Ryan Wilson: Phil Kessel's Ironman Streak In Jeopardy? Phil Kessel's Ironman Streak In Jeopardy?

I don't blame Jagr. Had him be chosen by one of those four teams anyone think he'd be Lindros 2.0?

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I wanted to get people's thoughts on this. Posted it on the Flyers' blog too, but I know a lot of people on here have talked about it. I apologize for the length.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To an extreme, imagine a very dull game with putrid goaltending where there is a ton of neutral zone play, with each team getting only 15-20 shots but the score being 6-5. Now, that’s a fairly high-scoring game, but it was be a very boring game for the most part. To the other extreme, imagine a game with tons of speed, hard hitting, great goaltending with scoring chance after scoring chance, each team having 45-50 shots on goal, and the final being a 2-1 game. In terms of excitement, that would be a much more exciting game.

Now, all things equal (which, of course, they are not), more shots would equal more goals, meaning that more goals would be the result of a more exciting game. But again, the speed and skill is what drives the game. So I have heard people complain that the league’s unwillingness to “call things by the book” would lead to a more goals. I disagree.

In the late 80s/early 90s, even as the butterfly was being adopted and goalies were wearing bigger pads, you had guys like Hull, Gretzky, and Lemieux putting up huge offensive numbers. In order to draw a penalty in those days, you had to be completely obvious. Guys were continually hooked, grabbed, held, and slashed without a call at all, and no one had an issue with league-wide offensive output.

Today, as much as people are “taking away from skill players” or what have you, there are more power plays generally than there were in the 80s/early 90s. Generally speaking, a team is more likely to score on a power play and at even strength. And you know what? Unless you have a personal interest in the game, a power play is the most boring part of hockey. Upon gaining the zone, the offensive team generally stands in place, passing around the perimeter. The defensive team stays in a box formation, and if they gain possession, they just haphazardly throw the puck down the ice. So, while a power play is more likely to result in a goal than a “skilled” 2 minutes of even strength, the result would be much more boring.

So, again, why do we feel the need to increase scoring? If the issue is to call more penalties in order to force teams to adapt to not hooking/holding/etc. then that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to watch several months of games with 20 penalties per team. Even after the fact, there will still be a host (6-7) of penalties per game, again, if the rule book is enforced to the letter (it is 100% impossible to play 60 minutes of high-level competitive hockey without taking a few penalties). It simply cannot be done. No, I have never played professional hockey, but I have played semi-pro against NHL-drafted players, and I can attest to this happening at that level.

I have also heard people complaining that the league is attempting to level the playing field between 1st line players and 4th line players. I would argue that 3rd/4th line players in today’s game are generally just closer in skill to 1st/2nd line players than they were in the 80s/90s. The “goon” role is all but gone, and players today are generally required to be able to skate an effective shift without being a liability to the team. Again, in the 80s/90s, a less skilled player would grope his way through a shift without being a liability. That is less the case today, and with all of the training and clinics of today’s players versus the alcoholism and chain smoking of yesteryear’s players, the discrepancy in skill is more based on the players than the officials.

Admittedly, I have done no research on the subject or numbers, and these are simply the observations from my eyes and ears. I have watched hockey avidly from the early 90s, watched full games from the 1980s, and have seen the game evolve during that time. So I am sure that there are some stat people out there who will try to refute every piece that I have said, and if that’s what gets you off, go for it. Regardless, my point still stands: Why do people feel a need to increase scoring in order to improve the game?

/end novel

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I wanted to get people's thoughts on this. Posted it on the Flyers' blog too, but I know a lot of people on here have talked about it. I apologize for the length.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To an extreme, imagine a very dull game with putrid goaltending where there is a ton of neutral zone play, with each team getting only 15-20 shots but the score being 6-5. Now, that’s a fairly high-scoring game, but it was be a very boring game for the most part. To the other extreme, imagine a game with tons of speed, hard hitting, great goaltending with scoring chance after scoring chance, each team having 45-50 shots on goal, and the final being a 2-1 game. In terms of excitement, that would be a much more exciting game.

Now, all things equal (which, of course, they are not), more shots would equal more goals, meaning that more goals would be the result of a more exciting game. But again, the speed and skill is what drives the game. So I have heard people complain that the league’s unwillingness to “call things by the book” would lead to a more goals. I disagree.

In the late 80s/early 90s, even as the butterfly was being adopted and goalies were wearing bigger pads, you had guys like Hull, Gretzky, and Lemieux putting up huge offensive numbers. In order to draw a penalty in those days, you had to be completely obvious. Guys were continually hooked, grabbed, held, and slashed without a call at all, and no one had an issue with league-wide offensive output.

Today, as much as people are “taking away from skill players” or what have you, there are more power plays generally than there were in the 80s/early 90s. Generally speaking, a team is more likely to score on a power play and at even strength. And you know what? Unless you have a personal interest in the game, a power play is the most boring part of hockey. Upon gaining the zone, the offensive team generally stands in place, passing around the perimeter. The defensive team stays in a box formation, and if they gain possession, they just haphazardly throw the puck down the ice. So, while a power play is more likely to result in a goal than a “skilled” 2 minutes of even strength, the result would be much more boring.

So, again, why do we feel the need to increase scoring? If the issue is to call more penalties in order to force teams to adapt to not hooking/holding/etc. then that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to watch several months of games with 20 penalties per team. Even after the fact, there will still be a host (6-7) of penalties per game, again, if the rule book is enforced to the letter (it is 100% impossible to play 60 minutes of high-level competitive hockey without taking a few penalties). It simply cannot be done. No, I have never played professional hockey, but I have played semi-pro against NHL-drafted players, and I can attest to this happening at that level.

I have also heard people complaining that the league is attempting to level the playing field between 1st line players and 4th line players. I would argue that 3rd/4th line players in today’s game are generally just closer in skill to 1st/2nd line players than they were in the 80s/90s. The “goon” role is all but gone, and players today are generally required to be able to skate an effective shift without being a liability to the team. Again, in the 80s/90s, a less skilled player would grope his way through a shift without being a liability. That is less the case today, and with all of the training and clinics of today’s players versus the alcoholism and chain smoking of yesteryear’s players, the discrepancy in skill is more based on the players than the officials.

Admittedly, I have done no research on the subject or numbers, and these are simply the observations from my eyes and ears. I have watched hockey avidly from the early 90s, watched full games from the 1980s, and have seen the game evolve during that time. So I am sure that there are some stat people out there who will try to refute every piece that I have said, and if that’s what gets you off, go for it. Regardless, my point still stands: Why do people feel a need to increase scoring in order to improve the game?

/end novel
- jmatchett383

Not that I'd want to help the Penguins in any way, but why on Gods green earth is Kris Versteeg not on an NHL team? Somehow he went unsigned and is now playing in the Swiss league. He's not injured, he's a Stanley Cup vet who is defensively sound, drives possession and has decent speed to go along with decent scoring touch. He's certainly not Kessel but he could definitely slot right in on that 3rd line and they prob wouldn't miss a beat. Plus he would come very cheap. Again, not trying to help Pitt out, but it just seems like the smart thing to do.

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I wanted to get people's thoughts on this. Posted it on the Flyers' blog too, but I know a lot of people on here have talked about it. I apologize for the length.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To an extreme, imagine a very dull game with putrid goaltending where there is a ton of neutral zone play, with each team getting only 15-20 shots but the score being 6-5. Now, that’s a fairly high-scoring game, but it was be a very boring game for the most part. To the other extreme, imagine a game with tons of speed, hard hitting, great goaltending with scoring chance after scoring chance, each team having 45-50 shots on goal, and the final being a 2-1 game. In terms of excitement, that would be a much more exciting game.

Now, all things equal (which, of course, they are not), more shots would equal more goals, meaning that more goals would be the result of a more exciting game. But again, the speed and skill is what drives the game. So I have heard people complain that the league’s unwillingness to “call things by the book” would lead to a more goals. I disagree.

In the late 80s/early 90s, even as the butterfly was being adopted and goalies were wearing bigger pads, you had guys like Hull, Gretzky, and Lemieux putting up huge offensive numbers. In order to draw a penalty in those days, you had to be completely obvious. Guys were continually hooked, grabbed, held, and slashed without a call at all, and no one had an issue with league-wide offensive output.

