Miscellaneous NHL Talk XLIII - April showers

[Curufinwe]

If making the playoffs when 16/31 qualify it is not an achievement, then missing the playoffs back when 16/21 teams qualified it is pretty damn bad.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

We had some really great individual performances to watch even during the horrible years of Hak.

This is true, but the same can also be said for the earlier period. I was entertained back then (obviously as a much younger, stupider person).

The recent playoff appearances ring hollow. I thought they had a puncher's chance to take out the Caps in the brief period before Ovechkin took out Couts, and they forced a G7 against an obviously better Rags team, but there was never hope of a making run. "Chasing Crosby with Filppula" is still tossed around as useful shorthand -- no hope of team success.

The recent doldrums is also a longer period (six years in the cringy Metropolitan plus the lockout-shorted Lavy season in the Atlantic). Much more cumulative pain.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

This is the season in question: 1991-92 NHL Summary | Hockey-Reference.com

Finished 8th by points but were 10th by seeding because of the stupid format they just had to bring back after correcting the mistake.

Finished a full ten points ahead of a team that replaced them, in an era when standings points were worth more than they are today. An utter travesty. But hey, whenever you have a chance to get that Hartford money, you have to do it, right?

[Edited for typo]

 

[Rebels57]

This is true, but the same can also be said for the earlier period. I was entertained back then (obviously as a much younger, stupider person).

The recent playoff appearances ring hollow. I thought they had a puncher's chance to take out the Caps in the brief period before Ovechkin took out Couts, and they forced a G7 against an obviously better Rags team, but there was never hope of a making run. "Chasing Crosby with Filppula" is still tossed around as useful shorthand -- no hope of team success.

The recent doldrums is also a longer period (six years in the cringy Metropolitan plus the lockout-shorted Lavy season in the Atlantic). Much more cumulative pain.

Yeah the playoffs were an abomination under Hak. I don't remember much of the early 90s teams so I cant say if you are right or wrong. I'm just looking at all of those missed playoffs.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

Yeah the playoffs were an abomination under Hak. I don't remember much of the early 90s teams so I cant say if you are right or wrong. I'm just looking at all of those missed playoffs.

I dig, this is a pure opinion situation.

I expect I'll be working through my Hak issues for another decade.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I dig, this is a pure opinion situation.

I expect I'll be working through my Hak issues for another decade.

It’s partially rooted in age differences as you mentioned, but it’s also related to a demystification of the game and the process around it.

It’s likely that early 90s me would have been a Hagg fan. Hits are fun after all. With no way to see through the information the broadcast presented to me and no way to quantify impact beyond Points, +/-, PIMs, and TOI, I can’t even see a route to a person of my age at the time figuring it out. It’s why I empathize with people who say deeper statistical analysis makes them enjoy sports less. It does lop off some fun even if it makes up for it in other ways for some of us, likely a significant minority.

TLDR; Never forget that we’re all idiots who believe what we’re told. I’ll dig out my Roussel and Soderstrom Rookie Cards if you don’t believe me. They’re in a box with 100 (yes, 100) Wes Chamberlain Studio Rookies.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

No. Do not make it best of five. Let those extra 8 bum teams just stay at home then if we’re going that route.

 

[orangey]

The quality of the games will be different. Pitt will have to fight to get into the playoffs and I’m sure they will. We will be playing for first and hopefully that makes for some intense games.

Yeah, it is a concern but I think those seeding games against 3 of the best teams in the league will be intense games that they want to show well in and win. If they have lapses in one game, for instance, then they would want to come back strong the next game and so on. It's the same for every team in that they want to establish who they are and gain confidence quickly. Maybe it's not win or go home but they should be spirited matches where you want to win 2 of 3 if you can against very good opponents and then take that momentum into the series.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

It’s partially rooted in age differences as you mentioned, but it’s also related to a demystification of the game and the process around it.

It’s likely that early 90s me would have been a Hagg fan. Hits are fun after all. With no way to see through the information the broadcast presented to me and no way to quantify impact beyond Points, +/-, PIMs, and TOI, I can’t even see a route to a person of my age at the time figuring it out. It’s why I empathize with people who say deeper statistical analysis makes them enjoy sports less. It does lop off some fun even if it makes up for it in other ways for some of us, likely a significant minority.

TLDR; Never forget that we’re all idiots who believe what we’re told. I’ll dig out my Roussel and Soderstrom Rookie Cards if you don’t believe me. They’re in a box with 100 (yes, 100) Wes Chamberlain Studio Rookies.

