WordsOfWisdom

One comment I would make is that new hockey stats still need to be "fan friendly". There is a lot of complex analysis work that can go into evaluating players, but it flies over the head of the average fan. Your average fan needs something simple and meaningful when it comes to stats. I do like reading your blog entries though.

I once constructed a system of allocating points to goaltenders called (not surprisingly) "goalie points" (or GPts for short). The idea being that they would accumulate as the season progressed just like points do for skaters. I scrapped it however because it didn't work well. Basically the way it worked was: 1 point for every period that the goalie plays 1 point for every 10 saves that the goalie makes -2 points for every goal allowed Thus, a goaltender that has a 30 save shutout performance would get 6 points for that game. (Basically the best performance a goaltender can do without stepping into record breaking 40, 50, 60 save performances and the like.)

I'd replace JVR on that list with Matthews... already. See this is what happens when you try to make a TOP 100 list while having only 50 suitable candidates.

I agree. The existing system encourages teams to get into OT. However, that can be easily solved in a few different ways: Back to 2-1-0 (wins, losses, and ties). No points just for reaching OT. My modern 2-1-0 + shootout idea (where the only way you can tie is after 3 shooters in a shootout)***. Introduce a 3-1-0 system and bring back ties. (Could remove the shootout for example.) Wins and losses only. (Teams play until someone wins. No more points system.) ***My 2-1-0 + shootout system was actually discussed over the radio one time (because I submitted it to the host as an idea). I can truly call it "my" idea without sounding arrogant (I hope) because I'm the only person on earth that has ever suggested it. It is truly unique. The notion that you could have a shootout and still have the game end in a tie is something that most people can't wrap their head around. It's a concept that blows people's minds. You could end the shootout after 3 shooters and call it a tie game. At that point, the fans would have seen 60 minutes + 5 minutes of OT + a shootout. They're not being shortchanged. If a team still can't win the game after all of those opportunities, they don't deserve 2 points in my book. And so it would be: the teams would split the 2 points, leaving with 1 each. Ties would be a rare occurrence, but they would happen from time to time. The NHL could stop with the gimmicks in overtime (4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) and just play a normal overtime session. Shootouts would be exciting because the stakes are raised. You could win (getting 2 points), tie (1 point), or lose (0 points). Ditto for overtime. There wouldn't be a safety net like there is now. It's what the NHL has been missing. The NHL had a problem of too many games ending in a tie back in 1997, 1998, whenever it was. I'm the only person that has ever created a points system that would have solved that problem 20 years ago without damaging the current points structure, without changing the value of wins and losses, without introducing loser points, and while allowing the NHL to either have or not have the shootout. (Okay I promise not to toot my own horn any more tonight.)

In leagues that have used a 3-1-0 point system (such as European soccer), a victory was worth 3 points, a tie was worth 1 point, and a loss was worth 0 points. Under such a system, wins and losses had a consistent value under all scenarios (regulation, OT, or whatever). This is a very different concept from what a 3-2-1-0 system offers. Although there may be 3 points available in each game, such a system creates an environment of "spoiled victories" and "good losses". You essentially create shades of grey. Some wins are good wins, others are bad wins, etc. Some losses are good losses to have, others become bad losses. We've already seen a bit of what this looks like with the NHL's current loser point system, and most fans dislike it. It's also fundamentally flawed in a purely mathematically way: 0-0-82 = 82 points > 40-42-0 = 80 points. A team with 0 wins (and 82 losses in overtime) can be positioned ahead of a team with 40 wins. It's the most outrageous math fail in NHL history that the league adopted such a system. A 3-2-1-0 system carries the same idea forward and applies it to both wins and losses, further magnifying the problem. At first glance it may seem like the answer, but I liken it to the scene in Indiana Jones where the Nazis open the ark. Good discussion though.

Although this topic is covered in other threads already, there is one fundamental problem with a 3-2-1-0 points system which is not solvable: If you install a 3-2-1-0 points system, then you admit that some victories are worth more than others and also that some losses are worse than others. To draw an analogy (and to shine a light on how big this flaw is), if the same system were applied to baseball it would mean that winning a game in the first 9 innings is worth 3 wins in the standings, a win in extra innings is only worth 2 wins, and if the game goes to a home run derby after 15 innings, the winner gets 1 win in the standings.

