Now, This Blog Is Dead

All new content will go here:

Aviator News 3.0 – Fennewea!

Bare with me as I get that site to where I want it.

Rumours of the Blog’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Last night I spent time following-up on Daniel’s advise and moving WordPress.org’s blogging suite onto Fennewea. The set-up was easy and successful, successful enough to become excited about being able to move AN2′s content over within a few hours. But the export of data from this blog to the other hit a snag that no documentation is helping me resolve, and the blog didn’t come out-of-the-box with as many features as the version on WordPress.com has. While I can install plug-ins to bring the feature set of the WordPress.org version up-to-date, I don’t have a good solution is sight for importing this blog’s content.

Should I not be able to move AN2 into AN1, I’m still going to move the site over. The new address is

http://www.fennewea.com/avi/.

Yeah. Not too easy to remember. At least, not as easy as rhlaviators.wordpress.com.

Until I can come to a decision or resolution regarding importing AN2′s content, I’ll continue to post most articles here. There will be, however, some content going up on the other blog (though probably not RHL stuff). At some point, this blog will just say “new stuff here” in reference to Fennewea, and the blog will be dead.

But that day is not coming as fast as I had thought.

The Last Days of Aviator News, 2.0

This is notice: Aviator News, 2.0 is going away. It’s time to move on.

Most of you have noticed a distinctly different tone in the blog over the months since I’ve returned from San Francisco. There is still a good amount of topic, but most of it deviates from the per RHL-centric tones of Aviator News 1.0. More and more I’m talking about the RHL less and less. And this direction isn’t likely to change anytime soon. I want to keep talking to you about my life as well as about my team. But as it concerns Aviators News 2.0 – a site originally intended to be merely a new version of an Aviator blog – the site his outlived its usefulness.

I need an area more tailored to the entirety of what I wish to write about. I need an area that’s more flexible, allow me to incorporate some of the features that I will be developing in consort with my buddy and Fennewea. In all, Aviator News 2.0 is just not holding the same place in my heart.

I just wanted to give notice, as yesterday I decided that AN2 is going to be fading away. The next post on this blog will probably be the one which announces its death.

Quarterfinals Game 3 Wrap-Ups

• GARGOYLES 3, Reapers 2

  The Gargoyles created a toss-up game and got the win. I don’t mean to demean how they played in game 3 by calling the game a toss-up. To be in a situation where either team can win against the number one seed is nothing to sneeze at. And in truth, this game was less of a toss-up than the Gargoyles slightly out-playing the Reapers, building an early lead and letting the Reapers control the game in the third. If they play the same way in Game 4, they could find themselves headed back to Guelph with the series tied.

  If Guelph is question whether they should adjust, they need to make the decision in the context of losing Scott Stevens for what is likely to be the rest of the playoffs. Pavol Kubina, who scored his fifth goal of the playoffs, will be called on to step-up even further. Combined with injuries to defensemen Cory Cross and Garnet Exelby, the Reapers are in bad shape on the back line. Whether the game result itself dictated a change is one thing. The injuries mandate a change.

• MOUNTIES 4, Capones 0

  Remember how I had predicted drama in this series? I was so wrong. Kipprusoff has allowed one goal in three games as the Mounties have kept the Capones from coming close to victory.

  At this point, the series is over. Even if Chicago outplays Kitchener from here on out, the Mounties will get one game. How did Chicago get in this position? Or, the question the previous actually asks, are the Capones just not as good as we thought they were?

  If Chicago were losing games 8-4 or 9-3, I would say yes to that question, but Chicago is being kept off the scoreboard when we know that there is very little likelihood that this team can’t score. This denial of their ability speaks more to what Kitchener is doing than what Chicago is not. True, Chicago should probably be finding ways to score more goals, but as hinted in the last wrap-up, what, exactly, should they do? It’s not clear how they can attack Kitchener. Walt messed with his forechecking strategy a little, but it may be time to concede that this Kitchener team is just playing that good.

• Funboys 6, SELECTS 2

  Speaking of playing good.

  Saskatoon played their best game of the playoffs and have done their part to ensure that the Howe Conference finals match-up we all had anticipated will in fact take place. Up 3-0 (just like the other three Cup favorites), Martin Baldwin is in the interesting position of being concerned as much with injuries as the scoreboard. You don’t want a silly thing like healthy deciding who goes to the Kings Cup Finals.

  With Vaclav Varada and Eric Desjardins each going down with injuries in Game 4, Saskatoon will want to finish off Lethbridge as soon as possible to get the maximum amount of rest.

• Rovers 5, PENETRATORS 1

  I hate to say I told you so, but to Stringer: I told you so. Home-ice was much less important than a good seeding. Case-and-point? You’re up 3-0 (and the series hasn’t been close) despite not getting the one seed. Granted, the one seed didn’t have to deal with the predicted match-up against South Edmonton, so … so … so – I told you so!

  Yeah. That’s it.

  Five different Rovers scored as the team battled through injuries to three defensemen to post a convincing victory. Don’t worry about the injuries – all of Keith Carney, Kim Johnsson, and Daniel Markov will be back for Game 4. If Rhett Warrener continues to play as he did in Game 3 (goal, two assists), they may not be needed.

Quarterfinals, Game 2 Wrap-Ups

REAPERS 2, Gargoyles 0

Reapers lead series 2-0.

The Reapers controlled all aspects of the game, and Roberto Luongo got an easy shutout. Pavol Kubina scored his fourth goal in six playoff games. The Gargoyles have given us no reason to believe the gap between these two teams can be transcended by a change of venue. Between these reasons and those of the other Richard Conference series, it’s a tough time for RHL fans in Chicago. Lucky for them, the city will host two games on each of the next two days – quite the event regardless of the outcome.

Mounties 5, CAPONES 1

Mounties lead series 2-0.

The Capones will now have to win four or five games, three of which will be playing in Kitchener. Brad Schott’s team has asserted itself as the clear favorite with their handling of Walt’s team. And it was the old guard that led them in Game 2: Mats Sundin had two goals; Joe Nieuwendyk had 1 goal and 2 assists. Rob Blake was +4 for the Mounties. Martin Havlat was -3 for the Capones.

What can Walt do? As was noted in the previous wrap-up, there seems to be a larger gap here than one tweak can bridge. And while a reflex response is to get our best players out there more – fatigue be damned – Havlat, Ilya Kovalchuk, Simon Gagne and Jason Spezza were a combined -8. Chicago’s playing a two forechecker attack, but reducing that might put them in a situation where they are just as likely to create close, toss-up games as games they can win. It’s hard to win 4 out of 5 toss-ups. There’s only so many times a coin can come up on the same side.

Suggestion: a combination approach. Be aggressive with a unit you think will work, and just try to hold serve with the rest. And, of course, there’s always line matching.

FUNBOYS 5, Selects 3

Funboys lead series 2-0.

Trevor Linden had all the Selects scoring but it wasn’t enough. His last two goals came with the team already down 5-1, and while the scoreboard ended up respectable at the end of each game, Lethbridge did not come close to winning either of the first two games in Saskatoon.

But, unlike the Capones, there does appear to be hope. Their peripherals have been within reason and a change of scenery might be enough. But down 2-0, I would advise them the same as I did myself when down 2-0: It’s time for big changes, beacuse you’re not just trying to find a formula to win Game 3. You need a formula that will win you four out of five games.

Rovers 3, PENETRATORS 2

Rovers lead series 2-0.

The Penetrators made strides but need to recognize that, having put only 20 shots on net, two goals was about the maximum output with the attack they employed. It’s likely, with the same tactics, they’d score less in Baffin Isle. Game 2 was a close game, but it could also be seen as a bets-case scenario.

Down 2-0 and going on the road, the Penetrator season is on the brink. I tend to think their chance of winning at this point rests at around 2%. But Howard Wong and the team need to look at this as an opportunity to gain experience. At some point in the future, when the Penetrators are greater contenders than they are now, similar adjustments will be required of him and his team. He needs to learn how to make them – something I’ve never been able to do.

Where That Leaves Marty

Before the RHL16 season, Marty Turco was brought to the Aviators along with Nigel Dawes in exchange for the seventh pick in the draft and a third round pick. It was a move that most thought to be overpaying for the veteran netminder, particularly since that pick, after being moved to South Edmonton, was turned into Francois Beauchemin. Whatever the value the Aviators got for that high draft pick, Turco was instilled as the starting goaltender and immediately brought stability to a spot in the lineup that was filled by Fred Brathwaite and Mikael Tellqvist the last time the team skated (during the RHL15 playoffs).

Fast forward one season and Turco is still the Aviators’ starting netminder, but the year was more turbulent than one would have thought. Though the Aviators had made that investment in Turco as their goaltender of the present and future, they soon put Turco into a job-sharing situation after the acquisition of franchise favorite Sean Burke. Burke would go on to post a higher save percentage and a lower goal against average. When the two were graded out at season’s end, Burke received a slightly higher grade.

But the most disturbing fact, from Turco’s point of view, is who coach Richard Farley turned to in those games the team had to win. Although Turco started the first game of each of the team’s who playoff series, he would only start one of their other seven games. His three games played were half of those of Sean Burke, who was the Aviators clear starter when the team was eliminated in Yellowknife last week.

Burke is a free agent to be and is said to be considering retirement. Farley has said he would like Burke back as Turco’s back-up, indicating that Marty is the starting netminder for RHL17. But given the way the season started and his status when the season ended, RHL16 could be seen as somewhat of a step back for Turco where it not for him having missed the entirety of RHL15 in a contract dispute with his former team. Coming to the Aviators and playing 46 of the 66 games, at least he was back on the ice. His .908 save percentage was league average, a rate that few could reasonably expect to have been better.

Regardless of whether Burke is back or not, he goes into RHL17 with the knowledge that being the Aviators starting goaltender is a transitory affair. He will be expected (by himself and the team) to reassert his grip on that starting position, trying to convince Farley that resorting to the tried and true options is unnecessary. He must try to become the tried and true.

Crystal Ball – The NBA Playoffs

Might as well get it down in writing before the playoffs start.

It’s Friday night and I’m getting ready to head to the theater for an employee screening of Hot Fuzz. But in the hour and a half I have to kill, I wanted to get on record and lay out how I see the Suns winning the 2007 NBA Title.

First Round

In the East, the Pistons and Cavaliers will advance over the Magic and Wizards, neither losing a game. The Magic are an inexperienced team that’s not very good to begin with. The Wizards without Arenas are just a warm-up for a Cavs team fortunate to have the number two seed.

The team that gave up that second seed, the Chicago Bulls, get the defending champion: the Miami Heat. I like the Bulls to win this one easily. Last year, in the first round, Chicago took Miami to seven games. This year, Chicago is a year better, deeper, and still present the same problems for the Heat, particularly on the perimeter. Chicago should win this one in five.

The final series is the one which carries the least intrigue of all the first round match-ups. I like Toronto to beat New Jersey in seven games. I’m just going with the more talented team here, though the Nets are fortunate to be matched-up with a team whose style fits theres so well. Toronto will want to play an up-tempo game that will allow Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson to get out and use their athleticism. Regardless, I like the Raptors.

In the West, Phoenix will destroy a bad Laker team in four, and while they won’t be swept, I don’t like the Nuggets to get more than one home game against the Spurs.

Though many are giving multiple reasons why Golden State will beat the top seeded Mavericks, the regular season and the success the Warriors had against Dallas will be irrelevant once a focused Maverick team bares down on them. I like Dallas in five, though the games will be tough. Golden State is playing well and have decent depth, but Dallas is just too good.

In the last series, I like Houston to beat Utah as McGrady takes his team to the second round for the first time in his career. That said, it won’t be easy, as I like the Jazz to get two games based on Deron Williams versus Rafer Alston alone. But ultimately, the Rockets will prevail in seven in what will be a good learning experience for the Jazz.

Second Round

Cleveland will rolls through Toronto to complete one of the easiest two round stretches in NBA history. Toronto will get a game at home, but it will be clear that they’re merely happy to have advanced to the final eight.

On the other side, Detroit and Chicago. I don’t know why, but I like Chicago. In truth, I’ve liked Chicago all year. I love their depth. I love all the different lineups they can throw at people. I love the different options they possess on defense. They don’t have home court and winning against a team like the Pistons would be more likely to be accomplished by a more experienced team, but I’m going with Chicago in six.

In the West, Dallas will take out Houston by Josh Howard controlling Tracy McGrady and their duo of Dampier and Diop wearing down McGrady. Dirk has been through these wars before and will carry his team through.

The marquee series of this round, Phoenix versus San Antonio, will showcase how worn-down Duncan has become. Tony Parker will be contained by the equally quick Leandro Barbosa and Manu Ginobli will be tied up by Raja Bell. When the team will need Tim Duncan to win two or three games, he won’t be able to overcome the depth of the Suns attack. The Suns athleticism with Stoudamire and Marion will e too much to overcome, and Phoenix will win in seven.

