I really hate to feel so pessimistic after a 'pretend' game, but they have now lost two of the three pre-season games that have been played. And it was the 'B' team losing both times. However, the guys played a LOT better tonight than they did on Wednesday--I really thought there was a good chance for them to win. And that was against Chicago's 'stars.' So, I guess things aren't looking too bad. But, every time the Wings lose--I don't care if it is a 'real' game or not--I just want to go and raid my wine rack or liquor supply. It just makes it so much easier to forget the loss.
It will be alright. I know that. But, it wouldn't be Red Wing hockey if I wasn't the voice of doom-and-gloom. ;)
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Rules...
A number of people have, once again, written about the inconsistency and idiocy of the NHL's rule-system--following the suspension of Boynton and non-suspension of Orpik--so I won't rehash it. (Besides, all of the others have done a MUCH better job than I could. ;)) I will only re-post something I did last season--a quote from Dan Connor on 'Rosanne':
"These are just the rules today. We reserve the right to change the rules at any time. For your safety, for your education, or for our amusement. That is the price of living in our kingdom."
I do believe Bettman must have this quote on a plaque on his desk--it makes about as much sense as anything else I can come up with...
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Not Meant To Be
I don't watch the news--it is too depressing. However, I wanted to see the score of the Tiger game--talk about depressing--so I made a point of having the 11:00 news on tonight. So, what was the first story on the sports segment? The Stanley Cup made an appearance 100 miles from me--back 'home' where we grew up--today. And I knew NOTHING about it! I missed an opportunity to see the Cup for the second time. I don't think I'm suppose to see it. Life sucks sometime.
Two years ago, I got a phone call from a friend in Wisconsin, asking me if I had any desire to see the Stanley Cup. As she is NO hockey fan, I was a bit confused until she told me that Brian Rafalski was making an appearance at the veteran's facility where her husband works. Well, The Husband and I jumped at the chance to go and meet him, so we made our arrangements to go with our friends to see the Cup. We got to their house in plenty of time, but they didn't quite understand the time constraints, etc, surrounding Cup appearances--they weren't ready to go. We didn't leave their home until the scheduled time for Rafalski's visit, but they weren't worried about us missing the Cup. Of course, we wound up getting to the facility 5 minutes AFTER Rafalski left. It took all of my strength to keep from crying. The only thing that kept me from doing something that I would regret later, was the fact that these are our oldest, dearest friends in the world--and hockey means nothing to them.
Two times I've missed seeing the Cup, but I still have to believe that the next opportunity will be when I FINALLY get to see it. I HAVE to believe--otherwise I'd go into the bathroom and slit my wrists with a wet noodle.
Two years ago, I got a phone call from a friend in Wisconsin, asking me if I had any desire to see the Stanley Cup. As she is NO hockey fan, I was a bit confused until she told me that Brian Rafalski was making an appearance at the veteran's facility where her husband works. Well, The Husband and I jumped at the chance to go and meet him, so we made our arrangements to go with our friends to see the Cup. We got to their house in plenty of time, but they didn't quite understand the time constraints, etc, surrounding Cup appearances--they weren't ready to go. We didn't leave their home until the scheduled time for Rafalski's visit, but they weren't worried about us missing the Cup. Of course, we wound up getting to the facility 5 minutes AFTER Rafalski left. It took all of my strength to keep from crying. The only thing that kept me from doing something that I would regret later, was the fact that these are our oldest, dearest friends in the world--and hockey means nothing to them.
