Comments on B. McKenzie's Article

I like Bob McKenzie.  I think he does a great job and brings humanity and integrity to his profession.  He doesn't follow the crowd and is willing to stick his neck out about a topic when he believes in it.

Please read this article.  It is very good and I agree with all of it.

The article is asking a question that I love: What can we do to change the situation?

If you read earlier posts, you'll know that I hate (HATE) "interpretations" of rules.  But if that is the way the NHL now works, we can use it to our advantage by either of the following "interpretation" changes:

1. Instigator - isn't this what the instigator penalty was designed for?  To stop the fights that are not caused by the passion in the game?
2. 3rd man in - Player A hits Player B, and then Player C jumps in as the third man.  

Bob, I know that the NHL does nothing without consulting you first.  Here is the answer.

Why Games are Managed

It's Saturday morning, and I have a choice between writing this post or watching this crap.  So I'm writing.

My last post explored the concept of Game Management by NHL referees.  Basically, the theory is that the referees try to make games more palatable to fans by calling penalties according to certain formulas (or patterns).  There was no groundbreaking revelations in that post - intelligent hockey fans have made those deductions for themselves and have probably detected more formulas than was listed.

This post is to be more conspiratorial.  Let's discuss "Why".  Why does the NHL want their games managed?

Well, the first reason is easy enough to determine.  The NHL argues that exciting hockey is generated by games that are close.  Like casual hockey fans, the NHL would like the score of the game with 5 minutes remaining to be withing one goal.  In their opinion, which has been expressed in interviews, fans enjoy games more when the score is close.  Which is correct, of course.  The NHL, however, will take steps to ensure that games remain close in order to increase attendance which increases their revenue make it more exciting for the fans.  So, the first reason is that they believe "close games make money".  I can write a 1000-word post on how wrong this is, but will leave that for another day. (Quickly: referees are contributing to the game's outcome - BAD).

The other reason we'll explore is more of an theory, because no actual physical evidence exists.  No newspaper would touch this.  Gambling.  I am not accusing any active referee was involved in a points-shaving scheme, but I'm raising the question.  If an NBA referee could do it, what would stop an NHL referee?  We've already proven that NHL referees have a direct impact on the outcome or score of games and have identified the formulas that they use to do so.  What stops a referee from betting on a game and then calling the game's penalties to influence the score?  How easy would it be for a referee to call the game to keep the score close to help his bet?  Or worse, how easy is it for organized crime to be involved?

The next post will look at what can be done.  Because something needs to be done.

NHL Canadian Relocation - Bad News

Jim Balsille's bid to have an NHL team relocated to Canada has stirred up a lot of emotions 'north of the border'.  Canadians began to ask "why not?  This is the home of hockey, why can't we have another NHL team? Americans are great sports fans, but they don't know hockey.  They don't love hockey like we do."

Sounds reasonable.  And I agree with it.  But lets take a look at the facts.

Fact #1  The NHL is starving for a big contract for their TV rights in America. 

Well, that's one fact.  And the only one that matters.

There are 10 Americans for every Canadian (see here), so it stands to reason that there are a lot of fans waiting to be converted.  To get the contract of his dreams, Gary Bettman must get the NHL on TV to as many people as possible, which means that he has to locate teams in as many large markets as possible. This has led to the current layout of the NHL's franchises, which include some very bizarre choices for NHL hockey - Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim, Miami and Tampa.  I don't understand Miami.  Why Miami?  

I looked for a list of North America's largest cities, and found one here.  I exported the list to a spreadsheet, removed all the Mexican cities, Panamanian cities, Cuban cities, etc and sorted by the Largest Urban Areas (New York was #1, Livonia was last).  Here is some interesting findings:

1. The Canadian cities were listed at postions 8, 14, 24, 48, 55 and 58.  Some pretty low rankers on the list are Canadian cities.  So there are at least 29 markets (Position 58 - 29 other NHL teams) in the USA that do not have NHL teams.
   
2. Houston fits in at position 11.  No NHL team.  Sure it shares a state with Dallas, but if Florida can handle two teams, can't Texas?
3. Seattle at position 14.  No NHL team.  Sure, it's close to Vancouver but if Florida can handle two teams, can't the Vancouver/Seattle area?
4. Cleveland was higher than I expected - 16.  I guess the NHL does not want to be associated with the Most Miserable Sports Town in America (Browns, Indians, Cavs).  Why not, they MUST have the most patient fans.
   
