There’s no crying in Hockey

by J. Scott Moore

Well, yes there is. Once a year on the last game of the season, grown men cry. They do it with millions of people watching them on television. Some do it openly. Some hang their head, their stick forgotten in a limp hand as they slump on the bench.

Gloves that were previously used to agitate an opponent are now used to dry their own tears. The first ones to cry are the losers. The clock ticks down the moments before the end of a dream. From role players to superstars, sometimes you only get one shot at the Cup. Grown men sit on the ice with a stunned look on their face when it’s over. It’s the end; they know it could be the end of the dream.

Eventually they gather themselves and do what good men do, they suck it up and congratulate the opponent. The handshakes come in all varieties. Heartfelt congratulations with just a hint of sadness, the stunned handshake, and the guys that used to play together really are happy for a former teammate. It runs the gamut.

The winning team is the polar opposite, screaming, cheering and celebrating. But when that Cup is brought out the mood changes. This is it, this is what they have worked so hard for. A trophy that players refuse to touch unless they’ve earned it will bring the toughest guys on ice to tears. Tears of joy.

Whether it’s game four or game seven, this is how it plays out. But the suspense that has been building for game seven makes it all the more exciting. It’s gonna be a good one.
The last ones to cry are the fans. When the Cup is off-camera, all the analysis is over and the excitement finally wanes. It’s over. Another season of hockey has come and gone. The tears well and the sniffles start. What to do all summer? The empty feeling gnaws at our souls.


Tapeleg and the Dead Blog Challenge

I just want to say a few things about what’s been going on here on the blog these last two weeks. James “Tapeleg” did a great job getting a lot of bloggers off their duffs and blogging again, including me. Thanks dude.

Today is technically the last day of the challenge but with game seven tonight I’ll likely have a post tomorrow. Very quickly it will be draft day and free agency too; I will probably make some words about that stuff as well this month. Also, I’m working on a post that will probably surprise a few of you; it’s not quite ready but in a few days.

Not only did James put in the work on his blog, he also provided links and bonus content that was very cool. There was the Twitter pep talk he gave me when I was about to bail on posting every day. That was good for two posts right there. That was good stuff. Overall, a successful endeavor.

Yes Lappy, I’m serious! It was great!

 

Five Things About Game Six

by J. Scott Moore

I’ve never played this “5 Things” game here on the blog.  Seems like a great way to get the writing juices flowing and since I’ve been struggling to finish up Tapeleg’s challenge, I need all the help I can get.  And now that there will be a game seven, I will be blogging at least an extra day.  And…hit it!

1. Elimination game in Boston against a Canadian team and the house is playing Rush?

2. If Luongo wins the Cup, how does he even look himself in the mirror?  Seriously?  Can he look in the mirror and say to himself that he played at the top of his game?  There are all kinds of examples of guys playing well enough and winning it all.  Playing not to lose.  Manage the game as they say in football.  Not possible as the goalie on a hockey team.  Luongo gets all the blame if they lose the Cup.  Little or no credit if they win it.  I think that’s fair.  (This is a hilarious photo zipping around Twitter)

3. Early in the game a Canuck was hurt, down on the ice for quite a while and I was somewhat disturbed that the Boston crowd didn't even seem to care that a player was hurt. They were too busy chanting and didn't even give him applause off the ice.  I know this series has become brutal on and off the ice.  But that surprised me.

4. Unfortunately, these early blow out games are boring during the wrap up.  But I don’t really how we get there, as long as we get to game seven.

5. Late in the game the NBC crew was discussing whether or not Luongo should be allowed to face the press, post-game.  They agreed no.  Really?  What about the fact that Luongo has already shown that he couldn’t handle the pucks coming at him.  But he can’t handle questions either?  That just makes him look worse in my opinion.  He’s supposed to be a veteran, a leader, former captain…and they need to shelter him?  I’m writing this as the game is still on so I won’t change my opinion regardless, just that it is being discussed is amazing to me.

This isn’t specific to this game, just specific to Tim Thomas’ beard.  I think any minute he is going to go wading out into the middle of an icy cold stream, grab a jumping salmon and have a pre-game meal.  Nom nom nom.

     

Parroting the NHL

by J. Scott Moore

Myths, half truths and things people repeat without thinking

Real hockey towns don’t have Ice Girls? Boston, Chicago, Caps, Devils, Flames, Ottawa, Vancouver, Islanders, Pittsburgh…who else?

The Original Six are “real” hockey towns. Oh, so all those empty seats in the Joe and Chicago’s arena were just smart fans staying away from a bad product? And there’s absolutely NO bandwagoning going on in Chicago these days…right….!

The shoot out is a skills contest-this is a team sport. The OT should go from 4-4 to 3-3 to 2-2, etc. Wait, I thought you said this is a team sport!