Oh yeah that's right. They have police sirens. Not as cool, but at least it's different.

I guess it could be a train horn as well. My bad! Somehow I think the switch from siren to horn was because the horn is louder and more obnoxious sounding. Or at least, it's more annoying and more loud right away while the siren delays obnoxious gratification for a second or two while it spools up.

Have you noticed that all 30 NHL teams use a boat horn sound effect when a goal is scored? Whatever happened to goal sirens?

From a recent list created by MLSE: (Since links get destroyed and shifted around over time, I just put the data below so it has staying power.) Article at tsn.ca by Steve Dryden: http://www.tsn.ca/keon-tops-the-one-hundred-greatest-maple-leafs-1.585168 'The One Hundred' NOS. 1 - 5 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 1. Dave Keon, C 1960-75 1,062 365 493 858 4 2. Syl Apps, C 1936-48 423 201 231 432 3 3. Ted Kennedy, C 1942-57 696 231 329 560 5 4. Darryl Sittler, C 1970-82 844 389 527 916 - 5. Mats Sundin, C 1995-08 981 420 567 987 - NOS. 6 - 10 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 6. Tim Horton, D 1952-70 1,185 109 349 458 4 7. Johnny Bower, G 1958-69 462 220-161-79 2.51 GAA - 4 8. Borje Salming, G 1973-89 1,099 148 620 768 - 9. Frank Mahovlich, LW 1957-68 720 296 301 597 4 10. Turk Broda, G 1936-51 629 302-224-101 2.53 GAA - 5 NOS. 11 - 15 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 11. Charlie Conacher, RW 1929-38 326 200 124 324 1 12. George Armstrong, RW 1950-71 1,187 296 417 713 4 13. Doug Gilmour, C 1992-97 393 131 321 452 - 14. Red Kelly, C 1960-67 470 119 232 351 4 15. Wendel Clark, LW 1985-00 608 260 181 441 - NO. 16 - 20 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 16. Busher Jackson, LW 1929-39 432 186 165 351 1 17. Hap Day, D 1924-37 538 86 113 199 1 18. King Clancy, D 1930-36 286 52 78 130 1 19. Lanny McDonald, RW 1973-79 477 219 240 459 - 20. Rick Vaive, RW 1980-87 534 299 238 537 - NOS. 21 - 25 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 21. Max Bentley, C 1947-53 354 122 134 256 3 22. Joe Primeau, C 1928-36 310 66 177 243 1 23. Allan Stanley, D 1958-68 633 47 186 233 4 24. Ron Ellis, RW 1964-81 1,034 332 308 640 1 25. Ace Bailey, RW 1926-33 313 111 82 193 1 NOS. 26 - 30 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 26. Bob Pulford, C 1956-70 947 251 312 563 4 27. Red Horner, D 1928-40 490 42 110 152 1 28. Dick Duff, LW 1955-64 582 174 168 342 2 29. Gordie Drillon, RW 1936-42 262 127 117 244 1 30. Bob Baun, D 1956-72 739 29 140 169 4 NO. 31 - 35 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 31. Babe Dye, RW 1919-31 177 173 42 215 1 32. Carl Brewer, D 1958-80 473 19 136 155 3 33. Sid Smith, LW 1948-58 601 186 183 369 3 34. Norm Ullman, C 1968-75 535 166 305 471 - 35. Curtis Joseph, G 1998-02 270 138-97-28 2.49 GAA - - NOS. 36 - 40 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 36. Bill Barilko, D 1947-51 252 26 36 62 4 37. Tomas Kaberle, D 1998-11 878 83 437 520 - 38. Tod Sloan, C 1948-58 549 162 184 346 1 39. Harry Watson, LW 1946-55 500 163 122 285 4 40. Jimmy Thomson, D 1946-57 717 15 208 223 4 NOS. 41 - 45 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 41. Dave Andreychuk, LW 1993-96 223 120 99 219 - 42. Ian Turnbull, D 1973-81 580 112 302 414 - 43. Terry Sawchuk, G 1964-67 91 42-29-13 2.81 GAA - 1 44. Paul Henderson, RW 1968-74 408 162 156 318 - 45. Felix Potvin, G 1992-99 369 160-149-49 2.87 GAA - - NOS. 46 - 50 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 46. Sweeney Schriner, LW 1939-46 244 109 83 192 2 47. Harry Lumley, G 1952-56 267 104-106-58 2.21 GAA - - 48. Phil Kessel, RW 2009-15 446 181 213 394 - 49. Babe Pratt, D 1942-46 181 52 108 160 1 50. Bob Davidson, LW 1935-46 491 94 160 254 2 NOS. 51 - 100 PLAYER YEARS GP G A PTS STANLEY CUPS 51. Lorne Chabot, G 1928-33 214 103-80-31 2.20 GAA - 1 52. Tiger Williams, LW 1975-80 407 109 132 241 - 53. Gary Leeman, RW 1983-92 545 176 231 407 - 54. Steve Thomas, RW 1985-01 377 118 173 291 - 55. Reg Noble, C 1917-24 160 125 59 184 2 56. Gus Mortson, D 1946-52 371 21 71 92 4 57. Ron Stewart, RW 1952-65 838 186 182 368 3 58. Mike Palmateer, G 1976-84 296 129-112-41 3.43 GAA - - 59. Billy Harris, C 1955-65 610 106 181 287 3 60. Gary Roberts, LW 2000-04 237 83 74 157 - 61. Vince Damphousse, LW 1986-91 394 118 211 329 - 62. John Anderson, LW 1977-85 534 189 204 393 - 63. Bryan McCabe, D 2000-08 523 83 214 297 - 64. Bob Nevin, RW 1957-64 250 55 100 155 2 65. Howie Meeker, RW 1946-54 346 83 102 185 4 66. Wally Stanowski, D 1939-48 282 20 74 94 4 67. Gaye Stewart, LW 1941-47 165 81 52 133 2 68. Eddie Shack, RW 1960-75 504 99 96 195 4 69. Nick Metz, LW 1935-48 518 131 119 250 4 70. Darcy Tucker, RW 1999-08 531 148 171 319 - 71. Ed Belfour, G 2002-06 170 93-61-15 2.51 GAA - - 72. Lorne Carr, RW 1941-46 236 105 121 226 2 73. Errol Thompson, LW 1971-78 365 126 119 245 - 74. Bill Ezinicki, RW 1945-50 271 56 79 135 3 75. Bill Derlago, D 1980-85 378 158 176 334 - 76. Bert Olmstead, LW 1958-62 246 56 109 165 1 77. Harry Cameron, D 1917-23 105 71 45 116 2 78. Al Iafrate, D 1984-91 472 81 169 250 - 79. Ed Olczyk, C 1987-91 257 116 151 267 - 80. Jim McKenny, D 1965-77 594 81 246 327 - 81. George Hainsworth, G 1933-37 147 79-48-20 2.26 GAA - - 82. Marcel Pronovost, D 1965-70 223 8 40 48 1 83. Alexander Mogilny, RW 2001-04 175 65 101 166 - 84. Todd Gill, D 1984-96 639 59 210 269 - 85. Mike Walton, C 1965-71 257 84 107 191 1 86. Dave Ellett, D 1990-97 446 51 172 223 - 87. Baldy Cotton, LW 1928-35 285 68 88 156 1 88. Dion Phaneuf, D 2010-16 423 45 151 196 - 89. Jim Pappin, RW 1963-68 223 54 46 100 2 90. Jack Adams, C 1917-26 133 78 31 109 2 91. Gus Bodnar, C 1943-47 187 48 105 153 1 92. Cal Gardner, C 1948-52 247 58 105 163 2 93. Tie Domi, RW 1989-06 777 84 112 196 - 94. Brian Glennie, D 1969-78 554 12 98 110 - 95. Corb Denneny, LW 1917-27 135 98 41 139 2 96. Larry Hillman, D 1960-68 461 20 120 140 2 97. Wilf Paiement, RW 1979-82 187 78 125 203 - 98. Russ Courtnall, C 1983-88 309 90 128 218 - 99. Joe Klukay, LW 1946-56 416 86 94 180 3 100. J. van Riemsdyk, LW 2012-16 251 89 89 178 - Photos courtesy of Getty Images and The Canadian Press My immediate thoughts on the list are: Notice how most of these players didn't play hockey in the past two generations. The top 10 consists mainly of players that played prior to television. That's an issue for my generation because when you look at a team like the New York Yankees, they still have guys like Rivera, Jeter, Pettite, etc. All players that I've watched. They didn't stop producing great players 50 years ago and call it a day. The Leafs have a major gap to bridge and a lot of catching up to do. Of that entire list of players, I saw Sundin, Gilmour, Clark, Domi, JVR (what on earth is he doing on this list), Kessel, Mogilny, Roberts, etc. Most of those players were just passing through Toronto or winding down their careers in Toronto. Of the recent players that had their prime in Toronto, only Sundin and Gilmour enjoyed some successful years in the blue and white and had deep playoff runs.

Agreed.

RE-CAPTCHA!

I didn't want to bring this up (but why not stir the pot a bit )...... Does this trade have anything to do with the fact that Subban is black and the audience/demographic of fans in Nashville, Tennessee probably want to see some black hockey players on their team to try and connect more with them? (Not so much that Montreal would want him out, but that Nashville would desperately want him in.)

Agreed. Hall for Subban would have been a fair trade, but the Habs don't want scoring and the Oilers don't want defence, so of course it can't happen.

But then, they would have got Hall and McJesus in return, according to Edmonton's GM.

Ssssh! Montreal isn't about winning any more! They like to spin their wheels. If you upgraded the forward group they might start winning games. Can't have that.

Imagine the leverage that coaches and GMs would have over players if there were no guaranteed contracts. It would be like an actual job! If the coach doesn't like your attitude or your work ethic, the team could drop you right away and owe you nothing! That would be awesome!

Perhaps.

I've noticed a gradual decline in the professional working commitment of nearly all professional athletes. Sure, they all take health and fitness more seriously, but that's only because they know they would never make it to the elite level otherwise. It's train or don't be a pro. I truly believe that the league needs to get rid of guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contracts effectively put an end to motivation. Imagine an average Joe winning the lottery and then reporting to work on Monday morning to keep doing what he was doing. We all know it would never happen, and the same thing applies to pro athletes. Once you know you're paid and set for life, you coast.

Reimer was a rookie when the Leafs last made the playoffs. I give him a free pass. It wasn't Reimer that collapsed that night against Boston, it was the entire TEAM that collapsed. What should have happened is the team should have been back to the playoffs the following year to avenge that loss and move on. Instead, they regressed as a team and Reimer was never given another chance to play until Babcock arrived. The Leafs absolutely buried Reimer, unlike the Penguins who kept sticking with Fleury. Fleury went from awful to amazing. He's had ups and downs, but Pittsburgh stuck with him. Compare that to Reimer, who has been the best Leafs goalie statistically in ages, and the team has never let him play more than ~35 games in a season? Has Reimer ever been the #1 guy for an entire season in Toronto? No. When you look at his numbers (regular season and playoff), Reimer should be the #1 goalie and Sparks should be backing him up next season. No more goalie carousel. Reimer is on the cusp of greatness. It appears that he has "figured it out". If the Leafs trade him now, they may be watching him win several Vezina trophies elsewhere.

I've always understood that the Norris trophy is supposed to be given to the best defenceman..... but then they always seem to give it to the highest scoring defenceman anyway. Oh well. Nicely done.

Different era in terms of scoring. None of those scoring milestones will ever be beaten without massive changes made to the current game.

Anaheim and Pittsburgh are both going to make the playoffs. Look at the standings and both are trending upward.

Yeah baby!!! We'll celebrate 30th place for now, knowing that it may be a while before we're back here again.

I really thought the Leafs had 30th place locked up this week.