Thumbs up: NHL’s Fast Face Off

Now that the season is a few games old, I’m comfortable talking about the major changes the NHL has made this season. There are three: the new fast faceoff procedure, the changes in interference interpretation, and the safety nets.

First, the new fast faceoff. The NHL has set things up so that once play stops, everyone has about 18 seconds to make line changes, get settled down, and for the linesman to drop the puck.

To me, this is an unmitigated success. The players have adapted quickly, and the game never drags. Early results indicate it’s cutting 18-20 minutes off a typical game, bringing it in at under 2 and a half hours, instead of the ever-stretching 2:45 heading towards (yawn) three hours. Hockey is a fast, high energy sport. when between-play times start acting like baseball, it has a problem.

The fast faceoff solves that. Things move, and keep moving. I’ve been known to occasionally exclaim “you know, one might think you’d never taken a faceoff before” (sometimes rather loudly) during previous seasons. heck, I’ve been known to pull out my needlepoint and start in during really slow, ugly games. since I sit in row 3 near the glass, the players notice, too. Not that they’ll admit it.

Another nice side effect of the fast faceoff is it forces the players to stop yapping at the refs. The refs have also been told to be a lot less tolerant of the chirping, too, and I’ve seen a few extra unsportsmanlike penalties so far as well. All to the good — I get really tired of players who feel it’s okay to stop the game and make 17,000 sit and watch while they showboat or throw a tantrum. It forces them to act more professional, which I have to support.

It’s going to affect teams and players, though, so keep an eye out. Since there are fewer “unofficial” breaks as players delay faceoffs, there’s less chance for players to catch their breath. That means players who expect to play huge minutes (like chris chelios, chris pronger, or Rob blake) are going to have to be very careful about their minutes, or they’re going to go into January or February and wear out, because 30 minutes a game with the fast faceoff is a lot worse on you than 30 minutes i last year’s NHL. Expect to see a number of “franchise” caliber players to get hurt or go into slumps about 50-60 games into the season as their conditioning falls apart from over-user.

It also means team depth becomes more important — because you can’t depend on four defenseman or three lines any more. The depth guys will need to play more minutes to make up for the 30 minutes guys needing to cut back, so you can’t hide a weak or marginal player as easily.

To some degree, this is going to even out talent levels a bit. Franchise guys are going to have to cut their play somewhat to avoid wearing out, and depth guys will get more time. So it shifts the game towards team quality away from individual quality somewhat.

And it gets you out of the arena faster, makes the game quicker and more exciting, and stops many of those dead lapses that kill momentum for the players AND the fans.

I love it. I hope it’s here to stay. Baseball could learn a thing or three from it. Do you really need to spend all that time watching pitchers and batters try to psych each other out every pitch?

Thank God it’s Friday – Part 2

So earlier this week we lost one of our canaries, which is Not Fun. It’s never fun to say goodbye to someone you care about. so imagine our joy when we suddenyl realize one of the cockatiels is covered in blood. She’d cracked a blood feather.

Some quick avian biology — a bird’s feathers are somewhat like human hair, except that where our hair is constantly growing and needs to be trimmed (well, what’s left of mine, at least), feathers are moulted roughly once a year and grown back entirely. During the time the feather is growing back, the shaft has a full blood supply. Once the feather is fully grown, the supply cuts off and the feather is used until it wears out and is moulted again.

(as an aside, there is some argument about whether a feather is “dead” or not. While it seems to make sense that it’s dead, my vet has seen birds show enormous improvement in feather quality when a bird with a rotten diet is shifted to a healthy one, without a moult. If feathers really are dead, that ought not to be true. I’ve seen this myself iwth my cockatoo, when we moved her to Harrisons pellets (the only bird food made from human grade, organic grains. It’s the only thing I feed them now). Complicating that, of course, are preening issues such as oil or dust or simply a healthier bird doing more preening. I don’t pretend to have the answer here, but it seems like what we assume might not be)

Saruman has been replacing her wing feathers. One of them evidently got caught in the bars of the cage (she is, well, a klutz, and not terribly smart for a cockatiel) and got whacked, and it bled. Blood feathers are either major crises or minor hassles. if it’s a major crisis, you have to pull the thing immediately or the bird bleeds to death (this is about as much fun as it sounds. It’s you, a towel, maybe a pair of gloves, a screaming, pissed-off, hurting bird trying to take your fingers off, and a pair of needlenosed pliers). If it’s minor, it’ll clot, and then you leave it alone and let your vet deal with it.

The closest situation I can think of with humans is this — you don’t notice the kitchen cabinet is open, and catch the door square in the nose and start bleeding. it hurts like hell, you’re dripping blood all over the place — but now, you wife has to decide whether it’ll stop, whether you’re going to bleed to death and she has to forcibly stop the flow, or whether she’s better off hauling you off to the emergency room (cash or mastercard only please….). and if you guess wrong…

By the time we noticed, it’d clotted, she’d stopped bleeding, and was busily preening the dried blood off (and eating it. well, it’s a waste of useful nutrients otherwise. Yes, I know that’s disgusting, but you’re not a cockatiel). so we left it alone. as long as she didn’t whack it again, we were okay.

so we made the trip into the vet, found that she’d already rejected the damaged feather and it’d dropped, and there didn’t seem to be any damage to the wing, and we all went home, clean (and wet) but healthy. And I didn’t lose a finger…

did I say I was glad it’s friday?

Thank god it’s friday… Part 1

We lost a canary this week. Our oldest one, a german roller.

We’ve kept birds pretty much forever, generally some combination of our cockatoo (the princess Tatiana), cockatiels (currently two, Saruman, who we found out the hard way is female and is an all-white almost-albino, and our baby, Radagast, a beautiful grey with cinnamon markings that we think is male, but we aren’t positive yet), and canaries. We had two, now we have one. the one we still have is a gorgeous soft-feathered yellow male.

Unfortunately, we’ve found that our canaries have a tendency to pass away far younger than we expect, despite whatever care we give them. Our roller has actually been with us a good while, but he was at worst in middle age for a canary. In talking to other owners in similar situations, we’ve found what we think is a pattern: canaries just don’t seem to live as long if they’re kept in houses with dust birds.

Dust birds, for non bird keepers, are species that waterproof their feathers with dust. Most birds waterproof using oil from an oil gland near the base of the tail. dust birds have special feathers that they create that break down into tiny particles that they spread across their feathers during preening. As you might imagine, that’s not all that dust is spread across… The primary dust birds available as pets here in the states are the cockatoos and cockatiels — and, of course, we keep both.

If you remember the phrase “canary in a coal mine”, it’s because canaries have very sensitive respiratory systems. most of the canaries I’ve lost over the years here have been due to strokes. It’s not unreasonable to think that what’s happening is that at some point their system wears down from dealing with the dust from the other birds and they throw a clot into the brain. Bang. At least it’s quick.

so we’ve made the decision that we’re going to stop keeping canaries. A couple of others I know in similar situations have made the same decision, because they’ve seen the same kind of early losses, and it’s just not fair to the birds, as much as we enjoy their company. it just looks like if you keep birds that generate a lot of dust, you shouldn’t keep canaries.

And I’m going to see if I can find a good home for the one I have, to get him out of this environment. I was going to talk to the techs at my vets office today, but we got a little busy. but that’s another piece….

2002-2003 hockey season: Eastern Conference Prediction

I admit I don’t follow the eastern conference as closely as the west. The practical aspect of that is that my choices in the east are even sillier than in the west. I simply don’t let that stop me.

I think the best teams in the East are Carolina (they’re for real), New Jersey (of course), Montreal, and Toronto — if Belfour can handle the pressure of playing in Toronto. That’s far from a given. Next level down from that are the Islanders, Ottawa, and maybe the RAngers. Finishing up the list of playoff teams Washington.

I’m just not impressed with Boston’s goaltending, Buffalo is imploding and I expect this season to be a forgettable one for Sabre’s fans, assuming it’s not the last season (not a given), Atlanta is still building. they’ll be interesting but not winning. Florida and Tampa Bay don’t do much for me, and I think one or the other might compete for a playoff spot, but don’t ask me which one. I don’t know. Adn then there’s Pittsburgh. Something tells me it’s going to be a long, painful season for the Penguins. Sorry, folks.

2002-2003 hockey season: western conference prediction

The hockey season is starting (finally!), so it’s time for the annual predictions, so everyone can laugh at me again at the end of the season. First up — the western conference.

The team to beat in the Western conference this year is the Colorado Avalanche. The trade of Drury hurts their offense, but improved their defense, and with Sakic and Forsberg, they could afford to give up some offense. Roy shows no signs of slowing down, and they’ve been there and know what needs to be done. Barring significant injuries, the trip to the Stanley Cup goes through Colorado.

A close second, if everything goes as planned, is the San Jose Sharks. This assumes players like Marleau come through as hoped, that Stuart and Nabokov get signed fairly soon, and that the team stays fairly healthy. It’s clear, however, that the Sharks are now at the point where it’s time chase the brass ring. This year, next year, and after that, they’ll have to start reloading or risk falling back. For the Sharks, it’s time to break the 100 point barrier, and I want to see 50 wins. In the West, that’s a stretch — but doable.

Third on my list is Detroit. Losing Bowman and Hasek is a significant loss, but make no mistake, that simply means the Wings are going for a division championship, not the president’s trophy.

Those are the top teams in the west. A rung lower on the ladder are Los Angeles, Vancouver, and Phoenix. I expect all of those teams to make the playoffs, but they don’t have quite the horsepower. But if a top team slips or gets hurt, watch out.

The other two teams that ought to make the playoffs are St. Louis and Dallas. Both teams are on the downslide — in Dallas, Marty Turco is unproven, in St. Louis, Brent Johnson and Chris Pronger are hurt. The Blues are in serious hurt short term, and their big worrry is hanging on until they get healthy enough to compete. There’s a good chance they’ll fade into the sunset by December.

Non-playoff teams: Columbus (still building), Chicago (after one year of falsely making fans believe, they’ve gone back to asking the cheap-ass Blackhawks) Nashville (still building, but should compete for a playoff spot), Calgary (might compete for a playoff spot), Edmonton (should compete for a playoff spot), Minnesota (boring but competitive), and Anaheim (they will be better. Will they be good?)

92 points will miss the playoffs. It’ll take 100 points to win a division, and if you notice, four of the five teams in the Pacific are on my list as playoff teams. That’s a tough division.

But heck, it’s gonna be fun…

The death of the newspaper

Radio Free Blogistan and SFChronicle columnist C.W. Nevius both take their own look at Google News, which makes some noise about how it generates itself without any human interference (This page was generated entirely by computer algorithms without human editors. ). They go on to decide the Google won’t put editors out of business, because editors make writers better.

I know a number of writers who will loudly disagree, especially in a bar when surrounded by other writers. Most of those writers will also kill to make sure they get the right copyeditor and take less money to stay with a compatible editor.

But that argument is like arguing that because McDonalds has automated fry cooking, we don’t need pastry chefs any more. The word “editor” spans as many sub-specialties as “writer” or “chef” does. The argument that because they (and most writers, myself included) are better after having had our work massaged by editors, and therefore news.google.com isn’t a threat to editors is a bad one — because fry cooks and pastry chefs aren’t interchangeable.

Frankly, since Nevius works at a paper, he shouldn’t have fallen for that trap, because he ought to realize what Google News really is. it’s not replacing the copy editors who massage and clean up our priceless prose — it’s automating the process of deciding what goes into the paper (the copy desk) and how it’s portrayed in the paper (the layout guys). Those, too, are editors — but their function is a lot different than the ones Nevius and Seb are defining as irreplaceable. Google proves they are!

but at the same time, they’re replaceable only to a degree, because Google is lying. The content WAS generated with the help of human hands, and human editors. It’s the layout of the page that was done automatically, and in all honesty, that’s really the easy part. Before Google could figure out what to put on that page, writers had to write it, editors had to edit it, copy desk guys had to decide it was worth publishing, and layout guys placed it on web sites around the world. And then Google scraped it up, and presented us with the conensus view of ALL of those editors. That page wasn’t generated by nobody, that page was generated by everybody.

An interesting view of the impact of that is at Weblogs and the Mass Amateurization of Publishing, where Clay Shirky notes that weblogs make it easier to publish, and therefore give more people a chance to publish and be heard. When you combine that with things like RSS aggregators and Google News, what you’re really doing is not putting editors out of business, but breaking down the hegemony of the copy desk — right now, decisions on what you see and hear are in the hands of rather few people, and by using the consensus voice, returns it to democracy (instead you get the hegemony of who can generate word of mouth, and the power of viral marketing).

Where Shirky gets it wrong, I think, is thinking that this “mass amateurization” of journalism means that we’ll lose the ability to have a class of professional writers. There are currently tens of thousands of garage bands in the U.S.: this doesn’t preclude The Rolling Stones from getting rich. In fiction, there are hundreds of thousands of novels thrown at publishing houses screaming “publish me!” — but Stephen King won’t starve any time soon.

that we’re now transforming writing through blogs so that anyone can play journalist and columnist doesn’t mean that there won’t still be professional journalists or columnists. If you have content people feel has value, or if you have content that you can market to convince people that it has value, there will still be a way to make a living on that content.

What this really does is start to break down the barriers that prevent that valuable material from being found. It re-enables, in a big way, word of mouth. it democratizes the way quality is discovered, taking it out of the hands of the few in power (the record exec, the acquisition editor, the copy desk editor, the radio station program director) and brings that process back towards the people.

Which is why this change scares the hell out of those who currently hold a choke hold on the neck of these processes — because what is really changing here is that the role of the person that makes that decision. Right now, they have an effective veto power. As this change takes hold, those people’s power will remain only if if they’re good and make the decisions their audience wants made. If they don’t, these new technologies allow their audience to go around them, render them irrelevant.

No wonder they’re trying to kill all this stuff…..

Stanley Cup final predictions..

whatever you do, don’t bet money on this. I was 0 for 2 in the third round, I’m 5 for 14 in the playoffs so far. Not exactly stunning predictions.

However, I’m going to go with the Wings in 5. But I won’t be at all suprised if they make it 6. I don’t think the Canes can win it.

Usenet Trolls, by Gilbert and Sullivan (sort of)

Special thanks to Derek DeLash, although I’m not sure if he was sending me a joke or an accusation….

Tom Holt (allegedly) on Usenet Trolls (to the tune of Gilbert &
Sullivans “Modern Major General”)

I am the very model of a Newsgroup personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.
Addresses I have plenty of, both genuine and ghosted too,
On all the countless newsgroups that my drivel is cross-posted to.
Your bandwidth I will fritter with my whining and my snivelling,
And you’re the one who pays the bill, downloading all my drivelling.
My enemies are numerous, and no one would be blaming you
For cracking my head open after I’ve been rudely flaming you.

I hate to lose an argument (by now I should be used to it).
I wouldn’t know a valid point if I were introduced to it.
My learning is extensive but consists of mindless trivia,
Designed to fan my ego, which is larger than Bolivia.
The comments that I vomit forth, disguised as jest and drollery,
Are really just an exercise in unremitting trollery.
I say I’m frank and forthright, but that’s merely lies and vanity,
The gibberings of one who’s at the limits of his sanity.

If only I could get a life, as many people tell me to;
If only Mom could find a circus freak-show she could sell me to;
If I go off to Zanzibar to paint the local scenery;
If I lose all my fingers in a mishap with machinery;
If I survive to twenty, which is somewhat problematical;
If what I post was more mature, or slightly more grammatical;
If I could learn to spell a bit, and maybe even punctuate;
Would I still be the loathsome and objectionable punk you hate?

But while I have this tiresome urge to prance around and show my face,
It simply isn’t safe for normal people here in cyberspace.
To stick me in Old Sparky and turn on the electricity
Would be a fitting punishment for tasteless crass duplicity.
I always have the last word; so, with uttermost finality,
That’s all from me, the model of a Newsgroup personality.

Sharks in 2002-2003 part 2

Not exactly “I’ll do the forwards in a separate message” as I original said I would, but a question came up that (I think) neatly answers my thoughts on the forwards, so rather than write it a second time, I’ll just use that message as my comments…

> Random thought I had last night: Kipper for Jovanovski. Maybe throw in
> Heins. Balance out with picks or whatever.

> I have this (possibly baseless) anti-Cloutier bias, think Kipper could
> be a #1. Is Toskala ready for prime time as a backup?

It’s an interesting deal. Vancouver won’t — Kipper’s unproven, Hedberg’s
performance or no. For Jovo? Not enough.

Personally, I’d want to staff up our forwards. I’m just not worried about
defense.

Going into next year, we have:

Rags, Rat, Stuart, Hannan, Marchment, Jillson. If I’m the Sharks, I talk to
suter about coming back for $400–500K and mentor Jillson, and take on the
role of 7th D (reprising Bob rouse) and locker room guy, and playing the
minutes that Jillson isn’t ready for.

