‘Game management’ at the root of NHL’s officiating issues

[The Macho King]

Are you actively ignoring the cited academic studies which conclude refs are more likely to make calls against teams which are winning or already have a favorable power play ratio, or just not gotten around to reading them yet?

You can use your fancy shmancy math and science, but this guy knows a guy and there is no substitute for knowing a guy.

 

[The Macho King]

It's hard to believe that some of the owners don't think about this.

Owners don't really care because they only care about the money coming in.

GMs don't care *much* because 95% of their job is spent trying to keep their job, so the closer and tighter the games/standings are, the more secure their position. You get fired when you're *real bad*. As long as you can avoid being *real bad*, what's the problem? See, e.g., Marc Bergevin.

Coaches can't say shit and neither can players, because the second they pipe up they find themselves on the other side of a 6-1 penalty game.

Refs aren't going to say anything because it criticizes the work they do, even if they do it at the behest of the league.

So really - as far as the *actual stakeholders* go, there is no incentive to change the status quo. Only way it will change is if the owners start seeing it impact their bottom line.

 

[MikeK]

Some people really trying to sound smart in this thread with some big words and a lot of quotes but we all watch the same damn games and it's very clear that game management, or whatever you want to call it, definitely exists. It's only become more obvious in recent years with the introduction of technology because nothing is left on the ice now. We all see it and get to re-live it well after the fact. I don't care what anyone says, the NHL has been one of the worst officiated pro leagues for quite some time. Too many Refs with huge egos trying to control games just because they can. Makes the NHL look like a mickey mouse league.

 

[joestevens29]

Owners don't really care because they only care about the money coming in.

GMs don't care *much* because 95% of their job is spent trying to keep their job, so the closer and tighter the games/standings are, the more secure their position. You get fired when you're *real bad*. As long as you can avoid being *real bad*, what's the problem? See, e.g., Marc Bergevin.

Coaches can't say shit and neither can players, because the second they pipe up they find themselves on the other side of a 6-1 penalty game.

Refs aren't going to say anything because it criticizes the work they do, even if they do it at the behest of the league.

So really - as far as the *actual stakeholders* go, there is no incentive to change the status quo. Only way it will change is if the owners start seeing it impact their bottom line.

Honestly I don't even know what fans want either.

Before this year for a few years there was outcry that slashes to the hand area weren't being called. Star players were getting hurt and fans were upset.

So this year they were calling a lot more of the slashes to the hand area. What did I hear "oh that's such a weak call he tapped him on the glove".

 

[cbcwpg]

I think if you asked the owners, the like their games being managed the way they are.

Not all owners, but the majority IMO want close games, they want teams tight in the standings. Because the closer the games and the closer teams are to each other in the standings, the longer fans will stay engaged with their team, and the more money will come in. Having teams eliminated from the playoffs on the last day of the season is what the NHL wants. They don't want teams being eliminated early.

And if one way in achieving this is to have the refs try to even things up and try to keep the scores close or basically manage for parity, then the owners will be in favor. And the owners run the league and it's the league that hires and instructs the refs.

 

[joestevens29]

Some people really trying to sound smart in this thread with some big words and a lot of quotes but we all watch the same damn games and it's very clear that game management, or whatever you want to call it, definitely exists. It's only become more obvious in recent years with the introduction of technology because nothing is left on the ice now. We all see it and get to re-live it well after the fact. I don't care what anyone says, the NHL has been one of the worst officiated pro leagues for quite some time. Too many Refs with huge egos trying to control games just because they can. Makes the NHL look like a mickey mouse league.

I don't blame the refs. It's like blaming your dog for pissing in the house, but you don't let him outside ever.

If I'm a NHL ref I'm probably thinking I'm doing a good job because the league never says anything bad or asks us to change how we are doing our job.

 

[joestevens29]

I think if you asked the owners, the like their games being managed the way they are.

Not all owners, but the majority IMO want close games, they want teams tight in the standings. Because the closer the games and the closer teams are to each other in the standings, the longer fans will stay engaged with their team, and the more money will come in. Having teams eliminated from the playoffs on the last day of the season is what the NHL wants. They don't want teams being eliminated early.

And if one way in achieving this is to have the refs try to even things up and try to keep the scores close or basically manage for parity, then the owners will be in favor. And the owners run the league and it's the league that hires and instructs the refs.

