TRAINING CAMP HOPEFUL NO. 12: RICHARD BACHMAN

Richard Bachman stopped 76 of 83 shots in the NHL for Edmonton a year ago, and didn’t win any of his three games. The 27-year old from Salt Lake City re-signed with Edmonton for 2014-15, and may get a game or two in the show again this season.

RE 13-14 REVIEW

NAME GP GAA SP
RICHARD BACHMAN OKC RE 13-14 45 2.29 .919
RICHARD BACHMAN OKC ACTUAL 13-14 52 2.99 .908

 RE 14-15 PREVIEW

NAME GP GAA SP
RICHARD BACHMAN OKC RE 14-15 40 2.65 .915
RICHARD BACHMAN OILERS RE 14-15 2 3.00 .908

OILERS PRO GOALIE DEPTH CHART

LEVEL STARTING GOALIE BACKUP GOALIE
OILERS BEN SCRIVENS VIKTOR FASTH
BARONS RICHARD BACHMAN LAURENT BROSSOIT
BAKERSFIELD TYLER BUNZ FRANS TUOHIMAA
HINTERLAND TY RIMMER
  1. How much will he play in Edmonton? Strictly injury minutes is my guess. Bachman is a fine goalie who could still have an NHL career, but he may not get much of a chance this season.
  2. How much will he play in Oklahoma City? Great question. I think he remains No. 1, but the Oilers have to give Brossoit a real look this season in Oklahoma City.
  3. Is that photo by Rob Ferguson? All rights reserved.
  4. Does Tyler Bunz have a chance to make it as a pro? Goalies are funny, it’s best not to make sweeping statements about them. Bunz was a damn good junior.
  5. Tuohimaa is kind of a mystery. Yes, I think Edmonton will give him some OKC games if he plays well in California.
  6. Ty Rimmer isn’t really part of the organization. Sure he is. Plus MacTavish signed him. I think he’s got a chance to be on next year’s 50 man.

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

13 Responses to "TRAINING CAMP HOPEFUL NO. 12: RICHARD BACHMAN"

  1. D says:

    http://youtu.be/4LNH27s5ULE

    I am a big fan of Bachman and really feel that he is a great #3 option for the Oilers.

  2. Ryan says:

    D:
    http://youtu.be/4LNH27s5ULE

    I am a big fan of Bachman and really feel that he is a great #3 option for the Oilers.

    We all saw him good vs the Kings last season. :)

    I started up at this blog around the time I was getting bored with the us mensa forum.

    When it’s between 8:00 and 8:30 am and I am hitting the refresh button on my ipad to check for the fresh thread, I sort of think I know what it’s like to be a crackhead btw…:)

    Despite the likely perception of me here, I am actually an eternal optimist… But I do work hard to keep that optimist in check. Being an optimist doesn’t reconcile well with being a fan of the Edmonton Oilers. :)

    Anyway, in my optimist scenario, you put too many smart kids in a room–Hall, Eberle, Yakupopv, Nuge, Draisatl, and Perron and something. Good is bound to happen, right? Especially with Dellow whispering corgis into Eakin’s ear.

  3. Invalid Username says:

    I really liked him in The Guess Who.

  4. supernova says:

    Lowetide:
    Mirtle with some really good stuff here

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/oilers-hiring-move-deepens-leagues-interest-in-analytics/article20023848/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it

    Good stuff here for sure.

    Eakins is very progressive on this as a coach.

    The way he carries himself in the media he portrayed the opposite. If the Oilers start out well this could be a long lasting relationship. If they start out like last year everything will be reexamined again. The downside to this is Dellow needs time to make an impact and he needs a listening ear with the coaches.

    Hiring your biggest vocal critic is an astute business move.

    Not needing to be the smartest in the room is an astute coaching move.

    Jury is still out on you Eakins but cheers to your offseason work.