I just don’t see that as needing an upgrade. Heins fades into the sunset, an
experiment that was good enough to crack into the NHL, but not good enough
to crack the Sharks. Maybe someone else can use him (Andy Sutton,a nyone?)
but his value’s minimal.

Would you trade Rags and Kipper for Jovo? I’d bet that’s what you’d need to
do to get a return phone call that isn’t a snide comment. And I’m not sure
that’d get him.

I might, actually.

I’d look more to upgrade the forwards. I think next year you see Marleau
moving to #1 center and Damphousse moving to #2 center. My big focus is
bringing back selanne. You don’t do that, the other moves don’t matter. We
slip down the depth scale. If we can do that AND something else, great.

Me, I try to bring back Suter and Matteau at the $400K range. That clears up
a million or so. Don’t take Korky’s option and bring in Hyvonen for less.
That’s $1.5 mil freed up after paying for replacment players. On top of what
we paid Selanne last year, plus Selanne’s willingness to take a pay cut,
we’re right now pretty close to a deal, without hosing depth, and our black
ace crew (Matteau and Suter) give us great veteran depth and leadership, so
we don’t go too young.

You figure Graves slides the depth chart to some degree, maybe to the 4th
line spot Matteau had, and we have an opening in the top six forwards
(nolan, marleau, Selanne, Damphousse, Sturm, who?). Fill that spot and we’re
really happy. We need to give Cheechoo a chance to make the team — but to
step right into top six? I dunno. But the third/fourth lines are also full.

To me, we go into next year this way:

Selanne/marleau/
Nolan/damphousse/sturm
Thornton/ricci/sundstrom
Harvey/bradley/graves

aces: cheechoo, matteau

defense:

rags, rat
Stuart, marchment
Hannon, jillson

aces: Suter

Goal: nabokov, kiprusoff

This implies Smith, Korolyuk and Heins aren’t on the team.

And I don’t mess this up other than find a way to fill that , which
IMHO is the only real need we have — of course, that only real need is the
first line RW scorer (yes, I’m saying that the nolan line is our 2nd line).

You won’t get that by giving up kipper, heins, korky, smith or unproven
prospects. It’s a tough spot to fill. If I can’t fill it, then I guess we
let Graves and Cheechoo try to fill it and see what happens. But unless we
need to use some of that lineup to get that key player, I leave it alone and
not dink with the lineup just to dink with it. I’d rather not try to improve
the defense, when I expect that Stuart/Jillson/Hannan will all improve next
year and the rest (other than Suter) won’t decline.

IMHO, of course.

First Thoughts on 2002-2003

Now that the season is over for the sharks (arrgghhh!!!!!!!!), I find myself
increasingly drained of energy. Much of me wants to just sit down, relax,
and not care who wins the cup. Don’t worry, I’ll get over it. But as Laurie
will attest, I normally don’t yell at the TV much watching hockey games. I
did in game 7.

But it’s over, and it’s time to start thinking about where to go from here.

And the first thing I think of is the points streak. Only one other team has
increased points every season like the Sharks. That tells you something
about the way this team was built — but it also implies that sooner or
later, that streak will break.

I think next year is that year. There’s going to be a stumble along the
path, and we have to expect it. I don’t think it’ll be a major stumble, but
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Sharks slip to about 90 points next year.
But I expect 90 points will make the playoffs.

But that really only means something if you see what happens elsewhere in
the league, so that’s what I’ve been thinking about first. In the west,
here’s how I see the teams moving into next year:

Detroit: descending, although they’ve fooled me before. This has the look of
a “one more kick at the can” crew, and I expect retirements and significant
changes here, whether or not they win the cup. More if they do. If they
don’t, some guys will try one more time, but it’ll get harder for them. Not
a bad team by any means — but their cycle is finally ending. Still a top 8
team, probably.

St. Louis: Top 8 team. If they figure out goaltending, a top 4 team.

Chicago: ascending. The big risks here are goaltending (I don’t trust it)
and that next year, they’ll lose the urgency to prove themselves they had
this year. But the talent is improving, they have a good coach and
commitment to him, and I expect they won’t go away quietly. They’ll probably
slip a bit from 96 points, but be in the playoffs.

Nashville: improving. Playoffs next year? Maybe — if they get help from
teams that fade or collapse.

Columbus: improving, but not competing for the playoffs yet.

Colorado: my bet for best team in the west next year. Going to stay together
for the most part again. Scary good. Again.

Vancouver: top 8 if they can solve goaltending. Top 12 if they can’t.
Ascending.

Edmonton: I guess Salo has to prove himself again. Best thing Emdonton can
do is finally figure out they can’t play him as much as he wants to play.
But I see this team as descending.

Calgary: messed up. Will likely take a couple of years to figure it out and
pull it back together again. Sigh.

Minnesota: Better than Columbus. I like Nashville’s chances at the playoffs
better than the Wild.

Los Angeles: ascending. They worry me. A lot.

Phoenix: ditto.

Dallas: rebuilding. They won’t suck, but I don’t think playoffs are
guaranteed.

Anaheim: I think they’ll be better. Playoffs? Probably not. But not “worse
than the expansion teams” sucky.

If you take this year’s sharks and stuff them into next year’s standings,
where would they sit? IMHO, second, after the Avs — but it’d be a tight
race to the finish.

Where do I see next year’s sharks in next year’s standings? Probably 5th,
based on the stumble — a key injury here, a bit of a letdown there…

Going into next year, the most important thing the Sharks can do is:
nothing. They don’t need many changes, so don’t change. So my first priority
is signing Dean Lombardi, and his first priority is signing Darryl Sutter. I
think anyone who says a management group that takes a team to 99 points and
game 7 of the conference final should be replaced is pushing some other
agenda, because there’s no way you can tell me this isn’t successful. Ask
yourself what message it sends to potential coaches, GMs and free agents
that a team would do that, too.

So I see bringing back the existing hockey group as crucial. We’ll see if
the Sharks agree. IMHO, they’ve earned it.

Players? Again, like teams, I try to decide who’s ascending, descending, and
who’s stable. Even with the same personnel it won’t be the same team. But
will it be better?

Defense:

Suter: descending. It’s time for him to go. Sorry, Gary.

Stuart: ascending. Still has another notch or two he can add to his game.
Will he? I think so.

Rags: stable. But he’s aging, so we have to start looking past him.

Rathje: ascending. I think he broke through a bit this year. I think he’ll
move up a little more next year. Not a huge stride, but even 80 games of
this year makes him more valuable to us.

Marchment: descending. But not enough it’s an issue yet.

Hannan: ascending. Rags in training, I think.

Jillson: will he be ready for a full-time gig next year? I think so. I hope
so.

I’ll do forwards in a later message.

2002 round three predictions

Leafs in 6. The Canes aren’t the walkover people keep insisting they are,
but I think the Leafs will ultimately win out here.

Avs in 5. Gut check here, but I think the Avs and Roy are starting to roll,
and I don’t think the rest is as much of an advantage to the Wings as
momentum and talent is to the Avs.

(results of round 2: 2 of 4. so far in the playoffs, I’m 5 of 12. Not exactly “lets’ go to Vegas” numbers…)

2002 playoff round 2 predictions

(just realized I didn’t post these up front. Honest, I dind’t change them…)

But first, I come clean on round one.

Western Conference:

Detroit/Vancouver: Vancouver in 5.
for two games, I was right. Then they found the real hasek, and
the real cloutier, and it was all over. The Canucks did answer
a significant question, though — is Cloutier for real? Answer:
hell, no. But I hope they take a close look at Peter Skudra.
Kelly Hrudey thinks he ought to be considered for starting, and
I tend to agree.

Colorado/LA: Avs in 6.
Okay, Avs in 7. Close enough.

San Jose/Phoenix: San Jose in 5.
yup. Next.

St. Louis/chicagl: Chicago in 5.
oops. Brent Johnson came to play, and thibault didn’t. Chicago needs a
a goaltender. We still need to see if St. Louis does.

West: 2 of 4.

Eastern conference:

Boston/Montreal: Boston in 5
congrats to the habs and Jose theodore. I won’t complain, they flat out
beat boston…

Philly/Ottawa: Philly in 4
I will never, ever, ever predict a win by the flyers as long as
Bobby Clarke is attached to that organization. Never. Ever. Again.
I’ve lost too many bets to assuming that this time, the Flyers won’t
find a way to tank. Idiots.

Toronto/Islanders: Leafs in 6
but do they have anything left?

