Just listened to the latest Accidental Tech podcast, and there were a couple of interesting notes. One is that my experience has also been that Verizon's tech support is very good (you don't get dead silence when you ask about their DHCP server; something I've had to do a couple of times). Compare that to Comcast (of whom I used to be a customer), where calling their tech support was basically only useful for having them send a tech out to the house.
Also compare it to what happens if you need to deal with their billing department (say, if they lose your payment); that's an absolute nightmare. The one time it happened, it took me over twenty hours on the phone to track down.
The other note I had was the note about the Honda CVT and paddle shifter. Apparently, that's not just something on the Acura ILX, like I noted.
20131212
20131211
Lightning-struck?
Last night's Caps game against the Lightning... wow. What to say about it?
Well, I was right that the Caps were able to give themselves a little cushion in second place.
But man, was that ugly. Let's start with the fact that there were two stretches of the game, of ten or more minutes each, where the Caps didn't even manage to attempt a shot.
And Green's first period? Missed lift check led to a double-minor high sticking. Missed poke check led to a tripping call. Lone man back on a 2-on-1, and played the shot instead of the pass. All of that led to three goals, and me turning the game off for a while. When I turned it back on (after putting the kids to bed), I found out that he turned things around by taking another high sticking penalty and a misconduct less than a minute later. Ouch.
Holtby got pulled after that third goal, although I don't think he really deserved it. One of those goals was through a double screen (he didn't see the shot coming, and I have no idea how the puck made it through the mass of bodies. Even after watching the replay). The third was Green's neglecting to defend the pass, leading to an easy score. The second was stoppable, but would have been a tough stop on a hard one-timer.
Once that penalty-box parade ended, the top line was finally able to play a bit, and scored off a face-off in the zone three minutes after that last Tampa score.
The second period mostly went Washington's way (though one could debate how much of that was due to the boarding major that sent Alzner to the dressing room for a short bit); they led in goals and shots.
They cut the lead to two towards the end of an early power play with some good puck movement. It quickly became apparent that Tampa's entire PK strategy was predicated around stopping OV, so the Caps kept trying to feed Brouwer in the slot. That didn't really work, but did eventually get a rebound to Backstrom while Bishop was down, and Nicky put it home.
The Caps kept trying to chip away, although Tampa got the next goal when Johnson intercepted a pass right around the blue line. They brought it back on a 3-on-2. I thought it'd been broken up when one of the passes got slowed a lot, but they were still able to put the shot on net and Johnson found himself undefended with the rebound.
Things weren't looking good, then, as play went back and forth with no sustained pressure for several minutes. And then Alzner was drilled from behind, and went head-first into the boards, leading to a major for boarding (I was glad to see, on the replay, that Panik stopped to apologize to Karl for it; he could have been seriously injured). That gave Washington the power play for the remainder of the period.
It did not take long to capitalize; they won the draw, worked it once around the zone, then MarJo caught OV making a back-door cut to the net for a goal in twelve seconds. The second goal took a bit longer, and probably required OV's man to lose his stick, but Green passed over to OV for his regular one-timer to tie the game back up at four. And make hats rain down on the ice.
Despite the power play lasting another minute and change in that period, and over a minute in the third, there were no more goals on it.
And the rest of the game, in fact, went without penalty (although there was a pretty egregious interference no-call at one point).
Offense in the third period, for the Caps, was basically a tale of two shifts (the first of which might have been two back-to-back). Unfortunately, there was over ten minutes without even an attempt at a shot in between. Fortunately, the second of those shifts (with about thirty seconds left) resulted in a goal.
That goal matched the one that the Lightning, with their steady pressure throughout the period, scored during that huge lull.
That goal was also OV's fourth of the game (and Nicky's fourth assist, to go with his one goal), so there were a few more hats thrown down.
That put the game into overtime again, which was basically firewagon hockey, as the puck went from end to end to end to end. The five minutes got ten shots from the two teams, and there were some very good chances. But no one was able to convert, and another one went into the shootout for the Caps.
I was initially very fearful of the shootout, with it being Gru's first (and especially remembering Holtby's first), but he looked very good. He did get beaten twice, but had a really nice poke check on St Louis, and generally seemed calm and in control.
And at the other end, Fehr, Grabo, and Brouwer all converted, which was enough to give the Caps the two points for which they were looking.
Again, it was a brutally ugly game (33.3% FF%, 5-on-5 close) at evens, but the goaltending and special teams were good enough to even it out. And it was probably Greenie's worst day at the office, ever. The penalty kill was so-so; the two goals allowed in five chances wasn't too good, but they did keep it down to only six shots (which still isn't great, but is an improvement in how they've been doing).
All in all, the only things to be pleased about were the play of OV and Backstrom (five goals and four assists between them) and the power play (especially OV getting those two PPGs, despite the entire defense being keyed to stop him, personally). This was not a formula for winning a game, but we'll be glad they pulled it out anyway.
Next up is Florida; definitely a prime chance to keep ahead of Carolina and New York. I'd like to make a joke here about Florida and loser points (based on their record last season), but the Caps are far worse, this season. Despite that, Go Caps!
Well, I was right that the Caps were able to give themselves a little cushion in second place.
But man, was that ugly. Let's start with the fact that there were two stretches of the game, of ten or more minutes each, where the Caps didn't even manage to attempt a shot.
And Green's first period? Missed lift check led to a double-minor high sticking. Missed poke check led to a tripping call. Lone man back on a 2-on-1, and played the shot instead of the pass. All of that led to three goals, and me turning the game off for a while. When I turned it back on (after putting the kids to bed), I found out that he turned things around by taking another high sticking penalty and a misconduct less than a minute later. Ouch.
Holtby got pulled after that third goal, although I don't think he really deserved it. One of those goals was through a double screen (he didn't see the shot coming, and I have no idea how the puck made it through the mass of bodies. Even after watching the replay). The third was Green's neglecting to defend the pass, leading to an easy score. The second was stoppable, but would have been a tough stop on a hard one-timer.
Once that penalty-box parade ended, the top line was finally able to play a bit, and scored off a face-off in the zone three minutes after that last Tampa score.
The second period mostly went Washington's way (though one could debate how much of that was due to the boarding major that sent Alzner to the dressing room for a short bit); they led in goals and shots.
They cut the lead to two towards the end of an early power play with some good puck movement. It quickly became apparent that Tampa's entire PK strategy was predicated around stopping OV, so the Caps kept trying to feed Brouwer in the slot. That didn't really work, but did eventually get a rebound to Backstrom while Bishop was down, and Nicky put it home.
The Caps kept trying to chip away, although Tampa got the next goal when Johnson intercepted a pass right around the blue line. They brought it back on a 3-on-2. I thought it'd been broken up when one of the passes got slowed a lot, but they were still able to put the shot on net and Johnson found himself undefended with the rebound.
Things weren't looking good, then, as play went back and forth with no sustained pressure for several minutes. And then Alzner was drilled from behind, and went head-first into the boards, leading to a major for boarding (I was glad to see, on the replay, that Panik stopped to apologize to Karl for it; he could have been seriously injured). That gave Washington the power play for the remainder of the period.
It did not take long to capitalize; they won the draw, worked it once around the zone, then MarJo caught OV making a back-door cut to the net for a goal in twelve seconds. The second goal took a bit longer, and probably required OV's man to lose his stick, but Green passed over to OV for his regular one-timer to tie the game back up at four. And make hats rain down on the ice.
Despite the power play lasting another minute and change in that period, and over a minute in the third, there were no more goals on it.
And the rest of the game, in fact, went without penalty (although there was a pretty egregious interference no-call at one point).
Offense in the third period, for the Caps, was basically a tale of two shifts (the first of which might have been two back-to-back). Unfortunately, there was over ten minutes without even an attempt at a shot in between. Fortunately, the second of those shifts (with about thirty seconds left) resulted in a goal.
That goal matched the one that the Lightning, with their steady pressure throughout the period, scored during that huge lull.
That goal was also OV's fourth of the game (and Nicky's fourth assist, to go with his one goal), so there were a few more hats thrown down.
That put the game into overtime again, which was basically firewagon hockey, as the puck went from end to end to end to end. The five minutes got ten shots from the two teams, and there were some very good chances. But no one was able to convert, and another one went into the shootout for the Caps.
