Around the League 2018-19 IV

[prizminferno]

ya, lung contusion sounds pretty scary, especially with him still being in the hospital.

If it were a broken collarbone I'd probably feel better.

only 1-2 weeks for the lung contusion

 

[devilsblood]

only 1-2 weeks for the lung contusion

aight, that aint too bad.

 

[billingtons ghost]

A: Okay, great, so the cycle of violence just continued endlessly..

There was literally nothing correct in your entire post. Just showed complete ignorance of the era.

The cycle didn't continue endlessly - when it began, it was at least calculated and it wasn't random. That was why guys like Claude Lemieux were reviled - because they wouldn't fight and they'd still take cheap shots. Even then, they wouldn't cheap shot a skill guy - but would go after their opposite number.

Probert's job was the rough stuff, and his opposite number would answer. Both he and Probert wouldn't appreciate some guy on his own team that didn't step up and fight his own battles if he was going to run an opposing player. In this way, it hindered guys REALLY getting hurt.

The question shouldn't be 'who stopped Stevens'. It should be: 'Stevens stopped Lindros from constantly bullying and cheap shotting other players.' Maybe you don't remember why Eric Lindros was in the league, but it was because he bullied and went out of his way to mash and injure opposing players. Stevens had 155 career fights, so he had to pay for whomever he hit, and stood up for his own players - and he probably lost more than he won.

I can speak from experience that even in beer leagues, I sure as hell wasn't relying upon refs to keep the peace. I think it is clear that today's player puts faith in the refs to keep them safe - rather than watching out for themselves and expecting the big hit.

Players are both taller, more muscular and their average weight jumped 10lbs from the 90s to the 2000s.

 

[Triumph]

There was literally nothing correct in your entire post. Just showed complete ignorance of the era.

The cycle didn't continue endlessly - when it began, it was at least calculated and it wasn't random. That was why guys like Claude Lemieux were reviled - because they wouldn't fight and they'd still take cheap shots. Even then, they wouldn't cheap shot a skill guy - but would go after their opposite number.

What are you talking about? It was calculated? Are you kidding me? Did they file motions in court first? Maybe a glove slap? Claude Lemieux is widely credited with ending Cam Neely's career. Is he not a skill player now? Ulf Samuelsson ended Pierre Mondou's career - not a skill guy? Messier's deliberate high-stick of Gilmour in Devils-Rangers - not a cheap shot on a skill guy? We can go on and on - the game was dirtier then. It's just not even a question. And there were plenty of guys like Lemieux out there.

Probert's job was the rough stuff, and his opposite number would answer. Both he and Probert wouldn't appreciate some guy on his own team that didn't step up and fight his own battles if he was going to run an opposing player. In this way, it hindered guys REALLY getting hurt.

Right, yeah, I'm sure. It was all about keeping guys from getting hurt. How noble.

The question shouldn't be 'who stopped Stevens'. It should be: 'Stevens stopped Lindros from constantly bullying and cheap shotting other players.' Maybe you don't remember why Eric Lindros was in the league, but it was because he bullied and went out of his way to mash and injure opposing players.

Yes, Eric Lindros, one of the greatest players to ever play hockey, was in the league because he bullied players and injured them. Scott Stevens was a hero who was stopping Lindros from doing that. He also stopped those nasty bullies Kevyn Adams, Shane Willis, Ron Francis, and noted goon Paul Kariya. What a hero he was keeping the Devils' players safe in Game 6 of the Cup finals - Kariya could've cheap shotted any of them at any time. Or maybe because the Ducks had Vishnevski, he was protecting the Devils from that guy? I love Scott Stevens and what he did for this franchise, but his brand of hockey isn't accepted in the NHL anymore, and rightfully so.

I can speak from experience that even in beer leagues, I sure as hell wasn't relying upon refs to keep the peace.

Yeah no shit, because that macho nonsense filters down to every level of hockey and is still prevalent even though the league office is doing a better job they're still fighting uphill against this notion. Obviously in beer league there's no replays so it makes more sense, but in the NHL there's 4 officials and cameras everywhere.

Players are both taller, more muscular and their average weight jumped 10lbs from the 90s to the 2000s.

I see tons of evidence you've provided to support this. The big 6'5" D pilons are mostly gone. The Oliwas are gone. I think forwards and defensemen are on average the same height they were 20 years ago. Goalies are obviously bigger.

 

[glenwo2]

Mojo has a lung contusion. Bummer

The hell???


Good lord...MarJo just can't seem to escape injury no matter where he plays.

A Lung contusion..... I don't even..

only 1-2 weeks for the lung contusion

Okay...that's a relief.

His career can still continue and he can still make it back in time for the Playoffs.

 

[NJDevs26]

only 1-2 weeks for the lung contusion

I thought it was 1-2 weeks till he was looked at again to see how it was healing, not 1-2 weeks till he actually played.

 

[devilsblood]

Triumph you forgot Vyacheslav Kozlov.

 

[glenwo2]

I thought it was 1-2 weeks till he was looked at again to see how it was healing, not 1-2 weeks till he actually played.

Where did you read this?

 

[prizminferno]

I thought it was 1-2 weeks till he was looked at again to see how it was healing, not 1-2 weeks till he actually played.

he's being evaluated in a week so we are hopeful on 1-2 weeks to play. and random googling seems to say 3-14 days.

 

[devilsblood]

I'm constantly hearing old guys on the bench talking about some young kid, who no one can even get a stick on, would have been clobbered back in the day.

Never mind that these are no checking leagues.

 

[NJDevs26]

he's being evaluated in a week so we are hopeful on 1-2 weeks to play. and random googling seems to say 3-14 days.

Oh okay cause all I read was he'd be reevaluated in a week, nothing on a timetable

 

[billingtons ghost]

What are you talking about? It was calculated? Are you kidding me? Did they file motions in court first? Maybe a glove slap? Claude Lemieux is widely credited with ending Cam Neely's career. Is he not a skill player now? Ulf Samuelsson ended Pierre Mondou's career - not a skill guy? Messier's deliberate high-stick of Gilmour in Devils-Rangers - not a cheap shot on a skill guy? We can go on and on - the game was dirtier then. It's just not even a question. And there were plenty of guys like Lemieux out there.

You're ridiculous. You cherry-picked the outliers, and you didn't even do that well. Gilmour/Messier were cut of the same cloth. They weren't 'skill' players of the Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, Denis Savard type. They gave as good as they got and both would drop the gloves - so did Cam Neely - and they played a brand of physical hockey that intimidated. Ulf and Claude were dirty players that made dirty plays. They are counter-examples to everything I said above, and players tried to make them pay for their sins again and again. Although there was more hooking and physical play - it wasn't a significantly 'dirtier' era.

Right, yeah, I'm sure. It was all about keeping guys from getting hurt. How noble.

You can choose to believe it or not, but it was a fact.

Yes, Eric Lindros, one of the greatest players to ever play hockey, was in the league because he bullied players and injured them.

Oh yes, he was a little ice dancer prettily carving his way through the zone. He was a bully from the start and he got what was coming to him because he never HAD to keep his head up until he got to the NHL. Stevens wasn't the only guy who rang his bell, you know - his style of play and his viciousness and the liberties he took in the corners caught up to him.

Look you can believe that Tampa Bay just 100% out-skilled us in the playoffs last year, but if it wasn't for Kucherov and the deliberate physical plays he made to intimidate our players - without any fear of reprisals - and without an answer - maybe the series is a little different. We had skated with them in the regular season. Physical battles and intimidation are always part of the playoffs, and whether you hate Scott Steven's methods or not - and it is sad that you do - you cannot deny that last year's first few rounds were as vicious as I've ever seen them - and that fact was even remarked upon on this board.

I see tons of evidence you've provided to support this. The big 6'5" D pilons are mostly gone. The Oliwas are gone. I think forwards and defensemen are on average the same height they were 20 years ago. Goalies are obviously bigger.

