Cherry defends Rinaldo

[B21]

I'm not comparing Cooke and Rinaldo. I know Rinaldo gets away with his fair share as well, but everyone wants to say Cooke is this reformed player and that just isn't the case. Yet you Penguins fans seem to be the only ones who disagree.

Matt Cooke is a dirty player through and through. Ask Ryan McDonough or Marc Savard if you don't believe me. Even though I doubt they'd remember the incidents. But now he's reformed and doesn't have this dirty player reputation anymore? Close calls and he gets the benefit of the doubt now?

I don't advocate penalizing a guy based on his reputation. I hate it in fact. I'm just saying that if this is how the league goes now how can you single out Rinaldo (who is not one of the worst) when its close, but one of the worst in the league (Cooke) gets a clean slate.

Just start penalizing players based on what they did on the ice and have consistent supplemental discipline and lets forget about all this reputation stuff.

There are definitely Pens fans who think that (ie - he's reformed) but I wouldn't put either Polaris922 or myself in that category. Pointing out he has changed his game - albeit for only one season - is just that. Pointing it out. That said, if has another season or three without incident then yeah - you have to call the guy "reformed" (for lack of a better word). Not there yet though.

I don't think anyone is giving Cooke a clean slate, either. If he throws another McDonough-like elbow this season he's getting a lot more than just two games. Consider it double secret probation. Plus, there haven't been any "close calls" where he has gotten the benefit of doubt either. That includes the incident with Karlsson. Outside of Ottawa, I see a large majority of hockey pundits saying it was not a dirty play. That's not a pass...it's really what happened.

As for my boy, Zac - I'll still argue that he does have quite the resume for having played the equivalent of about one full NHL season. When you guys brought him up he was just another AHL pest. Then things started to happen (not going to itemize my list again). At this point, I can't call his reputation unfair.

I understand you don't like officials taking a guy's reputation into account when making a close call/no call. I just don't think that pendulum swings any further towards the Flyers than it does any other team/player.

[Phillygrump]

I understand you don't like officials taking a guy's reputation into account when making a close call/no call. I just don't think that pendulum swings any further towards the Flyers than it does any other team/player.

You know I disagree with you on this. I don't think the Flyers have anything to do with it. I think the league (every league) shows favoritism to certain players and certain teams. I think in todays NHL your Penguins happen to be a popular team that gets the popular "nod" league-wide.

Cooke's new reputation is an example of that. Its not anything to do with the Flyers being slighted.

[radoran]

I understand you don't like officials taking a guy's reputation into account when making a close call/no call. I just don't think that pendulum swings any further towards the Flyers than it does any other team/player.

I think that's true to the extent that there is no "vendetta" against the Flyers.

I do believe, however, that the Flyers are seen as the Broad Street Bullies - because that's how the organization and the fans still see themselves. Deep down. Flyer hockey.

As such, the team has a reputation. Rinaldo's target wouldn't be nearly as large as it is if he wore a colour other than orange. Steve Downie (while one might argue has changed his game a bit) doesn't have as big a target now that he's out of the uniform. Carcillo's a joke on other teams. In a Flyer jersey, he was a threat.

I don't believe that there is a vendetta from Bettman or Shanahan or whoever. I do think the Flyers have a reputation.

Because they do, too. And so do their fans.

[canoli]

when it comes to O&B-colored bias maybe one of the Flyers' players can shed some light. Granted it's only 1 guy and Briere is no Lady Bing candidate but when he was asked about a borderline call his comment was "now that I'm wearing a Flyers' jersey I get called for stuff I never did before."

Over the years the Flyers cultivated and promoted the BSB legend for just one reason: because it sells, it's a revenue stream. "Flyers hockey" today bears no resemblance to the Broad Street Bullies and yet there are fans who think the Flyers deserve "special" attention on the ice...that fans who question a call are being hypocritical because they enjoy the BSB legend.

I don't know maybe it's something in the water out there in Pittsburgh...excuse me, the wudder.

[doom88]

@canoli I think Hartnell said the same thing too.

[Polaris922]

Neither Hartnell or Briere played the game the way they do in Philly though either. Briere was always a diver, but he uses the stick much more in Philly than he did in Buffalo. As for Hartnell, I think he's just become a better player in Philly. His skills in front if the net developed better which means more physical battles which always means more penalties.