I was initially very fearful of the shootout, with it being Gru's first (and especially remembering Holtby's first), but he looked very good. He did get beaten twice, but had a really nice poke check on St Louis, and generally seemed calm and in control.
And at the other end, Fehr, Grabo, and Brouwer all converted, which was enough to give the Caps the two points for which they were looking.
Again, it was a brutally ugly game (33.3% FF%, 5-on-5 close) at evens, but the goaltending and special teams were good enough to even it out. And it was probably Greenie's worst day at the office, ever. The penalty kill was so-so; the two goals allowed in five chances wasn't too good, but they did keep it down to only six shots (which still isn't great, but is an improvement in how they've been doing).
All in all, the only things to be pleased about were the play of OV and Backstrom (five goals and four assists between them) and the power play (especially OV getting those two PPGs, despite the entire defense being keyed to stop him, personally). This was not a formula for winning a game, but we'll be glad they pulled it out anyway.
Next up is Florida; definitely a prime chance to keep ahead of Carolina and New York. I'd like to make a joke here about Florida and loser points (based on their record last season), but the Caps are far worse, this season. Despite that, Go Caps!
20131210
Home on the Rangers
I alluded, in my last post, to this being a good game, and it was.
The lines were the same as against the Preds, although the D swapped Oleksy back in for Wey (though Wey was scratched, rather than being sent down. Perhaps a sign of satisfaction at his play against Nashville?). There was also a little bit of rest for Holtby. Since Neuvy is still hurt (I didn't mention it earlier, but he hurt himself stepping onto the ice in the last game against Montreal), Grubauer got his first career start.
One surprise (for me) came early, when they gave Lundqvist's career stats against Washington (regular season edition). His save percentage was only .907; not bad, of course, but less than his career numbers. I wonder if his postseason numbers are better?
Anyway, things got off to a slow start. Actually, it was slow for both teams, with neither able to sustain any pressure and very few good chances. The first period ended scoreless, with seven shots on each side. Both teams had long stretches with no shots attempted, and the Caps managed to go the first half of the period without an unblocked shot.
But it ended without any damage, and without Gru needing to look like superman, and with the Caps holding a slight edge in Fenwick.
The second period, though, as it has much of the season, treated the Caps very well. Chimmer opened the scoring two and a half minutes in by beating the Rangers defenders to a loose puck in the crease and sliding it into the goal. The fourth line followed that up with a long-range goal from Oleksy (good call, giving him a sweater) only twenty-five seconds later, and the team basically cruised from there.
Grabo scored on a penalty shot just before the end of the period, rifling a very short-range slapshot into the roof of the net that had Richter upset about his own performance. Worth noting, too, that the breakaway that led to the penalty call was a nice sendaway by Brouwer, when he intercepted a pass near the top of the defensive zone. Also worth noting that this was a rare instance of a penalty shot on a delayed penalty, as the Caps kept possession after the call for half a minute or so. Nice, all the way around.
I can't really tell much about the third period; with a three-goal lead, I wasn't paying a lot of attention. Schmidt scored again, and Pouliot scored a minute later, with both goals close to the end of the game.
Overall, it was a very well-played game, with the Caps playing with the edge in Fenwick for most of the game, and soundly winning. It was a very surprising result, playing on the road in the second of back-to-back games (though, to be fair, it was the second of a back-to-back for NY as well).
Penalties were even on the game, with no power play goals from either team (although there was some significant luck there, for the Caps, as they allowed eight shots on the two power plays). Special teams did factor in a little bit, though, as Grabo's breakaway came on 4-on-4 play.
All in all, the only negative were those PK shots; that's definitely too many, although I suppose they did get one really good scoring chance of their own, during one of those penalties.
Next game is tonight against the Stamkos-less Lightning; a good chance to get a little more breathing room in second place. Go Caps!
The lines were the same as against the Preds, although the D swapped Oleksy back in for Wey (though Wey was scratched, rather than being sent down. Perhaps a sign of satisfaction at his play against Nashville?). There was also a little bit of rest for Holtby. Since Neuvy is still hurt (I didn't mention it earlier, but he hurt himself stepping onto the ice in the last game against Montreal), Grubauer got his first career start.
One surprise (for me) came early, when they gave Lundqvist's career stats against Washington (regular season edition). His save percentage was only .907; not bad, of course, but less than his career numbers. I wonder if his postseason numbers are better?
