NHL 2015-16 Season

[Natural Patrick]

3 hours ago, billchao said:

But they made the SCF three consecutive times in their first three seasons! 

Yeah and I was 3 years old. I did not have a great memory for those years. Seen all the highlights though

[DaveP043]

23 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 I think this will be a close and entertaining series.

Well, Game 1 for the Caps in OT over the Penguins, can't get much closer.  Much more fun to watch than the previous slog-fest with the Flyers, seemed like there was more skating in one game than in the previous 6 combined.  Although the Pens had more shots on goal, I thought the Caps had more quality chances.  I just hope my ticker can take more of these close games, because I don't see either team dominating.

[Coronagolfman]

On 4/26/2016 at 7:00 AM, bostonboy9416 said:

Picks for the cup finals? I have Ducks over Penguins for the final. Wish my Rangers made it further than 5 games but that happens what you can't defend prime ice...

Just another season of frustration for Ducks fans.  When little is expected the Ducks seem to be able to deliver - but when crunch time comes and expectations are high for Anaheim they seem to resort to their habit of only playing 30 or 40 decent minutes in big games.

Not surprising that their coach got the axe given his 1-7 record in game 7's over the years - but as many have noted core players such as Getzlaf and Perry are also 0-4 in game 7's the last 4 years and really have never led the team to any major success in the playoffs during their tenure in Anaheim.   On the flip side, Ducks have been consistent enough to win the Pacific Division over Kings and Sharks the last 4 years - it will be interesting to see how much faith Anaheim GM Murray is willing to show in the core player group over the summer as Ducks look for a new coach and have some important RFA and UFA decisions upcoming.

 

[DaveP043]

I'm a bit disappointed in the recent head hits by both the Capital's Brooks Orpik and the Penguin's Kris Letang.  I'm even more disappointed about the disparity of suspensions.  I've watched both replays a few times.  Orpik's hit was definitely later than Letang's.  On the other hand, Orpik kind of maintained his "level" and skated through, putting out his arm and catching Maatta in the chest and head.  Letang was extending his legs in a move that caught Johansson in the chest and chin.  To my eyes, the extension of the legs is a much more powerful, and dangerous, move than extending an arm.  I see one hit was later, the other was more powerful and dangerous.  I don't see a difference that  should make one suspension 3 times as tough as the other.

I understand that the NHL takes time lost into account in deciding suspensions.  I wonder if they'll extend Letang's suspension of Johansson develops neck and concussion issues in the next day or two.  I also wonder if perhaps they should instead define punishments based on the actual action, rather than on the results of the action.  It seems that with hits of this type, there's quite a bit of luck that determines whether a player is severely injured or just momentarily stunned.

Full disclosure, I'm a Capitals' fan, and I'm certainly biased, but I've tried to look at this objectively.  It just doesn't look right to me.

 

[tdiii]

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm a bit disappointed in the recent head hits by both the Capital's Brooks Orpik and the Penguin's Kris Letang.  I'm even more disappointed about the disparity of suspensions.  I've watched both replays a few times.  Orpik's hit was definitely later than Letang's.  On the other hand, Orpik kind of maintained his "level" and skated through, putting out his arm and catching Maatta in the chest and head.  Letang was extending his legs in a move that caught Johansson in the chest and chin.  To my eyes, the extension of the legs is a much more powerful, and dangerous, move than extending an arm.  I see one hit was later, the other was more powerful and dangerous.  I don't see a difference that  should make one suspension 3 times as tough as the other.

I understand that the NHL takes time lost into account in deciding suspensions.  I wonder if they'll extend Letang's suspension of Johansson develops neck and concussion issues in the next day or two.  I also wonder if perhaps they should instead define punishments based on the actual action, rather than on the results of the action.  It seems that with hits of this type, there's quite a bit of luck that determines whether a player is severely injured or just momentarily stunned.

Full disclosure, I'm a Capitals' fan, and I'm certainly biased, but I've tried to look at this objectively.  It just doesn't look right to me.

 

Sharks fan here, so no dog in the fight.  Yes, you are biased.  Orpik's hit was so ridiculously late and predatory, that you should be counting your blessings that it was only 3 games.  Also, the NHL considers injury in meting out discipline -- Maata did not return to the game, Johansson did (even if it turns out he's hurt too).  Finally, Orpik hit Maata harder than Letan did Johansson. 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

 Also, the NHL considers injury in meting out discipline -- Maata did not return to the game, Johansson did (even if it turns out he's hurt too).  Finally, Orpik hit Maata harder than Letan did Johansson. 

First, I understand that the NHL does look at the results of the injury in deciding suspension length.  I'm asking, should it?  For two identical hits, one causes injury, one is lucky enough not to, does the second player really deserve less punishment?  Like many disciplinary issues, I know this is a subject of the player/management agreement, and it won't be changed until there's a new agreement, but I wonder if it should be.  If you want to discourage the specific behavior, then punish the behavior itself, with no "clemency" for the lucky ones who don't cause an injury.

Second, I'm not sure any of us know how hard each player was hit.  I do believe that Letang, in extending his legs forcefully enough to become airborne after the hit, was making a much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, move.  The angles, location of contact, the other variables make it difficult to say which hit was actually harder.  

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

First, I understand that the NHL does look at the results of the injury in deciding suspension length.  I'm asking, should it?  For two identical hits, one causes injury, one is lucky enough not to, does the second player really deserve less punishment?  Like many disciplinary issues, I know this is a subject of the player/management agreement, and it won't be changed until there's a new agreement, but I wonder if it should be.  If you want to discourage the specific behavior, then punish the behavior itself, with no "clemency" for the lucky ones who don't cause an injury.

