This Season's Weirdest Statistic

The Ottawa Senators have a W-L record of 43-30 at the time of this post, so they have won 13 more games than they have lost.  The weird part?  They've given up 9 more goals than they've scored.  I'm still trying to figure out if that means that they are dangerous threats for the playoffs or not.

The NHL's Conundrum

So, here we are with TSN's pet topic (headshots) taking control of all the NHL's media coverage.  It has become so prevalent that the NHL is recommending a new rule to address the 'problem'.

As I have written in previous posts, the NHL is approaching the problem incorrectly.  Actually, its more than that.  They aren't identifying the right problem.  They've identified a symptom of the problem.


Prior to the Instigator Rule, the NHL players "policed" themselves.  If an opposition's player was being reckless (with hits or stickwork, etc), he could expect to have to fight against a very tough hombre.  The Instigator Rule removed this "Frontier Justice" by penalizing the people who enforced it.

And this isn't a bad thing.  Frontier justice isn't "just" - its revenge.  This can lead to escalating levels of violence and the NHL was right to curb it.  The NHL had to change - just as societies change.  Our modern society has no room for vigilante justice; everybody is granted a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime as determined by a fair and objective court.  This is what happens when a society matures.

The problem is that the NHL removed it's system of Revenge but didn't replace it with a mature model.  I have in previous posts presented a mature model, but the NHL's current system has some growing up to do.  All current discipline is left to a single man's judgments with heavy influence from the employer of the person being judged.

To show the ineptitude of the NHL, instead of using a rule that is already in force (the "intent to injure" rule), they made up a new rule.  This is the brainchild of confused and panicked people who are not using the tools at their disposal to fix a problem that they created.

How have they not hired me yet?

Kovalchuk Trade

See here and here.

Don Waddell is Lou Lamoriello's bitch.

CASST - Summary

 Over the past few posts, I’ve introduced and explained my proposed solution for the NHL’s Disciplinary system, which includes both refereeing and supplementary discipline (suspensions).  The system’s acronym is CASST – Consistency Accountability Standards Separation Transparency.

In a nutshell, the problem faced by the NHL with respect to their Disciplinary system is daunting.  It is a hodgepodge of opinions, styles, beliefs and processes.  This is the way that unprofessional organizations are run.  These issues lead to problems like inconsistent decisions, lack of direction and corruption; all of which stifle the league’s image by fostering confusion and frustration amongst fans.

My solution is simple, if not difficult:

1.       Increase Consistency by implementing a quality system

2.       Make referees Accountable by using audits and rankings based on objective findings to assign playoff work and remove under-performers.

3.       Improve the Disciplinary Standards by updating the NHL Rule Book and create a Disciplinary Standards book.

4.       Separate the business interests from the hockey interests with a restructuring (replacing?) of the NHL Hockey Operations Dept.

5.       Show the public what you are doing.  This Transparency will improve people’s trust in the league and lead to a better league image.

So, why would the NHL want to implement these changes?  

1.       To separate themselves in the professional sports landscape as a quality source of entertainment.

2.       To change the league’s reputation as a “minor” professional sport.

3.       To remove confusion when dealing with Discipline.

4.       To improve the trust of fans and media in the league’s systems.

5.       To reduce any implication of corruption charges that other leagues seem to be experiencing on a regular basis.

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.

CASST - Transparency

The Problem
The issue here seems pretty obvious - all the hockey-related disciplinary decisions are made by:

1. Reviewing Precedence (Good!)
2. Consulting various "Hockey" people :(
3. Comparing each situation against a set of pre-determined criteria (GREAT!!, depending on the criteria)

The Rant
Go read this article.  I'll wait.  (Did you see the paragraphs in the article that sounded like real leadership?  It makes you want to work for Garth Snow, doesn't it?)

Look at the comments from the NHL Senior Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations Colin Campbell:

• "I think we've been fairly kind"  He didn't say that.  He couldn't have.  Couldn't.
• "We considered a lot of numbers."  Really?  If you had a Disciplinary Book, this would have been thought about under controlled conditions, not in a rush against the clock or with the press breathing down your neck.
• "It might be a lack of respect among a couple of players," he said, "but that's always been the case throughout the history of the game. ... You've got players who aren't able to cap it when they should. And that's why the league will always have a discipline department."  Isn't it his job to fix that?  If you remove the player's only method of policing (with the Instigator Penalty), then you have to perform very strict policing and suspensions.
• "all over the map"  I didn't expect you to make my point for me.  Thanks!

See the problem yet?  OK, let me show you what my mind tells me is wrong:

A couple of people are sitting in a room making these decisions based on what will make them the most money with the smallest amount of "crap" being stirred up.  Its a form of Kleptocracy.  It is where evil can be born.


Have you ever felt that the NHL suspensions are unfair and you can't understand WHY a particular decision was made?  Its because the NHL is more concerned with making money than with what is the right decision.  What they are missing is that making the right decisions leads to making money.




How to Implement
To improve the NHL, the process of handing out suspensions must change.  This change must become more open and transparent.  Here is the quick rundown of how to do it:

1. Most importantly, acknowledge that precedents set prior to the new system do not necessarily apply to future suspensions.
2. Building on previous posts, the NHL has to publish a Discipline book and make it publicly available.  If the book is created properly, everything else becomes easy.
3. Compare incidents that are under review against the book.
4. Publish the findings, with clear explanations about how criteria are met or not met.
5. Hold a press conference to field questions from the press about the decision.
6. Store the findings online in a publicly available repository for future reference and reporting.

Mike Green Suspension

Did Mike Green deserve a suspension?  Yes.
Did Mike Green receive a suspension?  Yes.

My belief is that the suspension that Mike Green received was not issued for the hockey play - it was issued for Optics.

The NHL does not suspend its star players.  The NHL protects it investments by keeping star players on the ice.  A suspended player does not make any money for an owner, so they don't suspend them.  Mike Green is definitely a superstar player, so something doesn't jive here.  So what happened?  Mike Green also got injured in the game.

Colin Campbell decided that this was an opportunity to improve his Optics.  He didn't want to suspend Mike Green - he is a superstar and the NHL doesn't do that.  But with the injury, he could suspend the player without any repercussions.  Because of his injury, Mike Green wasn't going to play hockey anyway.  The only loser in this scenario is Mike Green - and his only penalty is to lose money that he can afford to lose.

Colin Campbell saw the opportunity to look good and took it.  This was a cowardly act on his part.