Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

What ‘Wood’ Of Happened?

from Bruce Dowbiggin of the Globe and Mail,

Maybe the NHL needs a new TV commercial. “What if Nick Lidstrom’s stick hadn’t blown up in Game 2?... History wouldn’t be made without a composite stick.”

Usual Suspects has noticed more explosions than The Hurt Locker when it comes to composite sticks in these playoffs. Lidstrom’s stick shattering on San Jose’s winning goal Sunday is the latest and most spectacular example of stick frailty creating game-changing plays. The ice is regularly littered with broken RbKs or Eastons—and broken chances.

read on

Filed in: NHL Teams, Detroit Red Wings, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: nick+lidstrom

Comments

Hank1974's avatar

Excellent article.
I for one hate the composites.
And I’m sure Mr.Illitch loved seeing his $700,000 stick budget literally blow up in his team’s face.

I still don’t know why dmen don’t use wood for the PP.
If a batter knew that 1/20 times his bat would implode would he still use that bat? Especially if there was a safer, more reliable alternative?

Posted by Hank1974 on 05/05/10 at 01:56 PM ET

Avatar

If a batter knew that 1/20 times his bat would implode would he still use that bat? Especially if there was a safer, more reliable alternative?

If that same batter were able to hit 5-10 more home runs a season, than yes he would.

Posted by Kstewy16 on 05/05/10 at 02:08 PM ET

Avatar

Once players use these sticks they won’t go back.  They are more consistent, better feel, stiffness makes shot harder and quicker to get off.  I know the breakage is a problem but balanced against all the plusses the players will stick with them.  Wood sticks now need a massive investment to try and bring them up to par with the composite sticks.

Posted by 13 user names from New York on 05/05/10 at 02:12 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

if the games went slower w/ wood sticks, would the refs be better? That would sway me quite a lot.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 05/05/10 at 02:13 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

If that same batter were able to hit 5-10 more home runs a season, than yes he would.

Good point. But I wonder if the composites really allow players to score more goals.
Think about it, 90% of the goals are scored from screens, rebounds or tips.
There are very, very few clean 15 foot wristers that are scored.
And scoring averages are less than what they were while wood was being used.

There were only two 50-goal scorers. In 93 there were 14.

I know the style of play was different, but I still doubt that composites help score more goals. And with how easily the implode and how hard it is for these guys to settle pucks down, I wonder if it’s a wash when you compare how many they help to score compare to hurt.

I also find it very interesting that Al Iafrate and Al McInnis were shooting harder with wood sticks decades ago compared to players who are bigger, stronger and using composites.

But the biggest issue I have with composites is that it gives goalies a false excuse to wear gear that King Kong would swim in.
Ryan Millers as thick as my pinky-finger and yet he looks like Paul Bunyan in net.

Posted by Hank1974 on 05/05/10 at 02:17 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

Since Mickey Redmond pointed out that Zetterberg’s stick looks like a piece of spahgetti when he shoots, I’ve wondered about composites and accuracy.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 05/05/10 at 02:27 PM ET

Moq's avatar

Perhaps my English grammer isn’t perfect, but I think it should be What “Wood” Have Happened? I’ve seen a lot of North Americans use “of” like that and I have no idea why.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/05/10 at 03:04 PM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

It’s because people say “would’ve” for “would have” and people think they’re saying “would of.”

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 05/05/10 at 03:07 PM ET

Avatar

It’s weird that you never see anyone write something like “I of been there” or “Of you ever done that?”, but this “would of” thing is everywhere.

Posted by kushiro on 05/05/10 at 03:17 PM ET

Moq's avatar

It’s because people say “would’ve” for “would have” and people think they’re saying “would of.”

Ah, I see.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/05/10 at 03:23 PM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

I imagine that is do to “would’ve” having two syllables while “I’ve” has only one, and since people don’t usually say “‘ve you ever done that?”  I think they are able to hear the “have” and therefore don’t confuse it.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 05/05/10 at 03:24 PM ET

Avatar

During one of the Wings games this year, they brought up a graphic on the increase in goals since composites came in and it was like 3%. I wish they’d start making wood sticks again. Composites are to fn expensive for a working white man.

Posted by ME on 05/05/10 at 03:25 PM ET

Alan's avatar

Perhaps my English grammer isn’t perfect, but I think it should be What “Wood” Have Happened? I’ve seen a lot of North Americans use “of” like that and I have no idea why.

No, you’re correct. The proper way to compose the phrase is “would have,” which is why the contraction is “would’ve.” It’s a common enough mistake, though, that no one says much about it. Sort of like how people say “could care less.”

Except that last one annoys me far more.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 05/05/10 at 03:27 PM ET

Avatar

NHLJeff: 

Yeah, that’s definitely the reason for the mistake.  I just think that people would somehow see how the word “have” is used (as it’s very common) and figure out that they’re getting it wrong.  In the Dowbiggin article itself, there’s a “have been”, a “have become”, and even a “would have”  (“Cammy would have stayed for the right deal in Alberta.”) 

But then I have too much faith in people.

Posted by kushiro on 05/05/10 at 03:33 PM ET

Paul's avatar

When I first wrote the headline, it was like this- ‘Wood’‘ve but then decided not to use it.

I messed up with of instead of ‘ve or have, it could ‘of’ been avoided.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 05/05/10 at 03:38 PM ET

Avatar

if the games went slower w/ wood sticks, would the refs be better? That would sway me quite a lot.

Love it!

Posted by killerdg93 from Niagara on 05/05/10 at 03:52 PM ET

Avatar

Kuklas Korner now bringing proper grammar to the masses. Hard to believe KK could be further ehanced considering it already brings us 100% more Wing conspiracy theories and 100% more Sid the Kid Whining coverage wink.

This blog is now chock full of 120% of everything you could ever want to know. Please let us now have a dissertation on how it is mathematically impossible to have 120% effort.

PS
For those that have difficulty with sarcasm even when obvious. I love this site and all Wing conspiracy and Sidney references are made in jest.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 05/05/10 at 03:53 PM ET

Avatar

Nice one, Paul.  Those last minute edits so often go awry.

Posted by kushiro on 05/05/10 at 03:55 PM ET

Avatar

Totally off-topic, but Alan, “infinite” is spelled infinite.  wink

Love the site, Paul, and that’s no joke.

Posted by GregAnnapolis on 05/05/10 at 11:42 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image