Sign in to the forums
Help
It's a little early in the season, but I'm throwing out some predictions.
C2 West -
I think this division will be a close race this year, or at least the top 4 playoff spots. The top 6 teams are all putting up good numbers right now, without a single team standing out above and beyond the rest. I don't know what to think of the Sharks, having played them last year I'm baffled by the numbers they are putting up but hat's off to their goalie who started out with a very impressive 2 shutouts The Admirals may be on top with a 3-0 record, until their game 3 is posted I don't know though.
C2 East -
I'm biased here because I play for Rack Attack, but I see this being another close division. It doesn't appear to have the makings of a race as tight as the C2 West division is currently, but things can very easily swing that way within 2-3 games at this point. All 3 games I've played required me to be on my toes and I didn't have an easy time of it with any of those 3 teams. The 2nd half of the season always tells a different story than the first half (directly from my experience last year!) and as it goes with the Wild, every point counts!
C2 North -
There are 2 standout teams in this division and there will be a scramble for the 3rd and 4th playoff spots is what I see. The Spiders and M's are both 3-0 and I look forward to the matchup between these two teams. I will be surprised to see the M's do anything less than 15-16 wins in the regular season, as from glancing at the roster it doesn't appear to have changed much with the exception of them replacing their weak link goaltending with their phenomenal goaltender who subbed the entire playoffs for them last year. If their roster remains unaltered, I see them taking the championship again in the spring (barring a surprising playoff upset).
JMS Hockey Forums: AHA C2 Predictions - JMS Hockey Forums
AHA C2 Predictions
Back to top
MultiQuote
#2
mheutmaker 
- Mike Heutmaker (mheutmaker)
- Games: 20
- Posts: 41
Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:21 AM
C2 West:
Just an update on the Admirals vs Dragons game. Admirals ended up winning (10-3, I think) improving their record to 3-0. This Saturday's game will be a good test for both the Admirals and Blizzard.
Just an update on the Admirals vs Dragons game. Admirals ended up winning (10-3, I think) improving their record to 3-0. This Saturday's game will be a good test for both the Admirals and Blizzard.
#3
JJGlover55
- JJ Glover (JJGlover55)
- Games: 84
- Posts: 41
Posted 23 November 2011 - 02:01 PM
Some Additional Stats for C2 East. I've forgotten the majority of my HTML coding so for now you'll have to deal with these lists until I come up with a better solution. At some point I'd look to include all C2 in these lists but that requires me to find a more efficient way of entering and viewing data. So for now, enjoy!
Shot Efficiency (Goals/Shots):
Rack Attack C2 - 11.71%
Lumberjacks - 11.54%
Nemesis - 11.25%
Sting - 10.95%
Royals C2 - 10.08%
ShameonIce - 9.77%
Muskies C2 - 9.16%
Beavers - 8.96%
Chaos C2 Gold - 8.41%
Thunder Chickens - 6.56%
Save %:
Rack Attack C2 - 97.67%
Sting - 91.30%
Nemesis - 90.82%
Beavers - 90.52%
Muskies C2 - 90.30%
Thunder Chickens - 90.09%
Royals C2 - 90.00%
Chaos C2 Gold - 87.50%
ShameonIce - 87.18%
Lumberjacks - 86.99%
Power Play %:
ShameonIce - 21.05%
Muskies C2 - 16.67%
Thunder Chickens - 16.67%
Sting - 14.29%
Beavers - 13.33%
Lumberjacks - 13.33%
Nemesis - 6.67%
Rack Attack C2 - 0%
Royals C2 - 0%
Chaos C2 Gold - 0%
Penalty Killing:
Thunder Chickens - 100%
Nemesis - 100%
Rack Attack C2 - 92.31%
Beavers - 91.67%
Muskies C2 - 89.47%
Sting - 89.47%
ShameonIce - 77.78%
Royals C2 - 77.78%
Chaos C2 Gold - 77.78%
Lumberjacks - 72.73%
Shorthanded Goals:
Rack Attack C2 - 4
Muskies C2 - 1
Shot Efficiency (Goals/Shots):
Rack Attack C2 - 11.71%
Lumberjacks - 11.54%
Nemesis - 11.25%
Sting - 10.95%
Royals C2 - 10.08%
ShameonIce - 9.77%
Muskies C2 - 9.16%
Beavers - 8.96%
Chaos C2 Gold - 8.41%
Thunder Chickens - 6.56%
Save %:
Rack Attack C2 - 97.67%
Sting - 91.30%
Nemesis - 90.82%
Beavers - 90.52%
Muskies C2 - 90.30%
Thunder Chickens - 90.09%
Royals C2 - 90.00%
Chaos C2 Gold - 87.50%
ShameonIce - 87.18%
Lumberjacks - 86.99%
Power Play %:
ShameonIce - 21.05%
Muskies C2 - 16.67%
Thunder Chickens - 16.67%
Sting - 14.29%
Beavers - 13.33%
Lumberjacks - 13.33%
Nemesis - 6.67%
Rack Attack C2 - 0%
Royals C2 - 0%
Chaos C2 Gold - 0%
Penalty Killing:
Thunder Chickens - 100%
Nemesis - 100%
Rack Attack C2 - 92.31%
Beavers - 91.67%
Muskies C2 - 89.47%
Sting - 89.47%
ShameonIce - 77.78%
Royals C2 - 77.78%
Chaos C2 Gold - 77.78%
Lumberjacks - 72.73%
Shorthanded Goals:
Rack Attack C2 - 4
Muskies C2 - 1
#4
goaltenderb
- Robert Stewart (GoaltenderB)
- Games: 15
- Posts: 32
Posted 24 November 2011 - 08:41 AM
Nice, it is interesting to see the additional data you presented. I wonder if one was to setup an Excel spreadsheet and enter the info in from week to week it'd be more feasible to manage all the additional data you're crunching with these stats.
