ELynah Forum

Quote from: margolismPoor Scrivens again.  Two losses in his last two starts,  while giving up only three goals.  And 42 saves on 44 attempts last night, above .950  

The whole W-L for a goalie (or a pitcher in baseball) makes no sense.   If a goalie gives up two goals or less and saves 90% or more of their shots, the goalie should not be pegged with a loss.  Your team's lack of scoring is the reason for the loss, not the goalie.

Similarly, if you give up four or more goals and save less than 85% of shot attempts, you should not get a W if your team wins.

Why stop there? Why not weigh the SV% based on the quality of the opponents, and of your defense? You make a good argument for keeping wins or losses for the goalie at all, but "you get a win if your team wins, unless you played badly" seems like a step backwards.

Quote from: TrotskySad.  There is now officially no remaining reason to go to Collegetown.

DP Dough still delivers, I assume.

Quote from: BearLoverMost girls aren't pretty--they come on tips or...

"Oh, ha, what an unfortunate typo."

QuoteEdited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 06:39PM by BearLover.

... wait, that wasn't the typo?

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: ftyuv

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BMacThey changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/report-ahl-changes-rule-following-leggio-incident/

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net.  This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.

I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.

I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.

It's absolutely a bush league move. But it's within the rules as much as a defenseman diving, stick extended, to trip the puck carrier in that situation. In both cases you commit an infraction and pay the penalty on the ice (penalty shot). I find it hard to justify a fine or suspension for poor sportsmanship when no one is getting hurt. Better to adjusthe rules as they half to reduce or eliminate the incentive for this kind of move.

Many organizations have policies, explicit or implicit, of "if you act in an unbecoming way that embarrasses the organization, you'll get punished." What I'm suggesting would fall in lines with that. In other words, the punishment wouldn't be for an infraction against the other team -- that's been dealt with already by the penalty shot, as you say -- but against the league as a whole.

Just because something isn't explicitly disallowed, it doesn't mean you can do it with impunity. I only mention that so that I can link to the obligatory Seinfeld moment.

Quote from: KeithK

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BMacThey changed the rule due to Leggio anyways:

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/06/report-ahl-changes-rule-following-leggio-incident/

Yeah, that will probably put a stop to it, but so would simply awarding a goal. I feel like that's the more appropriate rule change, especially since there's not even a chance of stopping an awarded goal.

I think there is a real reluctance to award a goal without strong evidence that th epuck would have gone into the net.  This rule change probably eliminates this play as an option for a goaltender, so it serves the purpose.

I think there should be repercussions outside of just the game -- a fine or something -- for doing something that is so blatantly against the spirit of the sport. This move was bush league to the extreme. While I agree that it's hard to justify awarding a goal where a shot wasn't ever taken, this is something I'd be embarrassed to see at a Wednesday night pickup game, let alone a professional game.

I don't know if there are rules that allow this sort of "it's not cricket" fining, and if there aren't, then Leggio shouldn't be fined for this incident. But that rule should be introduced.

I had the same thought when Avery pulled his crap against Brodeur, too.

Brian Ferlin got recalled from Providence, so who knows, maybe he'll play for Boston to start the season.

QuoteFaceoff location (high stick/hand pass): In these cases, the ensuing faceoff will be one zone closer to the offending team's goal.

Does that mean a high stick in your defensive zone turns into a faceoff in the crease? ::banana::

Quote from: TrotskyNot our alum, but an important guy in Cornell history: the Isles sign Jack Skille.  You might remember him from such mind-bendingly painful losses as [REDACTED].

No idea what you're talking about. I don't remember that game. That game never happened.

(Or, if we're counting minutes, those two games never happened.)

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Tom Lento

Quote from: Josh '99

Quote from: Jim HylaHere they are. I like them, especially the little tweaks toward offense and the warning track.

I generally do too, except for:

QuoteFaceoff Location – Offensive Scoring Opportunity: If the offensive team is attempting to score and the puck goes out of play — the faceoff will remain in the attacking zone.

This to me is counterintuitive, and I generally disagree with rules that are counterintuitive.  If an attacking player takes a slap shot from the blue line, and the shot is horrible and goes over the glass, the attacking player put the puck out of play and shouldn't be rewarded with an offensive zone faceoff.

Yeah, that is a bit odd. On the other hand it doesn't make much sense to punish an attacking team for setting up a good scoring opportunity off a deflection that happens to go up into the netting. I mean, these guys are good, but deflections are pretty hard to control. I'm guessing the deflection case is more common than the ridiculously poor pass/shot case at the college level, so in practice I suspect this will work out pretty well.

