If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Fifteen games into the shortened NHL season and the Blackhawks still haven't lost a game. Chicago fans shrug, continue debating if this is the year the Cubs finally win it all   (nytimes.com) divider line 47
    More: Interesting, Cubs, Blackhawks, NHL seasons, Chicago, Kari Lehtonen, Luke Schenn, Pascal Dupuis, shrugs  
•       •       •

572 clicks; posted to Sports » on 18 Feb 2013 at 8:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-18 08:08:50 AM
Lost in all of the hullaballoo is that the Ducks are breathing right down the back of the Hawks' necks.

Don't let the foot off the gas, Hawks - especially with the Blue Jackets coming up this week (potential trap game).
 
2013-02-18 08:10:49 AM
They've lost three games there, Subby.
 
2013-02-18 08:22:29 AM
They haven't lost in REGULATION play, they've lost 3 times, not sure if any of those losses were OT or the gimmick called the shootout. Still they look scary good.
 
2013-02-18 08:41:16 AM

Chak: They haven't lost in REGULATION play, they've lost 3 times, not sure if any of those losses were OT or the gimmick called the shootout. Still they look scary good.


Well that was hard to lookup...

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/schedule.htm

3 Shootout loses.
 
2013-02-18 08:43:02 AM
Charity point does not equal a win.
 
2013-02-18 09:09:47 AM

bonkmeist: Charity point does not equal a win.


Does losing a shootout count as a loss?

/answer: kinda, but kinda not, either way, fark the 'hawks
 
2013-02-18 09:14:11 AM
I didn't realize that OT losses didn't count as losses. This year is really strange so far. I mean, the Leafs could actually make the playoffs this year, the rest of their division is so bad.

/crime against nature
 
2013-02-18 09:14:53 AM
Sounds about right. A 60-win Cubs team is more entertaining than the best NHL team of all-time. And I hate baseball.
 
2013-02-18 09:21:24 AM

velvet_fog: Sounds about right. A 60-win Cubs team is more entertaining than the best NHL team of all-time. And I hate baseball.


You seem like a pleasant person.
 
2013-02-18 09:27:00 AM
Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.
 
2013-02-18 09:33:38 AM

SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.


Actually I think the Cubs have the 3rd or 4th largest national following in baseball.. I'll have to look it up.
 
2013-02-18 09:34:39 AM
Nice troll, subby.  At least there's another hockey thread.

Go Hawks!

oi48.tinypic.com

/props to the Farker who made the pic
 
2013-02-18 09:41:40 AM
I guess this is the best thread to put this week's GRAF (ESPN Power Rankings).

fubegra.net
(click to embiggen)

Teams that ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE (back at Week 1 Rank): Bruins, Senators, Flames, Blue Jackets
Biggest Overall Jump from Week 1: Maple Leafs +20
Biggest Overall Drop from Week 1: Kings -19
 
2013-02-18 09:46:08 AM
I don't follow hockey closely and live in Chicago - I can tell subby that this city is going ape shat over the Hawks right now. I think I know over half the teams players and that Kane is having an amazing start, and again, I don't follow hockey (I also know that Crawford is having a solid start and Hawk fans were concerned about this and his backup Emory is undefeted (4-0 I believe)

So again Subby, as someone who is not fair weather about sports and not wanting to jump on a bandwagon because a team is hot, even this Chicagoan knows the Hawks are amazing right now.

That said, F the Cubs
 
2013-02-18 09:47:38 AM

The Bestest: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

Actually I think the Cubs have the 3rd or 4th largest national following in baseball.. I'll have to look it up.


You're right, but that's NATIONAL following. In the city of Chicago it's probably like 60/40 in favor of the Cubs.
 
2013-02-18 09:48:20 AM

Fubegra: I guess this is the best thread to put this week's GRAF (ESPN Power Rankings).

[fubegra.net image 850x570]
(click to embiggen)


lh3.googleusercontent.com
ALL THOSE COLORS MAN! WHAT AM I LOOKING AT?
 
2013-02-18 10:08:57 AM

meanmutton: bonkmeist: Charity point does not equal a win.

Does losing a shootout count as a loss?


Yes.

Here's a simple test you can employ to determine whether you've lost a game. If the other team skates off the ice with two points and adds one to their Win total, that means you lost. Regardless of what Gary Bettman says.
 