Plenty of graphs here showing forwards and defensemen have been trending bigger since the 60s. It may have flattened recently , but players are taller and undoubtedly faster than in the 70s/80s. 20 years ago is only 1999 - we're talking about 30/40/50 years ago. With the change in league rules in the past 20 years, of course the smaller player has an advantage so it would make sense that the size of player flattens in the most recent times.
– Living Large and in the Past: More on Size in the NHL

Redirect Notice

 

[billingtons ghost]

Triumph you forgot Vyacheslav Kozlov.

Guys who have only seen Stevens highlight reel on ESPN's top 10, I guess. Never actually watched the battles that went on every game keeping our skill players from being targets. I guess when Kucherov and Tampa manhandled us last year and we had no answer, or when Tom Wilson throws his weight around - I guess we should just outskate them so they can't lay a stick on us. It's clear how well that seems to work.

 

[devilsblood]

You're ridiculous. You cherry-picked the outliers, and you didn't even do that well. Gilmour/Messier were cut of the same cloth. They weren't 'skill' players of the Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, Denis Savard type. They gave as good as they got and both would drop the gloves - so did Cam Neely - and they played a brand of physical hockey that intimidated. Ulf and Claude were dirty players that made dirty plays. They are counter-examples to everything I said above, and players tried to make them pay for their sins again and again. Although there was more hooking and physical play - it wasn't a significantly 'dirtier' era.


You can choose to believe it or not, but it was a fact.


Oh yes, he was a little ice dancer prettily carving his way through the zone. He was a bully from the start and he got what was coming to him because he never HAD to keep his head up until he got to the NHL. Stevens wasn't the only guy who rang his bell, you know - his style of play and his viciousness and the liberties he took in the corners caught up to him.

Look you can believe that Tampa Bay just 100% out-skilled us in the playoffs last year, but if it wasn't for Kucherov and the deliberate physical plays he made to intimidate our players - without any fear of reprisals - and without an answer - maybe the series is a little different. We had skated with them in the regular season. Physical battles and intimidation are always part of the playoffs, and whether you hate Scott Steven's methods or not - and it is sad that you do - you cannot deny that last year's first few rounds were as vicious as I've ever seen them - and that fact was even remarked upon on this board.



Plenty of graphs here showing forwards and defensemen have been trending bigger since the 60s. It may have flattened recently , but players are taller and undoubtedly faster than in the 70s/80s. 20 years ago is only 1999 - we're talking about 30/40/50 years ago. With the change in league rules in the past 20 years, of course the smaller player has an advantage so it would make sense that the size of player flattens in the most recent times.
– Living Large and in the Past: More on Size in the NHL

Redirect Notice

I agree that Tampa out toughing us last year was a big part as to why they won that series so easily. But why was there no fear of reprisal? We could have gotten after them, in fact there was a pretty good melee at the end of game 3, so I'm not sure the point here.

 

[devilsblood]

Guys who have only seen Stevens highlight reel on ESPN's top 10, I guess. Never actually watched the battles that went on every game keeping our skill players from being targets. I guess when Kucherov and Tampa manhandled us last year and we had no answer, or when Tom Wilson throws his weight around - I guess we should just outskate them so they can't lay a stick on us. It's clear how well that seems to work.

So Stevens leveling other teams skilled players was in effect protecting our skill players?

 

[billingtons ghost]

I agree that Tampa out toughing us last year was a big part as to why they won that series so easily. But why was there no fear of reprisal? We could have gotten after them, in fact there was a pretty good melee at the end of game 3, so I'm not sure the point here.

Name one player on our team who could or would stand up to Kucherov. We had noone.
Also -Kucherov is a 'skill' player who can get away with it and no one could touch. There's a double-standard in the league.

There's definitely two different modes of hockey - playoff and regular season hockey. Your focus on Stevens is 100% playoff hockey where intimidation reigns. There was a big learning curve for him as well. In our '94 run to the ECF we were an entirely reactive team - taking retailation penalties as the Rangers took liberties with us. Becoming pro-active instigators instead of reactionary is one of the key reasons why we won the next year... and why Detroit (who was practicing skating around with the Cup before game 1) had no answer.

It's a long 82-game season though - and Stevens wouldn't go hunting for trouble the way he would in the playoffs during it. That's kind of what I meant by alot of those guys keeping our players safe. In the playoffs, stakes are higher and all bets are off.

 

[Triumph]

You're ridiculous. You cherry-picked the outliers, and you didn't even do that well. Gilmour/Messier were cut of the same cloth. They weren't 'skill' players of the Gretzky, Marcel Dionne, Denis Savard type. They gave as good as they got and both would drop the gloves - so did Cam Neely - and they played a brand of physical hockey that intimidated. Ulf and Claude were dirty players that made dirty plays. They are counter-examples to everything I said above, and players tried to make them pay for their sins again and again. Although there was more hooking and physical play - it wasn't a significantly 'dirtier' era.

It absolutely was a dirtier era, but people just choose to believe what they want. There were far, far more penalty minutes, and this despite the fact that there was one referee. That's just the obvious evidence - anecdotally, you would absolutely never see this in an NHL game today. You almost never see a guy swing a stick at someone - Malkin did it, Gudas did too, but it is very rare, and it's almost never like this - a full on slash at a player's neck. Then you've got the other guy who comes in to spear the other player - we almost never see spearing anymore. Then you've got the entire Penguins bench not even letting the penalized player into his own locker room and the police have to get involved to hold them back. NHL games are not like this anymore. The league has changed fundamentally - this isn't acceptable behavior. Shaw got 12 games for that - he would get 20+ now.

You can choose to believe it or not, but it was a fact.

Oh yes, he was a little ice dancer prettily carving his way through the zone. He was a bully from the start and he got what was coming to him because he never HAD to keep his head up until he got to the NHL. Stevens wasn't the only guy who rang his bell, you know - his style of play and his viciousness and the liberties he took in the corners caught up to him.

Look you can believe that Tampa Bay just 100% out-skilled us in the playoffs last year, but if it wasn't for Kucherov and the deliberate physical plays he made to intimidate our players - without any fear of reprisals - and without an answer - maybe the series is a little different. We had skated with them in the regular season. Physical battles and intimidation are always part of the playoffs, and whether you hate Scott Steven's methods or not - and it is sad that you do - you cannot deny that last year's first few rounds were as vicious as I've ever seen them - and that fact was even remarked upon on this board.

You gave the game away here - Probert and his ilk have always been about intimidation and that's all it ever was, the 'protection' angle is a myth that hockey people ginned up. Lindros absolutely hurt plenty of people with his play, he was not an angel, but Scott Stevens also did that, and that's what it's about - intimidation.

People on this board have terrible memories. Wow, Hedman gave Nico a little swat on the nuts and everyone lost their minds. Kucherov laid a big legal hit on Vatanen and people cried that it should've been a suspension. Please. The crease was a constant war zone in pre-2005 hockey, Daneyko complains about any call made in that area now because it IS totally different.

Hockey's a physical game and there will always be body checks of dubious legality. It's a cleaner game now with the goons gone.

Plenty of graphs here showing forwards and defensemen have been trending bigger since the 60s. It may have flattened recently , but players are taller and undoubtedly faster than in the 70s/80s. 20 years ago is only 1999 - we're talking about 30/40/50 years ago. With the change in league rules in the past 20 years, of course the smaller player has an advantage so it would make sense that the size of player flattens in the most recent times.
– Living Large and in the Past: More on Size in the NHL

Redirect Notice

You didn't even look at your own graphs that you posted. 'It may have flattened recently' - yeah, no shit. It says that the average D weighed the same in 1997 as he did in 2012. Forwards show a similar leveling off. The league isn't getting heavier.

 

[devilsblood]

Name one player on our team who could or would stand up to Kucherov. We had noone.
Also -Kucherov is a 'skill' player who can get away with it and no one could touch. There's a double-standard in the league.

