Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Los Angeles Kings Fans & Irrationality

Unfairly taking the blame

The aftermath of the Los Angeles Kings' loss to the San Jose Sharks has produced one of the more bizarre fan backlashes in recent history, and as a fan of the Edmonton Oilers, I'm well-versed in fan backlashes.  Since the lockout, Edmonton fans have given us the Chris Pronger backlash, the Craig MacTavish backlash, the Dustin Penner backlash, the Shawn Horcoff backlash and, well you get the picture.  The constant backlash in Edmonton has surrounded a losing team, and in fact, the worst team in the NHL over the last five years.  But Los Angeles was a playoff team, a seventh seed who lost to the second seed as expected.  They were handicapped because they were missing their best forward, so who could the fans possibly have in their sights?

He's an incredibly effective player, one of the best at his position, and over the last couple of seasons, he's proven himself as someone who drives the play, sometimes single-handedly.  Despite all of that, he's been called "fat", "out of shape", "unfocused", and "lazy" since losing to the Sharks. 

The scapegoating began on Twitter at the end of each Kings' loss in the series.  It spread to various message boards and blogs and by the time the Sharks eliminated the Kings, there was no doubt - the Kings lost because of the failings of one man and one man alone.

Star-divide

Kings' fans blamed...Drew Doughty

Though the reaction has been widespread, this thread captures the fan reaction perfectly.  A sampling of the first twenty or so grades shows what Kings fans think of Doughty's performance against the Sharks.  I've compared Doughty's grades with those of Jack Johnson, L.A.'s human turnstile on the blueline:

Doughty's grades: B C+ D D- B- B- C C- C- C- C C C+ C- D C+ C D
Johnson's grades: A B+ D A B+ A B C- B B A B+ B F B+ B Solid

 

According to the fans, Doughty graded out at C- and Johnson at B+. 

My working hypothesis is that Kings' fans are suffering mass delusions.

I've written about selective perception and the effect it has on fans with pre-existing biases, but this is an extreme case. I don't know if there is a bias towards blaming the better players when things go poorly, regardless of actual performance and influence on the outcome, but it seems that something like that is at work here.  Doughty is taking the blame for the loss because he's the face of the team and in the absence of Anze Kopitar, clearly the best player on the team.  Never mind that the fan grades were diametrically opposed to actual on-ice performance, the sentiment seems to be "the team lost, we're going to play whack-a-mole with our best player."

To demonstrate just how diametrically opposed the grades and performance were, I've pulled some stats from the Sharks-Kings series recap I wrote last week, just to zero in on this comparison.  First up is the even strength scoring chances for and against comparison:

# Player CF/15 CA/15 CD/15
8 Drew Doughty  3.494 3.364 0.129
3 Jack Johnson  2.111 5.277 -3.166

 

Doughty was on the ice for 1.3 more chances for and 2 less chances against per 15 minutes.  While Doughty was on the ice for more scoring chances for than against, Johnson's -3 chances differential per 15 minutes of even strength time on ice works out, all things being equal, to something in the range of a -40 goal differential over 82 games.

And Doughty wasn't getting the benefit of the easier minutes, either.  A look at the head-to-head time on ice shows just how tough Doughty's minutes were:

Sharksvskingsh2hicetime_medium

Doughty played nearly an hour of even strength time against the Thornton line while Johnson got just 20 minutes. 

Those differences in the scoring chances become clear when we look at the Kings performance with and without Doughty and Johnson:

Kings w/ Johnson:  14 / 35 - 28.6%
Kings w/o Johnson:  36 / 45 - 44.4%

 

Kings w/ Doughty:  27 / 26 - 50.9%
Kings w/o Doughty:  23 / 54 - 29.9%

Why then, is Johnson being lauded for his play in this series?  My initial thought was his point production - after all, he did record five points in six games.  Last playoff season, Johnson recorded seven assists in six games.  He can clearly help out on the power play, but as we've seen above, he gives that and more back at even strength.  In discussing Johnson's performance, the always astute George Ays weighed in on his even strength play:

Keep in mind, that despite 11 goals in 12 games, he somehow acquired a -7.

He continued:

He has the worst plus/minus in the league among defenseman since the lockout at -78. He leaks shots and chances against like the Kings are shorthanded. He does all that without even having the responsibilities of playing other 1st lines, thanks to Mitchell and Doughty.

That didn't change in these playoffs.  Doughty and Mitchell took the toughs, Johnson got easier minutes and was buried.  But there's also something else going on here.  In the comments in the thread mentioned above and in various other places, Johnson is being praised for his defensive play, his "positioning" his "own zone work" and so on.  For once, I get to throw the "are they even watching the games?" question out there. 

I used this quote in the selective perception article, and it applies here as well:  "Remember it however you want to and I’ll remember it how it actually happened."

And just so I'm not accused of "misremembering", take some time out to peruse these videos, paying careful attention to #3 on the ice:

Comment 44 comments  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Let’s hope Lombardi and the Kings owners have the same bias and then the Oilers can offer a trade for Doughty. Would you give up this years’ first overall pick for him? Or Eberle plus?

by gcw_rocks on May 6, 2011 6:53 AM MDT reply actions  

Strangely, I would rather give up the first overall than Eberle plus.

by edwards_daddy on May 6, 2011 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions  

Let’s hope Lombardi and the Kings owners have the same bias

Thankfully, they don’t.

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 6, 2011 12:40 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

Ahh, come on. You sure? We would be happy to take him. We love our dough boys in Edmonton!

by gcw_rocks on May 6, 2011 6:33 PM MDT up reply actions  

Really good stuff Derek.

I don’t know if there is a bias towards blaming the better players when things go poorly, regardless of actual performance and influence on the outcome

I think we should call this something like “the captains curse”. The Flames have been a really good example of this. Iginla and company go to the final? Iginla’s one of the best captains in the league. Iginla and company fail in the first round? The Flames leadership is severely lacking. That’s honestly how the pendulum has swung in town since 2003-04.

by Kent Wilson on May 6, 2011 7:38 AM MDT reply actions  

I always laugh about Iginla, as an oiler fan living in Calgary. The last two october-novembers, maybe longer, Iginla has shifted overnight to over-the-hill. People magically forget that he’s a slow starter, and that his best numbers come in the second half of the year.

I’d kill to have Iginla on my team, guy is a great player (and a class act) and the olympics should have proved to everyone that if you put him on a line with great people he more than holds his own: one of Canada’s absolute best players in Vancouver. That said I also support trading the guy if you get the right value back (much like how you acquired him, but that’s another story entirely).

On Doughty: Isn’t that how it always works? The mainstream media doesn’t use these types of stats, and without them it’s hard to make this argument. In round one this was compounded by the fact that the “toughs” in San Jose isn’t going to be considered as the Thornton line, because of his trend of failing to produce in the post season. The “toughs” would have been some combination of Couture, Clowe, and Pavelski.

by Ca$h-Money! on May 6, 2011 8:05 AM MDT up reply actions  

In round one this was compounded by the fact that the "toughs" in San Jose isn’t going to be considered as the Thornton line, because of his trend of failing to produce in the post season. The "toughs" would have been some combination of Couture, Clowe, and Pavelski.

You’re saying this is how the media views it?

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 6, 2011 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions  

Right. What I’m saying is that I think that the media and casual fan is quick to suggest that the Thornton line is not the toughs. I’m not sure that it is or isn’t the case, personally, because I believe that the Sharks are one of the deepest teams in the league.

by Ca$h-Money! on May 6, 2011 9:31 AM MDT up reply actions  

I think we should call this something like "the captains curse".

As George and I were discussing this phenomenon (Rangers fans blame Staal when things go poorly) he said something to the effect of “I should write about this, but I’m sure Kent will beat me to it.”

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 6, 2011 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions  

Tough minutes

I don’t see a huge drop off between the Thornton line and the Couture line in terms of quality. There is a big difference between SJ’s Top 6 and Bottom 6 (outside of Couture there is nothing really there in the bottom 6). In my view, it makes more sense to consider “tough minutes” to be against the top 6 and “soft minutes” to be against the bottom 6.

