Rick Rypien's death at 27 is a tragic story, and one that's resonated with a lot of people. Hundreds headed to Rogers Arena for an impromptu memorial Wednesday, while his teammates in Winnipeg mournedtreatment programs and the role of fighting came to the surface. Information on what exactly happened to Rypien is still scanty, but for many of us, his death brought back memories of athletes who battled depression and wound up taking their own lives, such as Kenny McKinley and Dave Duerson.
We don't know yet if depression led to Rypien's death, but it's played a major role in the deaths of others. Before Rypien's death, Sports Illustrated's Pablo S. Torre wrote an excellent piece in this week's magazine on the suicides of Duerson, former San Jose Shark Tom Cavanaugh, former New York Yankee Hideki Irabu, American Olympic skier Speedy Peterson, former Duke basketball captain Thomas Emma and Austrian Olympic judoka Claudia Heill, and how they raise larger issues of how we look at depression in sports. Bruce Arthur had a great column on the same subject, but expanded it to life in general, and that's a conversation we absolutely need to have as a society. Depression is still heavily stigmatized, but it's hit more people than you think. I've had my own struggles with depression in the past, and it's not an easy monster to lick at all. It's a problem we have to take seriously, and it's something where we have to figure out a way to support the people affected.
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hockey. Show all posts
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Stanley Cup Finals preview: myself on the Canucks
Here's the conclusion of this point/counterpoint setting up the Stanley Cup Finals. Earlier, my old Queen's Journal colleague Mike Woods made the case for the Bruins. Here's my take on why I think the Canucks will win.
The NHL playoffs are a funny thing, and the best team doesn't always win. In fact, as I've written before, contrary to the demands of narrative, the best team probably wins about 55 per cent of the time. That leaves 45 per cent of the time where upsets happen, and the odds may be even higher in a series like this that looks like it should be close. Thus, anything could happen here. If you're a betting man or someone making predictions, though, you want that 55 per cent chance over a 45 per cent one, and that's why I'm going with the Canucks.
What Vancouver accomplished this regular season was nothing short of historic. They finished first in the NHL with 117 points, 10 ahead of their nearest competitor (Washington) and 14 ahead of the Bruins. They scored an NHL-best 262 goals and conceded a NHL-low 185 (if you're not entirely convinced of the predictive value of goal differential, it's notable that Boston's +51 was second-best in the league, but miles behind Vancouver's +77). Even an 82-game or 162-game (as in baseball) regular season may not be enough to really give us a solid indication of who the best teams really are, but it's a pretty good sample size, and it suggests that these Canucks are a pretty incredible group.
Special teams also look like a particular advantage for Vancouver. The Canucks put up a NHL-best 24.3 per cent mark on the power play during the regular season, an area where Boston particularly struggled; the Bruins were 20th with a 16.2 per cent mark. Those trends have continued in the postseason, where Vancouver's third with a 28.3 mark (behind only first-round exitees Anaheim and Phoenix), while Boston is 14th with a miserable 8.2 mark (ahead of only the Rangers and Pittsburgh). Postseason penalty killing has also been an edge for Vancouver, where they've put up a 80.6 per cent mark against Boston's 79.4 per cent; that advantage was even more stark in the regular season, where Vancouver's 85.6 per cent mark (third in the league) was notably better than Boston's 82.8 per cent (16th). As close playoff games often come down to what you can do with the man advantage, it's hard not to like the Canucks there.
Vancouver's roster is strong throughout as well. Despite criticism of goaltender Roberto Luongo, his playoff save percentage is a sparkling .920, eighth-best all time. Boston's Tim Thomas may hold an even better .928 mark, but Luongo is no goaltending slouch, and he's got plenty of support. The Canucks' defining characteristic is their depth, as in addition to superb production from Henrik Sedin (a playoff-best 21 points), Daniel Sedin (16) and Ryan Kesler (18), they're also getting key contributions from the likes of Mason Raymond (eight points) and Chris Higgins (seven points). Their defence is also deep and consistent, with everyone from Christian Ehrhoff to Alex Edler to Kevin Bieksa having tremendous playoffs. Moreover, this year has been proof that bruins can be defeated by prominent B.C. products. I think it's going to be close, as Boston's a great team too, but I think the Canucks have enough edges to take this series.
Prediction: Canucks in seven
The NHL playoffs are a funny thing, and the best team doesn't always win. In fact, as I've written before, contrary to the demands of narrative, the best team probably wins about 55 per cent of the time. That leaves 45 per cent of the time where upsets happen, and the odds may be even higher in a series like this that looks like it should be close. Thus, anything could happen here. If you're a betting man or someone making predictions, though, you want that 55 per cent chance over a 45 per cent one, and that's why I'm going with the Canucks.
What Vancouver accomplished this regular season was nothing short of historic. They finished first in the NHL with 117 points, 10 ahead of their nearest competitor (Washington) and 14 ahead of the Bruins. They scored an NHL-best 262 goals and conceded a NHL-low 185 (if you're not entirely convinced of the predictive value of goal differential, it's notable that Boston's +51 was second-best in the league, but miles behind Vancouver's +77). Even an 82-game or 162-game (as in baseball) regular season may not be enough to really give us a solid indication of who the best teams really are, but it's a pretty good sample size, and it suggests that these Canucks are a pretty incredible group.
Special teams also look like a particular advantage for Vancouver. The Canucks put up a NHL-best 24.3 per cent mark on the power play during the regular season, an area where Boston particularly struggled; the Bruins were 20th with a 16.2 per cent mark. Those trends have continued in the postseason, where Vancouver's third with a 28.3 mark (behind only first-round exitees Anaheim and Phoenix), while Boston is 14th with a miserable 8.2 mark (ahead of only the Rangers and Pittsburgh). Postseason penalty killing has also been an edge for Vancouver, where they've put up a 80.6 per cent mark against Boston's 79.4 per cent; that advantage was even more stark in the regular season, where Vancouver's 85.6 per cent mark (third in the league) was notably better than Boston's 82.8 per cent (16th). As close playoff games often come down to what you can do with the man advantage, it's hard not to like the Canucks there.
Vancouver's roster is strong throughout as well. Despite criticism of goaltender Roberto Luongo, his playoff save percentage is a sparkling .920, eighth-best all time. Boston's Tim Thomas may hold an even better .928 mark, but Luongo is no goaltending slouch, and he's got plenty of support. The Canucks' defining characteristic is their depth, as in addition to superb production from Henrik Sedin (a playoff-best 21 points), Daniel Sedin (16) and Ryan Kesler (18), they're also getting key contributions from the likes of Mason Raymond (eight points) and Chris Higgins (seven points). Their defence is also deep and consistent, with everyone from Christian Ehrhoff to Alex Edler to Kevin Bieksa having tremendous playoffs. Moreover, this year has been proof that bruins can be defeated by prominent B.C. products. I think it's going to be close, as Boston's a great team too, but I think the Canucks have enough edges to take this series.
Prediction: Canucks in seven
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Canucks - Blackhawks Game IV live blog
The last one of these was a lot of fun, so we're doing it again! Join me and a cast of Internet types for a live blog of tonight's Vancouver - Chicago game. Will the Canucks sweep the series, or will the Blackhawks live to fight another day? Find out in the live blog below, starting at 8 p.m. Eastern (5 p.m. Pacific). All are welcome to join!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Canucks - Blackhawks Game II live blog
I'll be live-blogging tonight's Canucks - Blackhawks clash with an assortment of interweb friends, including Beau Brace and Josh Koebert. Vancouver's up 1-0 in the series after a 2-0 win Wednesday night, but Chicago certainly can't be written off yet. Everyone's welcome; drop in and give us your thoughts on the game, the series and the rest of the playoffs so far. The puck drops in Vancouver at 7 p.m. local (10 p.m. Eastern), so swing by and join us then!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
NHL playoff preview: setting up the first round
The NHL playoffs get rolling tonight, with the Tampa Bay Lightning and Pittsburgh Penguins going head-to-head in one early game, the Phoenix Coyotes and Detroit Red Wings facing off in another clash and the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals in a third. There are also a pair of late games, featuring the Vancouver Canucks and Chicago Blackhawks and the Nashville Predators and Anaheim Ducks. There should be some excellent hockey on display tonight, and hopefully for much of the rest of the playoffs as well. Here's a preview of each first-round matchup, organized by game time (broadcast info from The 506):
(4) Pittsburgh Penguins - (5) Tampa Bay Lightning
First game: Wednesday, 7 p.m. Eastern, CBC (Ontario east, except Windsor)
This is an interesting one. The Penguins have a stronger defence and better goaltending (I'll happily take Marc-Andre Fleury over Dwayne Roloson), but their offence doesn't look as promising without Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin (at least to start). Meanwhile, Tampa Bay is deep up front with the likes of Steven Stamkos, Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, but their depth is an issue just about everywhere else. I like Pittsburgh in this one, but the Lightning shouldn't be an easy out.
