Personally I was thrilled to see NA eliminated. Nothing highlighted the obnoxiousness of the Canadian hockey media like this team. They could do no wrong, despite giving up too many goals to Russia/Sweden and not knowing the tiebreaker rules. They were infinitely more talented top to bottom than the teams they played but every time they rushed the puck it was OMG IS THIS REALLY HAPPENING??? Time to get over it.
- DoubleDown

I wonder how many Habs were on the team?

Well, yes, and I think the point is, if you know that the rules are that you get through with head to head wins, or by goal differential, it's not really all that random when you're TRYING to win the games against those you're vying for a marginal spot against, or TRYING to win by as many goals as you can against all opponents.
- prock

I don't even care that they used the tie-breaker they did. The only reason I pointed it out was that they aren't playing due to the method they used. Another method could have logically been used (and maybe should have been) and they would have made it in.

The entire reason for bringing this up is because so many people where saying something to the effect of "their lack of experience was why they didn't get in" "The better team always gets in" "you need structure and their elimination proves it".

Those are moronic statements. In light of that BS narrative, I thought it prudent to mention that they were basically eliminated on a technicality, which they were.

So their losing doesn't prove anything.

It's actually kind of the opposite. Ovi isn't really that great of a hockey player. He does a few things well, and has one of the best wristers/one-timers ever. But, he does a lot of things..not well..at all. The criticism aimed at him about leadership, intangibles...just inane ramblings. But he has plenty to work on in regards to his actual game, but we're way past that point now.
- Blackstrom2

You score 50 per in today's game and you're truly elite. Full stop

You think one team beating the other is a stupid way to settle a tie?

That's how all playoffs are settled. Should playoffs be round robin format too?

Head to head is the ultimate way to settle a tie.
- prock

Yes, I do think that adding new meaning to an old game is incredibly stupid. To settle a tie, use something that encompasses all the games. Like goals for, goals against or goal differential.

I don't even care that they used the tie-breaker they did. The only reason I pointed it out was that they aren't playing due to the method they used. Another method could have logically been used (and maybe should have been) and they would have made it in.

- James_Tanner

I'm not sure what you're saying here, to be honest.

The entire reason for bringing this up is because so many people where saying something to the effect of "their lack of experience was why they didn't get in" "The better team always gets in" "you need structure and their elimination proves it".

- James_Tanner

Really/???? In a short tournament like this, or the Olympics, anything can happen. Being the best team gives you better odds, that's all. Truly, anything can happen. Hasek stole one of the Olympics singlehandedly, when he went on a tear, didn't he?

Those are moronic statements. In light of that BS narrative, I thought it prudent to mention that they were basically eliminated on a technicality, which they were.

So their losing doesn't prove anything.
- James_Tanner

Their losing doesn't prove anything. But I dont' think it's really a "technicality" either. They lost on a tiebreaker. A stated rule.

IMO, when things come down to a tiebreaker, it's rarely the rule you can blame it on. They coughed up 4 straight goals against Russia in 6 minutes. In a short tournament, unfortunately for them, that's a big enough reason.

Yes, I do think that adding new meaning to an old game is incredibly stupid. To settle a tie, use something that encompasses all the games. Like goals for, goals against or goal differential.
- James_Tanner

Yeah, and I think the point made was, it's not new meaning. They should know, when playing the game, that an OT win means less than a regulation win, because those are the rules. So, they should be playing for a regulation win.

That's like saying a loss in October shouldn't matter, because come April and May, it suddenly brings new meaning. It's the same meaning. They know the rules, they know a regulation win means more, they need to play for one. At ALL times.

I wonder how many Habs were on the team?
- Aetherial

I've noticed a common thing among Habs and Sens fans. Sens fans don't like the tournament at all (they have no talent on their team, and so no players in the tournament), and a lot of Habs fans hate Team NA (they have no good young players).

I don't think it's coincidence.

Yes, I do think that adding new meaning to an old game is incredibly stupid. To settle a tie, use something that encompasses all the games. Like goals for, goals against or goal differential.
- James_Tanner

How would you have felt being a Swede and knowing your team was eliminated because Russia got to play an eliminated Finnish team? Finland couldn't have looked more disinterested.

How would you feel when your team gets eliminated because of an empty net goal.

Goal differential, or goals for don't mean anything at any other point. How is it any more or less arbitrary than deciding regulation wins are more important.

At least rewarding regulation wins makes sense. If you were to describe the game of hockey to someone, you'd probably say it's 3 20 minute periods of 5v5 play. They changed the rules of hockey to make it easier to score in overtime so games wouldn't end in a tie.

I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Everyone knowing the rules doesn't effect whether or not something is arbitrary.

When you're deciding the game based on something meaningless, and almost random, that's arbitrary.
- James_Tanner

If you really want to knitpick about the definition, none of the tiebreaking procedures are arbitrary.

What you are saying is what a lot of people say. I think it's wrong. That's why I wrote what I wrote.
- James_Tanner

I like your blog and I respect your opinions... but wrong based on what? (yes Ovi is a great goal scorer, maybe the best since Mario).. but graphs don't count when your team loses in the second round every year and your surrounded by all stars!!!!

Yes, I do think that adding new meaning to an old game is incredibly stupid. To settle a tie, use something that encompasses all the games. Like goals for, goals against or goal differential.
- James_Tanner

Well NA and Russia were tied for goal differential.

Good read Tanner

I like your blog and I respect your opinions... but wrong based on what? (yes Ovi is a great goal scorer, maybe the best since Mario).. but graphs don't count when your team loses in the second round every year and your surrounded by all stars!!!!
- Brianandr1

So how are you going to explain the end of the JBO curse when Canada wins the World Cup??? HE NEVER WINS ANYTHING

The Caps were also stacked last year. Not fair to say Ovechkin doesn't have the luck playing with guys like Malkin, Kessel, and Letang when he has Kuz, Backstrom, and Oshie and probably the superior overall forward depth and definitely the superior goalie. Obviously he's not on Letang's level, but Carlson is very underrated and a worthy 1D.

Fact of the matter is that the Caps and the Pens were probably the two best teams in the league heading into last year's playoffs. Both teams probably would have kept advancing until they met each other. If they were in different conferences, they probably would have been the SCF. Unfortunately, they had to meet in the 2nd round.

Next year's a new year. Anything can happen. All likely hood says that either the Caps or the Pens will meet the Lightning in the ECF. Very possible next year could be the Caps' year. Hope not though.

ya he deserves better but I mean he only had 1 shot all game. He didn't do anything against canada

Goal differential is just as arbitrary and is also a technicality. Who cares if you win by two or you win by three. Sure offensive teams are more fun to watch, but are they automatically better than a team with a more defensive focus?

Why should Sweden get punished for not getting to play a game against an eliminated team? Finland had clearly checked out when they played Russia.

Unless they're going to let games go 5v5 until there's a winner, there's always going to be stupid tiebreaking procedures. I think the ones they have are about as good as they can do. Winning in regulation, 100% percent should be rewarded. They just need to stop rewarding losers.
- Hunkulese

"It doesn't matter if you win by and inch or a mile. Winning is winning."
-The Fast and the Furious

So how are you going to explain the end of the JBO curse when Canada wins the World Cup??? HE NEVER WINS ANYTHING
- The-O-G

JBO is not the captain or leader of his team. JBO is not considered one of the best players of his generation. The expections are completely different.

"It doesn't matter if you win by and inch or a mile. Winning is winning."
-The Fast and the Furious
- SolidGoldBricks

#winning

-Charlie Sheen

ya he deserves better but I mean he only had 1 shot all game. He didn't do anything against canada
- Bigern4MVP

Can someone please give me an example when OVI took over a playoff or Olympics, or world cup game and carried his team on his back!!!!!???

All champions have done that at least once. Crosby, Gretzky, Messier, on and on and on have ALL done it.

Ovi hasn't! Too one dimensional. Shoot, shoot, hit, run around, shoot, shoot, hit, etc.

He can only help his team by ripping that slap shot on the left side dot. If he doens't than he doesn't cotribute

I don't even care that they used the tie-breaker they did. The only reason I pointed it out was that they aren't playing due to the method they used. Another method could have logically been used (and maybe should have been) and they would have made it in.

The entire reason for bringing this up is because so many people where saying something to the effect of "their lack of experience was why they didn't get in" "The better team always gets in" "you need structure and their elimination proves it".

Those are moronic statements. In light of that BS narrative, I thought it prudent to mention that they were basically eliminated on a technicality, which they were.

So their losing doesn't prove anything.
- James_Tanner

But yet when TNA was winning and looked like they could get through you used it prove that experience is overrated. You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying that lack of experience is why they didnt make it through, but I do think team Europe making it to the finals proves that experience and structure is important when teams want to win meaningful games. It's not arbitrary that Europe made it to the finals.

Trouba can be the # 1 LHD on the team if he chooses. Team Canada is using 4 RHDs.
Lots of team use players on their wrong sides. BIG DEAL !

Tanner, I give the Yotes credit. They sure have an eye for talent. Teams keeps piling up lovely young ladies associated with it.

Rundblad sign anywhere yet?

I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Everyone knowing the rules doesn't effect whether or not something is arbitrary.

When you're deciding the game based on something meaningless, and almost random, that's arbitrary.
- James_Tanner

I don't think you know what effect means.

I don't even care that they used the tie-breaker they did. The only reason I pointed it out was that they aren't playing due to the method they used. Another method could have logically been used (and maybe should have been) and they would have made it in.

The entire reason for bringing this up is because so many people where saying something to the effect of "their lack of experience was why they didn't get in" "The better team always gets in" "you need structure and their elimination proves it".

Those are moronic statements. In light of that BS narrative, I thought it prudent to mention that they were basically eliminated on a technicality, which they were.

So their losing doesn't prove anything.
- James_Tanner

They were eliminated by the rules that they and everyone else was aware of heading in and judged by throughout the tournament. Call their elimination whatever you want, it came because they didn't succeed according to the rules of the game. Calling it a technicality now makes you a whiner.

Their losing proves that they weren't the best team in the tournament in September of 2016. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suck it up, Buttercup.

Your arguing this now makes you sound like an idiot.

I don't think you know what effect means.
- Not_Yan