From: wilson@cs.ucf.edu (tom wilson)
Subject: Re: Wrens escape Lightning burns
Organization: University of Central Florida, Orlando
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 06:14:21 GMT

RAP115@psuvm.psu.edu wrote:
>It's amazing that the writer has any credibility to this story.  First, he
>calls the Penguins the Wrens.  Second, the article is one side biased - why
>doesn't he explain the game how it really happened?  There are some good
>points in his article, but if you classify the Penguins as Rens and be one
>side biased in his articles, then no wonder nobody pays any attention to 'em.
>Read Lori's followup to the game.  It's told a lot better - even for both sides

The first person to describe the new Pens logo as a wren on the net was from
Pittsburgh. You must not have been subscribed then. The net.gods will let you
slide for that.

As for my descriptions, they're biased because they don't agree with your bias.
I guess we know why I don't post game notes rather than some pathetic AP/UPI
article on the next day. Don't worry Tampa only plays YOUR team one more time.
Of course, there's Boston, NYRangers, and the rest of the league, so maybe it
will be a long season.

I thought most of my descriptions were right on. I guess there might not be too
many neutrals on the net (if you're not a Pens fan, then you're obviously for
the other team and thus not neutral, right?) who saw the game.

I'll quote some of my comments:

>About a minute and a half into the game, Lemieux took a good one-time shot
>from the side of the net and got a lucky bounce to open the scoring.

It was a good shot and a lucky bounce that made it go in.

>About 10 seconds later, Lemieux got a cherry-picking break-away, but
>Young got lucky on the save as the puck went through the 5-hole, but caught
>his RIGHT skate and just went wide of the LEFT post.

The cherry-picking phrase was really used by either John Kelly or Danny Gare,
however, I agreed with it and used it. Young's save was lucky because he was
beaten (I guess I'm biased the other way now, but since Young used to play for
Pittsburgh, I guess I don't which way to be biased).

>At 15:16, Zamuner scored from Tucker and
>Creighton on a pass from behind the net. Lemieux was in front of the net
>faking defense as the puck went through his legs to Zamuner and then he
>screened Barrasso when the shot was taken.

My description is perfect here. Barrasso was definitely screened on the shot.
Lemieux is probably the last guy on the team who would be expected to be in
front of the goal (too easy to get hurt there). As we say in soccer: NUTMEG!

>At 16:26, Kontos carried the
>puck down the ice after a Pit turnover at the blue line and dropped it to
>Beers. He took a great shot that went in off the post. Barrasso was probably
>screened by a sliding defenseman since he didn't move much.

Pretty good description here too. Anyone taking a shot about 20 feet inside the
blue line and puts it off the post just above the ice did take a great shot.
No argument that Barrasso was screened by the defenseman here since he didn't
react in time.

>It was 3-1 for
>Tampa and Pit looked awful.

You're right here, I am biased. Pittsburgh was playing at the top of their game
and the lucky Lightning were getting all of the calls and right bounces. That's
how cups are won, but the Lightning are wasting it here in the beginning of the
season since they won't be in the playoffs.

>The night was summarized by a dumb penalty by
>Tampa that resulted in a power-play goal for Stevens at 19:13 from Murphy and
>Francis. I felt the game was lost right there even though it was 3-2.

I don't know what is biased about that since I was right.

>Lemieux got a penalty just before the end of the period and he may not have
>deserved it. He should have gotten a misconduct for not going to the penalty
>box as he bitched and moaned to Faucette (as did 4 other Wrens).

It's pretty clear that I said Lemieux probably didn't deserve the penalty.
Kelly and Gare said that Lemieux deserved a misconduct for not reporting to the
penalty box right away. They also said that he is probably the only player in
the league who wouldn't get the quick extra 2.

>Tampa dominated most of the first half of the second, but couldn't convert.

You're kidding yourself if you don't agree with the first part. The second
part is fact since they didn't score.

>At 10:41 McEachern scored from Jagr and
>Paek to tie it at 3-3.

I guess I couldn't think of any way to insult McEachern. He's only been on the
team one year and I don't have any bad lines for him yet.

>Dumb penalty #2 came for Tampa about a minute and a
>half later. Lemieux had a goal disallowed during the power play. In a post-
>period interview he said it was in, but couldn't keep the smile off his face
>after he said it. The goal judge turned the light on when Lemieux raised his
>hands and looked over to him. It didn't matter since Stevens scored from
>Murphy at 12:44 about 10 seconds later.

I imagine you don't get the same interview footage that we got on the local
channel, so you'll have to take my word for it.

>Dumb penalty #3 came about
>a minute later for Tampa. Lemieux got a lucky goal (again) from Stevens and
>Francis at 14:43 when he flipped it toward the net and it went in off a Tampa
>player.

My mistake! He MEANT to bank it off the defenseman. What a DOLT I am!

>As the third period went on, it was really boring. Pit just flipped the puck
>in the zone and didn't put in a lot of effort to pursue.

I am wrong. You found this part really exciting. I should be open minded.

>Ramage scored on a 5v3
>power play from Hamrlik and Kontos. Dumb penalty #4 came
>from Creighton who was having a good game. He pushed one of the Pit defenseman
>who had decked him and got called for roughing. This negated the 5v4 power
>play that had about 1:45 left on it. With less than a minute left, Creighton
>took dumb penalty #5 on another weak roughing penalty along the boards.
>Jablonski was never pulled from the net as Tampa couldn't get it out of its
>end.

I guess I'm ragging Tampa here. What was I thinking?

>Oh well, I'm relieved with the result. I was expecting much worse. It just
>happens that the Wrens didn't play like champions. Perhaps the loss to St.
>Louis had something to do with that.

Again, my mistake. The Pens played like it was game 4 of the SC finals. Tampa
is just that caliber of a team to keep pace. If the ref hadn't been calling
back goals every 2 minutes, it would have been 35-4.

>P.S. Loser Elvis was never at the game.

I didn't see him. Did you? Dreams don't count here.

I'll read Lori's article when it gets here. Our news system was about 3 days
behind, but is slowly catching up. Sure wish those same night scores would
arrive!

You may want to ask you sysop if there is a way to put my name in your kill
file. I'm sure there others at your site that know how, but they won't see
this to tell you.

Tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey