Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hockhist] The Winter Classic

Expand Messages
  • Lloyd Davis
    I m not sure how that solves the other perceived debacle whereby every team is in the playoff race. If a team loses in regulation time, it could still
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not sure how that solves the other perceived "debacle" whereby
      "every team is in the playoff race." If a team loses in regulation
      time, it could still pocket the shootout point. The value of a win in
      regulation time has already been diluted by the participation badges
      handed out for shootout and overtime losses. Unless you do something
      to fully value a 60-minute win, you run the risk of further
      distorting the standings.

      The effect of the OTL and SOL points is an esthetic offence, and I
      don't like it, but I don't think it hurts business. Here in Toronto,
      for instance, we've got a team that in any other sport would have a .
      390 winning percentage (played 41 games, only won 16). Ratings would
      be down, and while the arena would still be relentlessly sold out,
      tickets wouldn't cost as much on the secondary market.

      But in HockeyWorld, the Leafs are "only one game under .500," and
      just three points behind the Islanders for that magical eighth
      playoff seed in the Eastern Conference. (Cause, you know, once you
      get in the playoffs, anything can happen. Just ask the Edmonton
      Oilers and, um, well, the Edmonton Oilers.)

      Suddenly, there are more meaningful games to be played, not only now,
      but late in the season. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar effect
      could be observed in other cities where lousy teams appear to at
      least be mediocre. (I'm not saying a high level of late-season
      interest is maintained in the Washingtons, Miamis and Atlantas, but
      at least the level of apathy would not be boosted).



      On 4-Jan-08, at 9:31 AM, Leslee47@... wrote:

      > Maybe I was not clear about what I think regarding shootouts. I
      > would like
      > to see them after every game, ties or not, for an extra point. So
      > every game
      > would have 3 points at stake.

      --
      Lloyd Davis
      Butterfield 8 Inc.
      19 Tennis Crescent, #6
      Toronto, ON M4K 1J4
      416 462 0230
      ldaviseditor@...
      --
    • Lloyd Davis
      Front page of the Globe and Mail sports section this morning carried a photo of a tussle between Darcy (Sideshow Bob) Tucker and Jarkko (Please Don t Kick Me)
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Front page of the Globe and Mail sports section this morning carried
        a photo of a tussle between Darcy (Sideshow Bob) Tucker and Jarkko
        (Please Don't Kick Me) Ruutu that occupied nearly all the space above
        the fold.

        Face it: aggressive hockey is back in Charlestown.

        On 1-Jan-08, at 6:47 PM, hockey collector wrote:

        > Or is the NHL/Gary Bettman trying to widen the games appeal by
        > portraying
        > some of the "taboo" stuff?

        --
        Lloyd Davis
        Butterfield 8 Inc.
        19 Tennis Crescent, #6
        Toronto, ON M4K 1J4
        416 462 0230
        ldaviseditor@...
        --
      • Leslee47@aol.com
        I understand what you are saying, but my point is that, if spreading the game in the US is still high on the NHL s agenda, that a shootout every game is
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I understand what you are saying, but my point is that, if spreading the
          game in the US is still high on the NHL's agenda, that a shootout every game is
          something that might bring folks in (if you advertise it properly) and keep
          them in the seats until the end of the game. As it is now, as the winner of
          the games become obvious, folks start heading for the exits. A clean slate
          shootout, for a point, might keep them around.

          The other point is that, like you, I am opposed to participation points.
          Under the system I am proposing, only the winners get something. And I think
          that the teams would play differently, knowing that one point was not available
          for getting to an overtime period. I don't think you would have the standings
          looking like they do now. And using the Leafs as an example, I don't think
          that they would have anywhere near as many points under this system. Up through
          January 3rd, they have been involved in OTs 11 times this season; 4 have
          gone to shootouts. They have only won two OTs and 1 SO. Obviously not a good
          shootout team, there is no way that they would be getting alot of points that
          way. Under my system, the team would have 30 points plus whatever they got in
          shootouts and be well out of it, as they should be. The Canadiens are another
          team that would be nowhere near contention. They have gone to 7 SOs and have
          won exactly 2. They have had an OT decision 4 times, winning only 2. No way
          they should be in second place in the division.

          I think this is frustrating for all of us. We just have different ideas
          about how to fix it, especially since growing the game in the US still seems to
          be high on the NHL agenda.

          Leslie



          **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
          http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • epenaltybox
          Fallacy #1: The NHL will grow the game in the U.S. with gimmicks. Hockey has been played in San Diego and San Francisco since 1916 - both cities of about the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Fallacy #1: The NHL will grow the game in the U.S. with gimmicks.
            Hockey has been played in San Diego and San Francisco since 1916 -
            both cities of about the same size and the same amount of natural ice
            surfaces (namely zero).

            In one city the sport is popular, the other is basically non-existant.

            If the NHL is ever going to grow in the U.S., the teams need to grow
            communities.

            Morey - who reminds everyone that everyone may be on their feet when
            a shootout occurs, but everyone was on their feet in Anaheim when
            Lucy Lawless' top came down during the National Anthem. I don't
            think that should be a daily event either.

            --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Leslee47@... wrote:
            >
            > I understand what you are saying, but my point is that, if
            spreading the
            > game in the US is still high on the NHL's agenda, that a shootout
            every game is
            > something that might bring folks in (if you advertise it properly)
            and keep
            > them in the seats until the end of the game. As it is now, as the
            winner of
            > the games become obvious, folks start heading for the exits. A
            clean slate
            > shootout, for a point, might keep them around.
            >
            > The other point is that, like you, I am opposed to participation
            points.
            > Under the system I am proposing, only the winners get something.
            And I think
            > that the teams would play differently, knowing that one point was
            not available
            > for getting to an overtime period. I don't think you would have the
            standings
            > looking like they do now. And using the Leafs as an example, I
            don't think
            > that they would have anywhere near as many points under this
            system. Up through
            > January 3rd, they have been involved in OTs 11 times this season;
            4 have
            > gone to shootouts. They have only won two OTs and 1 SO. Obviously
            not a good
            > shootout team, there is no way that they would be getting alot of
            points that
            > way. Under my system, the team would have 30 points plus whatever
            they got in
            > shootouts and be well out of it, as they should be. The Canadiens
            are another
            > team that would be nowhere near contention. They have gone to 7
            SOs and have
            > won exactly 2. They have had an OT decision 4 times, winning only
            2. No way
            > they should be in second place in the division.
            >
            > I think this is frustrating for all of us. We just have different
            ideas
            > about how to fix it, especially since growing the game in the US
            still seems to
            > be high on the NHL agenda.
            >
            > Leslie
            >
            >
            >
            > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in
            shape.
            > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?
            NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • J.P. Martel
            First, let me state that, according to my research, there aren t teams that are good at shootouts. Shootouts are nearly only pure luck (though good goalies
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              First, let me state that, according to my research, there aren't
              teams that are "good" at shootouts. Shootouts are nearly only
              pure luck (though good goalies help a little), and so teams
              that do better are simply more lucky. If you know anything about
              correlation, I'll tell you this: the correlation between the
              winning average (shootout results excluded, i.e. each team being
              given 1 point) of the 30 NHL teams between 2005-06 and 2006-07
              is 0.576. The correlation between the shootout success of those
              same NHL teams for the same two seasons is 0.035. Reminder:
              perfect correlation is 1.00, while total absence of correlation
              is 0.00. Who knows, at the end of this season we may even see
              negative correlation.

              What this means is: overall, a good team one year will pretty
              much remain a good team next year, with of course some variation
              (thank goodness) and some big exceptions (in this case, the
              Penguins did much better and the Flyers did much worse). On the
              other side, overall, how one team does in shootouts one season
              tells you nothing whatsoever about how it will do the following
              season, even for teams that hardly make any changes to their
              line-up. Not coincidentally (as I see it), you would see the
              same kind of situation if teams flipped coins instead of going
              to shootouts.

              That said, and even if shootout results weren't pure luck, what
              you suggest would be a very bad idea. Imagine going to a game
              where your team plays a great and exciting game, and in the end
              gets a hard-fought 4-3 win. You're all happy and you celebrate
              with the friends who went to the game with you. Then, they go
              to the shootout, and your team loses that. Doesn't that take
              away from your enjoyment of the game? I mean, big time?
              Are the players themselves supposed to celebrate after
              the game for getting more points than their opponent, or be
              disappointed for blowing their chance of getting 3 points in
              an evening?