Players that are suspended for injuring another player should have to sit out as long as it takes the injured player to return. Actually, the player’s association might want to look at negotiating this one into the next CBA because this will undoubtedly increase the number of men that get a shot at the NHL by at least a 1,000 players. There will be so many players sitting on their duff at home waiting for such-and-so to get healthy that the minor leagues will be exhausted of players. Of course never mind that all the players sitting on said duff will need to be paid…so watch those ticket prices go thru the roof! Great idea.

Southern Hockey doesn’t work. How long have the Blues been operating? Wasn’t it Buffalo and Washington that went bankrupt long before Phoenix?

+/- is the most worthless stat in the NHL – that is until it supports that argument you are making about such and so player. Then all of a sudden it’s ok to add it to the argument, though often with a CYA caveat / cliché, “Even though +/- is the most worthless stat in all of hockey…blah blah blah”

What are your hockey pet peeves?

   

Denver Broncos Season Ticket Glut?

by J. Scott Moore

Is the end in sight? If so it wouldn’t be the end of the world. But it would certainly be the end of the world as we know it.

Who are we and what am I talking about?

We are the Denver Broncos fans, players, staff and the owner and I’m talking about the end of the Broncos decades of sellout crowds.

As a long time season ticket holder I received an email recently about my request to upgrade my tickets. In the past they did this via mail/phone and you were given one or two choices. This year it’s online via Ticketmaster. The interesting part of that is that I can see a diagram of the whole stadium and what sections have seats available for me to upgrade…or downgrade.

Here’s the diagram.

Today was deadline day so this represents about how things stand going into next season. If you haven’t made your payments you are no longer a season ticket holder.

The dark blue represents sections with available seating. There are about 135 sections total. Of those, 82 have seating available. That’s about…what? 60% Ok, that’s real rough ciphering cause all the sections hold varying amounts of people, different prices, etcetera. The point is, if you want to move around in the lower priced sections, about 60% of the stadium, you can. That hasn’t always been true. I know cause I’ve moved a lot. It took me years to get to the sideline seats I now have. And granted, those sections on the first level are still jam packed with season ticket holders. But they aren’t who you might think they are.

Don’t be surprised that the first level seats are all sold out. That’s where I sit, but that’s also the seats the ticket brokers buy. They have the highest return value. Especially where we sit, on the visitor side. For the last two years I would estimate that about 50% of the seats around me are owned by brokers. If not then the fan that owns them sells every seat for every game. One of the issues this has created is a near complete lack of consequences for the guy in a scalped seat. Short of criminal behavior the worst he can expect is to be kicked out of the game. As a season ticket holder I have to behave myself or possibly lose my tickets. The out-of-town guys that buy one game have no such worries and their behavior proves it.

But, it isn’t just this that the Broncos should find troubling. It’s that the stadium used to be 99% loyal Broncos fans. That has slipped away and yet they maintained their sellout streak. The modern NFL fan is more mobile and tickets are more easily obtained if you’ve got the cash. Fans root for players as much or more than for teams these days, another factor that leads to the mixed crowds. But now you see that something like 60% of the stadium has at least some seating available for the potential season ticket buyer. I have friends that got on the list for season tickets 5 years ago. They expected to wait 10 or more years, that was the plan so the kids would be old enough to really enjoy the games. Well the Broncos came calling this year.

That fabled wait list is as thin as the mile high air.

Successful Writers do It

by J. Scott Moore

Today’s post is likely to be a shorty. I can’t think of much to write about. I’m just typing away waiting for something to flow out of my fingers and through this laptop. I’m simply doing the most basic thing I can. Writing for the sake of writing.

I hear it all the time. “Write every day.”

Over and over I read this advice. Everywhere I turn I’m told about, and by, successful writers that it takes practice. That it is a daily routine. And sometimes it’s even reduced to the unromantic notion of “work!”

Where does this work concept come from? Aren’t these writers that are so freely giving advice also telling us how much they love to write? Does it feel like work to them? Well certainly there is this word being thrown around in my tiny little sphere lately: challenge. And a challenge isn’t accepted without some idea that work will follow. The challenge even talented writers must face is what is commonly called “voice” in the blogging circles. Of course voice is not a new concept, just a new tag. Jack London is a favorite writer of mine and over a hundred years ago he was talking about the importance of voice.

In 1899 London wrote to aspiring writers: “…put the stamp of “self” upon (your) work - a trade mark of far greater value than copyright.” And London asks, “…how can you have something fresh for the jaded ear of the world?”

How indeed?

“To comprehend the characters and phases of any movement, you must know the spirit which moves to action individuals and peoples, which gives birth and momentum to great ideas…the sum of all this will be your working philosophy, by which, in turn, you will measure, weigh, and balance, and interpret the world. It is this stamp of personality of individual view, which is known as individuality.”

