2009-2010 Blackhawks Lord Stanley Bonertime Thread

[Armchair_QB]

THIS

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

THIS THESE

Scarlett's lady-bazzers'd

[Bonk]

Wow, Hawks get dominated in the first 10 minutes...

Wait, what?

Looks like shots were 10-4 SJ before the Hawks' goal.

Looked like the ice was definitely tilted in the Sharks favor before that.

The entire first was about as even a period of up-and-down hockey you're likely to see. Action went both ways, fast, the whole way.

Shots never tell the whole story, but take a look at this...

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/PL030322.HTM

0:25 SJ shot
1:16 Chi shot
1:23 Chi miss
1:25 Chi miss
1:31 SJ shot
4:22 SJ shot blocked
4:40 Chi shot blocked
5:34 SJ miss
5:46 SJ miss
5:54 SJ shot
5:55 SJ shot
6:00 SJ shot blocked
7:06 SJ shot
7:11 SJ shot
7:35 SJ shot blocked
8:31 Chi shot
9:35 Chi shot
9:40 Chi shot blocked
10:01 SJ shot
10:09 SJ shot blocked
10:35 SJ shot
10:45 Chi shot blocked
10:58 Chi shot blocked
11:18 SJ shot
11:37 SJ shot
11:51 Chi shot
12:01 Chi shot blocked
12:05 Chi miss
12:34 Chi shot
12:48 Chi goal

There's about a 30-second stretch there at 5:30 where the Hawks had to weather a barrage of pucks towards their net, but beyond that it was pretty even through and through.

Hits were all but even at 9-8 Sharks. Face-offs, too at 5-4 Sharks. The Hawks had 1 takeaway to the Sharks' 0 and 1 giveaway to the Sharks' 3.

Agreed, shots aren't a tell-all stat, but 10-4 is still a significant margin. Blocked shots don't result in scoring chances.

Still a very well-played game.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Wow, Hawks get dominated in the first 10 minutes...

Wait, what?

Looks like shots were 10-4 SJ before the Hawks' goal.

Looked like the ice was definitely tilted in the Sharks favor before that.

The entire first was about as even a period of up-and-down hockey you're likely to see. Action went both ways, fast, the whole way.

Shots never tell the whole story, but take a look at this...

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/PL030322.HTM

0:25 SJ shot
1:16 Chi shot
1:23 Chi miss
1:25 Chi miss
1:31 SJ shot
4:22 SJ shot blocked
4:40 Chi shot blocked
5:34 SJ miss
5:46 SJ miss
5:54 SJ shot
5:55 SJ shot
6:00 SJ shot blocked
7:06 SJ shot
7:11 SJ shot
7:35 SJ shot blocked
8:31 Chi shot
9:35 Chi shot
9:40 Chi shot blocked
10:01 SJ shot
10:09 SJ shot blocked
10:35 SJ shot
10:45 Chi shot blocked
10:58 Chi shot blocked
11:18 SJ shot
11:37 SJ shot
11:51 Chi shot
12:01 Chi shot blocked
12:05 Chi miss
12:34 Chi shot
12:48 Chi goal

There's about a 30-second stretch there at 5:30 where the Hawks had to weather a barrage of pucks towards their net, but beyond that it was pretty even through and through.

Hits were all but even at 9-8 Sharks. Face-offs, too at 5-4 Sharks. The Hawks had 1 takeaway to the Sharks' 0 and 1 giveaway to the Sharks' 3.

Agreed, shots aren't a tell-all stat, but 10-4 is still a significant margin. Blocked shots don't result in scoring chances.

But they do still indicate control of the puck in the offensive zone, which speaks to the 'tilt' of the ice.

[Bonk]

Wow, Hawks get dominated in the first 10 minutes 8:31...

Wait, what?

Looks like shots were 10-4 SJ before the Hawks' goal.

Looked like the ice was definitely tilted in the Sharks favor before that.

The entire first was about as even a period of up-and-down hockey you're likely to see. Action went both ways, fast, the whole way.

Shots never tell the whole story, but take a look at this...

http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/PL030322.HTM

0:25 SJ shot
1:16 Chi shot
1:23 Chi miss
1:25 Chi miss
1:31 SJ shot
4:22 SJ shot blocked
4:40 Chi shot blocked
5:34 SJ miss
5:46 SJ miss
5:54 SJ shot
5:55 SJ shot
6:00 SJ shot blocked
7:06 SJ shot
7:11 SJ shot
7:35 SJ shot blocked
8:31 Chi shot
9:35 Chi shot
9:40 Chi shot blocked
10:01 SJ shot
10:09 SJ shot blocked
10:35 SJ shot
10:45 Chi shot blocked
10:58 Chi shot blocked
11:18 SJ shot
11:37 SJ shot
11:51 Chi shot
12:01 Chi shot blocked
12:05 Chi miss
12:34 Chi shot
12:48 Chi goal

There's about a 30-second stretch there at 5:30 where the Hawks had to weather a barrage of pucks towards their net, but beyond that it was pretty even through and through.

Hits were all but even at 9-8 Sharks. Face-offs, too at 5-4 Sharks. The Hawks had 1 takeaway to the Sharks' 0 and 1 giveaway to the Sharks' 3.

Agreed, shots aren't a tell-all stat, but 10-4 is still a significant margin. Blocked shots don't result in scoring chances.

But they do still indicate control of the puck in the offensive zone, which speaks to the 'tilt' of the ice.

Fix'd.

I totally agree about blocked shots = zone possession, and clearly the momentum was shifting the last couple of minutes before the goal. San Jose was in control early was my point. Ten minutes was kind of an arbitrary timeframe.

After that, total Hawks awesomeness, no doubt.

[Internet Apex]

THIS

[Bonk]

THIS

Yes. Great pair of winners, indeed.

[MAD]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

[SKO]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

Amusing, well-written, but rats did not, I repeat, did Not, cause the Plague.

[Quality Start Machine]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

The new guy's a girl.

[MAD]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

Amusing, well-written, but rats did not, I repeat, did Not, cause the Plague.

Go split hairs with this nerd.

[SKO]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

Amusing, well-written, but rats did not, I repeat, did Not, cause the Plague.

Go split hairs with this nerd.

I'm alright. I've just had to accept the fact that people believe that paradigm and often refuse to break with it. It's still the widely and wrongly accepted theory. I just ask only this: If it's caused by rats, how did it wipe out the population of Iceland and the northern parts of Scandinavia.....where there were no rats?

http://www.macalester.edu/~cuffel/cohndeath.pdf - If any of you are nerdy enough to care.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

BANKSY! /artboner

(Also, what Fork said.)

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

DPD...

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

Amusing, well-written, but rats did not, I repeat, did Not, cause the Plague.

Go split hairs with this nerd.

Hait-splitting fail. She wasn't calling Bolland "self-centered."

She said, "welcome to the self-centered world of Dave Bolland" after describing what she called the rat's "umwelt," or his "self-centered world."

Big time nerd fail.

[MAD]

DPD...

The new guy at SCH with a must read.

Amusing, well-written, but rats did not, I repeat, did Not, cause the Plague.

Go split hairs with this nerd.

Hait-splitting fail. She wasn't calling Bolland "self-centered."

She said, "welcome to the self-centered world of Dave Bolland" after describing what she called the rat's "umwelt," or his "self-centered world."

Big time nerd fail.

Fails are in the what now?