POWER RANKINGS! Yesss...

And they do not disappoint.

9. Philadelphia Flyers (16-12-3, Previous: 7) – Do you think the Flyers have forgotten about losing all eight games last season to the Penguins, who did so by a combined score of 42-21? Well, Philly is 3-0 so far against Pittsburgh, and by a combined score of 16-5 along with plenty of barbs being traded back and forth in print. (Emphasis mine)

Look. Being an editor is one of my hobbies (not kidding). But this is my hockey time, Ross, and I don't really feel like archiving for myself grammar rules. You are a professional sportswriter. You should know this stuff. Nonetheless...:

Do you think the Flyers have forgotten about losing all eight games last season to the Penguins, who did so by a combined score of 42-21?

This is a kind of 'misplaced modifier' situation, except the whole clause is modifying the wrong thing. What this sentence literally says is (the fact that it is nonsensical aside), "The Flyers lost all eight games to the Penguins, and the Penguins lost by a combined scored of 42-21." A clause (or adjective or adverb) used like this modifies the subject immediately before it. So, the 'who did so...' clause is modifying 'Penguins.' Clear?

This is actually a minor run-on to begin with, which probably accounts for the abysmal syntax. The best way to stop abusing the English language would probably be to say, "The Flyers lost all eight games against the Penguins last season by a combined score of 42-21. Do you think they've forgotten?" That way you change the syntax up and 'Flyers' is being modified even though Penguins comes later. The reason is because there are two prepositional phrases, both of which by default have to modify the subject, 'Flyers.' (Prepositional phrases generally shouln't modify each other, and I'm having trouble coming up with a case in which a direct object would be modified like this.)

Sorry. Grammar whore. But seriously... isn't there some sentinent higher-up that reads over this stuff before it's posted and McKeon makes money?

I'll start talking about hockey again.

12. New York Rangers (16-13-3, Previous: 15) – Losing five of six happens to every team, but the fact the last three setbacks have been against Atlanta, Washington and Phoenix is troubling. The Blueshirts would like to think they're superior to these teams, but perhaps this once again points to the across-the-board parity in the league.

No, it does not signify parity. It signifies the Rangers sucking. If you had watched any of those three games (though in your defense, it doesn't exactly relate to your job as Yahoo! Sports' head honco of NHLdom), you wouldn't have seen 'parity,' you would have seen a Rangers team that I could beat. Single-handedly. They played like... well, the 1998-2004 Rangers. At the Phoenix game, MSG was half-empty by the end of the second period. Hell, I think I was the only one there when the final buzzer sounded. This isn't a sign of last-place teams getting better. It's a sign that the Rangers need to show up to work.


13. Carolina Hurricanes (17-14-3, Previous: 13) – With 109 goals allowed in 34 games and only killing off three of every four opponent power plays, it's surprising the 'Canes are a first-place team, and with a fairly comfortable lead no less.

Well, Ross, I know backing up your opinions isn't really you thing, but as of right now, although Carolina has in fact given up 111 goals, they've also scored 110... their goal differential (-1) isn't that astronomically bad. And, with that said, here's how the other teams in their division look:

Florida: -5
Atlanta: -22
Tampa: -10
Washington: -14

So, uh, why is it surprising they're in first?


Anyway, there was less this time, but I liked it more. Because it was more obviously wrong.

I also hate how half of the things he writes aren't even complete sentences. Gah.