              Furthermore, if shootouts occur in every game, then they basically
              become an intrinsic part of the game. So what happens in the
              playoffs? Suddenly you remove an intrinsic part of the game
              from the game? What do you do with the guys you hired because
              they were shootout specialists and helped you for every single
              one of the 82 regular-season games, but now can't put their skills
              to use? (Because, if regular-season games are going to go to
              unlimited OT as you suggest, then obviously so will the
              playoff games).

              I don't think even the NHL would dare pull this one off.

              Now, I've heard it suggested for soccer that the shootout take
              place *before* the game, while still only being used as a
              tie-breaker. So you know before the game starts which team who
              will win if the game is not decided in regulation time or OT.
              The rationale is that at least one team will definitely not
              be playing for the tie.

              Well, I hate that too. As much as I don't like the shootout, I
              also think this would be even worse. And just ask yourself this:
              do you count the stats of the shootouts that ended up not being
              used?

              J.-Patrice

              --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Leslee47@... wrote:
              >
              > I understand what you are saying, but my point is that, if
              spreading the
              > game in the US is still high on the NHL's agenda, that a shootout
              every game is
              > something that might bring folks in (if you advertise it
              properly) and keep
              > them in the seats until the end of the game. As it is now, as the
              winner of
              > the games become obvious, folks start heading for the exits. A
              clean slate
              > shootout, for a point, might keep them around.
              >
              > The other point is that, like you, I am opposed to participation
              points.
              > Under the system I am proposing, only the winners get something.
              And I think
              > that the teams would play differently, knowing that one point was
              not available
              > for getting to an overtime period. I don't think you would have
              the standings
              > looking like they do now. And using the Leafs as an example, I
              don't think
              > that they would have anywhere near as many points under this
              system. Up through
              > January 3rd, they have been involved in OTs 11 times this season;
              4 have
              > gone to shootouts. They have only won two OTs and 1 SO. Obviously
              not a good
              > shootout team, there is no way that they would be getting alot of
              points that
              > way. Under my system, the team would have 30 points plus whatever
              they got in
              > shootouts and be well out of it, as they should be. The Canadiens
              are another
              > team that would be nowhere near contention. They have gone to 7
              SOs and have
              > won exactly 2. They have had an OT decision 4 times, winning only
              2. No way
              > they should be in second place in the division.
              >
              > I think this is frustrating for all of us. We just have different
              ideas
              > about how to fix it, especially since growing the game in the US
              still seems to
              > be high on the NHL agenda.
              >
              > Leslie
            • William Underwood
              I think that growth in the US is a moot point.it will only ever be incremental. However being competitive in an ever more competitive ENTERTAINMENT market is
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                I think that growth in the US is a moot point.it will only ever be
                incremental. However being competitive in an ever more competitive
                ENTERTAINMENT market is VITAL.



                Too me shoot out is a plus for the reasons given plus the "high drama" that
                it is not as much forma hockey but TV view.as hockey folks we call it a
                gimmick.TV folks see it as two gunslingers out at high noon! And this is not
                only to bring novice US fans in but remember "Show Down in the NHL" went
                over big in Canada too!



                One thing that I would like to see is a 3-2-1-0 point system.This would
                accomplish keeping the shoot out but also valuing the shoot out reliant team
                more realistically. Simply put "be a real man and win in reg and you get
                rewarded.be conservative and you not only may LOSE IT ALL but lose 1 point
                the minute we go past 60" and one point for the chicken that goes to shoot
                out.you lose 2-3 points. Does it lack an aesthetic view? Not
                really.standings would be similar to today

                W L OTW SOW a simple four columns.seem familiar. To make it easier put it in
                descending point order.And we only have one new valuation as we have a 2-1-0
                system.



                The real issue is two fold.ENTERTAINMENT and trying not reward the
                unworthy.the shoot out and no chance of the sister kisser adds tension but
                it still allows you to play chicken hockey and strive for 1 point. A 3-2-1-0
                makes you give pause and think "if this goes to shoot out I lose 2 points
                MINIMUM." AND the system right now makes the cheapo gimmick win the same as
                a well played three period one and it is right to point out that
                inequity.even an OT win is a cheapo.it can be the reward of 60 minutes of
                chicken hockey followed by a fluke played in a 4 on 4 format.5 minutes of
                good hockey after 60 minutes of dull hockey. To me the ENTERTAINMENT issue
                is to make the first 60 the main point and the rest added drama.