Conference Finals

Chicago against Cleveland will be the one man show against the depth and diversity of the Bulls attack, but whereas one team will have earned their right to be here, the other will only be here because of the smoothly paved roads that went through Washington and Toronto. Chicago is the better team, and the confidence they will have after beating Miami and Detroit will tear through Cleveland. I like the Bulls in six.

In the West, Phoenix and Dallas meet in a rematch of last year’s conference final, but I just don’t see how Dallas can handle all of the options the Suns have. Phoenix is executing at such a high level that I don’t see the Mavericks slowing them down or keeping up. Dallas was a great regular season team, but I’m not so convinced that they have enough options to be able to find a way to beat Phoenix four times. I like the Suns in six.

Finals

Last year, the Heat defeated a Dallas team that had to go through wars with San Antonio and Phoenix to get to the Finals. Once there, Dallas was spent.

The same threatens to happen this year. After wars against San Antonio and Dallas, we could see the Suns set in the finals against a Chicago team that will have a lot of young, athletic players to throw at a team that’s not known for their depth.

But I have to go with the better team, and I think the Suns clearly are better. I think this is going to be like those series of the nineties which were never close. I like Phoenix to outclass Chicago each time they hit the court and finish them in four games.

So, I’m on record. Let the games begin.

Imus Follow-up: A Conversation Between Hylas and Cliff

An instant messangered conversation that took place earlier this week. Hylas and Cliff are not real names. Some comments were added after the fact, and editing was done, but the overwhelming majority of content represents what happened during the original conversation.

Hylas: You’re way off on the Imus thing.¹
1) I have no problems with CBS firing him. It’s their right as a company,
especially based on advertisers.
2) What he said was pretty mild, and in context not a bad thing. He’s a
professional comedian, and so they say things for effect.
3) Sharpton²/Jackson³ are perhaps the single biggest negative influences on the black culture, etc. . . . Sharpton and Jackson have clout only because they continue to promote the black culture as a victim of white culture and whatnot. If the problem ever actually gets solved, they are out of a job, therefore they just want to keep on playing the race card. Sure, the blacks got a raw deal, but not everything is the fault of ‘the man’.
4) While some things should not be said, this culture has a thin fucking
skin. Just because something isn’t appropriate doesn’t mean I should be
offended or outraged or whatever. It’s one guy, saying one thing. So he’s a
schmuck. Whatever.

Cliff: But do you concede there is a problem?

Hylas: Relative to race things? I think there are racial problems. I’m not sure I trust the Jackson/Sharpton characterization of them. Obama’s⁴ a black guy, he’s sensitive to black issues, but he’s not playing the race card all the time.

Cliff: Like you said, Sharpton and Jackson are kind of in the business.
They take it upon themselves to be the spokespeople for minority issues,
particularly where those issues/rights are being exploited. Obama has
elected not to carry than banner, yet.

Hylas: I’m not sure that ‘banner’ has any validity in the first place. At least as described by Sharpton/Jackson. Sharpton does no good at all as far
as I can tell and he clearly has an axe to grind and an agenda. He’s not willing to talk about the issues rationally. He just wants a platform to talk shit and aggrandize himself. But stepping away from those guys…
if your life is truly affected by someone saying ‘nappy headed ho,’ your
perspective is fucked up.

Look at say Bill Cosby.⁵ He has a lot of racial things to say. Guys like Sharpton shouted him down. NAACP got all in his shit. They didn’t ‘disagree,’ they shouted down. There’s a difference. There wasn’t a dialogue. Cosby didn’t tow the ‘party line’ and got a bag of shit over it.

Cliff: I see it as dialogue. Cosby is saying X. Sharpton says X is wrong and the world is Y. Sharpton believes so strongly that he resorts to
“shouting down.” The tactics are questionable, but there’s a message there.

Hylas: It is not in Sharpton’s best interests to actually make progress.

Cliff: Do you think he acts with this in mind?

Hylas: Fuck yes. I don’t trust his motives at all. Why is someone like
Condi Rice⁶ treated as a race traitor by the Sharptons of the world? Here is an educated, intelligent, successful black woman, and instead of celebrating that, they complain. (aside: I don’t know about you, but I don’t see day to day evidence of racism in my daily life or sexism or shit like that. Sure, individual people are prejudiced sometimes… hell me too. The use of the phrase ‘nappy headed ho’ is not, in my opinion, widespread evidence of racism) Her being successful improves the minority groups. In her view (and many
others) the idea is not to have some external fix, i.e., you don’t let the
government come in and provide an answer. The world doesn’t work that way,
and besides, even if gov’t intervention was the right thing, they fuck up
everything anyway. By and large, to be truly race neutral, the concept of
race shouldn’t even be relevant.

Cliff: I do see day-to-day evidence, but I suppose that’s what this discussion is founded on: our differering perspectives of the world. I do see race as relevant. If I viewed the world in any other way, I’d be lying to myself. But, I do see some advancement in my everyday life. I do. But it’s at a very grassroots level. With people like me talking openly with people who are coming from different circumstances, who are affected by shit like the senseless consolidation of power. I don’t think her idea is theoretically wrong. It’s a good idea on how to let things improve. I just think it’s the easy way out and ignores an ethical obligation to people. But then again, I’m pretty liberal.

Hylas: How am I ethically obliged to people?

Cliff: I suppose that’s up to each person to decide. I can’t tell
anybody to see ethics and obligations the way I do. To me, though … I
think this country has done a pretty bad job of correcting the wrongs of the
past, to the point where we have cultural and institutional problems which
continue to oppress minority groups. White males have so much cultural,
fiscal, and political power than withholding those quantities from other
people represents a glutinous nature that I find morally reprehensible. People in power could give up a vast majority of their wealth and still have more than is necessary for happy lives.

Hylas: (added after the fact) I’ve been a part of big organizations and I
don’t see ANY evidence of minority oppression. In fact, I see evidence of
strict rules and diversity groups in place to counteract any of that. White
males have historically been the leaders of companies and whatnot, but
that’s changing rather rapidly these days. Just because a majority of CEOs
are white men doesn’t imply racism. It takes time for blacks and women to
get to that level. And as a stockholder, I want the most qualified person
for the job, not a choice based on diversity.

But why should I be obligated? I’m not responsible for slavery or killing the Indians. Why should my generation bear responsibility for that? Sure bad things were done. But not by me.

Cliff: That’s a good point … here’s my view on that: When I possess enough of anything to satisfy my needs and then refuse to dispense the excess to those who have no realistic means of obtaining those things which they need, I am depriving, through my own predilections, somebody of those basic things which can contribute to a life – possibly a happy life. And tis withholding has no real benefit to myself other than greed? Or a sense of posession that belies our sense of need? That, I feel, is wrong.

Hylas: Who determines my needs? And where I’ve obtained my needs, etc.
That’s the polite version of my response.

The impolite version, no offense intended, is that the Indians as a
civilization lost. They were conquered. Good or bad, that’s what happened.
Do the babylonians owe something to the Assyrians, or Hittites or whoever
they destroyed? The history of man is largely about warfare and the winner
sets the rules. Didn’t say they were ‘ethically’ right. But I dunno, for a
vanquished people, the Indians are not treated that shabbily. I’m not
saying that what occurred was good, mind you, but in the context of how
civilization worked at the time, what the hell would you have expected.
(Aside: By the way, in general, I’m not really conservative, but more
libertarian.) Everything in this world, socially speaking, is derived from
force. Force can be primal actual VIOLENCE or the threat of violence. But
it can also be economic, or social force (as in the civil rights movements).

Cliff: I don’t conceive of the world as a function of conflicts.
Unfortunately, people have, to this point, done that, and there’s a lot of good thoguht and writing that has been done to explain this phenomenon. But I conceive of the world as a potentially more harmonious space, because people in harmony are more productive. And when I say productive, I’m talking about a life that’s closer to what an rational individual’s conception of a ideal life would be. At least, that’s my impression. So, my philosophies are flowing from the idea that more people living at a certain level makes the world a better place. I can see why you wouldn’t buy into that, but that’s where I’m coming from. What I see is a few people consolidating resources which could contribute to the welfare and happiness of others, and I don’t see this as rational behavior. That consolidation goes beyond what that person would need or could possibly consume. When somebody builds a 30,000 ft2 house, they can’t realistically consume all of that in a practical or efficient way. Other people, however, could use those resources – the monetary, tactile, whathaveyou.

Hylas: (added after the fact) Just because your perception of the world is that way, doesn’t make it so. In fact, I’d say evidence, over the course of
history, points to the opposite. Someone always wants what someone else
has. Secondly, how do you make someone be a part of that harmonious
society? By force? Otherwise it has to be voluntary, and what do you do
with those who have no interest in it? Finally, if a person can amass
resources, what say do you have, as long as they don’t cheat you, or steal
from you. Unless, again, you apply force to take it.

Now … consider this … the gay movement has made HUGE strides … I mean since the beginning of their movement until now has been faster than say women’s rights, or black rights or whatever. And there’s a big issue about gay marriage (which, by the way, I have no problem with). Seems to me, from a tactical perspective, they are pushing too hard, though. Back off. If you push too hard, the pendulum swings the other way. Because you get in people’s faces and there’s a backlash. Notice the 2004 elections had a lot of that as a primary issue. If the gay movement continued to make small steps, they’d be better off than digging in their heels.

Honestly, in the grand scheme, calling someone a nappy headed ho is
pretty minor, so why worry about it? There are always going to be assholes.
You can let them affect you or not. Frankly, I don’t think Imus is
racist … he was talking smack, and it was a joke. Whether or not it was
actually funny is subject to debate. The other question is should it be
funny? That’s perhaps a different issue, and drives more to the core of
‘racism.’ Frankly, I’ve always believed that it’s unhealthy to have a thin
skin and get offended by everything. The fact is, a person usually doesn’t
offend you. They do something you don’t approve of. But ultimately, you
chose to be offended. Remember, that Imus was trying to tell a joke,
though, and in many ways, humor is a way of dealing with life …

Cliff: When you have somebody embodying the cultural elite objectifying
and stigmatizing you, it says a lot about the sources of power in this
country potentially inhibiting your ability and the ability of your family,
friends, and community to achieve that which you feel you should have a
chance to achieve – which is those achievements made available to other
people. I suppose by achievements, I really mean happiness and that conceptualized, rational ideal life that I alluded to before.

Hylas: Imus ain’t the cultural elite. He’s a fucking dj. The morning
zoo … Bob and Bob in the morning … if he represents more, that’s only
because guys like Sharpton make an issue out of it to get more press.

Cliff: Imus is white, right, and male, for one. Second, he was
supported by CBS, NBC, et al. Third, his listenership is huge. These are
all signs of him being more than just any radio dude.

Hylas: Actually, he’s pretty liberal. Tended to support Kerry⁷ and the like. Imus ain’t a friend of the right wings, that’s for sure. Go look at his political guests. But in general, he’s at least approximately neutral.

Cliff: Supporting Kerry over Bush⁸ isn’t liberal. To some, its merely not-retarded. Personally, I had a hard time choosing between them. One’s a moron, the other … oh, a moron.

Hylas: (after the fact) ‘not retarded’ Hmm, by some that could be construed as offensive I’m STILL glad I voted for bush. Although I ain’t thrilled with him. Kerry doesn’t get it. You want to talk about white male elitism. Fuck he has no idea what the real world is like.

Cliff: I’m just pissed we had no other realistic options. Pathetic
system that gives us Kerry and Bush. He’s been more in the real world than
Bush, IMO. But, I concede that statement is basically without worth.
They’re both morons. Just the bush moron had more powerful friends. And
smarter friends

Hylas: The Bush moron was less out of touch than the Kerry ones.

Cliff: Totally disagree on that. Well, honestly, neither of us know.
We only know the sound bites.

Hylas: True.

Cliff: They’re both really, really bad options.

Hylas: Look at the republs now. Even worse.

Cliff: Repubs will come back. Too smart to stay down for long.

Hylas: Not in 08. I don’t like any of ‘em

Cliff: McCain’s⁹ pretty popular, man. McCain’s got huge cross-over appeal.

Hylas: If Bill Richardson (D)¹⁰ runs, I might vote for him.

Cliff: BR is running.

Hylas: McCain is running 3rd in the repub. He won’t make it out of the
primary. And I won’t vote for McCain. He’s terrible.

Cliff: Reps have no chance in 08 if they don’t nom JM. Well … unless
the dems nom HRC.¹¹

Hylas: I personally may vote Hillary, make the shit hit the fan sooner, and have a massive correction sooner.

Cliff: HRC versus RG¹² or MR¹³ would be a clusterfuck.

---

¹ – Don Imus, who was fired from his position as a radio and television talk show host after referring to the women of the Rutgers University basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”.
² – Al Sharpton, ordained reverend and political/cultural activist.
³ – Jesse Jackson, ordained reverend and political/cultural activist.
⁴ – Barak Obama, junior United States Senator from Illinois and announced candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President.
⁵ – more information on Bill Cosby: actor, comedian, producer, activist.
⁶ – Condolezza Rice, current United States Secretary of State.
⁷ – John Kerry junior Senator from Massachusetts and Democrat nominee for President in the 2004 general election.
⁸ – George W. Bush, 43^rd President of the United States.
⁹ – John McCain, Senator from Arizona, ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2000 and is a candidate for the same in 2008.
¹⁰ – more information on Bill Richardson: current governor of New Mexico and candidate for the Democrat nomination for President in 2008.
¹¹ – Hilary Rodham Clinton, junior Senator from New York, candidate for the Democrat nomination for President in 2008.
¹² – Rudy Guliani, former mayor of New York City and current candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2008.
¹³ – Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and current candidate for the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

---

Some Site Stuff – Links and Digg

You’ll notice in the Recent Comments section on the lower right (which it seems a lot of people, like me, use frequently) a bunch of Theater Stories tracebacks. I went through all four Theater Stories and put “Previous” and “Next” links in there, as well as a link to the Theater Stories home page. I’m backlogged with stories from the theater. Hopefully, I can get a couple more done this weekend. Those are the types of things I’ll be reading years from now. “Oh, I remember that.”

Also, I’m going to be adding a bunch of my articles to Digg, something I was doing over Christmas Break¹ that seemed to attract some new users. I like the idea of random people coming hear, though I’m not sure who randomly surfs through Digg.

---

¹ – a euphemism for “Unemployment”

Theater Story #4

Theater Stories Home Page
Previous Theater Story

I almost got fired, and there was nothing I could do about it. There was an incident, and I was accountable. At least, by rule. But I didn’t get fired, which shows you rules are made to be broken.

Huh?

Go back in time three weeks. An elderly lady stands at the concession stand thumbing a book (The Namesake) we have for sale. I wasn’t there at the time, but as it’s told, the lady thinks she clandestinely slips the book into a bag, though she is spotted by multiple people (and the security cameras which are haphazardly situated throughout the lobby). She roams around the theater for ten or twelve minutes before trying to leave, at which time the manager on duty stops her.

She’s embarrassed and ashamed but not necessarily surprised. The woman seems to have problems. The manager mentions that peoples jobs are on the line, as the person responsible for manning concessions must prevent theft. If things are stolen, the concessioneer is not doing his or her job. Did the lady want somebody to get fired?

The manager was probably laying it on a little thick, but it’s understandable. The lady just tried to shoplift a book. The eventual solution: the lady gave our manager $14 to cover the cost of the book. The incident ended up being a sale. Nobody else need be involved.

Back to the now and I’m working concessions on a Monday night. Weeknights at a theater are usually slow, so management understaffs. But on this Monday there was an advance screening of Black Book being put on by the San Diego Cinema Society. Anticipating a sold-out show of 370 people, I was pulled from behind the concession stand to assist in crowd-control. The box officer would sell tickets and concessions from behind the inside stand – normally, on busy nights, we have ticket sales outside the theater, to help reduce crowds in the lobby.

For an hour I was out from behind the stand, interacting with the line-up of customers (which will be another story enitrely). One other worker ended-up jumping behind the stand to augment the box officer, but I remained on the floor with the manager trying to make sure the screening’s presentation went as smoothly as possible. Once everybody was in the theater and things were back to normal, I returned to more responsibilities.

At the beginning of each shift, we count all the sellable items at the concession stand. These are compared to the same counts done at the end of the shift and it tends to be a good way of ensuring accountability. At the beginning of the shift we had four Namesake books on display, but when I returned to the stand we had only two.

“We only have two Namesake books left?” I asked the two co-workers who had stayed behind the stand.

“Yeah” was the unremarkable response.

“Did you sell any?”

“No.”

“Well, we’re missing two.”

“Yeah, right.”

“No. I’m not kidding. I counted in four. Now there’s only two.”

I didn’t bother asking if they were kidding with me. I knew that something else was going on. I heard my manager walking up stairs to the office and called out.

“We’re missing two Namesake books.”

Yes, I was serious, I responded when she asked. Then I got to looking at the rest of the merchandise.

“We’re missing a Children of Men (DVD),” I added as my eyes scanned the merchandise rack that sits on the concession counter. “And more. You better come back down.”

I hear an pained sigh from the manager as she turns and starts to comeback down. I start comparing my counts. What did we have two hours ago, when I started my shift? What do we have now?

Theft is something you don’t think about when you imagine a theater. You don’t imagine sky-masked robbers holding up the popcorn guy, nor do you think of teenagers palming candy bars or sodas. Theaters aren’t designed like markets or liquor stores. It’s not the greatest score for the high or low-end robber.

But theft is still a major concern when you have hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise on the floor. When enough stock is missing district managers and executives have to get involved. Managers are held accountable for their procedures and training. How are we losing money where it can otherwise be saved? It seems reckless, allowing things to be stolen, and its difficult for managers to have good answers as to why they’re allowing things to be stolen. This inability to explain trickles down to the theatr floor staff as an unspoken pressure – don’t put us in a position to explain.

I don’t know if the concessioneer who almost had a book stolen would have gotten fired if that old lady would have been successful, but all the staff at the theater was convinced. Our management is capable of using a firing to send a message. They’ve done it before. And as I determined how much merchandise was missing, I also determined that like it or not, my head was on the line. I was the person who was assigned to the stand. If they want to send a message to the rest of the staff about theft possession, they could resort to that technicality, regardless of what I was being asked to -

Uh oh.

Two books. Six DVDs. One hundred and ninety-six dollars in merchandise missing. They might as well just have taken the money right out of the cash register drawer. It was that much stuff.

Upstairs the manager went to talk to the House Manager – the theater’s head hauncho – who happened to be in the building at the time. Security tapes were reviewed. Questions were asked of all three of the floor staff who remained downstairs. Did you see anything? Are you sure about your counts? Could that merchandise be anywhere else back there? They were all perfunctory steps. Somebody had stolen that stuff.

It was haphazard, the items they grabbed. They snagged two of the same book. The DVDs they picked up – it was one of each of the titles that were easiest to grab (closest to the book). Some of the DVDs where left out of order – falling onto the neighboring DVDs on the display rack.

The person had grabbed as many discs as possible, as quickly as possible. And they were gone. No way somebody was sticking around to watch their movie. And in all likelihood, the person who stole the merchandise was leaving a movie they had just seen. If they had just bought a ticket, they would have come to the attention of the box officer. The box officer would not have noticed somebody coming out of the theater – coming out with all the other patrons who just saw the movie. Whoever stole the merchandise was gone.

Such an unprecedented event, management had no standard operating procedures governing how to handle the event. But the managers clearly wanted the merchandise back. They wouldn’t have answers to the questions from the district manager. No, we don’t know who did it. Yes, there was somebody behind the stand. I don’t know where they could have gone.

Reviews of the video tape proved fruitless. Nobody could be identified. Turns out the merchanise rack was being put in a position which obscurred the camera’s view of whomever was engaging it. And us on the floor staff asked the same questions we had asked in the preceeding weeks. Why do we just leave the DVDs on the counter? It’s too easy to take one without anybody noticing. But we had never imagined six. And two books.

The more time went by without any word from the managers, the more we worried about what was going to happen. Was Richard to be fired? It didn’t seem fair and it didn’t see likely, but it was surely a possibility. Rules are rules, and when you’re $196 short in concessions and merchandise, you usually are asked back for the next night.

We made jokes to pass the time. Jokes about the theft. Customers buying popcorn were told “You better get a DVD now. They’re disappearing right before our eyes.” I asked what everybody was going later in the week, because I wouldn’t have to work.

I wasn’t serious. I was just trying to eleviate the weight of the mood. But when we got the answer from management as to what we were going to do in response, the measures sure made it seem like I had something to worry about.

One of the three of us needed to go home else draw overtime, but the extra pay was going to be approved tonight. He, myself, and the manager would be asking people, as they left their theaters, to allow us to look in their purses, hand bags, in inside their jackets. Did they have to? No, we didn’t have warrants. But we were going to ask to search people.

Put aside the fact that the person who was responsible for the theft was, in all likelihood, no longer on the premises. Somebody should have stopped and thought about the utility of this plan. Was it worth offending some customers to increase the probability of retrieving the merchandise from 0% to, say, 4%? I say only 4% because what person with all that merchandise would a.) stay in the theater and then b.) allow themselves to be searched when they had the option to just walk away.

But from a business perspective, the management needed to ask: Was it worth $196 to have the over 600 people in the theater be subjected to even a casual search?

Nonetheless, this is what we did, what me and the other staffers were asked to do. Most people were cooperative when we explained “We’ve had some merchandise turn up mssing, and we’re asking to look in people’s bags,” asking “May we look in your bag, very quickly?” Some people were put off, reacting as if invaded. And nobody, whether cooperative or stand-offish, had any DVDs.

I left the theater that night in doubt. Would I have a job? Logically, it didn’t seem like I was accountable for the theft, but if a message needed to be sent, I would be the one who should be fired. And out of all the people involved, I could handle being fired. I don’t need the theater money. I have a regular job that pays well, and I only work at the theater for fun and extra cash.

Over the two months that I have been working both jobs, I’ve asked myself if it’s worth it. My life is rigidly defined, working 70 hours a week. No time to write. No time to develop. No time to make music. No time to sleep. Perhaps getting fired wouldn’t be that bad. Perhaps it would be a blessing.

No. I wasn’t going out that way. I take pride in my job and I like working at the theater. To get fired from something I shouldn’t be responsible for would be wrong. I discovered the theft the second I went back behind the stand. I was the person who contributed to a potential solution. I discovered the theft. No, I wasn’t going to let it go down like that. I would fight for the job. I would fight to justify coming back to the theater after returning from San Francisco, asking for my job back even though I knew I was going to get another. Allowing myself to be fired would be the same as quitting.

Two days spanned between that Monday night and the next shift I was to work. The employee schedule for the following week that’s normally sent out on Tuesdays didn’t get sent. Were they still deciding if I was going to be on that schedule? I worked on Wednesday. They’d have to decide by then. I got no phone calls, no emails from any staff. So, I showed up on Wednesday night, not knowing.

Theater Stories Home Page
Previous Theater Story

---

Aviators End-of-Season Player Grades

Earlier (around the mid-point of the season) each Aviator player was graded based on their performance. With the season over and everybody rrecoupling for RHL17, it’s time to hand out the end-of-season grades.

Granted, I’m doing this without access to the regular season stats. I don’t think that will affect player grades, though. How I feel about how the player performed is informed but not defined by the stats. I don’t need Mathieu Schneider’s goal totals to tell me he was my best player. So while the article will lack the numbers, the grades will be the same.

And without further delay:

