Distinct Kicking Motion

Jump to Comments

In case some of our readers have never heard of Stan Fischler, I’ll give you a bit of relevant background information first. He covers the New York hockey scene (read: Rangers, Islanders, and Devils). He’s also a historian of the yawn fascinating New York City subway system. His nickname is “The Hockey Maven.” What should be pointed out, however, is that this guy doesn’t possess any credibility with regards to his views on hockey. You can click here for a rather boring sample video clip, but I will present the most important line that best summarizes the video. Fischler is discussing Hall-of-Famers Scott Stevens and Mark Messier: “I watched them when they both broke in the NHL. I never figured they would last ten years.”
Evidently, you weren’t watching them all that closely. As a hockey “analyst,” or self-proclaimed “Maven” (definition: a self-styled expert in a given field), this is a sensationally poor observation. Here’s just a tidbit on each player, for the record (stats courtesy of http://hockeydb.com):

Scott Stevens: Regular Season: 1635 GP, 196 G, 712 A, 908 Pts, 2785 PIM. Playoffs: 233 GP, 118 Pts. He’s a three-time Stanley Cup Champion, a Conn Smythe winner, and a 13-time All-Star. Oh yeah, there’s these too:

Mark Messier: Regular Season: 1756 GP, 694 G, 1193 A, 1887 Pts, 1910 PIM. Playoffs: 236 GP, 295 Pts. He’s a six-time Stanley Cup Champion, a Conn Smythe winner, 2-time Hart Trophy winner, and 15-time All-Star. He has a freaking leadership award created after him in his honour, and has the second-most points and games played all-time. However, the “Moose” is (or at least, should be) best remembered for this:

Bang on observations there, Fischler. Your hockey acumen has been astounding since the early 1980′s, it seems. The sole comment (at the time this article was posted) beneath the video of Fischler reads, “stan u old worthless piece of shit i hate you and i hate u more hope i catch u one day and i skin u alive u piece of rotten ranger shit” (Youtube user fudgemypuck). Evidently this man has evoked some hatred amongst those who suffer through his columns and television reports. My goal is to spread that hate.

The great part about all of this, however, is that Stan produces daily columns for MSG.com. I say this is great because it offers an as-yet-untapped goldmine of stupidity. The following quotes (in bold print – my commentary is below each one in regular print) are excerpts from Stan’s article printed following the Rangers’ loss in Philadelphia yesterday (Saturday). Welcome to the world of Stan Fischler (Click HERE if you’re interested in his entire article, although I don’t encourage it for the weak of heart):

For the Rangers, tomorrow is today

Ooooh. A deep philosophical introduction. Hopefully, this is a truly sensible notion…

Or, to put it another way, after losing to the Flyers, 4-2, in Philly on Saturday, the only sensible way of looking at things is that “Tomorrow is another day”

Then why the previous quote? Also, commas can be, without any doubt, a good, trustworthy, tool.

The Rangers tossed 41 shots at Marty (I Used To Be A Sieve) Biron who produced his game of the season

A goalie had a great game, against YOUR mighty Rangers!? How dare he! Maybe if New York actually put up quality shots, the results would have been different. Besides that point, New York played poorly defensively, giving up four goals in the first place. That means they would’ve had to put five in past an NHL- calibre goalie to win this one, which is a rare event (unless the goalie in question is Miikka Kiprusoff).

So did Aaron Asham who spent most of the season doing a very good imitation of Rip Van Winkle

Asham’s career high for goals in a season is 15, so he’s been doing this imitation for much longer than just one season.

Here’s a guy who, until Saturday, had a grand total of five measly goals.

I think the adjectives are screwed up here. Fischler probably means a “measly total of five goals.” Unless, of course, each goal was (definition alert) “small in amount, contemptibly so.” Maybe Fischler actually is contending that each goal by Asham has been very small. “Scoring for the Flyers today, Jeff Carter with two, Mike Richards with one, and Aaron Asham with a tiny half-goal, giving the Flyers 3.5 goals on 22.5 shots.” Idiot.

Henrik Lundqvist played well and – in most other cases and most other games – would have emerged the winner

Right. In most “other cases,” he wouldn’t have surrendered four goals while the team only puts up two. Is 25 saves on 29 shots really playing “well?” Of course, had Lundqvist stopped 39 of 41, then that performace could be written off as a lucky “game of the season.”

“We got burned with guys getting caught too low,” Lundqvist remembers. “We lost our third guy.” Truer words were never spoken.

EVER. Then again, Mark Messier wouldn’t last 10 seasons. Dumber words were never spoken.

Better still the Blueshirts MUST very quickly find a power play solution THAT, as much as anything, was the missing (successful) element

I capitalize WORDS without WARNING or REASON.

But John Tortorella is right-on when it points out that hockey is still a sixty-minute game, even though his skaters played well for an ENTIRE contest.

I won’t elaborate on Fischler calling Torts an “it” here. I just like that Fischler defends his Rangers, saying they played well for the “ENTIRE” (again with the capitals?) contest. Fischler’s use of capitalization means he’s adamant on this point, right? That it MUST be true?

“We have to learn to play a full sixty minutes,” claims the coach.

Oh, darn. So… they didn’t play well for the ENTIRE contest? =(

If the power-play can be energized, the Seventh Avenue skaters have a chance. If Antero Nittymaki plays goal for Philly, New York has a chance

If New York scores 5 goals to Philadelphia’s 1, New York has a chance. If Aaron Asham resumes his Van Winkle-ian slumber, New York has a chance. If I capitalize MORE words, and use, perhaps, MORE commas, NEW York has, probably, and most likely, a chance.

For the Blueshirts, “Tomorrow” is today.

I thought the only “sensible” way to look at it was that “tomorrow is another day.” Seriously. Second quote from the top there. YOU wrote it.