The Wretched of the Earth, Indeed

The UN's annual A-to-Z of global wealth, poverty, health and education highlighted in its 20th anniversary edition that despite "growth surges" in the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming ever more difficult to break into the rich club of nations.

Oil-rich Norway -- with its 81.0 years of life expectancy, average annual income of 58,810 dollars and 12.6 years of schooling -- has now topped the Human Development Index (HDI) for all but two years since 2001.

Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland took the following places in the top five. Zimbabwe came bottom of the 169 nations ranked, behind Mozambique, Burundi, Niger and Democratic Republic of Congo.

Zimbabwe, where in stark contrast life expectancy is just 47 years and per capita income 176 dollars, has come bottom of the table for the past five years.

DR Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe have seen their HDI value fall below 1970 levels in the four decades since, said the study.

"These countries offer lessons on the devastating impact of conflict, the AIDS epidemic and economic and political mismanagement," said UNDP administrator Helen Clarke, the former New Zealand prime minister.

Now, I understand that Ms. Clarke is referring to the reasons why those countries' HDI levels have fallen since 1970 and is not really commenting on how they got there in the first place, but isn't the more trenchant lesson on the devastating impact of being colonized by a European nation? I wonder what the HDI level would be for an aggregate of all peoples living in North American Native reservations?

Lesser of Evils Still Pandora-Level of Evil

A bunch of good folks I sincerely like and respect will take part in the farcical, biennial public relations competition that masquerades as representative democracy in this country. Most of the people I happen to know will vote for candidates of the Democratic Party. I think they are making a big mistake. If these people, like me, believe in things like that the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and its bombings and/or targeted assassinations - either way, war crimes - in Pakistan and Yemen are illegal and, more importantly, immoral; that the public should not subsidize business costs while corporations privatize profit; that the short-term interests of corporate shareholders in the US should not be placed above the long term interests of the larger community, especially with respect to climate change and the survival of the species; and that the "international community" is more than just Washington and whoever happens to agree with it, see, e.g., Iran's enriching of uranium and Israel's occupation of Palestine, etc. etc.; then they are voting for a party that holds fundamentally inconsistent views and goals. I don't understand the desire to do such a thing. Perhaps it's a desire to not feel small and inconsequential in the world, to not feel like you've been lied to your whole life, or worse, that you believed the lie. Maybe it's the desperate grab of the lever that retains some symbolic meaning in the face of increasing atomization and alienation, a silent cry that whispers, "things are not that bad, we're just a ways off from justice and egality, this act absolves me while at the same time keeping me safe from the consequences of real action." I don't know what the reasons are at this point, and I don't really care. I do know that there is one business party in the US, with two factions that are more different in personality than substance, and that this business party is fanatically committed to a highly sophisticated class war at home and a brutally violent imperial empire abroad (where corporations have replaced viceroys). And I think that the sooner the educated, white, liberal professional class that is my peer group comes to realize this, the sooner the cannibalization of the Democratic Party can occur and a new, legitimate opposition movement will foment. The only time I'm voting soon is for Palin/Beck 2014.

Shomer Shabbos

We were looking for shooters on the point. I guess the shooters we have are all up front. That's the reason why we use two forwards. We have to get shots at the net. That's the reason [I'm playing Kovalchuk on the point on the power play].

Even 5-on-5 I use [Kovalchuk] on the point. It was 5-3 at that time [with the Devils trailing]. I feel that he has a good shot and he can score from the blue line. So that’s why, when we were in their zone, I used him on the point there on defense. I don’t care [how well he skates backwards]. I just want him to go forwards, not backwards.

- Jacques Lemaire

[Kovalchuk] has been anything and everything that we have asked of him. He’s been a solid citizen. He’s bought into the program. He’s given the effort. So, there is no question that we would like him to be a Devil.

- Lou Lamoriello

Q. Why did you choose to move Kovalchuk to the right side and not Parise?
No great thinking there. Zach is a left shot and Kovy is a right shot. They're both very adaptable, great players and we'll see what the chemistry is.

Q. So, you'd rather both of those guys playing their on wing rather than the off side?
Yeah, we're trying it. In fairness, you could go the other way. Zach has never played right wing before either. But I just thought with the right-hand shot, we'd try (Kovalchuk) over there.

- John MacLean

Shit, man. What a lemon! I don't know, man. One minute it's running like a top... and the next minute it's broken down on the side of the road. I can't fix a car like this. I don't have the tools to do it, man! Even if I did, I can't promise you I'd know how to fix a car like that!

- Dignan

If you didn't know the first thing about hockey and I told you that of the four speakers above, one is a Hall of Fame and Stanley Cup winning coach credited with tactically revolutionizing the game in the mid-90's, another is one of the most respected General Managers in the NHL known for running a highly obedient and structured organization, another is a cockeyed optimist from a small town with big dreams and little sense, and the other is a first-year NHL head coach who is probably about to get fired, I think you could probably correctly identify who's who.

Kovalchuk was scratched from a game last week for reportedly arriving 10 minutes late to a team meeting that morning. While I don't think it's indefensible for a coach to scratch a star player for being late to a meeting, I do wonder if it's a bit of a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face when your team is off to a terrible start and you're sitting your leading point scorer against an important conference rival whom you could very well be battling for a playoff spot against. The benching was a pretty desperate plea to get control of the room and command respect from players with high expectations. Kovalchuk was the perfect target because he's the biggest name, there's already a perception that he won't fit in with the team first mentality, and as a player known as someone who wants to be liked and to fit in, was a safe bet to accept it without creating an even bigger controversy. I think it was a bad decision but not a terrible one.

Opening the season with Kovalchuk on right wing, however, was more than a terrible decision. (Though, to be fair, decision implies some kind of thought process, which, evidently, MacLean lacked - see above). The problem, I guess, was that three of the Devils' most offensively gifted players all play left wing, and MacLean would ideally want those players to be sprinkled on two different offensively loaded lines. Fine, so someone has to play out of position. Should it be Kovalchuk, a player who has played exclusively left wing for his whole career, since entering the NHL in 2001 and as a junior in Russia previously? Or Parise, who grew up playing center, played it in college and the AHL and started his NHL career as a center before moving to the left side late in his rookie season in 2006? Or Elias, who has played left wing most of his career but who has also played center at various times for the Devils over the last few seasons? Kovalchuk's offensive style of play, I think it would be fair to say, is most recognized for two signature moves or preferences: 1) playing the left point on the power play and trying to get set up for one-timers; 2) flying down the left wing with the puck and trying to cut to the middle and get a shot from the slot. He's not just a left wing, he's a player who's skill set is intricately tied to playing left wing. I don't think there's any sort of association in Parise's game, a very tenacious and highly effective game to be sure, that ties him to the left side in such a way. MacLean said he basically moved Kovalchuk over to the right because he's a right-handed shot. John MacLean was a pretty great offensive player back in the day, a right-handed shot who grew up playing when wingers did not play on their off wing. That was a European influence that only started to creep into the NHL well into the 80's as north american players and coaches began to realize the advantages of having your stick on the inside of the ice to one-time the puck or cut to the middle to shoot. John MacLean is apparently living in the fucking past, man, without even 3,000 years of beautiful tradition to back it up.

Welcoming Our Insect Overlords

Our concern is mostly with the threat to individuals, the threat to our people and our equipment, but in terms of the types of incidents that are captured in these reports, where innocent Iraqis have been killed, where there are allegations of detainee abuse, all of these things have been very well chronicled over time.

- Pentagon Spokesman Col. Dave Lapan

H/T Antiwar Blog

That's a pretty amazing statement. The government is attempting to preemptively downplay the effect of an imminent WikiLeaks release of 500,000 Iraq War documents, which have been subsequently published, by essentially noting that, "everyone already knows that we're killing innocent people and abusing detainees, nobody cares, so let's just ignore it and carry on." Some further thoughts on this completely typical and unextraordinary showing of the government's brazen contempt for its own citizens:

The Pentagon aka Where This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man is impliedly arguing against the dissemination of information to the American people because we've already made up our minds regarding the invading, destroying, and occupying of Iraq notwithstanding the existence of supposedly similar information in the public realm. And who gets to determine whether the new information is substantially similar, whether the content of the new documents has in fact been "well chronicled over time?" The people themselves? No, too big of a security threat to "to our people and our equipment." I would ask how the information increases the risk (and what the risk is, exactly), but I'm afraid those reasons have either been "well chronicled over time" or that answering the question would further increase the threat in some kind of mobious strip of unassailable, self-proclaimed justification. So, uhh, some sort of in camera review by a partial adjudicator? No, we are not in federal court, and "this is not 'Nam... there are rules." Well, there's mostly just one rule: "what we say goes." OK, who does get to decide on the materiality of the information vis-a-vis the security threat? The dudes with the hard-ons for killing people, of course! It is an astonishingly inadequate argument, and the analogous legal position, "not only can we not show you these documents because they are privileged and would harm our client, we can't tell you why they are privileged, how they would harm our client, or what kinds of information is contained in the documents, and we can't submit them to a judge for independent review to determine if they are privileged/prejudicial," would be laughed out of any court. Luckily for the U.S., and us, international or domestic courts don't have much sway over how the U.S. conducts its business, the business of killing, around the world.

Nikolai Kulemin: With or Without You

I was watching a couple of Russia's qualification round games in the World Championships in Germany, and despite a roster featuring Ovechkin, Semin, Malkin, Datysuk, and Kovalchuk, it was Toronto Maple Leaf forward Nikolai Kulemin that really caught my eye. I knew Maple Leaf fans, at least those who sound passingly knowledgeable, seemed to like him, and Ron Wilson and Brian Burke praised Kulemin during the season - despite sending him down to the AHL before opening night - with Wilson saying, "[h]e's probably our most complete player now." And I knew Kulemin was a star in Magnitogorsk and had some slick moves with the puck. But I did not realize just how good this guy is without the puck and how he is always in the right position and doing the right thing on the ice. If the puck comes around his side of the boards, he's probably going to win it; if their d comes out with it on the far boards, he's going to pick up the forward breaking out; if the puck moves back to his d at the point, he's going straight to the net. His hockey sense and battle level are off the charts. There are no short cuts in his game. While he doesn't have the raw skills of an Ovechkin or Kovalchuk, he's almost more fun to watch because he just does everything so right. And he has some finishing skills. So in the vein of Tyler's Backstrom WOWY and BenHasna'sFrans Nielsen WOWY (incidentally, I was not surprised in the least of Nielsen's results; I've watched him somewhat closely over the last two seasons and had already internalized those conclusions about him; he's a fantastic player), I looked at Kulemin's WOWY. I actually was surprised that his numbers, though certainly good, weren't more impressive.



One thing that jumps out that has already been commented on in various places is that Toronto's CORSI numbers are quite good. Of course, because they were trailing in so many of their games you'd expect their CORSI numbers to be inflated, but that said, it does appear that it was goaltending that did them in.

Re Kulemin, I think the results show that he made the good players (Kessel, Bozak, Grabo, Pony, Beauchemin, and Kaberle) a little bit better, and he made the not as good players (Primeau, Mitchell, and Schenn) a whole lot better. Kulemin got less favorable zone starts than almost any other Leaf forward, with the exception of Primeau which helps explain Primeau's brutal CORSI, and Kulemin faced the toughest competition of any Leaf forward. Considering those two factors makes his WOWY CORSI more impressive. What's somewhat interesting to me is how little Kulemin played with Hagman, and to a lesser extent Grabovski and Ponikarovsky, players who, IIRC, he spent a fair amount of time with the prior season. I have no idea what was going on with Lee Stempniak, who appeared to have a ridiculous CORSI with the Leafs but who couldn't get anything to go in the net, and then was traded to the Coyotes and everything went in for him but his CORSI numbers do not particularly stand out. There's probably an interesting Stempniak WOWY out there waiting to be done.

Nothing earth shattering here, but I think it certainly does not contradict my feeling that this guy is a heck of a player, and it probably helps confirm it. I'd at least bring it to the table if I was Kulemin's agent. Those negotiations are going to be very interesting, in as much as he's a difficult player to evaluate. I love watching Grabovski play - I've seen him play games where he jitterbugs all over the ice with the puck seemingly glued to his stick - but I don't see how anyone could rather have Grabovski on their team than Kulemin.

Filet Mignon or Strip Steak?

The Capitals begin their opening playoff series tonight after an historic regular season that saw them produce the 7^th most impressive offensive season in the history of the post-expansion NHL. A great deal of that production has come from the team’s top line, with Ovechkin and Backstrom permanent fixtures on left wing and center, respectively, and with the right wing slot being occupied by either Mike Knuble or Alexander Semin. Semin started the season on the top line before ultimately being replaced with Knuble, with the exception of sporadic games here and there where Boudreau would reunite Semin with Backstrom and Ovechkin for a period or two with the Caps trailing. To begin the playoffs, as it has been for the last few months fairly consistently now, Knuble will be on the top line.

Which version of the top line is more effective? These numbers suggest an answer. Note that Fenwick numbers are shots plus missed shots, and Corsi numbers are Fenwick numbers plus blocked shots.

The results are fantastic for both lines, but the numbers are particularly great for the Semin version. Their Goals For / Goals Against, Shots %, and On Ice EV Shooting % indicate an exceptional level of dominance for that trio. The Knuble line has a higher On Ice EV Save %, though it’s unclear that swapping out one player would drive the results to that extent. My best guess is that Semin played a higher percentage of his minutes with that line while the Caps trailed, which would skew his On Ice EV Save % (because the Caps would face fewer but higher quality shots while trailing). It appears that Semin and Knuble each had approximately the same number of total events (shots + misses + blocked shots for and against) when on the top line and trailing. Because Semin had fewer total events than Knuble on the top line regardless of game score, I think it means that Semin probably played a greater percentage of top line minutes while the Caps trailed, relative to Knuble. That certainly comports with my understanding of how Boudreau used that line. And because their shots against totals are lower, a few extra goals against while trailing (caused by Ovechkin, Backstrom, and Semin being in hardcore offensive mode) would disproportionately affect the On Ice Save % more so than the Shooting % or the Shots, Fenwick, and Corsi ratios.

That would certainly distort the territorial numbers (Shots, Fenwick, and Corsi ratios) in favor of Semin as well. However, those numbers so clearly skew towards Semin, and the percentage of time the Caps spent trailing is small enough, that I think we can make the general conclusion that territorially, and in terms of scoring efficacy, the top line was at its best with Semin on it. I think it’s an important point to make and realize, though it obviously does not necessarily imply that that is the line that Boudreau should use going forward, as it does not take into account any effects on other lines. And I’m fairly confident that Boudreau ultimately knows that Semin helps that line more than Knuble, as evidenced by his reuniting it down the stretch to help Ovechkin’s cause in the scoring and goal races. But depending on the way things go at various stages of the playoffs, Boudreau should not hesitate to reunite the line when he really needs a goal or to shift the momentum in his favor. I know he'll do it in the third if the Caps are down a goal, but I think there could be other times where going to the power trio earlier makes sense.

Incidentally, I looked at a couple other lines around the league that I thought might have approximated the Caps top line with Semin. It turns out, they did not. Ovechkin / Backstrom / Semin is a ridiculously good line.

You just broke my heart, comrade

The Russian Hockey Federation announced its roster for the upcoming Olympic Games in Vancouver. Here's the 23-player team (I've placed the players in their most likely configuration, based on past pairings and the various comments of coaches):

Ovechkin - Fedorov - Semin

Kovalchuk - Malkin - Afinogenov

Zaripov - Datsyuk - Morozov

Kozlov - Zinovjev - Radulov

Markov - Nikulin

Tyutin - Gonchar

Volchenkov - Grebeshkov

Kalinin - Korneev

Nabokov

Bryzgalov

Varlamov

Now, before we get to the wailing and moaning (of which there'll be plenty), I'll post what would have been my team. Note, the roster's are largely similar; players I would have chosen who were not ultimately selected are bolded:

Ovechkin - Malkin - Semin

Kovalchuk - Zinovjev - Frolov

Zaripov - Datsyuk - Morozov

Saprykin - Tereschenko - Radulov

Fedorov

Markov - Nikulin

Tyutin - Gonchar

Volchenkov - Grebeshkov

Zubov

Nabokov

Bryzgalov

Varlamov

The actual team isn't all that different than mine. The most significant players who will be the biggest part in determining success or failure are found on both teams (OV, Semin, Kovy, Dats, Morozov, Rads, Markov, Niku, Gonch, Tyuts, Volch, Nabby, Bryz). That said, here's why the team they chose is 1) wrong, and 2) could easily cost them gold:

1) 8 defensemen - This is probably the biggest mistake. Playing on the small ice, and with the availability of big minute dmen, e.g. Markov, Gonchar, Tyutin, Nikulin, Volchenkov, who should each be playing over 20 mins a game, it makes no sense to take 8 d. Playing the bottom pair only makes it harder for the rest of the group to get into the game, fee the flow, exert their will on the play. I recall Markov, and perhaps others, making such comments while playing reduced minutes with 8 defensemen in various national team tournaments. I think it's assured that every other nation, especially those realistically in the medal hunt (Can, Swe, Usa, Fin, Cze), will be taking only 7 dmen (playing 6 regularly with one as a injury replacement). NHL teams, who play on the same size ice as that of the Olympic Games, only dress 6 per game. There are no injury replacements during the tournament. If one Russian forward gets injured during the tournament, they will be playing w/o 4 full lines and will need to unnecessarily go to a forward double-shifting, or not playing two forwards, while having an overabundance of dmen. Is it worth it to have 8 mediocre min of Dmitri Kalinin at the risk of having your forward lines all messed up? Silly. Classic, stupid Russia. Can't imagine the good laugh Canadian coach Mike Babcock gets out of this.

2) Not taking Alexei Tereshchenko (aka playing Fedorov w/ OV and Semin). In 2008, the IIHF celebrated its 100th year anniversary. It held its annual world championship tournament in the Canada, the "birthplace of hockey," for the first time ever. Gorgeous Quebec City saw a beautiful gold medal game between Canada and Russia featuring star-studded lineups for both teams, despite that the tournament took place during the NHL's Stanley Cup Playoffs. Canada was attempting to win gold on home soil (something rarely if ever done at the WC's, and something Russia was unable to do the previous year) and Russia was attempting to win gold for the first time as independent from the old USSR. In one of the greatest hockey games in recent memory, featuring absolutely breakneck pace, up and down action, Canada took a 4-2 lead into the third period in front of a madly patriotic and hugely entertained crowd. Russia would improbably fight its way back with two 3rd period goals before winning it on a 4-on-3 pp goal in OT off the stick of Ilya Kovalchuk. While people will surely remember that decisive goal (and even the tying goal off the same stick), people may not remember that it was Alexei Tereshchenko's opportunistic goal in the middle of the final frame, off a scrambly, broken rush, that got the comeback started. A defensively responsible center who's had success playing with both Radulov and Morozov, two locks at right wing on the team, he's a player that can be useful in a shut-down role and who can provide offense when needed. An important part of the last two gold-medal WC teams, he was, as much as Ovechkin and Semin and Kovalchuk and Nabby, a hero of that gem of a game in Quebec City. It's an absolute tragedy that he will not be going to Vancouver.

And part of the reason he won't be there is because 40-year old Sergei Fedorov will be. Fedorov played an important role as the center, and de facto baby-sitter, on the QC line with OV and Semin, Russia's most talented inseparable duo. One of the greatest players the sport has ever produced, Fedorov is still a skilled, supremely defensively capable and smart player; he was the conscience on the line with those deadly freelancers, he let them do the painting while he did most of the plumbing, and some of the retouching work. Great fit at the time. 20 mos. will have passed though, and Feds, god bless him, does not still have the wheels or the hands to keep up with probably the two most offensively talented players on the planet. He's currently playing 14 min a game for Metallurg Magnitogorsk in the KHL, and he's tied for second on the team in points, 7 points behind Stanislav Chistov. I love Fedorov as a 13th forward, a sort of player-coach, on the bench to tell the young players to stay the course, dump the puck in when necessary, not get frazzled by the Canadians' inevitable dirty play after the whistle, their forearms to the head after the puck's gone, etc. - and make no mistake, it is Canada who Russia who will be fighting for gold; Sweden will put together a great team, and they will be expertly coached, but it's Russia and Canada who are the creams of the crop. Fedorov's experience, calmness, and the respect he commands from Russia's younger players will all be valuable. But in a 13th forward role, not as the team's top center, trying to keep up with and get the puck to and from Ovechkin and Semin. Jesus, the thought of OV and Semin being held back or stifled offensively because they're forced to play with a player - a legend notwithstanding - born when Khrushchev was still alive and healthy, that's enough to give any sane Russian fan the screaming fantods.

3) Afinogenov over Frolov. Afinogenov has had a fairly successful season playing in a strictly scoring role, paired with great offensive players (Kovalchuk and Antropov) on a team that plays no defense whatsoever. I'm sure Russia's coaches Bykov and Zakharkin are familiar with Afinogenov's point totals, but I'm not sure there are as familiar with his many turnovers in his own end as he (attempts to) exit the zone (in his defense, it's largely because he's trying to get the puck to Kovalchuk who flies up the ice as soon as there's a hint that the puck is going the other way). I've seen most of Atlanta's games this season, and I like Afinogenov as a player, he's blindingly fast, he can do some things with the puck, he works hard all over the ice, but he makes risky plays, he's not a great finisher, and his ability to get the puck out of the zone when it really matters worries the hell out of me. I have no idea why Alexander Frolov has been so maligned in Los Angeles and it's an absolute shame if that has anything to do with why he didn't make the Olympic team. He played great in the WC in Berne, is great down low with the puck. Frolov has played with Handzus for three seasons on the Kings' shut down line, he's a warrior, makes smart plays with and without the puck, would be a great complement to make room for Kovalchuk, and has a nice finishing touch around the net. He was an absolute lock for the team before the season started, it's a huge mistake to not have him in Vancouver.

4) Viktor Kozlov over Oleg Saprykin. I know Kozlov's game very well. I watched him play almost every game as a Washington Capital over the last two seasons. Big, skilled, decent passer, great wrist shot, not all that fast, not physical at all, smart, soft-spoken, gets along with OV and Semin, has had basically zero playoff success, plays for the Bykov and Zakharkin's domestic team, Salavat Ufa. Kozlov made one of the key plays in the quarterfinal win against Canada in Turin in 2006, shaking loose behind the net and finding a cutting Ovechkin for the game's first and eventual game-winning goal. That said, Kozlov is a second-rate skilled player - he's currently seventh on his KHL team in points (!) - that brings nothing of what Russia lacks, forechecking tenacity, toughness, defensive commitment, penalty-killing ability. But these are the exact traits that Saprykin brings. Saprykin can't dangle the way Kozlov can, he can't pass as well, but he can get in on the forecheck, separate Canadian defenders from the puck, crash and bang, and open up room for the Russian dancers to dance. He's had a miserable year in the KHL, even being a healthy scratch at times before recently being traded, but he always lights it up when he puts on the national team sweater. He was a force in Berne, great on the PK, and had chemistry playing with Radulov. He played great in the recent Eurotour which was Bykov's last chance to evaluate players. Saprykin brings to the table qualities that are rare among their crop of forwards. On the big ice, I probably wouldn't take him, but in the faster and hitting-focused game of the small ice, Saprykin makes more sense than Kozlov.

Russia has a great team regardless. But so does Canada. So does Sweden. It's going to take a little bit of luck to win this thing regardless. One errant puck off the wrist of Ovechkin or Malkin will have a much greater impact than whether Kozlov or Afinogenov should be there. But every player and every decision has an opportunity to make the difference between gold and silver or shameful bronze. I'm hoping for the best, but I think some of the wrong decisions have been made.