Today, as much as people are “taking away from skill players” or what have you, there are more power plays generally than there were in the 80s/early 90s. Generally speaking, a team is more likely to score on a power play and at even strength. And you know what? Unless you have a personal interest in the game, a power play is the most boring part of hockey. Upon gaining the zone, the offensive team generally stands in place, passing around the perimeter. The defensive team stays in a box formation, and if they gain possession, they just haphazardly throw the puck down the ice. So, while a power play is more likely to result in a goal than a “skilled” 2 minutes of even strength, the result would be much more boring.

So, again, why do we feel the need to increase scoring? If the issue is to call more penalties in order to force teams to adapt to not hooking/holding/etc. then that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to watch several months of games with 20 penalties per team. Even after the fact, there will still be a host (6-7) of penalties per game, again, if the rule book is enforced to the letter (it is 100% impossible to play 60 minutes of high-level competitive hockey without taking a few penalties). It simply cannot be done. No, I have never played professional hockey, but I have played semi-pro against NHL-drafted players, and I can attest to this happening at that level.

I have also heard people complaining that the league is attempting to level the playing field between 1st line players and 4th line players. I would argue that 3rd/4th line players in today’s game are generally just closer in skill to 1st/2nd line players than they were in the 80s/90s. The “goon” role is all but gone, and players today are generally required to be able to skate an effective shift without being a liability to the team. Again, in the 80s/90s, a less skilled player would grope his way through a shift without being a liability. That is less the case today, and with all of the training and clinics of today’s players versus the alcoholism and chain smoking of yesteryear’s players, the discrepancy in skill is more based on the players than the officials.

Admittedly, I have done no research on the subject or numbers, and these are simply the observations from my eyes and ears. I have watched hockey avidly from the early 90s, watched full games from the 1980s, and have seen the game evolve during that time. So I am sure that there are some stat people out there who will try to refute every piece that I have said, and if that’s what gets you off, go for it. Regardless, my point still stands: Why do people feel a need to increase scoring in order to improve the game?

/end novel
- jmatchett383

I live in Canada. I play hockey with over 100 different guys spread across 3 to 4 different games a week. All my friends and family love hockey. I dont know a single person up this way that thinks the NHL needs more scoring. I honestly think the wanting of more scoring is an American thing.

Hockey gets exciting to me and everyone I know because of scoring chances, big saves and great hard, but clean, physical play.

Can we get Sid and Geno to sport the JOFA buckets this season to pay tribute?

Not that I'd want to help the Penguins in any way, but why on Gods green earth is Kris Versteeg not on an NHL team? Somehow he went unsigned and is now playing in the Swiss league. He's not injured, he's a Stanley Cup vet who is defensively sound, drives possession and has decent speed to go along with decent scoring touch. He's certainly not Kessel but he could definitely slot right in on that 3rd line and they prob wouldn't miss a beat. Plus he would come very cheap. Again, not trying to help Pitt out, but it just seems like the smart thing to do.
- SpeedBlue91

The 2009/2010 version of Kris Versteeg is gone. He's a defensive liability who has lost 2-3 steps and is terrified of physical contact. I wouldn't want him anywhere near my team.

Perhaps the injury is the reason kessel was "snubbed" by team USA this summer when he was passed over for the world cup?

@jmatchett383

Didn't want to quote your original post because of the length but I have been asking the same question for the last 2 years, while I definitely think there are things the league can do to make the game more entertaining creating empty scoring isn't the solution. If they removed the goalie and just played 6on6 games would be 40-39 but the game would be unbearable to watch. The excitement comes from the speed/skill that leads to the scoring not the actual scoring itself so making changes to allow for more speed/skill would absolutely increase the excitement and entertainment of the game.

Perhaps the injury is the reason kessel was "snubbed" by team USA this summer when he was passed over for the world cup?
- mlindsay

Sssshhh, you'll ruin the narrative.

I think RW is jumping the gun a little assuming that if Kessel isn't ready for Game 1 there will be wide-spread changes to the line, it will be 100% dependent on how much time Kessel will miss. If they only expect him to miss 3-5 games max then it would make no sense to juggling the top 3 lines to compensate for such a short time frame, the smarter move would be to keep lines 1, 2 & 4 how you would and simply plug someone into Kessel's spot on the HBK line for those few games.

It also doesn't necessarily mean it has to be Fehr and his .88/pts per 60 that fills that void. Depending on who ends up filling out the top 6 spots(Sheary/Wilson/Rust) you could slot the odd man out into that spot or they could choose to give 1 of the prospects like Guentzel or Simon and small taste for a few games if either has a really strong camp. Feels to me like the whole point was to just take a shot a Fehr because RW wanted him traded by pointing out his sub-par .88/pts per 60.

Perhaps the injury is the reason kessel was "snubbed" by team USA this summer when he was passed over for the world cup?
- mlindsay

He wasn't on the initial team either but Abdelkader was...

Perhaps the injury is the reason kessel was "snubbed" by team USA this summer when he was passed over for the world cup?
- mlindsay

They picked the team well before his injury and surgery was announced.

@Speedblue91

Quote feature isn't working for me. Regarding VerSteeg ... I always question the movement of a player. He has played 550 games played for Chicago ... Toronto ... Philly ... Florida ... back to Chicago and then onto LAK. Maybe some of the reasons are deficiencies. He is certainly better than many in this league. Then, maybe its fit. Have no clue.

God RW absolutely CANNOT post anything without mentioning his boyfriend Jiri (frank)ing Hudler

God RW absolutely CANNOT post anything without mentioning his boyfriend Jiri (frank)ing Hudler
- WhatstheMaatta

Hudler is the anti-Sutter.

I really don;t think it's fair to give Kessel credit for an iron man streak. "Iron" would indicate that he somehow survives abuse. Kessel has always shied away from physical play, corner play. He plays in the safe area and lets his team mates do the dirty work. Giving Kessel an iron man award is the equivalent of giving the princess, in princess and the pea, a perseverance award for sleeping on that bed of mattresses.

I really don;t think it's fair to give Kessel credit for an iron man streak. "Iron" would indicate that he somehow survives abuse. Kessel has always shied away from physical play, corner play. He plays in the safe area and lets his team mates do the dirty work. Giving Kessel an iron man award is the equivalent of giving the princess, in princess and the pea, a perseverance award for sleeping on that bed of mattresses.
- B-Wforever

Lame.

God RW absolutely CANNOT post anything without mentioning his boyfriend Jiri (frank)ing Hudler
- WhatstheMaatta

Damn you guys seriously get butt hurt over everything eh? Posting his rationale from his soap box is what the blog is for, I don't even think he was "taking a shot" at Fehr, just speaking realistically.

I really don;t think it's fair to give Kessel credit for an iron man streak. "Iron" would indicate that he somehow survives abuse. Kessel has always shied away from physical play, corner play. He plays in the safe area and lets his team mates do the dirty work. Giving Kessel an iron man award is the equivalent of giving the princess, in princess and the pea, a perseverance award for sleeping on that bed of mattresses.
- B-Wforever

Nah.

I really don;t think it's fair to give Kessel credit for an iron man streak. "Iron" would indicate that he somehow survives abuse. Kessel has always shied away from physical play, corner play. He plays in the safe area and lets his team mates do the dirty work. Giving Kessel an iron man award is the equivalent of giving the princess, in princess and the pea, a perseverance award for sleeping on that bed of mattresses.
- B-Wforever

I really don;t think it's fair to give Kessel credit for an iron man streak. "Iron" would indicate that he somehow survives abuse. Kessel has always shied away from physical play, corner play. He plays in the safe area and lets his team mates do the dirty work. Giving Kessel an iron man award is the equivalent of giving the princess, in princess and the pea, a perseverance award for sleeping on that bed of mattresses.
- B-Wforever

Jealous Toronto fan?

found it funny how espn made a team of the players that DIDN'T get selected and letang was STILL not on the team. but guys like cam fowler, john klingberg and tj brodie were. (frank)ing CAM FOWLER!

Damn you guys seriously get butt hurt over everything eh? Posting his rationale from his soap box is what the blog is for, I don't even think he was "taking a shot" at Fehr, just speaking realistically.
- j.boyd919

It's been all summer, man. All God damn summer.