BetweenThePipes00
-
Posts
2,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BetweenThePipes00
-
-
I don't think the rest of the league agrees with your assessment about money, for reasons I've already stated. Parity among goalies is not something teams are going to want to give up by reducing their ability to make saves. That's the real $$$ motive. Parity.
What you see as a way for teams to battle back from goal deficits I see as a way to ensure those deficits are insurmountable.
Sorry but you are still going to convince me that this "parity of goaltending" idea is a thing.
If I am understanding you, your stance is that we can't make the gear smaller because that would expose the not-so-good goalies and give the REALLY good ones, of which you said there were THREE at one point — Roy, Hasek and Brodeur — too big of an edge. Do I have that right? I know it sounds like I am being snarky, I'm not, I really want to understand what you are saying. Because to me it makes no sense.
-
See this is where we disagree. I don't think increasing scoring for the hell of it actually makes the game better.
Again, you never define "better." If you are talking about how the game is played, then I agree, it won't change that. But it's not just "for the hell of it" either. I think there's something to what I am saying, obviously.
We'll just get used to how much teams score and then be bored again. If regular season games are too boring then make the season shorter. The NHL already tweaked the standings system to keep teams in the playoff hunt longer. That likely does more for the regular season product than any change to goalie equipment or scoring will. People want their teams to win, and when their teams win they go to games. More scoring doesn't make people buy tickets to teams that score less-more.
Be real. You know they are not changing the length of the season for $$$ reasons, and the standings are a separate issue (3-2-1 might actually help because you can actually make up ground faster with a streak).
But yes, people want their teams to win. More goals means more of a chance to win if they fall behind. And to say more scoring doesn't make people buy tickets for bad teams is proved untrue just looking at the NBA. People show up to see the Warriors in every city. When I was a kid it was exciting when the Oilers came to the Aud. Let the stars be stars and people show up. As it is now there is no expectation that McDavid or Crosby or whoever will even score a POINT when they come to town, let alone do something memorable.
Again, either you want to increase scoring or you don't. Tweaking goalie gear, in my opinion, wont do that. You have to drastically alter it, and the style of play goalies use. Anything less is a waste of time.
Yes. I want to increase scoring. If tweaking it won't do it, then drastically alter it. It's 2015. I believe they can be protected just fine. It's not impossible, it's just inconvenient.
-
I'm OK with a few more 'lame goals'. I just want more goals..period. As long as we get some 'skill goals' mixed in with those extra 'lame goals' bring it on.
I'd rather watch a 'clumsly' 6-5 game than a well-played 2-1 game. Does that make me a casual fan...not a hard-core...appreciates the game fan? Probably. But that is what I like to watch.
Don't sell yourself short, that's how everyone starts. No hard-core fan on here started out hating a clumsy 6-5 game. Those games were exciting, they help suck you in and make you appreciate when two really good teams play a 2-1 classic.
Everyone wants to be a an NHL coach and hate any goal that results from a defensive breakdown or a leaky goalie, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why.
-
Do you believe that simply increasing goal scoring makes the game better?
Yes, and I think I just explained why, probably in far too much detail for many to tolerate. But I'll try again because I am just that long-winded.
We keep saying "better" without really defining it. If "better" means more open ice and more scoring chances ... that ship has sailed, my friend. The video scouting, the systems, the fact that the (good) coaches hold everyone accountable to play well in their own end, the fact that these days the defensemen are the BEST skaters, not the worst ... short of going 4-on-4, the game is not opening up.
So how do we keep the fans interested in one of 82 games in February that really doesn't change much in the standings when their team can win 8 of 9 and gain like 1 point on a playoff spot? How do we keep the players busting their tails when they are down by 2 with 10 minutes left and have to play the next day in a different city and they are in a contract year and maybe it would be better just to mail this one in and be fresh for tomorrow ...
We make it so that it's actually realistic to think they can win a game even though they are down 2 with 10 minutes left. That they can score that garbage time goal that helps them get to 20 on the season.
We make it easier to score. Would the GAME better? In some ways, yes, I believe it would. Maybe not in the most ideal ways, but it would be better.
-
I can't possibly multi-quote everything I'd like to comment on ... d4rk's opinions on the subject are interesting because they seem to come from a goalie's perspective ... but then I have played goalie too and I don't necessarily agree, so who knows ... just some thoughts/questions:
- The increased injury thing: d4rk and pi both seem very sure they are right on this. I'd like to see more evidence than "Nope, you're wrong." There are always injury risks, but I am not sure this idea that goalies will need to make "more athletic moves"= more injuries is accurate.
