Hmm, an interesting experience. Every time I watch the skills competition, which is probably three out of every four years, I'm always reminded about the difference between hockey culture and basketball culture. Hockey is more similar to basketball than any other sport, much more so than hockey-baseball or hockey-football. Five players, one goal each to guard, the use of picks and screens, size down low, stuff like that. Yet the cultural differences are so extreme; basketball is a sport that encourages and celebrates players who not just can, but WILL win games by themselves. There's always minority voices talking about the lack of refinement in NBA players, most notably high school players (until that rule was changed), but for the most part NBA players get more recognition and more money if they play like Kobe Bryant: shoot anywhere, pass only if you're inbounding the ball, recognize that you're the best player and dammit, take charge! Unfortunate to some, but it's a game where one superstar can turn a bad team into a playoff team. Just look at Cleveland. If you have a star, you'd better not hold them back because you might cost your team wins.
Hockey's different. The game is faster, more mistakes are made, the best offensive players only play 20 minutes a game and if they even dare to showoff for even a second, someone will knock them on their ass. The top offensive players simply can't take over the game to the same degree; the defense is better, there's less space to be creative, goals are at a premium, and top players rely far more heavily on their supporting cast. The only player who can take over a hockey game on their own is a goalie, but Patrick Roy aside, that's not a position that lends itself to egoism and showboating. You'll find yourself humbled in a hurry. If you doubt that, just tune in to the next game and listen to the ex-goalie colour commentator. You wonder how they even leave their bed each day with such a profound lack of confidence. It's okay Hrudey, you were good, you really were! How about some hot soup?
Anyways, watching the skills competition reinforces that. Hockey players have showboating and fanciness beaten out of them at an early age, whereas basketball players have it encouraged and celebrated. Is it any wonder then that the James Duthie Shootout Spectacular had so many misses? Missing Crosby hurt the entertainment value, but you could tell most of the players just weren't getting it. Except for Ovechkin and St. Louis, who at least tried, most players looked uncomfortable and nervous. Datsyuk was a waste of time, Kovalchuk used his regular shootout move, and most of the players didn't score. Scoring probably didn't matter as Ovechkin got the fans into it without coming close, but guys, really, relax will ya? Maybe we expect too much, but, when you see 10-year olds on YouTube doing this, one expects that the PROS might do something other than a backhand-forehand deke. Oh Robbie Schremp, where are you?
I thought there was a few problems overall with this year's skills competition. The first event was too complicated, you could follow it but there wasn't any drama or excitement. That got the whole thing off to a slow start, especially considering the Atlanta fans didn't create much atmosphere. Take it out next year and stick to the basics: hardest shot, most accurate shot, fastest skater, best stickhandler, something for the goalies, then the judged shootout. There's some history to these events, records people remember (Ray Bourque, Al Iafrate) so you have to keep some continuity. Also, the thing just looked bad, either too dark or something, but in combination with some technical issues (fastest skater, Chara's first attempt in the Hardest shot) the event just looked cheap and low-grade. Like the camera-on-the-ice guy following the skaters, that sucked. Keep the normal camera angles, that way we can better compare to what we're used to seeing. Just use the experimental angles for replays. Keep the events simple and make sure the players watch the NBA Skills contest so they know what the NHL Dunk Contest should look like. There's tons of potential there. Using local judges was a great idea, maybe in cities with longer NHL history (like next year in Montreal) use alumni goalies instead. It'll only get better as players realize all that stuff they do in practice is actually incredibly impressive, so loosen up and have some fun!
Otherwise, it really wasn't bad. The YoungStars game was pretty good, some nice goals, great saves, but there should be YoungStar goalies too, shouldn't there? Carey Price vs. Mike Smith? Nice and short game too, with pond hockey rules to keep the pace moving. The Accurate shot is always great to watch, Lecavalier hit 103 mph (!), and Horcoff confirmed what pretty much everyone knew going in: he is the World's Fastest Skater. Game on tomorrow and despite what everyone says about the game, it's usually pretty entertaining. Shut up and enjoy it, any more complaints and some idiot will propose that the winning conference gets home-ice advantage in the Finals. Yeah you're right, that's pretty stupid isn't it?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Gallimaufry
Arguments abound this time of year about How To Save/Fix The NHL All-Star Game. The game is boring, no hitting, no fighting, no blocked shots, too many goals, it's terrible!!! The conversation then shifts to comparing the NHL's All-Star game to the rest, to which conventional knowledge guides us to accept that baseball's is the best, football's is the worst, and hockey and basketball are in the middle.
The people usually criticizing the All-Star game for not being "real" invariably are some of the same people complaining that the "real" games, the regular season ones that the All-Star Game ought to better resemble, actually suck as well. Too boring, too much defense, too violent. Make up your mind! Do you guys even like hockey at all? Nobody cares about the All-Star game and that's fine. It's not supposed to be a big exciting deal, it's just for shits and giggles, and if you're upset that a game featuring the world's best hockey players isn't being treated seriously, then tune in to the Olympics, or the World Cups, or the annual World Hockey Championships (sure to feature many Oilers this year) or, by FAR the best of the bunch, the World Juniors.
***A note about the World Hockey Championships: I do think they could be very popular in Canada if they held it here more often. We'll soon find out, as this year's edition is going to be in Halifax. The other issue, at least for me, is that I foolishly associate the tournament as the Tournament of Losers, since the only way NHL players participate is if their team misses the playoffs or loses in the first round. Not sure how many others think this way, I admit to being fully wrong as it is a great tournament, but there it is.
Anyways, the worst part of All-Star game is the complaining about it beforehand. If anything, I think we're moving towards a time where the game isn't even played at all, maybe just a skills competition at the mid-point. The season is long, players get hurt and need some time off, and with new NHLPA head Paul Kelly proposing adding two more games to the season, players will be that much more unwilling to show up. Any minor injury will be reason to skip, and as more players choose time off over playing the game the product will be further de-valued. The game will get worse, less top players will play, and soon the game will be dumped. The more I think about it, the more I realize that just a skills competition probably won't work either, so that's stupid.
I'm in favor of a weeklong break at the end of January, give or take a few weeks, that gives the players time to rest and heal some injuries. It's better for the players, the fans get a better product and the stretch run to the playoffs gets a great boost. If you think a week is too long, consider that the All-Star break currently is, for most teams, 4-5 days anyways. I'm sure there's problems with that, but you can think about them. I'm moving on.
I'm tired of the Rogers' cell phone commercials with those two yuppies, where the one yuppie's phone cuts in and out while he's talking to his boss and the other's works all the time, probably in space and underwater. I'm not tired of it because it's stupid, most commercials are, I'm tired of it because of how pleased Rogers' Yuppie is with himself. He's dressed better than the other guy, let's call him BellTelus Yuppie, who's dressed like a London Drugs camera salesman (sorry Dan). Better haircut, in greater control of himself, the whole package. Rogers Yuppie owns his boss on the phone, he's cool, calm, and way more likely to get a promotion than stuttering, sweating, nervous BellTelus Yuppie. I haven't clarified why I'm tired of this commercial. I have a Telus plan, that's way.