Cooke still has a target on his back. No different than Rinaldo. That hit was so fast and the injury so obscured that nobody picked it out until video replay. It looked more like an ankle or knee twist hitting the boards than anything else, UNTIL the slow mo. And if Cooke were getting a pass, he wouldn't have gotten the 10 misconduct for being punched.

[brelic]

Just for fun, here are some Team PIM stats. The chart below shows you that PIM/G is in a downward trend. However, the Flyers remain more consistently near the bottom, i.e. among the most penalized teams in the league.

Does this mean there's a bias? Or does this mean we're just more undisciplined?

Flyers, PIM/G (ranking is from lowest to highest, so 30th means most penalized team, 1st means least penalized).

2012-2013, 28th

2011-2012, 30th

2010-2011, 24th

2009-2010, 29th

2008-2009, 30th

2000-2001, 12th

1997-1998, 21st

Pens, PIM/G

2012-2013, 6th

2011-2012, 12th

2010-2011, 29th

2009-2010, 25th

2008-2009, 13th

2000-2001, 30th

1997-1998, 4th

http://www.chartgo.c...o?id=041f7ba4aa

[radoran]

Over the years the Flyers cultivated and promoted the BSB legend for just one reason: because it sells, it's a revenue stream. "Flyers hockey" today bears no resemblance to the Broad Street Bullies and yet there are fans who think the Flyers deserve "special" attention on the ice...that fans who question a call are being hypocritical because they enjoy the BSB legend.

To be clear, I am in no way saying the team "deserves" special attention. Nor that there are not questionable calls.

I'm saying they *get* special attention and to ignore that is to ignore the reality of the situation. I'm saying that not EVERY call is questionable or evidence of a leaguewide bias.

Teams have reputations - agree with them or not, they exist.

I do *not* think that there is a planned, coordinated effort by the league to specifically target the Flyers.

[B21]

You know I disagree with you on this. I don't think the Flyers have anything to do with it. I think the league (every league) shows favoritism to certain players and certain teams. I think in todays NHL your Penguins happen to be a popular team that gets the popular "nod" league-wide.

Cooke's new reputation is an example of that. Its not anything to do with the Flyers being slighted.

So give me an example of Cooke's "new reputation" working to his benefit in any way. And this incident with Karlsson is NOT an example of that. Quite the opposite...we are only having these discussions BECAUSE it is Matt Cooke who was involved. Just look at MacLean's and Murray's comments....do you think they make the same comments alluding to "who was involved" if it is a player with an impeccable reputation?

Edited February 15, 2013 by B21

[Polaris922]

Just for fun, here are some Team PIM stats. The chart below shows you that PIM/G is in a downward trend. However, the Flyers remain more consistently near the bottom, i.e. among the most penalized teams in the league.

Does this mean there's a bias? Or does this mean we're just more undisciplined?

Flyers, PIM/G (ranking is from lowest to highest, so 30th means most penalized team, 1st means least penalized).

2012-2013, 28th

2011-2012, 30th

2010-2011, 24th

2009-2010, 29th

2008-2009, 30th

2000-2001, 12th

1997-1998, 21st

Pens, PIM/G

2012-2013, 6th

2011-2012, 12th

2010-2011, 29th

2009-2010, 25th

2008-2009, 13th

2000-2001, 30th

1997-1998, 4th

http://www.chartgo.c...o?id=041f7ba4aa

You also have to take into account the Flyers playing style. For years Flyers hockey has been physical, bang 'em up, wear 'me down style hockey. It's what the fans want as a whole, and what the team mentality is. The more physical a team plays the more penalties they'll get.

[B21]

I think that's true to the extent that there is no "vendetta" against the Flyers.

I do believe, however, that the Flyers are seen as the Broad Street Bullies - because that's how the organization and the fans still see themselves. Deep down. Flyer hockey.

As such, the team has a reputation. Rinaldo's target wouldn't be nearly as large as it is if he wore a colour other than orange. Steve Downie (while one might argue has changed his game a bit) doesn't have as big a target now that he's out of the uniform. Carcillo's a joke on other teams. In a Flyer jersey, he was a threat.

I don't believe that there is a vendetta from Bettman or Shanahan or whoever. I do think the Flyers have a reputation.

Because they do, too. And so do their fans.

Funny - I said the same thing about the organization and fans wanting to keep that BSB reputation around am told it's marketing and sales that drives it (as if the Flyers need that to sell tickets and jerseys). Props to you for admitting it's a lot more than that.

However, if that is how your fans want to be known then I don't want to hear complaining (not necessarily from you) about this "bias" that is perceived to come with it.

Personally, I don't think that bias exists but that's an argument that's been rehashed enough already.

[B21]

when it comes to O&B-colored bias maybe one of the Flyers' players can shed some light. Granted it's only 1 guy and Briere is no Lady Bing candidate but when he was asked about a borderline call his comment was "now that I'm wearing a Flyers' jersey I get called for stuff I never did before."

Over the years the Flyers cultivated and promoted the BSB legend for just one reason: because it sells, it's a revenue stream. "Flyers hockey" today bears no resemblance to the Broad Street Bullies and yet there are fans who think the Flyers deserve "special" attention on the ice...that fans who question a call are being hypocritical because they enjoy the BSB legend.

I don't know maybe it's something in the water out there in Pittsburgh...excuse me, the wudder.

Ha! Now who's getting mileage out of a single comment?

Good thing the Flyers have that BSB image to fall back on for marketing purposes. Otherwise, how on earth would they sell any tickets or jerseys?

EDIT: I wonder what calls Danny Boy is referring to? I mean, his PIM per game looks to be about the same as it was in Buffalo. Hmmmm.

Edited February 15, 2013 by B21

[brelic]

You also have to take into account the Flyers playing style. For years Flyers hockey has been physical, bang 'em up, wear 'me down style hockey. It's what the fans want as a whole, and what the team mentality is. The more physical a team plays the more penalties they'll get.

That chart changed on me somehow... I created a line chart, and when I clicked the link, it's now a bar chart. So much for online charting.

Anyway, yes, playing style comes in to play. I was just posting some data to see what the reality is, and the line chart clearly demonstrated an ebb and flow to penalties over the years.

If anything, the data eliminates the notion that the league gives the Pens preferential treatment as they've been near the bottom as recently as a few years ago. Of course, all this shows is an aggregate number of PIM/G, and doesn't take into account the timing of such calls, and the score at the time of the call. That's a whole different exercise!

[radoran]

Funny - I said the same thing about the organization and fans wanting to keep that BSB reputation around am told it's marketing and sales that drives it (as if the Flyers need that to sell tickets and jerseys). Props to you for admitting it's a lot more than that.

However, if that is how your fans want to be known then I don't want to hear complaining (not necessarily from you) about this "bias" that is perceived to come with it.

Personally, I don't think that bias exists but that's an argument that's been rehashed enough already.

I don't think it is a "bias" as much as it is a reputation.

If you go into a game thinking it's going to be a physical, banging style, you're going to have a different outlook than if you think it's going to be a run-and-gun free skating game.

"bias" implies a conscious decision to unfairly judge. I don't believe that there is a widespread conscious decision to penalize the Flyers.

I think that's fundamentally different from "calling a tighter game".

I am also not naive enough to believe that there are no officials on the ice or in an office that don't have such animus. People are people.

[Polaris922]

That chart changed on me somehow... I created a line chart, and when I clicked the link, it's now a bar chart. So much for online charting.

Anyway, yes, playing style comes in to play. I was just posting some data to see what the reality is, and the line chart clearly demonstrated an ebb and flow to penalties over the years.

If anything, the data eliminates the notion that the league gives the Pens preferential treatment as they've been near the bottom as recently as a few years ago. Of course, all this shows is an aggregate number of PIM/G, and doesn't take into account the timing of such calls, and the score at the time of the call. That's a whole different exercise!

You find time to do that kind of an analysis I'll know you're living in a cabin in the mountains alone...

[brelic]

You find time to do that kind of an analysis I'll know you're living in a cabin in the mountains alone...

That's not far from the truth already..

[Phillygrump]

So give me an example of Cooke's "new reputation" working to his benefit in any way. And this incident with Karlsson is NOT an example of that. Quite the opposite...we are only having these discussions BECAUSE it is Matt Cooke who was involved. Just look at MacLean's and Murray's comments....do you think they make the same comments alluding to "who was involved" if it is a player with an impeccable reputation?

I have no idea what Karlsson incident you are talking about.

[canoli]

EDIT: I wonder what calls Danny Boy is referring to? I mean, his PIM per game looks to be about the same as it was in Buffalo. Hmmmm.

ah you sonuva--- you had to go and confuse me with the facts. Gimme a break I'm trying to prove how unfair the refs are to my poor Flyers. It's a tough enough case without the damn facts getting in my way alright?

Seriously - thanks for checking the numbers (and making me check). Looks like Briere averages about 1 PIM per game in Buff and in Philly (I didn't look at Phoenix).

So what the hell, his comment reflects his impression of the calls and not the facts. So what? It's still valid to a certain extent. Who knows, maybe he was getting whistled for real obvious stuff in Buffalo and now he gets called for a lot of ticky-tack crap. Could be.

You buy that?

LOL.

[B21]

I have no idea what Karlsson incident you are talking about.

Nice try. Howabout the only one that's happened since he supposedly starting getting the benefit of doubt because of his newly remade reputation.

(And if you are alluding to the November 2010 "cheap shot" - it was late and he was penalized. No contact at all with the head. Never even left his feet.)

[B21]

ah you sonuva--- you had to go and confuse me with the facts. Gimme a break I'm trying to prove how unfair the refs are to my poor Flyers. It's a tough enough case without the damn facts getting in my way alright?

Seriously - thanks for checking the numbers (and making me check). Looks like Briere averages about 1 PIM per game in Buff and in Philly (I didn't look at Phoenix).

So what the hell, his comment reflects his impression of the calls and not the facts. So what? It's still valid to a certain extent. Who knows, maybe he was getting whistled for real obvious stuff in Buffalo and now he gets called for a lot of ticky-tack crap. Could be.

You buy that?

LOL.

I "could" buy into that. I'd be more inclined to buy into Barry Bonds' defense that he had no idea he was taking steroids....or that Briere can be a bit....whiney?...at times. Maybe he reads the forum and decided to take the bias theory out for a spin? For now, I'll stick with the numbers which (at least taken at face value) prove Danny Boy wrong.

[Phillygrump]

Nice try. Howabout the only one that's happened since he supposedly starting getting the benefit of doubt because of his newly remade reputation.

(And if you are alluding to the November 2010 "cheap shot" - it was late and he was penalized. No contact at all with the head. Never even left his feet.)

Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not been watching much hockey. I just think Cooke gets away with more than any other player with his type of reputation.

What do you mean nice try?

[Phillygrump]

I can't believe there are still fans out there that defend a total scumbag like Matt Cooke for anything. He has a history of intending to injure players. How can anyone defend him for anything questionable? The guy probably shouldn't even be in the NHL anymore.

Don't act like his reputation counts against him anymore for anything. The mere fact that he is still in the NHL is evidence that he is given a pass.

[B21]

@Phillygrump

<<< Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not been watching much hockey. I just think Cooke gets away with more than any other player with his type of reputation.

What do you mean nice try? >>>

I'll take that as you don't have an example of this so-called "new" reputation of his getting him a break anywhere.

<<< I can't believe there are still fans out there that defend a total scumbag like Matt Cooke for anything. He has a history of intending to injure players. How can anyone defend him for anything questionable? The guy probably shouldn't even be in the NHL anymore. >>>

Agree 100%. The Cookes and Prongers of the world have no business in the NHL. Heck, Pronger should have been tossed years ago. The sad part is, he'll get into the H of F. Talk about a pass.

<<< Don't act like his reputation counts against him anymore for anything. The mere fact that he is still in the NHL is evidence that he is given a pass. >>>

Oh good Lord. Back to waiting for an example of how this so-called "new" reputation has helped him. Still waiting.

Edited February 17, 2013 by B21

[Phillygrump]

@B21

I did give you the example and you agreed. Cooke doesn't belong in the NHL. Are you talking about a specific incident or something?

I don't get what you're waiting for.

[Phillygrump]

If you're suggesting I go back over every Penguins game and watch plays where Matt Cooke had questionable-illegal hits and no penalty even though he has a reputation for being a dirty goon with intent to injure I'm just not going to do that.

I won't even commit that much time to the Flyers post lockout. But I have seen it happen with my own eyes and so have you.

So don't ask me to point out to you things you have already seen but will deny as a Cooke fan. I have every right to be biased toward a guy like him who has intentionally tried to hurt at least 3 guys in his career. Your bias is based on the fact that he plays for your team. That is not as justified.

By the way, Pronger may be a fringe guy who jabs and does stuff after the whistle and plays games with the puck, but shame on you for trying to compare him to Matt Cooke who INTENTIONALLY tries to injure people.