Prediction: Penguins in six
(4) Pittsburgh Penguins - (5) Tampa Bay Lightning
First game: Wednesday, 7 p.m. Eastern, CBC (Ontario east, except Windsor)
This is an interesting one. The Penguins have a stronger defence and better goaltending (I'll happily take Marc-Andre Fleury over Dwayne Roloson), but their offence doesn't look as promising without Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin (at least to start). Meanwhile, Tampa Bay is deep up front with the likes of Steven Stamkos, Martin St. Louis and Vincent Lecavalier, but their depth is an issue just about everywhere else. I like Pittsburgh in this one, but the Lightning shouldn't be an easy out.
Prediction: Penguins in six
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Canucks: Hank wins the Hart
It was a big day for the Canucks, with Henrik Sedin taking home the Hart Memorial Trophy as the NHL's most valuable player. I've got some thoughts on the matter and how the voting broke down over at Canuck Puck; check them out!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Hockey: Montreal's return to prominence
The Montreal Canadiens are in tough against the Philadelphia Flyers in the first-ever NHL conference final between a #7 seed (Philly) and an #8 seed (Montreal). They're down 2-0 in the series, they've given up nine goals and they haven't yet been able to beat Flyers' goaltender Michael Leighton. As Bruce Arthur wrote in his column in today's National Post, Philadelphia's rounding into form nicely and Montreal hasn't been impressive. If that continues, it seems likely the Canadiens' Cinderella run will end here.
Yet, there are several factors that have me thinking this one isn't over yet. For one, Philadelphia's lineup doesn't overly impress me, especially without the injured Jeff Carter. They have talented players like Mike Richards, Danny Briere, Simon Gagne and, as much as it pains me to say it, Chris Pronger, but much of their roster is filled with guys who are most known for their thuggery. Montreal wasn't any better during the regular season (both teams finished with 88 points and the Canadiens had a worse goal differential), but they have plenty of weapons up front with the likes of Scott Gomez, Mike Cammalleri, Tomas Plekanec and Brian Gionta, and I've got more faith in Jaroslav Halak as a playoff saviour [Dan Steinberg, D.C. Sports Bog] than I do in Michael Leighton, who looks more like a very naughty boy than a messiah. Moreover, Montreal's already come back to knock off Washington and Pittsburgh, much better teams than Philadelphia in my mind.
For me, the biggest thing still in Montreal's favour is that they're returning to home ice tonight, though. Yes, home ice doesn't always mean that much these days, but there's something special about the atmosphere in Montreal, driven by the unique history of the Canadiens and their relationship to their city and province. To try and explain it, here's an excerpt from D’Arcy Jenish's book, The Montreal Canadiens: 100 Years of Glory, sent my way by the good people at Random House. You can find more information on the book and buy it through their site. Without further ado, here's what makes Montreal unique and how the Canadiens got to where they are today:
This is Hockeytown
Other cities may lay claim to the title, says Pierre Boivin during an animated discussion in his corner office on the seventh floor of the Bell Centre, home of the Montreal Canadiens. Then, with a sweep of his arm, he gestures at the city beyond his windows. “Make no mistake about it, this is Hockeytown.”
Montreal is Hockeytown by dint of history and the citizenry’s enduring passion for the sport. It is where a raw and ragged game – shinny played on the icebound creeks and rivers and lakes of a wintry nation – came indoors and became hockey, the world’s first arena sport. It is where the first rules were written, where the first team was formed – the McGill University Redmen in 1877 – and where the sport’s most hallowed prize, the Stanley Cup, has come to rest thirty-nine times since it was first awarded in 1893, a prize captured by the Canadiens, Maroons, Wanderers, Shamrocks, Victorias and the Winged Wheelers of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association.
In the 1890s, when the sport was young and the Stanley Cup brand new, the Winged Wheelers, Victorias and Shamrocks and their rabid followers were hockey’s hottest rivals. A few decades later, in the Roaring Twenties and Dirty Thirties, English Montreal had its team, the Maroons, and French Montreal had its standard-bearer, the Canadiens, and games between them produced war both on the ice and in the stands.
For seven decades now, ever since the demise of the Maroons, Montreal’s sporting public has worshipped at one altar, that of the Canadiens, and the passage of time has done nothing to diminish the ardour of the citizenry. “When we win on Saturday night, you get on the subway Monday morning and three-quarters of the people are smiling,” says Boivin, president and CEO of the Canadiens. “If we lose a couple and Toronto’s ahead by a point, Montrealers are very unhappy. If we don’t make the playoffs, spring is hell. To some degree, the city’s productivity is influenced by the team’s performance. Hockey is part of what makes this city tick.”
And yet, in the first years of the current century, hockey in Montreal was in jeopardy. Le Club de Hockey Canadien was grievously ill and in danger of folding. The team was mediocre and missing the playoffs more often than not. Attendance was declining. Financial losses were mounting. Furthermore, there appeared to be no way out. The Canadiens were damned by circumstances beyond their control. Player salaries had risen to untenable levels, owing to the free-spending ways of wealthier rivals, most of them in the United States. The Canadiens, like the five other NHL teams based in this country, were paying their athletes in U.S. dollars but earning their revenues in a domestic dollar worth about twenty-five percent less. On top of all this, the Canadiens were saddled with over eight million dollars per year in municipal taxes, whereas the league average was less than a million per team.
“We were losing a ton of money year in, year out,” Boivin recalls. “There was no way we could make money because of structural economic and competitive disadvantages. We had no hope of surviving.”
The Canadiens and their Colorado-based owner, George N. Gillett Jr., solidly supported the lockout of the players that cost the NHL its entire 2004—05 season. The NHL Players’ Association eventually capitulated and accepted a new collective bargaining agreement with a yearly salary cap, initially set at $39 million (U.S.) per team. This drastic measure trimmed the Canadiens’ payroll by about $12 million annually and helped save the franchise.
“Toronto was the only Canadian club that could have survived long-term and been competitive under the old regime,” Boivin adds. “We would have seen the relocation or the demise of the other five teams, and Montreal was no exception.”
Hockey returned to the city in the fall of 2005. The Canadiens played their first home game against the Ottawa Senators on the evening of October 10, a Tuesday. About ninety minutes before the puck dropped, the main doors of the Bell Centre opened and a crowd several hundred strong surged into the lobby. Boivin was there to welcome them. So were Gillett and general manager Bob Gainey and former players Henri Richard, Yvan Cournoyer and Réjean Houle. By game time, they had greeted several thousand people, a slice of the sellout crowd of 21,273.
The return of the NHL was cause for jubilation in the city that gave birth to the game. The league’s financial foundation had been restored and the future of its oldest and greatest franchise seemed assured. And the Canadiens had something else to celebrate: the one-hundredth anniversary of Le Club de Hockey Canadien – formed on December 4, 1909.
That fall, the Canadiens launched their centennial celebrations. The first significant public event occurred prior to a Saturday night game on November 12, when the Canadiens retired jersey number twelve. Left winger Dickie Moore, a two-time scoring champion, wore that sweater from 1951 to 1963, and right winger Yvan Cournoyer from 1964 to 1979. In the run-up to 2009, the team also retired numbers worn by Bernard Geoffrion (five), Serge Savard (eighteen), Ken Dryden (twenty-nine), Larry Robinson (nineteen) and Gainey (twenty-three). These joined numbers already taken out of circulation to honour Jacques Plante (one), Doug Harvey (two), Jean Béliveau (four), Howie Morenz (seven), Maurice Richard (nine), Guy Lafleur (ten) and Henri Richard (sixteen).
Two major events were planned for the centennial year. The league awarded Montreal the 2009 All-Star Game and scheduled the contest for January 25, the one-hundredth anniversary of the first match to go into the books as part of the Canadiens’ official record. The league also named Montreal as host of the 2009 Entry Draft.
Amid this prolonged centenary, a remarkable transformation was taking place. Gillett, who was seen as an interloper when he acquired the club and its building in January 2001, was proving to be a good owner, and he was winning the respect of Montrealers. Boivin and his executive group were overhauling the Canadiens’ business organization, while Gainey and his staff in the hockey department were rebuilding the team through trades, free-agent signings and, above all, the draft.
As the Canadiens completed their ninty-ninth season, these efforts were beginning to yield results. Le Club de Hockey Canadien had reclaimed its status as one of the best in the sport. The Canadiens were contenders again, and another Stanley Cup – a twenty-fifth for the team and a fortieth for the city – seemed a distinct possibility.
Excerpted from The Montreal Canadiens by D'Arcy Jenish. Copyright © 2008 by D'Arcy Jenish. Excerpted by permission of Anchor Canada. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
We'll see if Montreal can live up to that tonight. I wouldn't bet against them, though. History is on their side.
Yet, there are several factors that have me thinking this one isn't over yet. For one, Philadelphia's lineup doesn't overly impress me, especially without the injured Jeff Carter. They have talented players like Mike Richards, Danny Briere, Simon Gagne and, as much as it pains me to say it, Chris Pronger, but much of their roster is filled with guys who are most known for their thuggery. Montreal wasn't any better during the regular season (both teams finished with 88 points and the Canadiens had a worse goal differential), but they have plenty of weapons up front with the likes of Scott Gomez, Mike Cammalleri, Tomas Plekanec and Brian Gionta, and I've got more faith in Jaroslav Halak as a playoff saviour [Dan Steinberg, D.C. Sports Bog] than I do in Michael Leighton, who looks more like a very naughty boy than a messiah. Moreover, Montreal's already come back to knock off Washington and Pittsburgh, much better teams than Philadelphia in my mind.
For me, the biggest thing still in Montreal's favour is that they're returning to home ice tonight, though. Yes, home ice doesn't always mean that much these days, but there's something special about the atmosphere in Montreal, driven by the unique history of the Canadiens and their relationship to their city and province. To try and explain it, here's an excerpt from D’Arcy Jenish's book, The Montreal Canadiens: 100 Years of Glory, sent my way by the good people at Random House. You can find more information on the book and buy it through their site. Without further ado, here's what makes Montreal unique and how the Canadiens got to where they are today:
This is Hockeytown
Other cities may lay claim to the title, says Pierre Boivin during an animated discussion in his corner office on the seventh floor of the Bell Centre, home of the Montreal Canadiens. Then, with a sweep of his arm, he gestures at the city beyond his windows. “Make no mistake about it, this is Hockeytown.”
Montreal is Hockeytown by dint of history and the citizenry’s enduring passion for the sport. It is where a raw and ragged game – shinny played on the icebound creeks and rivers and lakes of a wintry nation – came indoors and became hockey, the world’s first arena sport. It is where the first rules were written, where the first team was formed – the McGill University Redmen in 1877 – and where the sport’s most hallowed prize, the Stanley Cup, has come to rest thirty-nine times since it was first awarded in 1893, a prize captured by the Canadiens, Maroons, Wanderers, Shamrocks, Victorias and the Winged Wheelers of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association.
In the 1890s, when the sport was young and the Stanley Cup brand new, the Winged Wheelers, Victorias and Shamrocks and their rabid followers were hockey’s hottest rivals. A few decades later, in the Roaring Twenties and Dirty Thirties, English Montreal had its team, the Maroons, and French Montreal had its standard-bearer, the Canadiens, and games between them produced war both on the ice and in the stands.
For seven decades now, ever since the demise of the Maroons, Montreal’s sporting public has worshipped at one altar, that of the Canadiens, and the passage of time has done nothing to diminish the ardour of the citizenry. “When we win on Saturday night, you get on the subway Monday morning and three-quarters of the people are smiling,” says Boivin, president and CEO of the Canadiens. “If we lose a couple and Toronto’s ahead by a point, Montrealers are very unhappy. If we don’t make the playoffs, spring is hell. To some degree, the city’s productivity is influenced by the team’s performance. Hockey is part of what makes this city tick.”
And yet, in the first years of the current century, hockey in Montreal was in jeopardy. Le Club de Hockey Canadien was grievously ill and in danger of folding. The team was mediocre and missing the playoffs more often than not. Attendance was declining. Financial losses were mounting. Furthermore, there appeared to be no way out. The Canadiens were damned by circumstances beyond their control. Player salaries had risen to untenable levels, owing to the free-spending ways of wealthier rivals, most of them in the United States. The Canadiens, like the five other NHL teams based in this country, were paying their athletes in U.S. dollars but earning their revenues in a domestic dollar worth about twenty-five percent less. On top of all this, the Canadiens were saddled with over eight million dollars per year in municipal taxes, whereas the league average was less than a million per team.
“We were losing a ton of money year in, year out,” Boivin recalls. “There was no way we could make money because of structural economic and competitive disadvantages. We had no hope of surviving.”
The Canadiens and their Colorado-based owner, George N. Gillett Jr., solidly supported the lockout of the players that cost the NHL its entire 2004—05 season. The NHL Players’ Association eventually capitulated and accepted a new collective bargaining agreement with a yearly salary cap, initially set at $39 million (U.S.) per team. This drastic measure trimmed the Canadiens’ payroll by about $12 million annually and helped save the franchise.
“Toronto was the only Canadian club that could have survived long-term and been competitive under the old regime,” Boivin adds. “We would have seen the relocation or the demise of the other five teams, and Montreal was no exception.”
Hockey returned to the city in the fall of 2005. The Canadiens played their first home game against the Ottawa Senators on the evening of October 10, a Tuesday. About ninety minutes before the puck dropped, the main doors of the Bell Centre opened and a crowd several hundred strong surged into the lobby. Boivin was there to welcome them. So were Gillett and general manager Bob Gainey and former players Henri Richard, Yvan Cournoyer and Réjean Houle. By game time, they had greeted several thousand people, a slice of the sellout crowd of 21,273.
The return of the NHL was cause for jubilation in the city that gave birth to the game. The league’s financial foundation had been restored and the future of its oldest and greatest franchise seemed assured. And the Canadiens had something else to celebrate: the one-hundredth anniversary of Le Club de Hockey Canadien – formed on December 4, 1909.
That fall, the Canadiens launched their centennial celebrations. The first significant public event occurred prior to a Saturday night game on November 12, when the Canadiens retired jersey number twelve. Left winger Dickie Moore, a two-time scoring champion, wore that sweater from 1951 to 1963, and right winger Yvan Cournoyer from 1964 to 1979. In the run-up to 2009, the team also retired numbers worn by Bernard Geoffrion (five), Serge Savard (eighteen), Ken Dryden (twenty-nine), Larry Robinson (nineteen) and Gainey (twenty-three). These joined numbers already taken out of circulation to honour Jacques Plante (one), Doug Harvey (two), Jean Béliveau (four), Howie Morenz (seven), Maurice Richard (nine), Guy Lafleur (ten) and Henri Richard (sixteen).
Two major events were planned for the centennial year. The league awarded Montreal the 2009 All-Star Game and scheduled the contest for January 25, the one-hundredth anniversary of the first match to go into the books as part of the Canadiens’ official record. The league also named Montreal as host of the 2009 Entry Draft.
Amid this prolonged centenary, a remarkable transformation was taking place. Gillett, who was seen as an interloper when he acquired the club and its building in January 2001, was proving to be a good owner, and he was winning the respect of Montrealers. Boivin and his executive group were overhauling the Canadiens’ business organization, while Gainey and his staff in the hockey department were rebuilding the team through trades, free-agent signings and, above all, the draft.
As the Canadiens completed their ninty-ninth season, these efforts were beginning to yield results. Le Club de Hockey Canadien had reclaimed its status as one of the best in the sport. The Canadiens were contenders again, and another Stanley Cup – a twenty-fifth for the team and a fortieth for the city – seemed a distinct possibility.
