And what these losers fail to admit is that almost EVERY TEAM suffers attendance when that team sucks.

Philly fan can shove it.

Phillie attendance in 2010 (when they were good) = 46K
Phillie attendance last year (when they sucked) = 29K

Fans typically don't want to spend large coin to watch crap fest sports.

Now that we've settled this, all competing fans calling out Blackhawks fans as bandwagon fans can find some new material. That is unless you can show a half-decade period of full support for a team that is putrid and was known as the WORST professional franchise in sports.

Exactly! You could have looked at strength of competition (advantage Hawks) trend of play series to series (again advantage Hawks) but didn't. We can slice it any way you want to. Still haven't seen an analysis on here that shows statistically where the advantage is on the ducks side -- and JJ is correct, there ARE arguments to be made there. Also, all of us know this is hockey and statistics might not mean anything in the end (I was at game 7 of last years WCF - and that last goal sucked) after all is said and done. But you get your comfort where you can.
- Marlowe

Didn't you see. The Hawks win less games the closer they are to the equator. Good thing Panama didn't make the playoffs this year.

And what these losers fail to admit is that almost EVERY TEAM suffers attendance when that team sucks.

Philly fan can shove it.

Phillie attendance in 2010 (when they were good) = 46K
Phillie attendance last year (when they sucked) = 29K

Fans typically don't want to spend large coin to watch crap fest sports.

Now that we've settled this, all competing fans calling out Blackhawks fans as front runners can find some new material.
- kwolf68

The folks crying bandwagon don't have any idea how bad it was here pre-Rocky. You had to work hard to find any Hawks coverage on TV (including games) and the neighborhood around the Stadium (and UC) was "daunting" to a lot of fans (especially those of us who aren't city folk).

It is actually pretty interesting how many people are taking the Ducks or predicting a long battle of a series. There aren't any metrics aside from "size" and "grit" or other "stuff" that can't be measured to indicate that will be the case. A lot of ridiculous narrative going around.

Lack of offensive punch aside, I think Nashville will end up being the best team the Hawks played. Coaching and talent wise.

People said the same stuff about the Minnesota series that they are about the Ducks. Minnesota is certainly a better team defensively and arguably goaltending wise.

I still say 5 games max and Kane earns himself another Conn Smythe.

And what these losers fail to admit is that almost EVERY TEAM suffers attendance when that team sucks.

Philly fan can shove it.

Phillie attendance in 2010 (when they were good) = 46K
Phillie attendance last year (when they sucked) = 29K

Fans typically don't want to spend large coin to watch crap fest sports.

Now that we've settled this, all competing fans calling out Blackhawks fans as bandwagon fans can find some new material. That is unless you can show a half-decade period of full support for a team that is putrid and was known as the WORST professional franchise in sports.
- kwolf68

?

you went with a set of circumstances that support what you want the outcome to be. you're essentially saying the ducks have no chance in this series and cant even see it extending to 7 games. thats laughable.
- flyershockey

Imagine that. Using a set of statistics to support your outcome.

dysfunctional and out of touch arent the right words. and also didnt get lucky enough to draft kane after being by far the worst team in the league that year. but hawks fans pre 2006 memories probably arent so good.
- flyershockey

Ask me a question about pre 2006 Blackhawks. I have followed them since I was a kid in the mid 60s.

As for drafting Kane, you know as well as I that had the Flyers drafted first Kane would still not have been drafted by the Flyers. On the Flyers assessment chart, Kane's skill would never have compensated for his lack of size and physicality. Had the Flyers picked first that year JVR would have been drafted before Kane.

The folks crying bandwagon don't have any idea how bad it was here pre-Rocky. You had to work hard to find any Hawks coverage on TV (including games) and the neighborhood around the Stadium (and UC) was "daunting" to a lot of fans (especially those of us who aren't city folk).
- Marlowe

Very true Marlowe, but whatever the reasons were for the Hawks futility the bottom line is teams as bad as the Hawks were NEVER SELL in ANY CITY.

But it's an easy attack angle on Hawks fans. All it is is general butthurt that the Hawks are the best hockey franchise going since 2009 and are 8 wins from a legitimate dynasty.

RE: the bandwagon stuff... The Hawks owned Chicago until a guy named Michael Jordan started winning championships and Old Man Wirtz shipped out all the talent.

The change in regime didn't really start a bandwagon but reignited a fan base that had been pissed off for 20 years and coincidentally a lot of them had kids who have jumped on the bus.

?
- flyershockey

Seriously?

That is your average attendance for Philly games now that they suck as compared to when they were good.

Flyers haven't been 2000-2005 Hawk bad, probably ever.

Ask me a question about pre 2006 Blackhawks. I have followed them since I was a kid in the mid 60s.

As for drafting Kane, you know as well as I that had the Flyers drafted first Kane would still not have been drafted by the Flyers. On the Flyers assessment chart, Kane's skill would never have compensated for his lack of size and physicality. Had the Flyers picked first that year JVR would have been drafted before Kane.
- paulr

is that you ed snider?

Seriously?

That is your average attendance for Philly games now that they suck as compared to when they were good.

Flyers haven't been 2000-2005 Hawk bad, probably ever.
- kwolf68

the arena only holds 19,500

im not allowed to use playoff stats, they dont matter, only 82 game regular season stats and one game in january. plus, the 52% to 51.6% faceoff advantage is too much to overcome.
- flyershockey

Yes, that was JJs assertion. He felt a larger sampling would be more reliable than 2 rounds of the POs.... and we are allowing you to use whatever stats you like. Please provide more for us. They are very entertaining. How good is the ducks record on days before and after high levels of precipitation? Will it favor them in this series or are you concerned about the drought impacting their chances?

the arena only holds 19,500
- flyershockey

That is for the PHILLIES. Your baseball team. The point was to show how bad play = poor attendance. This happens across all sports in all cities.

If the Flyers experienced a period such that the Hawks did between 2000-2005 Flyer attendance would also tank.

That is for the PHILLIES. Your baseball team. The point was to show how bad play = poor attendance. This happens across all sports in all cities.

If the Flyers experienced a period such that the Hawks did between 2000-2005 Flyer attendance would also tank.
- kwolf68

lolz we arent talking about the phillies. and they were good in 2008 not 2010.

lolz we arent talking about the phillies. and they were good in 2008 not 2010.
- flyershockey

The point is POOR play = poor attendance. And the falloff is NOT immediate. Hawks numbers fell off as the team went into the tank.

How hard is this to understand?

The point is Chicago is NOT a damn bit different than Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, Wash DC in terms of fan support and loyalty. So quit bringing up the 2000-2005 era, where only a sadomasochist would want to attend a Hawks game.

So in the stats that you use. The wild and predators are better opponents because they had 8 more points over 164 games than the Jets and Flames had. What you fail to bring to the table is that the Ducks had 7 more points than the blackhawks had in the regular season in which they each played 82 games.

This is his point. But not using that exact same statistic to illustrate that the Ducks are a firmidable opponent.
- nurk

In the 2007-2008 season right after Bill Wirtz passed and BEFORE the team was good, the franchise started to TRY to be a player and attendance immediately shot back up. Even before the Hawks were back the fans started coming back.

The attendance situation in Chicago is NOT abnormal at all and is NOT an indicator of being band wagon fans.

I used to have a stick signed by the 70-71 Hawks. Long gone now. Ugh. Also had an amazing baseball card collection in the early 70s.
- John Jaeckel

Can't believe nobody has commented on the ancient age of the pad itself...

Sucks about losing some of your collectibles. I had a bunch ruined by some water damage.

The point is POOR play = poor attendance. And the falloff is NOT immediate. Hawks numbers fell off as the team went into the tank.

How hard is this to understand?

The point is Chicago is NOT a damn bit different than Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston, Wash DC in terms of fan support and loyalty. So quit bringing up the 2000-2005 era, where only a sadomasochist would want to attend a Hawks game.
- kwolf68

I went to a ton of games in the 00-05 era, and it was damn painful. It was cheap, though! I've said it before about the bandwagon. You're not a bandwagon fan until you fall off during hard times. I guess I was a bandwagon fan when I was in junior high and got into hockey and the Blackhawks when they made the cup finals against the Penguins, yet here I am still. For a niche sport like hockey in the US, if you're not raised watching the game, you jump on the bandwagon for some team at some point, but only bad times can determine whether or not you're "bandwagon".

It's the Jaeckel and Hyde thread.

It's amusing how many people who were female doging and moaning about how bad the Hawks were all season long are now so staunchly defending the team after they win a couple rounds and a few trolls show up.

Take your meds folks.

Ogi's tip of the Day:


- Ogilthorpe2

Let's see how staunch this defense will be if/when the Hawks lose a game or two.

I went to a ton of games in the 00-05 era, and it was damn painful. It was cheap, though! I've said it before about the bandwagon. You're not a bandwagon fan until you fall off during hard times. I guess I was a bandwagon fan when I was in junior high and got into hockey and the Blackhawks when they made the cup finals against the Penguins, yet here I am still. For a niche sport like hockey in the US, if you're not raised watching the game, you jump on the bandwagon for some team at some point, but only bad times can determine whether or not you're "bandwagon".
- Lash8

As I don't live in the area anymore, I can't say whether or not I would have attended games during that time, although for cheaper prices I'd have likely gone some at least. But my interest was way reduced. I kept up with the team, followed the scores and draft, but never saw any games and didn't make it a point to visit to see games (such as I did prior and have since). How I spend my money is something I take careful consideration and I don't know how I could justify spending coin to "support" a franchise that was the epitome of a dumpster fire.

I started to see some signs when Duncs and Seabs got there. They were getting chewed up, but you could see the talent was there. Even way back in 2006 you could see those two guys had the makings of being special. It was at that time my interest started to pick up, because some pieces were being put into place. That was still during the down times, but the signs were there. Two-three years prior there was absolutely NOTHING to be excited about...no games on TV, continued drafting of Russian tomato cans and Alexei Zhamnov as a captain.

I consider economics. Lowering the attendance gives management incentive to get stuff done. As long as the franchise is trying then I will support them no matter what. The Hawks understand that today

Go back and read the blog. 82 games against the whole league is much more representative—and is the only way you can "compare" the two teams— than 9-10 games against two sets of two teams. So you say what you want. Logic is on my side. I didn't conveniently pick anything. I went with what actually makes sense.
- John Jaeckel

Over 82 games against the whole league Anaheim was 51-24-7 with 43 ROW, Chicago was 48-28-6 with 39 ROW. Logic is against you.

Over 82 games against the whole league Anaheim was 51-24-7 with 43 ROW, Chicago was 48-28-6 with 39 ROW. Logic is against you.
- sniper11

And you played the Wild, Blues and Predators the same number of times as the Hawks?

And the Hawks played the Coyotes and Oilers the same number of times as did the Ducks?

In the end, it means nothing...you played in a crap division and had a far easier road to the WCF...it means nothing starting Sunday. The teams will figure it out.

The Hawks were sleep walking half the season, played in a much harder division, lost it's leading scorer for 20 games and still only had 3 less wins.

What were the stats of the Central and Pacific vs outside competition? Pretty easy to see which division was better. Playing AZ and Edmonton 8 times a year should net you at least 8 extra points ya think?
- tredbrta

The Ducks were 16-5-0 vs the central. Chicago was 13-5-3 vs the pacific.