value to the team, it is clear that there is not just a simple linear equation between that value and their easy to read stats line.

To bring it back to hockey...if this is the case in such a purely stats-oriented sport as distance running, then in a complex team endeavour like hockey,  things like trust, energy, experience MUST have an impact on the players' execution of their skills. And if that is the case, then we can't just look at the stats to determine players' values. The salary cap makes this valuation more important than it used to be, for sure, and the cries of opportunity cost spent on a number of assets that might have been used on one larger asset are valid, to a point. If you have $59M to build a team, you have to make careful choices about where you spend your money. It would be foolish, in that case, NOT to consider intangibles.

The problem for us is that these intangibles are not easily measured anyway, but we are also missing the big picture: we don't know what the GM's full plan is. He may have his eyes on certain players next summer, or in trades, that are going to fit in to this group in a certain way. As a result, it may be worthwhile to pay more than what someone else would for a certain asset, if he knows he can under pay for others. Or if he knows that if the market value of the team he desires down the road might be closer to $52M, then he has some wiggle room. Further, he knows the players personally, or at least he has second-hand knowledge of them through his fellow GMs, through scouts, and through coaches and players on his team already. We may know a guy who went to school with a guy...but that's not enough information. I should hope the GM is basing his decisions on more than that.

So how about it? Intangibles...not the root of all evil? Or a better question, how can we as fans better understand and measure intangibles? Stats have been pushed pretty far. I am not super well-versed in them, but it seems like the QTEAM stat might say something about it, even if it is based on points. I suppose my suspicion is that those stats seem circular to me. How do we know if the quality of one player is based on his own skills, or the skills of those he's playing with? Do these stats account for chemistry between a couple players? Is this whole stats thing ruining fandom, kind of the way grad school ruins Shakespeare? Or does it enhance it?

Lots of questions at the end, but I hope we can have a kind of meta-stats discussion, not focused around certain players and their value, but around the way we use stats and perceive them, vis-à-vis intangibles.

Then again, who can separate the man from the legend?

Anyway, this summer, with nothing much to do in my job helping cheating students get through the ugliness of university administration (the process is punishment enough, trust me), I basically spent my day scouring the web for Leaf and hockey related content. I was happy to come across this blog. Without it I would not have had the most up-to-date info on Leaf trades, draft possibilities and potential line combos. I figured out how to watch Leaf games online (invaluable as I only get TSN and CBC games on the tv). I was introduced to Bloge Salming, Down Goes Brown, and this (which, to be honest, I'm not sure why it is so funny as I recall being a fan, back in the day, but anyway...). This site has the best Leaf...no, the best HOCKEY commentary anywhere on the net, and by "this site" I mean all the comments, the links from the branches that I read every morning, and of course the overlords and princesses and contributing bloggers.

My grievance: why did you not get into my life sooner, PPP?

Happy Festivus, and Merry Christmas!

Just curious to see what you all would say. Feel free to comment and defend your answers.

For the record I'm going to go with no. I am a coach and an athlete. I've represented Canada twice. When I did, I said to one of my teammates, just before the event: "You know that moment you wait your entire life for? This is it!" It was pretty cool. I did not have much international success though. I like my nice balanced life, and I feel like I've contributed to my sport, and can continue to do so without needing to be the best. To be the best you need a combination of talent, durability, consistency, and timing. As and athlete I had two of four. As a coach, I like to think I have all four. Time will tell. I hope this doesn't influence your answers. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. The real meaning comes in the justification, I think.