Well, it's an off day for the Boston Bruins, as the B's won't be back in action until Wednesday's home tilt against the Tampa Bay Lightning. I figured I'd dust off Monday's Musings, realize it's now Tuesday by the time I'm done and promptly rename it, and share some thoughts that have been lingering within the depths of my cranium.
Here goes.
The Thrill's Return
Phil Kessel will be back in Boston Saturday, facing off against his former team for the first time as a member of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The ultimate question Bruins' fans are asking themselves: to boo or not to boo? We all know Phil bolted for the mecca of hockey for the almighty dollar (please refrain from pointing out that technically the transaction was a trade, I'm well aware). It'd be easy to let loose on the 22-year-old for abandoning a team seemingly on the cusp of greatness, notably the role of go-to goal scorer with them. Boston couldn't quite offer as much money as Burke and company could, but Kessel still would have been paid handsomely had he let bygones be bygones with the Black and Gold.
On the other hand, no one can argue that the Bruins' front office ever made it seem that Kessel was genuinely wanted here in the long run. Trade rumor after trade rumor surfaced, culminating in the near draft night deal that would have shipped Kessel to Toronto for Tomas Kaberle, with the snag being which team was sending draft picks to the other. If you're in Kessel's shoes, why would you ever sacrifice anything for a team that never seemed entirely committed to you?
How will you react when #81 hops over the boards for his first shift on Garden ice, dawning the blue and white?
Gomez' Ineptitude in Montreal
Think Bob Gainey wants a do-over? Yoikes! While Chris Higgins, the return for Gomez' services, has struggled mightily in the Big Apple, the Habs certainly expected much more out of the over-compensated center. Gomez is sitting on just two goals in 22 games thus far in 2009-10. Seeing that stat prompted me to do a little digging. Does any mainstay in the past decade in a top 6 role have a crappier shooting percentage than Scott Gomez? Wanna know just how inaccurate the Alaska native's shot has been in his career? Gomez scores on just 7.6% of his shots.
Pouring over a decade worth of statistics would be overly-tedious, so I took a look at the top 30 scorers for all of the seasons since the NHL returned from the lockout. Only five players have finished in the top 30 in points with a S% under 10%. One of them, Lidstrom, was a defenseman (a position renown for S% far lower than forwards). Here's the list with the season in which it occurred, their rank in points and their S% that season.
Marc Savard (2007-08, 22nd, 7.7%)
Jaromir Jagr (2006-07, 8th, 9.3%)
Henrik Sedin (2006-07, 26th, 7.5%)
Brad Richards (2005-06, 12th, 8.2%)
Nicklas Lidstrom (2005-06, 26th, 6.6%)
Only once, in those four seasons, did Gomez finish in the top 30 in scoring in the league (33g, 84 points in 2005-06). And this is a guy that makes, what, more than 98% of the other players in the league? It was the only year he topped 20 goals, and the only time his shooting percentage topped the 9.3% he put up his rookie year (1999-00). This season? He's firing the puck home at a 3.9% clip.
While the Rangers can let Higgins and his $2+ million dollar salary walk, as he's set to become a UFA at season's end, the Habs are saddled with four more years beyond 2009-10 at $7.3 million per season with Gomez. Unless of course Gainey is lucky enough to find a desperate GM stupid enough to make a swap for the faltering pivot. Unfortunately for Gainey, the only general managers dumb enough to take on a contract like Gomez' are:
1. The guy who dumped Gomez on them in the first place.
2. The man he sees in the mirror when he wakes up in the morning.
If #2 is listening, it shouldn't be a tough sell.
Hockey Geometry
If ever I wanted an answer to an inquiry, this is the one. Call it hockey geometry, logistics, strategy or whatever you may choose. What I'm wondering is this: why is every RW typically a right-handed shot, while every LW is typically a left-handed shot? Maybe you find this highly illogical and you know the simple answer (aka you think I'm a donkey), but I've always pondered this one.
While taking on the role of super star sniper (*wink*) at the street hockey court (surface? rink? eh, another question for another day) down at Brown's Pond in Peabody, I always felt far more comfortable playing the left wing as a right-handed shot. Blasphemy to NHL coaches everywhere. But why is it so illogical? As Avs' blogger Aaron Musick alertly pointed out to me while we discussed this topic, it seems to be working A-okay for some Ovechkin character down in Washington (right-handed LW) as well as that Kane guy out in the Windy City (left-handed RW). Aaron even attested that the great Joe Sakic's best shots came from his off-wing.
Here's what I see as the biggest benefits to going that route:
1. The puck gets to your blade faster on passes from the center or left wing. Pretty self explanatory.
2. It is considerably easier from a visual standpoint to one-time the puck. As a righty on the left wing, I can watch the feed come right to me before I fire it on net. Were I a lefty (which, when it comes to using a pen or a fork, I am) I have to torque/angle my body in a much more difficult fashion to not only see that the pass hits me accurately, but to make sure I'm properly squared up for a shot.
3. I won't be Sturminating it from along the boards near the blue line. To those unfamiliar with Marco Sturm, he has a penchant for just launching the biscuit from a good 60 feet out, with his blade merely a few feet away from the glass. They go in roughly once out of every 129 attempts, or when Carey Price decides to mail it in during playoff games. While I'm not concerned about Sturm accidentally dinging the exterior of the playing surface, I believe if he were a right-handed shot putting it on net from that position, there'd be a far greater chance of him finding twine than trying to pick the nearside top corner.
I can only assume that the way things are currently, when it comes to stick alignment, is for defensive purposes. With everyone's sticks to the outside, streaking down the boards is nearly impossible against a well positioned winger, a defenseman behind him and a roaming center (like in Julien's box + 1 system). But what would happen if a coach mixed things up and implemented my approach? Would it work? Would it be offensively beneficial, defensively detrimental? What about the d-men?
What do you think? Crazy talk...or am I onto something?
JC
BE A FRIEND: JC's New Facebook Page
ROCK THE VOTE: Fan Poll Friday: The Best Hockey Gift You've Ever Received
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS?: Email HockeybuzzBruins
ARCHIVE FOOTAGE: The HockeybuzzBruins Youtube Channel
FOLLOW ME TO FREEDOM: JC's Tweets
BOOKWORM: The Details of JC's New England Hockey Book in the Works 
Join the Discussion:
»