idahophilly Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 With little else to discuss I was pondering this question. I read a similiar blog somewhere else but can't remember where. Anyway...A full NHL season is kinda like a marathon (that being the tortoise) while a lockout shortened season is more like a sprint (the Hare). So, assuming the ENTIRE season isn't wiped out, then IF your team was to win the Stanly Cup, would you prefer it to be the marathon or the sprint? All teams are in the same spot regardless but would you feel the championship was tainted because it wasn't a true NHL season?On the flip side, would you feel that immediate pressure and excitement that the Flyers can't falter at all and you are in the sprint to the finish right from the start?Of coarse, it matters when the season starts as to whether it's really a sprint or not. If they start , say Nov 1st, then not much has been lost and it's still a marathon. But start around Christmas and it's more of a sprint.Anyway, my vote is IF my team won the CUP in a half season contest It wouldn't bother me. I figure every team was in the same boat. Yes, attrition might not happen as much in the sprint but every team would have the same advantage...Idaho- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Anyway, my vote is IF my team won the CUP in a half season contest It wouldn't bother me. I figure every team was in the same boat. Yes, attrition might not happen as much in the sprint but every team would have the same advantage...It becomes and asterik cup- which, while all teams compete for the same thing, it is deminished by the marathon that is the NHL season and the NHL playoffs. The playoff games would presumably be the same, but the attrition that occurs during the season would be different- yet equal playing ground for all team. I tend to think that an older veteran team with balance and good goaltending would become a higher favorite than a younger team with good goaltending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 The Tortoise OR the Hare: Which Do You Prefer?Sheep. I prefer sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 It becomes and asterik cup- which, while all teams compete for the same thing, it is deminished by the marathon that is the NHL season and the NHL playoffs. The playoff games would presumably be the same, but the attrition that occurs during the season would be different- yet equal playing ground for all team. I tend to think that an older veteran team with balance and good goaltending would become a higher favorite than a younger team with good goaltending.The phrase "lockout-shortened" will always be appended to it - as it is with Lindros' MVP in 1995 and the Devils' first Cup.Interestingly, it was the younger team with good goaltending that beat the Bowman-led Red Wings that year.Nevertheless, Lindros will always be a "Hart Trophy Winner" and the Devils are still "Stanley Cup Champions". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I think the shortened season will cause a tight race to stay in the top 8 teams. Injuries will play a bigger role as there will be less time and games for teams to recover from a slump. I think we could see some surprises in the East, ie the Islanders, Buffalo, or Tampa Bay pushing for a playoff spot. With the Flyers defense as injured as it is a serious injury to Giroux could put the Flyers out of the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Nevertheless, Lindros will always be a "Hart Trophy Winner" and the Devils are still "Stanley Cup Champions".Yup. Good point about the Bowman team and so much for my theory that a more veteran-esque team would have greater odds. I would have to go look at the Detroit team, but NJ did have Brodeur in his prime. Trap (though I believe detroit also deployed the left-wing lock at the same time), Niedermeyer, Stevens etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yup.Good point about the Bowman team and so much for my theory that a more veteran-esque team would have greater odds. I would have to go look at the Detroit team, but NJ did have Brodeur in his prime. Trap (though I believe detroit also deployed the left-wing lock at the same time), Niedermeyer, Stevens etc.Well, it's an open question (with the other possibility being that there were two veteran squads with good goaltending in the Finals).The Devils did get to the Conference Final the year before, but Neidermayer came into the league in 1991-1992.And, yup, that was the trap/lock/clutch/grab era indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And, yup, that was the trap/lock/clutch/grab era indeed.Like him or not, but could you imagine lindros post lockout 2005- regardless of jersey color he would wear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Like him or not, but could you imagine lindros post lockout 2005- regardless of jersey color he would wear?a 1994-1995 Eric Lindros in 2005?Devastating.I think the closest thing is likely Malkin - from a combination of size and skill. And while he has a bit of an edge to his game, it's nothing like Eric's was in his prime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I dunno boys.. this past season I saw a LOT of interference not being called once again. Every year they claim some big crack down on it, and I'm still waiting to see it. It's been worse, sure, but it's still holding the games back I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I dunno boys.. this past season I saw a LOT of interference not being called once again. Every year they claim some big crack down on it, and I'm still waiting to see it. It's been worse, sure, but it's still holding the games back I see.Part of the problem is the way they've allowed players to play by not calling the game as it was designed to be called.What do you say to players who have been playing the same way their entire careers and now you want to tell them they've been dong it wrong?I would prefer to bite the bullet and just call the game the way the rulebook calls for it.But the NHL views the written rule as more "guideline" than actual "rule." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Every year they claim some big crack down on it, and I'm still waiting to see it. It's been worse, sure, but it's still holding the games back I see.I do agree with this. I think I was referring to the initial first two years post lock out. It does frustrate me at the regression of the enforcement - or "seasonal" enforcement of certain things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I would prefer to bite the bullet and just call the game the way the rulebook calls for it.But the NHL views the written rule as more "guideline" than actual "rule."You could add into that the fans become accostomed to a certain version of the rulebook as well. You could put a poll on here (and was debated at length last season), on what "charging" was (or the Kronwall rule). For me it was always 3 strides into a player and / or leaving the feet. The rule book says something completely different and the league says something completely different again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 You could add into that the fans become accostomed to a certain version of the rulebook as well. You could put a poll on here (and was debated at length last season), on what "charging" was (or the Kronwall rule). For me it was always 3 strides into a player and / or leaving the feet. The rule book says something completely different and the league says something completely different again.Then rewite the rules to fit the interrpretation. What is the point of having a "rule" that isn't enforced the way it is written?Don't change "interpretation" - change the freaking rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.