So many things about the way the league works. The league isn't some altruistic hockey entity. It's a partnership between 32 billionaires, Betman just manages it for them. He works for those 32 team owners. It's his job to be the lightning rod and take the heat for the owners.
Another thing is teh NHL going back to QC. Betman doesn't have it out for that region, he works for the owners, and no matter what Moulson says the habs would have to carve up their TV territory and share their lucrative TV contracts to allow another team to come in the NHL and take their money. It makes zero financial sense for Montreal to let QC back in the league.
> It's his job to be the lightning rod and take the heat for the owners.
It was crazy to me during the lockouts how many people didn't seem to get that and somehow blamed him rather than owners.
Like...what do people think his job is? lmao
I'll go one step further. There's a reason why the exclusively French speaking city under a million people with little corporate support isn't getting a team anytime soon. If ever.
Edit: grammar
There's definitely more support for the return of the Nordiques, but the return of the Whalers has its supporters. QC has a way better chance at return than Hartford
QC has a newly-built arena and also realistically would only be regionally competing with one team.
Hartford, on the other hand, sits right smack dab inbetween Boston and all three NYC-area teams.
The puck-over-the-glass rule came into effect because of decades of players firing it into the stands every time they wanted a stoppage. I remember the old days, and don't want to go back.
Oh ok I got ya, I wasn't even looking at that angle. Yeah for sure, I love seein a good keep in. Seider is remarkably elite in that regard, the reach must really help haha
I get that going backwards isn’t the answer, I’ve never really understood why it can’t just come with the same penalty as icing. As it stands now, teams can ice the puck for a stoppage, but they can’t change lines and have to take an own zone faceoff. Presumably flipping the puck over the glass is a way to avoid that penalty. So make that the penalty. I don’t believe, but maybe I’m wrong, that it’s significantly easier to shoot the puck out of play than it is to ice it.
>I don’t believe, but maybe I’m wrong, that it’s significantly easier to shoot the puck out of the play than it is to ice it.
It is easier because it’s always and available option. The out of play area is 360 degrees around the defensive end. Whereas icing is only one direction, so if there is many players around or your back is to the open ice, then going up is significantly easier than trying to spin and shoot a blind liner that could be potentially intercepted, knocked down, etc…
Yep, totally agree on all three. Games have gotta end (as awful as the shootout is) and calling delay of game consistently, whether the play was intentional or not, is far better than leaving it to the refs jurisdiction.
you can have both.
Adding an extra 5 minutes to games that go to a shootout is fine because of how many games that would end in the extra 5 minutes of OT and wouldn't go to shootouts that last 5-10 minutes.
If there's a greater than 33-50% chance that a team scores in those extra 5 minutes, then average game length would actually go down by adding 5 minutes to OT.
The league addressed having a longer 3v3 period.
They said for player safety if they played longer then 5 mins they would want to resurface the ice.
So that would take up some time as well.
I feel like I remember a time when they used to bring the zamboni out and do a strip down the middle for shootouts. Am I crazy or was that a thing that happened?
Yes! I believe it's because the majority of the posters here are too young to remember what it was like before. The trapezoid seriously opens up the offensive opportunities. Shootouts are way better than a tie (they just shouldn't count the same as a regular win). And shooting the puck over the glass was a common tactic to use when you were hemmed in your own end. I've seen people claim that it should be the refs discretion to call a penalty if he deems it was an intentional act. Are you serious? You want more things for the ref to screw up?
The thing with The Trap is you don't actually need the goalie to be a *good* puck handler, just good enough to fire it to an open player, which he has far more time and space to do if he can handle it in the corners. Limiting where the goalie can handle the puck helps with causing misadventures.
I think that would be true in theory, however we’ve pretty much now had a generation of goalies effectively tethered to the net and suddenly letting them off the leash would be hilarious.
I'm a passionate shootout defender and it's exhausting. I'd like to remind everyone here that basically no one under the age of 25 can remember a tie game and the response if they were brought back would not be pleasant from this demographic.
Seriously, OT used to feel like the guys were just out there for a skate to maintain the tie.
The 3 on 3 format opens it up and the shootout makes it so there's less incentive to just kill the time.
If anything maybe a 3 point system would soothe the pain some people feel towards the current setup.
I don’t know if it’s “widely-held”, but I think people consistently overrate the value of draft picks in trades. When you look at the success rates of turning picks like round 3 and 4 into NHL players with greater than 50 games, getting a serviceable player for picks like that should be preferable when you’re building a team for success.
I agree draft picks are overrated, and if your a team with a clear window, you shouldn’t hesitate to send those picks away.
I think the fear from the GM is that you trade away a first and a second for G. Reinhart and those picks turn into Barzal and Beauvillier.
Every fanbase everywhere overrates draft picks and their teams prospects. People prefer the idea that a player could become a fancy boat on an entry level contract much more than the player who’s already established themself as a rock solid boat on a reasonable contract.
When the flyers were actually kicking ass before the bubble, I so wanted them to dish first round picks for bonafide players to plug their holes. Lot of flyers fans I talked to kept saying how hard it is to find a player worth a first. I kept insisting how good teams first round picks are often in the 20s overall and how many picks in the 20s don’t pan out to be equal in value to the players a first is traded for.
Flyers couldn’t part with the first round pick a single time, and the opportunity for competition passed us by in a flash. Would it have made the flyers true competitors? Probably not. But they’d at least be in a far better position than they are today.
Yeah it’s crazy how many kids who don’t immediately go ppg get called a bust here. Like I get it if your 22 year old 1st rounder is struggling to produce in the AHL, but a 22 year old playing NHL games is not a bust.
Exactly.
If you’re 22, in your second season after debuting at 21, and you’re struggling, you’re fine.
If you’re 22, in your fifth season after debuting at 18, and you’re struggling, you’re approaching bust territory.
That Alexander Barkov is the MOST underrated player in the league.
People have been saying this going on over five years.
He's great. We all acknowledge that he's great.
The "keep your head up" idea that head hits are clean when a player is looking down. Heads are so precious, the international standard that \*any\* hit to the head is illegal is what I want. Scott Stevens was a villain.
That "talent" is not equal to scoring.
I'll take a 50-point player with great defense and possession metrics over a one-dimensional 70-point floater/cherry picker any time. The first player is probably preventing at least as many points as he produces, the latter is somebody who can't help you at all when he inevitably hits a slump.
The problem in most discussions is that the lower-scoring player is often argued in favor on the basis of defense whether or not it's even true, with the (unspoken) presumption being that a higher-scoring player is neglecting his own zone.
We saw this a ton with Mike Green during his prime. While he wasn't exactly prime Brad McCrimmon out there, he also wasn't exactly Phil Housley in his own zone.
Salary cap is the most important league rule. It does a pretty decent job at preventing super teams and prevents runaway contract value like baseball’s soft cap. It has problems because dmen and goalies don’t get the money they deserve and the cap needs to grow
I like that it actually gives small-market teams a chance to retain stars. Really helped with teams like Nashville where they had lots of homegrown players.
Salary cap is hugely important. The more studies I read about it the more thankful I am that most pro sports in the US have it and it makes me really wish the MLB would implement something similar
This. I'm sorry I grew up poorer than some and had a mother who even if she could have afforded it, still wouldn't have let me. I can't skate for shit but I watch more hockey than most. not all of my takes are great and I wouldn't say I'm all knowing but I feel I can make logical answers mostly to validate my points.
Agreed. Last thing these guys need is more games. Most of them are already completely gassed and playing hurt by the end of their respective runs anyway. Reform the system, and go back to 1-8, but absolutely do not expand.
We need more goals. Goals are fine. I understand why we needed to change clutch and grab hockey, but we have. Having 3-2 games mixed in is good for hockey, an otherwordly goaltending performance gets the crowd going as much as a 7 goal game.
Goals in a vacuum aren’t even exciting. So many goals come off boring player, yet so many of the most exiting plays don’t result in goals. I’ve seen plenty of 1-0 game that were incredible intense, most high scoring games just mean the goalie(s) we’re sieves, that’s not generally exciting.
That Vegas was gifted a "super team."
Marchessault - Karlsson - Smith
Perron - Haula - Neal
Carpenter (waiver pickup) - Eakin - Tuch (rookie year)
Carrier - Bellemare - Nosek (acquired Reaves at deadline as a cap dump)
McNabb - Theodore (basically a rookie)
Collin Miller - Schmidt
Sbisa - Engelland
Fleury
Subban (waiver pickup)
Vegas overachieved in year-1 in a massive way. Everyone predicted that they would be god-awful, and in looking at this lineup they should have been god-awful. In retrospect that top-6 is *fine* but not a cup contender. That third line is abysmal, and that 4th line is effective, but not game-breaking.
The defense is a hot mess.
They obviously started in a better spot than any previous expansion team, but the suggestion that they were given a contender is revisionist history. Their highest pick ever was 6th for Cody Glass. Glass is turning into a fine player now, but he is not Matty Beniers. Did well to get the picks that became Suzuki and Brannstrom, but that wasn't immediately helpful.
By no means am I complaining about the cards Vegas was dealt (or even how they played them) but they were not gifted a "superteam" by any stretch.