I mean it doesn't really matter this year, but close games also equals more money in money spent in the stadiums. You're team is losing by 5 goals at home and that arena is thinning out pretty quick

 

[MikeK]

I don't blame the refs. It's like blaming your dog for pissing in the house, but you don't let him outside ever.

If I'm a NHL ref I'm probably thinking I'm doing a good job because the league never says anything bad or asks us to change how we are doing our job.

I don't agree with your analogy. But I will agree that the NHL has cultivated this type of culture. But make no mistakes about it, the Refs are equal members here.

 

[DarenX]

That's not game management, and that's definitely not what's happening, it's what fans THINK is happening and what they THINK is game management, but it's not....

And Game management is 100% a hockey thing....

That is a form of game management. It also is definitely going on. Need proof? watch some freaking games.

The game management that you are referring to, is definitely part of hockey and other sports for that matter. Letting the players know what the game will be like, finding a good pace, whats getting called and what is not today, etc...

The game management that I would think everyone else is talking about, which you think does not happen is, depending on the score, what is called for one team is not for another. If one team is playing just over the line and has already got 4 penalties... they are not gonna likely be called later in the game if a) they are winning or b) its tied. There are plenty of articles from non biased, non hockey fans that dive into the stats on this. Do you actually believe that almost every game, the two teams have the exact amount of infractions ? or a known team to play on the edge has the same or one more penalty than a team known for speed and skill?

Both are forms of game management. One I agree with and the other I do not. They are not fixing games in the sense of trying to make one team win, they are controlling games to keep the viewer watching as long as possible to give the losing team a chance to come back.

Lots of grey area that can also be discussed, I am personally ok with a ref missing a obvious call and making up for it on a softy, I am ok with each game having its own set of rules or pace, depending on what the refs want that game. I just want a consistent game. Some people will disagree with that and thats fine, they would not be right or wrong.

 

[MNNumbers]

If I an the owner of, say, Winnipeg, in a normal year, I might find myself within 2 or 3 points of the last playoff spot.

Suppose my team was playing, I don't know, San Jose, in game 72. 2 minutes in the to 3rd period, we are winning 3-2. BUT, we've had 4 PPs, and SJ has only had 2, and we are on the road.
At 2:20 of the 3rd, the inevitable happens, and we get called for a 'very thin' hooking call. With 10 seconds left on the PP, San Jose scores, and then, with all the momentum, SJ ends up winning 5-3, with the 5th goal being empty net.

After game 82, the WC standings go:
...
WC2: San Jose 93 pts
1st out: Winnipeg 92 pts

What happened here is that "Game Management" cost my Jets a playoff spot. That's what happened. It may be that, league wide, there was a little extra interest, but I am going to lose a least 2 home games, and maybe several more, and that makes a huge $$$ in my bottom line. The difference in my own bottom line is MUCH more than any league wide amount.

Therefore, were I Thomson and Chipman, I would be having a quiet conversation with Bettman, Jacobs, Director of Officiating, and some others, about this matter.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

That is a form of game management. It also is definitely going on. Need proof? watch some freaking games.

The game management that you are referring to, is definitely part of hockey and other sports for that matter. Letting the players know what the game will be like, finding a good pace, whats getting called and what is not today, etc...

The game management that I would think everyone else is talking about, which you think does not happen is, depending on the score, what is called for one team is not for another. If one team is playing just over the line and has already got 4 penalties... they are not gonna likely be called later in the game if a) they are winning or b) its tied. There are plenty of articles from non biased, non hockey fans that dive into the stats on this. Do you actually believe that almost every game, the two teams have the exact amount of infractions ? or a known team to play on the edge has the same or one more penalty than a team known for speed and skill?

Both are forms of game management. One I agree with and the other I do not. They are not fixing games in the sense of trying to make one team win, they are controlling games to keep the viewer watching as long as possible to give the losing team a chance to come back.

Lots of grey area that can also be discussed, I am personally ok with a ref missing a obvious call and making up for it on a softy, I am ok with each game having its own set of rules or pace, depending on what the refs want that game. I just want a consistent game. Some people will disagree with that and thats fine, they would not be right or wrong.

The above post.....is why scenarios like that....are absolutely fan biased drivel that has no base in reality.

 

[golfortennis]

Owners don't really care because they only care about the money coming in.

GMs don't care *much* because 95% of their job is spent trying to keep their job, so the closer and tighter the games/standings are, the more secure their position. You get fired when you're *real bad*. As long as you can avoid being *real bad*, what's the problem? See, e.g., Marc Bergevin.

Coaches can't say shit and neither can players, because the second they pipe up they find themselves on the other side of a 6-1 penalty game.

Refs aren't going to say anything because it criticizes the work they do, even if they do it at the behest of the league.

So really - as far as the *actual stakeholders* go, there is no incentive to change the status quo. Only way it will change is if the owners start seeing it impact their bottom line.

Actually one good point brought up on Mick Kern's show(it was someone else's point but I can't remember who he said it came from) was that the GM's hold too much power in terms of rule-making etc. They are always going to advocate for something that favors the makeup of their own team. What you say is quite likely an outcropping of that same thing.

The rules need to be handled from a more removed position.

 

[The Macho King]

Honestly I don't even know what fans want either.

Before this year for a few years there was outcry that slashes to the hand area weren't being called. Star players were getting hurt and fans were upset.

So this year they were calling a lot more of the slashes to the hand area. What did I hear "oh that's such a weak call he tapped him on the glove".

Fans are going to hate every call against their team and every call that goes their way was a good call. Individual calls, rule crackdowns, etc. aren't what we are talking about here. It's a discussion for another time.

Game management is an entirely different phenomenon. It's calling the game not based on what happened on the ice, but rather factors not related to what is actually happening on the ice.

 

[DarenX]

The above post.....is why scenarios like that....are absolutely fan biased drivel that has no base in reality.

What about player based? What about coach based? What about anyone who is actually relevant not name GoldenBearHockey?

Keep the blinders on.

 

[Confused Turnip]

In the hot mic thread a poster suggested (to someone else) to go find data on Money Puck regarding next penalty probability.

I found this chart and have a question that no one has answered, so I will try again here:

Starting from the most basic box: tie game, current penalties taken are even. The probability that the home team takes the next penalty is 46%.

What is this number supposed to be?

Short and easy answer: 50% everywhere.

Actual answer: no real answer on what the number should be, the important thing about this chart is the relationships it shows as the numbers vary. In a fair league the probability of the next penalty being on a given team should be the same no matter the penalty differential, so you'd want the boxes to all be more or less the same as you change score and penalty diff. The fact that the values change significantly as you change those variables is really the problem. Although I would guess that 46% number is more or less calling it fair, and that every box would converge towards 46 in a fair league, but that's just guessing.

And these differences aren't marginal. ex. When home team is up a goal and has two fewer penalties the home team goes from being a little less likely than away to get the next call against to being twice as likely as the away team to get the next call against. That's nuts.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

What about player based? What about coach based? What about anyone who is actually relevant not name GoldenBearHockey?

Keep the blinders on.

Not based....biased..... Players and Coaches, grew up in the system, they know exactly what game management is, and on the majority, understand it, and are ok with it. If you ask anyone in the NHL right now, if they want the game called by the book, 100% of the time, I highly doubt you will get a yes answer.....because they understand that's not reality, that's not a possibility.

 

[Confused Turnip]

And I certainly wouldn't dispute that the NHL's version of game management should be up for criticism and debate.

I also understand how fans can view the whole thing as random and without reason. The NHL should long ago have taken steps to communicate the realities of officiating challenges with hockey to educate viewers at home.

I do have a strong disagreement with the no game management and related "all the rules, all the time" idea.

Further, there are legitimate reasons that explain some (much?) of the correlation data being thrown around (not to mention the specific data needs to be clarified. Looks to me like this is aggregate not game by game, and I have no idea if it includes co-incidental penalties).

As for Tim Peel's words, I wrote at the time that he was basically admitting to his crew that he made a bad call and was trying to justify it. I have heard/had a hundred similar conversations in my time (if not that direct about "I wanted a penalty"...but then again we didn't hear the whole thing) Paul Stewart wrote a good blog yesterday that included the same idea.

I appreciate how you're engaging here, so thanks for that. I'd love to hear your explanation for some of the score and penalty differential effects data. Stuff like teams with 2 fewer penalties against being twice as likely to take the next penalty is not a small effect, it's enormous.

