The 1st Annual CONNIE Awards!

by Connie Kim on Mar 8, 2010 10:01 AM PST in Nerdy Comment 12 comments

In honor of the evening where Hollywood has the chance to blatantly suck up to itself while dressed to impress, I present The First Annual CONNIE Awards here at Jewels From The Crown! Instead of Hollywood and Highland, we're located at out dot com and hope you enjoy the show! This is a chance to recognize the hard work of all those on the Los Angeles Kings roster for all that they do.

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009 - Wayne Simmonds	60	14	21	35	20	98	0	0	1	0	106	13.2

The first award is for Best Supporting Actor. Last night the award went to Christoph Waltz for his unbelievably amazing performance in Inglourious Basterds. This award, the CONNIE, goes to Wayne Simmonds because this guy impresses every time he's out on the ice. He is a great go-to guy who is exciting to watch and I don't know anyone who doesn't like him. There was an undeniable level of electricity in the air when Hans Landa of the SS was on screen, so too does Simmonds on the ice. A well deserved award to Simmonds! And that midnight blue, velvet suit is very dapper.

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009 - Dustin Brown	64	15	27	42	-5	28	4	0	2	0	190	7.9

The award for Best Actor went to Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart. Jeff Bridges is one of those actors who you can depend on to always bring his best effort and performance. So the CONNIE for Best Actor goes to Captain Dustin Brown. Like Mr. Bridges, Brown is not a flash-and-dash performer but is one of those guys whose best effort is never lost on viewing eyes. Also, in terms of the word "actor," Brownie is at the top of the league for drawing the most penalties.

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009 - Jack Johnson	62	6	23	29	-13	44	2	0	0	0	104	5.8

The winner of the CONNIE for Best Actress goes to Jack Johnson. Sandra Bullock. Really? A -13, Jack? Really?

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009 - Drew Doughty	64	12	37	49	15	42	7	0	4	0	120	10.0

The award for Best Film went to The Hurt Locker, which was a pretty damn good movie that not many people have seen. The CONNIE for Best Film goes to Drew Doughty who, up until the Vancouver Olympics, not many people had seen. Everything worked in The Hurt Locker and everything works with Doughty. Netflix, be prepared to blow up!

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	PIM	PPG	SHG	GWG	GTG	SOG	PCT
2009 - Michal Handzus	64	15	20	35	7	34	3	1	6	0	92	16.3

As with any awards show, there are always a few films that get lost in the mix that deserve mention. Inglourious Basterds is a brilliant film and Quentin Tarantino is a mastermind in his own right. Here at the CONNIE Awards, the Honorable Mention go to Michael Handzus, a guy who works hard everyday but doesn't get his due recognition mostly because he is lost among his peers. He's not the sexy pick by any stretch of the word but, damnit, he deserves his time in the spotlight.

That's it for the awards! Hope you had a good time seeing who won which award. Please come back next year as it will be bigger and badder with less Adam Shankman. I still don't get the lampshades.

*~*~*~*~*~*

Side note #1: I can't decide whose dress looked better, Anna Kendrick or Pénélope Cruz. I liked both!

Side note #2: By the way, who's ever job it was to transcribe all the acceptance speeches on the Oscars website, you poor guys. But they were timely! They were up almost immediately after the awards ceremony was over, so kudos to you.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Lay off Jack

Jack has been a -1 since December and he plays a ton with Randy Jones. If Quicker stops that Dominic Moore shoot the other night JMFJ is even for three months. (I think he was on the ice)

Can we get over the plus/minus please? That’s not an accurate description of play, good or bad. If Jones bobbles the puck, which he does often and it ends up in the back of the net Jack gets a minus he never deserved. Lets watch the game a bit and forget about brain-dead stats like +/-, please. Yeah, its a team game but one guy’s mistake results in 5 guys getting a minus.

Further, he’s got 11 of his 29 points on the Power Play. If he plays the rest of the year with Drew I bet he comes out closer to even after the next 18 games are played. He’s a great player and he’s been a great contributor for the last three months at least.

by Samuel Aronoff on Mar 8, 2010 10:10 AM PST reply actions

+/-

plus/minus is a stat, not a interpretation. It simply tells you the aggregate of plus events and minus events. It does not tell you who is to blame or who gets the credit for any of the events. However, it is pretty trendy right now to utterly dismiss plus/minus as “meaningless” or “problematic.” Demonstrably, it’s not. It’s prone to misuse, but so are goalie wins, penalties taken, shooting percentage, and even, frankly, goals and assists.

Just as it would be absurd to ascribe meaning to a player’s any one shift — as in, “Johnson was a minus one on that shift! He sucks!” — it would be absurd not to ascribe meaning in larger sample sizes, say, over a player’s career. For example, Bobby Orr’s plus/minus was +597. Rob Blake’s is -12. Bobby Orr scored about 150 more points than Blake, so you might correct for that. But a plus/minus difference of several hundred does tell you something.

One has to keep in mind several different kinds of context, of course. Blake played on some bad teams. Orr played on some peerlessly great ones. Etc.. However, to some degree this is a chicken/egg problem.

Certainly, the plus/minus of the players who played with Orr were inflated because of playing with Orr. Which is why we look at context.

And there are now other measurements we can use to refine the plus/minus tool. QUALCOMP and QUALTEAM are two of the most important, as well as “adjusted plus/minus” which is +/- relative to team.

Unfortunately for Jack, his QUALCOMP and QUALTEAM numbers don’t do him any favors, because they reveal that he’s playing against weaker opponents while playing with the best players on the team, while Randy Jones is playing against tougher opponents while playing with weaker teammates. In other words, Jack’s plus/minus is if anything deceptively good. I haven’t looked at his stats in about a month, and I have heard he’s turned it around quite a bit lately; that fits with my own reaction to his play — but that still doesn’t mean that his plus-minus is irrelevant. My gut reaction is that JJ is not blameless in many of the goals that happen while he is on the ice.

(There is an Edmonton blogger who keeps track of his own impression of who is to blame for each goal against. If I had more time I would do this for the Kings. I might yet.)

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Mar 8, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions

Hopefully, he's trending upward...

I think I posted it here or at BoC last week, but during the Nashville game last week, Nick Nickson noted that Jack’s +/- had been +13 during a recent 3-week span where he played on the left side.

2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!

by DodgerBlueBalls on Mar 8, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions

just looked up the current JJ numbers

GAON/60 – worst on the team: 3.52
+/-60 – worst among defensemen and third worst overall ahead of Moller and Ivanans: 0.85
QUALTEAM – second highest, just behind Kopitar (i.e. he plays with the best teammates – Jones is still at the bottom)
QUALCOMP – still near the bottom but inching up; Moller, Parse, Ivanans, Drewiske and Harrold play against weaker opponents than JJ.
+-OFF/60 – JJ leads all defensemen and is 1/100 of a goal from leading the team. This means, JJ’s +/ WHEN HE’S ON THE BENCH is the highest on the team.

So, yeah, things are about the same as they were, a little better than two months ago, but not much.

I love him though. I think these numbers just affirm what we already know, which is that his game has some holes but he’s getting better and will be a big star when he grows up.

Wait till this year.

by Quisp on Mar 8, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions