What's Your Most Controversial Hockey Opinion?

[Son of Nogatco]

Digital board and on-ice ads (especially animated ones) are worse than ads on the players’ uniforms

 

[LTIR]

European hockey is better and hitting (not fighting) shouldn't be allowed.

Let the skilled thrive without risking their life in the name of finishing a check or sending a message.

 

[Jack Spider]

Snipers can be lazy and cheat offensively. that's how you play.

 

[Summer Rose]

Digital board and on-ice ads (especially animated ones) are worse than ads on the players’ uniforms

You won't find me disagreeing with this, unless you're referring to the ones that are common in a lot of European leagues where they just have ads plastered on nearly every inch of space of the uniform. The jersey patches and helmet decals in the NHL I'd have to look extra hard to even be able to see at all, and even then that might not be possible.

 

[Voight]

Implementing the draft lottery did absolutely nothing to stop "tanking".

I dont think tanking is much of an issue tho. No team has gone full 76'ers, even the year we drafted Bedard we held onto Kane and others until the deadline.

 

[TnaBuffalo]

Heres mine:

Sometimes in the next 6 or 7 years, one of the big 4 north American sports leagues is going to have a black sox scandal related to online sports betting and game fixing (probably by players being influenced by organized crime). And its going to absolutely f*** up the image and future of whatever sport gets exposed.


I can never remember a time where sports related gambling has been this prominent and monetized as it is now. It was one thing when gambling was this niche thing that you had to go to Vegas to do, but now every second or third ad on a sports broadcast or online is for same game multi sports betting crap. The potential market is anywhere on earth with internet access, placing bets about things happening 30 seconds from now.

Younger generations dont understand how quickly widespread sports gambling is going to draw in organized crime like flies to shit, because theres so much money involved, and all it takes to make a percentage of that huge pot is to influence the results of the next game by getting close to the players at the right time. This time it might not even be the obvious sort of fixing youd expect, maybe its a trainer or nutrition coach paid off to not do their job correctly for a week in the playoffs. Maybe its somebody from the mob getting too close with an official scorer to introduce a slight lag in the official data stream that reports the events to the bookies. Hell, it could be a physical tap in the network equipment at the arena. Anything is possible with this much cash on the line.

Everybody is going to laugh and say no, that cant happen here right up until the day the expose hits the front page of the New York Times.

This was possible back in the day, players make way too much now to bother with gambling

 

[TnaBuffalo]

Brett Hulll's OT goal against Hasek was a good goal.

Well, this certainly is unpopular

 

[banks]

The NHL definition of "game winning goal" is terrible. They call whatever goal was one more than the other team the "game winner." But that goal quite often isn't a clutch or meaningful goal.

If your goal puts your team up 4-0, that wasn't a clutch goal. But if the other team rallies a bit and gets close making it 4-3, the NHL says that the 4th goal was the most important. I disagree. It's arguably less important than the others. And only became important because of what happened after it was scored.

If you get an empty netter to go up 3-1, and then the other team scores a meaningless goal in the last few seconds, you have an empty netter stand as the game winner. That's not the important goal.

The "game winner" should be the goal that caused the last lead change. The one that put the winner up for good. That would always be a goal that breaks a tie, and would always be meaningful to the outcome of the game, and clutch in the moment it happened.

 

[Summer Rose]

The NHL definition of "game winning goal" is terrible. They call whatever goal was one more than the other team the "game winner." But that goal quite often isn't a clutch or meaningful goal.

If your goal puts your team up 4-0, that wasn't a clutch goal. But if the other team rallies a bit and gets close making it 4-3, the NHL says that the 4th goal was the most important. I disagree. It's arguably less important than the others. And only became important because of what happened after it was scored.

If you get an empty netter to go up 3-1, and then the other team scores a meaningless goal in the last few seconds, you have an empty netter stand as the game winner. That's not the important goal.

The "game winner" should be the goal that caused the last lead change. The one that put the winner up for good. That would always be a goal that breaks a tie, and would always be meaningful to the outcome of the game, and clutch in the moment it happened.

Spicy. I kind of like it actually, but also kind of don't. Perhaps it could be left to the official scorer, but that delves into the realm of subjectivity, although if that were to happen I would err on your guideline. The example I'm thinking of where I wouldn't like it being called that way is, say, if the team that scores first goes on to win something like 6-5 but never surrenders the lead along the way. That goal to make it 1-0 didn't have a very profound impact on the game overall.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

This was possible back in the day, players make way too much now to bother with gambling

Not the players gambling, although there are a few very prominent close calls with that happening in the NHL.

What will happen will be say, a puck bunny gets cozy with a player while she has connections to organized crime. She relays information like the players injury status, or maybe distracts him the night before a big game. Or repeat any of the above with team support staff, coaches, arena staff, spouses, family members...

The entire point of how organized crime can spread faster and farther than anyone expects is that they are very good at getting close to important people so that they can use their connections as leverage. Given everything we now know about guys like Richards, Kane, Jagr, Zhitnik, etc, do you really find it that hard to believe that somebody could use knowledge of their off-ice lives as leverage to coerce them into small favours in how they play?

Thats the problem, 40 years ago, the bets mostly concerned things like which team won a game or the cup, now it could be as simple as getting the fix in on a particular player not scoring a goal in the second period instead of the third. Itll be such a tiny thing that nobody will even notice, right up until the day it gets exposed and the shit hits the fan.

For the record I have worked in this field in a different sport, and I can tell you the risk of the delayed information gambit is very real, because it was one of the first things we were cautioned about in training.

 

[banks]

Spicy. I kind of like it actually, but also kind of don't. Perhaps it could be left to the official scorer, but that delves into the realm of subjectivity, although if that were to happen I would err on your guideline. The example I'm thinking of where I wouldn't like it being called that way is, say, if the team that scores first goes on to win something like 6-5 but never surrenders the lead along the way. That goal to make it 1-0 didn't have a very profound impact on the game overall.

I hear you, and agree. Its true, there may be times where the "last lead change" isn't guaranteed to be the most impactful. But, like you said, you can't make a rule that always works. There's no way without being subjective.

Your 6-5 example, where the winner never surrendered the lead, I still feel the 1-0 goal is objectively as important as any other. It would be pretty rare that a tie breaking goal isn't considered important.

As the thread suggests, it's a controversial opinion/suggestion.

 

[Realgud]

I couldn't care less about the popularity of the league or hockey in general. As long as there is enough interest so that the players can make a living and that people around the world are willing to pick the game up from a young age to provide the next generation of players, I don't care if it is less popular than baseball or basketball or whatever else.

This e-peen measuring contest about popularity achieves absolutely nothing and only makes the owners start doing dumb shit like have an insane amount of ads everywhere to catch up on their billions in revenue or have try hard TV segments where they try to be hip to bring more viewers. It's cringe, the sport is more than popular enough to survive and be as good as it can be. Nothing about it being more popular would make the game better, if anything it probably hurts it and transforms it into a mainstream circus.

I see a good amount of people who seem to care so much about viewership and how much money the league makes, this inferiority complex is strange to me. What the hell are we trying to prove here?

 

[TnaBuffalo]

Not the players gambling, although there are a few very prominent close calls with that happening in the NHL.

What will happen will be say, a puck bunny gets cozy with a player while she has connections to organized crime. She relays information like the players injury status, or maybe distracts him the night before a big game. Or repeat any of the above with team support staff, coaches, arena staff, spouses, family members...

The entire point of how organized crime can spread faster and farther than anyone expects is that they are very good at getting close to important people so that they can use their connections as leverage. Given everything we now know about guys like Richards, Kane, Jagr, Zhitnik, etc, do you really find it that hard to believe that somebody could use knowledge of their off-ice lives as leverage to coerce them into small favours in how they play?

Thats the problem, 40 years ago, the bets mostly concerned things like which team won a game or the cup, now it could be as simple as getting the fix in on a particular player not scoring a goal in the second period instead of the third. Itll be such a tiny thing that nobody will even notice, right up until the day it gets exposed and the shit hits the fan.

For the record I have worked in this field in a different sport, and I can tell you the risk of the delayed information gambit is very real, because it was one of the first things we were cautioned about in training.

I think you are overestimating the reach of organized crime with gambling. (In the US, cant speak to russia) There is so much money nowadays, legally, that they have been mostly pushed out of the gaming game.
It's just not profitable anymore for them. They are mostly focused on other rackets, those that are left.

 

[Randyne]

The "game winner" should be the goal that caused the last lead change. The one that put the winner up for good. That would always be a goal that breaks a tie, and would always be meaningful to the outcome of the game, and clutch in the moment it happened.

So in 4-0 game, GWG is the first goal "a goal that breaks a tie".
What's the difference?

 

[Homelander]

There's a glut of teams in the Northeast and that needs to change.


And 32 teams is ridiculous, let alone more

 

[banks]

So in 4-0 game, GWG is the first goal "a goal that breaks a tie".
What's the difference?

