Rich

Looking ahead to the next year or so, I was wondering about Kurt Malby. One of the old guards of the Wings, unlike Draper and Holmstrom and Osgood, he's definitely lost a step or two, and I wondered if he's scheduled to be around. I like Maltby, and he was one of the key guys over the years, but he wasn't so much this year and they could make room for someone in his place. What's the situation? Years left on contract?

Given the disgreement between people here (and everywhere else, I am sure) do you often wonder if they aren't even watching the same game you are? I mean, don't you sometimes want to forget being respectful and polite and just say, "Are you freaking NUTS? Are you even watching the same game that I am? Can you look at the (goal, hit, play, call, etc.) and seriously think it (was right, was correct, wasn't right, wasn't correct, was diving, wasn't diving, was dirty, was fair)???? Are you a complete (moron, idiot, blind, fool, etc.)????

Now, I'm sure that's what people would want to say to me from time to time, but most of us retain some class. And I disagree with a lot of people WITHOUT feeling that way, too. But wouldn't it be fun to just rip on a few people sometimes?

I've asked this before, 5-6 months ago, but the conversation was so good, wanted to do it again.... Stanley Cup finals, game #7, overtime. You're the goalie for your team. There's a scramble in front of your net. Players are piled on, and in the split second you see the puck cross the line. Perhaps the ref hasn't seen it, maybe the video camera hasn't seen it, and you have a fraction of a fraction of a second to either sweep it out or let it lie. Do you:

1) Sweep it out because it's your job to stop the other team from scoring, and if the ref doesn't see it over the line, it's not a goal?

2) Leave it, because ethically you know the other team scored and it would be wrong to take that away from them?

I realize that with video replay this is a longshot situation, and that the ref will blow the whistle or intend to blow the whistle at some point - BUT we've seen inconclusive video, and maye the ref sees what he thinks is the puck eslewhere. Just go with me on this, okay?

Your an NHL coach, and one of your players (A) dives - that is, he embellishes plays to draw penalties. Thing is, he's very good at it, and almost always gets away with it - more than 80% of the time, giving your team a 4-1 power play advantage. He doesn't have a reputation as a diver, so he doesn't get those Homstrom-only penalty calls.

You have another player (B) who tries, but doesn't pull it off. He causes a similar DISadvantage in penalties because of his lack of skill.

Do you:

--- Tell (B) to stop diving, but allow (A) to keep on doing it because it helps your team?

--- Tell both players to stop diving because it's not "ethical?"

--- Have (A) give (B) lessons on how to do it right?

In other words, is it diving you gusy don't like, or when you think it isn't done well. Personally, if you can do it successfully, I say more power to you. There's a risk, of course, but isn't your job to help you team win? No call, no foul?

I've noticed for years that when Osgood plays back in the net it's a sign of lower confidence, and when he comes out of the crease, he's confident, on his game, and at his best. I have NEVER seen him come out like he has in this playoffs, and he is coming way out more and more. Now, it's working - no doubt about that - but even I am shocked that some of these players streaking down don't try to go around him. He's 1/3 of the way to the blue line sometimes!

My somewhat vague question ---- will Pittsburgh do this, or can Detroit D-men pressure them enough to force early shots with Ozzie cutting down the angle?

Here we go - the predictions, the opinions, the stats, the arguments - and yet here we have two team that didn't play each other even once in the regular season. Frankly, although I "think" there is some slight circumstantial evidence to favor the Wings (experience, tougher opponents, some freakin' talent), there's nothing on which to DIRECTLY make a comparison. Is this a good thing, because everything is fresh and unknown, or is it a bad thing, because we're all truly in the dark.

I honestly cannot predict the outcome, and that in a strange way makes this a relaxed and fun finals for me.

You?

Forget predicting who will win - we've done that to death all playoff long. Assuming a Detroit/Pittsburgh final, for each team what aspect of the game (offense, defense, goalie, power play, penalty kill, face-offs, checking, coaching, line changes, depth, strategy, etc. etc.) do you consider to be the weakest or most vulnerable for each team?

Back it up with stats, or with a very strong fact-based argument. Your argument might not fit the numbers, but still could be right if you have a reason for it.

Best answer to the best answer......which doesn't include a prediction of who will win and or in how many games.

Now, let me start by saying I think Mike Babcock is a terrific coach, genius at times, and the best around. However, in the first period, when dallas was taking the play to Detroit and he called a time out, I was shocked that he left Chelios out there. It was as if I could smell the goal coming! Chelios still contributes, but he's not the guy you want out there when the other team has just been skating rings around you.

I thought that was a mistake by Babcock.

On the other hand, whatever you might think of Osgood, Babcock looks like a Swami for making that move when he did. AND - this is not an indictment of his coaching skills, which I think are best in the NHL. I just thought he blew that one.

1) Wouldn't be interesting if the Sharks came back to win the series, 33 years after it was last done, when that was 33 years before it was first done? Just an interesting coincidence.

2) Don't you think that if your team puts itself in the position where one bad call can cost you the game, you really don't have anything to complain about? I mean, we all know that while the NHL refs are the best in sports, things get missed - it has been that way since the game began and it'll always be that way. Bad calls are going to happen, so don't you think that it's your responsibiity as players and coaches to make sure that bad calls cannot make the difference? I know that if I were coaching, that's what I'd be telling my players --- get over it. If you let a bad call beat you, too damn freakin' bad. Wokr harder and make sure they can't.

