|
for some teams the powerplay just does not work ever and there is no goddamn reason for it. the rangers, for example, are a Very Good Team this year, and yet their power play has been a joke for most of the season and has been bad for most of the last decade and beyond. they have all the tools for a working power play in terms of personnel, but it just never seems to come together. this is also an example of how a good power play is not necessarily an indicator of a good team (and vice versa, seeing as the islanders, a bad team, have a pretty good power play). it certainly doesn't hurt on the whole when you can count on occasionally scoring goals on power plays though.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:So the thinking is that it's unfair to teams who are in a more competitive division? Because they might not get home ice advantage, despite technically deserving it for having gotten more points during the season? It's not just home ice advantage, it's the matchups they get. The 4-5 matchup will probably in both conferences this year guarantee that a very good team exits in the first round, when the 4 and 5 seeds would actually be the 2 and 3 seeds without divisional seeding and therefore face the 7 and 6 teams instead of each other. As a matter of fact I hadn't even thought about the home ice advantage thing and am not sure why that's what everyone thought people were complaining about. Either way, it's a dumb system and just because it is longstanding and prevalent in other sports doesn't make it good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
shyguy posted:Not barring the whole division champ anomaly, I wonder how much home ice really matters over the fact that generally the team with home ice is just better to begin with. That's usually how they get there. look at home-away records this year. some teams who are mediocre in the standings (ie washington) have superb home records (there are of course some teams where it is the opposite but there are far far less in that category).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
in selanne/sundin's cases, those are super talented players, it's more about them getting their conditioning back up to game level than getting reacclimated to the game. same thing with a dude coming off a long injury (marc staal this year for example). as far as coming over from europe the change in level in competition is obviously the biggest thing, but the rink size makes a huge difference too. in the world championships last year norway, a lovely team, kept pace with the USA for almost the entire game that i watched because they just utilized the space on the ice so much better, judged the amount of time they had before defensemen closed the gaps better, etc. in actual feet and inches, the difference isn't that big, but in practice it really is noticeable. this is a big part of why a lot of players from europe get time to season in the AHL, to get adjusted to the rink size and how that changes the speed and feel of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
a lot of people hate puck daddy i guess, but it covers the broadest number of teams, updates very frequently, and if something worth knowing about happened in the league it's probably going to be mentioned there. the writing's not the greatest but it's way better than a lot of the individual team blogs out there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
I would be inclined to agree with that. players are more likely to put their bodies on the line and bust their asses like crazy in the playoffs - every dude who deserves to be in the league plays like someone's going to shoot his family if his team loses in the playoffs. this sometimes results in players returning to games with injuries they have no business playing through - see stamkos getting the puck to the face last year, or the crazy story from when brent gilchrist was on the wings in the 90s and literally had his groin muscle pinned to his hipbone during a game because it tore clean off and still loving played playoff hockey really is that intense. if you want to watch hockey that convinces you the game is worth watching, the playoffs are the time to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
it's just a tradition and it is a good one
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Star posted:I've followed hockey since the late 90s but I still haven't fully understood the rules concerning the blue semi-circles that are in front of the net. Have they removed the rule that you couldn't stand inside them when you scored, because I see people do it all the time nowadays? Yeah. That thing is called the crease and you are allowed to score inside of it now, thanks in no small part to this stanley cup winning goal that made a lot of people very angry and, under the rules at the time, should not have counted. The function of the crease now is basically "you can't gently caress with a goalie while he's standing in here or trying to get back into here." Or at least it's supposed to be. Goaltenders are generally not considered fair game no matter where they are and people are often penalized for intentional contact with goaltenders no matter where it is made. e: Even if you're not penalized for it, making contact with another team's goalie intentionally usually means you will get your rear end kicked. People do not take kindly to players on other teams loving with their goalies. a false fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Apr 30, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:How does the KHL Entry Draft work? since the KHL has only existed for a few years now and there's never been a situation where that has become relevant, i don't think anyone actually knows. it's probably written up in the KHL rules somewhere but i doubt anyone has read those (this includes the people running the KHL)
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Quick offside question. doesn't happen that often on a clean breakaway, happens quite often if a player is under defensive pressure. not to mention clean breakaways usually don't start very far out from the blueline.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:since I'm a newb, but a casual fan of the sport, I do have a dumb hypothetical based off the movie "Sudden Death" with Jean Claude Van Damme. here's a fairly serious answer: if the arena was blown up and the teams were killed, i'd imagine they would do something like they did during the cancelled 2004-05 season where the trophy was engraved with SEASON NOT PLAYED, except instead with TROPHY NOT AWARDED. alternatively, they might engrave the trophy with the names of the personnel of both teams. one thing i can answer for certain is that there IS a contingency plan that exists for a significant portion of any given team dying, and that most professional sports leagues have provisions for this. in the NHL's case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_draft posted:The National Hockey League (NHL) contingency plan activates if five or more players[1][5] on a team "are killed or disabled."[3] The team would select players from other NHL teams, paying with funds from a special insurance fund. Once its roster has one goaltender and 14 other players, a special draft involving the teams unaffected by the earlier selection could be held, with each team able to protect one goaltender and 10 other players.[1][5] it's possible that these parameters would have to be shifted in such an extreme circumstance, however.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
myron cope posted:It's mostly player concessions, but it turned out better than I thought it would (the owners gave up some stuff but still got mostly what they wanted). i agree with this but with a big asterisk on "better than i thought it would" - i thought it would go better than this before the nhl came out with their horrible initial proposal. after that though, this is a major improvement
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
aw yiss posted:Guys I need help picking a team to root for help (i am from NY): islanders is definitely your best bet and the world needs more islanders fans - i say this as a rangers fan whose family has islanders season tickets. there are a lot of cool players on the islanders do not pick the sabres or the canucks
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:The Islanders. Bond with your father. It's not like they're staying on the Island for more than three more years anyway, and they're gradually turning into a better team. It's the right time to do it. T E C H N I C A L L Y brooklyn is still a part of long island, like, the island itself, but no one thinks brooklyn and Long Island as a cultural entity share any similarities beyond this (i hate long island and i love brooklyn but i live on long island  )
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
MonsterWalk posted:So, I'm jumping back into hockey this year and I shall take up my flag as Blue Jackets fan. I know Nash left (blessing be upon him) but what should I know about the current state of the team? Players? Team I should hate with a passion? in the nash trade you got some decent/interesting players in return. brandon dubinsky is a heart and soul guy who had a lovely season last year but can score. he is funny looking and he rules. you also got artem anisimov, a russian with some good skill who can also score a bit and has seemed at times like he's poised to really break out offensively but hasn't quite. there's also tim erixon, a defensive prospect who needs to gain some strength but should be a legitimate top pairing player eventually. you also traded for nick foligno this offseason who is a very similar player to dubinsky and is also similarly funny looking, although he didn't actually have a bad year last year. as okposolypse said, you're probably not going to be very good for at least a few seasons but starting with this past draft where you got ryan murray with the 2nd overall pick, you should be able to build up a good nucleus of prospects. if murray gets healthy (he's hurt right now) he'll be playing for you this season, people expect him to become a top overall defenseman in the league. the next draft is going to be great and you should have a very good pick in it. your biggest problem, however, is in goal, as steve mason has sucked ever since winning the calder trophy and no one else behind him has proven to be very impressive either. as far as a team you should hate, probably detroit. they're the villains of your division and they stomped the poo poo out of columbus the only time they ever made the playoffs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Dangerllama posted:Just to clarify, control isn't required for an assist. If the puck randomly bounces off of a teammate, for example, and the next player to touch the puck scores, the teammate will get an assist. some other leagues, the KHL notably, actually do require control for an assist to count. they also don't award secondary assists unless the secondary player's pass was somehow instrumental in scoring the goal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:I really haven't watched a ton of hockey since I first started college (2004), but I grew up in the Metro-Detroit area and the Red Wings have always been my favorite team. Could anyone give a brief rundown of how the roster looks this year? A few things I know: Nicklas Lidstrom retired after last season and Henrik Zetterberg is our new captain...and poo poo that's basically it team strengths: very good at puck possession although this might suffer thanks to the loss of lidstrom. datsyuk is one of the best and most admired all-around players in the league. team weaknesses: the defense is pretty weak looking right now and the team in general is pretty old without any prospects who look like they'll be a franchise player in the near future. best way to catch up on the team and players would just be to watch games, you'll get a feel for what players on the team are decent and the way they play very quickly. jimmy howard is your starting goalie and he's been good for the past few years if not elite - he's pretty young and will probably be around for a while. your backup goalie is jonas gustavsson whose nickname is "the monster," he has not been very good since coming over to the NHL but should be a good enough backup. the avalanche and red wings haven't been really severe rivals for a while but they were thanks to claude lemieux, an avalanche player who broke kris draper of the red wings' face in the playoffs in the 90s and then the avalanche won the cup. they had some really nasty moments based around that but it's pretty much died down at this point. i don't think red wings fans now are perceived as quite as lovely as the guy you described but they do sort of have the "yankees of hockey" thing surrounding them thanks to their consistent success over the past couple decades and not being french. pittsburgh are hockey's anointed franchise now though. also bertuzzi is always going to be hated for the moore thing but that was the only really really dirty thing he did in his career.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
awkwerd paws posted:what should i know about the islanders right now asides from comically bad brooklyn seating arrangement and their backup goalie is signed until literally 2021 and gets hurt every time he plays which is never but it still happens, also they recently picked up a bunch of defencemen from teams who didn't want them anymore and so far it has been proven that one of them who is named Joe Finley is very bad. they have a good player named nino niederreiter who is swiss and played over 50 games last year and scored 1 point and that was because he was playing 5 minutes alongside guys who are a thousand years old and bad - now they are not bringing him out of the minors at all. travis hamonic is a good defenseman and you should like him. matt martin broke the nhl record for hits last year and you should also like him. that's it i guess
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
the islanders have howie rose who rules and butch goring who is unbelievably stupid but is funny (because of what an idiot he is). he gets everyone's name wrong, including players he sees every single game, and i'm pretty sure the islanders put Mark Streit and Brian Strait on the same pairing to give him an aneurysm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
guppy posted:Thanks for the answers about commentators, everyone. Another question: how soon do they put up highlight clips after games? I assume they do do that. I want to show a goal from that Anaheim game to people. pretty quickly, usually. like a half hour at most when you go to the boxscore for the game on nhl.com
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Roger Neilson is also responsible for this rule: once when he pulled the goalie for a 6th skater, he told his goalie to lay his stick down flat across the goal line. Now if you do that and the puck hits it, it's an automatic goal. another one: he would put a defenseman out instead of a goalie for a penalty shot and just have the d man attack the shooter, a strategy he found much more effective than having a goalie in net. now you can't do that anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Sexy Randal posted:I'm not a hockey newbie but I do have a question about a call last night (this play here) and figure this would be a good place to ask. the tsn panel were lauding the ref conference as the right thing to do and something that isn't done often enough but said that the call itself was wrong as gagner made every effort to get out of the way but was pushed into quick and was literally stuck in quick's pads.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
toe knee hand posted:The St. Louis Blues are an exciting Western Conference team that are neither particularly far west nor have an obnoxious fan base. actually their fans here are pretty obnoxious, not as obnoxious as boston though, guy who was considering rooting for boston. don't root for boston.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
there's also a new faceoff violation rule this season that i've already seen a bunch of times: if a center plays the puck with his hand off the faceoff before one of his teammates touches it, it's a 2 minute penalty. i am honestly not sure what the rationale behind this being penalized is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
i'd have to see a video of the play you're referring to but if the puck goes in off a player's stick (on the goal scoring team) that is above the crossbar, the goal doesn't count.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
historically there have been loads of players who are just there to fight - every team used to have at least a couple of them. back when the game was (arguably) dirtier, they would be counted on to protect star players (see dave semenko and marty mcsorley's role when playing with wayne gretzky). in the "new NHL" however you can't really get by if you can't skate somewhat competently, so the one-dimensional fighter (or "goon") is a dying breed at this point. that said, a lot of teams still carry around a guy or two who can't do anything but fight, though they're usually an extra forward who only gets dressed when the coach feels he needs to "inject some toughness." some guys who fit that bill: John Scott (although for some reason coaches seem to think he's somewhat useful by virtue of being 500000 ft. tall. he's not.) Eric Boulton Cam Janssen Tom Sestito (he scored a couple goals in a game at one point but he sucks) some others that i remember from fairly recently that aren't in the nhl anymore: David Koci Raitis Ivanans DJ King Derek Boogaard (RIP  )
