2013 NHL Season

[snoopy369]

Hockey is unique - what other team sport plays all their guys?

Well, it's a matter of physicality and roster setup. You don't have to play all of your guys significantly, certainly; the Hawks dressed seven defensemen against Detroit but one of them played a grand total of three minutes. Active game rosters in the NHL are set at 20 - 12 forwards (4 lines) 6 defensemen 2 goalies, so you play all your guys; if it were 25, you might not. Basketball could easily be in the same boat but they set it a bit high (12); set it at 8 or 9 and most teams would play all 8 or 9 each game. But certainly the NHL does expect contributions from every man every game.

Side note: NFL teams probably play 'all their guys' most nights, except the backup QB. Anybody who's not in a starting or active rotation role will be playing on special teams, except the backup QB (and even he usually holds for kicks).

[snoopy369]

It's fun with semantics. That's all.

The only correct way to frame such a statement is to reference every historical example. Snoopy is just arguing against an absolute statement... that I didn't make. Imaginary arguments are always the best.

The only guaranteed way to win a world series is to score more runs than the other team in at least 4 out of the 7 games.

I'm actually trying to argue with the spirit of your statement. I don't think basketball's reliance on a few superstars is similar to a team created around a couple of ace pitchers in baseball. In basketball you sign Lebron and Wade and have a team that will make the playoffs every year, and likely win championships (and I'm ignoring Bosh because that's the trendy thing to do . In baseball, you do the same thing (create a team with just a few ace pitchers and otherwise mostly league-average talent) you wouldn't be making anything. Adjust it for roster size, and you might have something - but at that point you could make the argument for _any_ sport (hockey team with 7 or 8 superstars? NFL team with a star QB star RB star WR and four or five star Ds? Those are going to dominate as well).

What you can't really argue is that basketball is alone among sports in having teams that are virtually assured of making the playoffs when they walk on the floor. The reason that the Lakers possibly not making the playoffs (and there's still reason to expect they will) is shocking is that it's outside the realm of possibility to most people for one of the 'superstar' teams to miss the playoffs. In baseball that happens _all the time_. Sure, the Yankees usually make the playoffs, due to their salaries - but that's more than just a few superstars. The Phillies missed the playoffs this year, and nobody was really all that surprised. The Red Sox miss the playoffs regularly. I'm sure some of that has to do with the number of teams making the playoffs in basketball; but some of it is the sport itself.

[Demonbinder]

Bomani Jones is an idiot!

[Sava]

I'm actually trying to argue with the spirit of your statement.

Seems like you are making things up to me.

[snoopy369]

Bomani Jones is an idiot!

Why's that?

[Demonbinder]

He was on ATH the other day and they were talking about which streak was better - Hawks or Heat. Sure enough, he picked Heat saying Hawks were lucky in some of those games. Heat are a dominant team, and they are not even as good as Bulls in '90's and some other teams. A 12 game streak or whatever they are on can't compare to the Hawks going basically half their season (which will be tonight) without a regulation loss.

I've also seen him on that show quite a few times and not really fond of him (partially because of some of his stupid arguments).

[Supr49er]

Only Cowlishaw knows hockey. And the PTI guys (In particular Tony Kornheiser) are also confused as to how the Hawks can have losses, yet be undefeated. It's sad to see their ignorance. It's not that hard to understand guys. Statboy laughed at them.

[snoopy369]

I think the streak should count until they have a normal OT L. No self respecting hockey fan considers a shootout to be a relevant factor in the result of a hockey game. The previous streak was played under real hockey rules - W,L,T, one point for T (end of one OT period tied) two for W - so the Hawks streak can count under those rules as far as I'm concerned.

As far as luck - luck plays a part in every professional sports game. Baseball, luck plays a part in your BABIP - difference between an MVP season and being mired in a slump is a .190 BABIP versus a .340, with no change in how the batter performs. Hockey, sure you have some luck in those games, particularly when the games are so close, score wise, no matter what. 2-1 hockey victory is like 90-70 basketball game, right? Heck, 90-50. Hockey will _always_ require more luck than basketball for that reason.

That said, MIA needed 'luck' to beat ... Cleveland? Charlotte? Their streak is fairly impressive, but 15 games against 7 playoff teams, including several injured (the Bulls game was against practically the second team, for example), isn't that impressive in the scheme of things; maybe three or four impressive wins there mixed in with a bunch of meh. Basketball is going to generate more streaks than hockey, I'd guess; NBA best record of all time was 72 wins. NHL? 62. 132 points is the record number of points (66 win-equivalents). And on top of that, in recent years you have less ability to dominate, since you have a really tight salary cap and a far more physical game. I can't imagine having 130+ points nowadays - even 120 seems high (and that's with getting a point from OT losses and 2 from SOWs).

The one knock on the Hawks is that they have only one SOL against ANA and one SO win over DET in the streak (the two most challenging teams). Still, I think it's overall more impressive by a large margin given how much luck you _need_ in hockey.

[Demonbinder]

Only Cowlishaw knows hockey. And the PTI guys (In particular Tony Kornheiser) are also confused as to how the Hawks can have losses, yet be undefeated. It's sad to see their ignorance. It's not that hard to understand guys. Statboy laughed at them.

Yes, I totally agree with you, except that Wilbon does understand it.

I also agree with Snoopy on the OTL thing. I'm not really a fan of the shootout. I was concerned against Detroit because Crawford had all three shootout losses, but he and Kaner came through. It is really the most impressive streak I have seen, esp. when you count to last year. Hope they can keep it going.

[-Jrabbit]

Hawks looking good tonight -- 17 SOG in the first, with 4 goals in about 6 minutes.

[Demonbinder]

What a lousy first period by Hawks and giving up 3 PP goals?? Had a football game out there, and a nice comeback but that last PP goal by Oilers was the game winner. Hard to come back from four down. Friday was first time all year they were down by three and then tonight even worse. Luckily they have a few days off and way they played in last two periods should help them get back on track.

[Sava]

did they win? i drank too mych and couldnt swastch commerciasl

[Demonbinder]

They ended up losing 6-5 with some great chances near the end, but couldn't get it to OT. Now they have off until Thursday after playing seven games in 11 days. Quite a brutal schedule there, but overall still a great record.

[Sava]

to a canadian team?

[Demonbinder]

Yes, they were down 4-0 to start. Three goals by time first half of first period was over.