Anyway, things got off to a slow start. Actually, it was slow for both teams, with neither able to sustain any pressure and very few good chances. The first period ended scoreless, with seven shots on each side. Both teams had long stretches with no shots attempted, and the Caps managed to go the first half of the period without an unblocked shot.
But it ended without any damage, and without Gru needing to look like superman, and with the Caps holding a slight edge in Fenwick.
The second period, though, as it has much of the season, treated the Caps very well. Chimmer opened the scoring two and a half minutes in by beating the Rangers defenders to a loose puck in the crease and sliding it into the goal. The fourth line followed that up with a long-range goal from Oleksy (good call, giving him a sweater) only twenty-five seconds later, and the team basically cruised from there.
Grabo scored on a penalty shot just before the end of the period, rifling a very short-range slapshot into the roof of the net that had Richter upset about his own performance. Worth noting, too, that the breakaway that led to the penalty call was a nice sendaway by Brouwer, when he intercepted a pass near the top of the defensive zone. Also worth noting that this was a rare instance of a penalty shot on a delayed penalty, as the Caps kept possession after the call for half a minute or so. Nice, all the way around.
I can't really tell much about the third period; with a three-goal lead, I wasn't paying a lot of attention. Schmidt scored again, and Pouliot scored a minute later, with both goals close to the end of the game.
Overall, it was a very well-played game, with the Caps playing with the edge in Fenwick for most of the game, and soundly winning. It was a very surprising result, playing on the road in the second of back-to-back games (though, to be fair, it was the second of a back-to-back for NY as well).
Penalties were even on the game, with no power play goals from either team (although there was some significant luck there, for the Caps, as they allowed eight shots on the two power plays). Special teams did factor in a little bit, though, as Grabo's breakaway came on 4-on-4 play.
All in all, the only negative were those PK shots; that's definitely too many, although I suppose they did get one really good scoring chance of their own, during one of those penalties.
Next game is tonight against the Stamkos-less Lightning; a good chance to get a little more breathing room in second place. Go Caps!
Predatory instincts
If I didn't know better, I'd swear that someone on the team read my last missive on the Caps. The last two games were probably the best two games of the season (certainly the best consecutive pair).
The D kept the puck moving, there was scoring from all over (in fact, a week or two ago, Carlson was the only defenseman currently on the team with more than one goal, and Schmidt was the only other with a goal), and the team has been able to sustain some pressure.
Lines were shuffled a bit more. The first was untouched, of course. The second has Fehr (playing his off-wing), Grabovski, and Brouwer. The third has Chimmer, Erat, and Ward. And the fourth seems to've settled in with Volpatti, Beagle, and Wilson.
I'm fairly pleased with these lines, although the elephant in the room w/r/t them is what happens with Laich, when he's healthy. At this point, I'd plug him into Volpatti's spot, contract be damned. I'd also rather have Latta than Beagle, but that's hardly a big deal either way.
Erat's line got the game against Nashville started off properly, with a strong forechecking effort that kept play in the offensive zone. And that largely set the tenor of the game; the Caps solidly dominated play, especially while the score was still close.
And it didn't stay close for terribly long; Brouwer opened up the scoring in the seventh minute, pushing a rebound from between a defender's legs, and into the goal. And the Caps didn't give one away right away; they maintained dominance of possession through getting their first power play chance thirteen minutes in. That power play only lasted three seconds, as OV put everything he had into a slapshot from the point right off the clean win of the draw.
And, surprise of surprises, the Caps still kept up forceful play, and Alzner got a fluky one from the point three minutes later. And there was still no immediate drop-off.
Really, the only disappointment from the entire game was the second Nashville goal being allowed twenty-three seconds after Washington's fourth. But since that still left a two goal lead, it was a fairly minor disappointment.
And the defense was definitely contributing offensively. I already mentioned Alzner's first of the season, but Schmidt's first career goal was the fourth goal (assisted by strong forechecking from Erat's line). The Grabovski line also contributed strongly, with two goals and three assists among the three of them. It should also be noted, beyond helping on Schmidt's goal, that the Erat line had a number of chances that they were unable to convert; they looked strong all game.