Excerpted from The Montreal Canadiens by D'Arcy Jenish. Copyright © 2008 by D'Arcy Jenish. Excerpted by permission of Anchor Canada. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
We'll see if Montreal can live up to that tonight. I wouldn't bet against them, though. History is on their side.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The NHL's greatest upset?
TSN's Gino Reda tweeted an interesting question following the Flyers' improbable 4-3 comeback victory [Broad Street Hockey] over the Bruins [Jon Bois, SB Nation] tonight; was this the greatest comeback in NHL history? I'm tempted to say yes.
To start with, coming back from a 3-0 series deficit in a best-of-seven in any sport is incredibly rare. It's never been done in the NBA, it's been accomplished exactly once in Major League Baseball and it's happened three times now in hockey. The other two occasions were the Toronto Maple Leafs' comeback against Detroit in 1942 and the New York Islanders' comeback against Pittsburgh in 1975. Let's take a look at them and see how they stack up.
First, the Maple Leafs' comeback in 1942. This was in the Stanley Cup Finals, so they get bonus points for that, and it was also the first Cup Finals to go seven games, so that's worth even more points. That was a tremendous Maple Leafs' team, featuring Turk Broda, Bucko McDonald, Bob Goldham and Syl Apps Sr.. This was also one of the great old-time rivalries.
However, the series result wasn't really an upset; the Leafs were second in the league that year with a 27-18-3 record and 57 points, while Detroit was fifth (in a seven-team league) with a 19-25-4 record and 42 points. These were not the legendary Red Wings of Howe and Lindsay; they had good players like Sid Abel, Syd Howe (no relation to Gordie) and Mud Bruneteau, but they were more basement-dwellers than stars. Also, the Leafs had home-ice advantage and the Flyers did not. The series itself wasn't as dramatic as this one either; the Leafs lost the first three games 3-2, 4-2 and 5-2, but won the next four in convincing fashion (4-3, 9-3, 3-0, 3-1) thanks to some inspired lineup changes [Joe Pelletier, Greatest Hockey Legends]. That's still an incredible feat, but it doesn't quite have the flair of Philly's 5-4 (overtime), 4-0, 2-1 and 4-3 wins, with the last one coming after falling behind on the road. This is close, but I don't think it edges Philly - Boston.
How about those 1975 New York Islanders? Well, they were a good team and they get bonus points for making the playoffs for the first time that year. They featured plenty of notable players like Clark Gillies, Bob Nystrom, Billy Smith, Denis Potvin and Chico Resch, but they didn't yet have Bossy or Trottier.
The Islanders' win over Pittsburgh was a slight upset (an eight seed beating a six), but the Penguins only put up one more point in the regular season, and that wasn't a very good Penguins team (although, oddly enough, it had Syl Apps Jr.!). Their leading point-getter was Ron Schock, who, funnily enough, said that Pittsburgh was one of the two places he'd least like to go and was traded there two days later. New York got that one done on the road, which improves their qualifications, but they went on to lose to Philadelphia in the next round. Also, the comeback in Game Seven wasn't there; the Islanders won their last four 3-1, 4-2, 4-1 and 1-0. This is an impressive effort as well, but it also falls short.
Tonight's game was just all-around amazing. Philadelphia looked completely out of it at first, surrendering three goals in the first 15 minutes. They battled back, though. Michael Leighton closed up shop the rest of the way after looking awful early, making 22 saves to keep the Flyers in it, and he got some help from his defence. Even more importantly, though, their offence came through; they created next to nothing early on, but James van Riemsdyk knocked in a somewhat fluky goal before the first intermission, Scott Hartnell stepped up to add one in the second period and Daniel Briere tied the game near the midway point. Then, in perfect fashion, Boston channeled former Bruins' coach Don Cherry [The Gazette] and got caught with too many men on the ice, something that's been a trend lately [Darren Dreger, TSN.ca] in these playoffs (and also across sports [myself, Grey Cup 2009]!). Of course Simon Gagne scored on the power play, as that was too perfect not to happen. This one had drama in the playoff run thanks to all the Flyers' injuries, the series thanks to close games and the Bruins being favoured (and predicted to win by just about everyone, including myself), and the final game itself thanks to Boston's early lead. To me, that makes it the best NHL comeback of all time.
If we're going for comebacks across sports though, I'd have to give the edge to the 2004 Red Sox comeback against the Yankees. That was too perfect given the intense rivalry between the teams, the Curse of the Bambino and Boston's long history of playoff futility. This can't quite match that in my mind, but I'm quite willing to call it the greatest comeback in NHL history, and perhaps also the best real-life opportunity to use this:
To start with, coming back from a 3-0 series deficit in a best-of-seven in any sport is incredibly rare. It's never been done in the NBA, it's been accomplished exactly once in Major League Baseball and it's happened three times now in hockey. The other two occasions were the Toronto Maple Leafs' comeback against Detroit in 1942 and the New York Islanders' comeback against Pittsburgh in 1975. Let's take a look at them and see how they stack up.
First, the Maple Leafs' comeback in 1942. This was in the Stanley Cup Finals, so they get bonus points for that, and it was also the first Cup Finals to go seven games, so that's worth even more points. That was a tremendous Maple Leafs' team, featuring Turk Broda, Bucko McDonald, Bob Goldham and Syl Apps Sr.. This was also one of the great old-time rivalries.
However, the series result wasn't really an upset; the Leafs were second in the league that year with a 27-18-3 record and 57 points, while Detroit was fifth (in a seven-team league) with a 19-25-4 record and 42 points. These were not the legendary Red Wings of Howe and Lindsay; they had good players like Sid Abel, Syd Howe (no relation to Gordie) and Mud Bruneteau, but they were more basement-dwellers than stars. Also, the Leafs had home-ice advantage and the Flyers did not. The series itself wasn't as dramatic as this one either; the Leafs lost the first three games 3-2, 4-2 and 5-2, but won the next four in convincing fashion (4-3, 9-3, 3-0, 3-1) thanks to some inspired lineup changes [Joe Pelletier, Greatest Hockey Legends]. That's still an incredible feat, but it doesn't quite have the flair of Philly's 5-4 (overtime), 4-0, 2-1 and 4-3 wins, with the last one coming after falling behind on the road. This is close, but I don't think it edges Philly - Boston.
How about those 1975 New York Islanders? Well, they were a good team and they get bonus points for making the playoffs for the first time that year. They featured plenty of notable players like Clark Gillies, Bob Nystrom, Billy Smith, Denis Potvin and Chico Resch, but they didn't yet have Bossy or Trottier.
The Islanders' win over Pittsburgh was a slight upset (an eight seed beating a six), but the Penguins only put up one more point in the regular season, and that wasn't a very good Penguins team (although, oddly enough, it had Syl Apps Jr.!). Their leading point-getter was Ron Schock, who, funnily enough, said that Pittsburgh was one of the two places he'd least like to go and was traded there two days later. New York got that one done on the road, which improves their qualifications, but they went on to lose to Philadelphia in the next round. Also, the comeback in Game Seven wasn't there; the Islanders won their last four 3-1, 4-2, 4-1 and 1-0. This is an impressive effort as well, but it also falls short.
Tonight's game was just all-around amazing. Philadelphia looked completely out of it at first, surrendering three goals in the first 15 minutes. They battled back, though. Michael Leighton closed up shop the rest of the way after looking awful early, making 22 saves to keep the Flyers in it, and he got some help from his defence. Even more importantly, though, their offence came through; they created next to nothing early on, but James van Riemsdyk knocked in a somewhat fluky goal before the first intermission, Scott Hartnell stepped up to add one in the second period and Daniel Briere tied the game near the midway point. Then, in perfect fashion, Boston channeled former Bruins' coach Don Cherry [The Gazette] and got caught with too many men on the ice, something that's been a trend lately [Darren Dreger, TSN.ca] in these playoffs (and also across sports [myself, Grey Cup 2009]!). Of course Simon Gagne scored on the power play, as that was too perfect not to happen. This one had drama in the playoff run thanks to all the Flyers' injuries, the series thanks to close games and the Bruins being favoured (and predicted to win by just about everyone, including myself), and the final game itself thanks to Boston's early lead. To me, that makes it the best NHL comeback of all time.
If we're going for comebacks across sports though, I'd have to give the edge to the 2004 Red Sox comeback against the Yankees. That was too perfect given the intense rivalry between the teams, the Curse of the Bambino and Boston's long history of playoff futility. This can't quite match that in my mind, but I'm quite willing to call it the greatest comeback in NHL history, and perhaps also the best real-life opportunity to use this:
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Canucks - Blackhawks: Game Six
The Canucks came through in the crunch last time on the road, but can they pull it off again at home? They're still down 3-2 in the series, even if they may be buoyed by the return of Sami Salo. Will the Canucks continue their run, or will the Blackhawks close out the series? Find out in the live blog below!
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Canucks - Blackhawks: Game Five, This Is What It Comes To
With their backs against the wall, this is what it all comes down to for the Vancouver Canucks. Down three games to one, in hostile territory on the road, they need to get a win here. If they can't pull it off, the dream of lifting the Stanley Cup will die for another year. Can they do it? Find out in the live blog below:
Friday, May 07, 2010
Canucks - Blackhawks: Game Four live blog
A short preview and a collection of links for tonight's Canucks-Blackhawks game is posted over at Canuck Puck. Join me there or here at 9:30 Eastern/6:30 Pacific for tonight's live blog!
Monday, May 03, 2010
Canucks - Blackhawks live blog: Game II, The Odyssey Continues
The Canucks take on the Chicago Blackhawks tonight in what should be an excellent Game Two. My game preview is up over at Canuck Puck, and I'll again be live-blogging the game both here and there. All are welcome to come join in. The puck drops at 9 p.m. Eastern/6 p.m. Pacific: hope to see you then!
Monday, April 26, 2010
Canadian Hosers 4, Outdated Monarchical Institutions 2
So, the Canucks finally knocked off the Los Angeles Kings for good. My thoughts on the game and the series are up over at Canuck Puck, along with some excellent topical videos, but if you don't want to read that, here's another video for you.
What can we take from this series? Sum it up, please, Dennis.
"Listen -- strange league executives lying about icy ponds and distributing video-review judgements is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical bureaucratic ceremony!"
Well, Dennis comes on a little strong, but he's right about one thing. For now, it's time to say goodbye to the Kings.
What can we take from this series? Sum it up, please, Dennis.
"Listen -- strange league executives lying about icy ponds and distributing video-review judgements is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical bureaucratic ceremony!"
Well, Dennis comes on a little strong, but he's right about one thing. For now, it's time to say goodbye to the Kings.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Playfair Heats Up
I live in Surrey, B.C., and I'm not exactly rich enough to afford Canucks tickets, so most of the hockey I see live is at Abbotsford Heat (AHL) games. It's a good brand of hockey, and there's always potential for some entertaining moments. Unfortunately, I wasn't there in person for what's quite possibly the highlight of the Heat's tenure in Abbotsford so far, head coach Jim Playfair (the former head coach of the Calgary Flames, Abbotsford's parent team) melting down after referee Jamie Koharski (son of former NHL ref Don Koharski, who's of course famous for being involved in another legendary meltdown) tossed Heat winger J.D. Watt. Here's the video; skip ahead to 2:30 for the start of the play, or 3:20 for the start of the fireworks.
This is pretty impressive. Playfair yells at the ref, breaks a stick, takes off his jacket and then breaks another stick before leaving, probably enough to get this up into the pantheon of the top coaching rants of all time. However, hockey alone offers some stiff competition. Here's some of the other all-time greats:
Jim Schoenfeld on Don Koharski: This is the incident mentioned above, from the 1988 playoffs. "You fell, you fat pig! Have another doughnut!"
John Tortorella ejected for hitting a fan with a water bottle: Funnily enough, this one led to a one-game suspension for Tortorella and resulted in Schoenfeld taking over the team.
Don Cherry's Bruins called for too many men in Game Seven: This is one of the great coaching blunders of all time, and still came to mind 30 years after the fact when a similar error (also against Montreal) lost this year's Grey Cup for Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, his reaction is rather muted. The famous arm-waving introduction to Coach's Corner is from earlier in this game, though.
So, what say you? Where does Playfair's meltdown rank? In pure significance, it's probably below these three, as it happened in the AHL regular season instead of the NHL playoffs. We also don't have any memorable quotes from it (yet). Still, for sheer physical spectacle, this one comes out on top in my mind. Overall, I'd probably slot it behind Schoenfeld and Tortorella, but ahead of Cherry thanks to his muted reaction to the call. Leave your thoughts in the comments or get at me on Twitter!
Update: Completely forgot about Robbie Ftorek's bench-tossing, which Sean Leahy included in his Puck Daddy post along with a couple of minor-league meltdowns I hadn't seen before. This is pretty good; maybe even good enough to take top spot.
This is pretty impressive. Playfair yells at the ref, breaks a stick, takes off his jacket and then breaks another stick before leaving, probably enough to get this up into the pantheon of the top coaching rants of all time. However, hockey alone offers some stiff competition. Here's some of the other all-time greats:
Jim Schoenfeld on Don Koharski: This is the incident mentioned above, from the 1988 playoffs. "You fell, you fat pig! Have another doughnut!"
John Tortorella ejected for hitting a fan with a water bottle: Funnily enough, this one led to a one-game suspension for Tortorella and resulted in Schoenfeld taking over the team.
Don Cherry's Bruins called for too many men in Game Seven: This is one of the great coaching blunders of all time, and still came to mind 30 years after the fact when a similar error (also against Montreal) lost this year's Grey Cup for Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, his reaction is rather muted. The famous arm-waving introduction to Coach's Corner is from earlier in this game, though.
So, what say you? Where does Playfair's meltdown rank? In pure significance, it's probably below these three, as it happened in the AHL regular season instead of the NHL playoffs. We also don't have any memorable quotes from it (yet). Still, for sheer physical spectacle, this one comes out on top in my mind. Overall, I'd probably slot it behind Schoenfeld and Tortorella, but ahead of Cherry thanks to his muted reaction to the call. Leave your thoughts in the comments or get at me on Twitter!
Update: Completely forgot about Robbie Ftorek's bench-tossing, which Sean Leahy included in his Puck Daddy post along with a couple of minor-league meltdowns I hadn't seen before. This is pretty good; maybe even good enough to take top spot.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Hockey: Interviewing Brent Seabrook, and why the Olympics top the NHL
Last week, I spoke with Chicago Blackhawks' defenceman Brent Seabrook for a South Delta Leader piece about what it was like for him to compete in the Olympics at home, so I figured I'd spotlight that here. Let's take a look at what he had to say, consider why Olympic hockey is special and think about if there's a way to use those lessons to make the NHL more exciting.
One of the most interesting comments I thought Seabrook made was about how Olympic competition is in some ways even more intense than the NHL playoffs, thanks to the single-elimination format and the national, not city-wide, focus on the games.
"There was so much at stake in such a short time after the round-robin," Seabrook said. "The qualification and the medal round, it's one game and you're out. Everybody was putting it on the line and making every shift count."
That single-elimination format also makes it tougher to recover from a bad shift or a bad game.
"It was unbelievable," Seabrook said. "It sort of felt like we were back in the playoffs playing like that but at the same time, there's almost more on the line during the Olympics. It's one game and you're out. In the playoffs, if you have a bad game, you still have at least three more to bounce back and be better. It's a little different format which makes it not as nerve-racking, not as crazy."
He said that additional pressure requires players to avoid getting too low after a loss or too high after a win.
"I think you're nervous and what not, but I think it puts you on more of an even keel," he said. "You're playing against arguably the best teams that are put together in the world. You've got your Russia, your Slovakia, your USA, your Canada—all of those teams have a lot of top players. To get up after a big win is tough because its such a short tournament. If you start doing that, you start losing focus and you can find yourself going over."
To me, that pressure and intensity is what makes the Olympic tournament so interesting. The NHL's playoffs are great, too, and they're probably a fairer way to determine a champion (sample size alone dictates that the top teams are more likely to prevail in a best-of-seven series than in a single-elimination tournament), but that fairness comes with a tradeoff; it means there's less on the line in each game (except a Game Seven), and it also means that underdogs are less likely to win.
There's a good reason that most of the memorable underdog runs in the playoffs (1982 Canucks, 1994 Canucks, 1996 Panthers, 2002 Hurricanes, 2003 Mighty Ducks, 2004 Flames, 2006 Oilers) ended with Stanley Cup Final losses; the best-of-seven format makes it awfully tough for underdogs to go all the way. I'm not advocating making the NHL playoffs a single-game knockout tournament; the current format is interesting, and it provides a couple months of good hockey. For sheer thrills, though, I'm not sure it can compare to the Olympics.
Moreover, the Olympics have another big advantage over the NHL; they show us a hockey game with less talent dilution. Sure, there are weak teams in the tournament, but the upper-echelon countries like Canada, the U.S., Russia and Sweden all have more talent than any NHL team (mostly because there are far less elite countries than NHL teams). The focus on offence instead of grinding and goonery also helps; teams tend to roll three or four lines of talented players instead of going with the typical NHL mix of two talented lines and two lines of muckers. Bruce Arthur wrote an interesting piece after the Olympics criticizing the NHL's brand of regular-season hockey, which is almost anathema for Canadian writers; many spend much of their time talking about how great the game is without looking at its flaws. I'd argue that many of those flaws carry over into the playoffs, too, particularly on the talent-dilution side. There are plenty of good reasons the Olympic hockey ratings were so massive and so far beyond what we usually see for hockey, and they go beyond pure nationalism; the Olympics offer a product the NHL can't match.
That doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done. I've gone to a lot of AHL games this year, and one thing I've noticed is that most AHL teams have plenty of players with a good bit of offensive talent. The problem is that, as I pointed out in a Canuck Puck piece before this season started, most NHL teams have very clearly defined forward line identities. The top two lines are expected to score, the bottom two are expected to check and fight. Thus, if an offensively-minded AHL forward isn't quite good enough to crack his NHL team's top-six forwards, he's probably going to remain an AHL forward.
Changing that mentality to one that emphasizes offence from all players might produce a more exciting game, and rule tweaks to reduce headshots and open up the game could also help. That's not a call for banning hitting or fighting; both have their place in the sport in my mind. What I'd like to see in the NHL is more of a focus on players who can both score and hit, like Alex Ovechkin, Brenden Morrow and David Backes. In the meantime, though, pencil me in amongst the crowd that wants to see NHL players in the 2014 Olympics in Russia; the tournament simply offers a fantastically thrilling brand of hockey we can't see anywhere else.
One of the most interesting comments I thought Seabrook made was about how Olympic competition is in some ways even more intense than the NHL playoffs, thanks to the single-elimination format and the national, not city-wide, focus on the games.
"There was so much at stake in such a short time after the round-robin," Seabrook said. "The qualification and the medal round, it's one game and you're out. Everybody was putting it on the line and making every shift count."
That single-elimination format also makes it tougher to recover from a bad shift or a bad game.
"It was unbelievable," Seabrook said. "It sort of felt like we were back in the playoffs playing like that but at the same time, there's almost more on the line during the Olympics. It's one game and you're out. In the playoffs, if you have a bad game, you still have at least three more to bounce back and be better. It's a little different format which makes it not as nerve-racking, not as crazy."
He said that additional pressure requires players to avoid getting too low after a loss or too high after a win.
"I think you're nervous and what not, but I think it puts you on more of an even keel," he said. "You're playing against arguably the best teams that are put together in the world. You've got your Russia, your Slovakia, your USA, your Canada—all of those teams have a lot of top players. To get up after a big win is tough because its such a short tournament. If you start doing that, you start losing focus and you can find yourself going over."
To me, that pressure and intensity is what makes the Olympic tournament so interesting. The NHL's playoffs are great, too, and they're probably a fairer way to determine a champion (sample size alone dictates that the top teams are more likely to prevail in a best-of-seven series than in a single-elimination tournament), but that fairness comes with a tradeoff; it means there's less on the line in each game (except a Game Seven), and it also means that underdogs are less likely to win.
There's a good reason that most of the memorable underdog runs in the playoffs (1982 Canucks, 1994 Canucks, 1996 Panthers, 2002 Hurricanes, 2003 Mighty Ducks, 2004 Flames, 2006 Oilers) ended with Stanley Cup Final losses; the best-of-seven format makes it awfully tough for underdogs to go all the way. I'm not advocating making the NHL playoffs a single-game knockout tournament; the current format is interesting, and it provides a couple months of good hockey. For sheer thrills, though, I'm not sure it can compare to the Olympics.
Moreover, the Olympics have another big advantage over the NHL; they show us a hockey game with less talent dilution. Sure, there are weak teams in the tournament, but the upper-echelon countries like Canada, the U.S., Russia and Sweden all have more talent than any NHL team (mostly because there are far less elite countries than NHL teams). The focus on offence instead of grinding and goonery also helps; teams tend to roll three or four lines of talented players instead of going with the typical NHL mix of two talented lines and two lines of muckers. Bruce Arthur wrote an interesting piece after the Olympics criticizing the NHL's brand of regular-season hockey, which is almost anathema for Canadian writers; many spend much of their time talking about how great the game is without looking at its flaws. I'd argue that many of those flaws carry over into the playoffs, too, particularly on the talent-dilution side. There are plenty of good reasons the Olympic hockey ratings were so massive and so far beyond what we usually see for hockey, and they go beyond pure nationalism; the Olympics offer a product the NHL can't match.
That doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done. I've gone to a lot of AHL games this year, and one thing I've noticed is that most AHL teams have plenty of players with a good bit of offensive talent. The problem is that, as I pointed out in a Canuck Puck piece before this season started, most NHL teams have very clearly defined forward line identities. The top two lines are expected to score, the bottom two are expected to check and fight. Thus, if an offensively-minded AHL forward isn't quite good enough to crack his NHL team's top-six forwards, he's probably going to remain an AHL forward.
Changing that mentality to one that emphasizes offence from all players might produce a more exciting game, and rule tweaks to reduce headshots and open up the game could also help. That's not a call for banning hitting or fighting; both have their place in the sport in my mind. What I'd like to see in the NHL is more of a focus on players who can both score and hit, like Alex Ovechkin, Brenden Morrow and David Backes. In the meantime, though, pencil me in amongst the crowd that wants to see NHL players in the 2014 Olympics in Russia; the tournament simply offers a fantastically thrilling brand of hockey we can't see anywhere else.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hockeypocalypse: Can Canada keep its pride under control?
"A modern-day warrior, mean, mean stride/Today's Tom Sawyer, mean, mean pride" - Rush, "Tom Sawyer"
Today's gold-medal hockey game between Canada and the U.S. is pretty much a perfect way to end the Olympics. The U.S. leads the medal count, while Canada leads all countries in gold medals. Moreover, hockey's "Canada's sport", but one the Americans have taken up in ever-increasing numbers, and the talent gap between the two countries has increasingly diminished in recent years. It should be a fantastic display of hockey.
One of the questions is if Canada can keep its pride under control, though. For so long, there's been the attitude that all the Canadians need to do to win is just show up. That doesn't cut it anymore. Canada might still have the best roster on paper, but it's very close at the top, as their loss to the Americans in the round-robin and their close match against Slovakia in the semifinal proved. Anyone can win.
I think Canada will wind up taking today's game, but it's going to be close. The Americans are perhaps even more physical than the Canadian side, and they have a superb goaltender in Ryan Miller. They don't have quite the depth up front, but they do have some very skilled offensive players. To win, Canada will have to play with every ounce of effort they possess and not take anything for granted. I think they can do it, though, so if I had to pick a score, I'd say Canada 3, U.S. 2.
Win or lose, though, this game shouldn't provide a national crisis. If Canada wins, fantastic; that would be a great way to cap off the Games on home soil. If not, silver medals are still very good in a stacked international tournament like this. Many won't see it this way, but there's enough parity now that the "Any Given Sunday" cliche fully applies to today's hockey match.
I'm not generally a big nationalist or a fan of jingoism, but I would really like to see the Canadians win this, though. The U.S. already has had a tremendously successful Olympics, and a silver here would be better than many expected them to do. A loss won't overshadow their other accomplishments the way it likely would in Canada. For today, and today alone, I'll put on my hoserism toque and tell the Americans to take off!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Mike Danton joins the CIS
Everyone's favourite hitman contractor Mike Danton is supposedly joining [Neate Sager, The CIS Blog] the Saint Mary's Huskies to play Canadian Interuniversity Sport hockey. It's not clear yet [Noah Love, National Post] if he'll be able to play later this season or if he'll have to wait until next year, but he has already enrolled in the university.
From a strict on-ice perspective, this is probably a good thing for the Huskies. Regardless of his legal issues and prison time, Danton at one point has the skills to play in the NHL. It may take a while for him to regain that form, and he may never be back at where he was, but he'll probably still be one of the most talented players in the league. Most guys in CIS are former major junior players who couldn't make it to the AHL or the NHL; some of the top CIS talents in recent years (such as UNB's Rob Hennigar) have gone on to pro deals. Danton wasn't much of a scoring threat in the NHL, but he did pretty well with the OHL's Barrie Colts and the AHL's Albany River Rats (curiously enough, that's the same team Hennigar's playing for at the moment). If Danton is able to regain his pre-prison form, he could become a dominant CIS player like Hennigar.
From a league perspective, this is more troubling, though. CIS hockey gets next to no attention in Canada (aside from the occasional well-intentioned but completely off-base column, such as this one penned by The Globe and Mail's Allan Maki last week). Now, it will be in the spotlight not for anything positive, but rather for its acceptance of a convicted felon who once tried to hire a hitman. That goes against every image CIS tries to portray, and that's why I have a feeling this move might get some scrutiny from the upper echelons of CIS.
It would be far easier to downplay those concerns if Danton appeared repentant. People make mistakes, and our society is usually happy to provide them with second chances (see Michael Vick's comeback with the Philadelphia Eagles). The problem, though, is unlike Vick, Danton still isn't admitting to much of anything. As William Houston pointed out after Danton's "interview" with Rogers Sportsnet, he didn't say much about what happened, and what he did say made little to no sense. In Danton's case, the situation obviously isn't all his fault, and a good part of the blame must fall on his agent, David Frost (who's still creepily running his Hockey God Online website). Still, I'd like to see some evidence that Danton has dealt with his issues and is really a changed man before his comeback starts. If he is sincere and has changed, fantastic; everyone deserves a second chance, and it could be great for CIS to be associated with his comeback. At the moment, though, this looks like a potential black eye for CIS hockey, which it surely doesn't need at the moment.
Danton during his days with the St. Louis Blues
From a league perspective, this is more troubling, though. CIS hockey gets next to no attention in Canada (aside from the occasional well-intentioned but completely off-base column, such as this one penned by The Globe and Mail's Allan Maki last week). Now, it will be in the spotlight not for anything positive, but rather for its acceptance of a convicted felon who once tried to hire a hitman. That goes against every image CIS tries to portray, and that's why I have a feeling this move might get some scrutiny from the upper echelons of CIS.
It would be far easier to downplay those concerns if Danton appeared repentant. People make mistakes, and our society is usually happy to provide them with second chances (see Michael Vick's comeback with the Philadelphia Eagles). The problem, though, is unlike Vick, Danton still isn't admitting to much of anything. As William Houston pointed out after Danton's "interview" with Rogers Sportsnet, he didn't say much about what happened, and what he did say made little to no sense. In Danton's case, the situation obviously isn't all his fault, and a good part of the blame must fall on his agent, David Frost (who's still creepily running his Hockey God Online website). Still, I'd like to see some evidence that Danton has dealt with his issues and is really a changed man before his comeback starts. If he is sincere and has changed, fantastic; everyone deserves a second chance, and it could be great for CIS to be associated with his comeback. At the moment, though, this looks like a potential black eye for CIS hockey, which it surely doesn't need at the moment.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Heads Up, Part I: Media Responsibility
(This is the first part of a three-part, three-day series on concussions. See a list of links to some of my previous writing on concussions here.)
Concussions have been getting a lot of attention in the media lately, which is great to see. For far too long, they've been the dirty little secret of sports. As fans, we love to sit in arenas or stadiums and watch violent hits, but we don't often like to think about the consequences of such entertainment. There's a good reason Toronto neurosurgeon Dr. Charles Tator called out Don Cherry last week; Cherry's certainly not the only one to blame, but he has promoted hard-hitting hockey and fights for years, has consistently taken stands against any kind of headshot ban, and makes plenty of money from his "Rock Em, Sock Em" video line, featuring the most violent hockey moments and plenty of head shots. Of course, Cherry completely missed the point in his Coach's Corner, saying he had nothing to say to Tator and was not to blame;
Of course, Cherry's far from the only one at fault. Our entire sports culture, especially in football and hockey, is rooted in the set of macho ideals Cherry frequently espouses. There's continual speeches about toughness and playing through pain, regardless of the long-term consequences. Part of this is from a lack of education about the severity of head injuries and how they differ from the standard sort of injuries. From an early age, players are taught to "tough it out" and "be a man", so it's hardly a surprise that they continue that behaviour when they get to the pro ranks. In fact, even with all the recent information about the long-term effects of concussions, we still get incidents like the recent one where Pittsburgh Steelers' wide receiver Hines Ward called out quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for not playing a week after suffering a concussion.
The media treatment of concussions plays a crucial role in how players, coaches and fans see them. Scientific research on the subject is critical, but it doesn't mean anything if the word doesn't get out to those actually involved in sports. We've known of some of the dangers of concussions for decades (see William Nack's excellent Sports Illustrated piece "The Wrecking Yard" from 2001 for one example, but there hasn't been a lot of media coverage of head injuries until the past few years. This isn't necessarily all the fault of the media; most outlets and reporters are working on tight, day-to-day deadlines and don't have the time for the kind of long investigations often needed for concussion pieces.
Additionally, beat reporters writing about individual games generally have to rely on what quotes they can get. Even if they notice a potential concussion during the game, it's frequently difficult to get players or coaches to talk about it, especially as there's a (often well-justified) fear out there that admitting to a head injury will make you a target for future hits. Gare Joyce, an excellent hockey writer (I reviewed his book Future Greats and Heartbreaks way back when, and heartily recommend it), wrote a great column for Sportsnet.ca today about the difficulties involved in reporting concussions (and mentioned my Queen's Journal piece on Alyn McCauley to boot); it's well worth a read.
The state of discourse on concussions in the sports media is a long way from where it was, but there's still work to do. One key example came last week, when Dallas Cowboys' linebacker DeMarcus Ware was stretchered off the field on Sunday, Dec. 13 with a neck injury, but came back and played a crucial role six days later in the Cowboys' win over the New Orleans Saints Saturday. Ware played well, but it's very questionable if he should have been involved in that game, and that should have received a lot of attention and coverage from the media. The whole process that saw Ware cleared to play deserves substantial scrutiny, but it didn't receive much; instead, most of the coverage saw Ware lauded as a hero for his performance, with little discussion of how he was cleared to play. According to an AP pre-game piece, Ware didn't have concussion symptoms, but given how fragile the head and the neck are, resting him would have made a lot of sense.
The problem isn't necessarily that Ware was cleared to play; I could understand that if the NFL media had looked into it a bit more and reported how his neck injury didn't threaten further damage. If it really wasn't that severe and there was no evidence of any kind of concussion, that should have been clearly laid out, with full explanations of why Ware's injury was an exception to the NFL's recent moves towards having players sit out after head injuries. The problem is how little attention Ware's clearance to play got, and how many people praised his play without questioning if he should have been in the game at all. That's only going to encourage the play-through-pain culture, especially at the lower levels. Even if Ware's injury wasn't that severe, how many minor football or hockey players will watch his performance and then demand to play a week after suffering a head injury of their own, and how many coaches will let them?
Like it or not, professional athletes are role models to many young athletes, especially when they display the kind of toughness and machismo we often glorify. It's important for us in the sports media to make head injuries a consistent issue. We need to get the message out there that these injuries are a serious threat, and playing through them isn't always the way to go.
The media can have a substantial effect, especially with consistent pressure. After far too long, the NFL has finally gotten rid of its resident head-injury deniers, largely thanks to ongoing media pressure that led to a congressional investigation, and the league is making progress on many fronts. Randy Starkman of The Toronto Star has done some great work on concussions in hockey, especially with this 2007 series. Another key moment on the NHL front was the extensive media coverage of the recent revelation that former NHL star Reggie Fleming had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a concussion-linked disease that had previously been found in football players and boxers, but never hockey players. Concussions have become an issue at the league level recently, and that's a good step.