Johnson played 72% of his minutes against the Top 6 of SJ. Doughty played 70% of his time against the top 6. I don’t see that big of difference in quality of competition really.

Your point that Johnson sucks and got buried is absolutely correct though.

by Smytty777 on May 6, 2011 8:32 AM MDT reply actions  

I’m pretty confident that Marleau, Thornton, and Setoguchi would beat the pants off of Clowe, Couture, and Heatley head to head, and other clubs are certainly matching their best defenders against Thornton’s group in these playoffs. Why do you think Couture’s group is about as good?

As for the “bottom six”, this is another case where I think “top nine” and “bottom three” is more appropriate. The gap between the second in third line (I assume you meant Pavelski where you said Couture above) in terms of both quality and ice time is much less pronounced than the gap between the third and fourth.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on May 6, 2011 8:43 AM MDT up reply actions  

We are talking about a sample size of 6 games. Are you 100% confident that Thornton’s line was better than Couture’s in that sample? That seems a bit silly to me. Clowe was likely the Sharks best player in the LA series.

I don’t think the gap between the first and second lines is substantial enough to say that one D man was playing soft minutes and the other tough.

I did mean Pavelski, thanks.

by Smytty777 on May 6, 2011 8:46 AM MDT up reply actions  

Clowe was likely the Sharks best player in the LA series.

Why, do you suppose that was?

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 6, 2011 9:03 AM MDT up reply actions  

We’re talking about different things then. I’m not just talking about a six-game sample; I’m talking about which players ought to be considered the Sharks’ best and only then talking about the six-game sample. Given that context, it makes perfect sense that Doughty would get the Thornton’s line since Doughty generally plays the toughs. That the Sharks’ second-best group had a lot success shouldn’t be surprising at least partially because Jack Johnson is a poor defender.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on May 6, 2011 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions  

I don’t see a huge drop off between the Thornton line and the Couture line in terms of quality.

If you were drafting a team by line to play a single season or a playoff series, this isn’t even close. Thornton Marleau and Setoguchi are going to be drafted ahead of Clowe, Couture and Heatley by everyone not suffering from some sort of delusion.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 6, 2011 9:03 AM MDT up reply actions  

That comes back down to sample size again. Over the course of a season you can be pretty certain that the Thornton line will outplay the Couture line. Over the course of a series you are probably just above a coin filip, so is there realistically enough difference in 6 games to differentiate good competition from bad? The variance over a 6 game sample could be massive so you really don’t have any sort certainty that one line is outplaying the other over that sample (especially since the scoring chance numbers are reasonably similar for the entire Top 9 of SJ).

by Smytty777 on May 6, 2011 9:18 AM MDT up reply actions  

I believe the point is that the Thornton-Marleau-Setoguchi give the ‘2nd line’ the room to operate. If that 2nd line had to face toughs, there’s no way they would do as good as the Thornton-anchored unit.

by Triumph44 on May 6, 2011 9:29 AM MDT up reply actions  

I loved this introduction, Derek. I totally got sucked into thinking this was going to be about Penner.

As for the actual point of the post, Johnson is definitely terrible and Doughty is definitely good. Very odd that there’s a large group of folks seeing things differently.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on May 6, 2011 8:36 AM MDT reply actions  

I loved this introduction, Derek. I totally got sucked into thinking this was going to be about Penner.

Your article from yesterday made this introduction work. Thanks for that.

Very odd that there’s a large group of folks seeing things differently.

It’s not limited to that thread, either. I followed the Kings hashtags on Twitter during the series and they were alive with calls for Doughty’s head.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 6, 2011 9:03 AM MDT up reply actions  

No, Drew Doughty is clearly fat, out of shape, unfocused, and lazy. I saw it with my own eyes.
Watch the games, and you would know!

by DarrenV on May 6, 2011 9:12 AM MDT up reply actions  

Lol yeah…i too thought this was about Penner and then..i was like wow…he got me there

Success is not a goal..its a byproduct

by SumOil on May 6, 2011 9:50 AM MDT up reply actions  

Very odd that there’s a large group of folks seeing things differently.

havent you heard? its all about the points!
but yeah..I think LA was beat due to superior depth of SJS. and them missing Kopitar.