 

[DarenX]

Not based....biased..... Players and Coaches, grew up in the system, they know exactly what game management is, and on the majority, understand it, and are ok with it. If you ask anyone in the NHL right now, if they want the game called by the book, 100% of the time, I highly doubt you will get a yes answer.....because they understand that's not reality, that's not a possibility.

But they have asked multiple players and coaches... All the interviews I have seen they said they just want it to be consistent in the game. Like every interview I have seen.

Did you read my original post? I also dont want every thing to be called exactly by the book, I want a tough, fast, hard game. I want a consistent game though, if your gonna call soft calls in the first, call them in the third. If it goes into OT let both teams know prior, whistles will be less but dont over step. That to me is closer to equal that we have now. When I refer to consistency, that is what I am talking about... What frustrates me the most is soft calls for one team are not called for the other, weather its same period or end of game. That is what ruins the integrity of the game and that is what the coaches and players, current and past have been saying.

 

[Confused Turnip]

How many times does a team which is goal behind early in the 3rd period score on the PP and go on to win the game? Worse, how many times does a PP goal when a team is down by 2 goals turn the momentum and lead to an OT game? Given that the penalty call which put them on the PP is suspect (according to the chart), that means that the refs "game management" manipulates the standings. This affects the financials of the teams in the league because making the playoffs or not can make a big difference in the bottom line at the end of the year.

This is obviously very bad.

It's hard to believe that some of the owners don't think about this.

From an owner perspective I think this de-risks their team by making the average playoff drought shorter, so they're probably fine with it. Yeah they're less likely to get 10 seasons in a row of big playoff gate, but they're also less likely to not get a single round in for a decade.

In many ways parity is really about the financial parity it provides.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Kind of funny but I was thinking earlier, "Imagine if the NHL pulled a WWF"? For many years the WWF fought totth and nail against being portrayed as fake or scripted. Then one day they decided to admit and embrace. Their world didn't end.

Would be interesting to see a pro league approach it differently. At least how they explain it, rather than denying what's right in front of people's eyes.

Vegas says no bueno.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Honestly I don't even know what fans want either.

Before this year for a few years there was outcry that slashes to the hand area weren't being called. Star players were getting hurt and fans were upset.

So this year they were calling a lot more of the slashes to the hand area. What did I hear "oh that's such a weak call he tapped him on the glove".

Fans aren't a monolith. I'm sure the NHL fanbase contains plenty of people holding both opinions, so no matter what you do people will complain and you can't control it.

If you're the NHL you focus on doing what you think is best for the game and avoid things that will piss off too much of the fanbase, and that's it.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

But they have asked multiple players and coaches... All the interviews I have seen they said they just want it to be consistent in the game. Like every interview I have seen.

Did you read my original post? I also dont want every thing to be called exactly by the book, I want a tough, fast, hard game. I want a consistent game though, if your gonna call soft calls in the first, call them in the third. If it goes into OT let both teams know prior, whistles will be less but dont over step. That to me is closer to equal that we have now. When I refer to consistency, that is what I am talking about... What frustrates me the most is soft calls for one team are not called for the other, weather its same period or end of game. That is what ruins the integrity of the game and that is what the coaches and players, current and past have been saying.

That is what we have now, you say soft calls for one team are not called on the other, but you have no way of knowing that, you only know what you see whether in person, or on TV after 7 replays from various angles, slowed down.....

And I have yet to hear any coaches or players, saying officials are ruining the integrity of the game, past or current.

 

[Tacitus Kilgore]

That is what we have now, you say soft calls for one team are not called on the other, but you have no way of knowing that, you only know what you see whether in person, or on TV after 7 replays from various angles, slowed down.....

And I have yet to hear any coaches or players, saying officials are ruining the integrity of the game, past or current.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Montreal Typical, forgot about that. He was right to be pissed all the blown calls in that series went one way.

I'm assuming the guy who said he never heard of a coach or player criticizing a ref has also never heard of a man named Tortorella. Yeah players and coaches don't speak out often because when they do they end up getting fined by the league and losing their next several games to flagrantly biased punishment officiating, if anything the fact that they speak out at all in those circumstances is proof of how bad things are.

 

[Pez68]

Game management is not a hockey thing, it's a NHL thing. So you don't have to imagine, you can just look to the rest of the hockey world if you want to know what it looks like.

Game management is absolutely a hockey thing. It happens at all levels.