  5. spoiler says:

    You know, I don’t think Tyler would have the same caustic reputation if the MSM hadn’t done such a close-minded job of pooh-poohing advanced statistics and their role in hockey. They are equally to blame for the tone of how the debate has progressed. I’m surprised no one has mentioned this.

    But I am not surprised by media’s attack on advanced stats as this burgeoning new field clearly impacts and inhibits their ability to spin a narrative, which after all, is their job.

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
    –Upton Sinclair

    Nor does anyone want to have to pull up their bootstraps, when they’ve been running barefoot and fancy free for years.

    The present positions SunMedia members are promulgating are the same as their past positions.

  6. justDOit says:

    spoiler: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
    –Upton Sinclair

    From his Wiki page:

    Sinclair was considered a muckraker, or journalist who exposed corruption in government and business.[3] He first published the novel in serial form in 1905 in the socialist newspaper, Appeal to Reason, between February 25, 1905, and November 4, 1905. In 1904, Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards for the newspaper. It was published as a book on February 26, 1906 by Doubleday and in a subscribers’ edition.[4]

    It would have been heartbreaking to read that Upton went to work for the meat industry, but I too thought of him when reading about Dellow’s treatment by the msm.

  7. book¡je says:

    spoiler:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
    –Upton Sinclair

    I think this is the key issue. For decades the media had the grand job of watching the press conference and then summarizing it for the next day’s news. Then came internet and we can all now watch the press conference ourselves.

    Bloggers have stepped up the game with insight, analysis, personal tales of large wooden travel boxes, etc. and media types didn’t keep up. The Willis article earlier today that takes on Van Diest made this clear.

  8. book¡je says:

    justDOit: From his Wiki page:

    Sinclair was considered a muckraker, or journalist who exposed corruption in government and business.[3] He first published the novel in serial form in 1905 in the socialist newspaper, Appeal to Reason, between February 25, 1905, and November 4, 1905. In 1904, Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards for the newspaper. It was published as a book on February 26, 1906 by Doubleday and in a subscribers’ edition.[4]

    It would have been heartbreaking to read that Upton went to work for the meat industry, but I too thought of him when reading about Dellow’s treatment by the msm.

    In my worldview, the 20 or so years of the progressive movement are a pivotal point in our society’s progress. Everyone should learn about it.

  9. franksterra says:

    I am not an MSM, Saw Him Good, ‘Ol Timey-ness or Ossified Hockey Culture apologist, but there is a curious refrain developing here:

    ‘Dellow’ (I’ll use quotes to denote the ‘Dellow’ as a new type, so this is not necessarily Tyler) is a new curative radiation or drug pellet that only needs to be injected into the body of the sick Management Group Patient. If ‘Dellow’ doesn’t succeed it won’t have anything to do with ‘Dellow’, but will only be because the Management Group Patient body rejected him, or because the fans and media gathered in the medical gallery became impatient with the lack of immediately visible positive results.

    ‘Dellow’ is accruing a lot of Voodoo Medical Specialist God status in this scenario (dare I say narrative?)

  10. Deadman Waiting says:

    book¡je:
    In my worldview, the 20 or so years of the progressive movement are a pivotal point in our society’s progress. Everyone should learn about it.

    If that’s all there was to it, I would have “learned about” a myriad of things long before the Internet buffet arrived on my Ethernet port. Once the Internet arrived, and it became practical to careful choose one’s entry point, I started to learn about everything, in a controlled demolition, where each crumbling wall falls precisely into the next.

    It was just last week I bumped into Michael Onfray, a French philosophical gadfly with an actual perspective. When Jon Stewart first walked on stage at some comedy dive in NY city with an “open mic” event (as I recall the story), he died a thousand deaths on stage (for this I have images of Chekov writhing in the agony booth), but the bald guy running the club said to himself “you know what, this guy is different—there’s a thinking perspective behind his humour” so he invited Jon to appear regularly (and, by degrees, die a little less in each performance).

    There is in fact a multitude of ways to practice philosophy, but out of this multitude, the dominant historiography picks one tradition among others and makes it the truth of philosophy: that is to say the idealist, spiritualist lineage compatible with the Judeo-Christian world view.

    As soon as anything treads on the Garden of Eden or “sins of the father” I’m heading for the exit. The implicit notion, the boundary condition on the human condition, becomes the purity of creation. Civilization is thus cast as a doomed yearning. The correct model, in my world view, is one of gradualism, both in our behaviours and our attitude toward those behaviours. I have no use for the story behind the story, which I regard as being rooted in weak imagination. Much of the human race possesses this weird instinct to baulk at history as self-made. One can teach the Sieve of Eratosthenes to a five-year-old Greek child in 200 BC, and we’re still struggling to master the pattern obtained. It would be a surprising Green five year old (even for the classical era) who comes back to you a month later to discuss the Riemann zeta function (as we now know it). It’s true that nothing will come of nothing, but in mathematics it’s simply outrageous how much unfolds from a meagre grain or rice. This is, in my opinion, the number one reason why many children first conclude that they are no good at mathematics—before they devote themselves to a long career writing the proof. They reject the potency of the grain of rice, and then fail to see anything else (a foregone result, as there is nothing else).

    Philosophy that comes down from the heavens is the kind that – from Plato to Levinas by way of Kant and Christianity – needs a world behind the scenes to understand, explain and justify this world. The other line of force rises from the earth because it is satisfied with the given world, which is already so much. [my emphasis]

    But for a grain of rice, God exists. I don’t believe this in full, but I do believe that many people invoke God where the grain of rice already suffices.

    For me, history is just a bunch of dangerous facts until I orient myself to contest the Platonic lens. That took decades of sustained stubbornness.

    Taylorism is a lot like hockey analytics. In the early days it was oversold so as to better overcome entrenched resistance. Some of the early practitioners oversold themselves all the way to celebrity, taking up the reins of a noisy bandwagon. The birth canal of a new cultural norm is a noisy rupture.

    The die-hard regressivists run around discrediting anyone who stands anywhere near a noisy rupture. If my Latin were better, I’d update ad hominem to ad contentio, attacking ideas over the magnitude of the surrounding din (to which ad contentio is itself a hypocritical accelerant). “Return to us, we’re the keepers of the peaceful garden!” they shriek into the fray. Uh, maybe it’s just me, but I’m going to take a rain check on the whole idea of the peaceful garden, all the way back (at least) to 6 million BP (before Plato).

    I think history is the easiest subject to survey (for the man of one book) and the hardest subject to actually learn.

    ———

    While I’m passing through politics (and Latin) at Mach 2, I might as well add to what I almost wrote the other day concerning the MSM slapdown of Tyler Dellow. It concerns Homo unius libri timeo: “I fear the man of one book”.

    Aquinas’s words are generally quoted today in disparagement of the man whose mental horizons are limited to one book. Aquinas, however, meant that a man who has thoroughly mastered one good book can be dangerous as an opponent. The Greek poet Archilochus meant something like this when he said that the fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

    It’s true. One book (or one shoe) can be thumped to greatest effect.

    [Edit: I changed "slammed" to "thumped" as the former harboured a twinge of Freudian wish fulfillment (subject/object ambiguity).]

  11. spoiler says:

    Deadman Waiting: [Edit: I changed "slammed" to "thumped" as the former harboured a twinge of Freudian wish fulfillment (subject/object ambiguity).]

    When discussing the progressive movement with any misguided advocate of Taylorism or scientific management, Freud should always be involved.

    I’m not saying direct government and anti-trust laws and suffrage and the fight against corruption weren’t important. I’m saying there’s a big difference between ending wrongs and the positivism of telling everyone what is good for them. That’s a very large step in a different direction.

    It takes an incredible ego to think that any one person knows best for every person. It takes an incredible ego to think that a complex society can be top down managed by a “select” group of people or person. It takes a “Messiah” complex. Surely just our disagreements on these political issues is enough to reveal that one person doesn’t know what’s best for the next person?

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca