Nitpicking a Nitpicker.

HOLD ON, guys. I have breaking news: Sam Gagner recorded 4 goals and 4 assists against the Blackhawks on Thursday. Gagner's eight points bring him into a tie with Brett Gretzky and Starbucks Coffey for the franchise record for points in a single game. Isn't that impressive? Isn't it more impressive that I'm the first internet writer to report this awesome offensive performance? Fuck, man, I rule.

Okay, never mind, I far from rule. Sam has suddenly become the talk of the hockey world after this performance, though. Can he put together career season after putting up 11 points in his last two games? With his heightened trade value, should Edmonton consider shipping him for who would immediately become their best defenseman? Does Dave still enforce a curfew upon him?

But, again, HOLD ON, guys. I'm not sure how this happened, but the doorman accidentally allowed Buzz Killington into the party.

It was one for the ages to be sure. Too bad it should never have happened.

Is this because Reptar on Ice was originally scheduled for that evening? That would have been a show for the (early 20-somethings) ages, too.

That’s because even though Gagner was credited with eight points in the game, he should have only earned seven. Don’t believe me? Watch the replay of the Oilers third goal of the game, the one scored by defenseman Ryan Whitney.

Don't believe you? It's not so much about believing you, but whether I actually give a shit. You post this article four days after the game, way beyond the allowed time for the league to make any official scoring changes. At this point, why even write about it? Oh well. Keep trying to convince me, Kenny.

Gagner gains the Chicago Blackhawks zone with speed and cuts to the middle of the slot. That’s when Blackhawks defenseman Niklas Hjalmarsson knocks the puck off his stick. Then David Bolland of the Blackhawks pounces on the loose puck and tries to clear the zone. But he fails to do so and the puck ends up on Whitney’s stick before the Oilers defenseman blasts it from the blueline past Chicago goalie Corey Crawford.

Dave Bolland, jungle panther, attempts to pounce upon the puck, only to get distracted by a laser pointer being shined upon Ryan Jones' back. You call it pouncing, which could indicate possession (perhaps some playful biting and scratching, as well) but I see a desperate attempt to clear the puck, which I've never considered to be possession.

Any way you look at it, there’s no way Gagner deserves an assist on that goal. Two Blackhawks touched the puck between Gagner and Whitney, with Bolland clearly having the puck on his stick before committing the giveaway. That goes against rule 33.2 which governs goals and assists, which says: “An assist is awarded to the player or players (maximum two) who touches the puck prior to the goal scorer, provided no defender plays or possesses the puck in between.” (Italics mine.)

This is where it gets a little tricky, and I can (faintly) understand why Campbell feels this way. From what I've learned and always known through watching hockey, playing the puck and possessing the puck are the same damn thing. To commit either actions would mean said player must have full control over the puck. If Bolland were able to cradle the puck and stick-handle, that would be possession. If Hjalmarsson controlled the puck, rather than getting a piece of it on his one-handed stick-check, that would be playing the puck. Since Bolland was able to get two hands on his stick and attempt to dump the puck, Campbell assumes that Chicago controlled the play. It's close, but Bolland didn't establish control on that play. Sven, Dacque, Marbles; would anyone care to attempt to validate my claim? I need at least eight people to agree with me, although Campbell would probably mistake Dacque to be a Sedin, which would mean that he isn't human, but a hockey robot incapable of forming opinions. Then I'd only have seven people agreeing with me, which isn't special at all.

Despite that, Gagner was awarded an assist on the ice by the referee, but that’s not where the mistake was made. Every goal scored in the NHL is reviewed by the official scorer, who would have had plenty of opportunity to watch the replay before coming up with the official scoring play. How anyone could see a goal under those circumstances and still award an assist to Gagner is beyond comprehension. In fact, it’s right in the same rule that the official scorer’s duties and responsibilities are spelled out. The rule also reads: “The official scorer shall award the points for the goals and assists and his decision shall be final. The official scorer shall use the video goal judge system to verify the proper awarding of goals and assists.”

If the official scorer awarded Gagner with an assist on that play, then it's the right call. It was the same call on the ice, as well. Why does this matter so much to you, Ken? Do you truly care about the legitimacy of Gretzky and Coffey's shared record, or were you just trying to crank out another fresh article before lunchtime? So far, with two referees and an official scorer on my side, I'm up to three people who agree with me. Fuck yes!

Need more evidence? Actually it was provided in a game that was played that very same night. In the Dallas Stars 5-2 loss to the San Jose Sharks, Stars defenseman Trevor Daley makes a long pass to Steve Ott, which bounces off Sharks defenseman Dan Boyle before coming back to Ott, who shoots it in the net. Daley was not awarded an assist on that play.

This is where I'd like to thank Nicholas Monak for renewing his hockeystreams.com account this season. All I had to do was watch the replay for Ott's goal (so conveniently omitted from the NHL.com highlight provided by Ken) to see that Dan Boyle shot this puck into his own net. Need more evidence?

