It is Getting Worse

Colin Campbell has made a statement defending his honour and integrity- see here.  Look at the last statement attributed to him in the article.  It's pretty clear that he (like Nick Kypreos)  reads this blog.  Good, this article may help him.

I don't think he understands what we have a problem with here.  It isn't that we are offended by the word "faker".  It isn't that he should have used the term "embellisher of penalties".  The problem is that by using any terms of this nature he is showing bias.  Here is a quick tip - sentences that are built like "He/she is a Blanker" is an attempt to attach a label someone, usually in a derogatory manner.  Lets see how it works - "He is fat".  That isn't candor, it is labeling.  "He is a liberal" (especially when seen on Fox News) is a label.  All labeling is a personal interpretation of someone's actions or words.  By using the words that he did, Campbell expressed a predisposition to act against the player.  This is unforgivable in a position of power.

And Yes, Mr. Campbell, you do make decisions in a vacuum. See my previous post.

This CAN get worse, you know

You've read or heard about this already, but here is a link to TSN's article:  HERE

I fear this article will be a rant.  Sorry.

I am actually having trouble figuring out where to start.  This is wrong on so many levels.  I guess we'll start by asking some questions.


First question - How stupid is Colin Campbell to put this stuff in an email?  He's close to 60 and doesn't understand one of the principal rules of email - If you don't want everybody to know it, don't put it in an email.  If you aren't proud to write it, don't write it.  If you need to get something off your chest, say it.  Basically- don't give people proof that you're stupid, make them work for it. 

Second Question - Why are we surprised?  Stop with the blind faith.  The NHL Disciplinary system under Colin Campbell is a "black box" - we see stuff go in, we see stuff come out, but we don't understand how the stuff that goes in becomes the stuff we see come out.  We see the incident and then hear the ruling, but we don't know the process used to make the ruling.  "Black boxes" are perfect for people who want ZERO transparency and want to make decisions based on criteria they aren't proud of.  These emails are a peek into the "black box" and it appears to be very black indeed.


Third Question - How can Campbell now rule on any incident involving Marc Savard.  The world now knows that Campbell has no respect for Savard, so every ruling by Campbell involving Savard has been and will now be tainted.

Fourth Question - If Campbell says this about Savard, who else does he say this about?  Does he think the same about Sidney Crosby?  Or how about Alex Ovechkin?  Doug Weight?  It appears that his decisions are influenced by the amount of "whining" that victims do.  The black box looks blacker still.

Fifth Question - If all questions about his son's team is supposed to be handled by someone else, why was Campbell handling it?  I know the answer to this one.  He isn't allowed to, so it didn't happen.  But the NHL is not refuting the emails, so it did happen.  How could it have happened if it wasn't allowed to happen?  Ah, that's right, it happened anyway.  So he broke a conflict of interest rule.  That's not too important.  It only concerns the integrity of the game and the trust of the fans and business partners (i.e. advertisers).  Never mind, I shouldn't have brought that up.

Any Great Teams? 2010

Do we have any great teams in the NHL this year?  Any team that stands out, not from this year's competition, but from the best of other years?

First, lets identify the teams that are in contention for this discussions this year.  The way we have done it in the past is to use the 100-point mark.  How many teams have hit, or are likely to hit 100 points?  Well, as this column is written (April 7, 2010), there are 5 teams with 100 points (Wash, SJ, Chi, Pho, Van).  Other teams that are likely to hit 100 points (less than or same number of points required to hit 100 as games left) are NJ, Buf, Nash, LA, and Pitt.  That is another 5.  Det has a chance, 4 points required and 3 games left.

So that is 11 teams that have, or are likely to, or can reasonably, reach 100 points this season.  BUT WAIT!  We can't use the 100-point milestone.  We can't use the same criteria to identify great teams any more.  The league has more points available now, due to that stupid OT Loss point.   Here is a table I put together:

Team	Games Remaining	Wins	Points	Possible Points	Loss Points	Real Max Points	Points per game
Washington	2	53	118	122	12	110	1.34
San Jose	2	49	109	113	11	102	1.24
Chicago	3	50	107	113	7	106	1.29
Phoenix	3	48	102	108	6	102	1.24
Vancouver	2	48	101	105	5	100	1.21
New Jersey	3	46	99	105	7	98	1.19
Buffalo	3	44	98	104	10	94	1.14
Nashville	2	46	98	102	6	96	1.17
Los Angeles	3	45	97	103	7	96	1.17
Pittsburgh	3	45	97	103	7	96	1.17
Detroit	3	41	96	102	14	88	1.07

Real Max Points are equal to the Possible points the team would have in a 2-point per game world, based on current standings.  It is (Wins + Games Remaining) * 2.  Points Per Game (PPG) are the Real Max Points divided by the number of games in the season (82).

So, the BEST? team in the league, if you compare them to other historical teams that are based on 2-point games, come up woefully short, in Points per Game:

Team	Season	GP	Points	PPG
Washington	09-10	82	110	1.34
Pittsburgh	92-93	84	119	1.42
Calgary	88-89	80	117	1.46
NY Islanders	81-82	80	118	1.48
Edmonton	83-84	80	119	1.49
Boston	71-72	78	119	1.53
Montreal	72-73	78	120	1.54
Montreal	75-76	80	127	1.59
Detroit	95-96	82	131	1.60
Montreal	76-77	80	132	1.65

All the teams in the list were considered Stanley Cup favourites.  Well, except for this year's Washington team.  No great teams this year, unless you change your definition of great.

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.