There's definitely two different modes of hockey - playoff and regular season hockey. Your focus on Stevens is 100% playoff hockey where intimidation reigns. There was a big learning curve for him as well. In our '94 run to the ECF we were an entirely reactive team - taking retailation penalties as the Rangers took liberties with us. Becoming pro-active instigators instead of reactionary is one of the key reasons why we won the next year... and why Detroit (who was practicing skating around with the Cup before game 1) had no answer.

It's a long 82-game season though - and Stevens wouldn't go hunting for trouble the way he would in the playoffs during it. That's kind of what I meant by alot of those guys keeping our players safe. In the playoffs, stakes are higher and all bets are off.

Obviously no one did stand up to Kucherov, but I don't understand why no one could have?

Hedman seemed to have no issues with taking a cheapy on one of our skilled players, meanwhile Boyle seemed willing to mix it up with a big young skilled Tampa D-man. Plus as I mentioned there was a pretty serious scrum in that series.

So I'm not disagreeing that toughness physicality and even intimidation(though I don't think we were intimidated by Tampa) can be key ingredients for a winning team. But I am disagreeing that these are not part of the league now. Heck you are using an example of us being bullied just last year.

 

[devilsblood]

It absolutely was a dirtier era, but people just choose to believe what they want. There were far, far more penalty minutes, and this despite the fact that there was one referee. That's just the obvious evidence - anecdotally, you would absolutely never see this in an NHL game today. You almost never see a guy swing a stick at someone - Malkin did it, Gudas did too, but it is very rare, and it's almost never like this - a full on slash at a player's neck. Then you've got the other guy who comes in to spear the other player - we almost never see spearing anymore. Then you've got the entire Penguins bench not even letting the penalized player into his own locker room and the police have to get involved to hold them back. NHL games are not like this anymore. The league has changed fundamentally - this isn't acceptable behavior. Shaw got 12 games for that - he would get 20+ now.



You gave the game away here - Probert and his ilk have always been about intimidation and that's all it ever was, the 'protection' angle is a myth that hockey people ginned up. Lindros absolutely hurt plenty of people with his play, he was not an angel, but Scott Stevens also did that, and that's what it's about - intimidation.

People on this board have terrible memories. Wow, Hedman gave Nico a little swat on the nuts and everyone lost their minds. Kucherov laid a big legal hit on Vatanen and people cried that it should've been a suspension. Please. The crease was a constant war zone in pre-2005 hockey, Daneyko complains about any call made in that area now because it IS totally different.

Hockey's a physical game and there will always be body checks of dubious legality. It's a cleaner game now with the goons gone.



You didn't even look at your own graphs that you posted. 'It may have flattened recently' - yeah, no ****. It says that the average D weighed the same in 1997 as he did in 2012. Forwards show a similar leveling off. The league isn't getting heavier.

I found the outrage over Kucherov's hit on Vat's to be misplaced. I thought it was a good clean hit as well.

Now could NJ have pushed back? Gone after Kucherov specifically or played more physical in general? Sure, but I thought that hit was just good hockey.

 

[glenwo2]

I found the outrage over Kucherov's hit on Vat's to be misplaced. I thought it was a good clean hit as well.

Now could NJ have pushed back? Gone after Kucherov specifically or played more physical in general? Sure, but I thought that hit was just good hockey.

What about Hedman's antics on Nico?

 

[devilsblood]

What about Hedman's antics on Nico?

Obviously that was BS. And that was just before the big scrap, so we did show some push back there.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

What about Hedman's antics on Nico?

Yes they were dirty, but how many players go outof their way to personally apologize to the player they did it to - immediately after the game?

Hedman is your typical ‘heat of the moment’ player, he never MEANS anything behind his actions. Guys like Cluttersuck and Wilson mean it when they do it

 

[billingtons ghost]

Obviously no one did stand up to Kucherov, but I don't understand why no one could have?

Hedman seemed to have no issues with taking a cheapy on one of our skilled players, meanwhile Boyle seemed willing to mix it up with a big young skilled Tampa D-man. Plus as I mentioned there was a pretty serious scrum in that series.

So I'm not disagreeing that toughness physicality and even intimidation(though I don't think we were intimidated by Tampa) can be key ingredients for a winning team. But I am disagreeing that these are not part of the league now. Heck you are using an example of us being bullied just last year.

I see what you are saying - I am not disagreeing with you that these elements are in the league now... I'd argue that it's just part of human nature and will always be part of the game...

What I am saying is that like just about EVERYTHING these days, attempts to control it through legislation and rules is folly - because it just pushes it underground to erupt with even more force. By taking the responsibility of teammates safety out of the hands of the players themselves and putting it in the hands of the referrees, you end up ENABLING worse violence to happen.

It isn't a huge stretch to find analogies in helmet laws getting people killed or political correctness making racism more insidious by making it covert or any black market coming in to fill a void once prohibitionist laws go into effect.

The same is with hockey. No more enforcers are necessary because in theory, referrees will penalize players and teams that take liberties with others' safety. But it just doesn't work - or if it does, it works very very unequally and in fits in starts. Tom Wilson gets 10 games for this, Marchand gets 1 for that, Kucherov gets none at all.

Our team didn't step up because it wasn't built for the playoffs. It was built for the new NHL mold - where refs are supposed to protect you - but players will ALWAYS push that line and 'legal' hits will always go on.

That's why guys like Ryan Reaves are fairly useless all season long and then suddenly go to a playoff team at the deadline... and why Tom Wilson gets big, big money.

 

[billingtons ghost]

That's just the obvious evidence - anecdotally, you would absolutely never see this in an NHL game today. You almost never see a guy swing a stick at someone - Malkin did it, Gudas did too, but it is very rare,

Garbage. You can find it today just as much if not more than in those days. You just pointed two out in the past couple of weeks. Guys who can't fight today swing their sticks. Here's last year's playoffs and all of the hits on Tom Wilson (cross-checks to the face, boarding, spearing, high-sticking) because no one would drop the gloves with him and they didn't like his physical play:

Hockey's a physical game and there will always be body checks of dubious legality. It's a cleaner game now with the goons gone.

When you don't have players who can take care of themselves, or can protect skill players - you get more stick swinging, more boarding and more intentional hits to the head as the games become more intense. Period.

 

[devilsblood]

I see what you are saying - I am not disagreeing with you that these elements are in the league now... I'd argue that it's just part of human nature and will always be part of the game...

What I am saying is that like just about EVERYTHING these days, attempts to control it through legislation and rules is folly - because it just pushes it underground to erupt with even more force. By taking the responsibility of teammates safety out of the hands of the players themselves and putting it in the hands of the referrees, you end up ENABLING worse violence to happen.

It isn't a huge stretch to find analogies in helmet laws getting people killed or political correctness making racism more insidious by making it covert or any black market coming in to fill a void once prohibitionist laws go into effect.

The same is with hockey. No more enforcers are necessary because in theory, referrees will penalize players and teams that take liberties with others' safety. But it just doesn't work - or if it does, it works very very unequally and in fits in starts. Tom Wilson gets 10 games for this, Marchand gets 1 for that, Kucherov gets none at all.

Our team didn't step up because it wasn't built for the playoffs. It was built for the new NHL mold - where refs are supposed to protect you - but players will ALWAYS push that line and 'legal' hits will always go on.

That's why guys like Ryan Reaves are fairly useless all season long and then suddenly go to a playoff team at the deadline... and why Tom Wilson gets big, big money.

I think the issue with the Devils last year was not that they were built soft, but moreso that they were young in many spots, and also for many of the guys playing playoff hockey for the first time. And Tampa is pretty dang good team.

But that series certainly did not exemplify that rules were making the game more violent. Nor does the Mojo hit.

I think you are right that the speed of the game will lead to bigger hits. But having more enforcers will only change that by slowing the game down, not by scaring other teams from being physical.