Two times I've missed seeing the Cup, but I still have to believe that the next opportunity will be when I FINALLY get to see it. I HAVE to believe--otherwise I'd go into the bathroom and slit my wrists with a wet noodle.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
A New Red Wing Fan Has Arrived
Our sixth granddaughter was born this morning at 4:00 AM. She came into the world a bit over four weeks early and she weighed four pounds. There was a little concern over her breathing, so she is being transported to our hospital here, where we have a NICU. I talked to The Oldest and she is doing as well as can be expected--she's very tired, so the conversation was very short. I will go to see the baby this evening and get some pictures and more information. Quite an exciting end to our long weekend. :)
Monday, August 30, 2010
My Ears Are Hurting Already
We are just weeks away from the start of the season and I already dread having to listen to announcers completely and totally butcher Finnish names.* Now, I'm not saying I do a great job on pronunciation when it comes to some languages--frankly, I don't think I have EVER pronounced a French word or name properly--but I don't get paid like announcers do. I must say that most announcers are doing quite a good job with 'Filppula,' but they still don't have a clue about 'Valtteri.' Obviously, the reason this bothers me so much is because I am Finn and don't have to think twice about how to pronounce these names--well, at least MOST of the time. I really have a hard time with 'Teemu Selanne.' Still, it amazes me that Finnish names are so difficult for most people, because the rules aren't all that difficult.
I don't, by any means, want to imply that Finnish is an easy language--far from it. But, the extremely simplified rules to pronouncing words/names are quite easy to follow. And here goes:
--Every letter in the Finnish language is always pronounced the same way--every single time.
--Every letter is pronounced in all words--no silent letters.
--The first syllable of a word is the one that is stressed--with secondary stress on the third/fourth syllable in longer words.
Of course, there are some exceptions, but if these rules are followed, the chance of pronouncing a word properly--or very close--is quite good. I wish that the hockey announcers would learn--and use--these rules. But, if they don't want to learn the rules, they can always go here and LISTEN to the proper way to pronounce the names.
*I will, to a certain extent, excuse the mispronunciation of Finnish names by non-Finns. However, there is NEVER an excuse to pronounce the word 'sauna' wrong. NEVER! I WILL turn mean if I hear this pronounced incorrectly.
I don't, by any means, want to imply that Finnish is an easy language--far from it. But, the extremely simplified rules to pronouncing words/names are quite easy to follow. And here goes:
--Every letter in the Finnish language is always pronounced the same way--every single time.
--Every letter is pronounced in all words--no silent letters.
--The first syllable of a word is the one that is stressed--with secondary stress on the third/fourth syllable in longer words.
Of course, there are some exceptions, but if these rules are followed, the chance of pronouncing a word properly--or very close--is quite good. I wish that the hockey announcers would learn--and use--these rules. But, if they don't want to learn the rules, they can always go here and LISTEN to the proper way to pronounce the names.
*I will, to a certain extent, excuse the mispronunciation of Finnish names by non-Finns. However, there is NEVER an excuse to pronounce the word 'sauna' wrong. NEVER! I WILL turn mean if I hear this pronounced incorrectly.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Prognosticating
Like the majority of hockey fans--at least those of us in the USA--I get most of my hockey news on the interwebs. Gone are the days when I was able to go to the nearest newsstand and buy at least TWO hockey publications per week. But at this time of year--as long as I'm somewhere that actually CARRIES hockey mags--I'm able to get a bunch of magazines that will preview the coming season. And I read every one of them--for better or for worse. This week, I'm reading The Hockey News yearbook.
It amuses me to read the lists of 'what team will end the season where'--especially the way these mags have been SO wrong in the past. Obviously, these lists are done 'by committee' and I'm sure personal opinions come into play when picks are made. After all, these ARE just human beings doing the lists, so personal favorites would HAVE to be part of the decision making process. And for the most part, that is why the different mags will come up with different results. And this year, The Hockey News has decided that the Vancouver Canucks will win the Stanley Cup. AND that Detroit will be third in the west. AND that Pittsburgh is quite strong--and will place second in the east. AND that Chicago might have lost a lot, but is still an elite team that will be in the mix for defending their title. Whatever. As I said, I read these mostly for amusement--and then I read them halfway through the season and again at the end of the season, just so I can laugh at how wrong the predictions were.