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:whats his twitter? guys where can i find boobs on the internet. ive been looking for boobs on the internet but i cant find them anywhere. hook me up w/ this hockey player's twitter so i can find out where the boobs are. i wouldn't want to be missing out on these boobs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Is it bad coaching to end the game (in a loss, I guess) with your timeout? not really. let's say you're down 3 - 0 after the second and you've been doing some good things but getting some bad breaks, you try to fire up the team in the locker room between periods, you come out in the third and give up a quick goal and it's obvious the team just doesn't have a comeback in them, there's no real good juncture to take the timeout. there are a lot of other ways too where a prudent situation just doesn't arise - sometimes the tv timeouts will just end up falling at the right time and there's no time that you're in the game and really need the icing timeout.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
also remove luke schenn because he is bad
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
thehustler posted:So, talk to me about waivers. Why do they exist? My understanding is that if a team wants to send somebody down to their minor league affiliate, for some reason they have to offer them up to the entire league first or something? What's the point of that? the reason for waivers as i understand it is to ensure players who are signed to NHL contracts get a chance to play in the NHL - so that teams can't just bury every guy they've signed and don't want to play in the minors. so if you can't get anything for a guy in a trade or are unwilling to explore the option and send him down and there's another team that will give that guy a chance to play, they can claim him. teams at the bottom of the standings get the first shot at any guy who passes through waivers. there have been a lot of good examples of guys becoming very useful players for their respective teams after being claimed from teams that didn't think they could use them - thomas hickey, michael grabner, and brian strait (all for the islanders) are a great case in point. the only thing that outright prevents a player from being sent down is a no-movement clause in their contract which stipulates that they can't be demoted (or traded) without their consent. as far as i know, this also applies to players being sent down for conditioning stints off an injury, although i wouldn't imagine any players would be averse to waiving their clause for that purpose. also, players on conditioning stints don't need to clear waivers. there is also a maximum number of players that can be on an NHL roster at a given time and it is 23, although it expands after the trade deadline - after teams' AHL affiliates are eliminated from the AHL playoffs, teams will tend to call up like pretty much every guy on an NHL contract playing for them in the minors just to have reserves for the NHL playoffs. another note - there are two major types of contracts, 1-way and 2-way. 1-way contracts ensure a player will be paid the same rate no matter where they play, whereas 2-way contracts stipulate that the player makes a different (much lesser) rate if he's playing in the minors. if you send a player on a 1-way contract down, you've still got to pay them that full amount, although it won't count against your NHL team's salary cap limit. occasionally, very rich teams will opt to send a guy who is on a very expensive contract who isn't justifying their contract down to the minors - an example of this is wade redden of the new york rangers, who was earning his 6+ million to play in the AHL for a couple seasons (more on that in a second). the main thing that prevents teams from doing this all the time is not being able to afford it. that and not signing useless players to huge contracts. before this season, when the new CBA was ratified, it allowed for amnesty buyouts - the ability to buy out a player's contract without it counting against your cap hit. generally, the rule for buyouts is that you are on the hook for half their cap hit for twice the amount of seasons remaining on their contract. redden and scott gomez (another horrible rangers contract that was mercifully traded to montreal) were both given amnesty buyouts before this season and teams will get a chance to use them prior to the next two seasons as well. one other note - players on their entry-level contracts (the first NHL contract a drafted player signs - always 3 years) are exempt from waivers. i think there are some other waiver exemptions too but i can't think of them off the top of my head. if any of this is inaccurate please correct me but i think i was more or less right a false fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:In the new CBA most of a 1-way still counts on the cap. I think you get like $800k off it or something. right, i knew i forgot about this. although i thought it was more than that - i remember the initial speculation regarding the habs and gomez, before they allowed amnesty buyouts this year, was that they would bury him (before it was determined that they could just send him home so he wouldn't get hurt) and that the cap relief would have been more significant than that. although maybe it was just that their cap wasn't an issue in general this year.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 13:47
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Not all entry level deals are 3 years, older players signing their first contract sign for fewer years based on age. ah, for some reason i thought it was always 3 years and that after 23 everything was treated as a non-ELC. which has no basis in reality evidently, not sure where i got that idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:Maybe this is dumb, but the way you worded this made it seem like, can there be contracts that are for less than 1 year? well....... kind of. players can be signed to 1-day contracts as an emergency replacement - the stories you may have heard where a team on the road had to call in a local goalie to sit on the bench as a backup, those guys were on one day contracts. i remember the islanders also did this once with a guy named jamie doornbosch, a defenseman, and i'm pretty sure i remember the flyers having to do it with a d-man when playing the rangers once? i'm not sure what the official rules are surrounding that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Tagra posted:I have so much trouble trying to decide who is at fault when a pass goes horribly wrong. What should I look for when trying to decide if it was a bad pass in the first place, or if the person being passed to was an idiot and screwed up? It is very important that I yell at the correct player on my television. well, at any given time on the ice there are safe plays and not safe plays. if a player tries to pass through/under/over sticks/skates/legs, especially multiple sets of them, that's not generally going to be a safe play. if he pulls it off he'll look like a genius, but if it ends up on an opponent's stick and leads to a good chance or a goal the other way he'll look like an idiot. passers can also be made to look like idiots when they get picked off by very good plays by opposing players - no matter how good the play to cause a turnover was in this situation, the passer will look bad and be considered at fault. to your original question i'd say 9 times out of 10, generally, the onus is on the passer as opposed to the recipient of the pass. even if it's the guy who's supposed to be fielding the pass who screws up, there was probably a slightly different pass he could have received that would have been easier for him to do the right thing with. i guess the major exception here would be on an attempted one-timer (slapshot immediately off an incoming pass) that a shooter misses - in that case the recipient will more often be the right one to get mad at
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Tagra posted:Thanks for the insights. if the ice is softer because it's had less than ample time to harden or the playing surface is not adequately cold the ruts in the ice will be deeper and the resultant snow accumulation will be greater, meaning a rougher surface for the puck to traverse which can cause it to hop/roll around more, making it more difficult to control. also these conditions can result in wet patches on the ice that can deaden the puck. all of these things create things for players to trip over as well. generally though, "bad ice" is kind of a lame excuse for poor play since really it shouldn't favor either team - people also use it as a stupid "your team sucks" kind of thing. people who hate the rangers, for example, will be quick to point out that madison square garden's ice is subpar. really though there isn't a rink in the league that's immune to poor ice conditions sometimes. a false fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
ZenVulgarity posted:I've seen different things about the importance of all the lines. To make a good hockey team, how much depth do you need in your lines? How do you juggle your talent/money? it depends. there are so many variables in what makes a team good, many of them incalculable. ideally though, you should have 2 lines that can score consistently, one that can score a bit and wear opponents down, and another that can contribute strong defensive/grinding shifts for about 7-10 minutes a game and not be a liability. it doesn't usually work out exactly like that. some teams that have been very good in the past have been heavily reliant on their top 2 lines with a negligible bottom 2, and others haven't really had world-class scoring lines and have instead managed to successfully play all 4 more or less equally. if you're building a team from scratch you'd want to work off the archetype i mentioned before and then add and remove players that fit a team's identity and fix deficiencies that exist. so, short answer: you want depth but it's possible for a shallower team to adapt under the right circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
i'm rooting for both the rangers and the islanders. beard for the islanders, stache for the rangers. hopefully the islanders lose first (ideally in the conference finals, to the rangers) because i'll look real dumb with a full beard and shaved upper lip
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Grondal posted:Middle of the atlantic ocean. well you have to root for the islanders then
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Tagra posted:I'm reasonably certain there aren't any other sports that measure severity of penalty based on the presence of blood. i'm surprised that there aren't players who blade themselves WWE style to try and get 4 minutes
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
9of10 posted:Is NHL and IIHF World Championship fighting over the best US players, when they are run simultaneously? No. NHL players aren't allowed to go and play in the IIHF championship until their team is eliminated from the playoffs (or they are otherwise given clearance by their team - this can happen if it's a minor-league level player who is good enough to play for their respective country but the team doesn't intend to use). The IIHF wouldn't allow any player intentionally violating their NHL contract to play in the tournament.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 10:08
|
|