It's especially worth discussing concussions in leagues where they aren't yet a prominent issue, such as in Canadian and American university sports and women's sports. As Alan Schwarz reported in a 2007 New York Times piece, girls suffer concussions even more frequently than boys in many sports. A lot of those concussions take place in sports like soccer and basketball, not traditionally renowned for being hard-hitting. Another area where concussions only recently hit the radar screen is the CFL; Vicki Hall of the Calgary Herald did several great pieces on concussions during Grey Cup Week and turned the league's concussion policies into a significant issue.
These are all small steps, but we are making progress. Leagues, coaches and players at all levels are starting to realize the serious nature of head injuries, and that's a great thing. There are other steps that they can take to help deal with the problem, and I'll be covering a couple of those in the coming days. On the media side, though, the most important thing we can do is make sure that concussions remain a significant issue. We can't afford to let them slip off the radar screen, and we need to keep asking the tough questions about team policies and player injuries. Hopefully, some athletes and coaches will read or watch something on concussions, educate themselves on the dangers involved and behave more safely as a result. There's a great opportunity here for the sports media to actually do something positive for the games that we cover by keeping this issue alive and pushing for real, significant change. Let's not let that opportunity go to waste.
Concussions have been getting a lot of attention in the media lately, which is great to see. For far too long, they've been the dirty little secret of sports. As fans, we love to sit in arenas or stadiums and watch violent hits, but we don't often like to think about the consequences of such entertainment. There's a good reason Toronto neurosurgeon Dr. Charles Tator called out Don Cherry last week; Cherry's certainly not the only one to blame, but he has promoted hard-hitting hockey and fights for years, has consistently taken stands against any kind of headshot ban, and makes plenty of money from his "Rock Em, Sock Em" video line, featuring the most violent hockey moments and plenty of head shots. Of course, Cherry completely missed the point in his Coach's Corner, saying he had nothing to say to Tator and was not to blame;
Of course, Cherry's far from the only one at fault. Our entire sports culture, especially in football and hockey, is rooted in the set of macho ideals Cherry frequently espouses. There's continual speeches about toughness and playing through pain, regardless of the long-term consequences. Part of this is from a lack of education about the severity of head injuries and how they differ from the standard sort of injuries. From an early age, players are taught to "tough it out" and "be a man", so it's hardly a surprise that they continue that behaviour when they get to the pro ranks. In fact, even with all the recent information about the long-term effects of concussions, we still get incidents like the recent one where Pittsburgh Steelers' wide receiver Hines Ward called out quarterback Ben Roethlisberger for not playing a week after suffering a concussion.
The media treatment of concussions plays a crucial role in how players, coaches and fans see them. Scientific research on the subject is critical, but it doesn't mean anything if the word doesn't get out to those actually involved in sports. We've known of some of the dangers of concussions for decades (see William Nack's excellent Sports Illustrated piece "The Wrecking Yard" from 2001 for one example, but there hasn't been a lot of media coverage of head injuries until the past few years. This isn't necessarily all the fault of the media; most outlets and reporters are working on tight, day-to-day deadlines and don't have the time for the kind of long investigations often needed for concussion pieces.
Additionally, beat reporters writing about individual games generally have to rely on what quotes they can get. Even if they notice a potential concussion during the game, it's frequently difficult to get players or coaches to talk about it, especially as there's a (often well-justified) fear out there that admitting to a head injury will make you a target for future hits. Gare Joyce, an excellent hockey writer (I reviewed his book Future Greats and Heartbreaks way back when, and heartily recommend it), wrote a great column for Sportsnet.ca today about the difficulties involved in reporting concussions (and mentioned my Queen's Journal piece on Alyn McCauley to boot); it's well worth a read.
The state of discourse on concussions in the sports media is a long way from where it was, but there's still work to do. One key example came last week, when Dallas Cowboys' linebacker DeMarcus Ware was stretchered off the field on Sunday, Dec. 13 with a neck injury, but came back and played a crucial role six days later in the Cowboys' win over the New Orleans Saints Saturday. Ware played well, but it's very questionable if he should have been involved in that game, and that should have received a lot of attention and coverage from the media. The whole process that saw Ware cleared to play deserves substantial scrutiny, but it didn't receive much; instead, most of the coverage saw Ware lauded as a hero for his performance, with little discussion of how he was cleared to play. According to an AP pre-game piece, Ware didn't have concussion symptoms, but given how fragile the head and the neck are, resting him would have made a lot of sense.
The problem isn't necessarily that Ware was cleared to play; I could understand that if the NFL media had looked into it a bit more and reported how his neck injury didn't threaten further damage. If it really wasn't that severe and there was no evidence of any kind of concussion, that should have been clearly laid out, with full explanations of why Ware's injury was an exception to the NFL's recent moves towards having players sit out after head injuries. The problem is how little attention Ware's clearance to play got, and how many people praised his play without questioning if he should have been in the game at all. That's only going to encourage the play-through-pain culture, especially at the lower levels. Even if Ware's injury wasn't that severe, how many minor football or hockey players will watch his performance and then demand to play a week after suffering a head injury of their own, and how many coaches will let them?
Like it or not, professional athletes are role models to many young athletes, especially when they display the kind of toughness and machismo we often glorify. It's important for us in the sports media to make head injuries a consistent issue. We need to get the message out there that these injuries are a serious threat, and playing through them isn't always the way to go.
The media can have a substantial effect, especially with consistent pressure. After far too long, the NFL has finally gotten rid of its resident head-injury deniers, largely thanks to ongoing media pressure that led to a congressional investigation, and the league is making progress on many fronts. Randy Starkman of The Toronto Star has done some great work on concussions in hockey, especially with this 2007 series. Another key moment on the NHL front was the extensive media coverage of the recent revelation that former NHL star Reggie Fleming had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a concussion-linked disease that had previously been found in football players and boxers, but never hockey players. Concussions have become an issue at the league level recently, and that's a good step.
It's especially worth discussing concussions in leagues where they aren't yet a prominent issue, such as in Canadian and American university sports and women's sports. As Alan Schwarz reported in a 2007 New York Times piece, girls suffer concussions even more frequently than boys in many sports. A lot of those concussions take place in sports like soccer and basketball, not traditionally renowned for being hard-hitting. Another area where concussions only recently hit the radar screen is the CFL; Vicki Hall of the Calgary Herald did several great pieces on concussions during Grey Cup Week and turned the league's concussion policies into a significant issue.
These are all small steps, but we are making progress. Leagues, coaches and players at all levels are starting to realize the serious nature of head injuries, and that's a great thing. There are other steps that they can take to help deal with the problem, and I'll be covering a couple of those in the coming days. On the media side, though, the most important thing we can do is make sure that concussions remain a significant issue. We can't afford to let them slip off the radar screen, and we need to keep asking the tough questions about team policies and player injuries. Hopefully, some athletes and coaches will read or watch something on concussions, educate themselves on the dangers involved and behave more safely as a result. There's a great opportunity here for the sports media to actually do something positive for the games that we cover by keeping this issue alive and pushing for real, significant change. Let's not let that opportunity go to waste.
Monday, November 09, 2009
The state of the Canucks
I'll be discussing the Canucks' season so far over at Canucks Hockey Blog this evening with Richard Loat, Hosea Cheung and Guts McTavish. We'll kick it off at 10 p.m. Eastern/7 p.m. Pacific. Feel free to stop on by and check it out!
Monday, November 02, 2009
Wisconsin State of Mind
I've spent the past several days in Wisconsin hanging out with some of my colleagues over at The Rookies, which has been a lot of fun. However, it hasn't exactly led to a lot of bloggging time. There have been several longer pieces I've been working on for a while, though, and the extra time has probably been helpful with that, allowing me to mull over and refine them a bit. Thus, expect to see plenty of more philosophical posts over the next little while. Until then, to hold you over, I leave you with the excellent World Series performance of "Empire State of Mind" by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys above, and links to a couple of pieces I did manage to get up over at Canuck Puck, one on how the Canucks should heed Jim Zorn's advice and stay medium, and another one on how their recent struggles might actually bring the team together. (Of course, following that piece yesterday, the Canucks went out to beat the Western Conference-leading Avalanche. Maybe I should write that things are looking up for them more often!) Hope you enjoy the upcoming content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
