The Hockey Thread - October

[bob_barron 0]

Cujo is now in goal for the shootout in Toronto-Anaheim. Oh, the Leafs.

 

Plus, in grand tradition my NHL Centre Ice isn't working at the moment.

 

And in grand tradition #2, the Leafs lost the shootout.

[treble 0]

Gotta love shootouts.

[bob_barron 0]

Seriously, what's wrong with a tie?

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Buffalo won their shootout over Boston. 5-0-1. Vanek didn't score for the first time this year...but he did have the shootout winner.

[garfieldsnose 0]

I'm of the opinion maybe Center Ice should have the respective post game shows. It kinda sucks right after the game when the credits are done it goes right to the GOOD NIGHT! screen. I'd like to see some postgame analysis and interviews from other teams without relying on ESPN News, which won't have them for hockey.

[treble 0]

Apparently, 3 times a team has put a cold goalie in to start a shootout and none of the 3 goalies have even stopped a shot.

 

I love Ron Wilson, though. He says he's going to do it until Toskala gets more practice time with the shootout (and he really needs it, too), so I hope they get into another one soon.

[bob_barron 0]

I'm of the opinion maybe Center Ice should have the respective post game shows. It kinda sucks right after the game when the credits are done it goes right to the GOOD NIGHT! screen. I'd like to see some postgame analysis and interviews from other teams without relying on ESPN News, which won't have them for hockey.

 

I agree with this.

 

I also think my cable box should not malfunction right before the Leafs tie it up in the third.

[Urban Warfare 0]

I just got back from the Capitals-Flames game and man, the referees really ruined that game for everyone involved. I am a Flames hater so I'm a little biased, but even the Flames fans in my section were puzzled after the Capitals were being consistently called on very boarderline penalties. 8 straight calls against the Caps (I think the Flames had something like 3 consecutive 5 on 3s) is pretty ridiculous.

[Red Baron 0]

Seriously, what's wrong with a tie?

 

Weren't you against ties anyways?

[Red Baron 0]

I like all this hypothetical talk about a team in Toronto.

 

EFA

[Matt Young 0]

I was going to say- Matt Young sure posts a lot about Kings games that no one cares about.

 

Looking forward to Canucks-Wings tomorrow. Hopefully we get the Canucks from last weekend, and not the team that came out flat against the Caps

 

People bitch that I don't post in baseball threads, claiming that I "only show up for the playoffs." Then I get bitched at for actually participating. Go fuck yourself.

I'm glad you've joined the wonderful world of hockey, Matt. That said, you might want to scale back your posting to better match the pace and rhythm of the monthly threads. Postgame analysis is great. Asking questions about teams around the league is spectacular. Running commentary on a last-place team? Probably not adding a tremendous amount to the discourse. I know you're eager to demonstrate that you're a hockey guy now, but that overcompensation may rub a few people the wrong way. You might want to slow down a tad, read more and write less for now, and by the November thread you'll fit right in.

 

I have some Savard thoughts a little later. I have to go eat some lunch first!

 

 

Point taken, and thanks for the constructive criticism. I watched the last 2 games after the fact on tape since I had stuff to do, so I wouldn't have had the chance to post during them anyway.

 

Aside from, well, all of game 1 and the 2nd period of the Colorado game, the Kings have looked a lot better than I expected this year based on what I know about their recent history.

[bob_barron 0]

Seriously, what's wrong with a tie?

 

Weren't you against ties anyways?

 

No. I've always been against the shootout, feeling it's a gimmicky way to decide games. I had no problem with ties, and wish the NHL hadn't done away with them.

[Red Baron 0]

It seems that the Wild have given up on Gaborik. The two teams that are showing interest in grabbing Gaborik are Montreal and Los Angeles.

[Mike wanna be 0]

Apparently, 3 times a team has put a cold goalie in to start a shootout and none of the 3 goalies have even stopped a shot.

 

I love Ron Wilson, though. He says he's going to do it until Toskala gets more practice time with the shootout (and he really needs it, too), so I hope they get into another one soon.

Sooner or later somebody's gonna pull a Julie Gaffney and shut them down in a shootout.

 

And out of curiosity, how much practice does Cujo have with the shootout, and how is it more than Vesa "Started every game until Nabokov stole his job" Toskala?

[bob_barron 0]

It seems that the Wild have given up on Gaborik. The two teams that are showing interest in grabbing Gaborik are Montreal and Los Angeles.

 

My friend, who is also a Canucks fan, thinks the Nucks have to get him given how sad they've looked. Sadly, I don't think the Wild will trade him to a division rival.

[Smartly Pretty 0]

I'd love for the Rangers to show some interest in Marian Gaborik as the first line really isn't doing anything, but I'm fairly certain there isn't even a little bit of cap room.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

Seriously, what's wrong with a tie?

Ties teach you nothing. When you win, you know what you did right. When you lose, you know what you did wrong. When you tie...? Plus, you can't send the fans home with no winner. That's bullshit. At the risk of invoking the thoughts of celebrated doofus LessonInMachismo, hockey is a sport that involves scoring goals at the ends of a rectangle, just like football, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, so forth. Football ties only exist once in a blue moon in the NFL, soccer usually seems to end things with penalty kicks. What made hockey uniquely qualified to declare no winner at the end of a game? Worse yet, why do the NHL and the rest of the leagues award half a win for almost winning? We don't tolerate ties in the playoffs. Why should we tolerate them in the regular season? Obviously, it's impractical to play infinite sudden death over six months, but I think ten minutes of overtime followed by a shootout is as fair as we can get.