And although they didn't show up in the scoresheet, the fourth line also contributed with a number of strong cycling shifts in the offensive zone.
I've mentioned the defense a couple of times. It's worth adding that they changed a little bit, with Dima back (finally) and Wey (shocker to me; he was replacing Strachan, but I didn't hear why) forming the third pairing. They were a bit of an adventure, with some good hits and some not-so-good decisions. Overall, though, not bad.
Wey did not look overmatched in his first career NHL game. Actually, he was quite a surprise to me. I've been hearing about him off and on for several years, but I was pretty much ready to write him off when he was sent down to Reading (ECHL) to start the season. But he's played himself all the way up; kudos to him.
Anyway, that was the game that was on Saturday. I'll post about Sunday's Rangers game separately.
The D kept the puck moving, there was scoring from all over (in fact, a week or two ago, Carlson was the only defenseman currently on the team with more than one goal, and Schmidt was the only other with a goal), and the team has been able to sustain some pressure.
Lines were shuffled a bit more. The first was untouched, of course. The second has Fehr (playing his off-wing), Grabovski, and Brouwer. The third has Chimmer, Erat, and Ward. And the fourth seems to've settled in with Volpatti, Beagle, and Wilson.
I'm fairly pleased with these lines, although the elephant in the room w/r/t them is what happens with Laich, when he's healthy. At this point, I'd plug him into Volpatti's spot, contract be damned. I'd also rather have Latta than Beagle, but that's hardly a big deal either way.
Erat's line got the game against Nashville started off properly, with a strong forechecking effort that kept play in the offensive zone. And that largely set the tenor of the game; the Caps solidly dominated play, especially while the score was still close.
And it didn't stay close for terribly long; Brouwer opened up the scoring in the seventh minute, pushing a rebound from between a defender's legs, and into the goal. And the Caps didn't give one away right away; they maintained dominance of possession through getting their first power play chance thirteen minutes in. That power play only lasted three seconds, as OV put everything he had into a slapshot from the point right off the clean win of the draw.
And, surprise of surprises, the Caps still kept up forceful play, and Alzner got a fluky one from the point three minutes later. And there was still no immediate drop-off.
Really, the only disappointment from the entire game was the second Nashville goal being allowed twenty-three seconds after Washington's fourth. But since that still left a two goal lead, it was a fairly minor disappointment.
And the defense was definitely contributing offensively. I already mentioned Alzner's first of the season, but Schmidt's first career goal was the fourth goal (assisted by strong forechecking from Erat's line). The Grabovski line also contributed strongly, with two goals and three assists among the three of them. It should also be noted, beyond helping on Schmidt's goal, that the Erat line had a number of chances that they were unable to convert; they looked strong all game.
And although they didn't show up in the scoresheet, the fourth line also contributed with a number of strong cycling shifts in the offensive zone.
I've mentioned the defense a couple of times. It's worth adding that they changed a little bit, with Dima back (finally) and Wey (shocker to me; he was replacing Strachan, but I didn't hear why) forming the third pairing. They were a bit of an adventure, with some good hits and some not-so-good decisions. Overall, though, not bad.
Wey did not look overmatched in his first career NHL game. Actually, he was quite a surprise to me. I've been hearing about him off and on for several years, but I was pretty much ready to write him off when he was sent down to Reading (ECHL) to start the season. But he's played himself all the way up; kudos to him.
Anyway, that was the game that was on Saturday. I'll post about Sunday's Rangers game separately.
20131209
No-money-ball?
I've been a casual fan of the A's for quite a few years. No, I don't follow them especially closely, but I'm happy to hear about them doing well.
So this article about their recent run of semi-success caught my attention.
But I've got to say that it's pretty misguided, on a fundamental level.
...
It’s taken a decade to realize that [Moneyball team-building] sinks like a stone in a flooded dugout in the postseason.
And, frankly, that's a silly thing to say. To start with, judging success or failure in baseball on six games is ludicrous. Luck dominates over that time span. Try picking six games out of a player's season, and see how representative they are of the whole season. It would, of course, be possible, ex post facto, to pick ones that would, but randomly picking, that would be very unlikely.
Plus, there's the fact that they did get to Game Five of all those series; they were no blown out in any of them. They belonged in each of those games. If you're going to say "Moneyball can't compete", you need to show that they didn't even belong in those games.