Success is not a goal..its a byproduct

by SumOil on May 6, 2011 9:52 AM MDT up reply actions  

I think LA was beat due to superior depth of SJS. and them missing Kopitar.

I’ve read just about all of the post-mortems in the message boards and the forums — that is what most Kings fans think.

I have to say, asserting that there’s a universal opinion that Doughty’s to blame is still puzzling to me. Maybe giving too much weight to post-game 6 reactions on Twitter, because Doughty didn’t keep the puck in? Regardless, there’s a broad spectrum of opinion out there, and in my view it’s not summed up by one thread on LGK. Heck, even skimming the Insider yields a variety of other scapegoats (Penner, Terry Murray, lack of leadership, lack of offense).

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 6, 2011 6:04 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

As I said above, this reaction isn’t just on LGK. This happened on the Kings board:

http://fans.kings.nhl.com/community/forum/38-kings-talk/

HF Boards, this thread is an example:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=908068

and Twitter, where I first noticed it.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 7, 2011 7:23 AM MDT up reply actions  

Which thread on the Kings community board was it? I don’t see it. (Actually the main place to go is Rich Hammond’s Insider blog — probably why that doesn’t have many posts.) That HF thread also has a variety of opinions.

What I’m getting at, though, is that you present it as a universal reaction — and that’s what I take issue with. You’re taking a thread on LGK, one you saw on HF boards, and your summary of postgame rants on Twitter and having it stand for the entire fanbase. I’ve spent hours reading post-mortems of that series, and while there are plenty of things said about Doughty that make my vision darken with rage, he isn’t being held up as the sole reason we lost in the way you describe. There are plenty of threads and comments about Terry Murray, the Penner acquisition, our static power play, the need for more scoring depth, the loss of Kopitar, etc. LGK and HF boards have some emotional posters — lord help us if they get to stand for everyone — but I can link other threads on those same boards that have different theories.

You also say it spread to blogs — which blogs? I don’t know which ones you mean.

I wish you had just cited some of the genuinely bizarre comments about Doughty instead of presenting this generalization.

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 7, 2011 9:33 AM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

I might be wrong about this – and Derek can correct me if I am – but I read the introduction as a generalization of Kings’ fans (which means it’s never going to be representative of everyone) as intentionally overstated for narrative purposes. So while it’s totally fine to call a spade a spade and say, “That’s an overstatement!”, I don’t think most folks would have read it otherwise to begin with.

The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.

by Scott Reynolds on May 7, 2011 12:16 PM MDT up reply actions  

I guess I’m not most people…sorry for that, then. The reaction in the comments is “A large group of people think that? Really?” Doughty is the subject of a lot of unfair and extreme criticism at the moment, but that didn’t mesh with my experience.

I still want to throw you guys a ticket tape parade for doing the hard work to compile the stats and coming to Doughty’s defense. Thanks for that.

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 7, 2011 6:25 PM MDT up reply actions  

The reaction in the comments is "A large group of people think that? Really?" Doughty is the subject of a lot of unfair and extreme criticism at the moment, but that didn’t mesh with my experience.

Given the reaction I’ve linked to, I think you’re actually in the minority and aren’t comprehending that.

EIther that or the circle you run in is also in the minority.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 8, 2011 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions  

Very odd that there’s a large group of folks seeing things differently.

It’s not even just the Kings fan base. I see praise for JJ everywhere, even beyond this series. It’s completely baffling. He’s a homeless man’s Mike Green, at both ends of the ice.

I was disappointed that contract didn’t find it’s way into your bracket. It’s laughably bad, unless he somehow learns to be Lidstrom by about year 3 of it.

Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf

by George E. Ays on May 6, 2011 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions  

When the Avs were rumored to be trading Stastny to the Kings there were a lot of folks who talked about how good Johnson was. I went and looked at the possession metrics and it seems he’s average, at best.

Avalanche Shutouts are a powerful Aphrodisiac
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time

by Jibblescribbits on May 6, 2011 1:53 PM MDT up reply actions  

I’ve always focused on his god awful GAON/60 every year. I don’t care how bad/unlucky the goaltending is/was, there’s no reason a defenseman should be 3+ for 4 straight years.

Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf

by George E. Ays on May 6, 2011 6:57 PM MDT up reply actions  

Fantastic stuff Derek.

Just so I’m clear, you’re saying is that Johnson wasn’t very good in this series. I’m assuming then that you agree with some in the Edmonton media that believe that since Johnson was drafted with a lottery pick and might not live up to expectations that the Oilers should therefore never draft a defenceman with a lottery pick.

(just typing that made my head hurt, how can anyone believe that garbage)

Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.

by ryanbatty on May 6, 2011 9:34 AM MDT reply actions  

franchise defenseman- thats what Johnson was supposed to be.
Oh well. While there still maybe a couple of years of development to go, but he aint even a top pairing d-man so far.

Success is not a goal..its a byproduct

by SumOil on May 6, 2011 9:49 AM MDT up reply actions  

Yeah looks like he won’t be what was expected. But listening to fans using him or other lottery pick blue liners as a reason to not draft Larsson just makes me shake my head.

Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.

by ryanbatty on May 6, 2011 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions  

Well he’s one member of a sample set. There’s a few defencemen who didn’t work out or who are less than advertised, compared to what seems a smaller % of forwards in recent years. Could just be a function of longer learning curve, but that’s hardly irrelevant to the “better to draft a forward” strategy.

Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 1:43 PM MDT up reply actions  

Recent history definitely makes that strategy seem sound. Some of the recent classes of forwards have been fantastic. Go back 10 years and you find Torres, Svitov, Chistov, in the top 5. It’s really just a matter of the window you want to look at, the smaller the window the more self serving it seems to the argument you want to make.

And I’ll still take this argument over “What round were Weber and Keith drafted in?” any day of the week.

Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.

by ryanbatty on May 6, 2011 2:15 PM MDT up reply actions  

To me the logical window is post-lockout, since the new CBA is very much part of the equation. There’s a 7-9 year window. If you take it back further, it’s important to take into account what the players accomplished by age 25-27 – modern RFA equivalent – as opposed to their total body of work.(e.g. Bouwmeester in Florida, not JayBo’s complete career)

Who’s gonna do the most in his first 7 years as a pro? is not the only question but it’s certainly one of them. Who’s gonna do the most on his ELC? is another. Recent recipes for success are tending towards young forwards, more veteran defenders. (e.g. Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Chicago) Of course that method in itself invokes tiny sample sizes.

Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 2:36 PM MDT up reply actions  

The draft years you’re talking about didn’t exactly produce great defensemen either, as I remember it.

BTW, I am pretty sure that praise for Johnson comes from the fact that a lot of people don’t watch the Kings, people love to sort by points to find out who the best defensemen are, and the fact that Johnson’s badness isn’t really evident in one game.

by Triumph44 on May 6, 2011 3:54 PM MDT up reply actions  

Great article Derek.

Reviewing the highlights, I thought he played the position well in the 4th one – was there a more proper play? I’m not trying to nitpick but actually curious what a better play would have been.

by till_horcoff_is_coach on May 6, 2011 12:13 PM MDT reply actions  

Thanks for writing this. The only thing that I ask is that you please believe me when I say that not all Kings fans are on the hate Drew/love JJ bandwagon.

The reaction to this series is a culmination of a trend going all season long. JJ was the only one scoring on the power play in the beginning of the year, while Doughty had to retake his fitness test in camp. In the early going Doughty’s focus wasn’t there. But then Johnson’s flash of improvement disappeared, and Doughty came back — but by then the meme was in place.

By ‘Doughty standards’ you could say he didn’t progress as much as he should have — he improved his defense, but not his point totals. But people tend to zero in on his mistakes (missed hipcheck on Couture) and block out the big picture. It’s frustrating.

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 6, 2011 12:32 PM MDT reply actions   1 recs

I’m not sure your sample size is large enough, because most rational Kings fans do not blame Doughty. Also, the joke about Penner being fat was amusing until it turned out he was indeed too fat.

For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.

by Nut on May 6, 2011 1:37 PM MDT reply actions   1 recs

Yeah, this part right here:

The scapegoating began on Twitter at the end of each Kings’ loss in the series. It spread to various message boards and blogs and by the time the Sharks eliminated the Kings, there was no doubt – the Kings lost because of the failings of one man and one man alone.

Makes it seem like the SB Nation blogs are included — and that everyone thinks this. That’s kind of weird.

In Dinglebarn We Trust -- JftC

by Niesy on May 6, 2011 3:44 PM MDT up reply actions   1 recs

Niesy and Nut are correct and I’ll vouch for their argument that there certainly was no Doughty versus Johnson vibe.

I peruse a lot of the Kings’ blog/media stuff as well as a lot of general hockey media outlets (on-line, television, newspaper) and I also noticed more negatives thrown in the direction of Penner, Murray and of course, the absence of Kopitar. JJ was certainly not the focus of a lot of positive looks; actually he seemed to be less a person of note in the stuff I’ve followed and are following as of yet. Doughty was bashed after Game 1, for his somewhat bad performance, but it died down when he responded with that fine effort in Game 2. Beyond that, I failed to see him get to hung up to dry by the stuff I was following and I haven’t seen anything different since then…

Not sure why it seems to be the common perception…

Is Penner a good eater? I keep hearing whispers that he’s very finicky and is obcessive with his dieting. Oh well, not all of us can have the body of a Brad Pitt :-(

Hoping your former and our current boy gets his mojo going next season so Kopitar has a 30 goal scorer to play with. Be real nice; yessum indeed…

Good blog btw…

by kiosku2 on May 7, 2011 2:02 AM MDT reply actions   1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Ryan_2008_small
The Oilers Begin the Road to Rebuilding
Small
Oilers Next Head Coach
Small
Josh Anderson Scouting Report
Small
The 2012 NHL Draft and Combine - the Fanpost Almanac
Chambers-john_small
Risk Reward Radulov
Small
Joonas Korpisalo Scouting Report
2012-01-21-012338_small
Oilers Prospect Frans Tuohimaa Signs an Extension with Jokerit
Small
Ryan Murray - The Numbers
Chambers-john_small
Cody Hodgson, the game within the game, and inattention to detail
Small
Hong Kong Animators Draw NHL Violence

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

32 - 40 - 10

Lost 3

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (27-11, .711)
  2. St. Louis Blues (24-10, .706)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (22-10, .688)
  4. Los Angeles Kings (18-11, .621)
  5. San Jose Sharks (18-13, .581)
  6. Phoenix Coyotes (20-15, .571)
  7. Nashville Predators (18-14, .563)
  8. Chicago Blackhawks (21-19, .525)
  9. Colorado Avalanche (16-19, .457)
  10. Dallas Stars (18-22, .450)
  11. Anaheim Ducks (14-19, .424)
  12. Edmonton Oilers (18-25, .419)
  13. Calgary Flames (13-21, .382)
  14. Columbus Blue Jackets (14-31, .311)
  15. Minnesota Wild (8-22,.267)

Eastern Conference

  1. Pittsburgh Penguins (31-13, .711)
  2. Boston Bruins (27-11, .711)
  3. New York Rangers (25-16, .610)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (21-17, .553)
  5. New Jersey Devils (18-16, .529)
  6. Ottawa Senators (19-17, .528)
  7. Washington Capitals (20-19, .513)
  8. Montreal Canadiens (16-19, .457)
  9. Winnipeg Jets (15-19, .441)
  10. Buffalo Sabres (14-18, .438)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (13-17, .433)
  12. Florida Panthers (14-19, .424)
  13. Toronto Maple Leafs (17-24, .415)
  14. New York Islanders (8-23, .258)
  15. Tampa Bay Lightning (10-30, .250)

Division Standings

  1. Central (79-58, .577)
  2. Atlantic (68-50, .576)
  3. Pacific (62-54, .534)
  4. Northeast (69-65, .515)
  5. Northwest (49-69, .415)
  6. Southeast (51-81, .386)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Small Alan Hull

Contributors

Newtwitter2_small Jonathan Willis

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL