A Look Back at an Attempted Look Forward: Reviewing the IC 2008-09 Predictions

Posted by Drew Mindell in Features,Season Previews on April 12, 2009 — 10 Comments

This handy chart first appeared on the site prior to the start of the 2008-09 regular season. With the regular season coming to an end today, and the real season set to begin, we thought it would be a good time to take a nostalgic look back at our early season predictions. I am not going to go through the entire chart, as I have the utmost in confidence that you don’t need my help to do that, but instead I will give out a few awards based on the predictions as well as a couple of bonus “it’s my article, so I can do it” awards.

The award for “Best Reason Why Casinos Don’t go Broke”: Me, for my dual prediction of the Ottawa Senators as Eastern Conference Champions, and Craig Hartsburg as Coach of the Year. Nothing more needs to be said about predictions of that quality.

The award for “Potentially Best Virginal Performance in 2009-10”: Richard, for his selection of someone named Hornqvist as the 2008-09 Calder Trophy winner. Unfortunately for Richard and his prognostication skills, the prediction still may come true, as Mr. Hornqvist didn’t pop his cherry, this year.

The award for “Stop Making the Illegal Curve Crew Look Foolish”: The Boston Bruins. The following teams were predicted by IC writers to be the Eastern Conference Champions: Canadiens (two writers),  Flyers (two writers), Rangers (two writers), Senators.

The award for “Boy Aren’t the Illegal Curve Writers Smart”: The San Jose Sharks, with honourable mention to the Detroit Red Wings. Three IC writers had the Sharks to win the West, and three had the Red Wings. Neil feels bad enough about his Stars selection, no need to mention it again.

The award for “Uh, We Meant the Other Guy”: Sidney Crosby. Five out of seven contributors picked Crosby for the Art Ross Trophy. Zero out of seven picked Malkin. Frankly, I blame Crosby for his poor performance, and certainly not the predictors for their choosing of him. Had he played harder, he would have made us all look smart. For shame, Sid, for shame.

The award for “See Sidney, This is What We Needed”: Alexander Ovechkin. Six out of seven contributors selected him as the Rocket Richard trophy winner, and barring something miraculous on the final day of the season, we will all look smart. Except for Joey. I suggest throwing tomatoes at him.

The award for “Depends on If You Consider Surprising, Good or Bad”: Neil, for his selection of the Boston Bruins as the “Most Surprising Team”. Presumably Neil picked them because he thought they were going to be surprisingly good. Regardless, now, the “good surprising” is going to be the flag he is flying.

And two final awards:

The award for:

“Most incomprehensible, Yet Hilarious Smack-down of Yours Truly”http://www.birdwatchersanonymous.com/2009/4/9/828689/in-a-low-class-by-themselves


“Best 5 minutes 26 seconds on You Tube”: watch?v=olI1fj76WCY

Enjoy the playoffs, and thank you for your continued support of Illegal Curve.

10 responses to “A Look Back at an Attempted Look Forward: Reviewing the IC 2008-09 Predictions”

  1. Bob Roberts says:

    Will you put up a chart for the playoffs and invite readers to make entries alongside IC staff?

  2. Drew says:

    Bob, I am sure we are going to do something like that, and would be pleased to accommodate reader’s predictions.

    Thanks for the defense of my good name over at birdwatcher’s anonymous. The most telling part, in my mind, is that a grand total of one Thrashers fan (likely their only one) came to defend their organisation. When I called out the Hurricanes, I at least garnered a passionate response. The Thrashers response has been as fulsome as the crowds at their game’s, i.e. non existent.

  3. Bob Roberts says:

    Great, I look forward to seeing how my predictions compare with other readers and IC staff.

    (I think you should consider carefully before allowing David to enter, though, given his well-documented propensity for reversing his stance re: predictions. How can you be sure he won’t say later that he changed his mind about any inaccurate predictions he might make?)

    Seriously, though, if you do have an open chart, I’d like to suggest it goes round-by-round.

    You’re welcome for the comments in Bird. Sometimes things need to be done regardless of the chance that there’ll be a positive result.

  4. david says:

    Now Bob, I don’t really remember reversing my picks. I remember my picks stinking but I didn’t reverse them.

  5. Bob Roberts says:

    No, “…for reversing his STANCE re: predictions.” You know, the old “yes I’m retired, no I’m not”. Not reversing the prediction, but if you can so easily change your mind about retiring from predicting, how can anyone be confident you won’t reverse yourself in other areas? Besides, I’m envious of anyone who can pick that well — luck or not! (But it WAS skill, wasn’t it?)

    Drew: I forgot to ask re: the Bird comments — why is it so many on the web use pseudonyms, do you think? I have little, in any, respect for those who won’t sign their names to their comments. What are they afraid of? To me, it brings new depth and texture to the caveat: “Consider the source.”

  6. Drew says:

    Bob, I think you have answered your own question. Cowards challenge a person without signing their real name.

  7. Ari says:

    Drew – you really have a gift for inciting anger. Bob, you should know better …arguing with people over the Internet? That’s going to be an exercise in frustration…

  8. david says:

    Hey Bob,

    Have you noticed he refuses to answer your points (or mine) and instead reacts with anger and vitriol. Says Drew wrote the article in a cheap attempt at drawing numbers. Hate to break it to him but if we were looking for “numbers” we would be writing about the Rangers, Leafs, Flyers, Canadiens not Atlanta.

  9. Bob Roberts says:

    Ari — Interestingly enough, though, I think I can immodestly say that his attempts at (semi) coherent thought and (semi) civil conversation are a result of my prodding. And hey, he corrected one of his spelling errors!

    But, I wouldn’t call it arguing — to argue you must have two points of view about one topic and offer point and counterpoint.

    I don’t defend Drew’s opinions (who needs to defend anyone with such an amazing gift for inciting anger?); those are his and he’s more than capable of defending himself. But, smart lad that he is, HE wasn’t defending himself, so…

    It does wear a bit smooth after a while, though, so I’ve stopped — he was never going to answer my points. It gets a bit monotonous continually spiking the conversational ball into the sand at his feet, but I have to give him credit for offering up wonderful setups in a seemingly unending stream. “MF” for crying out loud –subconscious choice, do you think? I admit it, I’m bored waiting for Wednesday.

    David — You’re not too bad at poking the old hornet’s nest, either.
    Better leave him be. If nothing else you’ve created the alltime most popular entry over there. Bet it’ll be like Hall’s consecutive starts record: no one’ll ever touch it. Certainly not the legions of Thrasher fans who blog there, anyway. I like your sly slide into the “Good Cop” role. Very subtle, indeed.

  10. david says:

    Bob astute as always. Made me laugh just now reading your comment.

Leave a Reply