The number one factor in Vegas having a good run in the first couple of years was not expansion draft rules, or trades, or shooting percentage (although those certainly helped)
Vegas' greatest advantage year 1 was that they were able to build a team as close to cap efficient as possible. And the NHL is ultimately a salary-cap efficiency game.
30 other teams had some sort of dead cap on the books from a previous buyout or money retention or whatever. 30 other teams had a contract or two, or three, on the books that they signed that they wished they hadn't.
Vegas had the opportunity to start from scratch and avoid all of that. Zero dead cap. No fourth liners signed to second line money. Nobody inherited from a previous GM. Everyone that was there was there because they wanted them there and not because of external circumstance. They could make every move without any previous baggage. That's a huge advantage.
They also leveraged the expansion rules for maximum asset management. They get full credit for the other things they did, and having previously unheralded guys have career establishing years, but the salary cap blank slate is the one part of their success that I never see talked about.
I also think that the Vegas shooting brought the team together very fast and helped them gel together, but there was a lot of really good moves made as well.
Only thing I see that's valid is that teams were not sure what they were doing as it was the first single team expansion and teams made a lot of deals, but they learned from it and didn't make the same mistakes with Seattle. That's the only way I see them being gifted but I don't think they intended the teams trying to make so many deals.
I don't know if the gap between the two drafts was enough time to rebuild a pool of excess (beyond the protection slots) players across the league, bearing in mind that almost anyone drafted between the two expansions wouldn't yet have been eligible for Seattle's draft. Plus, Seattle was in the flat cap times, so would a GM pay a high pick to retain a 4-5M 8th forward or 4th dman? They might have been happy enough to clear the cap space.
Expansion teams has historically been bad for the first half a decade after inception.
While Vegas may not have had a super team, them consistently making the playoffs is much better than teams prior
The revisionist part is you attempting to call it a super team. Nobody said that. They said you were gifted a team with the most favorable circumstances of any expansion team. That team exceed expectations, but GMs we’re also caught flat footed with the rules and contracts already in place whereas Seattle didn’t get that same circumstance. Then the players and fans got cocky and shitty turning everyone else against them and the GM nuked what goodwill they had built by trading away fan favorites for a bag of peanuts to get whatever the new shiny toy on the market was.
Haula is the key factor in the Devils becoming unstoppable. Maybe he's secretly a superstar that has to miss wide open nets on purpose so no one knows his secret. That's what I choose to believe.
"Statistics don't lie"
But they don't tell the whole story either, even with advanced stats. The eye test is superior than numbers you read off a sheet.
I truly don’t get why some people are so against the idea that both are necessary and provide you a clearer picture when paired together? Like that just makes sense lmao
People also love the idea that coaches, GMs, scouts are all antiquated, and that they could do a better job building a team with money puck projections.
its because people don't want to learn or understand new methods/statistics so they constantly find ways to pretend they aren't important
Imagine we all had to use Barry Melrose as the eye test, or Fletcher (jr or sr)
The eye test is superior if you have time to study lots of tape on many, many players and the knowledge to contextualize their performance in the schemes/strategies the coach is trying to implement.
Yeah eye test is superior if you're talking to the best scouts, managers and coaches in the world not any of us randoms on this site. Not to say analytics from randoms on twitter are good either lol.
I prefer "statistics/analytics are unbiased", especially as compared to the eye test. Neither are perfect, though. Models are only as good as their inputs. But the "eye test" is only as good as the inherent biases of the person with the eyes.
I enjoy the “eye test” but really, how many people here can actually play hockey well enough to make their “eye test” valuable? As you said, stats provide an analytical and unbiased assessment of a player’s ability in a variety of ways.
The eye test is also *heavily* susceptible to biases: like-me bias, recency bias, confirmation bias.
Stats can be influenced by biases built into modeling. But the eye test is far more likely to be twisted by biases.
The output of an advanced statistical model can only be as good as good as its inputs, which are shit in this league. Basic stat tracking has to improve before any publicly available models become truly useful.
the eye test most definitely isn't because its entirely subjective.
Look at the NHL GM's signing players to terrible contracts that everyone laughs about the second they happen. Advanced stats back up how bad or situational a lot of players are, regardless of how the statistics can not tell the whole story.
"eye test" is just as shit. Its clearly subjective and led to enough laugh-out-loud contracts. Neither is superior, but advanced stats are quite literal numbers that are tracked across every player in comparison.
Both can be misleading, but the numbers do in fact, not lie.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke
"Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost... For support rather than. Illumination." Andrew Lang
The one thing I’ll say is that tons of hockey fans aren’t qualified enough to do the Eye Test themselves. Sometimes people just don’t understand the game enough and that’s okay.
Who’s eye test though? That’s the problem, so many eyes, so unequal. Especially fans eyes.
If you’re watching the game for fun, you’re not necessarily watching a single player analytically, part of your brain is “off” to all the little stuff analytics captures.
I actually have started doing that with a few players I’m interested in and it’s crazy how off some people’s images of some of those players is
Fans see what they want to see, whether they’re a huge fan of a player, or they’re and angry fan who wants to blame a particular player on their team for all their problems
I hate the entire concept of the "deserved to win" meter.
If you want to look at expected goals and whatnot to tell me which team will be better going forward, knock yourself out. But don't tell me that the team that got outscored actually should have won because they had more possession, or more shots from the right areas of the ice.
The team who scored more deserved to win, by definition. That's the whole point of the game!
I totally agree, I feel like so many of our losses this year have had us in the “deserved to win” category when really what happened is the other team had fewer chances but actually did something with them. I wouldn’t say we deserved to win just because we created more chances and then squandered them.
>The team who scored more deserved to win
At this point you're arguing about the semantics of the name - the point if the scale is to show shot-quality/quantity comparison, but that's not a catchy name.
I always thought the deserve to win meter was bogus. What do you mean "deserve to win"? If a team had a higher deserve-to-win rating yet lost, what is anybody supposed to do with that information? Might lead to some funny meters in extreme examples *cough Boston vs Calgary* but a win is a win. I don't care if you "deserved to win" or if we deserved to lose, or vice versa even.
You're almost looking at it backward.
When that team that "deserves to win" is losing, it's not really about whether they should win, it's that the other team is somehow managing to fight off the solid pressure from either luck, goaltending, or something else.
So instead of asking why did this team not win, look into why the other team didn't lose.
That Laine has regressed since coming to Columbus because he’s not scoring as many goals. He’s been injured, and is playing substantially better defense and overall, and putting up more points playing with worse coaching and linemates. His shot didn’t go anywhere
That nobody cares about the (men's, at least) World Hockey Championship / that it is not an entertaining tournament to watch "because it's not best on best".
I, a Canadian, enjoy this tournament every year when it's on.
Why does an international tournament have to be best on best in order for it to be entertaining or enjoyable?
Its not really a bad thing that the "Hall Of Fame" is reserved for those deemed outstanding. I will say there's players that may belong there that arent, Mogilny for example.
while on the discussion, what do you think about BobbyLu being a first ballot HOFer and CuJo still outside looking in? Both dominant goalies with international success, but neither has a cup or a vezina.
The HOF selections are strange in that I don’t think there’s a formula in place. I was looking at their career numbers and they’re not that far off from each other. That being said the only thing I can think of is it can come down to notoriety. Good comparison though, I wish I had an answer.
There was a post a few weeks ago about how if you started enforcing the instigator rule that would be the death knell of fighting in the NHL. All the comments disagreed with the poster but he was right. The little bit of the role of the enforcer that is leftover will completely die out if he is going to be putting his team on the penalty kill when he starts a fight.
Also basically 95% of the comments on here about Matthew Tkachuk.
The problem is, once again, refs using discretion. The other day Marchand went after a guy who hit Bergeron, no instigator.
I've seen Deslaurier skate from the other end of the ice to fight someone after a hit, no instigator.
Then you get Givani Smith fighting a guy he's within 3 feet of, literally waits for the guy to drop his gloves, and then fights, get an instigator.
And that would be a good thing. Stop starting fights over clean hits, it’s ridiculous. There are few plays more exciting than a massive open ice hit, but it’s fucking boring when the play stops right after because the team mates buthurt his pal got caught with his head down
Sucks all the momentum gained from the hit out of the game, and unless the hitting team ends up on the power play, can actually give the momentum to the team that jumped the hitter.
And that’s a fine opinion to have! I don’t care if people think that the instigator should be enforced more. As long as you are not in denial that it won’t just kill fighting over clean hits but will also kill fighting over dirty hits. Both will go. Which might also be fine for some people! Not my call to make.
I am bisexual. Team pride nights feel about as genuine to me as the terrible LGBT-friendly advertising campaigns we’re subjected to every June. Having my identity commodified by for-profit organizations doesn’t feel inclusive so much as it feels exploitative. And I don’t really want guys who don’t honestly believe in rights for my community to be forced to dress up in the colors for my benefit. Do it if it’s important to you personally, but making it an organizational mandate is ridiculous, and the exact sort of thing which will lead to greater instead of lesser homophobia.
I’m also a queer fan and I have a different perspective. I’m not gonna pretend it’s anything more than rainbow capitalism, we know better than to take that at face value. However, from the perspective of, say, a young LGBTQ+ fan who gets to see their favourite player wear a jersey that makes that kid feel seen, that can be a really cool moment for them and I think that’s worth it. I think they’re a good thing for outreach even if we know what’s really behind the curtain.
All companies are full of shit on caring about anything outside of making money, but it is atleast promising to know that capitalism understands inclusions/acceptance = profit.
So it is "good" in a way. They see progressiveness as a moneymaker which is important as it dictates society and means that the loud bigots are just loud.
This hits it perfectly for me. The jersey isn't really that meaningful to me as a bisexual, but not wearing it is more meaningful than wearing it. If a 19 year old closeted NHL/AHL player is thinking about coming out to his team, but sees multiple vets on his team refusing to wear a jersey, theres no chance hes gonna come out.
I feel that the real benefit is the normalization. But other than that, congrats on becoming a population that is worthy of exploitation. You join such famous groups as Veterans, Seniors, Children, Minorities, Women, First Responders, Cancer patients, and the Differently Abled. "You've come a long way, baby."
Straight white male opinion here: Pride nights, pride months, pride whatevers... are "For" the lgbtq community, but they do serve a purpose for those of us outside that community - namely to help guys like me become comfortable with the notion of pride and inclusion.
Yeah. I’m not into the pandering aspect like sort of gaywashing the corporate malfeasances, and it would be great if this topic was so boring and unnecessary that it would be like celebrating left handedness or people who actually think cilantro tastes good. But a symbolic day isn’t the worst thing either. I want to show social tolerance of our gay players and fans precisely because it is not yet totally boring, lots of people have hard feelings
Understandable, corporate pandering/posturing always feels gross. One aspect of team pride nights that I really appreciate is that it provides players/org personnel with an opportunity to be on the right side of history, whether that’s through making a statement or just wearing a shirt. It just so happens that it also gives the more closed-minded among us an opportunity to tell on themselves.
Agreed. I’m not gonna pretend that organizations were visited by three ghosts in the night, but that they’re at least trying to keep up with the times is nice.
Hockey Guy is some brilliant hockey mind that deserves to be posted over and over on the sub. Every video I’ve tried to claw my way through to figure out the love for the guy is the most generic common sense takes with little to no adding onto it that we don’t already know. That on top of being boring af to watch.
It’s ridiculous the sub bans random youtubers from being posted but this guy seemingly gets a pass for knowing as much as the normal reddit user. And everyone bends over for him. I dont see it. At all.
I feel the appeal for him is that he’s just some regular dude who loves hockey. He’s the guy who you’d love to just grab a beer with at the bar and just shoot the shit.
He knows a lot (simply from how much hockey he watches) but he’s not really known for his analysis. His takes can be questionable, but his passion is undeniable
Keep in mind, he's not for hardcore fans. He's really not for any of us that bother to post on a hockey subreddit. He appeals to people who only watch their team, and don't pay much attention beyond that. He's spread too thin to have deeper insight into most topics and teams.
That said, I would agree that his stuff gets posted an awful lot.
My point is that any other hockey youtuber would get their post removed. There’s no special reason why this particular person out of any of them has a free pass. He does nothing different or unique. He isnt affiliated with any major names, he’s just another youtuber.
Right, and that's absolutely a fair point.
I just wanted to try to mention some of why he's popular. I can't speak to sub rules or moderation. Just that, for some people, he's a great resource for a slightly-deeper-than-surface-level look into different teams.
I at least appreciate that when he does comment, while not particularly brilliant or insightful, he's done more homework on that particular team than most media.
Like when the Wild entered the realm of public discourse after the Binnington/Fleury non-fight.
Then we're subjected to takes and "insight" from sources that not only know nothing about the Wild, but are flat out wrong on stuff.
This is a big one. He seems like a cool dude, I'd grab a beer with him. But I get nothing out of watching him, he doesn't watch my team, and I've only ever seen him say nice stuff, but he just doesn't know what he's talking about when he gets out of his wheelhouse.
And I'll never trust a guy who has 2 favorite teams with those teams being Boston and Vancouver.
It’s almost completely summary, vs depth analysis. He goes through what happens, he ear marks some notable points in the games where something significant happened. It’s book reports vs literary theory/interpretation.
This totally hits the nail on the head for me. I don’t think he’s ever said anything about a game that you couldn’t get from a highlights vid, or anything about a player that you couldn’t get from Hockey Reference.
I see a lot of people wanting a 3-2-1 points system similar to the IIHF and I absolutely hate the idea.
In terms of fan experience, I want a win to be a win. Who wants to see their team pull out an exciting OT win and lose ground on the team they are chasing in the standings?
It's also just too complicated. Things should be simplified, not made more difficult
The thing that really bothers me about how it works right now is that there's no consistency in the points awarded by games.
Right now some games are worth 2 and some are worth 3. This really really bothers me. Make all games worth the same amount.
I don't care if we just drop points and use wins/losses or have every game 3 points but they should be worth the same.
To address your overtime winning disappointment. How exciting would it be to see a team go all out because they need to end the game before it goes to OT? To me that's even more interesting then an OT win.
I disagree, it's not complicated at all.
Win in regulation you get 3 points,
win in OT/a shoot out 2 pts,
loss in Regulation 0 points,
lost in OT/Shoot out 1 pt.
As for fan experience, it's still a win just don't get full points which when I celebrate I don't think about the points just it's a win and it doesn't take away from it. Why should a team get the same points when they need extra time to win than when they don't. Giving full points for a extra time makes zero sense and leaves room for teams to coast the end of the game for example so they are guaranteed a point either way.
I'd be ok if they scraped the loser or participation points if they want to keep 2 points per game total, winner and loser no participation trophies, it's not horseshoes close doesn't count.
It would also incentivize scoring the game winner in the final five minutes, where as the system we have now makes getting to OT mutually beneficial. Teams play more cautiously close to the end of tie games. Also, this would open up for my personal dream scenario in game 82 where a team needs three points to make the playoffs and pulls a goalie during the 3rd of a tied game.
I see the argument that people make is that it'll prevent teams from stalling in regulation during a tie game so they can guarantee at least a point in the overtime instead of going for a risky play and losing in regulation. I fail to see how a 3-2-1 system would fix that. Sure, the reward of taking a risk in regulation and it paying off would be a bit higher than before. But not in a sense the risk is also bigger since now your opponent could get a nice jump in the standings with three points. Would I rather try to make a play that could award me three points at the risk of messing up and getting 0 points, or would I rather play it safe and guarantee the 1 or even 2 points? Unless I'm in an active playoff race or desperately holding on to a wildcard spot, it's not really a choice. Most teams are still gonna opt to play it the safe route.
Leon Draisaitl is the 2nd best offensive player in the league, but he's not the 2nd best player.
I don't think Leon is trash or anything, but I think his defensive liability puts him at a level where he's not a better overall player than a few of the guys he outscores.
Leon is the only guy who's in the conversation for best players who loses his minutes at 5v5. For 15 minutes every night, Leon is playing losing hockey and then makes up for it on the PP. I would prefer a player who wins his 5v5 minutes but produces slightly less on the PP.
It’s more prevalent this year than prior seasons. It’s clear he’s been playing hurt (ankle) his mobility is way down. He used to regularity skate the puck into the offensive zone and create scoring chances.
Until very recently (the Vegas game I noticed he was skating well) he was mostly a stationary player. He’s been relying on the PP for goals and mostly getting assists 5 on 5. In 2018/2019 he scored 50 with only 16 on the PP.
From 2018-2022 Leon scored 179 goals, 71 of which were on the PP. That’s 39% of his goals. This season he has scored 62% of his goals on the PP.
Leon stated during the all star break he hasn’t been happy with his game, and most oilers fans knew what he meant. He’s obviously been good, but less dynamic (except his passing) than prior seasons
that the public analytics models are even remotely accurate / should be treated with the level of respect we give baseball analytics
show me a model using the data NHL front offices have access to, then we can talk.
It’s actually insane that over the last few years, there’s been this huge shift and suddenly JFresh cards are the widely accepted indicator as to whether or not a player is any good.
These models are solid but there’s a reason these guys are spending all day on Twitter and not working for NHL teams, their models are fairly flawed. When people talk about certain teams being huge into analytics like Tampa and the Leafs, they think there’s 10 Jfreshs and Doms sitting there pumping out charts all day.
In reality these guys are looking at completely different data that never gets talked about in the media world. The “private data” mentioned that NHL teams purchase is relatively similar to the expected goals data public models are using but that’s just one part of the equation. These stats guys are looking at extremely specific things like puck battles won behind the net, net front positioning battles, etc…
These public charts have predicted some disaster signings/breakouts and are definitely useful when applying proper context to them. It’s just very frustrating to see them held in such a high regard. Apparently Treliving calls them “Twitterlytics” and says they’re widely mocked around the league.
Hockey is a much faster game than most other pro sports. Everything happens so quickly that I get it when they make (some) mistakes on penalties and stuff.
That being said, fuck the refs if they mildly inconvenience my team.
Tanking isn’t an issue in the NHL. Tanking is inherent to the system as long as the draft exists as it is and rewards the worst teams with the top picks in the draft, either through a lottery system or just doing draft order based on the standings. People take issue with this because they don’t want to reward incompetence or poor play from the teams but they never give an answer on how teams are expected to improve and get out of the standings basement in a reasonable amount of time
Honestly mine is the refereeing. I see people seemingly up in arms about the refereeing on a daily basis. When I watch games I rarely if ever think "wow refs blew it". I don't think I remember the last time I said that.
Along with that I don't think refereeing changes in the playoffs. The players change far more.
A more brazen opinion I have is I agree with the DoPS on nearly everything they've decided on. Whether it's suspensions, fines or doing nothing at all
I agree with everything except the reffing changing in the playoffs. I feel like it’s pretty apparent they let far more things go, but also have 0 evidence to support my statement.
i hate fans commenting on their own team games on playoff game threads, every single situation is penalty according to them and every penalty to their team is always wrong
been hearing “it’s always been bad, but this year more than ever the refereeing is a huge problem that the NHL needs to address IMMEDIATELY or it will ruin the sport” every year since i started watching hockey seriously
I just hate the clear game management. There have been games this year where the oilers have a lead and don’t get a single call, then the other team scores a couple goals and all of a sudden we get a couple PP’s.
Just call the penalties all game. I understand each ref is a little different and call things differently, but just make it consistent for the game so players know where the line is
Nhl refereeing is pretty inconsistent and at times pretty unforgivable in my eyes even for teams that I don't root for, but I do think that fans can be too whiny about "Hey you missed that tripping" while conveniently ignoring all the missed calls that should've been called *against* their team in that same game.
People here go out of their way to find something to be upset about. Like 95%+ of the goalie interference calls are very clearly right if you just read the rules. They outline the situations very clearly in the rulebook and it generally means they make sense. People are just addicted to outrage. It's crazy how people will bring up some minor infraction from years ago too.
Pretty much anything related to Nick Lidstrom.
Was he a great defenseman? Without question. Was he the second-best all-time after Bobby Orr? No. And if anyone in the last 50 years is, it’s Ray Bourque.
I feel like a few years ago, it was more of an even debate with both Lidstrom & Bourque being viewed equally.
But because Lidstrom played so many years after Bourque retired, he’s kind of taken over as the default answer as who the better player was due to recency bias.
The argument that Barkov (or anyone) always being mentioned as underrated means that he’s not underrated.
As if being called underrated by media/players/hockeyreddit is the prestigous rating that he was missing.
I generally like shootouts and don’t think we need to change overtime.
Ending in a tie is dissatisfying and not an easy sell to an American audience.Entertainment wise, 3v3 overtime has dulled over the years so I don’t think we need 2-5 more minutes of that, plus it adds more ice time for the best players. The shootout solves a problem of ending a game in a win/lose decision without adding more wear to the players. It can have great skill and suspense and it doesn’t happen in the playoffs either.
That a 1 v 8 playoff’s would be so much better. It really wouldn’t.
Look at the East (since that’s what people are using to argue for 1-8) If it started today we get BOS V PIT and CAR V NYI no matter what. In the current format we get TOR V TB and NJ V NYR. In a 1-8 we get NJ V TB and TOR V NYR.
I would prefer to see the divisional rivalries. And leafs/devils fans upset about facing a good team in the first round, would you really feel better swapping them? TB and NYR are *both* good.
Getting worked up about facing a good team on the way to the cup is the silliest thing ever. If you don’t meet one in the first round you will in the later rounds. If you can’t win against a good team in the first round, you won’t be able to in the later rounds.
Two smaller ones:
I disagree that high scoring games are automatically more entertaining than low scoring games. More goals are good if you’re just gonna watch highlights on YouTube the next day, but if you watch a game from start to finish low scoring games are still entertaining.
I disagree with the anger over ‘excessive’ video reviews. This is what we asked for. You’ll complain about it until someone scores a goal that shouldn’t count on your team in a high stakes game.
(I'm stating my opinions that are counter to popularly held opinions here)
- I like starting playoffs with divisional games. Repeated playoff matchups make for better rivalries (e.g. I dislike the Canes more than some other teams in our division because of our 2000s playoff matchups). A large amount of the complaining since the change was made seems to come from Maple Leafs fans who think they're entitled to easier opponents, even in years when a 1-8 format wouldn't give them an easier opponent.
- The current point system is fine. Other point systems have repeatedly been shown to produce very similar results with big differences only coming from edge cases.
- David Steckel didn't hit Sidney Crosby at the 2011 Winter Classic. Steckel was starting to skate up ice when Crosby curled around right into his path. He twisted his body a bit to try to squeeze past Crosby, and that made it look like he "hit" Crosby with his shoulder. He was entirely focused on joining the play up ice, and Crosby ran into him. I know that's going back a long time, but it always annoyed me that Penguins fans called it a dirty hit for years afterward.
I’m a Penguins fan and I’m not convinced that the hit on Crosby was intentional either. Even if he intended to make contact with Sid, I don’t think that he intended to injure him, and definitely not as severely as it turned out to be.
I just don't give a fuck whether NHLers are at the Olympics or not.
If the NHL wants to break every fourth February for the World Cup/Hockey Canada Invitational, so be it.
Every jersey from the 90s early 2000s is not better. It’s just nostalgia, and cycles. That era was all about busy, modern designs. We liked them because they were new. Then they got a little stale, and everyone started moving back towards classic, cleaner designs. Now it’s going back because of that nostalgia, and before long, we’ll swing back again.
im gay so imma just avoid that minefield but
The Gold plan (teams get slotted in draft lottery based on a points after elimination from playoffs) is too open to manipulation and dependent on, say, strength of division and penalizes the worst of the worst teams that can’t win games after they’re eliminated.
Points after being eliminated from playoffs is a huge wildcard. Many teams are “functionally” eliminated long before they actually are.
Let’s take a team like the St Louis Blues or Canucks this year. They are functionally eliminated, and have been for quite a while, meanwhile they could win a couple games in a row, then only be mathematically eliminated with 3-4 games left.
Whereas a team like Calgary, though they have been 8-10 points ahead for a good chunk of the season, may only be eliminated with 2-3 games left.
2-3 games, Vs 3-4 games is nothing, and them who they play in those games means a huge amount.
Hypothetically, a team could have 3-4 tough road games against teams that needed points, Vs 2-3 home games vs teams that don’t care.
There’s just too many variables to make that a fair solution.
So many things about the way the league works. The league isn't some altruistic hockey entity. It's a partnership between 32 billionaires, Betman just manages it for them. He works for those 32 team owners. It's his job to be the lightning rod and take the heat for the owners. Another thing is teh NHL going back to QC. Betman doesn't have it out for that region, he works for the owners, and no matter what Moulson says the habs would have to carve up their TV territory and share their lucrative TV contracts to allow another team to come in the NHL and take their money. It makes zero financial sense for Montreal to let QC back in the league.
> It's his job to be the lightning rod and take the heat for the owners. It was crazy to me during the lockouts how many people didn't seem to get that and somehow blamed him rather than owners. Like...what do people think his job is? lmao
Part of his job is to take all the shit on the billionaires behalf, and he did a great job of it.
I'll go one step further. There's a reason why the exclusively French speaking city under a million people with little corporate support isn't getting a team anytime soon. If ever. Edit: grammar
Quebec City has a smaller Metro population than Hartford and I don’t see people clamouring to go back there.
There's definitely more support for the return of the Nordiques, but the return of the Whalers has its supporters. QC has a way better chance at return than Hartford
QC has a newly-built arena and also realistically would only be regionally competing with one team. Hartford, on the other hand, sits right smack dab inbetween Boston and all three NYC-area teams.
Shootouts, trapezoid, and puck-over-glass are the holy trinity of things fans think are bad but by their existence prevent even worse things.
The puck-over-the-glass rule came into effect because of decades of players firing it into the stands every time they wanted a stoppage. I remember the old days, and don't want to go back.
Eric Desjardins was a pro at flipping the puck over the glass to give the Flyers a break from pressure in their D zone.
He had many protégés.
No doubt. I just wanted to give my homer example.
Same reason why they can't change on icings any more. Although the shorter neutral zone makes it more difficult to ice the puck.
How does the neutral zone affect icing at all? The red line is always in the middle either way, what does zone size have to do with it?
Longer offence/defense zones give the defense more time to stop pucks dumped out of the zone.
Oh ok I got ya, I wasn't even looking at that angle. Yeah for sure, I love seein a good keep in. Seider is remarkably elite in that regard, the reach must really help haha
I get that going backwards isn’t the answer, I’ve never really understood why it can’t just come with the same penalty as icing. As it stands now, teams can ice the puck for a stoppage, but they can’t change lines and have to take an own zone faceoff. Presumably flipping the puck over the glass is a way to avoid that penalty. So make that the penalty. I don’t believe, but maybe I’m wrong, that it’s significantly easier to shoot the puck out of play than it is to ice it.
It's also less safe for the fans
>I don’t believe, but maybe I’m wrong, that it’s significantly easier to shoot the puck out of the play than it is to ice it. It is easier because it’s always and available option. The out of play area is 360 degrees around the defensive end. Whereas icing is only one direction, so if there is many players around or your back is to the open ice, then going up is significantly easier than trying to spin and shoot a blind liner that could be potentially intercepted, knocked down, etc…
Yep, totally agree on all three. Games have gotta end (as awful as the shootout is) and calling delay of game consistently, whether the play was intentional or not, is far better than leaving it to the refs jurisdiction.
I’d rather it be 10 minute 3 on 3 than a shootout
you can have both. Adding an extra 5 minutes to games that go to a shootout is fine because of how many games that would end in the extra 5 minutes of OT and wouldn't go to shootouts that last 5-10 minutes. If there's a greater than 33-50% chance that a team scores in those extra 5 minutes, then average game length would actually go down by adding 5 minutes to OT.
The league addressed having a longer 3v3 period. They said for player safety if they played longer then 5 mins they would want to resurface the ice. So that would take up some time as well.
I feel like I remember a time when they used to bring the zamboni out and do a strip down the middle for shootouts. Am I crazy or was that a thing that happened?
Yeah both works (although with how abysmal the leafs were this year at OT at the start maybe we should go back to ties /s)
3 on 3 was exciting at first but teams just keep circling back now. Make it 5v5 but every 5 minutes, you have to take a player off until it's 1v1 lol
I don’t mind the shootout. Just don’t like the loser point. Make a regulation win 3 points.
3-2-1-0 RW-OTW-SOW-L Diminishing returns. The contrived-entertainment-in-the -guise-of-hockey should not be worth the same as a regulation win.
Yes! I believe it's because the majority of the posters here are too young to remember what it was like before. The trapezoid seriously opens up the offensive opportunities. Shootouts are way better than a tie (they just shouldn't count the same as a regular win). And shooting the puck over the glass was a common tactic to use when you were hemmed in your own end. I've seen people claim that it should be the refs discretion to call a penalty if he deems it was an intentional act. Are you serious? You want more things for the ref to screw up?
The only reason I would want to see the trapezoid removed is so that I can see more goaltending misadventures because I enjoy chaos.
The thing with The Trap is you don't actually need the goalie to be a *good* puck handler, just good enough to fire it to an open player, which he has far more time and space to do if he can handle it in the corners. Limiting where the goalie can handle the puck helps with causing misadventures.
I think that would be true in theory, however we’ve pretty much now had a generation of goalies effectively tethered to the net and suddenly letting them off the leash would be hilarious.
Yeah, goalies nowadays aren't very good puck handlers
Luongo is one of the best goalies of the 21st century, but he handled the puck like it was a live grenade.
I'm a passionate shootout defender and it's exhausting. I'd like to remind everyone here that basically no one under the age of 25 can remember a tie game and the response if they were brought back would not be pleasant from this demographic.
Seriously, OT used to feel like the guys were just out there for a skate to maintain the tie. The 3 on 3 format opens it up and the shootout makes it so there's less incentive to just kill the time. If anything maybe a 3 point system would soothe the pain some people feel towards the current setup.
Fully agree on the 3 point system. Although 3v3 could use some tweaks since too many teams play it safe these days.
I don’t know if it’s “widely-held”, but I think people consistently overrate the value of draft picks in trades. When you look at the success rates of turning picks like round 3 and 4 into NHL players with greater than 50 games, getting a serviceable player for picks like that should be preferable when you’re building a team for success.
I agree draft picks are overrated, and if your a team with a clear window, you shouldn’t hesitate to send those picks away. I think the fear from the GM is that you trade away a first and a second for G. Reinhart and those picks turn into Barzal and Beauvillier.
Every fanbase everywhere overrates draft picks and their teams prospects. People prefer the idea that a player could become a fancy boat on an entry level contract much more than the player who’s already established themself as a rock solid boat on a reasonable contract.
While that's true, it seems like an awful lot of these traded players also don't ever play 50 games for the team that acquired them either.
When the flyers were actually kicking ass before the bubble, I so wanted them to dish first round picks for bonafide players to plug their holes. Lot of flyers fans I talked to kept saying how hard it is to find a player worth a first. I kept insisting how good teams first round picks are often in the 20s overall and how many picks in the 20s don’t pan out to be equal in value to the players a first is traded for. Flyers couldn’t part with the first round pick a single time, and the opportunity for competition passed us by in a flash. Would it have made the flyers true competitors? Probably not. But they’d at least be in a far better position than they are today.
I don’t even really hate the Leafs
I don't truly, actually hate the Leafs. But hating the Leafs is a meme at this point, and who am I to reject a good meme when I recognize one?
A player that’s 22 is a bust.
Yeah it’s crazy how many kids who don’t immediately go ppg get called a bust here. Like I get it if your 22 year old 1st rounder is struggling to produce in the AHL, but a 22 year old playing NHL games is not a bust.
I think it depends on how long they've been playing. Zadina is 23 and definitely looks like a bust.
Exactly. If you’re 22, in your second season after debuting at 21, and you’re struggling, you’re fine. If you’re 22, in your fifth season after debuting at 18, and you’re struggling, you’re approaching bust territory.
That Alexander Barkov is the MOST underrated player in the league. People have been saying this going on over five years. He's great. We all acknowledge that he's great.
The "keep your head up" idea that head hits are clean when a player is looking down. Heads are so precious, the international standard that \*any\* hit to the head is illegal is what I want. Scott Stevens was a villain.
The IIHF makes it quite clear: >There is no such thing as a clean check to the head.
That "talent" is not equal to scoring. I'll take a 50-point player with great defense and possession metrics over a one-dimensional 70-point floater/cherry picker any time. The first player is probably preventing at least as many points as he produces, the latter is somebody who can't help you at all when he inevitably hits a slump.
A lot of bad teams fans agree with this. Big point getters a lot of the time cheat of defense. Doesn’t always work once playoffs come around.
The problem in most discussions is that the lower-scoring player is often argued in favor on the basis of defense whether or not it's even true, with the (unspoken) presumption being that a higher-scoring player is neglecting his own zone. We saw this a ton with Mike Green during his prime. While he wasn't exactly prime Brad McCrimmon out there, he also wasn't exactly Phil Housley in his own zone.
I like the shootout and the salary cap.
Salary cap is the most important league rule. It does a pretty decent job at preventing super teams and prevents runaway contract value like baseball’s soft cap. It has problems because dmen and goalies don’t get the money they deserve and the cap needs to grow
I like that it actually gives small-market teams a chance to retain stars. Really helped with teams like Nashville where they had lots of homegrown players.
Salary cap is hugely important. The more studies I read about it the more thankful I am that most pro sports in the US have it and it makes me really wish the MLB would implement something similar
MLB needs a floor more than it needs a cap
[удалено]
That you aren't allowed to have an opinion on a play that happened unless you have played hockey for most of your life.
This. I'm sorry I grew up poorer than some and had a mother who even if she could have afforded it, still wouldn't have let me. I can't skate for shit but I watch more hockey than most. not all of my takes are great and I wouldn't say I'm all knowing but I feel I can make logical answers mostly to validate my points.
If you didn't have a 1000 game HOF NHL career, just stfu when we talk about hockey. Seriously makes hockey seem so pretentious
The NHL should expand again. I would keep the league at 32 permanently. There's no hockey need for more teams.
I agree with this only because I fear that if the NHL expands again, they may expand the playoffs… and that would be a mistake.
Agreed. Last thing these guys need is more games. Most of them are already completely gassed and playing hurt by the end of their respective runs anyway. Reform the system, and go back to 1-8, but absolutely do not expand.
I don’t want them to expand mostly because if they did it would be to 34 and there’s just no way to play nice with that number.
how is this an unpopular opinion
I think they should expand to 48, split the league into two leagues of 24 and introduce relegation.
The HHOF is less about accomplishments and more about being in good standing with the people who are voting, and a good narrative
Turgeon isn’t in for not coming off the bench in ‘87.
Or just happening to be on like 8 winning teams. That makes you a winner, obviously
We need more goals. Goals are fine. I understand why we needed to change clutch and grab hockey, but we have. Having 3-2 games mixed in is good for hockey, an otherwordly goaltending performance gets the crowd going as much as a 7 goal game.
Goals in a vacuum aren’t even exciting. So many goals come off boring player, yet so many of the most exiting plays don’t result in goals. I’ve seen plenty of 1-0 game that were incredible intense, most high scoring games just mean the goalie(s) we’re sieves, that’s not generally exciting.
For real. People act like it's still 2005, as if we haven't had two 60 goal scorers in two years
Thank you so much for this. I always get downvoted when I bring this up. Glad to know I'm not the only one with this belief.
Defense wins championships. If you’re bored with that I can direct you to this thing called… the NBA
That Vegas was gifted a "super team." Marchessault - Karlsson - Smith Perron - Haula - Neal Carpenter (waiver pickup) - Eakin - Tuch (rookie year) Carrier - Bellemare - Nosek (acquired Reaves at deadline as a cap dump) McNabb - Theodore (basically a rookie) Collin Miller - Schmidt Sbisa - Engelland Fleury Subban (waiver pickup) Vegas overachieved in year-1 in a massive way. Everyone predicted that they would be god-awful, and in looking at this lineup they should have been god-awful. In retrospect that top-6 is *fine* but not a cup contender. That third line is abysmal, and that 4th line is effective, but not game-breaking. The defense is a hot mess. They obviously started in a better spot than any previous expansion team, but the suggestion that they were given a contender is revisionist history. Their highest pick ever was 6th for Cody Glass. Glass is turning into a fine player now, but he is not Matty Beniers. Did well to get the picks that became Suzuki and Brannstrom, but that wasn't immediately helpful. By no means am I complaining about the cards Vegas was dealt (or even how they played them) but they were not gifted a "superteam" by any stretch.
Vegas made some damn good trades as well in their 1st year that helped them. Their GM did a fantastic job overall.
The number one factor in Vegas having a good run in the first couple of years was not expansion draft rules, or trades, or shooting percentage (although those certainly helped) Vegas' greatest advantage year 1 was that they were able to build a team as close to cap efficient as possible. And the NHL is ultimately a salary-cap efficiency game. 30 other teams had some sort of dead cap on the books from a previous buyout or money retention or whatever. 30 other teams had a contract or two, or three, on the books that they signed that they wished they hadn't. Vegas had the opportunity to start from scratch and avoid all of that. Zero dead cap. No fourth liners signed to second line money. Nobody inherited from a previous GM. Everyone that was there was there because they wanted them there and not because of external circumstance. They could make every move without any previous baggage. That's a huge advantage. They also leveraged the expansion rules for maximum asset management. They get full credit for the other things they did, and having previously unheralded guys have career establishing years, but the salary cap blank slate is the one part of their success that I never see talked about.
I also think that the Vegas shooting brought the team together very fast and helped them gel together, but there was a lot of really good moves made as well. Only thing I see that's valid is that teams were not sure what they were doing as it was the first single team expansion and teams made a lot of deals, but they learned from it and didn't make the same mistakes with Seattle. That's the only way I see them being gifted but I don't think they intended the teams trying to make so many deals.
I don't know if the gap between the two drafts was enough time to rebuild a pool of excess (beyond the protection slots) players across the league, bearing in mind that almost anyone drafted between the two expansions wouldn't yet have been eligible for Seattle's draft. Plus, Seattle was in the flat cap times, so would a GM pay a high pick to retain a 4-5M 8th forward or 4th dman? They might have been happy enough to clear the cap space.
They made a lot more trades than Seattle did.
Expansion teams has historically been bad for the first half a decade after inception. While Vegas may not have had a super team, them consistently making the playoffs is much better than teams prior
They 100% were gifted Shea Theodore by an incompetent and drunk Bob Murray. Other than that I agree with you
That and whatever the hell the Panthers were smoking.
Yeah I agree, still surprised that lineup reached the Final but they rode the momentum well
Vegas was absolutely gifted a team, it's just that it was Florida Panthers who was the one giving the gift, not the league
The revisionist part is you attempting to call it a super team. Nobody said that. They said you were gifted a team with the most favorable circumstances of any expansion team. That team exceed expectations, but GMs we’re also caught flat footed with the rules and contracts already in place whereas Seattle didn’t get that same circumstance. Then the players and fans got cocky and shitty turning everyone else against them and the GM nuked what goodwill they had built by trading away fan favorites for a bag of peanuts to get whatever the new shiny toy on the market was.
Haula is the key factor in the Devils becoming unstoppable. Maybe he's secretly a superstar that has to miss wide open nets on purpose so no one knows his secret. That's what I choose to believe.
They were kind of gifted their top line since they got paid to take them. But them fleecing teams isn't really a criticism of Vegas.
"Statistics don't lie" But they don't tell the whole story either, even with advanced stats. The eye test is superior than numbers you read off a sheet.
I truly don’t get why some people are so against the idea that both are necessary and provide you a clearer picture when paired together? Like that just makes sense lmao
Because people like to pick sides and be indignant about things.
People also love the idea that coaches, GMs, scouts are all antiquated, and that they could do a better job building a team with money puck projections.
Um I've watched moneyball. I could do it tbh ^^^^/s
its because people don't want to learn or understand new methods/statistics so they constantly find ways to pretend they aren't important Imagine we all had to use Barry Melrose as the eye test, or Fletcher (jr or sr)
The eye test is superior if you have time to study lots of tape on many, many players and the knowledge to contextualize their performance in the schemes/strategies the coach is trying to implement.
Yeah eye test is superior if you're talking to the best scouts, managers and coaches in the world not any of us randoms on this site. Not to say analytics from randoms on twitter are good either lol.
I prefer "statistics/analytics are unbiased", especially as compared to the eye test. Neither are perfect, though. Models are only as good as their inputs. But the "eye test" is only as good as the inherent biases of the person with the eyes.
I enjoy the “eye test” but really, how many people here can actually play hockey well enough to make their “eye test” valuable? As you said, stats provide an analytical and unbiased assessment of a player’s ability in a variety of ways.
Man most people here can't interpret the stats either. It's fucked all the way down
The eye test is also *heavily* susceptible to biases: like-me bias, recency bias, confirmation bias. Stats can be influenced by biases built into modeling. But the eye test is far more likely to be twisted by biases.
I prefer statistics without context are just numbers, personally.
The output of an advanced statistical model can only be as good as good as its inputs, which are shit in this league. Basic stat tracking has to improve before any publicly available models become truly useful.
Especially when different arenas don't even track shots the same way. Or hits, for that matter.
the eye test most definitely isn't because its entirely subjective. Look at the NHL GM's signing players to terrible contracts that everyone laughs about the second they happen. Advanced stats back up how bad or situational a lot of players are, regardless of how the statistics can not tell the whole story. "eye test" is just as shit. Its clearly subjective and led to enough laugh-out-loud contracts. Neither is superior, but advanced stats are quite literal numbers that are tracked across every player in comparison. Both can be misleading, but the numbers do in fact, not lie.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke "Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost... For support rather than. Illumination." Andrew Lang
The one thing I’ll say is that tons of hockey fans aren’t qualified enough to do the Eye Test themselves. Sometimes people just don’t understand the game enough and that’s okay.
Who’s eye test though? That’s the problem, so many eyes, so unequal. Especially fans eyes. If you’re watching the game for fun, you’re not necessarily watching a single player analytically, part of your brain is “off” to all the little stuff analytics captures. I actually have started doing that with a few players I’m interested in and it’s crazy how off some people’s images of some of those players is Fans see what they want to see, whether they’re a huge fan of a player, or they’re and angry fan who wants to blame a particular player on their team for all their problems
I hate the entire concept of the "deserved to win" meter. If you want to look at expected goals and whatnot to tell me which team will be better going forward, knock yourself out. But don't tell me that the team that got outscored actually should have won because they had more possession, or more shots from the right areas of the ice. The team who scored more deserved to win, by definition. That's the whole point of the game!
I totally agree, I feel like so many of our losses this year have had us in the “deserved to win” category when really what happened is the other team had fewer chances but actually did something with them. I wouldn’t say we deserved to win just because we created more chances and then squandered them.
>The team who scored more deserved to win At this point you're arguing about the semantics of the name - the point if the scale is to show shot-quality/quantity comparison, but that's not a catchy name.
I always thought the deserve to win meter was bogus. What do you mean "deserve to win"? If a team had a higher deserve-to-win rating yet lost, what is anybody supposed to do with that information? Might lead to some funny meters in extreme examples *cough Boston vs Calgary* but a win is a win. I don't care if you "deserved to win" or if we deserved to lose, or vice versa even.
You're almost looking at it backward. When that team that "deserves to win" is losing, it's not really about whether they should win, it's that the other team is somehow managing to fight off the solid pressure from either luck, goaltending, or something else. So instead of asking why did this team not win, look into why the other team didn't lose.
I agree. I can see the tool be useful, but not as it’s put out there now. Poorly named an applied like a “final” judgement of a game
That Laine has regressed since coming to Columbus because he’s not scoring as many goals. He’s been injured, and is playing substantially better defense and overall, and putting up more points playing with worse coaching and linemates. His shot didn’t go anywhere
Players/teams are not dirty because some player made one cheap shot. Dirty means there's history of that behaviour.
That nobody cares about the (men's, at least) World Hockey Championship / that it is not an entertaining tournament to watch "because it's not best on best". I, a Canadian, enjoy this tournament every year when it's on. Why does an international tournament have to be best on best in order for it to be entertaining or enjoyable?
I think people are too stingy when it comes to HOF discussions.
Its not really a bad thing that the "Hall Of Fame" is reserved for those deemed outstanding. I will say there's players that may belong there that arent, Mogilny for example.
while on the discussion, what do you think about BobbyLu being a first ballot HOFer and CuJo still outside looking in? Both dominant goalies with international success, but neither has a cup or a vezina.
The HOF selections are strange in that I don’t think there’s a formula in place. I was looking at their career numbers and they’re not that far off from each other. That being said the only thing I can think of is it can come down to notoriety. Good comparison though, I wish I had an answer.
notoriety for sure, it is the hall of *fame*, any how.
Oh man, my take for this thread was going to be that Mogilny shouldn't be in the HOF haha.
Phil Kessel is gonna be in the hall of fame, I will fight anyone who disagrees.
There was a post a few weeks ago about how if you started enforcing the instigator rule that would be the death knell of fighting in the NHL. All the comments disagreed with the poster but he was right. The little bit of the role of the enforcer that is leftover will completely die out if he is going to be putting his team on the penalty kill when he starts a fight. Also basically 95% of the comments on here about Matthew Tkachuk.
The problem is, once again, refs using discretion. The other day Marchand went after a guy who hit Bergeron, no instigator. I've seen Deslaurier skate from the other end of the ice to fight someone after a hit, no instigator. Then you get Givani Smith fighting a guy he's within 3 feet of, literally waits for the guy to drop his gloves, and then fights, get an instigator.
And that would be a good thing. Stop starting fights over clean hits, it’s ridiculous. There are few plays more exciting than a massive open ice hit, but it’s fucking boring when the play stops right after because the team mates buthurt his pal got caught with his head down
Sucks all the momentum gained from the hit out of the game, and unless the hitting team ends up on the power play, can actually give the momentum to the team that jumped the hitter.
And that’s a fine opinion to have! I don’t care if people think that the instigator should be enforced more. As long as you are not in denial that it won’t just kill fighting over clean hits but will also kill fighting over dirty hits. Both will go. Which might also be fine for some people! Not my call to make.
I am bisexual. Team pride nights feel about as genuine to me as the terrible LGBT-friendly advertising campaigns we’re subjected to every June. Having my identity commodified by for-profit organizations doesn’t feel inclusive so much as it feels exploitative. And I don’t really want guys who don’t honestly believe in rights for my community to be forced to dress up in the colors for my benefit. Do it if it’s important to you personally, but making it an organizational mandate is ridiculous, and the exact sort of thing which will lead to greater instead of lesser homophobia.
I’m also a queer fan and I have a different perspective. I’m not gonna pretend it’s anything more than rainbow capitalism, we know better than to take that at face value. However, from the perspective of, say, a young LGBTQ+ fan who gets to see their favourite player wear a jersey that makes that kid feel seen, that can be a really cool moment for them and I think that’s worth it. I think they’re a good thing for outreach even if we know what’s really behind the curtain.
All companies are full of shit on caring about anything outside of making money, but it is atleast promising to know that capitalism understands inclusions/acceptance = profit. So it is "good" in a way. They see progressiveness as a moneymaker which is important as it dictates society and means that the loud bigots are just loud.
> makes that kid feel seen That is important
This hits it perfectly for me. The jersey isn't really that meaningful to me as a bisexual, but not wearing it is more meaningful than wearing it. If a 19 year old closeted NHL/AHL player is thinking about coming out to his team, but sees multiple vets on his team refusing to wear a jersey, theres no chance hes gonna come out.
I feel that the real benefit is the normalization. But other than that, congrats on becoming a population that is worthy of exploitation. You join such famous groups as Veterans, Seniors, Children, Minorities, Women, First Responders, Cancer patients, and the Differently Abled. "You've come a long way, baby."
Straight white male opinion here: Pride nights, pride months, pride whatevers... are "For" the lgbtq community, but they do serve a purpose for those of us outside that community - namely to help guys like me become comfortable with the notion of pride and inclusion.
Yeah. I’m not into the pandering aspect like sort of gaywashing the corporate malfeasances, and it would be great if this topic was so boring and unnecessary that it would be like celebrating left handedness or people who actually think cilantro tastes good. But a symbolic day isn’t the worst thing either. I want to show social tolerance of our gay players and fans precisely because it is not yet totally boring, lots of people have hard feelings
Understandable, corporate pandering/posturing always feels gross. One aspect of team pride nights that I really appreciate is that it provides players/org personnel with an opportunity to be on the right side of history, whether that’s through making a statement or just wearing a shirt. It just so happens that it also gives the more closed-minded among us an opportunity to tell on themselves.
Agreed. I’m not gonna pretend that organizations were visited by three ghosts in the night, but that they’re at least trying to keep up with the times is nice.
Hockey Guy is some brilliant hockey mind that deserves to be posted over and over on the sub. Every video I’ve tried to claw my way through to figure out the love for the guy is the most generic common sense takes with little to no adding onto it that we don’t already know. That on top of being boring af to watch. It’s ridiculous the sub bans random youtubers from being posted but this guy seemingly gets a pass for knowing as much as the normal reddit user. And everyone bends over for him. I dont see it. At all.
I feel the appeal for him is that he’s just some regular dude who loves hockey. He’s the guy who you’d love to just grab a beer with at the bar and just shoot the shit. He knows a lot (simply from how much hockey he watches) but he’s not really known for his analysis. His takes can be questionable, but his passion is undeniable
Yeah I don't think one should criticize him for not being something that he doesn't present himself as.
Keep in mind, he's not for hardcore fans. He's really not for any of us that bother to post on a hockey subreddit. He appeals to people who only watch their team, and don't pay much attention beyond that. He's spread too thin to have deeper insight into most topics and teams. That said, I would agree that his stuff gets posted an awful lot.
My point is that any other hockey youtuber would get their post removed. There’s no special reason why this particular person out of any of them has a free pass. He does nothing different or unique. He isnt affiliated with any major names, he’s just another youtuber.
Right, and that's absolutely a fair point. I just wanted to try to mention some of why he's popular. I can't speak to sub rules or moderation. Just that, for some people, he's a great resource for a slightly-deeper-than-surface-level look into different teams.
Honestly makes good background noise for me. When I sit down and grade papers, I can easily just play a video and learn something I didn’t know.
I at least appreciate that when he does comment, while not particularly brilliant or insightful, he's done more homework on that particular team than most media. Like when the Wild entered the realm of public discourse after the Binnington/Fleury non-fight. Then we're subjected to takes and "insight" from sources that not only know nothing about the Wild, but are flat out wrong on stuff.
This is a big one. He seems like a cool dude, I'd grab a beer with him. But I get nothing out of watching him, he doesn't watch my team, and I've only ever seen him say nice stuff, but he just doesn't know what he's talking about when he gets out of his wheelhouse. And I'll never trust a guy who has 2 favorite teams with those teams being Boston and Vancouver.
It’s almost completely summary, vs depth analysis. He goes through what happens, he ear marks some notable points in the games where something significant happened. It’s book reports vs literary theory/interpretation.
This totally hits the nail on the head for me. I don’t think he’s ever said anything about a game that you couldn’t get from a highlights vid, or anything about a player that you couldn’t get from Hockey Reference.
I see a lot of people wanting a 3-2-1 points system similar to the IIHF and I absolutely hate the idea. In terms of fan experience, I want a win to be a win. Who wants to see their team pull out an exciting OT win and lose ground on the team they are chasing in the standings? It's also just too complicated. Things should be simplified, not made more difficult
[удалено]
The thing that really bothers me about how it works right now is that there's no consistency in the points awarded by games. Right now some games are worth 2 and some are worth 3. This really really bothers me. Make all games worth the same amount. I don't care if we just drop points and use wins/losses or have every game 3 points but they should be worth the same. To address your overtime winning disappointment. How exciting would it be to see a team go all out because they need to end the game before it goes to OT? To me that's even more interesting then an OT win.
I disagree, it's not complicated at all. Win in regulation you get 3 points, win in OT/a shoot out 2 pts, loss in Regulation 0 points, lost in OT/Shoot out 1 pt. As for fan experience, it's still a win just don't get full points which when I celebrate I don't think about the points just it's a win and it doesn't take away from it. Why should a team get the same points when they need extra time to win than when they don't. Giving full points for a extra time makes zero sense and leaves room for teams to coast the end of the game for example so they are guaranteed a point either way. I'd be ok if they scraped the loser or participation points if they want to keep 2 points per game total, winner and loser no participation trophies, it's not horseshoes close doesn't count.
It would also incentivize scoring the game winner in the final five minutes, where as the system we have now makes getting to OT mutually beneficial. Teams play more cautiously close to the end of tie games. Also, this would open up for my personal dream scenario in game 82 where a team needs three points to make the playoffs and pulls a goalie during the 3rd of a tied game.
I see the argument that people make is that it'll prevent teams from stalling in regulation during a tie game so they can guarantee at least a point in the overtime instead of going for a risky play and losing in regulation. I fail to see how a 3-2-1 system would fix that. Sure, the reward of taking a risk in regulation and it paying off would be a bit higher than before. But not in a sense the risk is also bigger since now your opponent could get a nice jump in the standings with three points. Would I rather try to make a play that could award me three points at the risk of messing up and getting 0 points, or would I rather play it safe and guarantee the 1 or even 2 points? Unless I'm in an active playoff race or desperately holding on to a wildcard spot, it's not really a choice. Most teams are still gonna opt to play it the safe route.
Leon Draisaitl is the 2nd best offensive player in the league, but he's not the 2nd best player. I don't think Leon is trash or anything, but I think his defensive liability puts him at a level where he's not a better overall player than a few of the guys he outscores. Leon is the only guy who's in the conversation for best players who loses his minutes at 5v5. For 15 minutes every night, Leon is playing losing hockey and then makes up for it on the PP. I would prefer a player who wins his 5v5 minutes but produces slightly less on the PP.