Muddying the issue even further were that it took very flukish plays to not win two of those games. Giambi not sliding, and the catcher not being called for runner's interference for blocking the plate without having the ball.
That's what Beane meant, when he said that "His shit doesn't work in the postseason"; not that it wouldn't work, but that all the good work in the world can still have you losing to an inferior team in a short series (and even seven games is really a short series).
For an even more extreme example, look at the 2001 Mariners. Unbelievably good team, playing to its potential that year, and they still lost the division series. It happens; the A's have been very unlucky. They'll get over the hump.
Also, if you want to look at another example, look at the Rays. Their payroll hasn't been terribly higher than the A's, and they've gotten past the division series. So it's absurd to say that the A's can't advance.
It sucks, I know (believe me, as a Caps fan, boy, do I know), but it happens.
So this article about their recent run of semi-success caught my attention.
But I've got to say that it's pretty misguided, on a fundamental level.
Over the past fourteen years of the financially-stingy Moneyball era, Oakland has played in six ALDS Game 5's and lost all six.
...
It’s taken a decade to realize that [Moneyball team-building] sinks like a stone in a flooded dugout in the postseason.
And, frankly, that's a silly thing to say. To start with, judging success or failure in baseball on six games is ludicrous. Luck dominates over that time span. Try picking six games out of a player's season, and see how representative they are of the whole season. It would, of course, be possible, ex post facto, to pick ones that would, but randomly picking, that would be very unlikely.
Plus, there's the fact that they did get to Game Five of all those series; they were no blown out in any of them. They belonged in each of those games. If you're going to say "Moneyball can't compete", you need to show that they didn't even belong in those games.
Muddying the issue even further were that it took very flukish plays to not win two of those games. Giambi not sliding, and the catcher not being called for runner's interference for blocking the plate without having the ball.
That's what Beane meant, when he said that "His shit doesn't work in the postseason"; not that it wouldn't work, but that all the good work in the world can still have you losing to an inferior team in a short series (and even seven games is really a short series).
For an even more extreme example, look at the 2001 Mariners. Unbelievably good team, playing to its potential that year, and they still lost the division series. It happens; the A's have been very unlucky. They'll get over the hump.
Also, if you want to look at another example, look at the Rays. Their payroll hasn't been terribly higher than the A's, and they've gotten past the division series. So it's absurd to say that the A's can't advance.
It sucks, I know (believe me, as a Caps fan, boy, do I know), but it happens.
20131206
Adventures in stock forecasting
I've been meaning to write about this article for a while. It's talking about things financial analysts say that don't make any sense.
A few of them are great:
4. "Earnings met expectations, but analysts were looking for a beat."
If you're expecting earnings to beat expectations, you don't know what the word "expectations" means.
And most of them are pretty good. But I do take a bit of an issue with this one:
2. "Earnings were positive before one-time charges."
This is Wall Street's equivalent of, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
And that's because it's rarely true that those one-time charges are enough to sink a company. And unless they are, all you really care about is whether the company can continue to make money. If continuous revenues and expenses lead to a profit, you don't really care if one lawsuit knocked that into a quarterly loss. Unless that lawsuit is immensely bigger than revenues, or unless you can reasonably expect it to be repeated by a bunch more follow-on suits.
For instance, investors didn't really care about the SECs recent $13B fine against JP Morgan-Chase. It's roughly seven months profits, but has zero long-term effect on health of the company. Now, if that had been a $130B suit, they would care (and the flip response there would be dead-on), but at that level? Big deal.
A few of them are great:
4. "Earnings met expectations, but analysts were looking for a beat."
If you're expecting earnings to beat expectations, you don't know what the word "expectations" means.
And most of them are pretty good. But I do take a bit of an issue with this one:
2. "Earnings were positive before one-time charges."
This is Wall Street's equivalent of, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
And that's because it's rarely true that those one-time charges are enough to sink a company. And unless they are, all you really care about is whether the company can continue to make money. If continuous revenues and expenses lead to a profit, you don't really care if one lawsuit knocked that into a quarterly loss. Unless that lawsuit is immensely bigger than revenues, or unless you can reasonably expect it to be repeated by a bunch more follow-on suits.