- I understand the idea of "closing gaps" to protect vulnerable areas but you know as well as I do the gear does much more than that. you mentioned the inside of the elbow ... on my gear the inside of the elbow has this giant creased square piece of "padding" that is a good inch or more wider on either side of the arm than it needs to be. It makes it almost impossible for a shot to get between my arm and my body. There's absolutely no reason for it to be that wide other than to stop pucks. it could be more rounded and 2-3" more narrow and provide the same protection.
- Your argument that the game is better when all the goalies are similar and there are no great ones like Brodeur or Hasek makes zero sense to me. In that case, why not just do away with the position entirely and strap those shooting trainers up there? You said the game isn't about the goalies, it's about the skaters, so why not? Just let them pick the corners and save all that injury risk for the goalies. Would you ever suggest replacing pitchers with pitching machines in baseball? Of course not, because pitching is a skill and if you have the best ones, yes, you have a better chance to win. Same thing with goalies. Having a great player at ANY position should give you an advantage. The Sabres never won with Hasek, so obviously this advantage is not unfair to the opposition.
Yes, it IS low-hanging fruit. Yes, a few more "lame" goals will be scored if the gear is smaller. No, it doesn't really make the WAY the game is played any different. I agree with you in that I wish the game was played differently and there was a way to create more scoring chances. Honestly, the game is hyper-coached to such a great extent I am not sure it can ever get to where it's any more wide open.
But here's the thing ... and however we get there, THIS is why we NEED to get there, somehow, someway ... I really believe that the biggest reason we think the game is more boring and less fun now is because when it gets to be 2-0 or 3-1, the game is over. It's OVER. You're sitting there watching a perfectly good 1-0 game in the second period and there are good chances and great saves and then a puck goes in off someone's rear end and it's 2-0 and it's a KILLER because you know your team is probably DONE. Sure, maybe once a month they rally and win a game they trailed by 2 goals if they are really good ... but you know it's over. More often than not, it's soccer. And that is not a compliment in this case.
Maybe this is a product of having grown up in the 70s and 80s, but it was just more fun to watch hockey knowing a 4-1 lead didn't mean your team had it in the bag, and a 4-1 hole didn't meant they could never come back.
Goals are fun. Not because they are all amazing displays of skill and sniped into a spot barely bigger than the puck, but because they change the dynamic of the game. Momentum shifts, the crowd gets back into it, the crowd STAYS into it even if the home team falls behind ...
No I don't want more injuries, but this league doesn't care about skaters with way less head protection getting their brains scrambled if the guy made the fatal mistake of "having his head down," so forgive me if I play a little fast and loose withe knees and elbows of my fellow goaltenders.
We need MORE GOALS. D4rk, even if EVERYTHING you are saying is 100 percent correct, and it may very well be ... I don't care. I want more goals. -
This is really well done, as usual from Sean McIndoe ... The 20 Stages of Learning Your Team Has Made a Trade: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/20-stages-of-learning-that-your-team-has-made-a-trade/
-
Watching Kings-Flames (kind of) while doing some work and every time I look up it bugs me that the Kings are wearing the cool gold throwbacks but the Flames are wearing white. Those gold sweaters were the Kings home unis instead of white and the opponent always wore its dark road uni ...
Does this kind of thing bother anyone else? Just me? OK.
-
Wait before you were worried about the risks for the kids now you're just complaining that everything is too kid friendly? those don't seem like the same thing to me.
-
Then let's set straight what the parenting prerogative is:
I accept full responsibility for everything that happens to my kid
regardless of how stupid it looks in hindsight.That appears to be the argument to me.
Fixed that for you.
You can stop after "I accept full responsibility for everything that happens to my kid" because that is the job, man. Even if something happens to them that you KNOW is not your fault, you FEEL like it is. Lots of things looks stupid in hindsight. All the moms who smoked while pregnant in the 60s and 70s look like idiots now. You do the best you can with the info you have at the time.
Funny I noticed this discussion today, I actually have a parenting issue somewhat relevant ... I don't have time to get into it now but I may tonight ... it will have to be its own thread ...
-
I'm not about to take sides here, but I feel the "don't tell parents how to parent if you don't have kids" is akin to not being able to criticize a GM or a coach or a player if you've never been "in the game." Just not a fan of that particular style of retort.
I could just as easily argue that when someone who has experience with something actually explains to me how it works and shares successes and failures they have experienced, it's probably smart for me to at least consider taking their opinion on the matter into account.
-
Fleury starts ... call-up is the backup
-
This is not good to hear ...
-
Well Bylsma says it's lower-body injury for ROR ... and PIT reporter tweeted MAF is at the arena, so no idea what is going on there.
-
Sabres just recalled Bailey.. Don't know the corresponding move (Franson to IR?).
Assuming he didn't get the call to sit, who gets the healthy scratch? Moulson? Delo?
Twitter speculation from the media crew is ROR sick ... hasn't practiced twice in a row despite playing Friday night.
-
Pens twitter account says they have called up a goalie .. so MAF likely still sick ...
-
Totally agree on his intensity. Lehner is a fun dude to have as your goalie. I would have been more excited about the deal when it was made if I knew he was insane like this.
-
HOWEVER, if you would packaged that pick with next years #2, how much higher in this draft could you have moved up? Or could you have flipped it to someone else for a future #1 and played the lottery with that pick in future years?
I think this is a fair point, both on Lehner and on the other GMTM trades -- i.e. in evaluating the trades, one has to consider the assets the Sabres gave up both in terms of the specific trade, and in terms of what those assets might've returned in other moves. So it's not really a complete analysis to say, for example, that the Sabres got the best player in the Kane trade, that Myers is only a bit better than Bogo and that Lemieux, Armia and the #1 probably won't amount to much. You also have to consider the fact that Myers, Lemieux, Armia and the #1 each had value on the NHL trade market, and that utilizing them in other deals might have returned more than what the Sabres got in that trade.
Having said all of that, I'm still 100% supportive of the Kane trade. I just think it's important to analyze it from that perspective as well.
I think I disagree, at least in the case of the Kane deal because there are so many parts ... what you guys are saying isn't crazy, but I think that sends you down a "what if" rabbit hole to which there is no end. How can we even begin to speculate accurately on what the trade market was for Joel Armia on his own? Or then also when packaged with Myers? But not Stafford, because they could have moved him alone to some other team ... or with Lemieux in a separate deal ... and don't get me started on what that first-round pick we threw in might have fetched ... my head hurts.
All this is not to say the analysis is as simple as "We got the best player, we win." I just think you evaluate the deal on what it is, because rarely do we have enough info to say what else COULD have happened. It's not like "they should have taken Bossy instead of Seiling." We don't really know what else might have been available to GMTM for all those parts, and the more guys involved in the deal the less we can know.
(Of course, sometimes it IS possible ... If it's a 1-for-1 and we get a report later that says "They were offered another top prospect, Jimmy Chitwood, who went on to a Hall-of-Fame career, but instead opted for Bump Bailey, who turned out to be a headcase and saw his career come to a tragic end" ... in that case it makes perfect sense. Other than the fictional basketball star being traded for the fictional baseball player.)
-
I am not worried about the shootout thing, it's definitely a weak area for him but if you look at the career numbers for goalies there is little to indicate that it's a red flag ... the list I looked at showed Lehner is bad but right below him is Cory Schneider, whom I think we would all take in a heartbeat. Looking at the guys with bigger sample sizes (200+ attempts), Antti Niemi and Kari Lehtonen are both above Carey Price, Jonathan Quick and Martin Brodeur. Niemi and Lehtonen are so shaky in real hockey that poor Lindy probably can't even watch when the puck goes into Dallas' end anymore.
I have no idea if Lehner will be any good over the long haul, but he looks the part of a #1 guy so far. This is weird for a "goalie guy" to say, but I just don't worry about it much anymore ... there are GREAT goalies in the NHL who haven't won squat ... Lundqvist, Price, Rinne (who I don't think is GREAT but players seem to always mention him) ... and yet Cam Ward and Antti Niemi have Cups. Who the hell knows. Just have a couple guys in the organ-eye-zation who won't kill you and hope they get hot in May the right year.
-
Wasn't it Dunleavy's call that inspired BtP's tower with his kid?
It absolutely was his call that inspired it, and he has been great on Twitter about it. Never thought he would actually use "add a puck" in a goal call, though.
PA, my son is indeed loving it. When we were kids the best we could hope for was Ted Darling mentioning our town when a puck went over the glass ... "There's a souvenier for a young fan from Kenmore, New York!" For years I thought he literally knew where everyone was from!
My wife is in disbelief ... As of now more than 100 new followers since the goal today. Crazy. Thanks to everyone for the support!
-
hah! I just followed you earlier today. This is really neat. Reminds me of the "Population of Pominville" thing from a bunch of years ago.
Is this going to be a career long tower? How much money are you investing in pucks?
Right now I am thinking we will have a new tower for each season ... but who knows. At first we were just using pucks we had around but I got a box of practice pucks for like $1 each ... if we do decide to make it a career-long thing, it will add up ...
This will be next level when I can click on each puck to see a vine of that goal.
That would be sweet .... would also mean probably having a website and more time than I can invest at the moment haha
Thanks for all the support!
-
When my son heard Dan Dunleavy's "Eichel Tower" call after the winning goal in Ottawa, he got all excited and said "We should build an Eichel Tower!" (He's 7.)
So we did. Out of pucks. And it has its own twitter account. Trying to have some fun with it and show him how social media works ... give it a follow if you want ... https://twitter.com/EichelTower615
(Sorry if anyone feels this is spam of some sort, not trying to get anything out of this other than some fun for him.)
-
Hey...you never know. Some years back, there was a ref (now retired) who always seemed to favor whatever team the Sabres were playing. In one of the game programs that year, there was a list of refs and the Sabres' record when they were officiating (now this is when there was just one ref). The Sabres record was pretty close to .500 for each ref...except one. Yep, you guessed it. When the ref everyone loved to hate was in charge, the Sabres lost every game except one. So.... ;)
Would love to see this list. "every game except one" ... like 1-6? 1-10? 1-345? I mean ... if it was printed in a program, the Sabres knew these numbers ... don't you think they would have taken it up with the NHL? That's not evidence, that's barely circumstantial ...
But yes, 40 years ago with one ref and way less media attention and television coverage and no social media ... MAYBE one guy could carry out a vendetta ... at the risk of his job ... MAYBE ...
-
I am late to the party here, but I have to say I am surprised the GoDD banning did not happen sooner ... not because I feel he deserved it before or anything, just because I know how these things generally work from my previous job. It is a HUGE credit to the members of this board and especially SDS the way disagreements are dealt with and the way this community lives on.
Think about this ... I started posting in the fall of 2005 and was pretty consistent for maybe 3-4 years ... then sporadic for a few more ... and since 2011 I have posted literally a handful of times. And yet: Just on the last two pages of this thread there are 12-15 posters I would say I KNOW. Or at least I KNEW. I have a feel for their personalities, in some cases I remember their specific opinions on certain topics ... that's INSANE. Two or three, sure ... but 12-15? That's a LOT, in my opinion. I have been gone for YEARS basically, and all you guys are still here. I drop in once a year and in some ways it's like I never left. And it's not because everyone agrees, it's because on some level there is respect for each other even if we (see, I still feel like I can say "we") think someone is full of it. We call them on it and argue, but it's generally healthy.
It's just very rare. In my experience, many forums with so many long-standing posters eventually seem to have one voice ... either over-the-top homers, or the polar opposite, and people stay around because it is comfortable and it feels good to post something and have people agree with you. That's no sure thing here ... yet we keep coming back. I wish I could come back more ... here's to trying.
-
I bet he did, it probably was downplayed as a stunt.
ANTICS.
Yup ... Here's a story just to illustrate how people believe what they want about a guy despite evidence right in their face to the contrary:
When the Sabres were here in Nashville a couple weeks ago, I took my 7-year-old son to the game. we were there very early because he had a Mites hockey clinic in the arena that afternoon. So we went down by the glass for early warmups, something we have done before, he's gotten pucks from players, etc. ...
So the teams come out, and the Sabres are kind of all-business compared to what I had seen them in the past ... not much flipping of pucks to fans ... no big deal. At one point Kane did flip one over with his stick ... and the 20-something-year-old guy next to me says "Oh sure, now he's going to act all cool ..." and then, unprompted, launches into this story: "I figured the Sabres would be staying across the street so I was hanging out getting autographs this afternoon, they were all so cool ... except Kane. He was walking on the other side of the street, I had to run over to him and chase him down. He wasn't happy at all." Did you get his autograph? "Oh yeah, he signed ... but he didn't want to. Dick."
He signed ... but he didn't want to. Dude actually said that. If you are Evander Kane, how do you change that guy's mind about you? You can't.
NHL Scoring Problem
in The Aud Club
Posted
But you haven't explained the horrific effects of what happens if we change that. Before the butterfly, did we just have 3 or 4 teams winning 65 games a season and stealing Stanley Cups because they had the best goalies and all the teams with the "average" goalies were just doomed? Because that's not how I remember it. I remember the Penguins and Oilers winning Cups with league-average goaltending at best. The Pens were 18th out of 22 teams in SVPCT in 1991-92. Those teams were about the SKATERS, which you say is what you want.
I just can't believe that the best offensive hockey players in the world PREFER to NOT be able to score just because it makes them feel better that their goalie who may or may not be that great can make saves too and keep them in the game. These guys are the BEST IN THE WORLD. I think they'd prefer to be able to do what they do best and if the other guy scores one, I'll go and get it back.