                Another thing is DUMP THE INSTIGATOR RULE. Like it or not enforcers
                represent high drama too. Drama hockey style is not supposed to be "30
                Something", where we have domesticated, sissified, whining, crying saps
                agonize over their sensitive side for 60 minutes! It is supposed to the
                "Good, the Bad and The Ugly". Goons give us all three.to the locals they are
                Batman out to fight the latest evil villain to invade Gotham and to keep it
                safe for scorers. The opposing goon is both the Bad and the Ugly.Two
                gunslingers fight it out at high noon.Plus if you cut guys like this loose
                you are LESS likely to see an ugly incident.your friendly local goon has a
                rep and generally follows a code with its own honor.you don't pick on little
                guys, you drop the gloves, you get the guy to drop them with you. And I am
                not saying that there still won't be bad incidents but those can happen from
                ANY circle given the right scenario. But if these guys can just DO their job
                with less worry about the instigator they may even do so BETTER with less
                incident. I don't know of a player that I have talked to say that it should
                not be gone! Don Cherry said it best.when Ottawa and Buffalo met in the
                playoffs what was on the cover of the paper? Not Ray Emery making a glove
                save but suing his glove hand in the pugilistic manner. I grew up in
                Philly.# 8 (Schultz) was more revered than any outside of 16 (Clarke) and 1
                (Parent).still to this day fans remember him, Kelly and Saleski. Who was one
                of the first two players in the Phantom HOF.Frank "the Animal" Bialowas. As
                fighting has went down so have crowds in the minors.even college hockey
                folks say to me "you guys have to bring the goons back." And it isn't just
                Philly or the minors.I'd love to have had a concession for the Domi sweater
                in TO!



                The odd outdoor game is nice but lets face it, we are talking freak show.
                You are selling an ODDITY not hockey and the two can't be confused. A lot of
                those people who see the snowy outdoor view and like what they see will say
                once the picturesque setting is gone."no thanks." Other things can be done
                to sell the thousand plus other games.like work on making the first 60 as
                good as the extra 5 and make it MORE IMPORTANT than the supplemental frames
                where we get to gimmickry all too often to make up for the consummate
                boredom of regulation. And bring back the "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
                EVERYBODY loves a good Western!







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • epenaltybox
                I m not going to respond to every comment - largely because of time constraints (my own) but also because I agree with them. What s the difference between the
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 6, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm not going to respond to every comment - largely because of time
                  constraints (my own) but also because I agree with them.

                  What's the difference between the NFL and the NHL (or any other
                  sport)? Every game is an event. The NHL can't say that - there are
                  too many games. But if the league can create a game a week in each
                  city that is a MUST-SEE event, then there will be growth. Although I
                  have never been a football fan - and still don't consider myself one
                  (I went to my first regular season NFL game in 30 years last month) -
                  I find myself rushing home to see if San Diego can win a playoff game.

                  A client came in and told me about the Kings loss the night before -
                  and I didn't even know they played. And I consider myself a fan...

                  The NFL has the best system for engaging fans and for making most
                  games events. The Outdoor Classic was the one moment this year fr
                  the NHL - gimmick or not. (Hey, it even worked in Las Vegas for a
                  preseason game between the Kings and Rangers back in 91. Too bad
                  most of you missed it.)

                  The NHL has overleveraged itself in order to make its games as
                  events. I'll expound more on this later, but now it is 45 minutes
                  before kick-off, I'm still at my office, and it's a half-hour home.
                  Go Chargers!