For instance, investors didn't really care about the SECs recent $13B fine against JP Morgan-Chase. It's roughly seven months profits, but has zero long-term effect on health of the company. Now, if that had been a $130B suit, they would care (and the flip response there would be dead-on), but at that level? Big deal.
Adventures in Marketing?
I got a flyer in the mail from Acura today (well, sometime in the last several days; I didn't notice till today) saying that they're having a sale, and listing some of the models. Nothing terribly surprising, there (my last two cars have been Acuras).
But the first page mentions an ILX, which didn't exist last time I looked at new Acura's. So I looked a little closer. Anyway, what caught my eye in the model comparison is that it mentions, for the hybrid models, a Continuously Variable Transmission and Sequential SportShift Paddle Shifters.
I can't quite figure out why one model would have both of those. The whole point of CVT is that there aren't set gear ratios to be shifted between. The ratio changes continuously to provide optimum (define optimum here however you want; it doesn't change the point) power/performance at all speeds. So I can't figure out how you'd use a paddle shifter with it.
Maybe someone in marketing just screwed up the web site.
But the first page mentions an ILX, which didn't exist last time I looked at new Acura's. So I looked a little closer. Anyway, what caught my eye in the model comparison is that it mentions, for the hybrid models, a Continuously Variable Transmission and Sequential SportShift Paddle Shifters.
I can't quite figure out why one model would have both of those. The whole point of CVT is that there aren't set gear ratios to be shifted between. The ratio changes continuously to provide optimum (define optimum here however you want; it doesn't change the point) power/performance at all speeds. So I can't figure out how you'd use a paddle shifter with it.
Maybe someone in marketing just screwed up the web site.
Caps catch-up
Another reason I haven't been too enthusiastic about posting is that the Caps pretty much are what I'd been suspecting. I have actually managed to watch all of the games (well, for DVR-related reasons, I missed the first period of the Islanders game, and also turned off the Carolina game when it got to 4-0. But I saw pretty much everything else), and they've convinced me that something is fundamentally wrong with this team.
I'm not sure what it is. I felt really good about Oates as a coach, last year. But this year, he continues to baffle me. Most notably with the way Erat is being jerked around; it blew my mind when Marty was scratched, a few games back. It certainly wasn't a surprise when, a few days later, Erat asked for a trade; I can't blame him.
But that's hardly the only puzzlement. Fehr plays pretty well (to be fair, sometimes he's excellent) when he's in, but has been scratched an awful lot. Volpatti is still getting a sweater just about every game (which is said not to denigrate him or his play, but by no stretch of the imagination is he better than Erat or Fehr).
Laich and Brouwer were finally separated, but it took an awfully long time. I think part of it was that they do do an excellent job together on the penalty kill, and Oates wanted to use players from the same line together on the PK, but that seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
And separating Laich and Brouwer resulted in splitting the phenomenally successful Chimmer-Grabo-Ward line. I'll give a little bit of a pass on that, since it was replaced by the previously-successful Chimmer-Laich-Ward line, but I don't think that was the only possibility.
And the end result of all the machinations is that the team has a top-quality first line and a top-quality third line (25-84-42) but still can only win by getting phenomenally good goaltending. That's great when it works, but it's hardly a recipe for predictable success. Yes, if you've got Hasek-level goaltending (relative to average), you can do it, but goaltenders are kinda hard to predict.
Despite the talent on the team (the only glaring hole is 4D, and I think Schmidt's been at least adequate in that role), their possession numbers are pretty bad, and they're playing catch-up all too often.
In fact, they were making a big deal in the broadcast (in the Carolina game, I think) about the Caps leading the lead in late-last-period tying goals (and let's face it, that game-tying shortie by Nick was pretty incredible). While it's great that they've been able to do that, what isn't great is that they've needed to, so often.
How many times have they gone down to start? How many of those times have they seemed to be on autopilot for most, if not all, of the first period? How many times have they allowed a matching goal within two and a half minutes of scoring? Too many, a bunch, and way too many, respectively, I think.
I'm beginning to think there's something fundamentally wrong that has little or nothing to do with talent. Maybe it's a lack of pushing by team leaders. Maybe it's a coaching problem (the problems on the breakout certainly seem to point to this) with a bad system, or with a system that demands that all the players have Oates' personal ability to see the ice. Maybe it's assistant coaches? I loved Calle as a player, but he's in charge of the PK, and the PK doesn't do a good enough job keeping the other team out at the blue line (no, I'm not claiming to know what's off, there, but I'm pretty sure something is).