That's true, and I know the really bad shot right into the stands was an extreme example, but conceptually it's no different from a deflection that goes out of play without hitting a defending player.  It went out of play off the attacking team and the faceoff should be outside the zone, regardless of whether the attacking team was "attempting to score".  We no longer give defenders an benefit of the doubt regarding "intent" when assessing a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck out of play; you put the puck out of play, you get a penalty, your intent doesn't matter.  If an attacking player puts the puck out of play, why does it matter that his/her "intent" was "better"?

Depending on how the rule is interpreted, it could be that the refs apply little or no judgement in determining whether the offending team is attempting to score -- that is, it could be that it's assumed they are. In that case, the two rules are pretty consistent if you favor offense over defense, just a bit:

• defender shoots puck out: either they were actually trying to delay the game, or the offense got them so scrambled that they messed up that badly; punish the bad defense (or alternatively, reward the good defense)
• forward shoots the puck out: assume they weren't trying to delay the game (why would they in that situation?), so reward (or at least don't punish) the attempted scoring opportunity

There are situations in both cases that go against the assumptions and therefore cause the "wrong" thing to happen, but by and large, the rules will shake out that way. I can't think of any times that a forward intentionally tries to stop play when they're in the offensive zone, and I can't think of many times that a defender shot the puck out without significant pressure. (The latter case does happen of course, but I don't think it's often enough to warrant making it a judgement call.)

Quote from: Robb

Quote from: ftyuvI rooted for the Kings a few years ago, because they were the 8-seed that was supposed to get crushed, and Cinderella stories are nice. Now they're just a team with a boring color scheme from a city that doesn't deserve to exist. Go Rangers-by-default!

Hey now!

I'm fully qualified to make that statement, having spent a whole three days there once at a conference.

I rooted for the Kings a few years ago, because they were the 8-seed that was supposed to get crushed, and Cinderella stories are nice. Now they're just a team with a boring color scheme from a city that doesn't deserve to exist. Go Rangers-by-default!

Murray is getting skewered at a Habs blog that seems fairly prominent (first hit on google for "Montreal Canadiens blog"). The blog post itself, and pretty much all of the commenters, hate him. It seems like the tone of the blog is generally over the top anyway, but still.

Quote from: TrotskyIf anybody has a time machine, after you kill Hitler please do whoever created that stylistic device.

And then you realize it was Hitler who invented it... and you're Hitler.

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: ftyuvThe purists might cry fowl on this argument

Ba-COCK!

After a bunch of thought, you're probably right that I'm making too much of this. As long as the basics of the game are preserved, a minor rule change here or there is probably not that huge a deal. I think mostly what I bristle at are attempts to change the rules to chase a demographic that is currently uninterested in hockey, in the hopes that "GOALZ!" will make them instant fans. In the limit, the evidence is that hockey could slowly morph into football and be more popular, but should that really be the aim?

I mean, the fear is legit, and it's good that people think through every rule change and make sure that that's not where we're heading. But I still think the puck gets frozen too much -- as a problem in its own right, not because it reduces scoring.

Is this our kumbaya moment, when we all remember that we're on the same side, the side of keeping hockey the best sport that doesn't involve tricking ships into wrecking on a private island and then hunting their passengers? (<-- I'm not pyscho, it's a literary reference!)

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: billhowardA 1-0 title game might be exciting for purist hockey fans but a steady diet of low-scoring games is not going to move the sport forward if "forward" means attracting lowest common denominator American fans.

FYP.

If basketball still had 11-6 games, I might be interested in watching more than the last 15 seconds, which can take 20 minutes anyway.

That's a straw man; nobody's arguing that hockey needs to have triple-digit goals. Some people are arguing that a couple extra goals per game would be nice; others are arguing that a winner per game would be nice; others are arguing that other areas of the game -- totally unrelated to points -- could be improved, and if there are a couple extra goals per game as a byproduct, it's not the end of the world.

Food for thought: if you had a couple more goals a game, there'd probably be fewer ties, which would then lessen the pressure to turn those ties into wins/losses via a shootout. The purists might cry fowl on this argument, noting their favorite option of "do neither," but they should then be prepared to be disappointed by two rule changes rather than one. (I suspect they won't really be disappointed, because they'll have a great consolation prize in being able to whine about it for years, probably as they yell at kids to get off their lawn.)