Bob McCown's "100 Greatest Hockey Arguments" is a very good book. I like Bob, Prime Time Sports is endlessly entertaining even if Stephen Brunt never answered my email. You can listen to the show streaming online here between 2 and 5 pm MT, but watching the simulcast on Sportsnet is much better because you can see Bob's guests' mystified expressions while he talks. What does it say about Sportsnet programming that they'd rather stick a camera in a radio booth for an hour than put on any original programming? They do it twice on Sportsnet Pacific, often showing Pratt & Taylor in the same day! I'm not complaining, I watched Pratt & Taylor when I lived in BC and it's entertaining too. I just wouldn't want to be the guy pitching this in a meeting. "Forget it boss, we might as well just throw on some radio shows, nobody's watching us anyways. Frankly, I think some people here have a negative attitude problem."
Will Jamario Moon get any Rookie of the Year attention? Obviously Kevin Durant is the frontrunner, but at this rate you have to think he'll at least be on the board. Second round has to be the goal this year for this team.
Great article here on Shaq's monthly spending habits, made public as a result of his divorce proceedings. $875,015 a month, unreal. I don't think Shaq has ever been called the "Big Fundamental" though, pretty sure that's Tim Duncan.
Federer! No! What a choker, eh? End of an amazing run for Roger, before his loss to Novak Djokovic in the Aussie semis, had made 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals, winning eight. I guess it's lame to say the best player is your favorite, but it's more than that with Roger. I feel the same about him as with Tiger Woods. You want to them win because in doing so, you're likely to see something that's never been done before because they're incredible. Like the Patriots this year, I want them to win the Super Bowl so I can say I saw the greatest NFL team of all-time. Same reason for cheering for Federer. That, and we share a birthday. This Djokovic is something else though, certainly doesn't have Federer's all-court game or grace but great power, hits some great angle shots with lots of pace. Comes across as pretty likeable too, so good for him I guess. Roger will be out for revenge at the French...
That's enough for one night. Hey, enjoy the All-Star game! Judged shootouts this year. Truly, James Duthie has pictures of Gary Bettman.
The people usually criticizing the All-Star game for not being "real" invariably are some of the same people complaining that the "real" games, the regular season ones that the All-Star Game ought to better resemble, actually suck as well. Too boring, too much defense, too violent. Make up your mind! Do you guys even like hockey at all? Nobody cares about the All-Star game and that's fine. It's not supposed to be a big exciting deal, it's just for shits and giggles, and if you're upset that a game featuring the world's best hockey players isn't being treated seriously, then tune in to the Olympics, or the World Cups, or the annual World Hockey Championships (sure to feature many Oilers this year) or, by FAR the best of the bunch, the World Juniors.
***A note about the World Hockey Championships: I do think they could be very popular in Canada if they held it here more often. We'll soon find out, as this year's edition is going to be in Halifax. The other issue, at least for me, is that I foolishly associate the tournament as the Tournament of Losers, since the only way NHL players participate is if their team misses the playoffs or loses in the first round. Not sure how many others think this way, I admit to being fully wrong as it is a great tournament, but there it is.
Anyways, the worst part of All-Star game is the complaining about it beforehand. If anything, I think we're moving towards a time where the game isn't even played at all, maybe just a skills competition at the mid-point. The season is long, players get hurt and need some time off, and with new NHLPA head Paul Kelly proposing adding two more games to the season, players will be that much more unwilling to show up. Any minor injury will be reason to skip, and as more players choose time off over playing the game the product will be further de-valued. The game will get worse, less top players will play, and soon the game will be dumped. The more I think about it, the more I realize that just a skills competition probably won't work either, so that's stupid.
I'm in favor of a weeklong break at the end of January, give or take a few weeks, that gives the players time to rest and heal some injuries. It's better for the players, the fans get a better product and the stretch run to the playoffs gets a great boost. If you think a week is too long, consider that the All-Star break currently is, for most teams, 4-5 days anyways. I'm sure there's problems with that, but you can think about them. I'm moving on.
I'm tired of the Rogers' cell phone commercials with those two yuppies, where the one yuppie's phone cuts in and out while he's talking to his boss and the other's works all the time, probably in space and underwater. I'm not tired of it because it's stupid, most commercials are, I'm tired of it because of how pleased Rogers' Yuppie is with himself. He's dressed better than the other guy, let's call him BellTelus Yuppie, who's dressed like a London Drugs camera salesman (sorry Dan). Better haircut, in greater control of himself, the whole package. Rogers Yuppie owns his boss on the phone, he's cool, calm, and way more likely to get a promotion than stuttering, sweating, nervous BellTelus Yuppie. I haven't clarified why I'm tired of this commercial. I have a Telus plan, that's way.
Bob McCown's "100 Greatest Hockey Arguments" is a very good book. I like Bob, Prime Time Sports is endlessly entertaining even if Stephen Brunt never answered my email. You can listen to the show streaming online here between 2 and 5 pm MT, but watching the simulcast on Sportsnet is much better because you can see Bob's guests' mystified expressions while he talks. What does it say about Sportsnet programming that they'd rather stick a camera in a radio booth for an hour than put on any original programming? They do it twice on Sportsnet Pacific, often showing Pratt & Taylor in the same day! I'm not complaining, I watched Pratt & Taylor when I lived in BC and it's entertaining too. I just wouldn't want to be the guy pitching this in a meeting. "Forget it boss, we might as well just throw on some radio shows, nobody's watching us anyways. Frankly, I think some people here have a negative attitude problem."
Will Jamario Moon get any Rookie of the Year attention? Obviously Kevin Durant is the frontrunner, but at this rate you have to think he'll at least be on the board. Second round has to be the goal this year for this team.
Great article here on Shaq's monthly spending habits, made public as a result of his divorce proceedings. $875,015 a month, unreal. I don't think Shaq has ever been called the "Big Fundamental" though, pretty sure that's Tim Duncan.
Federer! No! What a choker, eh? End of an amazing run for Roger, before his loss to Novak Djokovic in the Aussie semis, had made 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals, winning eight. I guess it's lame to say the best player is your favorite, but it's more than that with Roger. I feel the same about him as with Tiger Woods. You want to them win because in doing so, you're likely to see something that's never been done before because they're incredible. Like the Patriots this year, I want them to win the Super Bowl so I can say I saw the greatest NFL team of all-time. Same reason for cheering for Federer. That, and we share a birthday. This Djokovic is something else though, certainly doesn't have Federer's all-court game or grace but great power, hits some great angle shots with lots of pace. Comes across as pretty likeable too, so good for him I guess. Roger will be out for revenge at the French...
That's enough for one night. Hey, enjoy the All-Star game! Judged shootouts this year. Truly, James Duthie has pictures of Gary Bettman.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Ug...
Has anyone else had just about enough of the Toronto media? Like, entirely? Well okay, if not entirely, how about tired of hearing about how winning a Stanley Cup in backwater noplaces like Anaheim, Carolina, and Detroit is fine, really, well done, nice job, but if you really want to cement yourself in hockey, really really really want people to notice and care and not hit you intentionally in parking lots then what you should do is break contract, uproot your family, leave organizations you've handbuilt into the envy of the entire league and submit your resume for the Best Damn Job In Sports: President and GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Only helming the Leafs to a Stanley Cup can bring you true hockey immortality. Like the third brother paraphrased to Indiana Jones, "You [will] have chosen wisely."
Honestly. That's enough. The Leafs are not exactly a team with any history of organizational functionality. Since their last Cup win in 1967 they've made the finals exactly, and this is rounding up, zero times. In that time the Oilers, Canucks, Flames, Canadiens and Senators have each lost in the finals more times than the Leafs have even played in it. I guess that isn't anything for those franchises to be proud of, but they've also combined to win sixteen Cups in that time. That's compared with eight finals losses, for a winning percentage of roughly .750. That's kind of inaccurate of course, since some of those finals were against each other, but it still shows an impressive showing for the rest of Canada's teams compared with the Leafs. This is a crappy organization that hasn't won and seems fine with that. Great working environment, eh?
Of course, in the eyes of the Toronto media, that's what makes the Leafs challenge so enticing: a chance to break a forty-year record of ineptitute in the biggest hockey market in the world. There's certainly truth to that, a challenge that big is always desirable. Just ask Sir Edmund Hillary. My issue is with the three names the media keep throwing out (Brian Burke, Jim Rutherford, Ken Holland) are so preposterously unattainable. That and degrading their accomplishments because they weren't leading the Leafs at the time is just flat-out rude.
If I'm wrong about anything here I'll gladly bake up a big fat apology blog, but I'm pretty sure these statements won't be disproved. Brian Burke keeps telling everyone who will listen (which are not the same people who are asking him, since they're Toronto media) that he and his wife are happy in Anaheim. His team is the defending champs, he has the best set of defensemen in the world (second place goes to last year's blueline) who will lead a serious charge to defend said Cup, and he is currently discussing a long-term contract. He's said many times that he won't take the job, and remember, this is one stubborn guy. He's still won't talk to Kevin Lowe after Lowe handed him a top-five pick in this year's draft. Imagine if Lowe had done something bad to Burke...
I don't even really see the Leafs actually going after Jim Rutherford, despite the name coming up frequently. Since 1994, he's been the team president, GM, and even part-owner, I was surprised to learn. Seems pretty rooted to me. Besides, the Leafs seem like they really want to hit a homerun, namewise, and won't settle for a guy who may have a Cup and a finals appearence, but also managed a lot of crummy Whalers/Hurricanes teams since 1994. Since 1997-1998 (9 seasons), the Hurricanes' first season after moving from Hartford, the team has missed the playoffs five times and lost in the first round in two others. That's two great playoff runs mixed into a lot of mediocrity. That 2006 team was truly a very good team, finishing second in the Eastern Conference with Eric Staal emerging as a true star. They did, however, catch some breaks in the playoffs run. They were down 2-0 to Montreal who then lost Saku Koivu which, from watching most of that series, was devestating and ended up costing them the series. They legitimately beat the Devils badly, a big surprise, before needing seven games to beat a Buffalo team that was missing its best FOUR defensemen, and then needed seven games to beat an eighth-seeded Oiler team that was missing its ridiculously hot goalie. Look, winning the Stanley Cup is always impressive and a credit to everyone in the organization, but can you really claim to be a great teambuilder if your Stanley Cup-winning team misses the playoffs the next season? In the weaker Eastern Conference, no less? I'll whittle down the Hurricanes a little further just by looking at their 2002 season where, after winning the worst division in hockey, actually had the second fewest points of ALL playoff-bound teams. This was a case of a very average team riding hot goaltending and trapping defense to the Finals, where after winning the first game and taking the Wings to triple-overtime in Game 2, were soundly beaten by a great team. Then missed the playoffs the following year. It seems to me that this is probably not the track record the Leafs are looking for if they're serious about building a team that can continually challenge for the Cup year after year. Not that they could get him anyways.
Ken Holland runs one of the premier teams in the entire league, a team with a legacy equal to or greater than that of the Leafs. Saying that the Leafs' job has more prestige is like telling Ted Thompson to ditch the Packers and get a REAL job with the Cowboys. He's not moving, you can't have him, stop looking. There. A short paragraph.
Leaf fans can forget about the boatload of prospects and picks that Mats Sundin will fetch, because they won't trade him either. He won't let them. He's said over and over, to the same reporters who won't listen to Brian Burke, that he won't waive his no-trade clause and wants to finish his career in Toronto. Since he's an unrestricted free agent after this season, it's possible the Leafs won't resign him and use the money elsewhere. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see the Leafs doing that. Can you image the blowback if they let him walk away for nothing, after all the talk about first rounders and top prospects he'd bring in a deadline deal? Hilarious. My guess is they will re-sign him, maybe mid-season, to a two-year extension. The Leafs are very concerned with "legacies" and "history" and "tradition" and certainly won't let "winning" get the way, and it'll look good to have the highest-scoring player in team history retire there. That's really the best option, fans appreciate stuff like that (don't they, Mr. Lowe?). Trading him is the best team option of course, but failing that they're a better team with him. Trade some overpaid defensemen, clear salary, let the kids play out the season.
My guesses then are that the Leafs don't get any of those GMs, all of which are impossible and one that, in my rightfully-ignored opinion, isn't that good of a choice anyways. Sundin stays, no team can afford (or fit under their cap) any of the rest of the Leafs' undesirables, and the team stays intact for years to come and continues their cycle of ineptitude. It's best to end on a note of hope, isn't it?
Honestly. That's enough. The Leafs are not exactly a team with any history of organizational functionality. Since their last Cup win in 1967 they've made the finals exactly, and this is rounding up, zero times. In that time the Oilers, Canucks, Flames, Canadiens and Senators have each lost in the finals more times than the Leafs have even played in it. I guess that isn't anything for those franchises to be proud of, but they've also combined to win sixteen Cups in that time. That's compared with eight finals losses, for a winning percentage of roughly .750. That's kind of inaccurate of course, since some of those finals were against each other, but it still shows an impressive showing for the rest of Canada's teams compared with the Leafs. This is a crappy organization that hasn't won and seems fine with that. Great working environment, eh?
Of course, in the eyes of the Toronto media, that's what makes the Leafs challenge so enticing: a chance to break a forty-year record of ineptitute in the biggest hockey market in the world. There's certainly truth to that, a challenge that big is always desirable. Just ask Sir Edmund Hillary. My issue is with the three names the media keep throwing out (Brian Burke, Jim Rutherford, Ken Holland) are so preposterously unattainable. That and degrading their accomplishments because they weren't leading the Leafs at the time is just flat-out rude.
If I'm wrong about anything here I'll gladly bake up a big fat apology blog, but I'm pretty sure these statements won't be disproved. Brian Burke keeps telling everyone who will listen (which are not the same people who are asking him, since they're Toronto media) that he and his wife are happy in Anaheim. His team is the defending champs, he has the best set of defensemen in the world (second place goes to last year's blueline) who will lead a serious charge to defend said Cup, and he is currently discussing a long-term contract. He's said many times that he won't take the job, and remember, this is one stubborn guy. He's still won't talk to Kevin Lowe after Lowe handed him a top-five pick in this year's draft. Imagine if Lowe had done something bad to Burke...
I don't even really see the Leafs actually going after Jim Rutherford, despite the name coming up frequently. Since 1994, he's been the team president, GM, and even part-owner, I was surprised to learn. Seems pretty rooted to me. Besides, the Leafs seem like they really want to hit a homerun, namewise, and won't settle for a guy who may have a Cup and a finals appearence, but also managed a lot of crummy Whalers/Hurricanes teams since 1994. Since 1997-1998 (9 seasons), the Hurricanes' first season after moving from Hartford, the team has missed the playoffs five times and lost in the first round in two others. That's two great playoff runs mixed into a lot of mediocrity. That 2006 team was truly a very good team, finishing second in the Eastern Conference with Eric Staal emerging as a true star. They did, however, catch some breaks in the playoffs run. They were down 2-0 to Montreal who then lost Saku Koivu which, from watching most of that series, was devestating and ended up costing them the series. They legitimately beat the Devils badly, a big surprise, before needing seven games to beat a Buffalo team that was missing its best FOUR defensemen, and then needed seven games to beat an eighth-seeded Oiler team that was missing its ridiculously hot goalie. Look, winning the Stanley Cup is always impressive and a credit to everyone in the organization, but can you really claim to be a great teambuilder if your Stanley Cup-winning team misses the playoffs the next season? In the weaker Eastern Conference, no less? I'll whittle down the Hurricanes a little further just by looking at their 2002 season where, after winning the worst division in hockey, actually had the second fewest points of ALL playoff-bound teams. This was a case of a very average team riding hot goaltending and trapping defense to the Finals, where after winning the first game and taking the Wings to triple-overtime in Game 2, were soundly beaten by a great team. Then missed the playoffs the following year. It seems to me that this is probably not the track record the Leafs are looking for if they're serious about building a team that can continually challenge for the Cup year after year. Not that they could get him anyways.
Ken Holland runs one of the premier teams in the entire league, a team with a legacy equal to or greater than that of the Leafs. Saying that the Leafs' job has more prestige is like telling Ted Thompson to ditch the Packers and get a REAL job with the Cowboys. He's not moving, you can't have him, stop looking. There. A short paragraph.
Leaf fans can forget about the boatload of prospects and picks that Mats Sundin will fetch, because they won't trade him either. He won't let them. He's said over and over, to the same reporters who won't listen to Brian Burke, that he won't waive his no-trade clause and wants to finish his career in Toronto. Since he's an unrestricted free agent after this season, it's possible the Leafs won't resign him and use the money elsewhere. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see the Leafs doing that. Can you image the blowback if they let him walk away for nothing, after all the talk about first rounders and top prospects he'd bring in a deadline deal? Hilarious. My guess is they will re-sign him, maybe mid-season, to a two-year extension. The Leafs are very concerned with "legacies" and "history" and "tradition" and certainly won't let "winning" get the way, and it'll look good to have the highest-scoring player in team history retire there. That's really the best option, fans appreciate stuff like that (don't they, Mr. Lowe?). Trading him is the best team option of course, but failing that they're a better team with him. Trade some overpaid defensemen, clear salary, let the kids play out the season.
My guesses then are that the Leafs don't get any of those GMs, all of which are impossible and one that, in my rightfully-ignored opinion, isn't that good of a choice anyways. Sundin stays, no team can afford (or fit under their cap) any of the rest of the Leafs' undesirables, and the team stays intact for years to come and continues their cycle of ineptitude. It's best to end on a note of hope, isn't it?
Friday, January 18, 2008
What could have been...
This year I've been able to see the Oilers play both the Penguins and the Capitals, so I've been "lucky" enough to see them take cracks at both Crosby and Ovechkin. Both games they blew two-goal leads, though last night's game against Washington was so disorganized (and wonderfully entertaining as a result) that you never once thought the lead was safe. Against Pittsburg earlier this year, the Oilers looked like they had the game locked up. They were playing excellent defense, applied sustained pressure and scored on the powerplay (!). Last night, they scored two powerplay goals, another just after time expired, and overall looked pretty decent offensively. Having Moreau back really makes a difference, it's great to see an Oiler throw a hit once in a while. I have to say though, last night's loss was a result of one awful goal and two questionable ones let in by Roloson. He had no chance on the first goal but the next two he saw. They were great shots, but nowadays you expect that if a goalie sees, he'll stop it. The fourth goal was just plain terrible, a shot from just above the goaline that banked in off his stick. I sympathize with Rollie, playing his first game in 17 days (I think). He was fabulous in the shootout, making a few great saves, but the game shouldn't have gotten to that point. Not to say the defense wasn't bad too, they gave up a lot of chances, but you got the sense watching last night that MacTavish got the reminder he wanted that Garon is still the guy for now.
Back to Ovechkin. Seeing both him and Crosby this year and without a doubt, putting national loyalty aside, I'd rather watch Ovechkin. He's ALWAYS at full speed, throws hits, shoots from anywhere, never stands still. A whirling dervish of perpetual motion, he is. I really hope he outlasts this contract and keeps going for years after. If that happens, if he lasts that long, you're undoubtably looking at the greatest European hockey player ever. I do want that to happen, he's great to watch and seems like a nice kid (his top priority has to be English, he's a marketing machine if he does, much moreso than Crosby), but I can't help but think we're looking at the next coming of Pavel Bure. I never liked Bure so I can't say I hoped he'd last, but he had the same kind of game as Ovechkin. Probably faster, don't think his shot was as good, physical but not as much as Alex, not as good a playmaker, and certainly not the same loquacious personality. Same approach to the game though, balls-out all the time but as exciting as that is to watch, it did make Bure injury prone. Just watching Ovechkin, I have to think he's going to suffer a few serious injuries in his career. I can't stress enough how much I do not want that to happen, but I have the feeling that what we're seeing now will be bittersweet memories in future years.
Back to Ovechkin. Seeing both him and Crosby this year and without a doubt, putting national loyalty aside, I'd rather watch Ovechkin. He's ALWAYS at full speed, throws hits, shoots from anywhere, never stands still. A whirling dervish of perpetual motion, he is. I really hope he outlasts this contract and keeps going for years after. If that happens, if he lasts that long, you're undoubtably looking at the greatest European hockey player ever. I do want that to happen, he's great to watch and seems like a nice kid (his top priority has to be English, he's a marketing machine if he does, much moreso than Crosby), but I can't help but think we're looking at the next coming of Pavel Bure. I never liked Bure so I can't say I hoped he'd last, but he had the same kind of game as Ovechkin. Probably faster, don't think his shot was as good, physical but not as much as Alex, not as good a playmaker, and certainly not the same loquacious personality. Same approach to the game though, balls-out all the time but as exciting as that is to watch, it did make Bure injury prone. Just watching Ovechkin, I have to think he's going to suffer a few serious injuries in his career. I can't stress enough how much I do not want that to happen, but I have the feeling that what we're seeing now will be bittersweet memories in future years.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Shooting fish in a barrel
The Leafs fell out of the playoff race a lot faster than I thought they would. They can't beat anyone and they've looked terrible in their recent loses. Currently they sit eight points behind 8th place Boston, who also have a game in hand. Five teams are between them and playoff spot so while 8 points isn't a lot to make up in half a season (especially over a team they play five more times), passing that many teams is pretty much impossible. They're not making the playoffs this year. That's it. It's over. At this point, they're not making the playoffs next year either and they're only getting older, so it's time to tear it apart and start over. The GM has put together a bad team, the coach isn't getting through and upper management wants to make changes. In any other city, the team president fires the GM, brings in a new guy who had been sought out quietly behind the scenes, leaves it up the new GM to either keep or fire the coach, all with enough time before the trade deadline to assess the team and make the right trades. Not the Leafs! No sir!
