12/21/24
February 27, 2004
More excellent content from Tascastake: excerpts from a radio interview with Connecticut Radio Network hockey correspondent Gerry Cantlon dealing with a wide array of current issues facing the NHL.
I don't understand what all the fuss is over ties. It's an 82 (?) game season - it's all about getting into the playoffs. So there's an occaisional tie, big deal. That only sets the stage for the most exciting moments in sports - unlimited playoff overtime. The 4-on-4 OT change was great, really opens up the offense. Not sure how much the OTL rule changed things but it feels like they try to score in OT more than they used to. It would be interesting to see how the last, say, 10 seasons standings would change under various W/L/T point schemes.
posted by kokaku at 02:22 PM on February 27, 2004
The Pens won a Cup on a rink with an extra foot behind the goal line, being the only, or one of the only, rink(s) with those dimensions. In 1992he following year the league changed the red line uniformly to 11 feet out. I believe it was 1991. Gotta love ESPN Classic. For some reason, the NHL didn't mandate rink size. Not sure if they do today, and I'm not sure why they don't. You'll hear $$ arguments, but I think that's all hogwash. If the NHL wanted to set a standard, teams would have to follow. kokaku, I agree teams seem to try and score in OT, which is an improvement. But I think more teams play for the tie to secure the 1 point, rather than go for the win in regulation...because its only a 1 point difference in the standing if you lose in OT. But imagine if a win were 3 points ( i know asthetically it seems odd, but give it a chance), teams would play for the win outright, and from the beginning. And it just doesn't seem right to have a team with more points, but less wins, in the playoffs before the team that won more games. I hear it constantly on ESPN NHL 04, 'hockey is the hardest game to win.' Why not reward that measure of difficulty?
posted by garfield at 02:32 PM on February 27, 2004
Oh yeah.....the Wings picked up potential scoring champ Robert Lang.
posted by garfield at 02:34 PM on February 27, 2004
^^ Damn, wasn't expecting the Wings to get in on the Washington sweep-stakes. Also, re: ice size. Yes, the sizes did vary back then more so than now. I have no problem with it -- it's home team advantage, after all. And if you can have differently sized fields in baseball, I don't see why you couldn't have differently sized ice surfaces. As to why someone hasn't done a larger ice surface? Well, I *think* there are some mandated limits on that -- but mostly it's just tradition, I assume. It would be interesting to see how the last, say, 10 seasons standings would change under various W/L/T point schemes. Actually, I was going to do this with this year's final standings (way to spoil it!) Analyze the standings (and match-ups) that would arise if the point system was: as it currently is; without divisional seeding; with three point games (I'm really in favour of this); with NO OTL points; and the latter two with and without divisional seeding. I think it'd be a good comparison.
posted by mkn at 02:42 PM on February 27, 2004
I think 3 pts for a win would be a good motivator. Would an OT win also count as 3 pts? Tie remains 1 point. OTL? I still think that the biggest thing they could so is sit the refs down and get them to agree on hooking/holding/obstruction/etc, start calling it regularly and consistently, and keep calling it that way for the whole season. Games would slow down at first with lots of PPs (but are more scoring opportunities a bad thing?). Then once players adjusted to the new system penalties would decline, and the game would be cleaner and more fun to watch. I'm tired of watching lousy players defend by mugging someone to keep them away from the puck or watching a skilled shooter fail to get a shot off because of the stick wrapped around his body. You'd see the trap go away pretty quickly because to a large extent it depends on this kind of shady activity to slow down offenses.
posted by kokaku at 02:52 PM on February 27, 2004
Would an OT win also count as 3 pts? Tie remains 1 point. OTL? A win would be 3 points. Overtime win would be 2 points (with one point to the loser). Tie would be 1 a piece. The main thing about this is that it fixes the largest problem with OTL -- 3 point games. A game that goes into OT is automatically, if there's a winner, worth more (2 points winner; 1 point loser) than any other game. Hypothetical situation: Team A is tied for 7th place with two other teams (B and C), but is seeded 7th because it has the most wins. Team B and Team C play each other, and team B wins in OT. Team B gets 2 points; Team C gets 1 point. And, despite team C losing, Team A is knocked out of the playoffs. This is stupid. This is already happening.