In that instance there is no difference. There wouldn't always be a difference. In a 4-0 game the NHL's pick for the "game winner" would be the same as the one I'm suggesting.

But what if the other team scored a pointless goal at the very end to make it 4-1? The NHL says that now the 2nd goal is the "game winner". I'm suggesting it should remain the first one, as the one that broke the tie.

 

[Son of Nogatco]

32 team playoffs loser gets relegated to the KHL (gulag) and have to win 3 straight KHL championships to get promoted back up to the NHL and it has to be consecutive. Also rename the Stanley cup to “not the KHL cup”

Wouldn’t a 32 team playoffs have 31 losers?


(Please don’t send me to the gulag)

 

[Bouboumaster]

Dryden isn't even the third best Hab.

Major L take

Dryden is def under Roy (because IMO, Roy is second ever)
You can argue Plante above him (I don't)
Who else?


5 Vezinas, the Calder Trophy and a Conn Smythe, with 6 Stanley Cups, 5 First All Star Team and 1 Second All Star Team, all that in 8 f***ing years

This is by far the most stacked resume for a goalie, and it's not even close

 

[jigglysquishy]

Major L take

Dryden is def under Roy (because IMO, Roy is second ever)
You can argue Plante above him (I don't)
Who else?


5 Vezinas, the Calder Trophy and a Conn Smythe, with 6 Stanley Cups, 5 First All Star Team and 1 Second All Star Team, all that in 8 f***ing years

This is by far the most stacked resume for a goalie, and it's not even close

George Vezina I have ahead.

Plante is quite comfortably ahead.

 

[Bouboumaster]

George Vezina I have ahead.

Plante is quite comfortably ahead.

I disagree about Vezina
I might have Price above him lol

Plante, I can get why, I have him top 5ish, at worst top 10 (of all goalie obviously, just not Montréal)
But I'm swayed by Dryden's ridiculous resume and the fact that he was one of the main piece carrying that Habs team

 

[jigglysquishy]

But I'm swayed by Dryden's ridiculous resume and the fact that he was one of the main piece carrying that Habs team

I read through every single Dryden playoff game for the HoH goalie project and I just can't share this sentiment.

1971, absolutely. All time great run. But after that there is no main piece. Lafleur and Robinson are just as praised. Dryden has big gaffes and is held up by the greatest three man defensive unit in hockey history. He never had to be the best goalie in the world. And when he does (1972 Summit Series) he can't.

The team was incredible and Dryden was part of that, but it puts a damper on it by actually reading the game to game reports. In terms of general contemporary praise, he's behind Tretiak. And some very low level longevity while playing in the most favourable condition of any goalie.

Plante is talked about as the best or second best goalie of all time. Even into the late 70s, most newspapers never give Dryden the nod over Plante despite being in dynasty mode.

 

[Bouboumaster]

I read through every single Dryden playoff game for the HoH goalie project and I just can't share this sentiment.

1971, absolutely. All time great run. But after that there is no main piece. Lafleur and Robinson are just as praised. Dryden has big gaffes and is held up by the greatest three man defensive unit in hockey history. He never had to be the best goalie in the world. And when he does (1972 Summit Series) he can't.

The team was incredible and Dryden was part of that, but it puts a damper on it by actually reading the game to game reports. In terms of general contemporary praise, he's behind Tretiak. And some very low level longevity while playing in the most favourable condition of any goalie.

Plante is talked about as the best or second best goalie of all time. Even into the late 70s, most newspapers never give Dryden the nod over Plante despite being in dynasty mode.

The counter to that is that the Habs were eliminated in first round in 73-74 when Dryden didn't Play, and the team fell down once he retired

 

[Took a pill in Sbisa]

In that instance there is no difference. There wouldn't always be a difference. In a 4-0 game the NHL's pick for the "game winner" would be the same as the one I'm suggesting.

But what if the other team scored a pointless goal at the very end to make it 4-1? The NHL says that now the 2nd goal is the "game winner". I'm suggesting it should remain the first one, as the one that broke the tie.

I think you're adding a subjective meaning to the terms "game winning goal". It's not subjective even if you think it should be. It's a technical term to describe the goal that decides which team wins on the scoresheet.

 

[banks]

I think you're adding a subjective meaning to the terms "game winning goal". It's not subjective even if you think it should be. It's a technical term to describe the goal that decides which team wins on the scoresheet.

Keep going back in the chain. My suggestion wasn't subjective. I believe the "goal that decides what team wins" should be the one that breaks the final tie. Not just one more than the other team.

 

[MoneyManny]

As a position, center is overrated and goaltender is underrated.