(You are gazing into the pixels of proper criticism)

Commentary from that replay:

"(Ott)'s going to come up and he's going to beat Dan Boyle, and Dan Boyle shoots this puck into his own net."

While I couldn't find this spelled out for us in Rule 78 (Goals), I'm slightly certain that there are no assists awarded for own goals. Dan Boyle didn't even pass it to anyone first, that selfish fuck. Anyway, Daley didn't receive an assist and that was, again, the right call by the official scorer. Are we done yet, Mr. Campbell?

Go ahead, accuse us of being nitpickers and killjoys here, but this was a franchise record-tying event we’re talking about. Of course, the official scorer had no way of knowing things would turn out the way they did when the third goal was scored, but when you watch the replay there’s still no excuse for awarding Gagner an assist. (A long-time NHL observer came to precisely the same conclusion when he reviewed the goal, by the way.)

Oh yeah? Who was it? Nick Kypreos? PJ Stock? Bryan Berard? Yourself? I have no idea what you mean by "A long-time NHL observer". I've "observed" the NHL for almost twenty years, so perhaps I know a thing or three. Also, even if the official scorer had some way of knowing about the outcome of that game beforehand, it wouldn't have made a difference. I expect that he reviewed the play with proper understanding of rule 33.2, thus designating the correct award of an assist to Gagner.

Since the official scorer’s decision is final, there’s no way the assist can be taken away from Gagner, nor should it at this point. After all, players have scored at least eight points in a game 13 times previously in NHL history and there’s a chance they could have received phantom points as well. Wayne Gretzky scored eight points on two occasions in the 1983-84 season and the joke around the league then was that Gretzky received an assist for every goal scored in Alberta.

Yet, you still decided to write an article about it. If fans, official scorers, and "observers" were fine with occasional phantom points back then, it shouldn't be a catastrophe if one is awarded now. Regardless, there were no phantom points on that play. Sam Gagner earned eight points that evening. I'm happy for him, as you should be, too (and if not, then you just shouldn't care).

But had the points on that goal been properly awarded in the first place using video technology the league has embraced, there would be no reason to point it out because Gagner would have finished the evening with seven points.

Poor Trevor Daley.

Welcome Our Newest Contributor!

It is with lukewarm pleasure and even murkier expectations that I begrudgingly emerge from the shadows of the real world to introduce to you, fair reader, the latest, greatest, most douchebaggiest contributor in the Internets long history of meta sports criticism criticism..........MARBLES!

Please, please save your applause for when we shut the blog down.

He likes kittens (but not puppies) and Black Cherry Faygo. WELCOME ABOARD, KIDDO!

Correlative Studies for Dummies

Down with Detroit originally began as a t-shirt company, focusing entirely on Detroit sportswear. Upon joining Facebook, the Down with Detroit group page became a focal point for discussing Red Wings, Tigers, Lions, Rockers, Vipers, Mechanics, and reindeer games as they occur. Naturally, the Wings receive the majority of the attention and support, because they're fucking awesome, right? Seriously, they're the best fucking team in the league and have been for at least 85.5 years. Look at the scoreboard and deal with it, bro.

This evening, DWD marveled us with this open-ended statement:

Yeah, Tony Blair became Prime Minister, then Konstantinov played his final hockey game because Richard Gnida was a tree hugger. Those are to what you are referring, right? Sorry, that was rude. Anyway, there's no possible way in hell that a shitty period of hockey against the '97 Canadiens significantly correlates with Detroit's playoff performance that season. But hey, it's about getting those 'likes' and promoting those t-shirts, right? So, keep on keepin' on, Down with Detroit. I can't wait to see another status about a Howardian shutout, a Bertuzzian shootout spinorama-backhand, or an annoyingian comparison of two things that don't relate at all. Bring on the postseason!

Since this carries the tune of a boo-hate article, I'll leave with a compliment: you're slightly cool for selling the "Here, Dog. Come on, Dog!" t-shirt.

Moves Like Malkin™

Oh no, Brierre is hurt again...

We should start trademarking things.

Dacque, it looks like I'm not the only one who imitates your greatness anymore. If you're interested, their "Classic Clips" section is all highlights of you hitting crossbars and separating shoulders at the AP rink in 2010.

Moves Like Malkin, part 11 minus 6.

What's two balls minus one? No cups for Buffalo!.... wait... no, that's right!

Perhaps they're including warm-up ice time in this figure. More likely, they're just too busy chewing on their own lips to realize how unintelligent they appear.

We're almost there, but not quite.

Hey Sven, we've had a few conversations about the importance (or lack thereof) of fighting within the game of hockey, right? For as strongly as we feel about its place in the game, I expected more support for those feelings in our little corner of the interwebs. Perhaps it was lost in one of the many thought sequences that ran something similar to, "I think I'm going to post to the blog today... but wait, Joe Dirt is on TV/my lawn could be mowed/I can't believe it's not butter!/eight hours of Monopoly sounds more productive. I'll post an entry some other time!" Slightly hungover and with my favorite game piece missing (I typically choose the iron so the women won't fight over it... so considerate, I know), it looks like I'm left without an alternative. Damn it.

