Also the fact that their is no 5 and 6 on that list too...
Me too.
Tip-in goals are like secondary assist. This is how I rank the ways to score a goal:
1. Deke the goalie and put (not shoot) the puck in the net
2. One-timer
3. Back-hand shot
4. Slap shot / Snap shot / wrist shot
7. Very close range rebound (like Gionta and Gallagher goal in TB)
8. Tip-in
9. Score with skate (or other body part). Goal is about to be cancelled.
10. Empty net
11. The opponent scores on his own net, and the goal is awarded to the last player that touches the puck.
Deked goals, one-timer, back-hand, slap and wrist shot > Tip-in, skate >> Empty net and own-goal.
Are people actually giving different values to different kinds of goal now? Wow. I thought I'd seen it all.
Just wait until nhl.com starts listing the 10 different goal values.
Statisticians will have a field day!
Honestly, it's up there with Gaston Therrien's "I'll be mad if Ryder finishes the season with 45 assists."
Who will get 1st star, 2nd and 3rd ?
Only in Montreal would we complain about a player who has 9 points in 7 games since a trade.
Imagine that you're the one that gives 3 stars to those players. On the score sheet, they all score 2 goals.
Assume all goals are scored on 5-on-5. And all other hockey aspects are exactly the same.
Player A: 1 tip-in goal, 1 crappy goal (very close to the net, like Gionta goal in TB)
Player B: 1 empty-net goal, 1 own-goal credited to him coz he's the last player touching the puck
Player C: 1 goal from deking the goalie, and one-timer slap shot goal
Who will get 1st star, 2nd and 3rd ?
Only in Montreal would we complain about a player who has 9 points in 7 games since a trade.
"But he's not a big body that goes to the net"
"But we don't know how he scores his points, we don't notice him"
"Erik Cole was bigger and more physical and thats what this team needs"
I'm not saying any of these are false...but it's funny none the less. Meanwhile we seem to have less issues scoring since the trade.
Before the trade: 2.8 goals per game
After the trade: 4.4 goals per game
Altough you could say that our defence (Goals Against) went down the toilet..but this might have to do (a little) with Diaz being injured and Price having a tough stretch.
Before the trade: 2.1 goals against per game
After the trade: 3.6 goals against per game
Me too.
Tip-in goals are like secondary assist. This is how I rank the ways to score a goal:
Also the fact that their is no 5 and 6 on that list too...
Ryder is much more patient with the pucks now.
Something strange though. Everytime we traded somebody that ended up scoring as well, we ALL were able to find them some weaknesses and some excuses as to why they are so bad as hockey players anyway. To this day, you will find people here that will still believe that Mike Ribeiro is just a weak bad hockey player. It's all about being consequent.
Imagine that you're the one that gives 3 stars to those players. On the score sheet, they all score 2 goals.
Assume all goals are scored on 5-on-5. And all other hockey aspects are exactly the same.
Player A: 1 tip-in goal, 1 crappy goal (very close to the net, like Gionta goal in TB)
Player B: 1 empty-net goal, 1 own-goal credited to him coz he's the last player touching the puck
Player C: 1 goal from deking the goalie, and one-timer slap shot goal
Who will get 1st star, 2nd and 3rd ?
In the last 10 years, besides Ribeiro, who have we given up on who has ended up scoring in bunches? S. Kostitsyn and his 11 points this season? D'Agostini and his lone goal this season? Andrei Kostitsyn who is not even playing in this league anymore?
Don't get me wrong. More often than not, we didn't maximize the value of our assets. Still, to say we traded any guy who ended up being overly productive besides Ribeiro is definitely an exaggeration.
Then again there's Grabovski, but is he leaps and bounds better than any one of Desharnais or Plekanec?
My point was that when we did trade SKost...and D'Ago...and Grabs....and Cammy.....and Latendresse.....and Streit etc....and they ended up getting their points (Cammy as of right now), they were ALL mentioned as this great and stupid "addition by substraction" and how, we didn't care, we didn't need them as they didn't fit the team, didn't worked well as a complete player and so on....And not even the scorers, any grinder who end up playing well their role are never good enough....when they are elsewhere. So the bashing rules for players outside of it based on the same criteria....offensive prowess. Just saying that sometimes, you have to salute what they are doing well. In Ryder's case, he is putting points on the board. But it shouldn't make us totally blind of the other things around the said player. I always prefer to see people in the middle of things. Hate to read about how bad a player is 'cause he just doesn't score....or how great a player's performance was based on his 2 points in a game even if we didn't see him....just like I hate people relying solely on Corsi to demonstrate how great or bad a player is....I'd always wish for something in the middle.
Wow, you really need to learn to let go ...
And yes, if they are not on my team I dont care about them...simple.