Agreed on all points (well, maybe not on Hagger ). The lens for understanding (or even spotting!) dump-ins/high-low/the Hakshell wasn't really available for Holmgren and Dineen.

I'm thinking stylistic over analytic. The winning and losing is broadly comparable; maybe we drill deeper and find the Hak era was significantly more successful, but lacking any kind of playoff success to differentiate the 'worst' period, I have to turn to fuzzier, emotional abstractions. Hockey as entertainment instead of martial winning at all costs.

There was a sense of wildness and creativity (note: not the wrestling atmosphere of the late-90s/early-aughts) that's largely been squeezed out, and I do still feel it when watching old games. Could be nostalgia seeping in, but I don't think so. Young non-Flyers fans still talk about the Pens series from 2012, maybe not as a platonic ideal, but as something they want more of, and it's not the bad goaltending and high scores that hooked them; they sense the flow and character and potential of what hockey can be. Nobody was stacking four to defend the blue line and nobody was passing up a chance to take a defender 1-on-1 just to keep their shift short.

Those early-90s teams may have rostered less talent on a given night, but that's still moot to me. I can't say Chych was a better defenseman than Brandon Manning (they're both essentially placeholders) but I'd definitely rather watch the former play hockey, in his environment, which matters when we're comparing losing teams. I much prefer watching Manning's fights, though.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

From a probability standpoint, 5 vs 7 doesn't matter as much as you might think. The playoffs already aren't about finding out which team is best anyway.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

Damn I really have become an old man.
Probably start a new history thread tonight.

[Edit: Flyers history, not Byzantine or Punic, you weirdos. ]

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Agreed on all points (well, maybe not on Hagger ). The lens for understanding (or even spotting!) dump-ins/high-low/the Hakshell wasn't really available for Holmgren and Dineen.

I'm thinking stylistic over analytic. The winning and losing is broadly comparable; maybe we drill deeper and find the Hak era was significantly more successful, but lacking any kind of playoff success to differentiate the 'worst' period, I have to turn to fuzzier, emotional abstractions. Hockey as entertainment instead of martial winning at all costs.

There was a sense of wildness and creativity (note: not the wrestling atmosphere of the late-90s/early-aughts) that's largely been squeezed out, and I do still feel it when watching old games. Could be nostalgia seeping in, but I don't think so. Young non-Flyers fans still talk about the Pens series from 2012, maybe not as a platonic ideal, but as something they want more of, and it's not the bad goaltending and high scores that hooked them; they sense the flow and character and potential of what hockey can be. Nobody was stacking four to defend the blue line and nobody was passing up a chance to take a defender 1-on-1 just to keep their shift short.

Those early-90s teams may have rostered less talent on a given night, but that's still moot to me. I can't say Chych was a better defenseman than Brandon Manning (they're both essentially placeholders) but I'd definitely rather watch the former play hockey, in his environment, which matters when we're comparing losing teams. I much prefer watching Manning's fights, though.

Serious question -- Was Joel Otto actively good here? I watched the vast majority of his games and I know what I thought at the time, yet I'm utterly convinced that I have no idea. These are the questions that keep me up at night. Well, nothing is more of a mindf*** than the Placebo Effect. But it's close.

 

[TheKingPin]

Yeah, it is a concern but I think those seeding games against 3 of the best teams in the league will be intense games that they want to show well in and win. If they have lapses in one game, for instance, then they would want to come back strong the next game and so on. It's the same for every team in that they want to establish who they are and gain confidence quickly. Maybe it's not win or go home but they should be spirited matches where you want to win 2 of 3 if you can against very good opponents and then take that momentum into the series.

I think it will be fine as well. It’s going to be great to have all these guys that were out for a long time to be recovered and ready to go.

And we may be back on Patrick watch soon...

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Serious question -- Was Joel Otto actively good here? I watched the vast majority of his games and I know what I thought at the time, yet I'm utterly convinced that I have no idea. These are the questions that keep me up at night. Well, nothing is more of a mindf*** than the Placebo Effect. But it's close.

If I remember my own feelings correctly, I thought he had 2 really good regular seasons, a mediocre/poor 97 playoffs and he was done and just playing out the string in 97/98.

I was so ecstatic when he was acquired (my mom, as well, because he was her sports star crush ) and he had a good stretch in Philly.