I'll post an update of commentary on the standings after game 5 reviewing the first quarter of the season as it stands in C2.
I'll post an update of commentary on the standings after game 5 reviewing the first quarter of the season as it stands in C2.
#5
mkatwinters
- Posts: 53
Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:43 PM
Hey Rob - Thanks for the compliment - but Phenomenal is a bit heavy 
I have to credit the team for strong defense which makes for confident play and makes my job easier. For three years I played C2 with teams that gave up 35 + shots per game, that's tough. Seeing like 22 shots per game now is very different and holds with it an entirely different level of "keeping your head in the game" and staying warm. i have to give credit where its due - my team has been playing well and watching my back - Sun shines on a dogs ass once and a while. The season is long... Its humbling to hear you say that -
To let people know... The roster is a bit different this year, we added like - 4 new guys and lost a few guys, so It is not the exact same team.
- This is a great group of guys and previous versions of this team from years ago seem to/may have carried a reputation that these guys don't deserve. It really kinda sucks hearing the back room /water cooler talk focused on the M's, when there has been a complete turn over of guys on the team over the past few years leaving very little of the original roster.
- Losing a great defender in Chris M. through AHA action had an effect. Of course we would have loved to keep him, but couldn't. The others we lost not due to anything AHA, just circumstance - but the team has been great at picking up the pieces and moving on.
- There are many teams in C2 that are really... really good. We have had several games this year that have been closer than the score sheet would let on. For example, These last two weeks, the Yellow Jackets and the Spiders tonight played fast paced, well defended, and tough. It will be exciting to see teams again as things change and the season moves on.
FYI on The Sharks -They made some off season moves and have improved - It does not surprise me at all, that they are doing well.
Your stats - Dude - you have been playing really well...as usual - I think that there is a chance the Rack and M's may see each other at some point during a playoff run. Just like last year. I would not sell any team short - It is still way to early and I cant make any predictions, It seems that there are plenty of well put together, stable teams out there. It should be a fun rest of the year.
Mark
I have to credit the team for strong defense which makes for confident play and makes my job easier. For three years I played C2 with teams that gave up 35 + shots per game, that's tough. Seeing like 22 shots per game now is very different and holds with it an entirely different level of "keeping your head in the game" and staying warm. i have to give credit where its due - my team has been playing well and watching my back - Sun shines on a dogs ass once and a while. The season is long... Its humbling to hear you say that -
To let people know... The roster is a bit different this year, we added like - 4 new guys and lost a few guys, so It is not the exact same team.
- This is a great group of guys and previous versions of this team from years ago seem to/may have carried a reputation that these guys don't deserve. It really kinda sucks hearing the back room /water cooler talk focused on the M's, when there has been a complete turn over of guys on the team over the past few years leaving very little of the original roster.
- Losing a great defender in Chris M. through AHA action had an effect. Of course we would have loved to keep him, but couldn't. The others we lost not due to anything AHA, just circumstance - but the team has been great at picking up the pieces and moving on.
- There are many teams in C2 that are really... really good. We have had several games this year that have been closer than the score sheet would let on. For example, These last two weeks, the Yellow Jackets and the Spiders tonight played fast paced, well defended, and tough. It will be exciting to see teams again as things change and the season moves on.
FYI on The Sharks -They made some off season moves and have improved - It does not surprise me at all, that they are doing well.
Your stats - Dude - you have been playing really well...as usual - I think that there is a chance the Rack and M's may see each other at some point during a playoff run. Just like last year. I would not sell any team short - It is still way to early and I cant make any predictions, It seems that there are plenty of well put together, stable teams out there. It should be a fun rest of the year.
Mark
#6
bkdow
- Brian Dow (bkdow)
- Games: 7
- Posts: 3
Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:55 PM
Mark, how many shut-outs/blowouts before you will state the M's don't belong in C2? I know you have told me there is no C1 players. At some point would you admit that your team does not belong? Our game was close for about half and in the third period when we were losing and pressing, we could only muster 2 shots for an entire period. During the spring captains meeting, teams were lobbying for us to move up to C1. We lost a couple of the average players and added a couple that were better and you manhandled us. I don't see you guys losing any games unless you lay an egg. I predict that your GAA will be less than 1.00 with teams only scoring 8-10 goals against you for the entire season.
mkatwinters, on 27 November 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:
Hey Rob - Thanks for the compliment - but Phenomenal is a bit heavy
I have to credit the team for strong defense which makes for confident play and makes my job easier. For three years I played C2 with teams that gave up 35 + shots per game, that's tough. Seeing like 22 shots per game now is very different and holds with it an entirely different level of "keeping your head in the game" and staying warm. i have to give credit where its due - my team has been playing well and watching my back - Sun shines on a dogs ass once and a while. The season is long... Its humbling to hear you say that -
To let people know... The roster is a bit different this year, we added like - 4 new guys and lost a few guys, so It is not the exact same team.