2013-02-18 10:17:22 AM

SlagginOff: The Bestest: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

Actually I think the Cubs have the 3rd or 4th largest national following in baseball.. I'll have to look it up.

You're right, but that's NATIONAL following. In the city of Chicago it's probably like 60/40 in favor of the Cubs.


Eastern half of Iowa, maybe. Des Moines could give fark all about the Cubs.
 
2013-02-18 10:17:25 AM
Anyway, I sill favor the following solution:

3 pts for regulation or OT win
2 pts for SO win
1 pt for SO loss
0 pts for regulation or OT loss

A real win playing real hockey in reg or OT should be worth more than a win in the skills competition. Likewise, a loss playing real hockey in reg or OT shouldn't be rewarded with any points. No more of this "playing for OT because you're guaranteed a point" BS. Under the above system, there is nothing special about he 5 minute OT period -it's just some extra time to try to decide a winner, the way it was intended. And teams won't go into a defensive shell to try to bank a point - whether in the 3rd period or OT, they'll know they're better off going for the win, since the payoff (3 pts) is better than the most they could possibly get in a SO, and much better than the single point they would get for losing the SO.
 
2013-02-18 10:24:06 AM
Why the point system? What happened to good old W/L? Is it because of all the OT?
Anyone have a sine explanation?
 
2013-02-18 10:29:26 AM

spacemanjones: Why the point system? What happened to good old W/L? Is it because of all the OT?
Anyone have a sine explanation?


The NHL didn't have regular season overtime until the 70s. They added the loser point and 4-on-4 to encourage teams not to just sit back and play for ties. That thinking ultimately culminated with the shootout.
 
2013-02-18 10:33:56 AM
ElwoodCuse:

The NHL didn't have regular season overtime until the 70s.

1983, actually.
 
2013-02-18 10:37:18 AM
At some point, the Hawks have to lose a few, because nothing good can come from winning the President's trophy.

And is it really the same President's trophy in a shortened season with no inter-conference play?
 
2013-02-18 10:40:11 AM

poughdrew: At some point, the Hawks have to lose a few, because nothing good can come from winning the President's trophy.

And is it really the same President's trophy in a shortened season with no inter-conference play?


It'll be the Al Gore Vice-President trophy because Canada doesn't have a President.
 
2013-02-18 10:43:10 AM

SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.


The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.
 
2013-02-18 10:44:50 AM

poughdrew: At some point, the Hawks have to lose a few, because nothing good can come from winning the President's trophy.


The President's Trophy winner has won the Stanley Cup 7 times and made it to the Finals another 3 times out of the 26 years they've awarded the Trophy.  Those aren't terrible odds, really.

Also, some of the greatest seasons are from teams who won both -- The 2001-2002 Red Wings team, the 93-94 Rangers, the 86-87 Oilers were all some amazing teams.
 
2013-02-18 10:46:35 AM

poughdrew: At some point, the Hawks have to lose a few, because nothing good can come from winning the President's trophy.

And is it really the same President's trophy in a shortened season with no inter-conference play?


Yeah, except this version is named after JFK
 
2013-02-18 10:48:08 AM

soopey: poughdrew: At some point, the Hawks have to lose a few, because nothing good can come from winning the President's trophy.

And is it really the same President's trophy in a shortened season with no inter-conference play?

It'll be the Al Gore Vice-President trophy because Canada doesn't have a President.


No President but they do have three branches of Parliament, including a Queen who Constitutionally can dissolve the House of Commons and appoint the Senate to (basically) life terms.
 
2013-02-18 10:52:09 AM

Lando Lincoln: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.


I don't see where I said anything about Illinois.
 
2013-02-18 10:55:46 AM

SlagginOff: The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.

I don't see where I said anything about Illinois.


I keep hearing about this mythical Illinois-outside-of-Chicago, but I'm not sure it exists.  Do they put ketchup on hotdogs there?
 
2013-02-18 11:03:52 AM

Lando Lincoln: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.


And the Cubs have a national fan base.
 
2013-02-18 11:04:18 AM

SlagginOff: Lando Lincoln: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.

I don't see where I said anything about Illinois.


Let me rephrase then.

If you think the Cubs aren't popular, then you should see the stats for the White Sox.
 
2013-02-18 11:20:35 AM

Lando Lincoln: SlagginOff: Lando Lincoln: SlagginOff: Only half of Chicago (and all of Iowa) cares about the Cubs.

fark you subby.

The White Sox are ranked third in popularity in Illinois. The farking St. Louis Cardinals are liked better than them here in their own state.

I don't see where I said anything about Illinois.

Let me rephrase then.

If you think the Cubs aren't popular, then you should see the stats for the White Sox.


I never said that. I know that the Cubs are more popular as I was born and raised in Chicago and have lived most of my life here (all over the city). I'm saying that when it comes to the CITY OF CHICAGO, the disparity is not nearly as big as you deluded Cubs fans would try to have the rest of the world believe. I currently live on the North side and see plenty of White Sox gear and know plenty of White Sox fans up here. Try going to the South side and see how many Cubs fans there are.

The Cubs are a nationally popular team because of Haray Caray (originally a broadcaster for the Cardinals and Sox by the way, until he got the wet brain), WGN, and their cuddly loser persona. The White Sox are a local team and therefore don't have the national reach of the Cubs. I'm neither denying that nor the fact that they are the more popular of the two baseball teams in Chicago. The problem is that subby is suggesting that a team who the whole city embraces (Hawks) is less popular than a team that probably has about 60-65% of the baseball fans within the city (yes I said half; maybe I was exaggerating.)
 
2013-02-18 11:26:24 AM
The whitesox are the chicago team nobody cares about subby.
 
2013-02-18 11:30:41 AM
Sox/Cubs divide the city pretty well in the summertime.  But the Bulls, Hawks, and Bears unite the city more so.
 
2013-02-18 11:55:26 AM

DrewCurtisJr: The whitesox are the chicago team nobody cares about subby.


Tell that to Carlton Fisk and he'll drunk drive his truck right over you and into a cornfield.
 
2013-02-18 11:56:22 AM

DrewCurtisJr: The whitesox are the chicago team nobody cares about subby.


No. That would be the Chicago Fire. I think even the Sky are (stupid singular team names) are more popular.
 
2013-02-18 11:57:10 AM
No one is debating whether this is the year the Cubs win it all, not even Cubs fans.  The question is whether they'll finish in last place, now that the Astros are gone.
 
2013-02-18 12:08:17 PM
Can we declare the caps mathematically eliminated so the bandwagoners can fark off yet?
 
2013-02-18 12:21:50 PM
yay hawks!

fark kane
 
2013-02-18 12:46:06 PM

GQueue: No one is debating whether this is the year the Cubs win it all, not even Cubs fans.  The question is whether they'll finish in last place, now that the Astros are gone.


Yup.  I think I'll be happy if they don't lose 100 again.

Will miss the Astros.
 
2013-02-18 02:01:42 PM

Fubegra: Lost in all of the hullaballoo is that the Ducks are breathing right down the back of the Hawks' necks.

Don't let the foot off the gas, Hawks - especially with the Blue Jackets coming up this week (potential trap game).


I find that highly amusing... and I live in Columbus. Surprised that nobody has broken an ankle getting off the team bus yet this year.
 
2013-02-18 04:52:28 PM

p the boiler: I don't follow hockey closely and live in Chicago - I can tell subby that this city is going ape shat over the Hawks right now. I think I know over half the teams players and that Kane is having an amazing start, and again, I don't follow hockey (I also know that Crawford is having a solid start and Hawk fans were concerned about this and his backup Emory is undefeted (4-0 I believe)

So again Subby, as someone who is not fair weather about sports and not wanting to jump on a bandwagon because a team is hot, even this Chicagoan knows the Hawks are amazing right now.

That said, F the Cubs


Pretty much came to say all of this. My work here is done.
 
2013-02-18 09:03:37 PM

velvet_fog: Sounds about right. A 60-win Cubs team is more entertaining than the best NHL team of all-time. And I hate baseball.


The 2002 Red Wings are playing again?
 
2013-02-18 10:52:04 PM
*groan* My Flyers are doing so badly. Ah well, ups and downs.
 
2013-02-19 12:04:40 AM
No on all accounts subby.
 
2013-02-19 05:01:38 PM

octopied: velvet_fog: Sounds about right. A 60-win Cubs team is more entertaining than the best NHL team of all-time. And I hate baseball.

The 2002 Red Wings are playing again?


I agree. I watched about 2 periods of the Kings vs Hawks over the weekend and they were good but not that good.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report