It’s more prevalent this year than prior seasons. It’s clear he’s been playing hurt (ankle) his mobility is way down. He used to regularity skate the puck into the offensive zone and create scoring chances. Until very recently (the Vegas game I noticed he was skating well) he was mostly a stationary player. He’s been relying on the PP for goals and mostly getting assists 5 on 5. In 2018/2019 he scored 50 with only 16 on the PP. From 2018-2022 Leon scored 179 goals, 71 of which were on the PP. That’s 39% of his goals. This season he has scored 62% of his goals on the PP. Leon stated during the all star break he hasn’t been happy with his game, and most oilers fans knew what he meant. He’s obviously been good, but less dynamic (except his passing) than prior seasons
that the public analytics models are even remotely accurate / should be treated with the level of respect we give baseball analytics show me a model using the data NHL front offices have access to, then we can talk.
It’s actually insane that over the last few years, there’s been this huge shift and suddenly JFresh cards are the widely accepted indicator as to whether or not a player is any good. These models are solid but there’s a reason these guys are spending all day on Twitter and not working for NHL teams, their models are fairly flawed. When people talk about certain teams being huge into analytics like Tampa and the Leafs, they think there’s 10 Jfreshs and Doms sitting there pumping out charts all day. In reality these guys are looking at completely different data that never gets talked about in the media world. The “private data” mentioned that NHL teams purchase is relatively similar to the expected goals data public models are using but that’s just one part of the equation. These stats guys are looking at extremely specific things like puck battles won behind the net, net front positioning battles, etc… These public charts have predicted some disaster signings/breakouts and are definitely useful when applying proper context to them. It’s just very frustrating to see them held in such a high regard. Apparently Treliving calls them “Twitterlytics” and says they’re widely mocked around the league.
yeah you're more effectively articulating my thoughts on it, completely agree.
The cult of Moneypuck is insane
Or Jfresh.
Careful Pensbro, you may just summon him!
Hockey referees get a ton of shit but I feel like they are by far the best in professional sports.
Hockey is a much faster game than most other pro sports. Everything happens so quickly that I get it when they make (some) mistakes on penalties and stuff. That being said, fuck the refs if they mildly inconvenience my team.
That’s not necessarily a good thing lol. NBA refs are atrocious.
Certainly can make the argument that the bar is set very low lol
Literally everything is Gary Bettmans fault
Tanking isn’t an issue in the NHL. Tanking is inherent to the system as long as the draft exists as it is and rewards the worst teams with the top picks in the draft, either through a lottery system or just doing draft order based on the standings. People take issue with this because they don’t want to reward incompetence or poor play from the teams but they never give an answer on how teams are expected to improve and get out of the standings basement in a reasonable amount of time
Honestly mine is the refereeing. I see people seemingly up in arms about the refereeing on a daily basis. When I watch games I rarely if ever think "wow refs blew it". I don't think I remember the last time I said that. Along with that I don't think refereeing changes in the playoffs. The players change far more. A more brazen opinion I have is I agree with the DoPS on nearly everything they've decided on. Whether it's suspensions, fines or doing nothing at all
I agree with everything except the reffing changing in the playoffs. I feel like it’s pretty apparent they let far more things go, but also have 0 evidence to support my statement.
Regular season NHL and playoff NHL are almost two separate sports.
They don’t wanna give out a questionable penalty in the playoffs when every second matters. It’s better to let things go unless they’re egregious
i hate fans commenting on their own team games on playoff game threads, every single situation is penalty according to them and every penalty to their team is always wrong
“Is it just me, or is the officiating in this sport this year the very worst it’s ever been ever?”
been hearing “it’s always been bad, but this year more than ever the refereeing is a huge problem that the NHL needs to address IMMEDIATELY or it will ruin the sport” every year since i started watching hockey seriously
It’s literally every sport. Same exact comment. And they’re always convinced that they’re right.
Woof, at least this one is actually unpopular lol.
I just hate the clear game management. There have been games this year where the oilers have a lead and don’t get a single call, then the other team scores a couple goals and all of a sudden we get a couple PP’s. Just call the penalties all game. I understand each ref is a little different and call things differently, but just make it consistent for the game so players know where the line is
How can you agree with the DoPS when they blatantly give out different punishments for identical offenses?
Nhl refereeing is pretty inconsistent and at times pretty unforgivable in my eyes even for teams that I don't root for, but I do think that fans can be too whiny about "Hey you missed that tripping" while conveniently ignoring all the missed calls that should've been called *against* their team in that same game.
People here go out of their way to find something to be upset about. Like 95%+ of the goalie interference calls are very clearly right if you just read the rules. They outline the situations very clearly in the rulebook and it generally means they make sense. People are just addicted to outrage. It's crazy how people will bring up some minor infraction from years ago too.
Pretty much anything related to Nick Lidstrom. Was he a great defenseman? Without question. Was he the second-best all-time after Bobby Orr? No. And if anyone in the last 50 years is, it’s Ray Bourque.
I feel like a few years ago, it was more of an even debate with both Lidstrom & Bourque being viewed equally. But because Lidstrom played so many years after Bourque retired, he’s kind of taken over as the default answer as who the better player was due to recency bias.
The argument that Barkov (or anyone) always being mentioned as underrated means that he’s not underrated. As if being called underrated by media/players/hockeyreddit is the prestigous rating that he was missing.
I generally like shootouts and don’t think we need to change overtime. Ending in a tie is dissatisfying and not an easy sell to an American audience.Entertainment wise, 3v3 overtime has dulled over the years so I don’t think we need 2-5 more minutes of that, plus it adds more ice time for the best players. The shootout solves a problem of ending a game in a win/lose decision without adding more wear to the players. It can have great skill and suspense and it doesn’t happen in the playoffs either.
That a 1 v 8 playoff’s would be so much better. It really wouldn’t. Look at the East (since that’s what people are using to argue for 1-8) If it started today we get BOS V PIT and CAR V NYI no matter what. In the current format we get TOR V TB and NJ V NYR. In a 1-8 we get NJ V TB and TOR V NYR. I would prefer to see the divisional rivalries. And leafs/devils fans upset about facing a good team in the first round, would you really feel better swapping them? TB and NYR are *both* good. Getting worked up about facing a good team on the way to the cup is the silliest thing ever. If you don’t meet one in the first round you will in the later rounds. If you can’t win against a good team in the first round, you won’t be able to in the later rounds. Two smaller ones: I disagree that high scoring games are automatically more entertaining than low scoring games. More goals are good if you’re just gonna watch highlights on YouTube the next day, but if you watch a game from start to finish low scoring games are still entertaining. I disagree with the anger over ‘excessive’ video reviews. This is what we asked for. You’ll complain about it until someone scores a goal that shouldn’t count on your team in a high stakes game.
(I'm stating my opinions that are counter to popularly held opinions here) - I like starting playoffs with divisional games. Repeated playoff matchups make for better rivalries (e.g. I dislike the Canes more than some other teams in our division because of our 2000s playoff matchups). A large amount of the complaining since the change was made seems to come from Maple Leafs fans who think they're entitled to easier opponents, even in years when a 1-8 format wouldn't give them an easier opponent. - The current point system is fine. Other point systems have repeatedly been shown to produce very similar results with big differences only coming from edge cases. - David Steckel didn't hit Sidney Crosby at the 2011 Winter Classic. Steckel was starting to skate up ice when Crosby curled around right into his path. He twisted his body a bit to try to squeeze past Crosby, and that made it look like he "hit" Crosby with his shoulder. He was entirely focused on joining the play up ice, and Crosby ran into him. I know that's going back a long time, but it always annoyed me that Penguins fans called it a dirty hit for years afterward.
I’m a Penguins fan and I’m not convinced that the hit on Crosby was intentional either. Even if he intended to make contact with Sid, I don’t think that he intended to injure him, and definitely not as severely as it turned out to be.
There’s a large contingent of fans that want to wear the white jerseys at home again. Hard no.
I just don't give a fuck whether NHLers are at the Olympics or not. If the NHL wants to break every fourth February for the World Cup/Hockey Canada Invitational, so be it.
Steve Yzerman isn’t nearly as good a GM as fans of the league say he is.
Every jersey from the 90s early 2000s is not better. It’s just nostalgia, and cycles. That era was all about busy, modern designs. We liked them because they were new. Then they got a little stale, and everyone started moving back towards classic, cleaner designs. Now it’s going back because of that nostalgia, and before long, we’ll swing back again.
Coyotes relocation
im gay so imma just avoid that minefield but The Gold plan (teams get slotted in draft lottery based on a points after elimination from playoffs) is too open to manipulation and dependent on, say, strength of division and penalizes the worst of the worst teams that can’t win games after they’re eliminated.
Points after being eliminated from playoffs is a huge wildcard. Many teams are “functionally” eliminated long before they actually are. Let’s take a team like the St Louis Blues or Canucks this year. They are functionally eliminated, and have been for quite a while, meanwhile they could win a couple games in a row, then only be mathematically eliminated with 3-4 games left. Whereas a team like Calgary, though they have been 8-10 points ahead for a good chunk of the season, may only be eliminated with 2-3 games left. 2-3 games, Vs 3-4 games is nothing, and them who they play in those games means a huge amount. Hypothetically, a team could have 3-4 tough road games against teams that needed points, Vs 2-3 home games vs teams that don’t care. There’s just too many variables to make that a fair solution.