Pages

Friday, August 9, 2013

Responding to @DownGoesBrown's NHL Fixes

I am a big fan of Sean McIndoe, better known (to me at least) by his blog name Down Goes Brown, and have been ever since I found his blog. I've been fortunate enough to still be able to breathe normally after laughing at such gems as this and this and this

McIndoe's latest post on Grantland identifies 23 different ways (or sub-headings) to fix the NHL game right now. Give it a read because, while I do vehemently agree with certain changes that need to be changed yesterday, I feel that some changes either do nothing to solve the original problem, aren't really a problem in the first place, or make the problem worse. Don't worry, I'll give you a minute.

Done yet? Good. I'll respond point by point only on the points on which I disagree. 

"Fix the standings and kill the loser point" and "Longer overtime, fewer shootouts"

These two points are very much related to each other, so I'll just combine them here.

The current points system does have a major issue in how it incentivizes teams to essentially stop playing hockey in the third period of a tie game because both teams will guarantee themselves at least one standings point if they can make it to overtime. Of course the players and coach aren't going to try for the regulation win unless they absolutely have to, and for good reason too:
Listen, if I were an NHL coach I'd probably be dumping-and-changing with the rest of them. In a league where teams' profits or losses are largely determined by making the playoffs -- not to mention the job security of coaches -- they are just trying to get to the postseason any way they can. You can't blame them for wanting to shut things down at the first sign of a potential loser's point. --Adrian Dater
Scrapping the loser point seems like an obvious fix if we want teams to push for the win because it removes the incentive in a tie game just to play for overtime.

I disagree with McIndoe regarding ties and the shootout, however. On ties, McIndoe admits that he is willing to go back to ties and get rid of the shootout. I don't have the same desire to get rid of the shootout because I absolutely hate ties as much as some people hate the shootout. On the shootout itself: Yes, it's a gimmicky skills competition, bordering on sideshow, but in the context of the NHL regular season and its place there, it's currently the most efficient way to decide regular season games tied at the end of regulation. The assumption of course is that ties are the enemy and must be struck down dead at all costs. Even the 4-on-4 prior to the shootout is a gimmick because it deviates unnecessarily from the natural 5-on-5 state of hockey, but 4-on-4 receives none of the same vitriol that the shootout does. But as McIndoe points out, "you can't have teams playing quadruple-overtime in November," because of the voluminous nature of the modern NHL schedule.

I hate ties, but I am amenable to bringing them back under specific circumstances. I defer to Quisp on this one:
Five minute OT. Two points for a win. Zero points for a loss. AND ZERO POINTS FOR EITHER TEAM IF THE GAME ENDS IN A TIE. That would get rid of the “protecting the tie” strategy. And it would be really fun to watch games between your rivals, rooting for the tie. The closing minutes of a tie game would be a f-ing frenzy!
The first obvious "problem" is that, like with the current three-point games, not all games would be worth the same number of points in this hypothetical system. I put "problem" in quotes because, even in the current three-point system, I really don't see why it's such a big deal. All teams play under the same rules, so some games being worth two points and some games being worth three doesn't help or hurt any one team more so than the rest. And to the people concerned with comparing teams and stats across eras, all this change does is add a bit more information gathering and calculating to the equation by trying to figure out what would a comparable season be under the different rules of the era. The people who care enough about it are willing to put in the grunt work before making the analysis.

But think about the hockey when teams really need to win or else they get nothing out of a game. You have nothing to play for but the win, so you better put your opponent away as quickly as possible. This system still encourages teams to try to comeback because if the trailing team can tie before the end of the regulation, then they can try to complete the comeback in overtime. 

"No more Bettman Cup presentations"

No, I am not about to suggest that Gary Bettman should keep the honor of awarding the Stanley Cup. But the idea of a former player handing over the Cup is awkward on its own, not to mention if a team wins it and has no former players who've won the Cup before who would be a logical choice to hand the Cup to the current champions. The Cup is won by teams, so the idea of a single player being the one to award it (even if he is a former Conn Smythe winner) doesn't sit well with me at all. For me, the answer seems obvious: Why have a keeper of the Cup if all he's going to do during the ceremony is just bring out the trophy for the pedestal? Why not have Philip Pritchard award the Cup since his duty is literally as the keeper of the Cup? He's the closest person on earth to being the current owner of the Cup (aside from obviously the Detroit Red Wings previous winning team), so it makes too much sense to have him and whoever his successors are surrender the Cup for a summer of who knows what with the players and executives.

"Make the nets bigger"

I won't make a separate section on increasing offense to early '90s levels, but suffice it to say that I'm fine with the current level of offense, and I think increasing offense would be irrelevant in the context of other changes like incentivizing teams to actually play for the win instead of a guaranteed point.

I'm fine with a lot of changes to the game because they don't alter the fundamental objective: Put a black, rubber disk in a net. Lots of changes have to do with strategies and other fundamentals involved with playing hockey, whether skate technology improves to help players move faster or turn more sharply; whether sticks improve to allow for harder shots or slicker puck-handling; whether putting bigger or smaller players in certain positions gives a new look to teams (like the current trend of large goalies); or whether different sizes of ice surfaces (at least worldwide) allow for different styles of play. But nothing changes the game quite on the scale of "make the nets bigger." At this point, I really think the integrity of the game could be compromised even with a one- or two-inch change McIndoe suggests. Considering there's literally no data on which to base a reasonable conclusion for the impact making the nets bigger would have on the game, I'm going to challenge McIndoe's suggestion that "[m]aking the nets just an inch or two bigger all the way around would probably be enough to get us that extra goal or two per game[, a]nd the change would be subtle enough that even a die-hard fan would have trouble telling the difference."

Go through any hockey season, and after every post shot, someone will inevitably utter the adage, "Hockey's a game of inches." At the professional level, where one second feels like an eternity on the ice, one inch changes in the net could lead to a much more monumental shift in the amount of offense than a simple "extra goal or two." Again, as far as I can research, there's literally no data on offense with a net bigger than the current size, so the obvious caveat is that there's nothing definitive to suggest whether a small change in the net like one or two inches would be that "extra goal or two" or a "monumental shift." Compounding the issue is the natural ebb and flow of playing the game under a new system or rules or strategy. Assuming the bigger nets net the offensive gains proponents hope for, after several years with a bigger net, defenses and goalies will adjust, so for all the effort, the numbers could come down back to where they are currently, making the change meaningless.

Before I move on, I'll briefly address this statement from this section of McIndoe's article: "Hockey fans are naturally averse to change." I think a list like this and the constant clamoring for changes--remove the trapezoid, get rid of the instigator, move Phoenix/ Florida/ Tampa Bay/ Nashville, get Pierre McGuire off television, contract teams, put teams in other market where we think they deserve them, get rid of the salary cap, our team needs a new building, we need a different alignment (even before spending one season in the era of the Metropolitan Division)--are enough counterexamples to consider that statement horse hockey.

"Change the way we determine draft position"

I'm not saying I really have all the answers for how McIndoe's suggested system would change the incentives of teams at the bottom of the standings and at the playoff bubble. I'm also at a loss for a better alternative to the current situation where teams outright try to pass off lineups like this as the best lineup they can possibly ice that night. But think about this:

It's the last day of the regular season. You and your opponent are playing for the playoffs. Winner moves into the Conference Quarterfinals, loser goes home for the summer. If you make the playoffs, great! Your season continues, even if you have a face a powerhouse team in the first round. But that's obviously not your focus right now because you're not in the playoffs.

If you lose and miss the playoffs though, not only did you miss out on the playoffs, but because it was the last day of the regular season when you missed, you now have zero chance of winning any games post-elimination to try to secure the top draft pick because there are no more games to play.

Never fear for relevance, because this actually happened. I can see it now: columns will be written decrying the New York Rangers, saying, "They should have started losing earlier so they could have gotten a better draft pick!" "Oh, why did we have to stay in playoff contention so long when we knew we weren't going to make it?!" And the wailing and gnashing of teeth will continue.

Not only that, but the incentive to lose will still be there, just transferred to another part of the season. If wins after elimination were implemented next season, and if the Edmonton Oilers start the first thirty games 10-17-3, do you really think they're going to push for a playoff spot and not just try to get eliminated as quickly as possible?

I don't see why we want to reward teams after they've been eliminated. I saw Adam Gold's presentation on wins after elimination because I was hoping it would anticipate and answer my question about incentivizing early elimination at the expense of better teams that just fell slightly short of the playoffs. Needless to say, Gold's presentation (which you should still watch anyway because it's pretty well-done despite my grievance with the overall system) didn't answer my question, so now I'm left wondering if it's really better that the Edmonton Oilers got eliminated very early in 2010 and got many chances to rack up wins for the overall draft pick while the Rangers got shafted because they still had a chance at the playoffs. Of course, in the old system, the Rangers still get shafted, but the current system incentivizes los-ing while the wins-after-elimination system rewards already established los-ers. It's a slightly contrived distinction, but the wins-after-elimination system doesn't change much from the current system. As much as Gold played it up in his presentation that games between non-playoff teams would have draft implications where winning instead of losing rewards teams, I don't buy fans giving much significance or entertainment value to a game with the 8th overall pick on the line. If people have problems with the current model which encourages "tanking" for higher draft picks, I have a problem with them advocating wins after elimination because it's hypocritical. Wins after elimination still rewards bad teams by incentivizing earlier elimination.

"Redefine late hits"

First off, I don't even understand what problem this redefinition is trying to address, other than possibly referee incompetence.

Forgetting for the moment that the NHL sometimes doesn't even know what's in its own rulebook and that the language of the rulebook is incredibly tortured in providing less clarity than it should (to put it mildly), the rulebook does NOT say that an interference penalty shall be called on "late hits." You can download the PDF of the rulebook yourself and type in the phrase "late hit" and get exactly 0 results.  What the rulebook DOES say that can be tied to the idea of late hits can be found in 56.1, under the heading "Possession of the Puck":
The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
"[I]mmediately following his loss of possession." Right. How many seconds is "immediately"? What constitutes "loss of possession"? I'm not trying to defend the league and the way they write and enforce their rules. It's incompetent at best. But McIndoe's solution:
So here's the new rule: Any hit that is initiated after the puck is gone is a late hit. And "initiating" a hit will mean actually starting to throw it, not just gliding toward a guy who's watching his pass. The onus will be on the hitter to avoid contact with a player who no longer has the puck, and unless that's impossible, the hit will be a penalty.
"[A]fter the puck is gone" provides as much clarity as "immediately following his loss of possession." Which is to say, none. "'[I]nitiating' a hit will mean actually starting to throw it" amounts to nothing more than tautology. And to top it all off, the phrase"avoid contact with a player who no longer has the puck, unless that's impossible" provides even more nebulous ground for referee interpretation to try to wade through. And we all know how well referee interpretation of the rules is going now. At best, McIndoe's solution moves the window of uncertainty on hit legality by a few half-seconds. At worst, it takes an already begrudgingly accepted facet of the interference rule and intentionally makes it more vague and rife with potential screw-ups.

McIndoe has a legitimate gripe with the Kaberle example he cited, and there should have been a penalty on the play. But remember this hit from Aaron Rome on Nathan Horton? Almost exactly the same time from releasing the pass until contact for a referee to assess the situation, and they called a penalty immediately. (Notice in the Horton video that the center ice referee has his arm up the entire time.) Even Eddie Olczyk (EDDIE. OLCZYK.) called it a late hit immediately upon seeing it, while the Devils guys made me cringe listening to their assessment of the situation. The solution to this problem isn't a more tortured re-writing of a late hit rule that doesn't really exist except by interpretation. The best way is to increase the competency of the refereeing and calling what's already accepted as "the rules" because writing them down exactly in any rulebook is nearly impossible because of the ability to (overly-)interpret every word of the English language.

"Crossover final"

I don't disagree with the idea of re-seeding in the final four, but I do want to temper expectations. In a 30-team league, with the playoffs being the crapshoot that it is, it's not terribly likely we'll all get that one specific matchup we're all looking forward to.  In terms of just making the playoffs, the chances are much greater (though still not too good) that we'll see a Toronto vs. Montreal or Montreal vs. Boston or Detroit vs. Toronto in one of the first two rounds instead of in a hypothetical, re-seeded third round.

"Go back to home whites"

I actually like the aesthetic of the away white jerseys blending in with the ice so you can just focus on your home team heroes' home colors.

"More home and homes"

Full disclosure: I've written in the past disparaging the schedule makers for the inane quirks and seemingly senseless organization with the way road trips are scheduled and back-to-backs and days off and all sorts of other imbalances across the league. However, in a very long comment to that same post, I also defended the schedule makers because it's quite a tough job, even with computers.

Much like with the crossover final idea, I don't disagree with the idea, but I (really) want to temper expectations about how likely that is to come about. Of course there are going to be home-and-home situations coming up next season. The Red Wings have a set against the Capitals (1-31 and 2-2) and Wild (3-22 and 3-23) next season and that's it. And only the Wild home-and-home falls into the other category of back-to-back. (Though I'm really not interested in becoming rivals with the Wild.)

I wasn't alive or fully aware of the NHL 20-30 years ago, but looking at the list of NHL seasons on Wikipedia, that era had between 21 to 24 teams. Which is still a lot, but it's much easier to schedule those games and have those criteria of back-to-back home-and-homes than in a league with 30 teams. Too many necessary factors--arena availability, the scheduling matrix, need for days off, and in this coming season the Olympic break--go into the schedule make-up that we can't really impose luxuries like back-to-back home-and-home matchups to try to fuel rivalries. If they do happen on your team's schedule, and if they do happen to be against rivals or soon-to-be rivals, cherish those opportunities because they likely won't happen very often.

--
Some of the topics not mentioned here, I either agree with or think it's a minor enough issue that I don't want to make an already gargantuan post (based on what I normally write) even more like a titan. And while I do agree on a few major points like the implementing of hybrid icing and changing the "penalty" for the puck over glass penalty, there are definitely issues I wanted to address in McIndoe's fixes, especially in attempting to redefine late hits and in changing the method of determining the draft order.

No comments:

Post a Comment