5. Portland at 22.  See Seattle.
6. Cincinnati.  No NHL team. 
7. Nashville is at 40.  At least a population this small hasn't won a Stanley Cup.
8. Raleigh is at 42.  Damn.
9. The next highest ranked Canadian city that does not have an NHL team is Quebec.  At 63.  Winnipeg is at 64.  The other great hope - Hamilton - weighs in at 88.

Can you blame the NHL for not relocating to Canada if Seattle/Houston/Cleveland/Portland/etc are available?  Why doesn't Seattle - the 14th largest Metropolitan area in North America - ever get mentioned in relocation talks?  It is a Northern American city with a history of supporting hockey teams.  How did Nashville or Raleigh get a team before Seattle, Houston, Cleveland or Portland?

I can't see Canada getting another NHL team any day soon.  I can't make the numbers work.

Nick Kypreos is obviously a reader

Article

I understand that Nick Kypreos is a pretty passionate guy, but I don't think I'm whining.  Or am I?  It doesn't matter, I'm just proud of Nick that he could write an article - if you believe that he did it by himself.  I think he had help, he sure ain't (yes - i wrote "ain't") no Chris Shultz.

It's pretty obvious that Nick had somebody read some of these blog posts to him.  He doesn't come across as being somebody who would read a, um... anything. 

Here's a quick rebuttal to Nick, that he'll probably have that same person read to him:

The problems started with expansion.  The NHL started to expand in 1991, and continued to add teams over the next decade or so - Columbus joined the NHL in 2000 as the last expansion team of the era.  Prior to expansion, the NHL was ruled by speed, scoring and saves.  The NHL changed during the expansion years to allow the new teams to compete with the established teams.  Would an owner who just paid 50 or 80 million dollars want to have their new toy get broken 82 times every year?  Would they want to have their new hockey team lose every game by lopsided scores?  They dreaded becoming the 2009-2010 Toronto Maple Leafs.  So what was the answer?

Create conditions during gameplay that gave less talented teams the ability to keep the score close.  Sensible, except it makes for boring hockey.  What can we look at as evidence?
* Don't call so many penalties for obstruction.
* Game Management by referees.  See upcoming blog.
* Lou Lamouriello Lamerilo Lamorillo.  Damn! New Jersey Devils.
* Gary Bettman's repeated explanation that he believes exciting hockey is dictated by the score of the game.  He would smugly cite the close score of the game, instead of talking about the exciting plays or great flow.  That's because there were no exciting plays or great flow to games.  We're actually still waiting for that to return.

Nick, you apparently subscribe to the old adage "If something ain't (!) broke, don't fix it". It is 'broke'.  You just can't read the signs.

Exciting Hockey contains Defensemen looking BAD

I hate the invisible, doing-a-good-job defenseman.  I love the big hits that defensemen can deliver.  I love a defenseman 'coughing up the puck'.  I love it when a forward makes a defenseman look bad by pulling off an unbelievable move.

A good defenseman in hockey is like a good referee - you don't notice them until they make a great defensive play.

But that doesn't make for Exciting Hockey.    Fans should not require a high "Hockey IQ" to understand whether a defenseman is good or bad.  I want to notice defensemen making mistakes.

Generally, a defenseman's job is to take the highlight reel plays away from talented forwards and then start the transition to offense.  If everybody on a team does their job defensively, goals do not get scored. Mistakes have to be made in order for goals to be scored in today's NHL.

According to common knowledge and the Formula, we can help defensemen to make mistakes by applying pressure.  Taking away the time that is required to make the intelligent play will lead to a breakdown of the defensive team's system and allow the offensive team to exploit a newly exposed weakness.  This means that we need to make it easier to put pressure on a defenseman.

Related to that is the fact that defensemen are generally and historically allowed to "battle for the puck".  This is the fight for the puck, or the interference a defenseman is allowed to use on a forward in order to win a puck.  Do you pay $100+ of your hard earned money to see a defenseman battle a forward for a puck in the slot?  No, you pay that $100+ to hopefully see that forward make a mockery of the defenseman and scoring a highlight-reel goal.  I want to notice that the defenseman just lost the puck to the forward and it led to a goal.  I want a power-play because the defenseman hooked the forward.  We need to make sure that an obstruction penalty (holding, hooking, etc) is called everywhere on the ice, not only in pre-determined areas.

I want highlight-reel goals.  I want highlight-reel saves.  I want highlight-reel hits.  I want to notice defensemen.