posted by mkn at 03:02 PM on February 27, 2004
I also like the idea of 3 points for a win, 2 for a OT win and 1 for a OT loss. I believe that a lot of soccer leagues have had this setup for some time now, bascially for the same reasons. While mkn's hypothetical situation seems unfair, the same end result would occur if the game ended in a tie. Even though neither team B or C won, both would make the playoffs because they would each get a point. Is that fair? I can imagine a worse senario. Imagine the same senario, but team A was 1 point up on team B & C and had fewer wins than either team. In the end the rules are the same for everyone and they are black and white. Sometimes they work in your favour sometime they don't. While we are at it why don't we take the top 16 teams in the league to make the playoffs rather than the top 8 in each division. Every year 1 teams complains that they would've made it to the playoffs if they were in the other division. I'll second what kokaku had to say in regards to the refs. First go back to 1 ref and give the linesman a little more power to make some calls. They use to be able to call high sticking majors. Then tell the refs to call the game by the book for the ENTIRE game. A slash is a slash. It doesn't matter if it was only a little one, and there is only 2 minutes left in a tie game; call it. Same thing for holding. If you take you hand off your stick and grab someone, even for just a second, it should be called. Many people will cry 'let the players decide the game, not the refs', but that is a load of cr*p. The players are deciding the game, the ref is just making sure they abide by the rules. Common sense really. Lastly they have to stick to it for the enire season and the playoffs. Like kokaku said, to start games would be just 1 penalty after another, but if the refs are consistant then it would get better over time. The problem these days is the refs call games differently every day it seems.
posted by camcanuck at 03:47 PM on February 27, 2004
Since one FPP hockey post is enough, here is alittle hockey story that'll make you cry. don't forget to scroll down a bit....awesome pics.
posted by garfield at 04:51 PM on February 27, 2004
one FPP hockey post. I amaze myself sometimes. Yipes!
posted by garfield at 04:54 PM on February 27, 2004
Geez, garf, not just a rink but a rink with commercial sponsors. Dizzam!
posted by billsaysthis at 07:37 PM on February 27, 2004
bill, that rink is the equivalent of a treehouse with plumbing.
posted by garfield at 08:34 AM on March 02, 2004
Still, never would have seen it's like in my upscale NJ neighborhood growing up, and we were among the top towns in the state for ice hockey.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:58 AM on March 02, 2004
bill, did you check out the al queda article? now go look at the reactions in the comment section. people make me laugh....often.
posted by garfield at 11:46 AM on March 02, 2004
garf, people are stoopid, big time, for the most part and that is the primary cause of this world's problems. fortunately, you and i are above that and can laugh at them. BWAH HA HA HA HAH!!!!!
posted by billsaysthis at 07:59 PM on March 02, 2004
Okay I have a question about ice size. In the old Boston Garden it was said the ice surface was smaller than most other rinks. I honestly can't find any links to back this up so perhaps I'm wrong. Wasn't the Spectrum in Philly was also a little smaller than average? So why were they never forced to enlarge the ice to NHL standards? If you have a fast skating team right now what's stopping your from removing the first couple rows of seats to give your team a little more ice to use at home? Colorodo or Edmonton could put that ice to good use. Just a thought. I agree with most of Gerry's comments, but I'm not so opposed to the shoot-out. For regular season games I think it would be fun for the fans. The idea of no points for a tie doesn't make much sense. I can't think of any other league that has such a rule so it would be tough to see what effect it would have on the game. I believe the only effect it would have would be to make the lower end teams fall lower in the standings. Right now Min, LA, Phoenix have the most ties.