What’s your unpopular hockey opinion?

[vladdy16]

You have a point about the clones simply because of differing play styles, but what about Gretzky's produciton was circumstantial?

Nobody on any team in any era came close.

I think my most concrete argument would have to revolve around a player like Howe, and what his numbers would have been if he played an 82 game schedule.

It would be opposite to the jist of my point(cumulative totals don't mean as much as people imply), but it's the best direct example I could give as to why I dont think Gretzky is the outlier he's typically typecast as.

As for circumstance, I would point to the timing where Gretzky is doing the most damage. Right before the talent pool went fully global and practically doubled, as well as occuring during an era where 'scorer' was a role almost completely distinct from others. Not at all discrediting his work on the ice, just that the flow of the game was definitively conducive to top line scoring.

I dont want to make the argument, but for instance, if the Oilers are the best team in the league for 5 years, wouldnt it be less of an outlier statistic that their 'scorer' had the best totals for those years?

If he's on a terrible team like the Red Wings, do his totals and injury history for that era look more like Yzermans?

But back to an argument i might be interested in making, and I'm sure someone has an answer for this as it pertains to Gretzky specifically somewhere... If one team plays 82 games and wins all of those games 5-4, and another plays 82 games and wins all of those games 3-2, how am I supposed to be swayed by the idea that a cumulative offensive total for a specific player is indicitive of superiority?

 

[mondo13]

believe this is fairly out there:

the nhl is going to start retracting in 10 years. hockey is a very expensive sport that requires a lot of conditions which aren't present in other sports (basketball, soccer) and doesn't have major mainstream appeal. it's not going to completely die out, but we won't see 32 teams for long.

 

[FerrisRox]

If those are the only points, why not make a win one point then?

Because a win has been worth two points for the entire history of the NHL and there are records and statistics for teams recording points in a season that have been established for several decades and switching (for no reason) to one point would suddenly change that entire dynamic. A 100 point season for a team is a plateau they strive to reach. I don't see any logical reason to suddenly make that a 50 point season.

 

[BK201]

That the Ottawa Senators owner is being targeted by specific people/persons or group to make things look worse then they really are and manipulating people using phsycologocal techniques like mob mentality.

For example Karlsson and hoffman got into a thing where basically a restraining order was being presented from the karlsson's to the Hoffman's and it ruined our team.

Every one thinks the owner is poor and cheap and that ruined our team.

 

[Machinehead]

believe this is fairly out there:

the nhl is going to start retracting in 10 years. hockey is a very expensive sport that requires a lot of conditions which aren't present in other sports (basketball, soccer) and doesn't have major mainstream appeal. it's not going to completely die out, but we won't see 32 teams for long.

I never thought the NHL had the market or the player base for as many teams as we have, but it's a tough spot because I'm not going to tell anybody who already has a team that they need to give it up. I don't really wanna see retraction even if there would be benefits.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Because a win has been worth two points for the entire history of the NHL and there are records and statistics for teams recording points in a season that have been established for several decades and switching (for no reason) to one point would suddenly change that entire dynamic. A 100 point season for a team is a plateau they strive to reach. I don't see any logical reason to suddenly make that a 50 point season.

A win was two points because a tie was one point. Without a tie or regulation tie points, giving two points for a win is kinda random.

 

[mondo13]

I never thought the NHL had the market or the player base for as many teams as we have, but it's a tough spot because I'm not going to tell anybody who already has a team that they need to give it up. I don't really wanna see retraction even if there would be benefits.

i'm considering it from an economical and development perspective: hockey is an expensive sport that requires specialized equipment and a specialized playing area. with sports like soccer and basketball on the rise in the leagues biggest marketable area (canada), it'll be a lot harder to attract and develop talent unless the cost to play decreases.

i don't want to see the nhl retract in anyway, but i feel it's inevitable.

 

[FerrisRox]

A win was two points because a tie was one point. Without a tie or regulation tie points, giving two points for a win is kinda random.

How could it be "random" to make wins worth what they have been worth for the last 100 years? Don't you think it would be a lot more random to change what they were worth for no reason at all?

 

[DannyGallivan]

How could it be "random" to make wins worth what they have been worth for the last 100 years? Don't you think it would be a lot more random to change what they were worth for no reason at all?

My point is that there was a reason that wins were worth two points, because they were superior to ties which were only worth one point. When you introduce a system that only awards points for wins and no points for anything else, you eliminate the necessity for more than one point.

... but whatever. I'm assuming your main point is to get rid of the tie and any points for overtime or shoot-out losses. That part is cool.

 

[Pyrophorus]

A win was two points because a tie was one point. Without a tie or regulation tie points, giving two points for a win is kinda random.

Actually the correct wording is, when both teams are tied at the end of regulation, they are awarded one point.
So its always been there, still is, and still should be.

The "loser point" is a new fangled thing.

 

[IndustryLeech]

You're watching the wrong soccer. Especially that last part.

You watched Neymar once and you're applying it to the whole sport.

The events described in my post happen every.single.time. I am unfortunate enough to find that crap sport on television. For the record, I would never purposefully "watch" soccer. I cannot think of something I'd less like to see.

 

[BlueMed]

My unpopular opinion is that Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson are not even top 10 defensemen. The whole notion of evaluating defensemen based on points is ridiculous. If people would actually watch those 2 play, they would see that theyre basically just 4th forwards on the ice. In their own end, they are often out of position, create turnovers, make poor passes, and take unnecessary risks. You almost can't win a stanley cup without having a strong and stable backend.

Just look how out of position Burns is on these goals. It's crazy to put him ahead of defensemen that actually defend well.

 

[ToDavid]

Since enough people have posted the opposite, I feel that this is the real unpopular opinion. The loser point (which is a terrible and misleading name for it) is important as long as their are shootouts. I would be fine with taking it away from OT losses but never the shootout. It's a circus act.

 

[psycat]

It doesnt matter if we like it. People are willing to pay current prices and that's all that matters.

Sure people are willing to pay those prices. But I don't and even if I did I would much prefer better infrastructure around the Arena(s), more to youth hockey etc than the current player salaries. It's a bit like me saying "X is bad for the health and nobody should eat it"(opinion) and you answer "but people do eat it"- Doesn't make eating it any better for the health.

People here talk like giving less to the players would make them poor or something like that. Even if they earned half of what they do they would have really great incomes.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Since enough people have posted the opposite, I feel that this is the real unpopular opinion. The loser point (which is a terrible and misleading name for it) is important as long as their are shootouts. I would be fine with taking it away from OT losses but never the shootout. It's a circus act.

That's fair, but.... isn't that inherently an argument that it shouldn't be used at all? If it's a "circus act" gimmick, why let it decide anything?

That's why I've never wrapped my head around people that advocate the continuation of any point system when ties no longer happen. If an OT format is such an affront to/departure from actual hockey to warrant tallying up wins and losses differently, then it sounds like a broken OT format if you asked me.

I mean, let's compare hockey with baseball. In hockey, you're hoping that your team at least makes it past regulation and other teams in the playoff hunt end their games in regulation as you want to guarantee points for your team while preventing three point games for other teams in divisional and wild card races. Meanwhile, you're hoping in baseball for your team's games to end after nine innings whenever you play to keep your team fresh while hoping for opponents to fall into extra innings regularly to burn their players out. In other words, in a normal situation, hockey has trained fans to root for maximizing the amount of wear and tear your team experiences while minimizing the wear and tear of your rivals - the opposite of what you'd really want. All because of the loser point. It's nonsensical.

 

[Chips]

i'm considering it from an economical and development perspective: hockey is an expensive sport that requires specialized equipment and a specialized playing area. with sports like soccer and basketball on the rise in the leagues biggest marketable area (canada), it'll be a lot harder to attract and develop talent unless the cost to play decreases.

i don't want to see the nhl retract in anyway, but i feel it's inevitable.

You also have to consider the NHL and other orgs efforts to grow the game in other countries. Hockey is definitely growing in China and parts of India. In any country there is also varying degrees of funding provided from Govts, philanthropists and orgs to allow underprivileged youth to play the game.

Ovechkin was very warmly received in China this summer, for example. The game does have appeal, it just has competition. With the Chinese middle class growing sports will grow, and it’s easy to think there’s much untapped desire for variety.

I think worse case, the league stalls. Probably won’t shrink though.

 

[Chips]

My unpopular opinion is that Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson are not even top 10 defensemen. The whole notion of evaluating defensemen based on points is ridiculous. If people would actually watch those 2 play, they would see that theyre basically just 4th forwards on the ice. In their own end, they are often out of position, create turnovers, make poor passes, and take unnecessary risks. You almost can't win a stanley cup without having a strong and stable backend.

Just look how out of position Burns is on these goals. It's crazy to put him ahead of defensemen that actually defend well.

Anyone can cherrypick a few goals.


Haven’t you noticed in the past teams with tons of forward talent sucked, and didn’t score as much as you’d expect, because they don’t have defenseman capable of aiding the offense?

Strong offensive ability in the back end is equally important to holding possession and preventing the need for extended defensive zone play, and outscoring the goals against; and team defense largely displaces the emphasis on defensive defenseman


A great offensive defenseman is far from a guarantee to be a good forward. Burns was an exception, and even he wasn’t as valuable to teams as a forward, hence they’ve mostly played him on D.

Back end defense is every bit as valuable, or more, as there’s far more talented wingers, and defenseman are always in demand.

And offense from the front is very much dependent on that offense from the back, at the very least considering transition (be it from skating or passing),
but also cycling in the Offensive zone and some systems emphasizing shots from the point, and or defenseman aggressively pinching to exploit the forwards having drawn strategically drawn opposing defenders low to open space.

 

[BlueMed]

Anyone can cherrypick a few goals.


Haven’t you noticed in the past teams with tons of forward talent sucked, and didn’t score as much as you’d expect, because they don’t have defenseman capable of aiding the offense?


A great offensive defenseman is far from a guarantee to be a good forward. Burns was an exception, and even he wasn’t as valuable to teams as a forward, hence they’ve mostly played him on D.


Offensive from the back end is a different game from forwards offense.

And offense from the front is very much dependent on that offense from the back, at the very least considering transition (be it from skating or passing),
but also cycling in the Offensive zone and some systems emphasizing shots from the point, and or defenseman aggressively pinching to exploit the forwards having drawn strategically drawn opposing defenders low to open space.

I get what you're saying, but that is provided that that defensemen can stabilize his own end. Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson have almost no interest in doing so. However, guys like Doughty, Giordano, Hedman, Pietrangelo, and Josi can shutdown team's top forwards AND quarterback an offense with good transition. And I'm not cherry picking a few goals from Burns. Every time I watch him and Karlsson, their decisions result in a goal or two against their own team. I can upload many more videos if you would like to see them.

 

[Chips]

I get what you're saying, but that is provided that that defensemen can stabilize his own end. Brent Burns and Erik Karlsson have almost no interest in doing so. However, guys like Doughty, Giordano, Hedman, Pietrangelo, and Josi can shutdown team's top forwards AND quarterback an offense with good transition. And I'm not cherry picking a few goals from Burns. Every time I watch him and Karlsson, their decisions result in a goal or two against their own team. I can upload many more videos if you would like to see them.

Norris as I understand it is “the best defenseman” not “the best defensive ability.” Defenseman is just the title, awarded to whoever is most beneficial to their team at that position.


From how the modern game is played, you can consider “defenseman” an outdated term simply referring to a particular players designated space on the ice. Transition is key, the whole team participates in every aspect. Team defense wins Cups, and their defenseman are often key on offense.

A defenseman really good at defense can be replaced in that respect by a responsible team game, any forward line.

The Pens recent cup teams had arguably some of the worst defenseman groups in a long time, but the whole team played team defense, and their defensemen made the necessary transition plays once somebody got the puck. That whole team was so fast in every direction.

 

[BlueMed]

Norris as I understand it is “the best defenseman” not “the best defensive ability.” Defenseman is just the title, awarded to whoever is most beneficial to their team at that position.


From how the modern game is played, you can consider “defenseman” an outdated term simply referring to a particular players designated space on the ice. Transition is key, the whole team participates in every aspect. Team defense wins Cups, and their defenseman are often key on offense.

A defenseman really good at defense can be replaced in that respect by a responsible team game, any forward line.

The Pens recent cup teams had arguably some of the worst defenseman groups in a long time, but the whole team played team defense, and their defensemen made the necessary transition plays once somebody got the puck. That whole team was so fast in every direction.

I totally agree with the whole "team defense" thing, but we're talking about individual players here. Everyone seems to love how Burns and Karlsson can create so much offense, but when they are out of position, turn the puck over, leave their goaltender out to dry, or get beat multiple times a game resulting in a goal against their team, everyone turns a blind eye.

 

[ottawa]

Alright; I’ll give this a go and will share some ideas / unpopular opinions.

· Drop the draft. In sports outside of North America it works fine without a draft and by removing it entirely you could take a step further and re-invent the entire hockey format enabling teams to get promoted to the top tier and teams to get relegated to tier 2. That would also put a stop to teams deliberately throwing in the towel hoping to get the #1 draft pick. There’s no real risk finishing last so this would make things more exciting and a relegation series would have some high stakes for the involved teams and will probably receive tons of attention from the neutral hockey fan.

· Shorten the season and reduce the number of teams in the top tier. There’re way too many teams not really competing for the cup. Make the top tier a league for the best of the best.

· As mentioned previously it could be interesting to allow the teams to alter the rink size, within some limits set out by the NHL, in order to have a genuine home ice advantage.

· The national anthem should only be played in the Stanley Cup final. Make it a special happening and not just some daily exercise.

· Here’s another unpopular one:
National Hockey Associations should be able to call up players to major tournaments (WC and the Olympics) like in soccer and the WC should only be played every second/third year making it a little bit more special and a tournament the players will (might) prioritize.

I knew you were a soccer fan literally 3 words into your first opinion lol.

 

[Machinehead]

The events described in my post happen every.single.time. I am unfortunate enough to find that crap sport on television. For the record, I would never purposefully "watch" soccer. I cannot think of something I'd less like to see.

So you're admitting you don't watch it. Good, because that was obvious anyway.

 

[IndustryLeech]

So you're admitting you don't watch it. Good, because that was obvious anyway.

I said I don't actively watch it, but I have seen the sport played enough to know that it's a joke.

 

[Machinehead]

I said I don't actively watch it, but I have seen the sport played enough to know that it's a joke.

You haven't seen it enough if you think that.

 

[IndustryLeech]

You haven't seen it enough if you think that.