the admiral

NHL 15-16: wife-beaters, adulterers, cokeheads, rapists, pill-poppers, AND METHODISTS

Recommended Posts

World Cup ticket prices are hilariously stupid...

Ranging from $1643 each the cheapest, to $4543 platinums.

I paid $420 for 3x 2010 Olympics tickets total ($140 per); USA v Switzerland, Canada v Norway, & Russia v Latvia.

Anyone paying north of fifteen hundred bucks for the NHLPA & NHL is out of their f'n mind.

Of course I learned that entire fact is error... not from the officially linked ticket source, rather message boards from the internets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-on-3 overtime sucks. I'm undecided whether it's actually better than a shootout or not.

It's worse, because there are so many holier-than-thou types that think 3-on-3 is somehow real hockey and the shootout is a gimmick. There's no great way to force a winner every game in the regular season. To paraphrase the honorable Judge Judy Scheindlin, 3-on-3 overtime is the NHL peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-on-3 overtime sucks. I'm undecided whether it's actually better than a shootout or not.

It's worse, because there are so many holier-than-thou types that think 3-on-3 is somehow real hockey and the shootout is a gimmick. There's no great way to force a winner every game in the regular season. To paraphrase the honorable Judge Judy Scheindlin, 3-on-3 overtime is the NHL peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

See, I was one of those types. I thought it would still have the elements of a regular game. Players playing their positions, playing defense, making passes, etc. Plus, with the initial returns from the AHL of the 3-on-3 lessening the occurrence of shootouts, I was on board. It was going to be exciting. Even the first time I saw it in the Ducks home opener against Vancouver, it scared me to death every time someone had the puck in the the Ducks zone, and was excited every time the Ducks had the puck in the other zone. There was always a threat, what a thrill.

But with each increasing exposure, I hate it more and more. Yes, there is always a threat of scoring, and that's what's ridiculous. Like the shootout, It's not indicative of the better team in a game or even who is more skilled. It's a wait until who makes the first mistake. Who gives up the first breakaway.

Is my early dislike partially due to the Ducks sucking in it? Sure. The Ducks keep trying to slow the game down and possess the puck and wait, but that's not how it works. The way to play 3-on-3 is charge forward and play fast. You can and will get caught on the other end that way, but the same happens when you try to play slow against teams pushing against you. (Especially when you pull a no-look drop pass on the blue line, Getzlaf. Or when the only defenseman on the ice is standing in the offensive crease, Fowler.)

If anything, 3-on-3 has made me hate the shootout less because at least we survived the Russian roulette round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3-on-3 overtime sucks. I'm undecided whether it's actually better than a shootout or not.

It's worse, because there are so many holier-than-thou types that think 3-on-3 is somehow real hockey and the shootout is a gimmick. There's no great way to force a winner every game in the regular season. To paraphrase the honorable Judge Judy Scheindlin, 3-on-3 overtime is the NHL peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

See, I was one of those types. I thought it would still have the elements of a regular game. Players playing their positions, playing defense, making passes, etc. Plus, with the initial returns from the AHL of the 3-on-3 lessening the occurrence of shootouts, I was on board. It was going to be exciting. Even the first time I saw it in the Ducks home opener against Vancouver, it scared me to death every time someone had the puck in the the Ducks zone, and was excited every time the Ducks had the puck in the other zone. There was always a threat, what a thrill.

But with each increasing exposure, I hate it more and more. Yes, there is always a threat of scoring, and that's what's ridiculous. Like the shootout, It's not indicative of the better team in a game or even who is more skilled. It's a wait until who makes the first mistake. Who gives up the first breakaway.

Is my early dislike partially due to the Ducks sucking in it? Sure. The Ducks keep trying to slow the game down and possess the puck and wait, but that's not how it works. The way to play 3-on-3 is charge forward and play fast. You can and will get caught on the other end that way, but the same happens when you try to play slow against teams pushing against you. (Especially when you pull a no-look drop pass on the blue line, Getzlaf. Or when the only defenseman on the ice is standing in the offensive crease, Fowler.)

If anything, 3-on-3 has made me hate the shootout less because at least we survived the Russian roulette round.

Im even more in favour now of playing 60 minutes of hockey and ending the game in a tie if nothing happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three-on-three hockey is an abomination, but NO TIES, TIES NEVER.

Again, the third/one-point outcome is the problem, not anything else. If the only choice is whether you win or lose -- not win, lose, or kinda lose but not really -- there won't be any problems. I'd like to look at the last five years of playoff overtime games and see how many end relatively promptly (that is to say within the first ten minutes of the first overtime). I suspect most do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry the league added something that's too fun to watch for the delicate sensibilities of hockey fans. The Devils are on tonight, if you're seeking a salve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the Devils not in the bottom five of the league, anyway? Their roster blows. I knew getting rid of Lamoriello would turn the ship around, but not on a dime, I didn't think.

It's not that three-on-three isn't fun. I find shootouts fun too. But you can't abhor one and not the other. In practice, it turns out to be just as removed from regulation play as the shootout is, if not more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that three-on-three isn't fun. I find shootouts fun too. But you can't abhor one and not the other. In practice, it turns out to be just as removed from regulation play as the shootout is, if not more so.

Exactly.

It's wild hockey, but not a great way to decide a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Cup ticket prices are hilariously stupid...

Ranging from $1643 each the cheapest, to $4543 platinums.

I paid $420 for 3x 2010 Olympics tickets total ($140 per); USA v Switzerland, Canada v Norway, & Russia v Latvia.

Anyone paying north of fifteen hundred bucks for the NHLPA is out of their f'n mind.

Sheesh. $1643? We got a pair of lower-level tickets for the men's gold medal game in Vancouver for just under half of that amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wild hockey, but not a great way to decide a game.

Not to be confused with Wild hockey, which is when you try to clog up the neutral zone and pray that whichever goaltender you pulled out of someone else's ass can make 40 saves in a 2-1 win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World Cup ticket prices are hilariously stupid...

Ranging from $1643 each the cheapest, to $4543 platinums.

I paid $420 for 3x 2010 Olympics tickets total ($140 per); USA v Switzerland, Canada v Norway, & Russia v Latvia.

Anyone paying north of fifteen hundred bucks for the NHLPA is out of their f'n mind.

For what it's worth, and no matter how much James Mirtle tries to bury it, the $1,643 and $4,543 prices are for all 17 games. Obviously it means the cheapest ticket starts at $97 on the primary market, but it's the only chance Toronto fans will have at seeing NHL players win any sort of championship for a long while.

SqtvMYn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also includes the tax, so the actual price starts at $84 per game. More than I'd be willing to pay, but I guess they think they can get someone to pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's wild hockey, but not a great way to decide a game.

Not to be confused with Wild hockey, which is when you try to clog up the neutral zone and pray that whichever goaltender you pulled out of someone else's ass can make 40 saves in a 2-1 win.

Actually, last night, Wild hockey was wild hockey...it was actually 3-2 with 37 saves. It was their third OT of the year and second one I watched. And it was terrible. Kudos to the Wild for killing a 4-on-3 after committing a penalty and finding a way to win but why not just go directly to the shootout. I suppose 3-on-3 is a little more like hockey than a shootout. But not close enough.

Damn the 2002 MLB All-Star Game. That was the moment when North American sports fans unofficially declared war against ties. It's hockey. They play a ton of games and don't score a lot. Give us a five or 10-minute OT (5 on 5) and allow the game to end in a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through random franchise records, the 1981 Capitals had 18 ties out of 80 games. The '96 Blues had 16. The '96 Kings had 18, the '75 Kings had 21! We can't live in a world where a team can have ~25% of its games end in a tie! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through random franchise records, the 1981 Capitals had 18 ties out of 80 games. The '96 Blues had 16. The '96 Kings had 18, the '75 Kings had 21! We can't live in a world where a team can have ~25% of its games end in a tie! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

A couple of those were before OT existed (I am old enough to remember the North Stars having 20 ties...I went to my first NHL game around then; a 4-4 tie vs. the Caps).

But I am surprised the 1996 Kings had 18.

So what's the solution? Going back to your take, I am having trouble sorting out the sarcasm.

Three-on-three hockey is an abomination, but NO TIES, TIES NEVER.

Again, the third/one-point outcome is the problem, not anything else. If the only choice is whether you win or lose -- not win, lose, or kinda lose but not really -- there won't be any problems. I'd like to look at the last five years of playoff overtime games and see how many end relatively promptly (that is to say within the first ten minutes of the first overtime). I suspect most do.

I first read the bold as sarcasm, but perhaps not.

To your point that likely most OT games end in the first 10 minutes, then a ten-minute OT may be a decent solution. It's not totally impractical (like a potentially 3-OT game on a Tuesday in December) and should go a long way toward eliminating teams with double-digit ties.

I tend to agree that adding a third point to some games is goofy. But two points for "winning" on a shootout and zero for "losing" on a shootout is odd too since the game was realistically even. That's the problem with shootouts...it somewhat analogous to ending regular season MLB games tied after, say, 12 innings and going to a HR derby. Fans would love it, but the wins and losses would lose their integrity--the Red Sox beat the Blue Jays by one game in the East winning 6 HR derby's to Toronto's 1. (I am sure someone has crunched the numbers on the impacts of shootouts).

If we have to have shootouts (either because "no ties" or fans just like 'em too much), then I kinda like the "kinda lose but not really" point. I'd go three points for a win (regulation or 5on5 OT), but two for a shootout win and one for a shootout loss. I'd like all games to award the same number of points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back ties. Plain and simple. I know we Americans hate the good old 1 point kissing of our sisters but there is no good alternate solution. I don't mind the 3 on 3 OT but I can see why people oppose it. Is it better than a shootout? Yes. Is it much better? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first read the bold as sarcasm, but perhaps not.

No. I'm dead serious that all games should have winners and losers, like baseball, basketball, college football, and 99% of pro football. Hockey is a special sport. It's not that special. Come away from a game with a winner. I hate ties. I hate ties so much that I don't even wear neckties.

My ideal solution has always been ten minutes, long change, I can go either way on 5-on-5 or 4-on-4 but I'd prefer 5-on-5. Again, straight W-L eliminates the impetus to sandbag it.

But two points for "winning" on a shootout and zero for "losing" on a shootout is odd too since the game was realistically even.

ROW tiebreak addresses that, but again, teams will try harder to win without loser points. Here, no cushion means more pushin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also includes the tax, so the actual price starts at $84 per game. More than I'd be willing to pay, but I guess they think they can get someone to pay it.

Well, colour me stupid. However, that I'm learning that fact on a message board rather than you know, the actual official linked page, is silly.

17 games? Uh, no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back ties. Plain and simple. I know we Americans hate the good old 1 point kissing of our sisters but there is no good alternate solution. I don't mind the 3 on 3 OT but I can see why people oppose it. Is it better than a shootout? Yes. Is it much better? No.

I say bring back ties & commit to them for 3 seasons.

Fans want their own time more than makeshift hockey. It's not like the NHL hasn't given us what we thought we'd want - shootouts & 3 on 3.

What the NHL could do, is reward tie game ticket holders with some sort of NHL.com store voucher for $10-20 bucks or something. So while your game is ended 'without result' (which it is not, the tie is the result), fans can feel good about something I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.