Wednesday Morning Fly-By: Richards and Umberger Show

by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 10:40 AM EST in Morning Fly By

Obviously, this is a feature that has been missing lately. We're not guaranteeing this will return full-time - even though we hope - but there was a lot of talk about this around the site recently.

So with that, I bring you some links:

Last night's NHL scores... ATL 4 - TOR 3; NYR 8 - TB 2; WAS 3 - DET 2; PIT 6 - NYI 4; OTT 4 - CHI 1; SJ 5 - LA 1; ANA 5 - BUF 4
After the game, we here at BSH did our weekly radio show. Travis will be posting it later today, but don't forget about our as-yet unnamed voice-mail where you can rant and rave about the Flyers at any time.
A lot of stories about R.J. Umberger after the game last night, mostly all glowing praise. Did you know he has a Flyers logo tattoo? Or that he sought out a few members of the media last night to apologize for not acknowledging the fans after the game? "I don't want [the fans] to think I'm blowing them off or anything." [DelCo Times] [Daily News] [Seravalli]
Also, you may have heard about the recent Richards v. the media spat over the weekend. Well, it was written about a few more times. First, the negative take on Richards: "He mumbled an answer to a second question and took a side door out of the room. If he was going to dispel the notion that he's acting petulantly, that didn't do it." [Inquirer]
Then, a slight defense of the embattled Captain: "Besides, it’s not so much about being a captain as it is a being a leader. As Clement says, it didn’t matter if Clarke was the captain or not because everyone knew he was the best leader out there." [CSNPhilly.com]
With former coach Ken Hitchcock in town, he even chimed in on the subject: "Hitchcock contends that a team captain does not have to be its spokesman. "There is a clear understanding that he fights like hell for his teammates," he said of Richards. "It's a quality that every coach in this league would love to have. We'd die to have that type of player on our team." [Daily News]
Great story out of Adirondack as Nic Riopel pledges $1 for every save he makes at home to go to a season ticket holder with cancer. [PostStar]
Jon Willis does great work over at his site, and this time he looks at the success rate of first-round draft picks: "However, goaltenders are off the charts bad: a first-round goaltender is more than twice as likely not to reach the 100 game plateau as a first-round skater." [Hockey or Die]
Lastly, another Willis post where he looks at each team's playoff chances through the lens of goal-differential: "A few teams stand out. Philadelphia is the most obvious one here; while they’re currently a bubble team, by goal differential they’re probably a second-tier contender in the Eastern Conference, and if I were betting on teams improving their record over the second half they’d be one of the first teams I’d consider." [Hockey or Die]

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

in re Willis:

he’s right. all the pieces are back. the flyers just have to stay healthy, and have hartnell remove his head from wherever it’s stuck.

then again, staying healthy in the latter stages of the year is a tough prospect.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jan 20, 2010 11:18 AM EST reply actions

Something I found interesting:

In Seravalli’s story, he quoted Carter as saying:

“Honestly, faceoffs are half luck.’’

Let the Carter bashing, faceoff debate begin again. For the record, Carter is second on the team at 51.9% in the dot this year.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 3:29 PM EST reply actions

i don’t know about that. just seems some people are luckier than others.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jan 20, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, the stats for faceoffs over a career bear out pretty clear consistencies for most guys in the league. They may have good years, they may have bad years, but they are usually within a rather clear range of ability.

by MarioD on Jan 20, 2010 6:35 PM EST up reply actions

Does it have more to do with positioning or another skill set (and why are the Flyers so lousy at it)?

by doubleh on Jan 20, 2010 7:50 PM EST up reply actions

Clarke says it’s all about attitude, and knowing you’re going to be hungrier for the puck and that you want it more than the other guy. And if there’s one guy who knows what he’s talking about when it comes to faceoffs, it’s Clarkie. I keep that in the back of my mind every time a Flyer is about to take a key faceoff.

by Ben Feldman on Jan 20, 2010 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

Well, that explains a lot, if that’s true. Despite last year’s marketing slogan, I don’t think this particular team is hungrier for much. Some individual players, yes, but overall—they just don’t seem like they have a win at all costs attitude. I could be wrong.

by doubleh on Jan 20, 2010 8:47 PM EST up reply actions

I think they have a “win at the lost cost possible” attitude.

by MarioD on Jan 20, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions

I have no idea. I’m not even sure if it can be taught or not.

by MarioD on Jan 20, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions

On a personal level, I used to suck at faceoffs and I got a lot better by just working on reflexes. That’s weird, though, because reflexes are part instinct and part skill that can be harnessed with practice.

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:35 AM EST up reply actions

At the NHL level, their reflexes must be better than yours were before you started working on them.

Its possible, but I’m not sure they have room for improvement at that level.

by MarioD on Jan 21, 2010 1:29 AM EST up reply actions

That’s very true, yes.

I think there are a lot of different aspects to being a good faceoff man. It’s mostly reflexes, but there’s also positioning, reading the other guy, and developing a strategy. Are you going to just win it back quickly, are you going to spin around and box the other guy out, are you going to trample your opponent as soon as the puck drops like Lindros used to do?

Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 1:35 AM EST up reply actions

As much as I don’t like to use him as an example (because he sucks), when Crosby started it was often said face-offs were his biggest weakness. If I remember right he was terrible at them, ~45%. But now he is in the top 10 (at least when I last looked). Apparently thats just through tirelessly working on them.

Can’t find his history of FO% sorry. But I’m pretty sure it goes something like that

by ToddtheFox on Jan 21, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions

Its all at NHL.com, not hard to find…

2005-06: 45.5%
2006-07: 49.8%
2007-08: 51.4%
2008-09: 51.3%
2009-10: 58.1%

By contrast, Richards and Carter?

Richards

2005-06: 45.7%
2006-07: 47.8%
2007-08: 50.5%
2008-09: 49%
2009-10: 50.1%

Carter

2005-06: 48.2%
2006-07: 45.4%
2007-08: 47.5%
2008-09: 48.3%
2009-10: 51.9%

Both Richards and Carter were better on faceoffs than Crosby in what was all of their rookie year. Then Crosby left them in his dust.

by MarioD on Jan 21, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t like NHL.com for reasons that aren’t easy to explain.

But yeah, Crosby has worked on them and got better so why can’t those two do the same.

by ToddtheFox on Jan 21, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions

Its possible they’ve already worked on face-offs and reached their max potential.
We can’t really say whether or not they could improve.

by MarioD on Jan 21, 2010 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

So you think they’re already the best they can be? I guess thats possible, but to me it seems like something you could always improve on. Maybe no one has put the impetus on them to really work on it?

by ToddtheFox on Jan 21, 2010 6:48 PM EST up reply actions

Looking at those numbers, I’d buy the argument that Richards reached his potential a lot more than Carter. Probably doesn’t make sense, but Richards went from under 48% to hovering around 50% the past three seasons. He’s been fairly consistent lately.

Carter, on the other hand, has massive spikes in his numbers. Down 2.8%, up 2.1%, up 0.8%, then up 3.6%? I have no idea how good he is. Maybe he’s a 48% guy, but he’s been improving his faceoff numbers for the past 3 years. This year could obviously be an aberration – at first glance, it looks like it – but he’s shown the ability to improve. Maybe this year is the beginning, maybe it’s a complete outlier, but maybe it’s continuing a trend – albeit more than should be expected.

I don’t know if that last sentence made sense though.

Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.

by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 21, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions