State of the State of Hockey

Stay positive! Yeo, Fletcher saying the right things, and hope in the playoff race...

2012-01-19T13:46:00.000-06:00

Voice of optimism (stop laughing at me)

I'm starting to feel like the lone voice of optimism in the Wild blogosphere. The State of the State of Hockey is one of general despair. If we take a step back from the horrible games we've been watching. I know many people will find my optimism foolish. But I mean the following sincerely: Despite this horrible losing the streak, I see the Wild are still very much in the playoff race.

It doesn't matter if the team won a bunch of games first, and then lost a bunch any more than it would matter if it happened the other way around, or if the big winning streak and the big losing streak were instead a bunch of shorter streaks mixed in. However it happened the Wild are about where any reasonable person expected them to be if they stayed healthy. (And certainly they are above where unreasonable person Harrison Mooney at Puck Daddy predicted in his season preview.)

(more below the jump)

My take on the beat

In Star Tribune Wild beat writer Michael Russo's post yesterday Yeo is trying to take the pressure off the team. Yeo is being quite open about the trouble of having players in roles above their preseason expectations. I don't think Yeo is so much making excuses here as he is trying to keep players focused on their strengths.

I think I like the reasoning behind the latest line combinations Russo has reported. I've been fond of Cullen and Clutterbuck together, even though Cal often seems to have difficulty hitting the net. And there's no doubt Heatley and Havlat need more attack time. Not that I think Cullen roams too high, but maybe Peters will be faster on the backcheck to turn the play the other way, and perhaps Cullen will me more effective against lesser defensive matchups.

Fletcher is talking about making a trade to keep playoff hopes alive because he owes it to the team for exceeding expectations this year. I like the sentiment, but I also think there is no logic in blowing up the team in hopes of being a 6-8 seed in the playoffs. If a deal makes sense, Fletch will pull the trigger, I just hope he doesn't give up too much in the process. These types of deals are really only beneficial to the teams that are one piece away, not the teams that have been decimated by injury.

Obviously there are players the Wild can move without impacting the core (Zidlicky, Harding, etc...), however these players probably won't provide the return value this season that would bring another top six forward, or a stay-at-home defenseman.

Regardless of whether it's switching lines, players simply trying to find more to give, managers hoping for a deal that could provide a spark, coaches taking a different attitude, or just avoiding the frustration that's built eventually it's up to the players to realize the first rule of holes, regardless of the level talent Minnesota can put out there. To borrow from First Round Bust, it seems to me Yeo is trying to say something different and less critical in this attempt to find (as First Round Bust put it earlier this month) the reset button.

The Playoff Race

There is opportunity in the coming schedule. Following tonight's game at Toronto, the Wild have important games against two fellow bubble buddies. Home for Hockey Day Minnesota against Dallas and then at Colorado on Tuesday. In the Points Behind NHL Standings, the Wild are tied for 8th with Dallas and a scant point ahead of Colorado* after the Avs' victory last night. These are obviously important games if the Wild want to go into the All-Star Break in the right direction.

*The Points Behind method factors in Dallas has games in hand on Colorado and Minnesota and ranks Dallas in 8th, Minnesota in 9th, and Colorado in 10th, not Colorado in 8th, Minnesota in 9th and Dallas in 10th as traditional tables would. (Full explanation here.) Dallas does hold the tie-breaker on Reg/OT wins over Minnesota, but the standings site does not yet consider that in the sort, which is proving to be a tougher nut to crack than I assumed from a programming standpoint.

The Wild have a record as good or better than all of their opponents between today and the All-Star break. Let's see if there's a glimmer of hope before the All-Star Break.

So buck up State of Hockey. Even though the top of the West is a distant memory, there is a hot playoff race to look forward to this season. And Koivu might get healthy sooner rather than later. At the very least if Koivu thinks he could still play in the All Star game, the least the other players and the fans can do is believe in a chance for a victory at Toronto tonight.

Victory over the Sharks! Results, Opportunities, Controversies, and Congratulations...

2012-01-11T13:00:00.000-06:00

1) Results

Yes it was an ugly collapse, yes the Wild still had to fight through several stretches where it seemed they were never going to get out of their own end. But without Setoguchi or Bouchard, the Wild managed to score four goals against the Sharks, and hold on for a shootout victory they may or may not have deserved.

After losing to a beatable Calgary team on Saturday, the Wild bounced back and found a way to win what is probably their toughest matchup in January.

2) Opportunities

Yes, yesterday's win is only the 2nd victory in 13 games, but it helps ensure they stay on the right side of the playoff bubble for now. This weeks games at Chicago and St. Louis are both going to be challenging, but the Wild can show a willingness to take their fate in their own hands, victories here will put the Wild back toward the top of the West and away from the bubble.

With only two home games left in January and plenty of tough road tests, points will be hard to come by. However, if last night proved anything, it is that there are ways to win every game, just a matter of finding them.

3) Controversies

So apparently Setoguchi missed a meeting yesterday which resulted in his being scratched last night. For everyone that has lamented the absence of offense in the lineup, I am yet to see anyone criticize Yeo for this decision. I shouldn't be too surprised by this, my frustration with Richards (which I believe was shared by the fan base at large) is that he was unable to motivate the team, which led to the collapse at the end of the season. So I think on some level, the fans understand that to not hold Setoguchi accountable would invite the potential that Yeo's principles can crack when tested. This would jeopardize Yeo's ability as a leader.

Obviously, it's much easier to support Yeo's decision because the Wild found a way to win the game without Setoguchi, but I imagine, the fans would still generally respect Yeo's decision even if the result were different. It's hard to know for sure, but I don't think my respect for fellow Wild fans is misplaced in issues like this.

Also glad to see Russo tweet that Setoguchi did apologize to the team, and take responsibility himself. I hope this never happens again. I'm willing to forget until it does.

4) Congratulations

Of course I'd like to congratulate Matt Cullen on his 1000 NHL games, becoming the seventh Minnesotan to do so. Cullen has struggled to find the next since his quick start, but I love the way he moves with the puck and I love the way he forechecks, he has always been a positive player, regardless of his role and whether or not it shows up in the box score. Cullen's number should rebound now the the Wild are becoming healthy .(though I think with Setoguchi's return Thursday, this is as healthy as the Wild will be for a while.)

Speaking of Richards, I am glad he is getting the chance to be a head coach again (albeit with the "interim" tag). Richards replaces the fired Scott Arniel in Columbus. As little as I like the Blue Jackets and Arniel, I do hope Richards learned from mistakes here and will do a better job this time around.

Would a play-in round please the PA?, thoughts on Cullen's comments to Russo

2012-01-10T09:00:00.295-06:00

I was glad to see Minnesota Wild player rep Matt Cullen spell out the Players' Association's position a little better on Sunday regarding their stance on the realignment plan. Cullen told Star Tribune Wild beat writer Michael Russo,

"There's going to be realignment. It's just a matter of trying to actually do it right instead of rushing to get it done. I don't quite understand why the league imposed a deadline."

As always I recommend clicking over to Russo yourself to read the full article for more info from the players' mouths. Cullen's remarks indicate the PA's issue is more they were not involved in the discussions and they felt they should be. The issue is not necessarily that the PA opposes it, they just want more information before approving it, and I don't think its to big a stretch to read into Cullen's remarks that in the end, the PA wants to approve it.

It appears to me Players' Association leader Donald Fehr is using this to remind the league that the PA is ready fight on everything, even if players, particularly those on Western Conference teams (such as Calgary and Minnesota), do want the plan in the end.

The other issue mentioned is some players are concerned about the inequity of the playoff format. That it isn't fair that teams in a conference of eight only (on average) have a 4 in 8 chance of making the playoffs, while teams in a conference of seven have an 4 in 7 chance.

I do think this is the most overblown issue in the realignment discussion, as I mentioned in my post following the BOG's announcement of the new plan's approval.

To summarize my opinion...

The difference amounts to one extra playoff appearance every 14 years for teams in a conference of seven. This difference takes longer to experience than most players' careers.
A crossover rule would increase the travel of the top seed in the smaller division in the name of fairness to a fifth seed (furthermore, imbalanced scheduling means teams in different conferences play very different schedules, rendering any comparison quite meaningless). I don't have a problem with tough love for mediocre teams.
The conferences aren't etched in stone, there is potential for relocation and expansions that would change which conferences have eight teams and which have seven. This in itself serves to balance some of this inequity.

But I do have an idea that might help and might provide a win for the Players' Association. What if we consider a short #4 seed v #5 seed play-in series for the conferences of eight?

(I expand on this idea after the jump)

The simplest way to do this would be a best-of-3 playoff series. Ideally the #5 seed would host the first game, and the #4 seed would host the second game (and the third game if necessary), winner advances to the conference semifinal against the #1 seed.

A potential problem is this would a tough thing to schedule, and would have to be done as three games in four nights to complete. This year, the NHL's regular season ends on a Saturday, in years past, it's ended on a Sunday (2011, 2010, etc...), with the playoff series starting on either Wednesday or Thursday.

The best thing would be to schedule the regular season for the conferences of eight to end a day early (if it were this season, on Friday, April 6.) The best of 3 series would be Sunday (8th)-Tuesday (10th)-Wednesday (11th), the winner would advance to play the #1 seed that has had a full week's rest on Friday (or perhaps even Thursday). The six other conference playoff series would start on Wednesday or Thursday as scheduled.

If there's concerns about how tight the scheduling would be, here are a few ideas I will just put out there.

If series is split after two games, change the third game to be a "mini-game tiebreaker" immediately following game two. The mini-game would be a zamboni intermission, followed by one sudden-death 20 minute period, shootout in case of a tie. (Idea inspired by Major Indoor Soccer League)
Apply regular season rules to the play-in series, regarding short overtime and shootouts. No marathon games in this round.
If applying regular season overtime rules, could also apply regular season points, and play best-of-2 with tiebreaker. This could cut down on the number of tiebreaker games needed. If one team wins in regulation, and loses a shootout, they would still win the series 3 points to 2 (this would work better if the points system wasn't already so screwed up).
One for the soccer-philes: two-game series, most total goals advances. (Individual games would end in ties after three periods, mini-game tiebreaker played only if total goals tied after both games. And for the record, if any actual soccer fans are reading, count me against).

From a simplicity standpoint, best-of-3 would probably be the best format, especially if the point of all this is to get more playoff games. But if willing to do a mini-game tiebreaker when necessary, there are many good ways to do a two-game format if that's preferable (particularly applying at least my first two suggestions). Then a basic home-and-home on Sunday-Monday could be scheduled, and the winner could start their playoff series as soon as Wednesday against the #1 seed.

There are some potential problems with scheduling. In the conferences of 8 as proposed, Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Los Angeles, all share their buildings with NBA teams. (The Kings in fact share with two NBA teams. Yes Clipper fans, unlike your snarky Laker fan counterparts, I do recognize the Clippers are in fact in the NBA.) This might cause some problems getting a best-of-3 scheduled on short notice needing particular dates.

Here's the good and bad I see about adding a play in round for the conferences of 8 (add more in the comments if you like :) ).

The Good:

If you use this fraction calculator 5/8 minus 4/7 is 3/56. So teams in a conference of eight would get 3 "extra" playoff appearances every 56 years on average (or one every 18 and two-thirds seasons), reversing the extra 1 appears every 14 seasons average the conferences of seven have in the four playoff teams from each conference proposed. (Note: there is a big counterpoint to this under "The Bad" section)
This keeps all first round playoff series within each "new conference," maintaining the travel concerns motivating the playoff change. This is something a cross-over rule does not do.
Does compensate two teams in conferences of eight with at least one extra home playoff game each season.
Does reward the winner of the conference with about a week of rest.
Furthermore, this means every position of finish would have meaning in each new conference. #1 essentially gets a bye and home ice through the first two rounds. #2 still gets home ice in the first round, #3 avoids the play-in round, #4 gets home-ice in the play in round, #5 hosts only one game in the play in round. (Maybe this is enough to make the Red Wings give a damn about the regular season again. Oh they're in first place this year? My snark-timer is off.) Four teams in the playoff per conference means there's still a difference between #1 and #2, but #3 and #4 are in similar situations unless the #1 team is significantly better than #2.

The Bad:

(The big one) While there is a higher chance to "make the playoffs" in a conference of eight with five playoff teams then a conference of seven with four playoff teams, the 4th seed in a conference of eight is faced with a possibility of being eliminated before the "final sixteen." A possibility a 4th seed in a conference of seven wouldn't face.
This also means overall, teams in a conference of eight still have the same chance of making the "final sixteen" as they did without a play in series, on average. It's still four spots out of eight teams.
The dates needed for this have little flexibility to prevent the series against the #1 seed from starting too much later than the others.
What to do if the NHL does go to 32 teams? Does the play in round apply to all four conferences, or does it get eliminated in favor of the more traditional format?
Shootout creep. If the NHL puts in the measures for this series that include shootouts, this could be the first measure against what I consider a righteous effort to keep the shootout out of the playoffs.

Overall, I stand by my point that the disparity in playoff appearances in format as approved by the Board of Governors is too small to actually matter and a play-in round isn't really necessary. I hope that's how the PA will eventually see it. However, if adding a play in round would make the Players' Association happy, I would be all for it, and there are ways to make it work, as tight in the schedule as it would be.

Introducing NHL Standings with a Points Behind column...

2012-01-09T09:00:00.255-06:00

I am very exited to bring a new, exciting NHL standings feature to the blogosphere.

It's often frustrating to rank NHL teams that have played a different number of games during the season. One has to look at how many points a team has. But little attention is paid to how many games a team has played, that must also be a factor, right? Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association have an easy method to deal with this, the games behind (GB) column, which factors in both wins and losses when ranking teams. It has long been assumed that NHL standings, because they deal in points instead of wins and losses, cannot do the same thing. Today, I show that it is possible to do this in a (hopefully) easy to understand manner.

First, to make sure everyone's on the same page, let's establish how games behind works in other league's standings tables.

Games Behind
In leagues that only count wins and losses (such as MLB or the NBA) in a given division/conference/whathaveyou any team can be measured against the first place team by averaging the difference between the teams records. For example, two teams in a division might have a standings table that looks like this (team names have been changed):

New York has won two more games than Boston, and Boston has lost three more than New York, average that together and you get 2 1/2 games behind. Fans of baseball and basketball understand this intuitively. It's helpful in situations like the one below:

Boston has won two more games than New York, but they have also lost three more games. We see New York has a higher winning percentage and we would calculate Boston as being 1/2 a game behind, despite having won two more games.

Even in the NFL, where they still have (gasp!) tie games, fans know a team that is 10-4 is two games behind a team that's 12-2. The NFL has a definition of ties that is quite helpful, counting a tie as 1/2 in the win column, and 1/2 in the loss column. The last tied game in the NFL was in 2008, some of you might remember Quarterback Donovan McNabb had something to say about his Eagles' 13-13 result against the Bengals. The Eagles would finish the season 9-6-1 and take the 6th seed in the NFC, finishing slightly ahead of three teams at 9-7 (because 9.5 > 9, and 6.5 < 7).

Back to hockey

The NHL counts points instead of wins, so it's been long assumed the NHL can't have a column similar to games behind. I say the time has come. The standings table should no longer rank teams on points alone, instead let's create a "Points Behind" column for the NHL Standings. Here's how it's done...

(how it's done, after the jump)

The NHL's points system works like this, it's two points for a win, one point for an overtime/shootout loss, zero points for a regulation loss (I have many negative opinions this system, but it is not important for establishing the Points Behind column, we can save that argument for later). For the sake of our table, lets think of the number of points a team has as "Points Won" (PW). Now in other leagues if you know how many games a team has played, and how many games a team has won, you can figure out how many games a team has lost by subtracting the number of wins from the number of games. So in NHL terms, if we know how many points a team has earned and subtract that from how many points were possible (number of games played * 2), we can calculate that difference. Let's call that column Points Lost (PL).

Using PW and PL, we see better how each game results affect a team's record. A team that earns a win, results in a two points added a team's PW column. An overtime loss would result in one point added in both the PW and PL column. (Like in the NFL, this affects both columns equally, one point won, one point missed.) A loss results in a two points added in the PL column (for the two possible points missed).

Now that we've defined PW and PL, each team now has a two-column "points record" which we can use to calculate Points Behind.

Example Time

Now let's hop into Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine, and go back seven whole days to the morning of January 2, 2012. It is the morning before the Winter Classic, and the standings in the NHL's Pacific Division look like this:

The above table is sorted on points alone, like every hockey standings table in the world (until now). Los Angeles has the most points, Dallas is one behind, and San Jose and Phoenix are tied for 3rd, both just two short points behind. Now let's look at how this table would look like if sorted on points behind.

Wow, how different is this one? San Jose is now in first, Los Angeles was leading before, now they're shown in 3rd place. Phoenix is now in 4th all by themselves. What happened?

You may not have noticed, but in the first table, San Jose has played five fewer games than Los Angeles and three fewer games than Dallas. No value was truly given to the five extra games San Jose had left in the first table. Which table do you think is more indicative of how strong a teams position is at a given moment? Which table is more likely to predict the order of finish?

Let's come back from our time-travels and consider the standings today. Here is what the Pacific Division looks like this morning, sorted on points only, like you would find on NHL.com today:

Considering the ranking of teams, which of the January 2nd tables does this look more like? It looks more like the one sorted on Points Behind right? San Jose is on top with 50 points. Dallas and Los Angeles are tied for 2nd at 47, Phoenix still all by themselves in 4th. This seems to indicate that the points behind table is a better predictor of how teams would finish if they stay on their pace.

San Jose now only has four games in hand instead of five on Los Angeles. Yet making up that one game alone has made the table look more like what the points behind table showed last week. Now let's peek at what today's table would look like sorted on points behind.

The teams are in the same order, but San Jose has an even bigger lead than assumed when their games in hand are figured in, which manifests itself as a lower number in the PL column. Furthermore, it's now obvious that even though Dallas and Los Angeles have the same number of points, Dallas is cleanly ahead by virtue of playing two fewer games. Again, this is shown by a smaller number in the PL column, which results in a smaller PB figure than Los Angeles'.

Factoring the fewer games San Jose has played, they are actually ahead by 5, 7, and 9 points over Dallas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, respectively in terms of points behind. Not a lead of 3, 3, and 5 as would be assumed in "mainstream" tables subtracting points earned alone.

I have a website on xtreemhost.com, a free hosting provider, where I have the NHL Points Behind Standings Tables available for view anytime:

http://sotsohockey.xtreemhost.com/sotsostand/

If you look at the division standings right now, each division is currently identical in both sorts as far as the rank order of teams. If you click over to the conference tables you'll see some interesting changes in the listing order at both playoff bubbles. This page will show the differences in rankings throughout the season.

I will try to maintain the tables throughout the season, which is a matter of entering scores as they happen. (I also have created a "ScoreWiki" where any visitor can enter or change scores that I, as the admin, haven't yet entered or verified.)

If you favor a different standings system than the current NHL one, frankly I don't blame you. I'll probably post on this another time, but in the interim, I'll mention I also created a page where points behind can be applied to three other systems I see frequently argued for in the blogosphere, all side-by-side with the current system.

http://sotsohockey.xtreemhost.com/sotsostand/confstandpb.php

I know this post has become long, but believe it or not, I've written an even more detailed explanation as a help page if you're interested. I actually have even more to say about this topic, but I'll wrap it up here.

I hope these pages provide a better way to look at NHL standings as the playoff race heats up, and I intend to have this up and running from day one next season. (Stay positive folks.) I have a couple other improvements in mind. (Tiebreaker support being on the top of the list.) Leave your comments or suggestions below, email sotsohockey@gmail.com, or tweet me @sotsohockey.

(The rest of this post is technical information for bloggers that want to include the widget on their site).

Do you want to have the NHL Points Behind widget for your own blog?

The XML file is http://sotsohockey.xtreemhost.com/sotsostand/widget.xml.

In Blogger (which I use), to add this gadget, click the design tab, then click add a gadget, and then select create your own, and enter and enter the address of the XML file (you can enter whatever height you like, 1040px seems to be just enough to prevent the vertical scroll bar).

I'm not sure how to add this on other blogging platforms as well, but hopefully it can be done from the xml file.

Please feel free to add this to your blog or website. I have built in my own attribution and ad support. If you use it, please drop me an email with a link to your site and I'll be sure to check it out. I would also like to start a list of links to sites using the widget if you want to be included on that as well.

Justin Jelinek

Wild thing of the month - December 2011

2012-01-04T13:41:00.002-06:00

(Editor's note: In October, when this feature debuted I listed the definition as "A new feature here at SOTSO Hockey! Shortly after the end of each month we will name one highlight, story, whathaveyou." I have decided on a definition that is a little more, well definitive. The Wild Thing of the Month is now going to feature the one story, performance, or event that, in the opinion of this blogger, made Wild fans the happiest. Feedback always welcome.)

So after returning from the family visits and what-not over the Christmas holiday, I realized there were only about five days left of the month, the Wild had lost six straight games, the Department of Player Safety has spit on the Wild three times, and nothing memorable enough happened to overcome that malaise. The Wild would go on to lose two more games, including a hard fought shootout defeat at the hands of the Nashville Predators. On the afternoon of Thursday, December 29, the word was out that Matt Kassian has been called up for the matchup against the Oilers.

I attended the game against the Oilers on November 25, and watched in disgust as Oilers goon Darcy Hordichuk, who called Brad Staubitz out in the media, hit Staubitz high twice, and then turtled when challenge. Hordichuk baited Staubitz into taking two double minors, and the grease had their way with the Wild that evening.

On the evening of Thursday, December 29, boy did Hordichuk pay. In the second period, Kassian did this.

And to open the third, again Hordichuk didn't have enough pounding from Staubitz...

(videos from hockeyfights.com)

I know it's controversial to support fighting in the modern NHL. But until the NHL gets its officiating and discipline house in order, I say it still has a place. Thugs like Darcy Hordichuk are part of the headshot problem and have no part of the solution if the solution is to some day have a safer NHL.

There is no denying the Wild played their best game of the month that night. And there is no question the effort that was lacking during the losing streak was cured. And Matt Kassian earned the number one star, because he took on the good on a team that had pushed the Wild around for the last two games. The Wild played better than they had during the whole losing streak that night.

I know he has since been sent back to Houston, but congratulations Matt Kassian, SOTSO Hockey's Wild Thing of the Month for December.

Torres suspension only exposes flaw in NHL discipline.

2012-01-02T21:05:00.001-06:00

The word is out that Raffi Torres has been suspended 2 games for a hit on the Wild's Nate Prosser.

Here's the Department of Player Safety's video:

I'm glad the NHL decided to punish this hit, but I must bring up the Eric Johnson attempt to hit Matt Cullen in the Wild-Avs game on November 17. Click over to Hockey Wilderness to find a good animated gif of this hit.

(more below the jump)

The only difference between the two is Torres connected on his hit attempt. Johnson attempted to do the exact same thing to Cullen, but missed. Nothing happened to Johnson. Why should Johnson be rewarded with no suspension just because he missed?

The NHL needs to stop considering resulting injuries (I cringe every time I hear this was factored in a video), and start focusing on reckless actions.

(On an aside, anyone else worried that he mentioned Torres was fined earlier in the day multiple times? Makes me think that's the only reason there was a suspension here, and the only reason the Department of Player Safety overlooked the fact that Prosser shouldn't have been standing there #sarcasm).

The forgotten mantras of the Department of Player Safety

2011-12-29T09:14:00.002-06:00

Sorry, I'm going to be opening some wounds to State of Hockey fans, but this needs to be said about the Head of the Department of Player Safety.

Remember when this rule meant something...

From NHL Official Rules - Rule 41.1 - Boarding (emphasis mine)

The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered.

"The onus is on the hitter." had been the so-called Department of Player Safety's mantra in the dozens of suspensions so far (as indicated by the first part I underlined). It appears they have given up on that, at least where the Minnesota Wild is concerned. There are now three well known examples...

1) Bogosian on Bouchard (click here for Hockey Wilderness' breakdown on this incident and video)

The Department of Player Safety didn't even make a formal statement regarding the Bogosian hit on Bouchard. An anonymous Departement of Player Safety rep told the Star Tribune's Michael Russo they felt Bouchard turned into it. Does it get any more vague than that? No justification for why Bogosian can use his stick there? This lazy statement is certainly not enough to show the onus shifted from Bogosian to Bouchard regarding who was responsible for this incident (again, as in the first underlined part in the rule quoted above).

I thought this era was supposed to be about transparency. I thought it was about following the words in the rulebook above and using video to show how this should apply, not about lazy statements from a nameless lackey.

Punishing recklessness is another mantra that the department of player safety has given up on. The fact that Bogosian led with his stick is apparently no longer considered reckless.

Bouchard misses two weeks as a result of an ILLEGAL hit, and the only explanation is one sentence from an anonymous source, and no suspension. Pathetic.

[two more examples follow the jump]

2) Petrell on Zidlicky (video from YouTube, stick tap to user Fel0096)

At least in this incident the Head of the Department of Player Safety had the decency to issue a tweet.

I'll admit I'm not as outraged by this one as the other two examples in this post. Petrell definitely shoves him, though it doesn't look like much of a shove. To be honest, I almost buy no need for a suspension here, but then the Head of the Department of Player Safety insults Wild fans excusing this by mentioning a "toe pick."

Look again at Rule 41.1 above. Look carefully in case I missed it, but I don't see the "Toe Pick" exception anywhere. If he is implying that Zid tripped over his feet, the video doesn't show that. If it did it would be impossible to determine whether or not it was a result of Petrell's reckless shove.

3) McLeod on Spurgeon (story from Russo in this morning's Star Tribune)

Shanahan said, "We didn't feel there was any extra force behind the hit. It was more of a big man coming in on a forecheck and colliding with another man that stepped in front of him to try to stop and shield the puck."

I don't know what the head of the Department of Player safety sees here claiming Spurgeon stepped in front of McLeod. As the video shows (again stick tap to YouTube user Fel0096) Spurgeon turns toward the end board at the top of the circles for gosh sakes! A good 30 feet away! There is no way in hell this meets the standard of Spurgeon putting himself in a vulnerable position "immediately prior" to the hit. (If it truly were a case of Spurgeon turning at the last moment that would be a case of the onus shifting to Spurgeon, not McLeod). McLeod had plenty of time to minimize the contact, or target an area other than the numbers, he chose not to. There was a time the head of the Department of Player safety would have deemed this reckless, and therefore requiring supplemental discipline. Again, this seems to be a forgotten mantra.

...

I'd hate to think this disregard of the rules as written is because of the jersey these three players wear. But the Wild have had three players miss time with preventable injuries, and no more than four sentences of explanation from the Department of Player Safety. That's not transparency, that's the voodoo of his predecessor (which inspired nhlwheelofjustice.com, and of course Down Goes Brown's famous suspension flowchart). I guess I should be grateful he was kind enough to produce a three minute video explaining why Bouchard needed to be punished for an action the Blue Jacket's Calvert completely brought on himself, though.

Excuses like "toe picks," and vague "he turned into it" claims are unacceptable. Now with the Spurgeon hit, he has demonstrated blatant disregard for the latter clause in rule 41.1 (2nd underlined part) requiring a turn to be immediately prior to the hit to change the onus demonstrates a willingness to bend the written rules to fit his instincts.

I know Mr. Leipold and Mr. Fletcher, can't say so publicly, but I certainly hope they are chirping the hell out of Bettman to get this guy removed. He has turned his back (pun intended) on transparency, he has turned his back on using the new rules written as was his mandate. The optimism about player safety that I expressed before the season died after the Bouchard incident, I just wonder how many more players the Minnesota Wild will lose to reckless acts without any response?

A World Juniors confession from a Minnesota hockey fan...

2011-12-26T10:34:00.002-06:00

I try to be a good blogger, but the truth of the matter in my time as a Minnesota Wild fan, I have largely ignored the prospects.

The NHL draft (and MLB draft as well for that matter) is different than its NBA or NFL counterparts. Usually, outside of the first 2 or 3 picks, most of the players selected are not NHL ready, and they will be sent back to their college teams or to their Junior teams. So it's easy to see why there isn't the casual interest in the NHL draft as there is in the other sports, where those players are expected to be with the big club right away (there isn't really a "farm system" for the NFL and NBA like there is in baseball and hockey).

The other reason is that frankly, from a Wild perspective, there just hasn't been a lot to be excited about among the Wild's prospects under Riseborough's leadership. First Round Bust is more than happy to document Wild prospects being rushed into the NHL like James Sheppard.

I do try and take a peek at what is going on in the AHL with the Aeros, and I have made a point to check out the Aeros in all 3 of their Xcel Energy Center apperances. But that's because it's pretty easy to see those players are soon to be in Wild jerseys, at leas as all ops. Beyond the AHL, though, I never focused on the prospects in college or in Juniors.

But this is the season I change that. We now have DirecTV in my household and I just love having NHL network, and the World Junior championships are yet another reason why. Again, First Round Bust has a great primer for Wild fans about the prospects to watch (most seem to be on team USA or Finland), so read that I won't try to duplicate it. Read it and get excited!

Team USA takes on the bottom seed Denmark tonight at 7pm, Finland takes on hosts Canada in the tournament opener at 2:30pm. Then on Wednesday at 2:30pm is the US v Finland, a chance to see so many Wild prospects in one place.

I'm getting excited for this.

What do you think?

Passive Play against the Flames...

2011-12-21T09:43:00.001-06:00

The second period last night was just brutally bad. The Wild were extremely passive against the Flames the in their own zone.

It looked like they were content to let the Flames move the puck without any attempt to force turnovers, and when they finally did get the puck, all they could do was chip it out, hoping they didn't ice it to change lines. This made a team with a 16.8% powerplay conversion rate look outright competent 5 on 5. The Flames had the first 9 shots of the 2nd period including what would be the game winning goal.

After that horror of a period, it did seem the Wild got the message, and there is some positivity to take from the game last night.

1) Josh Harding

In his return he was quiet, but played well enough to keep that second period from becoming a laugher. I'm glad to see he appears to be okay and hope he is able to stay in the lineup.

2) Third Period

The Wild did seem to turn it around in the 3rd. Even though they weren't rewarded with a tying goal, the Wild fought hard and drew a couple penalties. They had their chances, it just didn't go their way tonight.

3) Bouchard

Bouchard had a goal and looked like he is okay after the incident in Winnipeg that made Brendan Shanahan dead to me. Slowly the Wild are getting healthier and hopefully.

4) Brodziak

While leading the team in goals, it seems apparent he is not going to be as effective when he gets 2nd line minutes. So why is this a good thing? First, when the Wild get healthy, he will return to a role where he has been more successful, and he will draw the defensive matchups that are more favorable (weaker) to him.

Second, this seems to reduce the risk that the Wild will end up overpaying him when he becomes a free agent. I like Brodziak as a player very much, I think he's effective at what he does for the role that he plays as a depth forward. I was hoping more minutes might mean even more goals and would be a huge help during this rash of injuries, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. That's okay, though, the Wild will be deep again soon.

The State of Hockey may be down right now. Losing streaks suck. But try and remember, streaks are only observations that can be made about past events. The games are over, the Wild can only move forward. If the Wild are still near the top at the end of the season, no one is going to remember the two points from five games in December. The Wild are getting healthier, and everyone that's come back so far looks good doing it.

Quick thought on the Bogosian hit on Bouchard.

2011-12-14T09:01:00.001-06:00

Last night was a wonderful game to watch between Winnipeg and Minnesota. It was a tough one for the Wild to lose on a delay of game penalty, but both goaltenders really wanted it, and both teams were quick and generated plenty of changes. For 58 minutes, this was among the two or three most entertaining games to watch this season, and it is what hockey should be. Then of course one of the ugliest injuries I have ever seen happened behind Winnipeg's net.

Hockey Wilderness already has a good piece and the videos up, and makes a good case for why Zach Bogosian should be suspended for his cross-check on Bouchard, so please click there to get the background and the videos if you haven't already seen it.

I don't completely agree that Bouchard had his back turned to Bogosian at the time of the hit. Contrary to what most Minnesota partisans are saying, I believe Bouchard was still in the process turning his back to attempt to secure the puck, but I don't think he is turned long enough to show his numbers to Bogosian to prevent the hit.

All of that said, the fact is Bogosian led with his stick, and made an illegal cross check. Furthermore, like the Brodziak hit against Koptiar on Thursday, Bouchard is that seemingly magical 6 to 10 foot distance from the boards which makes a boarding call likely. Just because Bouchard hasn't established position, does not mean he has opened himself up to a cross check. I have a huge problem with people like NHL network's Kelly Chase saying "that's how you're taught to play," and people that make the case that since Bouchard was turning into it, he got what he deserved. Basically, people making this defense are saying that players turn their backs are open season.

This is such an asinine attitude. This is tantamount to saying once a player turns his back, the hitting player can take any action he wants and blame it on the player that turned his back. It's "fair game" to borrow a phrase from Sabres coach Lindy Ruff.

(On an aside, I played full check hockey as a youth, I was taught to finish hits, but by using shoulder contact, using the side of the whole body, not by cross checking in the back. I have no idea what foolishness Kelly Chase was taught).

Players turning their backs do share responsibility, and I think that's a point ~~discipline czar~~ Head of the Department of Player Safety Brendan Shanahan, to his credit, is making sure it is considered. But that consideration ends once the contact is illegal, if it doesn't than players will be able to not only justify cross-checks, but spears, swinging sticks a the head, and all they have to do is recite this foolish old guard mantra of "it's his fault, he turned his back."

If Bogsian makes a legal shoulder check here instead of a cross-check to the back, the injury to Bouchard probably isn't this severe. Even with the severity of Bouchard's injury, if Bogosian made a legal shoulder hit, even to Bouchard's back, because of the way Bouchard was turning I would be content that Bogosian did what he fine if he gets by with no suspension. That should be the extent to which a player putting himself in a bad position takes responsibility, the player in a bad position, should under no circumstances, ever, take responsibility for an illegal act by an opposing player.

But Bogosian decided to use his stick, there must be discipline for that. He commit a reckless act that could've been penalized in two ways, and an injury resulted on the play. That seems like all the Shanahammer needs. Especially if Bouchard can get suspended two games for Calvert high sticking himself.

(For what it's worth, I spun one game on nhlwheelofjustice.com)

Wild thing of the month - November 2011

2011-12-12T14:01:00.002-06:00

So between the wonderful realignment news and having a post picked up by Puck Daddy it's been a busy week here at State of the State of Hockey, and so I'm quite late with naming SOTSO Hockey's "Wild Thing of the Month" for November.

First an honorable mention to the Minnesota Wild's defense. They have improved on what was already near the top in the league on goals against average. But it's efforts like these that make it seem that the GAA isn't just about the excellent goaltending. Defenders are helping when they need to get to the line in a pinch.

(video after the jump)

I hope to continue to see this effort on D. If we do, the Wild will be an incredibly tough team to score against, and this should help them stay near the top of the league.

But there can be just one Wild Thing of the month in November, and the winner is Mikko Koivu for his shorthanded goal against St. Louis.

Koivu would go on to score the game tying goal in the final 2 minutes in this game, and score in the Shootout with Matt Cullen to pull this victory out for the skating W's. Before this game, Koivu only had one goal and 9 assists in the first 19 games, since (including this game) he has had 6 goals and 9 assists, in 11 games.

Koivu has turned his slow start around the league is on notice.

Congrats to Mikko Koivu! The SOTSO Hockey Wild Thing of the Month for November!

A response to the Puck Daddy article...

2011-12-12T10:49:00.002-06:00

Some of you may have noticed, Yahoo! Sports' Greg Wyshysnki wrote a response to my piece on supplemental discipline on Puck Daddy on Friday.

First and foremost, it is always a pleasure when the folks at Puck Daddy link to my posts. I thought Wysh wrote a very good piece and made some very good points even though we aren't quite in agreement on a couple things.

I'll point out a couple differences...

1) The Department of Player Safety

I love his closing point of "Is anyone really comfortable with something called the Department of Player Safety telling an NHL player his pain isn't real?" And I'll admit, that felt a little awkward when I wrote it. However, I look at "Department of Player Safety" as a euphemism for "Department of discipline" (or "Department of suspending your ass") so in that sense, my intention was only to call the department where I believe this decision should fall by it's proper name.

Still it is quite funny when you think about it.

2) "Calling Out" on-ice officials

As far as "calling out" the on ice officials, I actually meant that more from the perspective of the front office than from the perspective of referees themselves. (Again I was using the recent Fistric incident as an example.) I think the hesitation is on the part of front office to do this unless supplemental discipline is involved, I am not privy to how NHL referee's respond to these instances.

I hope referees would see increased discipline for embellishment as supporting their role, not undermining it. Removing this judgement from what they're required to look for I think would only help them focus on the actual acts that should be penalized. I would hope even the best referees realize there are going to be games where 18,000 people see something the ref just completely misses. It happens, and is something I've just had to learn to accept as I become more my mature as a fan. Also, I have experienced what happens when I miss something as a youth-level referee, in front of crowds of just dozens and an angry coach. It happens more than anyone cares to admit.

Other points)

I do agree with the first two points Wysh made about playing doctor through television and balancing illegal acts. Nobody wants to call anyone a diver based on replay unless it's obvious. It's going to take a bit of extra courage to do what I propose.

To the point of balancing illegal acts however, I think it's worth noting the two instances I cited that involving the Wild this season did not involve acts worthy of supplemental discipline (I do get the case for a boarding minor in the Brodziak incident, but there's no way that play should rise to the level of "intent to injure" and probably wouldn't have if Kopitar didn't stay down). So supplemental discipline for diving would not be balancing an illegal act in these cases because nothing worthy of supplemental discipline happened.

So I would propose that supplemental discipline for embellishment only be considered in incidents where no other act requiring supplemental discipline took place. In other words, if there is a fineable/suspendable offense against the diver, the diver gets to slide (by the way, if the power to call embellishment penalties stays with referee's I think they should look at it the same way, either a penalty or a dive, never both).

And I'm willing to concede there are more blatant incidents than what happened in the Kopitar/Brodizak deal, so perhaps the bar does need to be set higher that that for what dives are fineable/suspendable at first. But this needs to be looked at before we start to have games that look as shameful as soccer matches.

Furthermore, Wysh is completly right about how this won't change until "diving and embellishment become an "epidemic," which is to say when coaches in the playoffs bitch enough about it."

Right now, no coach or GM in the league gives a damn about what's fair to Kyle Brodziak other than Yeo and Fletcher.

It's time the NHL fines divers...

2011-12-09T08:30:00.042-06:00

In last night's game against Los Angeles, Minnesota's Kyle Brodziak was ejected for this hit on Anze Kopitar.

The replay shows that this was a pretty clean, shoulder to shoulder hit. The hit did take place that magical 6 to 10 foot range from the boards in which anyone going down will fall hard, and it will probably draw a boarding call.

What is disgusting is that Kopitar stayed down, and it appears the longer he stayed down, the more the referee felt he needed to make this a major penalty. Then, of course, Kopitar managed to skate just fine on the ensuing 5 minute major. This is incredibly reminiscent of Coach Gordon Bombay teaching the Mighty Ducks how to cheat with the mantra "Take the fall, act hurt, get indignant."

The Wild were victims of another poor ejection decision earlier this season against the Calgary Flames. In this clip Jerome Iginlia "used his influence" (to paraphrase Michael Russo) to get a headbutt call that never happened against Nick Johnson (head to the shoulder at :36 doesn't count). Johnson also got a major and a game misconduct.

I believe the time has come for the NHL to at least fine players that try to deceive referees.

I think the league is hesitant to take any action that is seen as undermining referees. However, in the recent case of Mark Fistric, the NHL did (rightfully) offer supplemental discipline on a play that had no penalty called on the ice. So my idea to fine (and maybe suspend repeat offenders) players for instances with no penalty recorded is not without some precedent.

Players who dive (rightfully) assume they are in the clear if their deception works on a referee. Once they fool the ref, nothing is going to happen to them. (UPDATE: See bottom of post, apparently rules for supplemental discipline for diving do exist, just not often enforced.)

If supplemental discipline were involved, players would have to realize their fakery will not only have to trick a referee at full speed, but fool the Department of Player Safety as well, which has the benefit of instant replay, countless angles and considerably more time to make a call. That seems like a far better way to deal with the league's divers than putting all the pressure on game officials, as seems to be the case right now.

If players were up against the scrutiny of replay, I think instances like this would disappear real quick, and referees would have one less thing to worry about catching. Referee's are already hesitant to call embellishment because when they make a mistake it's pretty darn glaring. If the league puts this pressure under the Department of Player safety instead of on referees, hopefully the already difficult job of being a referee would become just a bit easier.

UPDATE: While looking for stories to see if any players have actually been fined or suspended for diving, I stumbled on the NHL's rulebook where it appears rules regarding fines and suspensions exist under Rule 64 - embellishment.

"The first such incident during the season will result in a warning letter being sent to the player or goalkeeper. The second such incident will result in a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine. For a third such incident in the season, the player shall be suspended for one game, pending a telephone conversation with the Director of Hockey Operations. For subsequent violations in the same season, the player’s suspension shall double (i.e. first suspension – one game, second suspension – two games, third suspension – four games, etc.)"

However, this same search turned up only a Sean Avery incident from 2005 as an example of a fine for diving ever being made public (I didn't go too deep in the results, but if you know others please comment below or tweet me @SOTSOHockey). So this means either a) it's happening but not often made public, or b) (more likely) this rule has gone the way of "crease violations" (the cousin of the NBA's travelling rule), in that it is rarely enforced.

So lets just say I would be for removing the warning letter stage and start with the fine after the first incident. At the very least, the NHL should make public the players it warns, I think that threat of shame might just bet good enough to curtail the manipulation of game officials.

I also would be in favor of stiffening the fine to something like $5000 for first offenses.

Either way, I don't think the NHL is using this section of the rulebook nearly enough. At the very least I for one would like to know if Iginla or Kopitar at least received/will receive the warning letters specified.

What do you think?

Objections to the new four conference alignment that don't make sense.

2011-12-06T09:31:00.007-06:00

It is a wonderful day is the State of Hockey.

Last night, the NHL's Board of Governors approved a realignment (story from Yahoo! Sports' Puck Daddy blog) which would group the Minnesota Wild with many of the rivals from the old Norris Division days. The Wild will even be grouped with that franchise that used to call Bloomington home, along with Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, St. Louis, and Winnipeg.

(For clarity, in the rest of the article I will be prefacing conference and division names with "current" if I am referring to the current alignment that ends this season, or "new" if I am referring to the approved change starting nest season.)

I have written extensively supporting a four-division/conference alignment as it would be beneficial to most current Western Conference teams, and beneficial to Detroit, Columbus, Dallas and Minnesota in particular. The proposal that passed is rather close to the split the southeast idea I posted about a month ago. It's not exactly the same, they put Florida-Tampa, and Carolina-Washington in different divisions from where I had them. Furthermore, they left both Detroit and Columbus in the "new Central," but these are points on which I do not want to quibble. This is a great day for Minnesota hockey fans, and I suppose for everyone in the current Western Conference.

The travel in the first two rounds of the playoffs are going to be cut as well, as four teams from each new conference will advance, pure and simple. Teams will face new conference opponents in the first two rounds, and then there will be some form of re-pairing (apparently still being discussed) for the NHL's "Final Four."

All of that said, I have been participating in a lot of comment sections through the blogosphere, and I see many frustrating objections in the comments sections in which I've participated. So here's my attempt to quell some of the issues.

(more below the jump)

1) Uneven Conferences

Yes, it isn't perfectly fair, but the amount of disparity here has been blown way out of proportion. Under the new format, teams in 7 team conferences will on average get one extra playoff appearance every 14 years. It's not that big a deal.

(WARNING: I'm about to show my work, skip ahead to 1a if you don't want to read math.)

If you use this handy-dandy fraction calcuator, you can subtract 4/8 from 4/7 and you'll get the result 1/14, which represents teams having an extra 1/14 (or 57% v 50%) chance of making the playoffs. Which manifests itself as on average one extra playoff appearance every 14 years.

If you compare the playoff changes in the new format to the current format, in which teams in each conference each have an 8/15 chance:

For new conferences of 7, subtract 8/15 from 4/7 and the result is 4/105 (or one extra appearance every 26.25 years)

For new conferences of 8, subtract 4/8 from 8/15 and the result is 1/30 (or one less appearance every 30 years when compared to the status quo).

NHL network mentioned last night the governors didn't see this as an issue an these numbers must be pretty much why.

1a) We need a crossover rule!

No we don't.

To quickly define what a crossover rule would be in the NHL (and the AHL used it before they realigned before this season), the idea is that a 5th place team in a larger division should have the opportunity to substitute for a 4th place team in a smaller division in the playoffs if the 5th place team has a better record. Now to tear that idea down...

Overall, larger groupings make it less likely that one division will end up that much stronger than another anyway. If there are or one or two bad teams in a division of five (or four bad teams in the case of last years' Northwest Division) it was easier to rack up points. If there's one or two bad teams in a larger grouping, it's harder to rack up points if everyone else is decent.

Still, the schedule is going to be very conference heavy and frankly comparing teams in different conferences will be apples and oranges. Take the new Conference B for example (where Minnesota will be). Hypothetically, what if Columbus and Winnipeg continue to be terrible, and the top 5 teams sweep all of their division games against the two minnows? Would the 5th place team in Conference B be more deserving than say a 4th place team in Conference C where it appears there are 5 legit teams that will all have many playoff appearances in their near future, but might not have as high a point total because their division is going to be more competitive?

Furthermore, I believe keeping travel down for the top seed should take precedence over accommodating bubble teams. For example, under the new alignment, if Boston wins their conference, and Anaheim is a 5th place finisher in their conference with more points than Toronto which is a 4th place finisher in the same new conference as Boston, is it more important to be fair to Anaheim as a bubble team? Or is it better to give Boston the matchup with considerably easier travel? What's better for TV?

Last point, the NHL got by just fine despite the fact there were 10th place finishers in the current Western Conference that had enough points to make the top 8 in the East in the past two seasons. But again, West and East play very different schedules, so the comparison might not prove which team is better. That factored in with travel considerations is why there wasn't a crossover before, and shouldn't be one now.

If your team can't be in the top four of either a group of 7 or 8, they don't deserve to go to the playoffs, try a little harder next year. This is how the Governors saw it.

1b) Realize this isn't set in stone

With the reclocation elephant having taken up quite comfortable residence in a room at Coyotes headquarters since the league took over that team a few years ago, there is obviously potential the new conferences of 8 and 7 will change. Just because a team is currently in a conference of 8 or 7 doesn't mean that will last for ever. In itself that somewhat balances out this minimal inequity. More on that in the next point.

2) Shouldn't we wait for Phoenix?

This argument makes no sense. The current western teams want this done now, and it's pretty easy to see there is space in a couple conferences for northeastern relocations. With this passing it's pretty obvious what to do if Phoenix goes to any of these rumored (and I do want to emphasize *rumored*) locations.

to Quebec/Hamilton/Southern Ontario - Simple move to the new Northeast*
to Kansas City - Either stay put or move to the new Central*, kicking Columbus or Detroit to the new Atlantic* or new Northeast*
to Seattle - They can just stay put

*names are mine as the new conferences don't have official titles yet

If they keep the six division alignment, where does Phoenix go? Who do you bump out of the current Northeast if it is a Quebec City relocation?

And more directly to this objection, what is really gained by waiting a year? Or another three years as that's as long as its been since the league took control of the team.

3) Playoffs will be boring

This objection might have some legs, but I say we just try it for a few years and see what we think. But keep in mind these are groups of 7 and 8 now, not groups of 5 or 6 like they were last time there were divisional playoffs ('92-'93, before Florida and Anaheim, also the North Stars last season, in which they missed), that in itself should lead to more matchup variety.

The original proposal form this summer suggested there would be a league wide reseeding after round 1, if boredom turns out to be an issue, perhaps this can be revisted, and this change would make it possible for ANY two teams to meet in any round after round 1.