It goes for fans, too - bad calls, unfortunate injuries, are all going to happen. If your team can't overcome it, that's a weakness, like any other

Is there a compilation of how many games in seven-games series' have gone 4, how many have gone 5, and so on? Someone just asked the question about what the odds were for a game 6, and this got me to thinking - someone should know this!

I won't be on to see answers until tomorrow, but I'm sure one of you guys knows......

....the Wings this year for the "dueling goaltenders," thinking maybe the Wings were right all along? I've always felt that a team should have two #1 goalies, for this very reason. Goalies can go hot and cold, and right now a #1 playoff goalie for the team is replaced by the guy with the best GAA in the league. If three or four (or eight) games down the road Osgood struggles, there's a #1 guy to bring back into the net.

I thought the two-goalie system this year was genius, especially given Hasek's age, streakiness, and injuries. I said so in November, and I think we're seeing why it was done.

My personal opinion is that Hasek is reaching the end of his hockey days. I don't think he has the physical ability to play all the time, is injury prone, and his focus isn't there. He'll play again this playoff, but this is a team/tandem effort, and that could make the difference,

Side note - never understood why backup QBs in NFL don't get more play. Injuries happen!

I recently moved to the Keweenaw Peninsula of Michigan (and loving it). I was surprised when I started reading and hearing how the Portage Lake team won the Stanley Cup in 1904 by beating the Montreal Wanderers, becoming "World Champions." Imagine my shock when I started checking into it and learned that not only did the team NOT win the Stanley Cup, the team they challenged and supposedly beat for this "World Championship" that is celebrated here wasn't even the top team or Stanley Cup champion, but the finals loser to the Ottawa team. Still, it is "common knowledge" that in 1904 Portage Lake became the World Champion and the Stanley Cup by beating the Wanderers.

I am amazed at how widespread this myth is, considering it only took me 12 seconds to discover it wasn't true.

I guess there's not much a of a question here, except.....

Have you ever seen anything so ridiculous in your life?

By the way, I just proclaimed myself Emperor.

I don't get to see Ottawa much at all. What was the event, the moment, the game, where - in your opinion - they started this fall. You can't even call it a slide, can you?

The scale is certainly different, but with the Wings and their losing slide, I could point to three specific events which I believe led to the slide that took three weeks to repair:

--- Kronwall's injury weakened the defense;

--- The game against the Wild they should have lost, but didn't. I think that changed their mindset in an unhealthy way;

--- The Anaheim game where the tying goal was disallowed in the final minutes. It cemented a losing mode.

Any one of those events by themselves didn't cause it, but the way they fell insuccession, I think, started the skid. Of course it was followed by more injuries, the SJose screwy goal, and so on, but I still point to these events in succession - the Wild game being the key even though it was a win.

For the Senators, what was/were the moment/moments?

If Edmonton happened to squeak in and Colorado tanked, leaving Edmonton and Vancouver 7&8, all the Canadian teams would be in. Does that happen often? How about it, stat guys?

The guys I look up to the most? Guys like Chris Draper. Been in the league for 17 years (14 with Detroit); will never see the Hall of Fame if he doesn't buy a ticket; doesn't break records --- but he has three Stanley Cups, and I don't think the Wings have all three of those if not for him. He's not Wayne Gretzky, but this is a guy who has made the absolute most out of everything he has in hockey.

I was hoping one of the rules gurus could clarify a couple things for me:

1) How are GAA calculated when a goalie plays only part of a game - either being pulled or inserted? Is GAA by period, minutes, or ________?

2) Does it count against the GAA if an empty-netter is scored? Logic says the answer would be no, but logic is not always the determining factor in sports.

Thanks

Rich

I usually HATE "Who do you think will win?" questions, and "Who is your favorite..." stuff -- but I think this is a little different. As a Wings fan, I would be relieved if Chicago didn't make the playoffs, especially in the 8th spot, because they have given the Wings a rough time this year. They won the first four, and even though the Wings won the last two, last night's game was about as tough as you can have it and still win.

So ---- who, be honest now, scares you if your team had to face them in the first round?

I was inspired to ask because of the questions and video shown below. I recall Paul Coffey doing it, but did Howe or Gretzky ever managed to pop one into their own net, as far as we know?

We have a black man and a woman fighting for the Democratic nomination. One of them will face off against a Vietnam Vet on the Republican side.

Try to refrain from making insults or irrelevant comments...this is not about who should win.

Think back to how people would have reacted to this back in 1978 - 30 years ago. I was there, albeit a young dude. It was unthinkable - a black man, a woman, or a Vietnem Vet as President???

Some things DO progress....

This is one for those of you who work stats in your sleep. Is there any hard NHL information about what percentage of goals in the shootout are shots and what percentage are from dekes? Obviously there is a gray area as to what constitutes a deke versus a shot, since even on a shot there could be some movement meant to distract the goalie and all dekes involve a shot of some kind, but has anyone looked into it? My gut feeling tells me that dekes run a lower percentage, although there may be more deke-goals simply because they are used more often. Anyone looked at this?