                  Morey

                  --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > I think that growth in the US is a moot point.it will only ever be
                  > incremental. However being competitive in an ever more competitive
                  > ENTERTAINMENT market is VITAL.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Too me shoot out is a plus for the reasons given plus the "high
                  drama" that
                  > it is not as much forma hockey but TV view.as hockey folks we call
                  it a
                  > gimmick.TV folks see it as two gunslingers out at high noon! And
                  this is not
                  > only to bring novice US fans in but remember "Show Down in the NHL"
                  went
                  > over big in Canada too!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > One thing that I would like to see is a 3-2-1-0 point system.This
                  would
                  > accomplish keeping the shoot out but also valuing the shoot out
                  reliant team
                  > more realistically. Simply put "be a real man and win in reg and
                  you get
                  > rewarded.be conservative and you not only may LOSE IT ALL but lose
                  1 point
                  > the minute we go past 60" and one point for the chicken that goes
                  to shoot
                  > out.you lose 2-3 points. Does it lack an aesthetic view? Not
                  > really.standings would be similar to today
                  >
                  > W L OTW SOW a simple four columns.seem familiar. To make it easier
                  put it in
                  > descending point order.And we only have one new valuation as we
                  have a 2-1-0
                  > system.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The real issue is two fold.ENTERTAINMENT and trying not reward the
                  > unworthy.the shoot out and no chance of the sister kisser adds
                  tension but
                  > it still allows you to play chicken hockey and strive for 1 point.
                  A 3-2-1-0
                  > makes you give pause and think "if this goes to shoot out I lose 2
                  points
                  > MINIMUM." AND the system right now makes the cheapo gimmick win the
                  same as
                  > a well played three period one and it is right to point out that
                  > inequity.even an OT win is a cheapo.it can be the reward of 60
                  minutes of
                  > chicken hockey followed by a fluke played in a 4 on 4 format.5
                  minutes of
                  > good hockey after 60 minutes of dull hockey. To me the
                  ENTERTAINMENT issue
                  > is to make the first 60 the main point and the rest added drama.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Another thing is DUMP THE INSTIGATOR RULE. Like it or not enforcers
                  > represent high drama too. Drama hockey style is not supposed to
                  be "30
                  > Something", where we have domesticated, sissified, whining, crying
                  saps
                  > agonize over their sensitive side for 60 minutes! It is supposed to
                  the
                  > "Good, the Bad and The Ugly". Goons give us all three.to the locals
                  they are
                  > Batman out to fight the latest evil villain to invade Gotham and to
                  keep it
                  > safe for scorers. The opposing goon is both the Bad and the Ugly.Two
                  > gunslingers fight it out at high noon.Plus if you cut guys like
                  this loose
                  > you are LESS likely to see an ugly incident.your friendly local
                  goon has a
                  > rep and generally follows a code with its own honor.you don't pick
                  on little
                  > guys, you drop the gloves, you get the guy to drop them with you.
                  And I am
                  > not saying that there still won't be bad incidents but those can
                  happen from
                  > ANY circle given the right scenario. But if these guys can just DO
                  their job
                  > with less worry about the instigator they may even do so BETTER
                  with less
                  > incident. I don't know of a player that I have talked to say that
                  it should
                  > not be gone! Don Cherry said it best.when Ottawa and Buffalo met in
                  the
                  > playoffs what was on the cover of the paper? Not Ray Emery making a
                  glove
                  > save but suing his glove hand in the pugilistic manner. I grew up in
                  > Philly.# 8 (Schultz) was more revered than any outside of 16
                  (Clarke) and 1
                  > (Parent).still to this day fans remember him, Kelly and Saleski.
                  Who was one
                  > of the first two players in the Phantom HOF.Frank "the Animal"
                  Bialowas. As
                  > fighting has went down so have crowds in the minors.even college
                  hockey
                  > folks say to me "you guys have to bring the goons back." And it
                  isn't just
                  > Philly or the minors.I'd love to have had a concession for the Domi
                  sweater
                  > in TO!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The odd outdoor game is nice but lets face it, we are talking freak
                  show.
                  > You are selling an ODDITY not hockey and the two can't be confused.
                  A lot of
                  > those people who see the snowy outdoor view and like what they see
                  will say
                  > once the picturesque setting is gone."no thanks." Other things can
                  be done
                  > to sell the thousand plus other games.like work on making the first
                  60 as
                  > good as the extra 5 and make it MORE IMPORTANT than the
                  supplemental frames
                  > where we get to gimmickry all too often to make up for the
                  consummate
                  > boredom of regulation. And bring back the "Good, the Bad, and the
                  Ugly."
                  > EVERYBODY loves a good Western!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.