- This is a great group of guys and previous versions of this team from years ago seem to/may have carried a reputation that these guys don't deserve. It really kinda sucks hearing the back room /water cooler talk focused on the M's, when there has been a complete turn over of guys on the team over the past few years leaving very little of the original roster.
- Losing a great defender in Chris M. through AHA action had an effect. Of course we would have loved to keep him, but couldn't. The others we lost not due to anything AHA, just circumstance - but the team has been great at picking up the pieces and moving on.
- There are many teams in C2 that are really... really good. We have had several games this year that have been closer than the score sheet would let on. For example, These last two weeks, the Yellow Jackets and the Spiders tonight played fast paced, well defended, and tough. It will be exciting to see teams again as things change and the season moves on.
FYI on The Sharks -They made some off season moves and have improved - It does not surprise me at all, that they are doing well.
Your stats - Dude - you have been playing really well...as usual - I think that there is a chance the Rack and M's may see each other at some point during a playoff run. Just like last year. I would not sell any team short - It is still way to early and I cant make any predictions, It seems that there are plenty of well put together, stable teams out there. It should be a fun rest of the year.
Mark
I have to credit the team for strong defense which makes for confident play and makes my job easier. For three years I played C2 with teams that gave up 35 + shots per game, that's tough. Seeing like 22 shots per game now is very different and holds with it an entirely different level of "keeping your head in the game" and staying warm. i have to give credit where its due - my team has been playing well and watching my back - Sun shines on a dogs ass once and a while. The season is long... Its humbling to hear you say that -
To let people know... The roster is a bit different this year, we added like - 4 new guys and lost a few guys, so It is not the exact same team.
- This is a great group of guys and previous versions of this team from years ago seem to/may have carried a reputation that these guys don't deserve. It really kinda sucks hearing the back room /water cooler talk focused on the M's, when there has been a complete turn over of guys on the team over the past few years leaving very little of the original roster.
- Losing a great defender in Chris M. through AHA action had an effect. Of course we would have loved to keep him, but couldn't. The others we lost not due to anything AHA, just circumstance - but the team has been great at picking up the pieces and moving on.
- There are many teams in C2 that are really... really good. We have had several games this year that have been closer than the score sheet would let on. For example, These last two weeks, the Yellow Jackets and the Spiders tonight played fast paced, well defended, and tough. It will be exciting to see teams again as things change and the season moves on.
FYI on The Sharks -They made some off season moves and have improved - It does not surprise me at all, that they are doing well.
Your stats - Dude - you have been playing really well...as usual - I think that there is a chance the Rack and M's may see each other at some point during a playoff run. Just like last year. I would not sell any team short - It is still way to early and I cant make any predictions, It seems that there are plenty of well put together, stable teams out there. It should be a fun rest of the year.
Mark
#7
chrismcneil
- Chris McNeil (chrismcneil)
- Games: 123
- Posts: 111
Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:55 AM
Who fault is it when a team is made up of legitimate C2 players and they are better than other teams? Is it their fault the range of talent on their team is smaller than some of the other teams? Maybe before saying something about other teams, people need to stop and look at their own team. How big of a gap do you have between your best player and your worst player? And the thought of should someone be at the C2 level goes both ways. Is someone really good enough to be in C2? Just cause you play on a C2 team doesn't always mean you are a C2 player. The AHA evals people when they first start in the league and if a player wants to move down. Maybe they need to start evalling players when they want to move up. How many games have you played in where you have seen guys on the other team and thought they really should D1? I am not saying it's bad that someone try to play up or saying it's wrong. I'm saying if that is the case on your team, it's more your fault than a team with a more even talent level. If you want to have guys on a team that don't have the skillsl to play at their current level, but their great guys and fun to hang around with I say that's great. That's what this is about is having fun. But understand they are going to effect your team and your ability when it comes game time.
#8
blitzenagain
- Rob Jones (blitzenagain)
- Games: 85
- Posts: 914
Posted 06 December 2011 - 01:38 PM
To an extent, I agree with Chris. I do think that there are more players on the lower end that don't belong in a level (in every level of the AHA) than there are players who are too good for a level. The AHA does a pretty good job in their evals, in my opinion. Some teams have more of those lower players who may not belong.
When the Maroons squad was a C1 team, they were a good team. AHA identified a player who possibly wasn't a C1 player and after the season maybe required him to move up. Their 2nd season in C1 was not as successful, but I'm not sure it is attributed to that one guy. The team gets kinda/sorta blown up after 2nd season in C1 and moves to C2 as the M's. Roster is pretty changed yet they still do well. I think the C2 M's squad had at least 5 guys who played on the C1 team, but probably guys who were not necessarily dominant. The team seems to be proactive in getting good players to play for them. There are PLENTY of teams who don't think about winter season until September, and by then, good players to fill roster spots are mostly gone. Is it the proactive teams fault that they are successful because they manage their team?