Grade	Player | Detail
A	Mathieu Schneider, D – Schneider went from a first half disappointment to a solid A grade by playing at a superstar level over the second half of the season, particularly during a stretch of games toward the end of the season that saw the Avaitors struggle and him step up his game, playing over thirty minutes per nights and providing the team’s only consistent goal scoring threat. Not as outspoken as Chris Drury, Schneider fulfilled his co-captainship with a quiet, solidifying leadership.
A	Chris Drury, RW/C – The team’s most consistent player asserted himself as the cornerstone of the franchise. The trouble the team undertook to bring him to San Diego paid off as Drury led a hodgepodge group of forwards to consistent-to-good performace. Led the league in forward minutes and was a leading penalty killer. Led the team in points while playing on a checking line for most of the season. Management has had serious discussion about making him untouchable.
A-	Brent Sopel, D – One of the greatest steals in free agency say Sopel come to the Aviators for slightly above the league average yet reach double digits in goals while providing over twenty-seven minutes per night of ice time. Sopel, an unrestricted free agent, will have a spot with the team if the price is right. But if RHL16 was his last with the Aviators, it was one of the finest seasons from a defenseman in team history. And given the quality of D-man Farley as acquired in the past, that’s saying something.
B+	Sean Burke, G – Burke’s return to the Aviators, a team a carried through RHL14, was a great success, as he led the team in save percentage and goal against average. By the end of the season, he had worked his way into a strict platoon with the incumbent. During the playoffs, he started six of the nine games. Where this performance game from is unknown, as he spent the previous season-and-a-half in Guelph. An unrestricted free agent, the team hopes to retain the greatest non-Luongo goaltender in league history.
B	Marty Turco, G – The most debated acquisition of the preseason, Turco solidified a goaltending position that spent the last part of RHL15 as a black hole. Though he was not spectacular, Turco was good. Nobody ever complained that Aviator problems were attributable to goaltending.
B	Bryan Smolinski, LW – This player is making about 30% less than the league average, but he consistently gave the team above average performance. His true value turned out to be his versatility. He shuffled amongst all lines and filled-in on both the power play and the penalty kill. Stayed healthy and established himself as a solid veteran presense on a team that will continue rebuilding.
B	Tomas Zizka, D – When Owner Richard Farley told General Manager Andy Bartalone that Tomas Zizka would be signed, the reaction was a resounding “What? Why?” But Zizka vindicated Farley’s trust by providing a consistent offensive threat from the blue line, combining with Schneider and Sopel to offset the lack of scoring from the forwards and other defensemen. He is set to return to Europe for RHL17, but he will be missed.
B	Bryan Allen, D – His first full season as an Aviator was a great success. Though he did not contribute much (if anything) offensively, he did a great jov of trying to stop the top scorers of the other team while always being matched-up against them. His solid play allowed Mathieu Schneider and Brent Sopel to be ultilized in more offensively-minded roles. His future appears bright for the Aviators, as he will get an even more expanded role next season.
B-	Shaonne Morrisonn, D – Great debut for the former Wicked Ale, though he had trouble staying in the lineup. Injuries kept him from asserting a hold on a Top-4 position amongst the defensemen. Though (like Allen) he contributed almost nothing on offense, he vindicated his high selection in the preseason dispersal. Management has high hopes for Morrisonn in RHL17, though it is unlikely he will get an expanded role so soon. Editor’s Note: He got SCREWED in the next rating set.
B-	Derek Armstrong, C – His impact on the organization as an example to players and fans continues to be felt, as his understated leadership has helped stabalize the organization over the last two seasons. But on the ice, it was a very up-and-down season for Derek. He struggled in the first half and had problems stepping into a scoring role as injuries occurred. Still, he was a positive contributor, definitely at least a B-.
B-	Brad Isbister, LW/RW – A good year for the role player who out-performed every role he was place in during RHL16. He worked his way from early season scratch, to regularly dressed, to consistent third liner and power play performer. He ended up providing a surprising physical presence on that third line.
B-	Geoff Sanderson, LW/RW – Scored nine goals in part-time action, always giving coach Richard Farley reason to play him more. While he spent most of the year as an underplayed fourth liner on a team that rolled only three, he eventually worked his way into a consistent role on the power play. After consecutive disappointing seasons that saw him bounce around the RHL, Sanderson stuck with San Diego all year and will be given a chance to earn a greater role next season.
B-	Matt Pettinger, LW/RW – Did not play much in the first half of the season as the coaches failed to properly utilize him. Once he got into the lineup, he solidified a checking line that had struggled to shut opposing scoring lines down, and he allowed Bryan Smolinski to move into more of a scoring role. Look for Pettinger to get more of a chance to contribute in RHL17.
B-	Anders Eriksson, D – Another player that seemed prime for more playing time, Eriksson still excelled in the limited, power play role he was given. Signed for the minumum during the preseason, don’t expect Eriksson back next season. Though his RHL16 contributions were appreciated.
C+	Dave Scatchard, C – Acquired from Guelph during the season, Scatchard fronted the checking line. Still, he was a bit inconsistent, and his offense was almost non-existent. His contributions toward goal prevention – at even strength and killing penalties – give him a passing grade.
C+	Alexandre Daigle, RW/LW – Acquired from Indianapolis towards the end of the season, Daigle was expected to give the Aviators a boost on offense. He did, but only sporatically. In the playoffs, he stepped-up and scored three goals in nine games but failed to solidify the team’s two scoring lines as he was expected to do. Daigle is contemplating playing in the ERHL next season. It will be interesting to see if he is back with the team.
C+	Pavel Brendl, RW/LW – The former top-prospect was acquired from Guelph and given every opportunity to earn a regular role with the club. At even strength he had trouble generating scoring chances and was relegated to a complimentary role on the third line. But with the man advantage, Brendl did provide a boost. Ultimately, it was a mixed bag.
C	Martin Straka, C/RW/LW – Straka got off to a torrid start, didn’t maintain any of that momentum, and spent much of the season’s second half in-and-out of the lineup. His inability to perform in the second half and playoffs prevented the Aviators from capitalizing on the potential matchup advantages the checking line of Pettinger-Scatchard-Drury created by holding the other team’s top line at bay. Straka will be expected to perform better in RHL17.
C	Marcus Nilson, LW/C – A disappointment in a limited role with Baffin Isle, Nilson provided the Aviators with a spark. At times. At other times, he was merely reliable. Regardless, his acquisition gave the team a boost from the disappointing Taylor Pyatt. It is, however, unclear what Nilson’s future with the team will be.
C-	Cory Sarich, D – Sarich got plenty of opportunities to make an impact with the Aviators, but that effect is going to have to be seen in future seasons, as none of it was felt in RHl16. Acquired from Saskatoon during the season to provide depth on the blueline, Sarich did provide minimum accountability. He did that. But he didn’t do anything else.
D	Michael Nylander, C – Nylander and the club have agreed to try one more time next season to find him a role, because in the season-and-a-half since his acquisition he has failed to perform when given the chance. Because of the way this roster was constructed, Nylander got more ice-time this season than last with few players able to man the pivot. But Nylanders numbers were still subpar, and he ended up being scratched or underplayed more often than not.
D	Brian Willsie, RW – Did not get much of a chance to perform, but he also did nothing to earn playing time. Next season he is slotted for more playing time, but it will be up to him to prove he deserves it.
F	Taylor Pyatt, LW – No contribution at all, despite given every opportunity to perform. RHL17 may make-or-break the RHL career for this no-longer-young winger.

Content Revival: The Talon

It’s only been a brief, two-week hiatus, but Chris posted something to The Talon. The Eagles, apparently, have said goodbye to Theodore and McEachern.

The Power of the Blog

Over the last day I’ve been getting an inordinate number of hits to the Brady Quinn article. If you don’t remember it, here it is.

Thanks to WordPress, I can see a list of top referring sites. It looks like this one is pointed to that Quinn article:

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98888&page=4

So the questions: How did they find it? Why do they care?

I suppose that’s the power of the internet and blogging. But it also goes to show that if I take the time to write something with some thought (and bother to proofread and format it), people may read/find it.

If You Liked the Imus Stuff

If you liked the Imus stuff (which you probably do not care about), you’ll be in for a treat later today (possibly tomorrow). I sought out the opinion of one of my more opinionated friends regarding my Imus thoughts. That led to an instant messaging exchange that provided a series of great counter points to me liberal-leaning attitudes.

We’re in the process of editing that dialogue, but it should be very interesting for those of you who enjoy reading some pedestrian social/political/cultural commentary.

Or, for those of you who just find the clusterf**k that is American culture to be entertaining.

I Think I Just Decided

While I was walking to the deli to pick up a mini-sandwich (cheddar and guacamole, in case you were wondering), I decided. I’m taking the Suns to win it all. I’ll write more about it later, but just in case I don’t, I wanted to get on record.

The Playoffs Are a Different Season

It’s come up in a couple of different places across the RHL Blog-o-Sphere – the idea that the playoffs and the regular season seem like totally different entities. Mark noted on his blog that “… there is no continuance from the regular season to the playoffs. Starting the playoffs is like starting a whole new season …” These sentiments have been echoed in a couple of other places, most recently by Jun on this blog. Seeing a growing speculation as to this divergence between playoffs and the regular season and being a former game-player, let me clear something up for everybody:

They are different seasons.

If memory serves …

When setting up the playoffs in the APBA simulator, you pretty much have to start a new season. You can do this by zero-ing out all the statistics and reentering the new, playoffs schedule or, of you want to preserve the data for the regular season you had, copy all the data files into a new directory and start a new league. Here you would also zero-out the stats, so either way there is a resetting element to the equation.

Whether this matters or not is another question. I don’t know of any APBA setting that simulates a momentum-like factor that Mark and Jun allude to. That the seasons are different shouldn’t matter. There doesn’t seem to be momentum, chemistry, or those factor which would affect Game A differently than Game B given the same players, playing the same styles with the same injury specifications. If you played two games back-to-back, the non-injury, non-strategy effect of one game should have no impact on the next game.

Yes, they are different seasons. I’m not sure the simulator cares, though.

Pele Misses Something on Ronaldo

Pele always has to say something. It’s probably not his fault, as his opinions are more often sought-after rather than frivolously provided. Regardless, he has weighed in on the growing sentiment that Manchester United superstar Cristiano Ronaldo is the world’s best footballer. And he’s weighed in negatively.

I have less of a problem with Pele seeing other players (Kaka, he cited) as being better as the logic he uses to claim they rise above Ronaldo. Per Pele, tenure is a major factor:

“I think to compare Cristiano with the great players is too soon” he says in the linked Yahoo! article. “We have to wait a little bit. Let’s see in one or two years more if he can keep the same level.”

The amount of time somebody has been performing an elite level informs our opinion as to whether the form we’re seeing is that player’s true talent-level or just a result of sample size or competition. But is there really any reason to believe that Cristiano Ronaldo’s current form is the subject of some kind of sample size-factor rather than the natural maturation of a 22-year-old winger? That would seem a hard argument to make, as he has performed like the world’s best player since the last World Cup.

And we (football fans) held off on crowning him after Portugal’s success in that tournament. He was playing incredibly well, but with the lack of a sample to support such a claim, we could not call him the world’s best, at that time. But now, having been the best player in the best league for one of th world’s best clubs – and doing this for the better part of a calendar year – you have to ask:

What more does he have to do?

You can disagree with the idea that Ronaldo is playing as the world’s best footballer. But, if you think he is playing better than anybody but are withholding your assessment because he hasn’t been performing at this level for long enough, you’re missing something. You’re missing the point or the method or … you’re just missing on the criteria.

Ronaldo has been doing this long enough.

---

My College Comments Are Long

This could have been a whole post on my blog, but for some reason I decided to spam Mark’s blog with it:

http://rhl500s.blogspot.com/2007/04/california-dreaming.html

Playoff Excitement

I can’t help but think these the most exciting playoffs in RHL history, though that may be a premature statement given we’re only through half of the playoffs’ games. But for two reasons, I could argue that this year’s playoffs are the most exciting in RHL history.

First Season of Re-Combined League – Remember when we had the Champions and Premier Leagues? You would have one set of owners watching on series of series, the other set watching a totally different, parallel world. The conversations we’re having here every day? They’d be totally different and diluted. Jun and I wouldn’t care as much about half of these series.

Playoff Format – The Play-In Series – I’m not a huge fan of having more teams int he playoffs just for the sake of having more teams, and I didn’t like the playoff format of the last two seasons where everybody got in. But ten teams per conference seems about right. With some exceptions, the teams that really wanted to get into the playoffs did. The ones that didn’t, who may not have contributed much to the playoffs, didn’t. Like I said (two sentences ago), this isn’t a firm rule, but it seems that the ten team format allowed us to have the appropriate level of excitement/activity.

League Activity – Blog-o-Sphere – These blogs have changed the league forever. We’ve known this for a while. But this season’s activity during the playoffs may be the blogs’ shining moment. While the content on the blogs isn’t of a particularly high quantity, the number of hits Jun and I are getting to our blogs indicates a high circulation. People who don’t normally visit our sites often are coming during playoff season.

Combine these factors and you have more owners more intently paying attention to the RHL16 playoffs. At a time of the season when owners start drifting away as there is little-to-nothing to do with their teams, owners are sticking around to watch and read. You may see that as an indication of something other than excitement. Call me an optimist.

Watching the Stars

There are three RHL16 superstars still alive in the playoffs. Here’s how they and their teams are fairing.

Martin Havlat, Capones

Havlat was clearly the Forward of the Year for RHL16. In the playoffs, he has been relatively silent thus far. In five games, Havlat has one goal and three assists. The team’s playoff superstar thus far has been linemate Jason Spezza, who has four goals and three assists in those five games. Look for the lack of scoring to be just a temporary thing, though, as Havlat is still getting a lot of opportunities. He’s averaging 4.5 shots per game. More of those shots are going to have the find the back of the net if the Capones can expect to overcome a surging Mountie team. They’ll need their best player to carry them part of the way.

Scott Niedermayer, Funboys

Niedermayer had one of the best seasons by a defenseman in RHL history, especially if you judge greatness relative to one’s peers. No rearguard can close to matching the performance Niedermayer displayed in RHL16, and he should cruise to a second straight Shore Award. In the playoffs, the offensive numbers haven’t been there for the regular season leader in assists. He has only one goal and one assist in seven games. He is, however, playing 30.6 minutes per game and has rated out at +7, and his 89.5 percent passing is off-the-charts.

Marian Hossa, Selects

The Selects are a one man gang, and the league’s second-best forward is that gang. Against the Sockeyes in round one, Hossa had six assists in five games. With the Selects being shutout in Game 1 versus Saskatoon, Hossa is still without a playoff goal. What’s worrying is that his number of shots per game have gone down, dipping below three. Are the Selects doing something different? Some of Freddie Modin’s 4.5 shots per game need to find their way to Hossa’s stick, as it’s no exaggeration to say the Selects will only go as far as Marian Hossa takes them.