4) Switching two teams is simpler

That may be, but it does nothing to address the horrible travel issues for Dallas, Minnesota, and whichever of Columbus or Detroit would've been left behind in the current Western Conference. The teams on the Pacific coast won't have to make so many trips to cities on the east end of the current Western Conference either, though they will be making more trips to the east coast under the new format.

Furthermore if they did the two team switch, again what happens if Phoenix moves to an eastern location? Do they still keep the same six division format? If so, do they just kick back west whichever team they just kicked east? If they keep six divisions, how do they align the three in the current eastern conference with Quebec City in the mix? I don't see good answers to any of these questions.

5) Bettman is ruining the game

This one makes me laugh, because it's the same argument people like myself have used in advocating for a switch back to a four ~~division~~, excuse me, conference setup. The four divisions with divisional playoffs are traditional, I look at it more as undoing tinkering he started in the first place.

As Roy at Wild Puck Banter put it on Twitter last night.

Well put, couldn't have said it better myself.

Now if we can just get rid of the shootout and the collusion point, I might have to take back about 96% of the mean things I've ever said about Commissioner Bettman.

(Don't worry, I'm never going to take back the mean things I said about Colin Campbell.)

One SOH opinion: The "goalie should be fair game" crowd doesn't help themselves defending Lucic

2011-11-15T10:00:00.002-06:00

Editor's Note: "One SOH opinion" posts solely reflect the views of the author. This is to draw a distinction from the implication that this blog reflects the general views of average Minnesota Wild fans. Still what's the fun of maintaining a blog if you can't use it as a personal soapbox once in a while. All readers are welcome to submit "One SOH opinion" posts if you want to be published here. On twitter DM your email address @SOTSOHockey if you would like more details.

A lot of talk over the weekend about the Bruins' Milan Lucic hit on Sabres' goaltender Ryan Miller on Saturday. Video in case you missed it:

Lucic was penalized for charging on this play. Lucic did have a meeting with Shanahan about this, but no suspension came of it.

I believe that is the right decision. Don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly agree with Miller's characterization that this was "gutless" and I love that he was willing to use the phrase "piece of s**t" to describe Lucic. Furthermore, I think Lucic is lying through his teeth with his justification of "I did everything I could just to brace myself. Like [Miller] said, I have 50 pounds on him. So that's probably why he might've got the worst of it."

On the debate of whether or not goaltenders should enjoy the protected status when roaming beyond their crease, I understand both sides of the argument. It would make for a simpler rulebook, and end the advantages goaltenders have against players with less equipment if it's clear to goaltenders their privileges end at the blue paint (doing this by changing the rules on "goaltender interference"). On the other hand, because goaltenders wear an extra 20 or so pounds of equipment, they will never be able to reach speeds of their skating counterparts (which is why goalie races are hilarious), so perhaps some added protection is in order.

But there is one thing I know for sure, Lucic's hit has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not a goaltender is "fair game" beyond the crease. Lucic could make a legal body check on an opposing defenseman in this situation, and if this were an otherwise legal body check on Miller, then perhaps the goalies-should-be-fair-game advocates could use this as an example.

But this is a textbook charging call. Lucic built speed for about 100 feet, Miller was to the puck before Lucic, by a large enough margin where he should've slowed down into the impact (as he would have to in order to avoid a charging or boarding call if hitting a defenseman). Lucic didn't stop his stride until he was just a few feet from the impact. All the elements of a charging call are clearly present. The goalies-should-be-fair-game folks would do well to not to use this incident to make their case.

And yet, these folks' reaction to this hit is probably why the NHL will never do away with the protections provided by goaltender interference rules. If the league ever did that, they just open the referees to too much criticism if they ever do have to penalize a hit on a goaltender that meets the standard of a penalty for a hit on any other player. Instantly, the penalized player will go straight to the "he's fair game" defense. If referees hesitate because of this, I'm afraid there will be a de facto higher standard on severity for penalizing hits on goaltenders in comparison to hits on skating players. If you don't believe me, there are many posts out there like this that don't recognize that this would've been a penalty against any player, not just a goaltender.

So to be like David from Seinfeld and ask myself questions and then answer them:

Did the refs get this right? Yes, a charging penatly was correct.

Was this cheap? Yes it was.

Should Buffalo have retaliated? Absolutely.

Is Lucic's explanation beliveable? Not in the least.

Should there have been a suspension? Probably not. Now on the other hand if Lucic had targeted the head, I'm sure he'dve been in for a 5 game Shanaban, but that's not the case here.

What did the wheel of justice say? "Paltry Fine: Milan Lucic has been fined the paltry amount allowed in the CBA as a result of his actions on Ryan Miller. In reviewing this play, we also took into consideration that Milan Lucic plays for the Colie's son's team, the Boston Bruins.."

Out of date because Gregory Campbell is now a Florida Panther, but still funny :).

Wild's Old Sharks visit old team tonight in San Jose

2011-11-10T10:40:00.000-06:00

The Wild have won 5 straight and to the pleasant surprise of fans like myself the Wild are one of two teams averaging two goals allowed or fewer per game (I'm suprise, but not so pleasantly, that Edmonton is the other). Against most predictions, the Wild are overachieving, yet Yeo seems to be a good job of making sure the team doesn't stay satisfied where they can improve.

Tonight's game features the teams that made two big deals with each other, evaluate how the Wild did on this.

more after the jump

Heatley for Havlat:

Heatley may never live up to his hype, but there's no question the Wild are getting more out of Heatley than they ever would've out of Havlat (in case anyone forgot how Havlat played his way into the third line last October). That is the more obvious way in which this is a win. The concerns one would have with Heatley point to his pattern of throwing GM's under the bus, and if there could be ugliness beyond what went down with Havlat last year. But when you think about it, I don't think Fletcher plans to be in a position where signing Heatley is a huge priority after is deal is up. Heatley has played well, but probably not up to a level of his $7.5M a year contract (unless you're comparing to Gabroik's 13 goals in his injury riddled final season here, then by all measures, Heatley is shattering that). But I don't expect Fletcher is going to feel a need to overpay to resign Heatley, nor do I think he's going to be too bothered if Heatley ever demands out.

Setoguchi, Coyle, First Round Pick (Phillips) for Burns:

This is going to be a tougher trade to judge. I personally miss Burns a lot, but after some rough spots, the defense seems to have done a lot. But Burns should bring a lot to San Jose's defense and that's a lot of value the Wild let go. Setoguchi has played well on both Koivu's and Bouchard's lines. Either way he's going to get more ice time than he did in San Jose. Also he shoots really hard, one of these days he's going to go Fulton Reed on some goalie. Coyle is at Boston University, with 9 points in 7 games, and Phillips so far has 31 points in 17 games for St John of the QMJHL if both players can play well when they reach the NHL, I think Fletcher may have hit a "home run" here, to borrow from Pawn Stars parlance.

Still I will forever miss Brent Burns moments like this

(I was at this game, and it occurs to me I saw Gaborik score 5 goals against the Rangers that evening. I'm sure that's the last time Gabroik does anything that annoys the Rangers).

Wild thing of the month - October 2011

2011-11-03T13:15:00.009-05:00

A new feature here at SOTSO Hockey! Shortly after the end of each month we will name one highlight, story, whathaveyou, The "Wild Thing" of the month.

The best highlight in October is definitely Dany Heatley's tying goal at Edmonton on October 20, with less than 2 seconds remaining.

(Click here if the video doesn't play correctly)

The Wild would go on to win the game in a shootout, and have since earned five points in four games.

So congrats to Dany Heatley. The Wild Thing of the month

(Future posts may include honorable mentions in addition to the Wild Thing of the month)

Working with the Eastern Bloc in Realignment...

2011-10-31T14:07:00.007-05:00

The four conference realignment topic has made a comeback. A Puck Daddy post yesterday included a CBC video (first two minutes or so focus on the realignment issue) in which analyst Elliotte Friedman reported a four conference realignment that is apparently gaining steam despite TSN's Bob McKenzie's report earlier this month that a six division NHL may be here to stay.

The proposal is to align like this...

(Division names are my assumptions, as they are omitted from the graphic in the video)

Pacific: ANA, CGY, COL, EDM, LA, PHX, SJ, VAN

Central: CHI, CLB/DET, DAL, MIN, NSH, STL, WPG

Northeast: BOS, BUF, CLB/DET, MTL, OTW, PIT, TOR

Atlantic: CAR, FLA, NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, TBY, WSH

Each team would play home-and-home against each team outside of the division (44 or 46 games), and the rest of the games would be divided among division opponents (38 or 36 games).

As a fan of the Western Conference team, I think realigning the Western Conference into two divisions along the lines of the proposal above makes all the sense in the world. For most teams, they would cut the road games that start at 9pm or later local time by at least half, which would be great for TV.

The problem is there is no good geographic way to split the Eastern Conference in such a way without separating someone in the Atlantic Division. The proposal above seems to split Pittsburgh from all of their rivals.

Reports are there is an "Eastern Bloc" of teams that want to resist a four division alignment as it would increase their travel. However, I think I've come up with two good alternatives, that might help work with this "Eastern Bloc" and these plans I imagine could gain the favor of 20 of the 30 votes on the board of governors.

NOTE: Schedule explinations expressed as (number of games * number of opponents)

1) Only realign the Western Conference in two divisions, keep three division in the Eastern Conference, move one team to the Eastern Conference.

This is a modification of the plan I posted here in May, shortly before Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg was made official. In this plan, the Western Conference is realigned into two divisions, while the East basically keeps their three division alignment, with one team added.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Pacific: ANA, CGY, COL, EDM, LA, PHX, SJ, VAN

48 Division Games (6*7, 1*6)

14 v Rest of Western Conference (7*2)

20 v Eastern Conference (5*2, 10*1)

Central: CHI, DAL, DET, MIN, NSH, STL, WPG

46 Division Games (4*8,2*7)

16 v Rest of Western Conference (8*2)

20 v Eastern Conference (5*2, 10*1)

Playoffs: 4 teams from each division qualify.

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Northeast: BOS, BUF, MTL, OTW, TOR

Atlantic: NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, PIT

Southeast: CAR, CLB, FLA, TBY, WSH

24 Division Games (4*6)

38 v Rest of Eastern Conference (8*4, 2*3)

20 v Western Conference (5*2, 10*1)

Playoffs: 3 division winners, plus 5 next best records across all divisions qualify.

If the eastern bloc wants to keep the three division setup, I'm assuming they are also trying to keep their current travel schedule as well, which means home-and-home for inter conference play would probably be dead. To do so would mean a drastic cut in both division games and games against the rest of the conference.

I do imagine that an expansion of inter conference play to 20 games from 18 would be necessary to accomodate the Canadian frachises assurance that they can play home-and-home against each other each season, now that there are 7 of them. Under this plan, Winnipeg would host 6 games against Canadian opponents, where as the other teams would host at least 10.

This plan works the same if Detroit goes to the East instead of Columbus. But this plan might be good enough to keep Detroit in the Central, which would be good for the Detroit-Chicago rivalry, as it is reported they have made some concessions to stay in the Western Conference if they can reduce travel against west coast teams. If this would placate the Wings, I think it's better to send Columbus into the Southeast division for now.

2) "A Four conference" plan that preserves the Atlantic and Northeast Divisions

This is a variation of the plan put forward above, but would keep Pittsburgh with it's Atlantic division rivals.

It is a modification of a plan that NESN's Jack Edwards blogged a couple years ago. Unfortunately, it seems to have disappeared from the internet, so I can't link it. From what I remember, it included a four division setup by splitting the southeast and adding those teams to the existing Northeast and Atlantic divisions, keeping them intact.

(This plan also included the contraction of Atlanta and Phoenix, which I intend to ignore since we're trying to come up with something that might actually happen next season).

Pacific: ANA, CGY, COL, EDM, LA, PHX, SJ, VAN

38 Division Games (6*3, 5*4)

44 v Rest of the league (22*2)

Central: CHI, DAL, DET, MIN, NSH, STL, WPG

36 Division Games (6*6)

46 Rest of League (23*2)

Northeast: BOS, BUF, CAR, MTL, OTW, TOR, WSH

36 Division Games (6*6)

46 Rest of League (23*2)

Atlantic: CLB, FLA, NJ, NYI, NYR, PHI, PIT, TBY

38 Division Games (6*3, 5*4)

44 v Rest of the league (22*2)

Playoffs: 4 teams from each conference qualify.

Even though this requires the dissolution of the Southeast Division, each of the old Southeast teams still gets to keep one rival (Florida with Tampa Bay, Washington with Carolina), and these teams would be able to schedule their road trips in pretty easy strings since their opponents are much nearer to each other (unlike in the Western Conference). Pittsburgh gets to stay in the Atlantic division, and Columbus would also be added to the Atlantic in this scenario.

There are some potential tweaks:

1) Detroit could also move into the Northeast, in which case Colorado would move into the Central to make that a seven team division.

2) If an Atlantic division team moves (think Islanders for example), there could be a swap that moves Columbus into the Northeast, and Carolina and Washington could both join the Atlantic with their old southeast foes.

As I said in my May post, a two division setup in the West is far superior to the three division setup right now. It would cut a ton of travel out for teams at the extreme ends of the Western conference. Both of these proposals do that, and change the travel situation in the Eastern Conference very little.

I know every blogger out there has a pet idea. But I like to think that I have two things here that could actually pass, and be a better situation for as many teams as possible. How'd I do?

Pronger Schadenfreude...

2011-10-25T12:38:00.006-05:00

I should point out that despite the title of this blog being "The State of the State of Hockey", I feel the need to point out I have no reason to believe the following opinion is in any way representative of fans opinons in the State of Hockey.

In case you missed it Pronger took a stick to his face in the Flyers' game against Toronto last night.

I for one cannot feel the least bit sorry for the man who once did this...

(low volume, and skip to about :23 if you want to go past the talking).

In fact if you search "Pronger Elbow" on Youtube, you'll find an alarming number of results.

I am most certainly experiencing what the Germans call schadenfreude. I am 100% of the opinion the NHL will be a safer, better place during the four weeks he is supposed to miss.

I'm sorry no one in the hockey media can take this position because of how politically incorrect it is to delight an injury. But Pronger has been such a terror over his career, surely this can be an exception. I'm willing to say it.

I would be glad to say it to Pronger's face. I would simply show him his Youtube legacy to see how he justifies it in his warped mind. Then of course I'd better duck (I certainly better duck once I turn my back).

My take on Bouchard suspension...

2011-10-10T09:01:00.005-05:00

Here is NHL player saftey VP Brendan Shanahan on Bouchard's two game suspension:

Click here if the video doesn't show correctly on the page.

At first glance I think this is too harsh for the incident, but if Shanahan is consisent, I don't really have a problem with him setting this standard.

At 1:10 of the video, Shanahan says "His [Bouchard's] reckless swing regardless of where it was intended did in fact cause an injury"

The second part of this statement gives me trouble, as I thought the new standard on headshots was to punish the danger and the intent, not necessarily the injury.

With that in mind look at the position of Calvert's stick at 1:14, bearing Shanahan's words in mind. Clearly the blade is near Bouchard's head, and would've done damage if he had struck Bouchard.

Is this not also a reckless position for the stick to be in? If this were about danger and intent Calvert's action would also warrant a suspension. There is even a decent argument here that it was in fact Calvert's recklessness more than Bouchard's that caused the injury.

I'm not homerish enough to proclaim Bouchard's blamless here. He's usually above retaliatory slashes like the one he tried to deliver to Calvert's arms. However, I find Columbus Blue Jacket's head coach Scott Arniel's characterization that this was a "baseball swing" patently absurd. I think Arniel is speaking more like a sore loser, there is no way the video supports this accusation.

(Speaking of people that sound like sore losers I would like to point out that whenever Bouchard's agent Allan Walsh opens his mouth, he is seldom helping.)

With all that said there is something to be very concerned about with this ruling. Shanahan has taken a very poor step away from a disciplinary model with more emphasis on how dangerous and risky plays are as opposed to emphasizing the resulting injury.

I'm afraid for all the good steps he's taken away from Colin Campbell's ~~wheel of justice~~ disciplinary model, without applying this standard to Calvert's recklessness as well, he has sadly taken a step back toward the Campbell direction.

My Wild Preview...

2011-10-08T13:31:00.004-05:00

So it was a busy summer for the Wild, here's what's new...

New Coach Mike Yeo

GM Chuck Fletcher passed on some bigger names to roll the the dice with the AHL's Houston Aeros Head Coach Mike Yeo. The Aeros of course made it all the way to the Calder Cup final, and many players from that team Fletcher expects to be with Minnesota within a year or two. Again Fletcher decides to give a guy his first gig, passing on experience, but again, I think Yeo might have more upside than Richards' had.

Burns trade

Fletcher made San Jose pay dearly for the much loved Brent Burns, sending Minnesota forward Devin Setoguchi, prospect Charlie Coyle, and another first round pick in this past summers' draft. Setoguchi brings a shoot-first mentality and has been part of a top line that has been stellar in the preseason (see below).

Havlat for Heatley trade.

The Wild took a problem contract in exchange for dumping what proved to be a problem contract with Martin Havlat. I'm skiddish about Heatley because he hasn't lived up to his $7.5M contract, and that's kind of a sore number for Wild fans that remember the whole Gaborik saga. But after this initial concern, I have warmed to the deal, and he, Koivu, and Setoguchi have found some chemistry in the preseason so far. Havlat and Koivu seemed to be crossing one another, and agent Allan Walsh certainly wasn't helping matters. The worst case is the Wild took on an extra $2.5M to get out of a contract one year sooner, if Heatley doesn't work out. That said, it really seems Heatley, Setoguchi, and Koivu have a lot of potential if they can carry over their pre-season chemistry.

So what does all of this mean for the Wild's chances this year?

I certainly think the Wild will be better than last year. I think losing Burns is a bigger deal than most homers are making it, unless the other 5 D improve, the back end will struggle to match up well. Though I'm excited about Scandella's chance with the team, it may be a season or two before he adjusts to the NHL game. That said it's not as castostrophic as this Harrison Mooney idiot makes it out to be. That said BRenylods at Hockey Wilderness wrote a good rebuttal.

There is no doubt this first line is certainly the best since the Gaborik era. The second line should be better. Latendresse has reported to camp in better shape than last season and he seems to have his speed which will hopefully result in a good counter-attack. The question is who will center this line. Matt Cullen appears to be slotted in this role for now. Despite his disappointing stat sheet last year, I love Matt Cullen. He plays very hard, he wins pucks in corners, he makes good passes, and he just plays smart. But he's got to find a way to finish. He should benefit from playing with Latendresse and Bouchard, but if he doesn't this team is going to look rather thin offensively beyond the first line.

The goaltending picture is the same as it was two years ago. Harding will return to backup Backstrom, and I'm sure Yeo will be comfortable giving Hards starts when he wants to rest Backstrom or if Backstrom's isn't consistently great. I like them both, I'm glad Harding will be in the lineup tonight despite the injury scare during this week's team-building trip to Duluth.

So where does that leave the Wild. As they sit right now I think they're just slightly more likley to end up on the wrong side of 8th this year. They could still be the second best team in the awful Northwest division, but the defense doesn't match up well against too many Western Conference opponents. That said the Wild have about $9M in cap space, so Fletcher has options. I think he's demonstrated he'll make moves if he believes it'll make the team better. That said there really aren't any appealing free agent D options right now, and Fletcher knows first hand how hard it is to get a top defender, since he basically set the market quite high in the Burns trade.

But there's room to move, and if the Wild are in contention in February, Fletcher might find the deal that could put them in. Fletcher has avoided putting himself in a corner, very much unlike his predecessor (anyone else shocked I got to paragraph number eight before slamming Dough Riseborough?).

But if I had to wager, I'm saying the Wild get better, but again miss the playoffs this year. Then again if I had to wager, I think over 82.5 points for this team would be a good speculation :).

Let's Play Hockey!

One Line Predictions...

2011-10-06T17:54:00.002-05:00

Time for my one line league predictions, I rank the teams, I type the first thing that comes to mind.

Here we go...

WESTERN CONFERENCE

1> (N) Vancouver - Don't think this years team is as good as last, but good news, they're still in the Northwest division

2> (P) San Jose - If Burns doesn't stay healthy, it could be trouble, but there's no reason to doubt the Sharks

3> (C) Chicago - A team built to be back on the rise

4> (P) Los Angeles - Richard's provides good offense

5> (C) Nashville - They could sneak into round 2 again

6> (C) Detroit - Think the wings could be in for an awakening

7> (P) Phoenix - Will need good goaltending post-Bryz

8> (C) St. Louis - I'm not sleeping on the Blues

9> (N) Minnesota - Better, but not quite enough strength in back

10> (P) Anaheim - Did Teemu come back?

11> (N) Colorado - May have better goaltending, but they overpaid

12> (C) Columbus - Wisnewski might be helpful, when his isn't suspended for being a jag-off

13> (P) Dallas - Rebuild

14> (N) Calgary - see below

15> (N) Edmonton - Good hockey must be against provincial law in Alberta.

EASTERN CONFERENCE

1> (A) Pittsburgh - That's what everyone else tells me

2> (S) Washington - C'mon they can't choke forever

3> (N) Boston - No reason to like anyone else in northeast, they're the most complete team

4> (S) Tampa Bay - They'll nip on Washington, and they'll be close to my next choice

5> (N) Buffalo - Added some goals, they won't be an easy first round

6> (A) Philadelphia - Who to root for if they play Boston in the first round?

7> (A) NY Rangers - If they stay healthy they'll do better, but Gaborik is still on their team

8> (S) Carolina - They were close last year, I think they'll finish on the right side of the 8 line

9> (N) Montreal - At least Habs fans have a history of taking failure well.

10> (A) New Jersey -They'll be in the hunt most of the way this time

11> (N) Toronto - They'll still sell out every game

12> (S) Winnipeg - Me thinks this guy overstates the importance of home ice advantage

13> (S) Florida - An expensive failure

14> (A) NY Islanders - Out of the conference cellar at least

15> (N) Ottawa - Yeah...

Fun Minnesota Wild things to do in the off season...

2011-10-05T07:00:00.004-05:00

1) Ticket onsale day

I like going to the X the day tickets go on sale. I'm not a season ticket holder, but I don't mind getting in line and getting first dibs on the games I want. I have made every home opener since 2006.

And the folks at the X are always nice to people waiting in line. There are always free cookies, muffins, donuts, juice, milk and soda from the good people at Kwik Trip. My mom and I arrived about 7:45am (for 9am onsale) and we were about 60th in line. We got to the windows about 9:30 and it we had our tickets.

Oh and some guy from "Becoming Wild" asked us some questions. And used one of my mom's answers.

(Mom is answering a question at :27, that's me giggling in the background).

2) Training Camp Scrimmage

The first chance to see all the players likely to make this year's team. It's fun and it's free. I went to both days. Yes, there was only one goal scored in the two days, but that could be a good thing right? After all, all the critics are questioning the team's ability to defend this year.

Yes it lacks the intensity of an actual game, but this is a welcome respite of surviving a whole summer of not watching hockey. And imagine how wound up I'd be if I actually were a baseball fan.

My lovely wife Heather took these pictures :).

3) Open House

I don't know if the team does this every year. It seems to me I remember this a few years back and I couldn't attend. But again, it's a chance to get a close look at the X and skate on the ice :)! There was a scavenger hunt (which we didn't win :( ) for a chance to win a 10 pack of tickets. A very informative Q & A with GM Chuck Fletcher and Head Coach Mike Yeo. My wife and I were also able to tour the press box, the video room, and the fishing lodge club under the lower bowl.

It was a fun day, and they let us do it all for free!

4) Preseason game

Well seeing as how season ticket holders are just trying to give their preseason tickets away, my brother and I took my wife and our mother to the Wild's preseason game against St. Louis. By the way, I recommend using Ticket King to buy tickets on the aftermarket. They had prices as low as craigslist for this game, the pickup is convenient, and they didn't charge any hidden fees.

So I scored 3rd row in the corner for $24 each :)! And as you can see below, I enjoyed Mikko Koivu's goal in the game

So much video this summer of me looking ridiculous.

Obviously, all of these things don't compare to when regular season hockey starts, and hopefully there will be playoffs in the Wild's future (Wild preview on Friday).

But before October comes around, I enjoy taking advantage of the things like the open house, or open scrimmage. And I enjoy taking advantage of cheap tickets, even if its for exhibition hockey.

I don't recall making all of these things in one season before, but now that I have, I hope to do most of these things every year :).

It's back to the 200 level with me on Saturday, but I can't wait to be there!

Goals and Goaltenders - part of a series on the NHL's RDO tests

2011-08-17T14:16:00.002-05:00

A great thing Brendan Shanahan has brought to the NHL is the Research, Development, and Organization camp, where they have players experiment with rule changes and get a real idea of how these things might work in practice.

This will be the final topic in this series, and Camp Shanny is underway today, so there may be further comment when results are out.

Today's Topic: Penalties

There are a couple initiatives being tested that merit discussion relating to penalties, without further adieu...

1) Offending team must exit own zone in delayed penalty situation for whistle

This one sounds a little strange at first, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Right now a team that commits a penalty while not in possession of the puck does not get a stoppage of play until they gain control of the puck. Now many fans recognize the first problem, what constitutes "control" varies from official to official, some are certainly too quick to the whistle when a defender grazes his stick on a shot puck.

Right now during delayed penalty situations, attacking teams take the opportunity to remove their goaltenders and get a little extra man-advantage time until the offending team gets the puck. This proposed change would give the attacking team more time in these situations and rewards teams that are able to regain possession of the puck after turning it over.

I think this change should be worded such that play would be dead when the puck leaves the attacking zone (to prevent goals from being scored on an open net) otherwise I think this could be a potentially great change.

2) Penalties in their entirety

In other words, a team scored upon while shorthanded does not get relief from the penalty box. I like this rule the way it is as it effectively puts a maximum of one goal for any minor penalty called. I assume the argument for this is to increase scoring by effectively adding power play time to each penalty that terminates early. The reason the NHL went away from this is because it had a chilling effect on officials calling penalties in the first place. Referee's were afraid to make calls that might lead to more goals against the penalized team. I think this is a legit concern that probably won't be borne out at the RDO camp.

Thanks for reading this series, I hope you enjoyed it. As I stated above I may post more once some opinions come out of the actual tests, which started today.

Goals and Goaltenders - part of a series on the NHL's RDO tests

2011-08-15T14:24:00.003-05:00

A great thing Brendan Shanahan has brought to the NHL is the Research, Development, and Organization camp, where they have players experiment with rule changes and get a real idea of how these things might work in practice.

Today's topic: Goals and Goaltenders

This really should've been the first topic. What is more important in hockey than scoring goals or good goaltending? I'm a fan of both. The NHL is planning a number of related experiments.

*No Trapezoid.

Not sure why they need to test this at RDO camp. The NHL has seven decades without any restriction on the goaltender. That said I am a minority voice in favor of the trapezoid. I really think that created more races into the corners and make dump and chase hockey more exciting to watch. The flip side is that free roaming goaltenders behind the net could be a deterrent to playing dump-and-chase in the first place. I like the trapezoid, but I would like hockey about the same without it as well.

*Rule 63.2 - Delaying the Game

From the NHL rulebook

"A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player, including the goalkeeper, who holds, freezes or plays the puck with his stick, skates or body in such a manner as to deliberately cause a stoppage of play. With regard to a goalkeeper, this rule applies outside of his goal crease area."

Basically the way the rule is written (but not how it's called) is that goaltenders cannot cover pucks outside of their crease. They are able to leave the crease to defend shots, and I believe they would be able to freeze a puck following a shot when outside the crease, but they would not be able to cover loose pucks if outside of their crease.

I think this will keep more pucks in play and would probably be a positive change. I'll be curious to find out how it actually tests.

*Verification line

The idea is there would be an additional line behind the goal line that would confirm a goal if the puck touches it. Remember the entire puck must be completely across the goal line to be considered a goal. The verification line would presumably be behind the goal line one diamater of the puck. The thinking is this will help with replay verification. The confusing thing about this is that it would be possible for goals to be scored without breaking the plane of the verification line (puck on end for instance). I think the current standard on a replay review is to look for any white space between the puck and the goal line, and that suits the game just fine. I don't think an additional line will help the review process more than the current standard, and probably would just serve to bring confusion.

*Shallow Back Nets

This is a great thing to test in the RDO camp. The idea is a shallower goal cage will create more space behind the goal for players to maneuver. The first positive is that this would make more players wrap-around threats. A positive for the defense would be it becomes easier to move the puck when breaking out. The only potential downside is that it might become more difficult to spot whether pucks have gone in the net or not. Even with the current cage, sometimes pucks bounce out too quickly. If a shallower net would cause more replay reviews I'm probaly not in favor, if it doesn't I think this would be a wonderful change. I will be curious how this tests as well.

Next topic: Penalties