SKOULA AND JOHNSSON HATERS... REVISITED

I still can't figuer out the hatred piled onto Skoula and Johnsson. I checked out some stats while I my dish was out tonight due to the rain. Here's what I came up with:

PLAYER.......GAMES WON........PLUS/MINUS.........ICE TIME

Burns.............44..............................36........................977:14

Shultz.............44..............................19........................905:35

Skoula...........43..............................12........................850:59

Johnsson.....44..............................11........................1040:42

.....................GAMES LOST.......PLUS/MINUS..........ICE TIME

Burns............38..............................-24......................898:54

Shultz............37..............................-10......................728:39

Skoula..........37..............................-28.......................769:40

Johnsson....36..............................-15.......................835:16

I find these stats interesting for a number of reasons. Skoula did not have a great season but he improved as the season wore on. He played bad early. It seems like when he turns the puck over it goes in the net. All four logged a healthy number of minutes. Johnsson had a pretty good season. Minus four on a division winner that only had plus five goals. He also had 27 points. Would I like him to score more...Yes.

I think it also shows just how important Burns is to this team. Burns has a plus minus differential of 60. That tells me when he plays good we win, when he plays bad we lose. Maybe his lack of consistency had something to do with the Wilds up and down play. We all saw how poor he played in the third period of game 5. That being said he is our best defensemen and the future looks bright. Shultz is our most consistent defensemen.

Here are a couple of defensemen who compare well with Johnsson. (Games, Teams with the same amount of points)  Scott Hannon minus 5 Colorado, 21 points. Trevor Daly minus 1 Dallas, 24 points. I'll take Johnsson.

I think a lot of the Wild's problems stem from lack of scoring. The only other playoff teams without double digit scoring differentials were Boston and New Jersey. Scoring is the Wilds problem. We score more, some of our defensive problems go away.

Like the commercial says, 90% of all statistics can be made to say anything you want 50% of the time.  Those stats tell me that when the Wild win, Johnsson and Skoula have little to do with it, and when we lose, the Dildaphonic Duo (especially Skoula) rack up the minuses so fast you need a calculator to keep up.  Sean Hill would make it the Terrible Trio.

Martin Skoula was starting to improve (I even *gasp* praised him in a couple of my blog entries) but he went back to his old self on the last game -- abandon his guy and make a bee line for the left goalpost, defend a piece of ice that no opponent is within 20 feet of, contemplate his navel and assume a statuesque pose, and hang your partner out to dry while scoring chances take place on the other side of the net.  If you have game tapes and a lot of free time, I'll bet the over/under on how many times you see #41 make that godawful non-play is about 214.

Kim Johnsson wouldn't be so bad if he were getting paid the NHL minimum, but he was signed for 4 mill a year to be an offensive blueliner and power play quarterback.  Four goals and 23 assists doesn't exactly cut it for that kind of coin.  If the guy could play D, I'd be OK with his lack of offense, but the guy is allergic to any physical contact whatsoever -- even Skoula can out-defend the Swedish Meathead.

Sean Hill is long gone, so there's no point wasting any breath on what I think of his play -- far as I can see, all he did was make Skoula and Johnsson look good once in a while.

Maybe instead of asking us why we aren't fans of these guys you could provide us with more reasons of why you are.  Skoula is easilly one of the slowest skaters on the team, he's not physical, he's not a particularly good passer, he doesn't offer much of anything offensively.  But at least he is only making 1.9 million in his contract year next season. (ciao Marty!)

Johnsson's minus-4, while only netting 4 goals himself, is most certainly not a good year when you consider that he is the 2nd highest paid player on the team.  If he were getting paid Skoula money, fine.  But with the higher salary comes higher expectations.  Sorry, but I view that as quite fair.  He'll be making 5.25 next season and 5.3 the following (2 million more per year than the likes of Burns and Schultz), his contract year.  I've seen plenty of Wild fans comment on how great a guy like Hossa would look in a Wild sweater.  Guess why the Wild will have a hard time making something like that work financially.

I can easily make an arguement for Johnsson. He logs a ton of ice time. I don't care about his lack of physicality because he has never been a physical player. I want to see more scoring from him, sure. Wouldn't it be nice if he had the offensive impact that Cambell had when he went to San Jose. I agree he hasn't had that type of offensive impact. I put the blame for that on LeMaire and his style of play. I think with a looser style of play he could have some point seasons like he had in Philly.

Skoula is a little harder to justify. He had a very poor numbers season. When he screws up the puck goes in the net. He must improve next year. I think he could benefit from playing with a physical stay at home defensman. A veteran who is south of 35.

Let's put some of the blame on the GM also. Risebourough needs to find some players that are not carbon copies of other players. Both Skoula and Johnsson are similar players. Neither are very physical, both need that physical presence to make them better.