Along the same lines, I've always thought there was a link between a successful team in the AHA and the teams who have the players who skate all year or have a good core group who skate all year together. Weekly icetimes, scrimmages, etc. Hint to the losing teams who don't do some of this... that's one reason these teams win!
Although it's all relative and would be difficult to manage, it'd be cool to possibly separate the league out a bit. Are you a serious/competetive team looking to win at some cost and drink beer in the lot afterwards or just are out to play some competitive hockey, have fun and drink beer in the lot afterwards?
...or do you just come to drink beer in the lot afterwards?
BTW Chris, welcome back to C1.
The Hogs are a good bunch!
When the Maroons squad was a C1 team, they were a good team. AHA identified a player who possibly wasn't a C1 player and after the season maybe required him to move up. Their 2nd season in C1 was not as successful, but I'm not sure it is attributed to that one guy. The team gets kinda/sorta blown up after 2nd season in C1 and moves to C2 as the M's. Roster is pretty changed yet they still do well. I think the C2 M's squad had at least 5 guys who played on the C1 team, but probably guys who were not necessarily dominant. The team seems to be proactive in getting good players to play for them. There are PLENTY of teams who don't think about winter season until September, and by then, good players to fill roster spots are mostly gone. Is it the proactive teams fault that they are successful because they manage their team?
Along the same lines, I've always thought there was a link between a successful team in the AHA and the teams who have the players who skate all year or have a good core group who skate all year together. Weekly icetimes, scrimmages, etc. Hint to the losing teams who don't do some of this... that's one reason these teams win!
Although it's all relative and would be difficult to manage, it'd be cool to possibly separate the league out a bit. Are you a serious/competetive team looking to win at some cost and drink beer in the lot afterwards or just are out to play some competitive hockey, have fun and drink beer in the lot afterwards?
...or do you just come to drink beer in the lot afterwards?
BTW Chris, welcome back to C1.
The Hogs are a good bunch!
#9
mkatwinters
- Posts: 53
Posted 08 December 2011 - 02:15 AM
bkdow, on 05 December 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:
Mark, how many shut-outs/blowouts before you will state the M's don't belong in C2? I know you have told me there is no C1 players. At some point would you admit that your team does not belong?
First off - I didn't say There are no C1 Players, I said that every team in the AHA has players that could be argued don't belong at their perspective level. I do think that there are guys on the M's that could handle playing at C1. I also think there are plenty of guys out there on plenty of other teams that fall into the exact same category.
The fact of the matter is, that the M's have a strong group of players, The whole group, not just a couple or few guys, The whole team is good. Its well put together, and they play well together. Rob is right, we are planful and it is a well put together team.
Second - Make no mistake, 4 shut outs in a row don't come easy! I don't care what level you play at, not being scored on for 12 straight periods is no easy task. Its not like I am seeing 10 shots a game, heck this last one was 31 shots I believe. No doubt, I will have my day, where I get mine and drop the ball, crap the bed, whatever term you want to use. But you can also bet that I will be busting my arse to go as long as I can stopping the puck for my team. That's my job!
My shut outs have been earned, and I am not getting them because my team is blowing everyone out. I look at it like this... I am contributing to our wins by playing well lately, and by not letting in any goals. I can only hope that I keep my head straight and can keep giving my team an edge by providing them quality goaltending as best I can. Crap....I was trying to be humble and thankful for the compliment that i was given.
Third - Before "I" state that the M's don't belong ???? I don't get this? Making the statement that "I" need to "Admit" something implies that I have done someone or something wrong??? So now I will get defensive, crass, and Ill clear the air ... If someone asked me if the M's are "too good" for C2 I would say No. The M's are just plain good. They have been consistently winning for some time now. Its a great team.That statement I will "Admit too". They have been that way since before I joined them last year and we still are. Two examples here, both playoff teams from last year. No-one is bitching about the Blizzard and they have a well put together team with consistent goal tending from Carson and several players that are "too good for C2" in the eyes of some people. The Rack have been successful for some time now as well and...wow you know what?... they have been getting great goal tending from Bobby Stewart. Do these teams "not belong"? If its not the M's, guess what, it will be the Rack that people target, then the Blizzard, then Who knows. Should we start talking about the Thunder Chickens, Fighting Piranha, or Spiders? Cant we just play hockey?
I think the AHA does a pretty good job with the parity. Try playing out at the super rink in the MN Wild adult league and getting the crap kicked out of you by a team on a consistent basis because it is a group of ex division one players who's actual intent is to play down by two levels and make every last person they play against look stupid! It does not matter who it is, someone is always going to be the target for people to say does not belong - We play a sport where people keep score which means that someone has to win right? So if Each game, Each night, when I play, I want to play with guys that have fun but at the same time are competitive and play hard, play to win... somehow that's wrong or "unfair"?
Its too bad that our society has gotten to the point where instead of striving to get better and competing, that we get to the point of complaining instead......"Its not fair"....."Blank is too good"...... "He needs to move up"....."They need to move up"....
I will not apologize for trying my ass off each time I hit the ice and I will not apologize for playing on a team that feels the same way. Next time I see Pete, Ill ask him if the AHA is going to hand out "Participation trophies" to everyone this year so everyone wins and we can all belong -
#10
wxpatrick
- Patrick Martin (wxpatrick)
- Games: 103
- Posts: 16
Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:34 AM
This is my first 'organized' hockey, outside a year of JMS. I was lucky enough to play for the M's and am no doubt one of their weaker players.
This team contains and controls the blue line better than the others we play. Winters sees plenty of shots, but most are average for his skill-set. He keeps big rebounds to a minimum, and our defensemen are damn sure to get that puck first. Big second chances do not seem to happen with this group. Don't get me wrong, Mark has had to come up big on occasion, and has, hence 4 games of clean sheets. He and the defense deserve this four game run, no question. Our team starts with this group, and I doubt any 'ringers' are in this bunch. They know their roles, and play it deftly. No bells and whistles, just gritty, intelligent play in the defensive zone, with a goalie staying in position and trusting the boys out front.
Offensively, the blue line makes it happen. Sure we get odd-man rushes occasionally, but generally we can get the puck to the blue line, move it a bit, and fire a shot from the point in where 2-3 forwards are ready to pounce, whether it's a pass, deflection or tip-in. At worst, we can regain control and try to get a second go-round at it. If it fails and the other team breaks out, the forwards are ready to aggressively forecheck, and the blueline sits back ready to take control of the DZ when the puck is shot or mishandled.
This team keeps a short roster, with little variance in talent levels, from top to bottom. But we do play roles, if I played D, we would be in a world of trouble. Our players know their 'nitch' and this team lets them use it. The "M's" are not about top-loading talent, but finding pieces that fit their needs. End of the season, an M will not be the points leader, nor goal leader, but you will see many in the top ten. Our second line will score just as much as the first, with the third right there contributing. The lower lines draw a lot of penalties, because they still produce, while 2/3 lines on other teams get worn mid-way through a game and take penalties. If they don't, they get tired.
Organizationally, this team is well put together with legitimate C2 talent.
This team contains and controls the blue line better than the others we play. Winters sees plenty of shots, but most are average for his skill-set. He keeps big rebounds to a minimum, and our defensemen are damn sure to get that puck first. Big second chances do not seem to happen with this group. Don't get me wrong, Mark has had to come up big on occasion, and has, hence 4 games of clean sheets. He and the defense deserve this four game run, no question. Our team starts with this group, and I doubt any 'ringers' are in this bunch. They know their roles, and play it deftly. No bells and whistles, just gritty, intelligent play in the defensive zone, with a goalie staying in position and trusting the boys out front.
Offensively, the blue line makes it happen. Sure we get odd-man rushes occasionally, but generally we can get the puck to the blue line, move it a bit, and fire a shot from the point in where 2-3 forwards are ready to pounce, whether it's a pass, deflection or tip-in. At worst, we can regain control and try to get a second go-round at it. If it fails and the other team breaks out, the forwards are ready to aggressively forecheck, and the blueline sits back ready to take control of the DZ when the puck is shot or mishandled.
This team keeps a short roster, with little variance in talent levels, from top to bottom. But we do play roles, if I played D, we would be in a world of trouble. Our players know their 'nitch' and this team lets them use it. The "M's" are not about top-loading talent, but finding pieces that fit their needs. End of the season, an M will not be the points leader, nor goal leader, but you will see many in the top ten. Our second line will score just as much as the first, with the third right there contributing. The lower lines draw a lot of penalties, because they still produce, while 2/3 lines on other teams get worn mid-way through a game and take penalties. If they don't, they get tired.
Organizationally, this team is well put together with legitimate C2 talent.
#11
Jbengry
- Jeremy Bengry (Jbengry)
- Games: 23
- Posts: 1
Posted 08 December 2011 - 08:57 AM
I will not apologize for trying my ass off each time I hit the ice and I will not apologize for playing on a team that feels the same way. Next time I see Pete, Ill ask him if the AHA is going to hand out "Participation trophies" to everyone this year so everyone wins and we can all belong -
[/quote]
I think that there is a bigger issue here. I think that you need to apologize for those socks. I feel that you are somehow pulling power from those socks. I don't feel that it is a coincidence that they are having such a hot streak and have also changed their socks to this new pattern.
Go Sharks!
JB
[/quote]
I think that there is a bigger issue here. I think that you need to apologize for those socks. I feel that you are somehow pulling power from those socks. I don't feel that it is a coincidence that they are having such a hot streak and have also changed their socks to this new pattern.
Go Sharks!
JB
#12
goaltenderb
- Robert Stewart (GoaltenderB)
- Games: 15
- Posts: 32
Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:11 AM
I'll toss in my opinion on the M's, since that seems to be where the focus is currently and when I have more time I'll post again a follow up post to my original predictions that I made for the separate divisions.
The M's team is not loaded with talent, I don't think anyone here would argue that. The issue with the M's is that as far as parity is concerned, they are beyond the C2 skill level *as a team*. The reason that I believe this is because they don't play as a team at a C2 level. Their awareness, ability to know, maintain and aggressively play their position (for all 3 periods at 90+ %), their impressive passing game, these are all reasons why they have the record they have and continue to put up the numbers they do.
Speaking of numbers, comparitively they aren't way out in front on every aspect either. They have 212 shots for after 6 games, only 6 shots higher than the Fighting Piranhas and 10 shots more than the Zephyrs. Even their shots against isn't the lowest, they have allowed 140 shots against whereas the Jets have only allowed 135, (the next closest team has allowed 151 shots). Where the numbers show that this team belongs in a seperate level is the goals scored vs goals against. The M's have scored an unbelievable 38 goals for and only allowed *3* goals against. That's more than 10 goals scored for each goal against! There are other teams that have scored a lot of goals, The Admirals have scored 35 in 6 games but notably have allowed 18, less than a 2 goals scored for each goal allowed (5 times lower than the M's). My own team, Rack Attack in C2 East has scored 17 goals and only allowed 5, that's an astonishing 3 goals scored for each goal allowed (The M's is 3 times higher than that).
The issue with parity is that everyone has their own opinion as to what it means. Sure, a team full of skaters who on other teams would blend right in but on *this* team is dominating their division because of hard skating, good passes and overall great teamork is a difficult decision for parity. That's why I believe that the M's should be (or should have been, they were dominant last year for the same reasons, in the most competitive division C2 had) moved to C1 as an entire team. They play like a C1 team does as far as positioning, skating ability, passing and goaltending are all concerned. The main thing that would need to happen is they'd have to play with more than a short roster, because in C1 they wouldn't be able to play the whole game on a short roster (I'm of the belief that if you skate a game you should be tired or exhausted afterwards no matter the level, if you aren't you're either guilty of a lack of trying, sandbagging it or you belong in a different level) so they'd be required to recruit some new players. That isn't a counter argument at all because every team needs to do that, no team is self-sustaining and if the M's are as proactive in player recruitment as mentioned then it should be no problem for them.
A brief comparison between C1 and C2 as far as skill is concerned.
In C1, the positional play is understood and executed by the players much more consistently and efficiently. The passes are much crisper and accurate. The speed of the game is a notch above C2 and the skill level of skating is a little better (I have not seen many players fall down in C1 while taking a shot). The goaltending is more consistent, (it's difficult to compare goaltending though for many reasons). Perhaps the most important thing is that in my experience, the majority of players have played organized/coached league before the AHA.
In C2, positional play is sketchy at best, with only the top teams having (generally) occasional success at being where they should, when they should. Passes tend to be inaccurate and much easier to read/intercept for the aware/conscious player. The players can skate well without interference, but there are a lot more penalties because of trying to play with their sticks vs skating harder to keep up with the other teams. The skill level of the skaters is mediocre on average, it's not uncommon to see players fall while taking shots for example. The goaltending can be solid, but generally there mistakes made each game that lead to plenty of scoring chances. Perhaps the most important thing is that in my experience, the majority of players have *not* played in an organized/coached league before the AHA.
The M's team is not loaded with talent, I don't think anyone here would argue that. The issue with the M's is that as far as parity is concerned, they are beyond the C2 skill level *as a team*. The reason that I believe this is because they don't play as a team at a C2 level. Their awareness, ability to know, maintain and aggressively play their position (for all 3 periods at 90+ %), their impressive passing game, these are all reasons why they have the record they have and continue to put up the numbers they do.
Speaking of numbers, comparitively they aren't way out in front on every aspect either. They have 212 shots for after 6 games, only 6 shots higher than the Fighting Piranhas and 10 shots more than the Zephyrs. Even their shots against isn't the lowest, they have allowed 140 shots against whereas the Jets have only allowed 135, (the next closest team has allowed 151 shots). Where the numbers show that this team belongs in a seperate level is the goals scored vs goals against. The M's have scored an unbelievable 38 goals for and only allowed *3* goals against. That's more than 10 goals scored for each goal against! There are other teams that have scored a lot of goals, The Admirals have scored 35 in 6 games but notably have allowed 18, less than a 2 goals scored for each goal allowed (5 times lower than the M's). My own team, Rack Attack in C2 East has scored 17 goals and only allowed 5, that's an astonishing 3 goals scored for each goal allowed (The M's is 3 times higher than that).
The issue with parity is that everyone has their own opinion as to what it means. Sure, a team full of skaters who on other teams would blend right in but on *this* team is dominating their division because of hard skating, good passes and overall great teamork is a difficult decision for parity. That's why I believe that the M's should be (or should have been, they were dominant last year for the same reasons, in the most competitive division C2 had) moved to C1 as an entire team. They play like a C1 team does as far as positioning, skating ability, passing and goaltending are all concerned. The main thing that would need to happen is they'd have to play with more than a short roster, because in C1 they wouldn't be able to play the whole game on a short roster (I'm of the belief that if you skate a game you should be tired or exhausted afterwards no matter the level, if you aren't you're either guilty of a lack of trying, sandbagging it or you belong in a different level) so they'd be required to recruit some new players. That isn't a counter argument at all because every team needs to do that, no team is self-sustaining and if the M's are as proactive in player recruitment as mentioned then it should be no problem for them.
A brief comparison between C1 and C2 as far as skill is concerned.
In C1, the positional play is understood and executed by the players much more consistently and efficiently. The passes are much crisper and accurate. The speed of the game is a notch above C2 and the skill level of skating is a little better (I have not seen many players fall down in C1 while taking a shot). The goaltending is more consistent, (it's difficult to compare goaltending though for many reasons). Perhaps the most important thing is that in my experience, the majority of players have played organized/coached league before the AHA.
In C2, positional play is sketchy at best, with only the top teams having (generally) occasional success at being where they should, when they should. Passes tend to be inaccurate and much easier to read/intercept for the aware/conscious player. The players can skate well without interference, but there are a lot more penalties because of trying to play with their sticks vs skating harder to keep up with the other teams. The skill level of the skaters is mediocre on average, it's not uncommon to see players fall while taking shots for example. The goaltending can be solid, but generally there mistakes made each game that lead to plenty of scoring chances. Perhaps the most important thing is that in my experience, the majority of players have *not* played in an organized/coached league before the AHA.
#13
chrismcneil
- Chris McNeil (chrismcneil)
- Games: 123
- Posts: 111
Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:59 AM
Let's try to remember each team has only played what, 6 or 7 games and has not played every team yet. It's a 20 game season. Why not wait and see what happens before we break out the pitch forks and torches. From that last post it almost seems like there maybe too big of a gap between C1 and C2. If there is, maybe some teams need to step up their game a little. Rather than asking a good team to move up, why not push yourself to be as good. It's pretty easy to sit back and play comfortably, but are you willing to push yourself a little more? Goes back to Rob's post. Do you want to play and then drink beer after the game, or just drink beer after the game?
#14
blitzenagain
- Rob Jones (blitzenagain)
- Games: 85
- Posts: 914
Posted 08 December 2011 - 10:44 AM
M's have beaten ONE team that has a winning record... The Spiders are currently 4-2 and the M's beat them 4-0. Not exactly dominating or a big travesty.
Combined record for the 6 teams the M's have beaten: 14-19-3
The Northern Horde 12-0 thrashing may be more of an aberration than anything. Horde only had 12 skaters...and gave up 6 goals in the third period when they were most likely gassed. Even with a few more skaters, M's probably would have won...but the 12-0 score may not be indicative of the Horde being overmatched by talent alone.
I agree...let the season play out more and see what happens. There are 20 other teams in C2 the M's cannot have an opportunity to play until the playoffs. Historically speaking, most teams who dominate their division the whole season (or are at least in 1st place all season long) are typically the ones who have the biggest flops in the playoffs.
Combined record for the 6 teams the M's have beaten: 14-19-3
The Northern Horde 12-0 thrashing may be more of an aberration than anything. Horde only had 12 skaters...and gave up 6 goals in the third period when they were most likely gassed. Even with a few more skaters, M's probably would have won...but the 12-0 score may not be indicative of the Horde being overmatched by talent alone.
I agree...let the season play out more and see what happens. There are 20 other teams in C2 the M's cannot have an opportunity to play until the playoffs. Historically speaking, most teams who dominate their division the whole season (or are at least in 1st place all season long) are typically the ones who have the biggest flops in the playoffs.
#15
goaltenderb
- Robert Stewart (GoaltenderB)
- Games: 15
- Posts: 32
Posted 08 December 2011 - 08:51 PM
Just for the record, so both of you feel that the M's having more than 12 goals scored for each goal allowed is not indicative of a team that may be playing beyond the ability of the division they're in?
Also, in reply to the "have only played one team with a winning record" argument. They've played the Norseman and Chaos C2 Black, the 4th and 5th ranked teams in the division respectively who are running a neutral record of 3-3 and 2-2-2 (respectively again). The M's beat the Norseman 7-2 and Chaos C2 Black 6-0.
Personally, I believe that parity means that every team should have a chance at competing on any given night. From all looks of it, this isn't the case in C2 North. Case in point, my team just played the Chaos C2 Gold who is at the bottom of our division lacking a single win currently. We escaped with a mere 3-1 win in a game that could have very easily swung the other way.
That to me is parity, we haven't decimated any of the teams we've played, in fact, most teams in C2 don't decimate other teams when they play. In comparison, The Spiders (who are in a 3 way tie for 2nd place in C2 North) played the Northern Horde and won with a modest 4-1 win. The Admirals, who are leading C2 West currently had their best win at a 10-3 win over The Dragons.
Also, in reply to the "have only played one team with a winning record" argument. They've played the Norseman and Chaos C2 Black, the 4th and 5th ranked teams in the division respectively who are running a neutral record of 3-3 and 2-2-2 (respectively again). The M's beat the Norseman 7-2 and Chaos C2 Black 6-0.
Personally, I believe that parity means that every team should have a chance at competing on any given night. From all looks of it, this isn't the case in C2 North. Case in point, my team just played the Chaos C2 Gold who is at the bottom of our division lacking a single win currently. We escaped with a mere 3-1 win in a game that could have very easily swung the other way.
That to me is parity, we haven't decimated any of the teams we've played, in fact, most teams in C2 don't decimate other teams when they play. In comparison, The Spiders (who are in a 3 way tie for 2nd place in C2 North) played the Northern Horde and won with a modest 4-1 win. The Admirals, who are leading C2 West currently had their best win at a 10-3 win over The Dragons.
#16
mlobitz
- Posts: 136
Posted 09 December 2011 - 08:38 AM
mkatwinters, on 08 December 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:
So if Each game, Each night, when I play, I want to play with guys that have fun but at the same time are competitive and play hard, play to win... somehow that's wrong or "unfair"?
Its too bad that our society has gotten to the point where instead of striving to get better and competing, that we get to the point of complaining instead......"Its not fair"....."Blank is too good"...... "He needs to move up"....."They need to move up"....
Its too bad that our society has gotten to the point where instead of striving to get better and competing, that we get to the point of complaining instead......"Its not fair"....."Blank is too good"...... "He needs to move up"....."They need to move up"....
Careful... You don't want to get the "99%" worked up or we may have an "Occupy AHA" movement on our hands!
#17
flyingcamel
- Cameron Kaszas (flyingcamel)
- Games: 91
- Posts: 66
Posted 09 December 2011 - 06:12 PM
goaltenderb, on 08 December 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:
Personally, I believe that parity means that every team should have a chance at competing on any given night. From all looks of it, this isn't the case in C2 North.
Parity is perfectly fine in C2 North. I'm on the Aces - we are currently in last place - and yet we could have won any of our games. I can't wait to play these superstar M's in a week and a half. Whatever. They better not take it lightly. I am sure we will give them a game and it will be fun. Chill people. Again, no problems with parity from my point of view.
#18
JJGlover55
- JJ Glover (JJGlover55)
- Games: 84
- Posts: 41
Posted 09 December 2011 - 09:22 PM
flyingcamel, on 09 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:
Parity is perfectly fine in C2 North. I'm on the Aces - we are currently in last place - and yet we could have won any of our games. I can't wait to play these superstar M's in a week and a half. Whatever. They better not take it lightly. I am sure we will give them a game and it will be fun. Chill people. Again, no problems with parity from my point of view.
Likewise, I'm excited to test my skills (or lack thereof) against the vaunted Rack Attack. I don't mind a little "un-parity" in the mix. I like the idea of a challenge that an identifiable top team can provide. I like the idea of the upset win and the sense of accomplishment that it brings.
#19
mkatwinters
- Posts: 53
Posted 10 December 2011 - 08:28 PM
flyingcamel, on 09 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:
Parity is perfectly fine in C2 North. I'm on the Aces - we are currently in last place - and yet we could have won any of our games. I can't wait to play these superstar M's in a week and a half. Whatever. They better not take it lightly. I am sure we will give them a game and it will be fun. Chill people. Again, no problems with parity from my point of view.
Don't worry Cam - We wont take it lightly. Knowing that the Aces have what?, three players?, at least that are on C1 teams, and a very well put together squad, and knowing I will be facing my old team
brings lots of excitement for me as well. It should be a well fought and fun game for lots of us! Mark
#20
mkatwinters
- Posts: 53
Posted 12 December 2011 - 10:12 AM
So we lost last night to the Zephyrs - 1-0 at the end of the first as I let in a soft goal from the blue line like 1 minute into the game (or less) and it stayed that way until the Third period. (I do recall saying that I would get mine and crap the bed right?) They scored again in the Third to make it 2-0 and we got one late to make it 2-1.) They finished us off with an empty netter to make the final 3-1.
Their sub goalie played outstanding and they played us tough. Like most of us had said - any team on any night. and they took it to us. Despite what the score card says, they out shot and outplayed us in the Third period by a ton. we only had like 4 or 5 total shots on net in the Third and they spent a majority of the period in our end drilling me. I consider myself lucky to have only let in 1 goal in the third.
One thing I have to say is that they crash the net well and have allot of big guys. That makes it tough on any Defensive set. Politely saying that although they do these things well, the refs may have been able to do a better job watching the crease violations and goalie interference for that matter as I was flattened on one occasion and many time had to shove my way through guys on my lap in the crease to even be able to see a shot coming. all of that set aside, that's not why we lost. The refs do the best they can, and we lost because we got outplayed.
SO all the crap and trash talk - really comes to fruition - should I say that its not fair? should I say the Zephyrs are too good? should I say that because they play physical and get lots of penalties that its cheap?
NOPE - they were better than us last night, took it to us, and that's that.
See you all on the ice.
Mark
Their sub goalie played outstanding and they played us tough. Like most of us had said - any team on any night. and they took it to us. Despite what the score card says, they out shot and outplayed us in the Third period by a ton. we only had like 4 or 5 total shots on net in the Third and they spent a majority of the period in our end drilling me. I consider myself lucky to have only let in 1 goal in the third.
One thing I have to say is that they crash the net well and have allot of big guys. That makes it tough on any Defensive set. Politely saying that although they do these things well, the refs may have been able to do a better job watching the crease violations and goalie interference for that matter as I was flattened on one occasion and many time had to shove my way through guys on my lap in the crease to even be able to see a shot coming. all of that set aside, that's not why we lost. The refs do the best they can, and we lost because we got outplayed.
SO all the crap and trash talk - really comes to fruition - should I say that its not fair? should I say the Zephyrs are too good? should I say that because they play physical and get lots of penalties that its cheap?
NOPE - they were better than us last night, took it to us, and that's that.
See you all on the ice.
Mark