The one thing from all of these magazines that DOES bother me, however, are their 'Top {insert number here}' lists. The Hockey News has their Top 50 players and, of course, I take exception with the position of some of the players. As a Red Wing fan, I can't believe that Datsyuk is a #4. Or Lidstrom is #17. Or Zetterberg is #22. AND that they are the only Wings to make the list. But, I AM biased. ;)
Of course, #1 and #2 are Crosby and Ovechkin. Everyone can be grateful that I am not a GM, because I would never have either one of these guys on my team. I WILL admit that they are talented, but I couldn't be a GM because I look at players too emotionally and not as to how well they play. Crosby wouldn't be on my team because--well, he's CROSBY! We all know the reasons to hate him. And I really don't like Ovechkin. And the reason? I think Ovechkin is the complete stereotypical, over-the-top athlete that people point to when they say why they hate sports. While some people say he is good for the sport because he adds excitement--much like some feel about Sean Avery--I am very old-fashioned and enjoy the low-key, humble, typical hockey player. Something Ovechkin would NEVER be accused of being. But enough of this.
I know that The Hockey News got input from "GMs, pro scouts and analysts," but I still don't understand why some of these players made the list. I guess I don't know HOW they picked some of these players as the best "right here and right now" with comments about them such as this:
"his scoring totals and plus-minus took a serious dip last season"
"he can...be a disaster in his own end and his playoff performance has been seriously lacking"
"...reputation has taken a beating...largely due to his inability at key moments"
" the team "had to put out an APB on him during the playoffs...and he sometimes has tunnel vision when it comes to offensive play...has the skill to become an elite NHL goal-scorer" but "does he have the will to do it?"
"you just wish he'd get a little more...involved"
The Hockey News measured the "on-ice contributions" of the players in order to decide who made this list. "...future potential and, to a lesser extent, past performance" were factors in rating the "best players going into the 2010-11 season." If past performance isn't going to be the BIGGEST factor in deciding the best players, how did they factor in on-ice contributions? It just isn't computing for me. But again, these are JUST human beings making the list, so bias will DEFINITELY be present.
Of course, I have no suggestion as to how these lists SHOULD be made. You could always put all of the info into a computer and have a list made in a simple, logical manner, but we ALL know that statistics aren't the only factors in deciding great players. And the longer I watch hockey, I see this more and more clearly.
It amuses me to read the lists of 'what team will end the season where'--especially the way these mags have been SO wrong in the past. Obviously, these lists are done 'by committee' and I'm sure personal opinions come into play when picks are made. After all, these ARE just human beings doing the lists, so personal favorites would HAVE to be part of the decision making process. And for the most part, that is why the different mags will come up with different results. And this year, The Hockey News has decided that the Vancouver Canucks will win the Stanley Cup. AND that Detroit will be third in the west. AND that Pittsburgh is quite strong--and will place second in the east. AND that Chicago might have lost a lot, but is still an elite team that will be in the mix for defending their title. Whatever. As I said, I read these mostly for amusement--and then I read them halfway through the season and again at the end of the season, just so I can laugh at how wrong the predictions were.
The one thing from all of these magazines that DOES bother me, however, are their 'Top {insert number here}' lists. The Hockey News has their Top 50 players and, of course, I take exception with the position of some of the players. As a Red Wing fan, I can't believe that Datsyuk is a #4. Or Lidstrom is #17. Or Zetterberg is #22. AND that they are the only Wings to make the list. But, I AM biased. ;)
Of course, #1 and #2 are Crosby and Ovechkin. Everyone can be grateful that I am not a GM, because I would never have either one of these guys on my team. I WILL admit that they are talented, but I couldn't be a GM because I look at players too emotionally and not as to how well they play. Crosby wouldn't be on my team because--well, he's CROSBY! We all know the reasons to hate him. And I really don't like Ovechkin. And the reason? I think Ovechkin is the complete stereotypical, over-the-top athlete that people point to when they say why they hate sports. While some people say he is good for the sport because he adds excitement--much like some feel about Sean Avery--I am very old-fashioned and enjoy the low-key, humble, typical hockey player. Something Ovechkin would NEVER be accused of being. But enough of this.
