Who needs sleeping pills with this hockey?

December 12th, 2007 by chuq

Who needs sleeping pills with this hockey?

Who needs sleeping pills with this hockey?:

The trick, then, is to change the philosophy, and that’s not as complicated as it sounds.

Instead of another reinterpretation of the rulebook, it is now incumbent on the NHL’s stewards to look beyond their narrow self-interests and embrace a new model for the game.

Owners have to hire GMs who favour an attacking style of hockey. GMs have to hire coaches who’ll play that game. Organizations then have to commit to this new brand.

It’s easier, of course, to get a good goalie and stack five guys up in front of him. But look at the bright side.

I agree in theory, but it’s easier said than done. The league doesn’t reward style or entertainment. It rewards goals. So we can talk all we want about hiring GM’s and coaches that play attacking hockey — teams will continue to hire coaches and GMs that win, because winning is what this game is ultimately about. And soemtimes you can build a team that wins in an attacking style, and smetimes you stack your defenders like cordwood around the crease and dare someone to 9-iron a puck over the goalie’s shoulder like a mini-golf course….

There’s no visible economic incentive to play entertaining but losing hockey, so teams won’t hire guys who do that.

Which, ultimately, goes back to the old “change the rulebook” thing. You want to encourage an entertaining/attacking style of hockey, the rules of the game need to be structured so that this kind of hockey can win games. Then teams will adopt it.

Otherwise, this discussion has no more relevance in the real world than the “players must respect each other” lectures. They must — but until the rules are structured so that players who don’t are penalized and that penalizes their teams, it’s all talk.

(hat tip: Kukla)