Second, I'm not sure any of us know how hard each player was hit.  I do believe that Letang, in extending his legs forcefully enough to become airborne after the hit, was making a much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, move.  The angles, location of contact, the other variables make it difficult to say which hit was actually harder.  

If you want to discourage this stuff, you slam Orpik with 10 games and Letang with 6.  But the players and the league don't really want to stop this stuff.  Shocking, really, that the players are okay with half-measures when their lives are on the line. 
As far as force of the hit, with Letang's hit Johansson at least had some expectation it was coming.  Maata was hit so late that he was completely blindsided.  Orpik's hit was disgusting. 

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, tdiii said:

As far as force of the hit, with Letang's hit Johansson at least had some expectation it was coming.  Maata was hit so late that he was completely blindsided.  

Actually, Letang came from Johansson's blind side to hit him late.  Maatta was facing Orpik when he got hit.  That's not a defense of Orpik, he was in the wrong.  Looking at them again, the scariest bit was Maatta hitting the ice on his back, the head-ice contact looks much more violent than either of the player-to-player hits.

[tdiii]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

Actually, Letang came from Johansson's blind side to hit him late.  Maatta was facing Orpik when he got hit.  That's not a defense of Orpik, he was in the wrong.  Looking at them again, the scariest bit was Maatta hitting the ice on his back, the head-ice contact looks much more violent than either of the player-to-player hits.

Comfort yourself with the fact Letang avoided suspension for the slash on Stalberg. 

[DaveP043]

Its a tough game, it moves so fast, and emotions get so high, its kind of amazing we don't see even more of these.  Maybe if they go to lighter helmets with no face shields they'd decide to respect each other a little more.  Of course, during the adjustment period we'd have a dozen guys with serious injuries.

 

[pumaAttack]

Tony X, @soulcity, is a NHL promo stunt right?

 

 

39 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Its a tough game, it moves so fast, and emotions get so high, its kind of amazing we don't see even more of these.  Maybe if they go to lighter helmets with no face shields they'd decide to respect each other a little more.  Of course, during the adjustment period we'd have a dozen guys with serious injuries.

 

 

No visors is an awful idea....

Just look at Vlasic taking Weber's slap shot of his face.  The visor saved him big time.  No visor and Vlasic probably is blind in at least one eye and numerous broken face bones.

Edited May 4, 2016 by pumaAttack

[DaveP043]

24 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

No visors is an awful idea....

Just look at Vlasic taking Weber's slap shot of his face.  The visor saved him big time.  No visor and Vlasic probably is blind in at least one eye and numerous broken face bones.

I realize that, and should have made it clearer that I was making a point rather than making a real suggestion.  It seems like the better the protective gear gets, the more invulnerable the players seem to feel, acting like human missiles, until all of a sudden someone is seriously hurt.  It makes me wonder if less protection could actually cause more responsible behavior by the players

[pumaAttack]

24 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I realize that, and should have made it clearer that I was making a point rather than making a real suggestion.  It seems like the better the protective gear gets, the more invulnerable the players seem to feel, acting like human missiles, until all of a sudden someone is seriously hurt.  It makes me wonder if less protection could actually cause more responsible behavior by the players

 

Definitely agree with everything, outside of eye protection.  The more invisible an athlete feels, the more harm they can cause to themselves and other players. 

There have been studies that showed the adoption of gloves in boxing has made the sport more dangerous.  Pugilists now feel safe to deliver head blows, where before most blows were jabs to the body.  

The problem with this notion in hockey though is there are other dangers besides your opponent. Accidental stick and puck injuries will warrant strong protection.  The NHLPA will fight tooth and nail to keep the safety of protective gear at its highest.  

Because of this, the burden falls of the players themselves and showing that respect to their fellow players.  

[Natural Patrick]

Lets's Go Blues!!!

[iacas]

9 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Actually, Letang came from Johansson's blind side to hit him late. Maatta was facing Orpik when he got hit.  That's not a defense of Opik, he was in the wrong. Looking at them again, the scariest bit was Maatta hitting the ice on his back, the head-ice contact looks much more violent than either of the player-to-player hits.

In front of the player is now the blind side? Please. Maatta's head also didn't even really hit the ice. The damage there was entirely Orpik's.

Orpik's hit targeted the head. Letang's did not. Orpik's hit was over 1 second late. Letang's was 0.63 seconds or so late. The two hits are not comparable other than that they happened between the same teams.

Ovechkin leaves his feet every other hit after taking six strides to line someone up.

The two hits were not the same. The Caps should count their lucky stars that Wilson's disgusting knee was fined a whopping $2400 and change. Not that losing Wilson would matter to the Caps very much…

Seriously, Dave, take off the homer glasses. They're not comparable hits.

And feel free to watch the number of other things done to Letang throughout the playoff series. But hey, maybe he's thankful for the rest.

[mcanadiens]

Always trying to argue about hits and which were worse. Today's NHL I guess. Us old farts would not have batted an eyelash at either play.

 

[iacas]

53 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Always trying to argue about hits and which were worse. Today's NHL I guess. Us old farts would not have batted an eyelash at either play.

And you old farts are far too willing to sacrifice human beings to CTE, concussions, suicide, depression, etc.

Neither hit was acceptable. And I'm not so sure about the Drouin hit, either. Though I haven't seen that more than two or three times. Nor was the Wilson kneeing.

[tdiii]

The Wilson kneeing was outrageous and should have cost him several games.  But the NHL seems to not care about kneeing incidents -- as Hertl lost a season to a knee from Dustin Brown with no supplemental discipline.

I'd lay down some supplemental discipline for Ovie's slash last night on Crosby. 

But I have zero tolerance for shenanigans.