While the waiving of Colton Orr may not have signified the end of the pure fighter, it certainly signified the beginning of the end.

If Orr can't stick in Toronto, where I wouldn't be shocked to learn that GM Brian Burke has a "truculence" stencil on the wall behind his desk, there aren't many places left for guys like him. But don't think Orr's dismissal marks the end of fighting or the end of toughness. Far from it -- it merely marks the shift. The pure fighter is the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs

If only life were this simple. Orr included, Toronto has dressed 19 forwards this season. While this may signify how reduced his role on the team has become, this may also represent a hunch by Brian Burke that the current lineup is playing well (shedding $1 million off of the salary cap is nice, as well) and shouldn't be changed at the time (and with five wins and eleven points in the last eight games, this isn't a stretch). It's fairly possible that he may be called up again, but even if he doesn't get that opportunity, it's not as if the role of "pure fighter" wasn't at risk before this demotion. This is thankfully highlighted by players such as Brian McGrattan, Jody Shelley, and Raitis Ivanans finding it tough to crack the roster and stay there. However, even with Orr's demotion, there are still darlings such as Janssen, Hordichuk, Thorburn and Boll racking up the PIMs and shots on face.

What I'm really trying to say is that although I would love to believe that "pure fighters" are being removed from the game for good, we still have some fairly useless players occupying spots on NHL rosters.

The fighter-scorer, however, is the future. He's also among the most coveted player types in hockey right now.

Sigh. Most-coveted?

Last year's Boston Bruins were the quintessential example of what can happen if the players providing your toughness are versatile. It wasn't just that Boston had guys that could drop the gloves -- it's that those guys were still plenty effective when they held onto their equipment.

Last year's Boston Bruins were the quintessential example of what can happen if the players providing your toughness realize that they have to provide more than toughness in order to keep a roster spot. Also, they were a team with unparalleled depth throughout the roster and an MVP goaltender; Boston is an above average hockey team.

The Bruins had two players finish in double digits in fighting majors in 2010-11 -- Shawn Thornton and Gregory Campbell -- and both those players finished in double digits in goals as well. Thornton had 10 goals and 14 majors; Campbell had 13 and 11.

Let me put into perspective how impressive this is: there were only seven players in the entire NHL that reached 10 goals and 10 majors in 2010-11, and Boston had two of them.

Remember how I said that Boston is an above average hockey team? Is there any way that Thornton and Campbell experienced better season totals as a result of the talent surrounding them? Even as fourth-liners, their chances for offensive production are much better when Marchand or Seguin are between them. Either way, I don't see why there is such a high value being placed on these two.

As we near the halfway point in the 2011-12 schedule, with most teams having played 41 games now, the numbers of players projected to reach the milestone is even lower.

So unfortunate. Does that mean we have to overvalue the three players that manage to light ten lamps and earn 50 PIMs with their fists? New Jersey will have to let go of Parise in order to forward $7.5 million a year to David Clarkson.

...Would you believe that it's rarer to post 10 goals and 10 fights than to score 30 goals? There were twenty-nine 30-goal-scorers last season. Heck, fighter-scorers are almost as rare as 40-goal scorers, of which there were five.

And they're almost as vital to deep, successful teams.

The title of this article, "The fighter-scorer is as rare as the 40-goal scorer, and almost as valuable", is ridiculous. A 40-goal scorer is often the best player on the roster and typically seen as a team leader. The label of "fighter-scorer" is a premature distinction for knuckle-knockers who apparently need to score ten goals a season in order to earn said label. This means Tim Jackman and Ryane Clowe are basically the same player, right? David Clarkson for (potentially) Matt Martin would be an equal swap, right? I understand the point trying to be made here, and I will agree that some of the players mentioned in this article are valuable assets to their respective teams. Regardless, you're not going to convince me that Tootoo, Downie and Lapierre are (almost) as significant as Erat, Stamkos and Willard.

What the 2009-10 Chicago Blackhawks and the 2010-11 Boston Bruins have shown us is that there isn't room in a Stanley Cup-winning lineup for a player that can't take regular shifts. You need four complete lines that can score, as those teams boasted, and you simply can't waste spots on one-dimensional pugilists.

Bravo! This is part of why I haven't had much to write about lately. While I want to bash him for putting too much value on fighters that score, he recognizes that pure fighters are a waste of space.

Nowadays, if you want toughness (and you need toughness), you either get a guy who can fight and play, or you willfully dress a flaw. Last I checked, the team that wins is the team with the fewest flaws, so starting with a one-flaw handicap is hardly efficient.

I feel silly for getting mad at you. Can we still be friends?

The scoring fighter, however, very much is.

I'll call this a work in progress. For the sake of argument, Ryane Clowe is a power forward, while Tim Jackman is a fourth-line player who will likely never score ten goals in one season for the rest of his career. Until then, I hope you enjoy this pathetic excuse of a blog post; it might be the last one for 2012.