I know that The Hockey News got input from "GMs, pro scouts and analysts," but I still don't understand why some of these players made the list. I guess I don't know HOW they picked some of these players as the best "right here and right now" with comments about them such as this:
"his scoring totals and plus-minus took a serious dip last season"
"he can...be a disaster in his own end and his playoff performance has been seriously lacking"
"...reputation has taken a beating...largely due to his inability at key moments"
" the team "had to put out an APB on him during the playoffs...and he sometimes has tunnel vision when it comes to offensive play...has the skill to become an elite NHL goal-scorer" but "does he have the will to do it?"
"you just wish he'd get a little more...involved"
The Hockey News measured the "on-ice contributions" of the players in order to decide who made this list. "...future potential and, to a lesser extent, past performance" were factors in rating the "best players going into the 2010-11 season." If past performance isn't going to be the BIGGEST factor in deciding the best players, how did they factor in on-ice contributions? It just isn't computing for me. But again, these are JUST human beings making the list, so bias will DEFINITELY be present.
Of course, I have no suggestion as to how these lists SHOULD be made. You could always put all of the info into a computer and have a list made in a simple, logical manner, but we ALL know that statistics aren't the only factors in deciding great players. And the longer I watch hockey, I see this more and more clearly.
Monday, August 16, 2010
X-Files, et al
More proof that the off-season is too long and much too boring...
I believe in conspiracies.* I don't always know the 'why' of a conspiracy, I just know they exist. I am convinced that if we knew the things our government hides from us, then Warehouse 13, Eureka, and Rubicon would be considered documentaries and not fiction. (I would add Men in Black to the list, but I'm afraid someone would call the men in the white jackets to come take me away.) And now I have a new conspiracy to add to my list.
Many Red Wing fans--myself included--got peeved when Modano waited so long to decide on whether he would sign with Detroit, or not. After the word came out that he WAS coming to the Wings, some things were said that made me believe there was a reason he waited--namely, there was an agreement between him and the organization to keep quiet for a month. I really believe he told Holland the day after was wined and dined, that he would sign on for at least one more year. But, for one reason or another, he was asked to NOT say a word about it till August. And I think I have a couple of examples that back my opinion. First, he was so adamant that there would be no news until after 5 August, but he 'broke' the story himself a couple of days early. Okay, so that's a bad example. I guess what really did it for me was reading (I don't know WHERE) that he was already leaking the news to different people at least two weeks earlier--and everyone who was told was sworn to secrecy. This is enough to prove to me that there was a conspiracy. And if you don't agree, BITE ME! I'm bored and need to come up with SOMETHING to write about. :D
*Sue me--I lived through Watergate, so I believe in conspiracies! :D
I believe in conspiracies.* I don't always know the 'why' of a conspiracy, I just know they exist. I am convinced that if we knew the things our government hides from us, then Warehouse 13, Eureka, and Rubicon would be considered documentaries and not fiction. (I would add Men in Black to the list, but I'm afraid someone would call the men in the white jackets to come take me away.) And now I have a new conspiracy to add to my list.
Many Red Wing fans--myself included--got peeved when Modano waited so long to decide on whether he would sign with Detroit, or not. After the word came out that he WAS coming to the Wings, some things were said that made me believe there was a reason he waited--namely, there was an agreement between him and the organization to keep quiet for a month. I really believe he told Holland the day after was wined and dined, that he would sign on for at least one more year. But, for one reason or another, he was asked to NOT say a word about it till August. And I think I have a couple of examples that back my opinion. First, he was so adamant that there would be no news until after 5 August, but he 'broke' the story himself a couple of days early. Okay, so that's a bad example. I guess what really did it for me was reading (I don't know WHERE) that he was already leaking the news to different people at least two weeks earlier--and everyone who was told was sworn to secrecy. This is enough to prove to me that there was a conspiracy. And if you don't agree, BITE ME! I'm bored and need to come up with SOMETHING to write about. :D
*Sue me--I lived through Watergate, so I believe in conspiracies! :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)