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

If I remember my own feelings correctly, I thought he had 2 really good regular seasons, a mediocre/poor 97 playoffs and he was done and just playing out the string in 97/98.

I was so ecstatic when he was acquired (my mom, as well, because he was her sports star crush ) and he had a good stretch in Philly.

I remember him being solid, if unspectacular. I was only 9 or 10, but was already very into playing/watching hockey. I remember him being great on draws... am I confusing him with Sillinger or Langkow?

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

Damn I really have become an old man.
Probably start a new history thread tonight.

[Edit: Flyers history, not Byzantine or Punic, you weirdos. ]

Ears perked up at Punic. I must’ve missed some good conversation in the past few months.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I remember him being solid, if unspectacular. I was only 9 or 10, but was already very into playing/watching hockey. I remember him being great on draws... am I confusing him with Sillinger or Langkow?

Sillinger was also a good faceoff guy, but Otto was one of the league's best.

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

Sillinger was also a good faceoff guy, but Otto was one of the league's best.

Thanks for the confirmation! I miss the 90s (94-99 for me) Flyers.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I should qualify be saying that Sillinger was/did become one of the best off all time, too, but Lindros and Otto did the heavy lifting while he was in Philly.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

If I remember my own feelings correctly, I thought he had 2 really good regular seasons, a mediocre/poor 97 playoffs and he was done and just playing out the string in 97/98.

I was so ecstatic when he was acquired (my mom, as well, because he was her sports star crush ) and he had a good stretch in Philly.

I remember him being solid, if unspectacular. I was only 9 or 10, but was already very into playing/watching hockey. I remember him being great on draws... am I confusing him with Sillinger or Langkow?

Bemidji State's own, the tank, the eraser, the heartthrob, Joel Otto!

The thing about being strong on draws is undeniably true -- Lindros-Brind'Amour-Otto-MacTavish is on the shortlist for deepest, strongest face-off group in history, and they could go righty/lefty in the OZ or DZ, just like we enjoy seeing today, with excellent support from the wings. Otto's last year, when he'd clearly declined, saw him win 53.6% -- we don't have numbers for any season before that. That year, Lindros was over 60% and Roddy was at 54%, his lowest figure of the thirteen seasons for which we have data. The part-timers that year: Sillinger 55.2, Gratton 52.7 and Lacroix 48.3. Mac had retired the year before.

[Side hypothesis: face-offs have limited but positive value in today's game but were significantly more important in an era when teams were allowed to plant seaweed between the blue lines -- getting free, screened point shots from your slow defensemen or free cycles in the corner/circle from your gigantic forwards]

Away from the dot, he was never a great scorer (topping out somewhere in the 50-pt range on good teams) but he always left me wanting more. Part of that was the league clamping down and heading into a defensive era, but he had definitely lost a step from his prime. On the plus side, he was still a smart player here and strong as ever, absolutely reliable in the defensive zone where those traits played well (thought the Selke votes felt like generosity to reputation -- no way he was a top-10 defensive forward here). I remember the disappointment of attacking plays frequently dying on his stick, though.

To JoJo's original question: We'll need to dig up tape. Kinda did what he was asked to do, but not much more? I like the idea of Joel Otto better than the one we got.

 

[DancingPanther]

So wait they're actually doing the 24 team thing? And #12 in the east.....MTL. Cant make it up cuz you don't need to- so f***ing predictable.

I see right through that bs. Montreal typical.

It's lame, but it's hockey. At some point

 

[TheKingPin]

So wait they're actually doing the 24 team thing? And #12 in the east.....MTL. Cant make it up cuz you don't need to- so f***ing predictable.

I see right through that bs. Montreal typical.

It's lame, but it's hockey. At some point

Yea I think the 24 team thing is locked in pending other smaller details. I don’t have a problem with more teams involved and a play in. It allows something of a reg season final playoff push. Teams like MTL are a stretch but I get it. Team and the league need to make some serious money back and be able to hold on for the next season or two with no fans. That’s a big deal.

 

[TheKingPin]

NBA has locked in Disney World at their ESPN center. Good strategy. I would think Vegas is the NHL target if enough rinks. Edm is prob great in the summer. I’m sure families could enjoy it there for sometime.

 

[Redpath]

Happy May 24th. 10 years ago tonight.

 

[Starat327]

Happy May 24th. 10 years ago tonight.

This is one of the most boss goals scored. Richards was such an incredible player.