Carolina/New jersey: Jersey in 4
Yeah, right. The more I watched this series, the more I came to
realize that their division sucked, but the Canes didn’t. Very
under-rated team, and Jersey just didn’t click well. Weekes
flat out-played brodeur late, and Irbe out-played him early.
the big question is whether their goaltending will continue
to carry the day, and which goaltender will do it.

Eastern record: 1 of 4. Damn you, Philly.

3 of 8? Pretty lame.

Okay, 2nd round:

Western convedrence:

Detroit/St. Louis: Detroit in 6
Vancouver had a chance. St. Louis won’t.

Colorado/San Jose: San Jose in 7 (double-overtime)
Can you say “evenly matched”? Can you say “long, nasty
and a hell of a lot of fun to watch?” Can you say “only
reason I didn’t declare it a tie is I can’t?” Luck,
bounces and injuries will make the difference here.

Eastern Conference:

Toronto/Ottawa: Toronto in 6
I just think toronto si better, with better and more reliable
goaltending. Ottawa needs to strike early while the Leafs are
still tired and beaten up.

Carolina/Montreal: Montreal in 6
I think the teams are close, I like Jose theodore more in goal.
I would not be too surprised to be proven wrong.

Reffing Notes

> in football even with seven guys on the field they still are pretty
> consistent.

In large part because each ref has a specific area of control, and they
don’t cross over much. So there’s no much ambiguity over differing
interpretations.

But beyond that, the NFL has had many years to train their people and
standardize the way they call games. The NFL also has a pretty strong
commitment to a standardized system, as well as to a consistent calling
pattern.

Contrast that to the NHL — we’re in year two of the two ref system. The NHL
is still working out some of the issues in that. When the NBA went to three
refs, it took three seasons before the new system settled down and worked
(as well as the NBA reffing system works, but we won’t go there. The
problems aren’t in the number of refs). Prior to Van Hellemond returning,
there was little to no attempt by the league to standardize how the game was
reffed — it wasn’t an NHL game, it was a “stewart” game or a “Koharski”
game. Baseball’s struggled with this as well — there’s the official strike
zone, which every umpire ignores, and then each umpire has “their” strike
zone.

There are, honestly, positives and negatives to that. I think allowing the
refs some leeway in interpretation is good. I always found that it added a
little flavor to a game — it wasn’t just the Sharks/Hawks, it was the
Sharks/Hawks with Stewart reffing, which you knew would be a different game
than the same teams with Faucette in charge. It gives coaches one more
aspect of complexity they have to coach to.

But in the two ref system, that can get tough. You have to create the
assignments of control for each ref, but since action in hockey is so fluid,
you simply can’t partition the field the way you do football. There IS no
way one ref can handle just the line of scrimmage in hockey… So the NHL
has to move to the NFL model for consistency across referees, and it’s
working on it.

It simply isn’t there yet. And I think it’s unrealistic to expect it to be.
I think the two ref system is improved this season, and I think it continues
to improve. But it takes time for everyone to break their old habits, and
for the league to come up with the standards and training needed to get
everyone on the same page. Some refs won’t be able to make the shift, and
they need to be given a gold watch and a handshake. And some of the new refs
aren’t going to make the cut, too — and they’re training on the job as it
is.

IMHO, the NHL is on the path to quality reffing, if everyone just gives it
time to get the job done. Teams can’t build overnight successes — but the
referees were expected to by some, even though the refs had to build through
the draft like everyone else…. (grin).

And I’m still convinced the refs are being interfered with from above (i.e.,
above Van Hellemond, the board of governors). The first round this year was
a travesty — how many guys ended up in the hospital in the name of Cherry’s
“let the boys play” grail? And gee, here in the second round, the refs found
their whistles again. What a coincidence.

Next season is likely the make or break on the two ref system. It has some
flaws, but I think it’s a good thing for the game. Personally, I don’t care
if the back ref ever calls a penalty — the existance of his eyes keeps a
lot of the behind-the-play scrumming from happening in the first place, and
stopping that garbage is, IMHO, his primary function. So I see it as a
success just for that.

But for the two ref system to work, it needs to work some stuff out:

O positioning: something we talked a bit about earlier in the week. I went
and grabbed some tapes to look at some one ref games and I think the
comments were right. The two ref system does seem to remove the ability for
the deep ref to slide up the boards — he has to try to slip behind the net
to get out of the action, so the ref is stuck in the play more than with a
one ref system. How to fix? I dunno, but it seems to me this has to be
addressed. His mobility’s been limited, and so he’s getting into the action
more, and that’s not a good thing.

O sphere of control: who manages what? It’s a good thing when one ref misses
a call and the other covers his back. It’s not when one ref chooses to
non-call, and the back ref calls it anyway. I don’t know any easy way to get
around this, other than finding ways for the two refs to communicate on
these issues. Perhaps referees ought to start overtly washing out non-calls
with a hand gesture.

O consistency: better standards, better training. The NHL’s made good
strides here from what I’ve seen. It has more work to do. The more you can
get the referees to call consistently from referee to referee, the less
sphere of control matters. They go hand in hand. This is something only time
will fix — with training, documentation and feedback.

O better fan education: I think the NHL needs to be more accessible to the
fans. The printed rule book is just too simplistic for the game, but the
casebook is unavailable. I realize the casebook is a constant work in
progress, but a lot of education can be done to help people understand how
the rules are interpreted — and that education needs to be made avaialble
to the fans, and stuffed down the throats of announcers, broadcasters and
journalists, since a lot of those folks spend a lot of time ripping the refs
AND ARE WRONG. But that’s the story the fans hear, and react to. By putting
the casebook info out for the fans, the NHL can start working to repair the
damage that stuff causes.

And finally, my pet peeve: situationally neutral reffing. A penalty in the
first is a penalty in the third. A penalty 5 on 5 is a penalty during a
power play. A penalty by Bryce Salvador is a penalty by Chris Chelios. All
of which are significant issues and hurt the reputation of reffing in the
NHL. This is THE one place where I think the NHL ought to study the NFL
closely – because lots of people gripe about the NFL refs, but they rarely
accuse them of being corrupt or biased. The NFL is best (but not perfect) at
this, followed by baseball, then the NHL. The NBA is so blatant at refs
pandering to the stars I can’t watch it any more, it’s little better than
the WWF.

If you keep teaching the refs “the NHL way” to get consistency up, start
outreaching to properly explain what “the NHL way” is so that guys like Greg
Millen can’t pull some of his intelleectually dishonest slams at the 2 ref
system, and start reffing so that fans can learn that a penalty is a penalty
(except in the third, when chris chelios hits you on a PK), you can really
improve the reffing situation. And,in fact, much of this isn’t so much
“fixing” reffing in the NHL, but PR work to help people understand why it’s
not all that broken in the first place.

I would also, and I realize this is controversial, start publicly reporting
referee/linesman suspensions and fines. Right now, they seem to be above
rebuke (even though they aren’t). By announcing these in public, the public
will start to understand that referees are called on the carpet for
mistakes, too. And I think it’s an important perception for people to
understand the professionalism of the refs.

All IMHO, of course.

> in other sports (basketball and football) the officials have no problem
> calling an infraction at any time of the game regardless of the score, heck,
> many times the “officials decide the game” in basketball by calling a late
> game foul. heavens forrib we as hockey officials decide the game!

God, a real hot button of mine. Choosing to “not call a penalty” also
decides the game. It just decides it in a different direction. People whine
and complain about the interference, hooking, holding, and all that garbage.
And then when a referee calls a penalty in the third, he gets screamed at
for not letting the boys decide the game. Well, hell, guess what? By not
calling that penalty, he decides the game: in favor of the lower-talent,
grinding guys who hook, hold and interfere the high skill guys we all claim
we’re paying to watch. And that’s why the game has turned into a
corner-grinding, in-your-face, low-scoring hook and slash affair. Because
that’s “letting the boys decide”, and if they know they can get away with
it, they’ll do whatever it takes. So the referees have decided the game, in
the favor of the grinders. And then we bitch about the grinders taking the
game away from the skill guys….

Referees are in a lose-lose situation here. And it’s worse, because it’s
clear there are key power groups in the board of directors (the Philly guys,
the Boston guys, the Chicago guys) who are “old school”, don cherry
advocates pushing that kind of hockey, and as long as the guys at the top
demand it, it won’t change…

2002 playoff predictions

(posted to the sharks list 4/14. Honest)

Detroit vs. Vancouver.

Vancouver closed the season kicking butt to make the playoffs. Detroit
closed the season with only 1 win in ten, and it wasn’t at all clear it was
the late-season vacation…. Can Scotty Bowman flip the switch and turn them
back into the Red Wings? Do the Red Wings have enough energy for the playoff
run?

Good questions. I hate betting against Bowman and Hasek, but if there’s a
series ripe for an upset, it’s this one. I wouldn’t put money on it, folks.
There are just too many guys on the Wings who can steal games. I’m just
wondering if they can steal it all….

Vancouver in five.

Colorado vs. Los Angeles

I’m gonna enjoy this one. Should be a huge, nasty, long, series. All the
better for everyone else in the conference, too. Both teams are full of
“ex-the-other-guy” players, and Potvin vs. Roy ought to be great.

But when it’s all settled, you have Roy, Sakic, Blake, Foote and Drury,
among others. The Kings are good — but the Avs are better.

Avs in six.

San Jose vs. Phoenix

San Jose seems to be pretty ready and pretty healthy going into the
playoffs. I think they match up well. Phoenix was a bit suprising to me
improving enough to make the playoffs, and might be the primary “happy to be
here” team in the west. Which makes them beatable — and dangerous.

But San jose should take it.

San Jose in five.

St. Louis vs. Chicago

Who expected this improvement out of the Hawks? Well, I guess Brian Sutter
did. I’m impressed. Their only relative weak spot is goaltending, where I’m
not convinced (yet). On the other hand, I’m more convinced that St. Louis is
in trouble. Their goaltending has convinced me — that it’s not the answer.
But they have Pronger and MacInnis, so they won’t go easily. But I expect
they’ll go — yet another first round loss for the Blues.

Chicago in five.

My choice out of the west: Colorado. My second choice: San Jose. My dark
horse: detroit

Eastern Conference:

Boston vs. montreal:

It’s great to see Montreal in the playoffs, but even if Theodore stands on
his head, it won’t be enough. But ti’s a nice sign the team is on its way
back again.

Boston in five.

Philadelphia vs. Ottawa:

I’d love to root for Ottawa, but they seem to be a team much like the Blues:
they’ve gotten good enough to be a playoff team,but not good enough to take
the next step. I don’t see that different this year. And Philly’s good.

Philly in four.

Carolina vs. New jersey:

Carolina’s happy to be here. Sorry, guys, not even close.

New jersy in four.

Toronto vs. NY Islanders

The best/closest match in the east. The Islanders have made a huge
improvement, but I can’t see them topping the leafs this year.

Leafs in 6.

My pick out of the east: boston. My 2nd pick: New jersey. My dark horse:
toronto.

San Jose Sharks year end review

99 points. Division champions. 3rd seed in the west. Home ice in the
playoffs. No problems. Nothing to complain about. Everything’s perfect,
right?

Yeah, right. How about “pretty good?” I’ll take that.

Team rating: A-

pros: the numbers pretty much speak for themselves. This is a pretty damn
good team.

cons: power play is sub-standard. Occasional lapses of intensity. And please
beat the damn Minnesota Wild once in a while, okay?

Coach Darryl Sutter: A-

pros: under his tenure, just look at what the sharks have done. When he was
hired, Lombardi described him as (I believe) “Keenan with a heart”. Sutter
might not be your friend as a player, but you know he’s not your enemy.

cons: where’s the ring? That’s pretty much the only part of his career
missing. Oh. And about that power play…

GM Dean Lombardi: A-

pros: probably the smartest move he made this season was doing nothing.

cons: sometimes too honest in the press. Sometimes sounds too much like a
laywer. Oh, wait. He is a lawyer.

The players:

> P NO PLAYER GP G A PTS +/- PIM PP SH GW GT S PCTG
> – –

The state of reffing in the NHL

It was, actually, very difficult to figure out which refs I thought were
‘best’, or drop it down below about ten names. But then, most of you
consider me a ref apologist already anyway, so that won’t surprise you.
But — people have to realize that reffing is an imperfect system under
difficult situations, so mistakes are gonna happen.

More importantly, though, I think people need to realize that the league
dictates how it wants the game called, and a lot of stuff I see fans
gripe about,l it’s clear the league wants it done that way. How can you
tell? When multiple refs call something consistently one way or another,
then the league is dictating it be called that way. Blame the league,
not the refs.

The players have a lot of say into the quality of the game. Bad hockey
begates bad reffing. Good hockey begats good reffing (most of the time).
When a team is playing badly, it does more things that need to be
called; if anything, most nights, refs cut a struggling team as much
slack as possible, because nobody likes a game with 18 2 minute minors
in it, and it makes them miss their dinner reservations…

A final note: please remember our seats in san jose are three rows off
the glass. That means we get to see a lot of the one-on-one stuff, and
Laurie’s a pretty good lip-reader (and I’m so-so). We get to see some of
the subtle interactions that go on, especially when play is stopped.
this definitely affects how we view the refs, but it also seems to me,
if a refs job is to manage a game, how well they manage the people IN
the game is a key to their success or failure.

My three best refs:

Veteran division (> 100 games reffed at start of this season)

Mark Faucette
Steve Walkom
Don VanMassenhoven

Why: These three refs have something similar in common: they all
have a presence on the ice, but that presence never dominates the
ice. They’re all good at maintaining control of the game and keeping
the game moving, without dictating the game. They all have their
strengths and weaknesses, but I think all three handle the game the
way I’d want the game handled, if I were playing.

Honorable mentions:

Kerry Fraser – best in positioning. his main weakness is a tendency
towards occcasional, really visible floopers. Most of the time he’s
a great ref. His mistakes tend to be very noticable.

Bill McCreary – Another good ref. He especially has impressed me with
his willingness to work with the junior refs, both and cheerleader
and mentor. Not all senior refs are so, well, enthusiastic about the
junior refs.

Terry Gregson – watching him ref a game this weekend, I suddenly
realized what he reminded me of. Gregson comes across to me as the
grampa on the pond watching the neighborhood kids play — and he
treats the game that way. His skating style is quite distinctive,
and lends itself to this interpretation. Gregson should take this as
a compliment, by the way.

Rookie division:

Shane Heyer: Liked him as a linesman. So far, I think he’s coming along
well as a young ref. Unlike refs brought in from other leagues, he
knows the speed and intensity, and that gives him a leg up. He needs
to be more assertive (but most of the rookie refs need to be).

Mike Leggo: As I was going through the list of refs looking for names I
wanted to mention, I finally realized that unlike some of the
younger refs (like Joanette), I finally realized I’d seen Leggo ref
a number of times, and didn’t have anything bad to say about him. In
actuality, I’ve seen him in person at least three times this season,
and on TV another four or five times — and he’s a solid ref that
reminds me a lot of Walkom.

My three least favorite refs:

Veteran division

Dave Jackson — One thing I watch closely is how players react with
jackson. The word that comes to mind with Jackson is “arrogant’.
Many nights, it’s as if the players bristle as soon as they see him
on the ice, and I find jackson very weak at managing game flow or
keeping games under control when the games get edgy. He tends to
wait too long to clamp down, then clamps down too hard. If the
players reaction to him says anything, he’s not their favorite, and
his interactions with the players aren’t team-building (the way a
Paul Stewart will take the time to explain things to players, for
instance).

Mick McGeough — A good ref with a bad temper. Okay, a decent ref with a
bad temper. I’ve seen numerous games that go along this lines:
McGeough makes a call. Players yap a bit. McGeough gets angry.
Something else happens. Another player yaps. McGeough’s neck (and/or
face) goes red, and he starts yapping back. Sometime after that, bad
calls start. There are certain players that also seem to be on
McGeough’s list. It’s a common joke in San Jose that when McGeough
refs, Bryan Marchment ought to just start the game in the penalty
box. While there are nights when Mush probably SHOULD — McGeough,
IMHO, goes beyond “not cutting him a break”, and refs a biased game
against Mush. If he could manage his temper, he’d be a good ref. But
from what I’ve seen, he can’t, and he lets his temper affect the
games he refs — and that’s not acceptable to me.

Dave Jackson (again) — if it wasn’t obvious, if there was one ref I’d
throw out of the game…

Dennis LaRue — Just doesn’t seem to be able to hack the speed of the
NHL game, IMHO. His positioning is weak, he tends to be behind the
play, and I’m just not impressed with how he calls a game.

Rookie division:

Marc Joannette
Tom Kowal
Both of these baby refs just seem overmatched by the NHL. In a
couple of games I saw these guys ref, they were almost dangerous to
the players and themselves. This is not, I should not, to be
considered a fatal flaw. Anyone who remembers the early days of
Steve Walkom’s NHL career probably wouldn’t believe he’d end up high
on my list of refs. But right now, I’d take these two and put them
in a lesser league for more seasoning. Neither one is, IMHO, up to
snuff in the NHL right now.

What makes a well-reffed game, my opinion:

I agree with most of what other’s have said: I want to see refs who
aren’t afraid to make calls that need to be made, but don’t get bogged
down in calling trivia. You don’t want to go home talking about the ref.

Now having said that, I’m afraid many fans judge a ref based on how they
treated the home team: far too many fans think anyone touching “their”
guy is a penalty, and “their” guys don’t ever commit penalties (some
players sure feel that way, also. I believe Chris Pronger thinks he’s
never committed a penalty in his career. keith Tkachuk is even worse
about whining about obvious penalties).

the reality is: players have the ability to fight for a puck. Penalties
occur when one takes an unfair advantage to win that fight, not just
because he knocks someone on their butt or off the puck. Which is okay,
until it’s our guy falls down (as I like to say, if it’s Tony Granato,
he’s a tough, gritty player. If it’s Jeremy Roenick, he’s a goon…)

Things I look for when evaluating refs:

o Do they keep the game under control? Or does it spin into street
fighting? Some nights, nothing matters, but over time, some refs
consistently manage games, and some refs — don’t.

o Consistency: in many different directions: do they call against both
teams fairly? Are penalties in the first period penalties in the third?
Are there players they pick on? Or cut excessive slack to? (I ought to
note, however, that there are situations where slack-cutting ought to be
done. A power forward, by definition of their game, is going to have
many fewer rough/slash/hold/etc calls made based on players ON them,
because that’s waht they dish out. Within reason, I have no problem with
refs using “as ye sew, so shall ye reap” in dishing out penalties, too.
Teemu Selanne or Mike Modano don’t play the same game as Bob Probert or
Doug Weight. I have no problem at all giving Weight more slack, but he
has to accept being slacked, too…)

o Interaction with the everyone else on the ice. Some refs have a good
rapport on the ice. Some — don’t.

o Presence. Unlike some, I do NOT have a problem when a referee injects
some personality or presence into a game: to a point. In the early- to
mid-90′s, it was fairly common to see a “kerry fraser” game or a “Paul
stewart game”. Stewart, being an ex-player, had a very good feel for how
players wanted a game called, but it was no coincidence my nickname for
him was “no blood no foul”. He let the boys play. Other refs — didn’t.
This is a Good Thing; similar to different rinks having differing
characteristics: the four of us who remember the Cow Palace, or people
who remember the old buildings in Chicago and Boston, understand what
I’m getting at here. In football, the different stadiums allow you to
build teams that benefit from the environment they play in. In today’s
hockey, they’re trying to standardize all of the refs to the same game
style, and all of the buildings are basically the same now. I do NOT
consider this vanilla-ization of the game to be good. it makes things
more generic. Nobody could question the “home ice” advantage of Boston
Gardens or the crowd in chicago. Both are gone in today’s NHL. And it
used to be some refs called games that were more to one team’s
preference than another; as long as referee placement is unbiased, I see
that as another way to build some complexity and variability into a game
rapidly being forced into vanilla pudding status. (note: I am not
saying then referee should FAVOR one team or another. But by having
different referees calling games somewhat differently — within the same
standard parameters — adds flavor to the game.

The bottom line, however, is “did he bias the game? did is decide a
game?” — and it needs to be noted, the ref that decides a game through
a NON-call pissed me off more than the ref that decides a game through a
bad call, because the ref making the non-call didn’t have the guts to
amke that call in a key situation, and IMHO, those refs shouldn’t be on
the ice.

What’s wrong with the NHL?

I think the NHL is generally doing a good job. I think the two ref system is
a big improvement on the single-ref ssytem: the key advantage of the second
ref is not, in fact, the penalties he calls, but the infractions that don’t
happen because the players knows he’s watching. The amount of
behind-the-play garbage is down significantly, and that can directly be
attributed to the second ref. Players just don’t take that sneaky shot, or
trip a defenseman trying to get back in the play, or any of that garbage
nearly as often as they used to, and that’s good for the game.

There’s a fair amount of criticizm laid at the two ref system. some of it is
valid: inconsistencies between refs, a tendency towards being too passive by
the junior refs, certain logistical issues — are all valid issues. But they
are mostly technical tweaks. As the junior refs mature and everyone gets
comfortable with the system, these issues will work themselves out.

What bothers me about some of the griping of the two ref system (and a good
example of it is the Sabres TV announcers, who I generally enjoy listening
to…) are their griping about broken things that were broken (usually
worse) under the one ref system. The two ref system isn’t a panacea. It’s
not a failure because it didn’t fix everything overnight. There are still
problems in the game. And most of those problems aren’t the refs: they’re
there because the refs are told how to ref things, because that’s how the
players, and the coaches, and the board of governors (mostly the GM’s) want
it done that way. And yes, in many cases, those are the same people griping
about it later. The refs can’t win…

Which leads me to, of course…

How to improve reffing in the NHL:

Which mostly boils down to “how to change the rules and interpretations to
make for a better game”

First on my list is: consistency. I don’t believe team-bias or player-bias
consistency is a major problem, but period-bias is. If it’s a penalty in the
first, folks, it needs to be a penalty in the third. Whistle swallowing is
the NHL’s biggest problem, and I think it is the majore creditbility issue
with refs, and the second-biggest for the NHL in general to the outside
universe (after fighting).

Referees have to get out of whistle-swallowing late in a game. set the tone
in the first. Maintain that tone to the last buzzer. Referees don’t want to
“decide the game” — but the non-call STILL biases the bloody game; it only
biases it to the team willing to break the rule and take the chance on a
penalty. Which teams do, because they get away with it so often. And that
leads to teams pushing the rules elsewhere in the game, beacuse, well, they
can get away with it, and they get rewarded. Penalties are penalties. Too
bad refs don’t see it that way. All this does is encourage late-game
thuggery, and the thugs tend to win the battles and the games too often. If
the NHL is trying to get the “skill” players to shine, this, not
interference issues, is the first one to fix, because late in the game, how
is a skill player supposed to shine when Zdeno Chara has wrapped his arms
around him and is sitting on him in the faceoff circle? And you know that 8
times out of ten, Chara (or the guys like him on every team in the league)
won’t get called.

A side-issue of this is the power play. Referees have to come to grips with
the reality that if it’s a penalty during five-on-five, it’s STILL a penalty
during a power play. Again, the referee’s unwillingness to call that second
penalty only encourages thuggery and hurts the skill players.

A penalty is a penalty. A penalty is not “a penalty except during power
plays or late in the third period”. Until the referees are told clearly to
change this, and are supported by the league and GMs when they do — reffing
is going to look biased to the non-fan or casual fan. And they may well be
right. I see this as a huge problem in trying to get the NHL accepted by the
general public. Can you conceive of the NFL condoning situations where a
referee stops calling holding because the game is late and they’re trying to
keep within the three hour TV window? But the NHL is, basically, doing that,
and legitimizing it. And it’s not the refs. it’s a lack of support from the
league, especially the board of governors, when the refs TRY to. So they
stop trying.

After consistency, we need to fix interference, once and for all. I
definitely do NOT enjoy watching hockey games with 15 or 16 minor penalties,
and in general I’m in favor of letting stuff go that doesn’t impact the
play, but that doesn’t imply that I’m in the “if it’s not a scoring chance,
it’s not a penalty” camp some fans (and refs) are in.

If you want to bring the game back to the skill players, you have to do
something about interference. If you don’t, you’re giving the game to the
thugs, the skating area rugs and the water skiers and grappling hooks.
Referees could solve a lot of the problem by getting serious about calling
penalties when players impede someone trying to get back in the play. We’ve
all seen it: the play turns over and transitions. You get a three on two
building in center ice, and one of the three gets picced and is out of the
play. Or a defender tries tog et back, and an offensive player hooks and
skis behind him, slowing him down. These all impact plays, by not allowing
the play to develop in the first place. The referee can’t wait until someone
is in the slot to decide the interference is impacting the play, they have
to get serious about stopping this stuff any time it happens. I’m actually
more tolerant of the holding and stuff that goes on in the offensive zone,
since most of it are various aspects of fighting for the puck. Defensive
zone and neutral zone interference, away from the puck, I’d say “no
tolerance. none. zero”. I’m actually pretty happy with how the offensive
zone is called these days, though. Once the fight for the slot begins, let
them fight it out. Don’t, however, let them prevent that fight from
beginning with interference behind and away from the play.

Then let’s fix high-sticking. I’m a real bastard about protecting the head.
There have been just too many eye, face, and head injuries, too many guys
lost to concussions. Because of this, I have a no tolerance for any hit to
the head, or any stick to the head. it’s really simple, IMHO: any elbow or
forearm that contacts the head is a five minute major. We’ve all see these
hits far too often, when a player (and yes, Bryan Marchment is one of them)
comes in elbow first, aimed at the ear. let’s get serious about getting
those elbows down. you want to hit shoulder to shoulder, great. You go in
higher, go to the box. In a similar vein, ANY stick to the face or head is
four minutes. Blood is five. Flagrant hits are five and a game. Until the
league gets seriosu, the players won’t. Make these hits hurt — and the hits
will go away.

I’d also like to know when cross-checking became legal in the slot? If you
watch older games from the 70′s and even into the 80′s, when a defenseman
tried to clear the slot area, it was with his body and shoulder. Somewhere
along the way, defensemen got taught to simply take the stick and pound the
crap out fo someone until he falls down or gets the hint and leaves (Chris
Pronger is a great example of this, but he’s one of dozens….). And
referees let it happen. Cross-checks are supposed to be illegal. Start
calling them. Defensemen will gripe like crazy, because some of them will be
unable to clear the slot using their body strength, but you know what?
That’s how it ought to be. I’m very tired of watching repeated, uncalled
kidney shots, and it happens pretty much every game, every night.

The league also needs to get serious about slashing — just ask Pavel Bure.
I don’t mind a slash to the stick, or even (within reason) to the leg pads
as part of a defensive play. But, touch the hands, touch the arms — go to
the box. There’s a lot of dirty slashing (Vinnie Damphousse is a master at
it) that shouldn’t be allowed, and it leads to injuries. This ties in to
some degree iwth the whole issue of interference: slower guys use the stick
to beat down faster guys that otherwise, they’d have trouble defending.
Here’s a hint: improve your defense. My motto: use a stick, go to jail. For
at least two.

I’ve got some other thoughts, but these are the major ones. Let’s fix them
– and then see what still needs to be fixed…..

cat resolutions

(thanks to vicster for sending this along…)

I will not run through the house with a condom
wrapper in my mouth, especially when my human’s grandmother
is over.

My human will never let me eat her pet rat, and I am
at peace with that.

I will not leap into my human’s chair which she has
temporarily vacated, and then bite my human on the
bum when she sits back down.

I will not puff my entire body to twice its size for
no reason after my human has finished watching a
horror movie.

I will not sniff at my male human’s feet after he
takes his shoes off, freeze my mouth open in disgust
and then sniff my private parts to compare odors.
My female human might find it amusing, but my male
human does not appreciate it, especially in front of
company.

I will not slurp fish food from the surface of the
aquarium.

I must not help myself to Q-tips, and I must
certainly not proceed to stuff them down the sink’s drain.

I will not bite my human on the rear while she is
sitting on the Big White Drinking Bowl.

I will not eat large numbers of assorted bugs, hen
come home and puke them up so the humans can see
that I’m getting plenty of roughage.

I will not lean way over to drink out of the tub,
fall in, and then pelt right for the box of clumping cat
litter. (It took FOREVER to get the stuff out of my
fur.)

I will not stand on the bathroom counter, stare down
the hall, and growl at NOTHING after my human has
finished watching The X-Files.

When my human is taking a bubble bath, the two
pinkish-brown things sticking up out of the bubbles
in her chest region are NOT to be played with!

I will not fish out my human’s partial plate from
the glass so that the dog can “wear” it and pretend to
be my human. (It is somewhat unnerving to wake up, roll
over in bed, and see the dog grinning at you with
your own teeth.)

I will not use the bathtub to store live mice for
late-night snacks.

I will not drag dirty socks up from the basement in
the middle of the night, deposit them on the bed and
yell at the top of my lungs (Burmese LOUD yowling)
so that my human can admire my “kill.”

I will not knead my male human’s groin at 2 a.m.
with claws extended. It seems to cause him some
discomfort and he wakes up all grumpy.

I will not perch on my human’s chest in the middle
of the night and stare into her eyes until she wakes
up.

We will not play Herd of Thundering Wildebeests
Stampeding Across the Plains of the Serengeti over
my humans’ bed while they’re trying to sleep.

Screaming at the can of food will not make it open
itself.

I am a (neutered) cat, not a peacock, and prancing
around with my tail fluffed up will not make my
balls grow back.

I cannot leap through closed windows to catch birds
outside. If I forget this and bonk my head on the
window and fall behind the couch in my attempt, I
will not get up and do the same thing again.

I will not assume the patio door is open when I race
outside to chase leaves.

I will not back up off the front porch and fall into
the bushes just as my human is explaining to his
girlfriend how graceful I am.

I will not complain that my butt is wet and that I
am thirsty after sitting in my water bowl.

I will not intrude on my human’s candlelit bubble
bath and singe my butt off.

I will not stick my paw into any container to see if
there is something in it. If I do, I will not hiss
and scratch when my human has to shave me to get the
rubber cement out of my fur.

If I bite the cactus, it will bite back.

It is not a good idea to try to lap up the powdered
creamer before it dissolves in boiling coffee.

Just because I hear voices in my head, I do not have
to answer them.

When I am chasing my tail and catch my back leg
instead, I will not bite own on my foot. This hurts,
and my scream scares my human.

When it rains, it will be raining on all sides of
the house. It is not necessary to check every door.

Birds do not come from the bird feeder. I will not
knock it down and try to open it up to get the birds
out.

I will not stuff my rather large self into the
rather small bird feeder (with my tail hanging out one
side) and expect the birds to just fly in.

I will not teach the parrot to meow in a loud and
raucous manner.

The dog can see me coming when I stalk her. She can
see me and will move out of the way when I pounce,
letting me smash into floors and walls. That does
not mean I should take it as a personal insult when my
humans sit there and laugh.

Yes, there are still two very large dogs in the
backyard. There have been for several years. I don’t
have to act as if I’ve just discovered the Demon
Horror of the Universe each time one of them appears
in my window.

I will not play “dead cat on the stairs” while
people are trying to bring in groceries or laundry, or else
one of these days, it will really come true.

When the humans play darts, I will not leap into the
air and attempt to catch them.

I will cease my obsession with the box my humans
keep their condoms in. This box is not for me. I will not
knock it on the ground, I will not sit on it, I will
not try to scratch it open. Especially when my
humans are using the condoms.

I will not swat my human’s head repeatedly when
she’s on the family room floor trying to do sit ups.

When my human is typing at the computer, her
forearms are *not* a hammock.

Computer and TV screens do not exist to back light
my lovely tail.

I am a walking static generator. My human doesn’t
need my help installing a new board in her computer.

I will not bring the city police to the front door
by stepping on the speaker phone button and then the
automatic 911 dial button.

I will not speed dial the overseas numbers.

I will not walk on the keyboard when my human is
writing important Emma gnaioerp ga3qi4 taija3tgv
aa35a.

Any critter that lives in the house (hamsters) stay
in the house and any wild critters (frogs and
earthworms) stay outside. I am not allowed to set the hamster
free in exchange for finding a frog to put in the fish
tank.

I will not stalk the deer in the apple orchard next
door. They have sharp hooves and could hurt me if
they weren’t laughing so hard.

I will not watch the guinea pig constantly as the
guinea pig likes to sleep once in a while.

The goldfish likes living in water and should be
allowed to remain in its bowl.

I will not put a live vole in my food bowl and
expect it to stay there until I get hungry.

I will not eat spider plants and hallucinate behind
the toilet.

I will not drag the magnets (and the papers they are
holding up) off of the refrigerator and then bat
them underneath it so that they adhere to the underside.

I will learn to relax at the vet’s office so they will
start writing things in my records like “Good Kitty”
and “Sweet Kitty” instead of the stuff that’s there
now like “MEAN!!”, “BITER!!!”, and “GETHELP!!!!!”

I promise I will meditate more closely upon the
causal relationship between going dumpster diving on Sunday
afternoon and projectile vomiting Monday, and being
brought to the Evil Place Where They Stick Things Up
My Butt on Tuesday evening. I realize that if I
hadn’t done the first, none of the other things would have
happened.

I don’t need to check my male human’s aim in the
bathroom.

I will not be miffed at my human all day and then
kiss her on the nose at 2:00 a.m. to tell her that she is
forgiven and can now pet me.

I will not scratch the children of lawyers, no
matter how much they chase me or how hard they pull my
tail.

If I must give a present to my human’s overnight
guests, my toy mouse is much more socially
acceptable than a live cockroach, even if it isn’t as tasty.

I will not soak my catnip toy in the water bowl to
make tea. I will not get high and sit there drinking
my tea and kneading the floor afterwards. I will not
then get delusions of grandeur and make tea in the
toilet bowl or the tub. And I will not try to make
tea with used socks, dirty panties or hair scrunches
when my humans take the catnip toy away from me.

A warm pepperoni pizza is not a good place for a
nap

Ding, Dong! The Witch is Dead!

But first — please allow me to stand up and send a personal standing
ovation to Kelly Buchberger, who just skated in his 1000th NHL game.
Longtime Oiler, former captain in Edmonton and now skating for LA,
Buchberger is one of those character guys — doesn’t score a lot, isn’t a
big PIM guy, but he always seems to be around teams that are winners. He can
be an amazing pain to play against, but he’s the kind of guy most teams want
playing for them. Been a fan of his for many years, and I’m glad to see him
hit that milestone.

Also, a virtual get-well card to Blues forward Scott Young. Young was
whapped in the face with a high stick from Sharks Shawn Heins, and was later
found to have a torn retina in one eye. Laser surgery is supposedly
successful, but he’s out indefinitely, and his position on the US Olympic
team is in doubt. The NHL loses another good player to another eye injury
(remember last season, when Al MacInnis was hit by Scott Hannan and almost
had his career ended?) — but the choice of wearing a visor is still left up
to the player. It seems the NHL can force safety changes on equipment to
protect players from concussions (changes that are welcome but also long
overdue), but it’s evidently okay with the league if we have players keep
losing eyes, and the league keeps losing players to eye injuries.

We might as well go back to the days when helmets were optional, folks. Make
all safety gear optional. Or better yet, make visors optional — but if you
don’t wear a visor, you can’t wear a cup. That’d get the player’s attention.
Funny how some parts of the body get plenty of protection, but eyes, I
guess, are optional. Guess we know what part of the body athletes think
with, no?

– Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!

The sound you hear in the background is singing inside the bowels of
Arrowhead Pond. Disney exec Tony Tavares, the idiot in charge of the Ducks
and the Angels, has resigned to start a sports management consulting
business.

Tavares is the person who was put in charge of the Disney Sports franchises
by Michael Eisner. People probably forget this, but the Ducks used to sell
out their hockey games. They even won hockey games at times, at least until
1997, when Tavares fired then-coach Ron Wilson for refusing to, um,
cooperate with Tavares. The team currently ranks last in NHL attendance.

Tavares was not well-liked in Anaheim. He didn’t have a sports background,
he was a building-management guy. He tried to build teams the way Disney
cast movies: a couple of big stars, surrounded by spear carriers. He
interfered with the GM and the coach, rumor has it he refused player deals
because of marketing reasons (including at least one deal involving goalie
Guy Hebert, when he still actually had trade value), and had an ego the size
of, well, a Disney exec, which is ultimately what cost Ron Wilson, his job
and the Ducks any chance of being taken seriously. He won’t be missed.

The only question now is — what next? Will the Ducks get a hockey person in
there to rebuild the franchise? Or continue to babysit the thing as they
hope to unload it on some other sucker, now that the sheen is off owning a
sports franchise and they realize it takes work, not money, to make one
successful? I’m betting on the latter — I’m not convinced Disney is willing
to commit to making the Ducks work, and I’m not sure they haven’t poisoned
that region, too. Will fans return? I don’t know, but it’ll be a hard sell.

Hate to say it, because I think the LA area has shown it can and will
support two hockey teams if those teams are run decently, but Tony Tavares
may have made it that much easier for Paul Allen to buy into the NHL.

And the only reason the signers aren’t singing louder is because that song
belongs to a different studio. Royalties, you know. But Anaheim is a
textbook example of a franchise gone wrong because they put the focus on
everything but winning — you can’t let your marketing department define
your hockey operations, and you can’t let the ego of the boss dominate the
organization. Disney needs to do the smart thing: put a good numbers guy in
charge of those operations (they could do a lot worse than tracking down
former Penguins president Donn Patton and offering him the job; he did a
great job keeping the Pens alive until Mario bought them, and understands
how to build a team under budget, and build fan interest under trying
circumstances), and then find a good GM/Coach and leaving them alone to fix
the team.

But I doubt it’ll happen.

All sports teams need to look closely at the disaster in Anaheim and
realize: it’s the game, stupid. While I’ll be the first to admit that
mascots, intermission entertainment, music, fun, games, and all that other
stuff makes going to a hockey game more interesting, especially to the
casual fan (and those of us who are hard-core fans might lift our noses, but
we’re a tiny minority of the ticket-buyers, and those casual fans support
the game we love; at least until they stop showing up!) — none of that
makes you buy a frigging ticket. Winning teams make you buy tickets, and any
franchise that forgets this is in deep trouble long-term. That other “stuff”
might slow down the drop in sales for a while, but it won’t stop it. And
once they leave, it’s a bitch convincing them to come back; and they won’t
come back until you start winning.

While I think it’s important to continue working to make coming to a game
entertaining and increase the fan’s perceived value for their dollar (or
more, since the Duck’s average ticket price is $50) — teams can’t lose
sight of the fact that if you don’t win, or at least aren’t competitive and
interesting, nothing else matters. Doesn’t matter how tight the skirts are
on the cheerleaders at that price, folks.

– Good News on the TV front

Good news on the television ratings front. The first week of broadcasts on
ABC drew a 2.0 rating, up from 1.5 for the first game a year ago. Last
season the ABC broadcasts averaged a 1.1 rating, so this is an encouraging
start.

– Whither goeth Prince Edward Island?

Well, not the island, but the team. A few years ago, the Ottawa Senators
bought the PEI AHL franchise. It still owns it, although for the last couple
of years, it’s been kept up on a shelf in the hall closet. The Senators are
interested in taking it out and playing with their toy again, though, so
expect it to find a new home soon. Detroit also has an idle AHL franchise
it’d like to resurrect. But where? According to the KC Star, maybe Kansas
City. KC is having its first hockey season in over a decade with no pro
hockey, since the Blades finally went away. They came close to landing an
AHL franchise, but the Sharks placed the former Kentucky thoroughblades in
Cleveland. Now, the Senators are looking at KC as a possible home for their
franchise. Beyond that, the AHL is looking to, over time, expand to 30
teams, one for every NHL team, since the AHL is now the only minor league
for NHL teams to develop top-level talent in.

But is KC interested? Some in that town would prefer to find an NHL team and
relocate them — but Portland is always rumored to be first in line, and
Houston’s shown interest as well.

There are other cities interested in an AHL franchise, too (or perhaps in
some cases, the AHL is interested in convincing them to be interested): Las
Vegas, Long Beach, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Binghampton, San Diego and
Indianapolis are in the mix. Frankly, the AHL is stupid if they don’t get a
team in Oklahoma City yesterday: it’s shown tremendous support of hockey
over the years. And why even think of Long Beach? The Ice Dogs were a
well-run organization, and struggled massively there: the LA market is too
large and too major-league focussed to support minor league teams well. They
just get lost in the noise. San Diego is better, but the arena sucks. In
Vegas, the Thomas and Mack arena solved the problem of having to share space
with hockey teams by removing ice-making equipment, and nobody else has
built an arena that has shown any sign of wanting to share, because it makes
more money for a casino to leave it dark and put on high-margin special
events (read: fights) than to put a minor-league team in there for 40
nights. Having to actually schedule in a team hurts their date flexibility.
Indianapolis has a long history of supporting hockey franchises — for a
while. And then getting bored and forgetting about them until they fold.

If it were me — I’d tell Kansas city to give up on the NHL, and I’d put AHL
teams in KC, OKC and see if I could convince Vegas to show some interest. If
not, I’d take a close look at either Omaha or San Diego. But if I were the
AHL, I’d be careful taking these steps; I’d sit down with the NHL and try to
wwork out the same kind of arrangement minor league baseball teams have with
major league teams: every AHL franchise is guaranteed an affiliation and a
minimum level of support from an NHL team. Or else the AHL is asking for
troubel down the road in expanding too far and having the NHL not
cooperate…

– Actual Sharks content!

Yes, I’ll even talk about the Sharks.

Ten game unbeaten streak. Five game pointless streak. Then a series of
really good and really bad games, with lots of scoring. Fun, at least the
winning ones, but not Sharks hockey. Looks like the annual slump is here.
Except they’re still gathering a good hunk o’ points. If this IS the slump,
all I can say is I’ll take it.

53 points in 43 games. What can one say, but, well, woo hoo! go sharks!