## Monday, December 14, 2009

### Wings 3, Puppies 2

Just sayin.

PK was good. I love seeing hustle and blocked shots on the PK.

PP was good. Even though the Wings didn't score, they had pressure and chances. In the long run, I'd rather they go 0-4 and look good doing it, than go 1-4 because of a lucky bounce after playing uninspired.

Jimmy Howard was good. I'm starting to like him as a goalie.

Notice a theme? It was a good game. Not great, but good enough to get the job done. Now let's just hope for a miracle so we can have Ericsson in the lineup.

### Wings vs Puppies

### Bandwagon

Yet, Detroit is still in the top 10 in average attendance. 6th at home, 8th on the road which means all those Red Wings fans in Phoenix and Nashville that are supposedly only fans because they win a lot, are still watching games even though Detroit is struggling.

I also remember 2004. Back then, you couldn't find a Penguins fan unless you went to Mellon Arena itself during a game and found a few true fans in a Jagr or Francis jersey. Now? Stupid hockey blogs all over the net are crawling with "fans" who swear up and down that they have been Penguin fans since the 80's and they say so in ALL CAPS so it must be true...

Chicago fans are no different. 2006 and 2007, they were 29th in the league in attendance. 2008? Word spreads that they have a couple nice draft picks and they bump up to 19th. 2009, they mistakenly believed they could beat Detroit and soared to #1.

I don't necessarily mean to attack fan bases, I just want to know where attendance would be with other teams if their entire second and third line was on the IR list. If a fourth line forward who should probably be in the AHL is on their teams second PP unit.

They'd be 29th in the league in attendance, that's where.

## Monday, December 7, 2009

### Where were problems like this one when I was in school?

Anybody + Anybody + Bertuzzi = Anybody + Anybody + Turd

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 12/07/09 at 11:39 AM ET

I believe this problem is more complicated than simply algebra. You see, your equation gives,

Anybody + Anybody + Bertuzzi - Anybody - Anybody = Turd

The Anybodies cancel, leaving us with

Bertuzzi = Turd

However, I do not think this adequately explains the true reason for Bertuzzi’s play. I believe the real character of this quandary can be expressed as a derivative.

Let us write our original equation as f(x) = Bertuzzi(x), where x = that element which made Bertuzzi such a valuable player early in his career and f(x) represents his total on-ice effectiveness.

The following equation represents a certain key moment in his career, where x was subject to an exponential increase in intensity and an additional constant was added to the equation, with disastrous results.

g(x) = Bertuzzi(x)^2 + Moore(x)

From this point onward, the Moore constant never leaves the equation.

To account for Bertuzzi’s change in play, we must take the derivative of g(x) and subtract it from the original equation.

g’(x) = 2Bertuzzi(x) + Moore

Subtracting from f(x), our new equation for the play of Todd Bertuzzi is written

h(x) = Bertuzzi(x) - (2Bertuzzi(x) + Moore)

As you can see, h(x) > f(x).

Integration will be required to completely understand the behavior of h(x), but first we must re-write it as a function of time. This requires a lengthy digression into various obscure realms of mathematics, including differential equations, the specifics of which are too complex to adequately explain here. Suffice to say that our new equation is,

j(t) = Bertuzzi/(t)

Integrating the foregoing, we have

∫Bertuzzi/(t)dx, with endpoints at 0 and 15, representing each year Bertuzzi has played in the NHL.

The antiderivative of j(x) is Bertuzzi(ln(|t|). Evaluating this equation at both end points gives us

Bertuzzi(ln|0|) = promising rookie

Bertuzzi(ln|15|) = poopie

Subtracting the equation left endpoint from the right, we have a total area of

promising rookie - poopie = suck

As you can see, the relationship between time, x, and suck become quite clear once we’ve applied the proper mathematical model. Some corrective is clearly required, and given the comparatively high value of the “poopie” term, I suggest an elephant laxative, or failing that, a hefty meal from a badly-maintained Taco Bell.

It’s the only way.

Posted by Quarkstar from Out there on 12/07/09 at 02:09 PM ET

Now, I personally think Bert has improved a lot over the past few games and is earning his $1.5 million, but that doesn't mean this isn't funny.