What I do know is that the team has gotten a lot of luck (especially in the shootout, but also in goaltending on the PK), and, while they are in second place, they're closer to last than to first. They also have the fourth-worst ROW in the conference, so they're not going to get any tie-breakers. The one bright spot is that they do have the second best goal differential in the division.
As far as individual games over the last couple of weeks, I thought they played well against the Islanders and against the Leafs. And they were doing pretty well against the Canes, until things fell apart impressively quickly. Other than that, I've been pretty underwhelmed. Update: I forgot to mention that they looked pretty good in the first Montreal game, but Budaj had a hella good game.
I guess we'll see if the current trend (towards better possession numbers) holds for a while. If it does, then maybe I'll revise my opinion.
I'm not sure what it is. I felt really good about Oates as a coach, last year. But this year, he continues to baffle me. Most notably with the way Erat is being jerked around; it blew my mind when Marty was scratched, a few games back. It certainly wasn't a surprise when, a few days later, Erat asked for a trade; I can't blame him.
But that's hardly the only puzzlement. Fehr plays pretty well (to be fair, sometimes he's excellent) when he's in, but has been scratched an awful lot. Volpatti is still getting a sweater just about every game (which is said not to denigrate him or his play, but by no stretch of the imagination is he better than Erat or Fehr).
Laich and Brouwer were finally separated, but it took an awfully long time. I think part of it was that they do do an excellent job together on the penalty kill, and Oates wanted to use players from the same line together on the PK, but that seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
And separating Laich and Brouwer resulted in splitting the phenomenally successful Chimmer-Grabo-Ward line. I'll give a little bit of a pass on that, since it was replaced by the previously-successful Chimmer-Laich-Ward line, but I don't think that was the only possibility.
And the end result of all the machinations is that the team has a top-quality first line and a top-quality third line (25-84-42) but still can only win by getting phenomenally good goaltending. That's great when it works, but it's hardly a recipe for predictable success. Yes, if you've got Hasek-level goaltending (relative to average), you can do it, but goaltenders are kinda hard to predict.
Despite the talent on the team (the only glaring hole is 4D, and I think Schmidt's been at least adequate in that role), their possession numbers are pretty bad, and they're playing catch-up all too often.
In fact, they were making a big deal in the broadcast (in the Carolina game, I think) about the Caps leading the lead in late-last-period tying goals (and let's face it, that game-tying shortie by Nick was pretty incredible). While it's great that they've been able to do that, what isn't great is that they've needed to, so often.
How many times have they gone down to start? How many of those times have they seemed to be on autopilot for most, if not all, of the first period? How many times have they allowed a matching goal within two and a half minutes of scoring? Too many, a bunch, and way too many, respectively, I think.
I'm beginning to think there's something fundamentally wrong that has little or nothing to do with talent. Maybe it's a lack of pushing by team leaders. Maybe it's a coaching problem (the problems on the breakout certainly seem to point to this) with a bad system, or with a system that demands that all the players have Oates' personal ability to see the ice. Maybe it's assistant coaches? I loved Calle as a player, but he's in charge of the PK, and the PK doesn't do a good enough job keeping the other team out at the blue line (no, I'm not claiming to know what's off, there, but I'm pretty sure something is).
What I do know is that the team has gotten a lot of luck (especially in the shootout, but also in goaltending on the PK), and, while they are in second place, they're closer to last than to first. They also have the fourth-worst ROW in the conference, so they're not going to get any tie-breakers. The one bright spot is that they do have the second best goal differential in the division.
As far as individual games over the last couple of weeks, I thought they played well against the Islanders and against the Leafs. And they were doing pretty well against the Canes, until things fell apart impressively quickly. Other than that, I've been pretty underwhelmed. Update: I forgot to mention that they looked pretty good in the first Montreal game, but Budaj had a hella good game.
I guess we'll see if the current trend (towards better possession numbers) holds for a while. If it does, then maybe I'll revise my opinion.
Distractions
Worth it, for sure, but it ain't easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)