Instead of mercifully firing the incumbent John Ferguson Jr., out comes the report from TSN that they've asked Cliff Fletcher to step in to run the team while they find a new GM. In other words, they're asking an outsider to act as the interim GM while they find another outsider with only six weeks before the trade deadline while the current GM is still employed. Here's the Leafs plan, apparently: Hire a temporary outsider as the GM (yes indeed a former Leafs GM, but that was ten years ago) who won't be allowed to make changes and will presumably putter around until a REAL replacement can be found (one who will undoubtably want Bryan Colangelo-style autonomy), who will then scramble to figure out how his team works and what trades can possibly be salvaaged before the deadline. Knowing the speed at which the Leafs brass makes changes, they'll be lucky to have found a permanent replacement by the draft.
There's two awful things about this situation. First, poor JFJ. Out come the reports that his replacement is being actively sought the day after Richard Peddie tells TSN that "John Ferguson Jr. is still the General Manager" (by asking Fletcher to take over now, they're sending the message that anyone, ANYONE, is better suited to running the team than he is. They'll probably ask JFJ to show the new guy around and help him set up his computer.). Second, the trade deadline is the point at which they can extract greater trade value from their players than at any other point in the season. They'll have lots of teams dreaming for spring (and summer) glory bidding against each other for Leaf veterans. Wouldn't it be great to have your new GM in place long before the deadline? Give him the chance to start the bidding as soon as possible? Nah, let's take our time with outside hires and delayed solutions. Just resign JFJ! You're done anyways, you don't need this unprofessional treatment so make the pre-emptive strike! Ottawa's just down the road, maybe you can facilitate getting Sundin traded there...
Instead of mercifully firing the incumbent John Ferguson Jr., out comes the report from TSN that they've asked Cliff Fletcher to step in to run the team while they find a new GM. In other words, they're asking an outsider to act as the interim GM while they find another outsider with only six weeks before the trade deadline while the current GM is still employed. Here's the Leafs plan, apparently: Hire a temporary outsider as the GM (yes indeed a former Leafs GM, but that was ten years ago) who won't be allowed to make changes and will presumably putter around until a REAL replacement can be found (one who will undoubtably want Bryan Colangelo-style autonomy), who will then scramble to figure out how his team works and what trades can possibly be salvaaged before the deadline. Knowing the speed at which the Leafs brass makes changes, they'll be lucky to have found a permanent replacement by the draft.
There's two awful things about this situation. First, poor JFJ. Out come the reports that his replacement is being actively sought the day after Richard Peddie tells TSN that "John Ferguson Jr. is still the General Manager" (by asking Fletcher to take over now, they're sending the message that anyone, ANYONE, is better suited to running the team than he is. They'll probably ask JFJ to show the new guy around and help him set up his computer.). Second, the trade deadline is the point at which they can extract greater trade value from their players than at any other point in the season. They'll have lots of teams dreaming for spring (and summer) glory bidding against each other for Leaf veterans. Wouldn't it be great to have your new GM in place long before the deadline? Give him the chance to start the bidding as soon as possible? Nah, let's take our time with outside hires and delayed solutions. Just resign JFJ! You're done anyways, you don't need this unprofessional treatment so make the pre-emptive strike! Ottawa's just down the road, maybe you can facilitate getting Sundin traded there...
It's January!
...so time to talk baseball! The reported trade of Scott Rolen for Troy Glaus is, according to TSN, now officially done. Pretty straightforeward why the deal was done, Glaus' left foot didn't want any more of the Rogers Center's FieldTurf and Rolen, like many of us, didn't want anymore Tony LaRussa. So who wins? Let's have a wee look:
2007 Stats:
Troy Glaus: 115 games, 101 hits, 19 2B, 20 Hrs, 62 RBI's, .262/.366/.473 (batting avg./on-base %/slugging %)(definitions of each are found here.)
Projected over a full 162 game season: 142 hits, 27 2B, 28 Hrs, 87 RBI's.
Scott Rolen: 112 games, 104 hits, 24 2B, 8 Hrs, 58 RBI's, .265/.331/.398
Projected over 162 games: 150 hits, 35 2B, 12 Hrs, 84 RBI's.
If you look at their projected numbers over 162 games, the numbers are pretty similar except for Glaus' homerun totals. That accounts for his higher OBP and slugging %. Keep in mind though that Rolen battled shoulders problems last year, which likely accounts for his lagging power numbers. If his shoulder problems are fully healed, then those numbers should rebound. If you look at their career OBP, you'll see that Glaus' .358 is a little short of Rolen's .372. Still, Rolen's career numbers (found here) don't approach Glaus' peak power numbers (here) and doesn't walk as much, so Glaus is probably the better offensive player. In St. Louis he'll presumably bat behind Pujols, meaning he'll be hitting with plenty of runners on base and the RBI totals should be higher. Offensive advantage: Cardinals.
Defensively, Glaus has a career fielding percentage of .967 compared to Rolen's .969 meaning that they basically make the same number of errors. The difference, though, is Rolen's range. In 2007, Glaus had a Revised Zone Rating (measures how many balls within the player's fielding zone are converted into OUTS, not just whether an error was made) of .706, 5th in the American League. Rolen's was .742, 2nd in the National League (the leader, Pedro Feliz, was only slightly higher at .747). To me, that says that Rolen made more plays within his designated zone because he was able to cover more ground. Interestingly though, Rolen recorded 39 outs on balls-in-play OUTSIDE his zone (7th in the NL) compared to Glaus' 48 (3rd in the AL). Out of zone plays are counting stats, not percentage stats, so the next step is to look at the number of chances. Glaus played 928 innings, Rolen played 935. Glaus had 204 balls hit into his zone, Rolen had 240. Basically then, Scott Rolen played slightly more, fielded 0.22 more chances within his zone per game (that's calculated over 162 games), and recorded a significantly higher percentage of outs for balls hit in his zone. Defensive conclusion thusfar: Rolen is quite a bit better. I'm sold on the hype.
I didn't go into this stat analysis, such as it is, with an argument that I was hoping to prove, but rather to see what the numbers said and find out just how close these guys are. The conclusion I draw is that Rolen is certainly the better defender but not by as much as I would have thought, especially looking at that odd stat about plays made outside the zone favoring Glaus. I was actually looking for reasons to prop up Glaus' defense, since all the trade analysis you read says that Rolen, who has won seven gold gloves, is considered one of the best all-around third basemen in baseball and Glaus is merely average. That's turn out to be true if you compare each player to their peers, though if you compare the numbers directly against each other, the players have closer numbers than one would expect based on their media reputation. The lesson I learned is that there isn't a massive numeric difference between one of the greatest defensive third basemen ever (only Brooks Robinson has more Gold Gloves) and a guy who's just decent.
Here's some back stats from previous seasons, just out of interest, where Rolen posted the following RZR's:
2006: .767 (1st in the NL) 142 games played.
2005: .794 (DNQ) 56 games played. The leader that year, Morgan Ensberg, finished with .769.
2004: .758 (2nd) 142 games played.
Troy Glaus' RZR's:
2006: .687 (9th in the AL) 153 games played
2005: .713 (8th) 149 games played
2004: .765 (DNQ) 56 games played
Here's a link to the glossary to all those terms by the way, I did my best to understand and present them properly.
So who wins? Glaus is the slightly better offensive player, Rolen is the noticeably better defensive player. The question, one I gladly admit to having failed to answer, is whether the gap between Glaus and Rolen's offense is the same size as the gap between their defense. The conclusion I draw is that the defensive gap is wider, but that can change depending on how the teams they join hinder or benefit their offensive production. For example, hitting behind Pujols (career on-base %: an obscene .420) should help boost his RBI's because Pujols ranked 6th in the NL in walks last year, 4th in intentional walks. By comparison, last year Glaus hit behind Vernon Wells, who, in an injury-plague season, had an OBP of .304 (93rd in the AL, ew) and was 54th in the AL in walks. Still, Rolen sports some pretty impressive fielding numbers, creating a gap I can't see Glaus overcoming, and will benefit himself offensively from a stacked Jays lineup that will offer up plenty of protection. Fielding advantage: Jays.
So who wins? Assuming each player is completely healthy next year (unlikely), the next analytical step is to follow-up that last thought and look at the impact they'll have on their teams. The Blue Jays offense, if they're healthy next year and play to their potential, is loaded. Losing a few OBP points and homeruns is fine since Wells, Thomas, Rios, Overbay, Hill, and Johnson should be able to produce plenty of runs. Their defense, recently ranked by Dayn Perry of Foxsports.com as the BEST IN THE MAJORS last year, is even better in 2008. The Cardinals rid themselves of the LaRussa-Rolen distraction and get a strong offensive player to back up Pujols, one who will presumably benefit from the natural grass surface at Busch Stadium. He's a defensive downgrade and a moderate offensive upgrade. Rolen's contract is for another three years and $36 million, Glaus is owed $12 million for 2008 and has activated his $11.5 million player option for 2009. With both players subject to injury concerns, the shorter contract might be to the advantage of the Cardinals but if both stay healthy, the Jays have third base locked up for three more years.
So who wins? All comes down to who stays healthy. Assuming both players play the same number of games, I think the Jays win because their defense is even better (a big factor considering they're rolling out three young pitchers and their top two, Halladay and Burnett, have strong groundball tendencies) and the moderate offensive downgrade will be overcome by a lineup that ought to be better. The Cardinals' acquisition is still an upgrade because Glaus will be better than an unhappy Rolen was last year. A solid move for Toronto, though by no means a coup since both players were moved not out of opportunity but necessity. Each team benefits, it's just a question of which team will benefit the most. Both players passed their physicals, each team no knows what they're getting, so no excuses as each player has been proclaimed as good to go. That's good news for Jays fans, if my number analysis holds up.
2007 Stats:
Troy Glaus: 115 games, 101 hits, 19 2B, 20 Hrs, 62 RBI's, .262/.366/.473 (batting avg./on-base %/slugging %)(definitions of each are found here.)
Projected over a full 162 game season: 142 hits, 27 2B, 28 Hrs, 87 RBI's.
Scott Rolen: 112 games, 104 hits, 24 2B, 8 Hrs, 58 RBI's, .265/.331/.398
Projected over 162 games: 150 hits, 35 2B, 12 Hrs, 84 RBI's.
If you look at their projected numbers over 162 games, the numbers are pretty similar except for Glaus' homerun totals. That accounts for his higher OBP and slugging %. Keep in mind though that Rolen battled shoulders problems last year, which likely accounts for his lagging power numbers. If his shoulder problems are fully healed, then those numbers should rebound. If you look at their career OBP, you'll see that Glaus' .358 is a little short of Rolen's .372. Still, Rolen's career numbers (found here) don't approach Glaus' peak power numbers (here) and doesn't walk as much, so Glaus is probably the better offensive player. In St. Louis he'll presumably bat behind Pujols, meaning he'll be hitting with plenty of runners on base and the RBI totals should be higher. Offensive advantage: Cardinals.
Defensively, Glaus has a career fielding percentage of .967 compared to Rolen's .969 meaning that they basically make the same number of errors. The difference, though, is Rolen's range. In 2007, Glaus had a Revised Zone Rating (measures how many balls within the player's fielding zone are converted into OUTS, not just whether an error was made) of .706, 5th in the American League. Rolen's was .742, 2nd in the National League (the leader, Pedro Feliz, was only slightly higher at .747). To me, that says that Rolen made more plays within his designated zone because he was able to cover more ground. Interestingly though, Rolen recorded 39 outs on balls-in-play OUTSIDE his zone (7th in the NL) compared to Glaus' 48 (3rd in the AL). Out of zone plays are counting stats, not percentage stats, so the next step is to look at the number of chances. Glaus played 928 innings, Rolen played 935. Glaus had 204 balls hit into his zone, Rolen had 240. Basically then, Scott Rolen played slightly more, fielded 0.22 more chances within his zone per game (that's calculated over 162 games), and recorded a significantly higher percentage of outs for balls hit in his zone. Defensive conclusion thusfar: Rolen is quite a bit better. I'm sold on the hype.
I didn't go into this stat analysis, such as it is, with an argument that I was hoping to prove, but rather to see what the numbers said and find out just how close these guys are. The conclusion I draw is that Rolen is certainly the better defender but not by as much as I would have thought, especially looking at that odd stat about plays made outside the zone favoring Glaus. I was actually looking for reasons to prop up Glaus' defense, since all the trade analysis you read says that Rolen, who has won seven gold gloves, is considered one of the best all-around third basemen in baseball and Glaus is merely average. That's turn out to be true if you compare each player to their peers, though if you compare the numbers directly against each other, the players have closer numbers than one would expect based on their media reputation. The lesson I learned is that there isn't a massive numeric difference between one of the greatest defensive third basemen ever (only Brooks Robinson has more Gold Gloves) and a guy who's just decent.
Here's some back stats from previous seasons, just out of interest, where Rolen posted the following RZR's:
2006: .767 (1st in the NL) 142 games played.
2005: .794 (DNQ) 56 games played. The leader that year, Morgan Ensberg, finished with .769.
2004: .758 (2nd) 142 games played.
Troy Glaus' RZR's:
2006: .687 (9th in the AL) 153 games played
2005: .713 (8th) 149 games played
2004: .765 (DNQ) 56 games played
Here's a link to the glossary to all those terms by the way, I did my best to understand and present them properly.
So who wins? Glaus is the slightly better offensive player, Rolen is the noticeably better defensive player. The question, one I gladly admit to having failed to answer, is whether the gap between Glaus and Rolen's offense is the same size as the gap between their defense. The conclusion I draw is that the defensive gap is wider, but that can change depending on how the teams they join hinder or benefit their offensive production. For example, hitting behind Pujols (career on-base %: an obscene .420) should help boost his RBI's because Pujols ranked 6th in the NL in walks last year, 4th in intentional walks. By comparison, last year Glaus hit behind Vernon Wells, who, in an injury-plague season, had an OBP of .304 (93rd in the AL, ew) and was 54th in the AL in walks. Still, Rolen sports some pretty impressive fielding numbers, creating a gap I can't see Glaus overcoming, and will benefit himself offensively from a stacked Jays lineup that will offer up plenty of protection. Fielding advantage: Jays.
So who wins? Assuming each player is completely healthy next year (unlikely), the next analytical step is to follow-up that last thought and look at the impact they'll have on their teams. The Blue Jays offense, if they're healthy next year and play to their potential, is loaded. Losing a few OBP points and homeruns is fine since Wells, Thomas, Rios, Overbay, Hill, and Johnson should be able to produce plenty of runs. Their defense, recently ranked by Dayn Perry of Foxsports.com as the BEST IN THE MAJORS last year, is even better in 2008. The Cardinals rid themselves of the LaRussa-Rolen distraction and get a strong offensive player to back up Pujols, one who will presumably benefit from the natural grass surface at Busch Stadium. He's a defensive downgrade and a moderate offensive upgrade. Rolen's contract is for another three years and $36 million, Glaus is owed $12 million for 2008 and has activated his $11.5 million player option for 2009. With both players subject to injury concerns, the shorter contract might be to the advantage of the Cardinals but if both stay healthy, the Jays have third base locked up for three more years.
So who wins? All comes down to who stays healthy. Assuming both players play the same number of games, I think the Jays win because their defense is even better (a big factor considering they're rolling out three young pitchers and their top two, Halladay and Burnett, have strong groundball tendencies) and the moderate offensive downgrade will be overcome by a lineup that ought to be better. The Cardinals' acquisition is still an upgrade because Glaus will be better than an unhappy Rolen was last year. A solid move for Toronto, though by no means a coup since both players were moved not out of opportunity but necessity. Each team benefits, it's just a question of which team will benefit the most. Both players passed their physicals, each team no knows what they're getting, so no excuses as each player has been proclaimed as good to go. That's good news for Jays fans, if my number analysis holds up.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Let's Keep Up The Chatter!
"Lisa on Ice" is one of my favorite Simpsons episodes. With the exception of the tennis episode with Pete Sampras and Co., the Simpsons writers always favor us with a classic whenever they delve into the wonderfully wacky world of sports. I happened to catch Lisa on Ice last night, for probably the 10th time, and a few thoughts occurred to me. No matter how sharp the episode is when satirizing parental motivations, overzealous fans, sibling favoritism and violence in youth sports, it just can't nab the details. Sports fans watching sports movies are like theoretical multivariable math/physics students watching The Core or Pi, constantly interrupting and ruining everyone else's enjoyment by pointing out factual errors that nobody else could possibly know or care about. I can't help but watch this episode and think things like "Those lines are the wrong color," "You can't stop on a penalty shot, the ref would whistle the play dead," "The time clock doesn't count down during a penalty shot, everyone knows that," "The Big Championship Game ends in a tie? Really? What kind of shoddy, amateurish, morally relativisic league is this? What are those kids even playing for anyways, FUN!?" These sorts of announcements are not well-received by anyone watching with me.
The real question of course, is whether these inaccuracies even matter. The episode is a brilliant satire of the bizarre pressure and expectations placed on child athletes by both parents and the sporting culture. This pressure creates a predicable response: Children, seeking positive reinforcement, will adopt an attitute and behave in a manner that ensures approval from their parents. Kids take sports as seriously as their parents and (to a lesser extent) their coaches do. Lisa begins the episode failing gym and only joining hockey to get a passing grade. Her and Bart quickly develope an insanely aggressive and competitive relationship as a direct result of Homer's favoritism towards the superior athlete, as well as his constant reminders that they are in direct competition for their parents' love.
***Tangent: Some the lines are so hysterical they make me wonder why other shows even exist. Some examples:
Homer: "Okay Marge, its your child against my child. The winner will be showered with praise. The loser will be taunted and booed until my throat is sore."
Marge: Stop it, stop it, stop it! (Flicks light on and off.)
Bart: Mom, that is really annoying.
Lisa: Bart started it.
Bart: Uh uh, Lisa started it.
Marge: I don't care who started it. I don't ever want to see you two fighting like that ever again. We love you both: you're not in competition with each other. Repeat: you are not in competition with each other.
Homer: Hey! Apu just called. This Friday, Lisa's team is playing Bart's team. You're in direct competition. And don't go easy on each other just because you're brother and sister. I want to see you both fighting for your parents' love! (Flicks light on and off.) Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Uter: (Homer chases him with a wet towel) Don't make me run, I'm full of chocolate!
Homer: (to Bart) You won, so I'm going to live up to my side of the agreement. Here's your turtle, alive and well.
Jimbo: Nice PJs, Simpson. Did your mommy buy 'em for ya?
Bart: Of course she did. Who else would have?
[Pause]
Jimbo: (menacing) All right, Simpson, you win this round.
The real question of course, is whether these inaccuracies even matter. The episode is a brilliant satire of the bizarre pressure and expectations placed on child athletes by both parents and the sporting culture. This pressure creates a predicable response: Children, seeking positive reinforcement, will adopt an attitute and behave in a manner that ensures approval from their parents. Kids take sports as seriously as their parents and (to a lesser extent) their coaches do. Lisa begins the episode failing gym and only joining hockey to get a passing grade. Her and Bart quickly develope an insanely aggressive and competitive relationship as a direct result of Homer's favoritism towards the superior athlete, as well as his constant reminders that they are in direct competition for their parents' love.
***Tangent: Some the lines are so hysterical they make me wonder why other shows even exist. Some examples:
Homer: "Okay Marge, its your child against my child. The winner will be showered with praise. The loser will be taunted and booed until my throat is sore."
Marge: Stop it, stop it, stop it! (Flicks light on and off.)
Bart: Mom, that is really annoying.
Lisa: Bart started it.
Bart: Uh uh, Lisa started it.
Marge: I don't care who started it. I don't ever want to see you two fighting like that ever again. We love you both: you're not in competition with each other. Repeat: you are not in competition with each other.
Homer: Hey! Apu just called. This Friday, Lisa's team is playing Bart's team. You're in direct competition. And don't go easy on each other just because you're brother and sister. I want to see you both fighting for your parents' love! (Flicks light on and off.) Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Uter: (Homer chases him with a wet towel) Don't make me run, I'm full of chocolate!
Homer: (to Bart) You won, so I'm going to live up to my side of the agreement. Here's your turtle, alive and well.
Jimbo: Nice PJs, Simpson. Did your mommy buy 'em for ya?
Bart: Of course she did. Who else would have?
[Pause]
Jimbo: (menacing) All right, Simpson, you win this round.
Lisa: [sobs] Mom, this is really scary. I'm going to get my first F
ever.
Marge: Cheer up! So you're not good at sports: it's a very small part
of life.
Homer: [walking in, humming] Sports, sports, sports, sports, sports,
sports, sports, sports...Marge, Bart rides up in the front seat
today because he's a good guy at sports.
Marge: [whispering] I think Lisa needs to feel a little special tonight.
How about letting her ride up front too?
[Homer looks at Bart, who shakes his head]
Homer: Ehh, I tried.
Milhouse: "Hey, way to knock out my teeth!"
Apu: "Yeah that's it Milhouse, keep up the chatter!"
Back to the show. The end of the episode features Bart and Lisa overcoming the town's (and
Homer's) small-mindedness and reconciling, agreeing to end the game in a tie. Lots of messages
in the episode, none of which, the argument goes, require absolute attention to detail. I agree
with that for the most part of course, except that the strength of satire always comes from its
attention to detail. By showing a quick cut to the clock counting down during Bart's penalty shot
or having him stop while skating in (rather than just gliding), the audience (at least those who
notice) is at least temporarily distracted from the message. Good satire imitates the details and
succeeds because of them, not in spite of them. This is fabulous satire, but with a few chinks in
its armour.
Of course, there is the possiblity that all the factual errors are intentional and intended to mock
the Mighty Ducks movies' pitiful attempt to create an entirely new sport based, loosely, on what
the rest of us call "hockey." I hate those movies so much. The "knucklepuck" scenes make my
soul cry, and how DARE you allow some little punk-ass to wear a #99 jersey?
Monday, January 7, 2008
"Look Daddy, that man's head is missing!"
I was sitting on my couch, which I very rarely do, watching the Oilers-Islanders game when all of sudden, right in the middle of a HOCKEY game, a fight broke out. It was like most fights, a big ol' hug with slappy man punches to the back of the opponent followed by the requisite tackle. Pro-fight advocates always make two points: Hardly anyone ever gets hurt in a fight and nobody leaves their seat during a fight. Even my girlfriend stopped what she was doing to watch from across the room. I'm in the middle of the fight debate. Refs don't catch everything, which leaves room for an argument that there's a necessity for vigilantism to act as a second-tier governance. Yet no other sport tolerates fighting, not even football, the most violent, so why does hockey need the threat of in-game violence to govern itself when others can do without it? I'm not settling anything here, not today anyways, but I just wanted to quickly refute the above two pro-fight arguments. Players constantly get hurt in fights but the injury seems to happen more in the post-fight tackle than the fight itself. While injuries from punches thrown may occur less frequently than other types of in-game injuries, there's a pretty long list of players who suffered career-ending concussions during fights. Perhaps less overall injuries, but when they do they are severe. The second one is easy. Fans in Vancouver didn't leave their seats when Todd Bertuzzi punched out Steve Moore. Perhaps there should be more of that?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
WJC Final
Hockey fans love the World Junior Hockey championships. It's a positive tournament that you can't help but enjoy in a totally different way than the NHL. They're kids so you can't get too frustrated with them, it's a short sprint so each game is exciting, and Canada, at least lately, usually wins. Pretty good eh?
I like the World Juniors for all those reasons, but there's one more. Each year, you're introduced to players from small-town junior teams in Canada, some you know from the draft but many you know nothing about. You get names and credentials from their TSN profiles but really, you've never seen most of them play in person or on TV. You've also never seen them play together and never seen them against any other teams in the world, all of whom are similarily thrown together. It's a total crapshoot. There's always a few holdovers from previous tournaments that everyone knows will be good, like Alzner this year, but what makes the tournament so much fu is seeing which players come out of nowhere, surprise the analysts, and become short-lived heroes. Most of those players are, in reality, marginal NHL prospects who are projected to be, at most, 3rd or 4th line grinders. Watching them elevate their game for two weeks over the holidays, block shots, play hurt, jump the glass when they score and cry when they win or lose is to see players, most likely, at the peak of their hockey careers. It's kind of sad, to see an individual's career peak at seventeen, but we would probably all like to have such a peak. Lots of players from this tournament will go on to solid NHL careers, some will win Stanley Cups and go on to the Hall of Fame. To me though, the part of the World Juniors that resonates is those kids who make the team and become folk heroes for those few weeks, players like John Slaney, Tyler Bouck, Boyd Devereaux. Even while you're watching it, you know they just won't match that level of fame the rest of their careers.
A few quick opinions, in no particular order of importance. Get this thing in Canada every other year. There's nothing worse, as many smarter people than I have repeatedly stated, than watching packed arenas in Canada one year and empty Eurorinks the next. It demeans the tournament and the players. One thing it does is fit into the NHL's concept of sport development: Showing The Game In Places That Don't Care.
Watching TSN hockey coverage of any kind forces you to find ways to rationalize Pierre McGuire's existence. You can't avoid him, if he's not interrupting Gord he's hooting from his little rink-side Pierre Booth (proof that Gord still has more pull at TSN), using superlatives like he's auditioning for trailer voiceovers at the Disney Sports Movie department, or screaming for penalties against Not Canada. I don't really have a good reason to like Pierre yet, he's SO LOUD, he lavishes praise and doles out criticism with exaggerations not heard outside of 300, and in the World Juniors he's such an awful homer. I don't want him to be harder on Canada, that's not what this tournament is about, just pay attention to who they're playing. Show a little love when Sweden blocks a shot or the U.S. shakes Canada's hand after the semi-finals rather than trashing their hotel room.
2-0 going into the third, go Canada!
I like the World Juniors for all those reasons, but there's one more. Each year, you're introduced to players from small-town junior teams in Canada, some you know from the draft but many you know nothing about. You get names and credentials from their TSN profiles but really, you've never seen most of them play in person or on TV. You've also never seen them play together and never seen them against any other teams in the world, all of whom are similarily thrown together. It's a total crapshoot. There's always a few holdovers from previous tournaments that everyone knows will be good, like Alzner this year, but what makes the tournament so much fu is seeing which players come out of nowhere, surprise the analysts, and become short-lived heroes. Most of those players are, in reality, marginal NHL prospects who are projected to be, at most, 3rd or 4th line grinders. Watching them elevate their game for two weeks over the holidays, block shots, play hurt, jump the glass when they score and cry when they win or lose is to see players, most likely, at the peak of their hockey careers. It's kind of sad, to see an individual's career peak at seventeen, but we would probably all like to have such a peak. Lots of players from this tournament will go on to solid NHL careers, some will win Stanley Cups and go on to the Hall of Fame. To me though, the part of the World Juniors that resonates is those kids who make the team and become folk heroes for those few weeks, players like John Slaney, Tyler Bouck, Boyd Devereaux. Even while you're watching it, you know they just won't match that level of fame the rest of their careers.
A few quick opinions, in no particular order of importance. Get this thing in Canada every other year. There's nothing worse, as many smarter people than I have repeatedly stated, than watching packed arenas in Canada one year and empty Eurorinks the next. It demeans the tournament and the players. One thing it does is fit into the NHL's concept of sport development: Showing The Game In Places That Don't Care.
Watching TSN hockey coverage of any kind forces you to find ways to rationalize Pierre McGuire's existence. You can't avoid him, if he's not interrupting Gord he's hooting from his little rink-side Pierre Booth (proof that Gord still has more pull at TSN), using superlatives like he's auditioning for trailer voiceovers at the Disney Sports Movie department, or screaming for penalties against Not Canada. I don't really have a good reason to like Pierre yet, he's SO LOUD, he lavishes praise and doles out criticism with exaggerations not heard outside of 300, and in the World Juniors he's such an awful homer. I don't want him to be harder on Canada, that's not what this tournament is about, just pay attention to who they're playing. Show a little love when Sweden blocks a shot or the U.S. shakes Canada's hand after the semi-finals rather than trashing their hotel room.
2-0 going into the third, go Canada!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)