 

It's just Reason #4368B why baseball is the greatest sport of all. In baseball, you play till you win, or play till you lose, and if you find yourself in the middle of a monsoon, then tomorrow you pick up where you left off. In hockey, you win, or lose, or perhaps tie, or you can lose in overtime, which is the same as getting a tie, except the other team gets double the tie, until this is deemed unfair and bad for business, at which point you can win or lose, or lose in overtime, which is half as good as any manner of win, or you can lose in a shootout, which is the same as losing in overtime. It's the kind of fair and equitable nonsense that could only be devised by a Canadian.

[Guest]

soccer usually seems to end things with penalty kicks.

 

Actually, that doesn't happen too often.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

My friend and I were discussing ties after the Sabres lost the shootout to Atlanta.

 

We both agreed that getting that L in the OT/SO column was better than the tie. I sat in the arena and watched fucking ties and went home more angry than I did when we'd lose in the OT or Shootout. Cause...you don't know if you win or not. You're angry you left points on the table... This way at least it's settled.

 

With the price of tickets nowadays...ther must be a winner. Even if it's decided in a ridiculous manner like the shootout. Which to me is the equivelent of playing a tie football game for 60 mintues...and having the game decided by wich punter can kick the ball the farthest.

[bob_barron 0]

Ties teach you nothing.

 

Not true. There are good ties and bad ties. Take the Leafs game against the Rangers last week. They played to a 0-0 tie. I think that would have to be considered a confidence booster for the team. They went to New York playing a top team, shut them out for 65 minutes and earned a point for it. A shootout is just so gimmicky.

 

Often when I watch hockey games that would've ended in ties pre-lockout, the shootout just seems tacked on and unecessary. Both teams played hard, had a good OT and the game happened to end in a tie. Nothing wrong with that. There've been so many times where I thought of turning off the TV, since I really just find shootouts to be pointless and a stupid way to decide a winner.

 

Plus, you can't send the fans home with no winner. That's bullshit.

 

I went to two games that ended in ties. No one went home upset or disappointed. Everyone seemed to enjoy the fact that they saw a good competitive hockey game. At the Thrashers-Canes game I went to last year, I was thrilled it ended in OT, so I wouldn't see a win or loss decided by a gimmick.

 

soccer usually seems to end things with penalty kicks.

 

Soccer games end in ties, unless it's a knockout round game.

 

Worse yet, why do the NHL and the rest of the leagues award half a win for almost winning?

 

They established the OTL to get both teams to go all out and have an exciting OT period, rather than sitting back and playing for the tie.

 

but I think ten minutes of overtime followed by a shootout is as fair as we can get.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with 10 minute OTs actually. But no to shootouts.

 

It's just Reason #4368B why baseball is the greatest sport of all.

 

No way. Flipping back and forth between random Canucks games and the ALCS made me realise how little I care for baseball compared to hockey. Baseball's so tedious.

 

You're angry you left points on the table... This way at least it's settled.

 

It's settled via a gimmick that doesn't prove anything.

 

With the price of tickets nowadays...ther must be a winner.

 

Call me a purist, but if I see a good game, I'm satisfied, even if it ends in a tie.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

With the price of tickets nowadays...ther must be a winner. Even if it's decided in a ridiculous manner like the shootout. Which to me is the equivelent of playing a tie football game for 60 mintues...and having the game decided by wich punter can kick the ball the farthest.

The current system of "who can get to their placekicker first" is just as imbalanced and silly, you know.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Yeah...but at least you get to put your team out there and play...even if it's defending because of a coin toss.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

"Call me a purist, but if I see a good game, I'm satisfied, even if it ends in a tie."

 

I just disagree with this on a personal level.

 

I remember sitting and watching those ties...and I much prefer a system that lets you be excited that you won. Or that at least somebody won.

 

And this is from a fan who's team couldn't buy a shootout win last season.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Shootouts are like moral victories. Bob is just mad that the shootout eliminated the Leafs from the playoffs a few years ago.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

If he's talking about 06-07...it wasn't the shootout...it was the 3 goal lead they blew in Buffalo in the 3rd period.

 

I got to see a Leafs fan actually WEEPING that day.

 

It was tremendous.

[Nightwing 0]

I'm in favor of the Win-OT Win-Shootout Win, 3-2-1 system. It rewards teams for winning quicker and makes it so people want to win games quickly.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I agree they should have gone to a 3 point system for games. I guess the argument against it is that it would screw up som records for points or something...although that stuff's already screwed up with the shootout anyway. And I don't buy that you can't muss up things like that when most people don't watch your sport.

[bob_barron 0]

Shootouts are like moral victories. Bob is just mad that the shootout eliminated the Leafs from the playoffs a few years ago.

 

I was against the shootout from Day 1, I swear. That was before I knew the Leafs sucked at them. I swear.

[Guest C*Z*E*C*H]

I'm in favor of the Win-OT Win-Shootout Win, 3-2-1 system. It rewards teams for winning quicker and makes it so people want to win games quickly.

That's even dumber than the system in use right now. So winning a game 4-3 in overtime is two-thirds as valued as winning a game 4-3 in regulation? Why? Wins are wins. Losses are losses. This isn't college football. Let's go binary here.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

If they're going to give a point to the losing team after 60 minutes (which they do), they can give an extra point to a team that wins in OT.

 

There's a fundamental problem with points when some games are worth a total of 2 and some are worth a total of 3. Make them all worth 2 and don't give a loser point...or make them all worth 3 since that's the path loser points have set you on anyway.