Or, voice. Your voice. To find your voice you must write. Practice. London was well known for his practice of writing 1,000 words a day, six days a week. But you must also study the world. None of us live in a vacuum with nothing but hockey. Well, some of you do…but all that other stuff is what makes hockey (or whatever you are writing about) more than a set of rules in black and white. More than an ice cold rink with perfectly straight lines and nets of all the same, exact size. More than a frozen puck. It’s who is in net, who is defending that blue line and who is skating with that puck.

Another guy I like to follow for writing advice is John Scalzi. This guy has turned his daily blog into a phenomenon. It’s amazing to me how he can post a picture of his cat and get 100 comments. But the bottom line is he worked at posting to that blog on a daily basis for years. He’s built a following. If you haven’t checked it out I suggest it, he often gives advice about writing. http://whatever.scalzi.com/ Of course, he also recommends that you write every day.

Now both of these guys are/were fiction writers (primarily) but I don’t think that their advice is lost on a guy like me just because I don’t aspire to write the great American novel. The advice is still valid. How else am I going to find something to write about if I don’t want to fill my blog with boring game recaps? Voice + practice = something better than a rehash of the game I just watched.

Well, well, not so short after all.

A quote I’ve never seen from London before has just manifested itself on my blog today.

“You can’t wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.” -Jack London

And finally, London has this to say, “If you cannot find time, rest assured that the world will not find time to listen to you.”

What's in a Name?

by J. Scott Moore

Are the Atlanta Thrashers going to be the "Winnipeg Jets?"

We have been told by the mayor that they aren't going to be the named the Winnipeg Jets.  Much to the apparent disappointment of the Winnipeg population.

The Manitoba Moose is the well established and now homeless minor league team on the way out of town.  But True North Sports, the ownership group bringing back the NHL, has spent a lot of money and effort to market the Moose.  So why not keep the name?  It's rumored they may.

So...what's in a name ?

It's like naming a child. Harold or Albert probably aren't going to be the life of the party or the star quarterback. I knew girl in school named Bambi. That can be a tough name to live with. Or the parents can go with Joe or Mary. Plain, middle of the road name. At least that is less likely to shape your kid than an overly odd name.  Ah, but reward goes to those that risk!

But!  A name that attracts negative attention can result in a goofy kid. Kids are cruel.

Fans are too.

So what will it be? Safe middle of the road name or the go for broke or the no-chance dork name?

Just in case they need some ideas. I've got a few:

Manitoba Maulers - submitted by a loyal reader!
Manitoba Mad-hatters - kidding!
Manitoba Marauders

Oilfield angle?  Not likely with Edmonton around but there's still some possibilities:

Manitoba Jughounds - too close to Juggalos!
Manitoba Swampers

The agriculture angle:
Manitoba Turnips - there's that get-you-beat-up-at-lunch name I was taking about.  No, no more of those names.

Logging angle?
Manitoba Loggers - then you will have a bunch of Logger bloggers!

My aces are these two:

Manitoba Mounties

Manitoba True North

Unfortunately True North is also the name of the owners and of course this would appear to be self serving and out of touch.  But really, it's too bad.  I think it sounds great, it's also from a line in O Canada, "The True North strong and free."

So Mounties it is.  Better than a moose any day!
 
   

A Little Vancouver History

by J. Scott Moore

Hockey Hall of Fame

This isn't the first time Vancouver has played for the Stanley Cup.  They were in the hunt in 1982 and 1994, as the Canucks.  But what about before the Canucks?

In 1917-18 the Vancouver Millionaires faced the Toronto Arenas in a best of five series.  The first four games were split and Toronto won the fifth game and the Cup.

I believe it was a much smaller cup at that time.

But Vancouver wasn't in the NHL, they were in the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA) along with Seattle, Portland (later Victoria) and the recently departed Spokane.

Vancouver's star player was one Fred "Cyclone" Taylor who liked to boast that he once skated backwards through the whole Ottawa team and scored a goal.  Taylor once played for the Renfrew Creamery Kings, so I would say the Millionaires was a step up.

It's amusing that a team would be named the Millionaires when the players certainly were nothing of the sort.  In fact in the Montreal team was sold for $11,000 around this time.

In the playoffs of this era the format was a little different, to say the least.  Two games and team with the most total goals across those two games, wins.  Bizarre.

The 1918-19 season saw Seattle win the PCHA, beating Vancouver in that bizarre format, 7-5.  That's goals, remember?

The 1919-20 season again matched up 1st place Seattle and 2nd place Vancouver for the chance to play the NHL champion Ottawa Senators for the Stanley Cup.  Once again Seattle prevailed in the two game format with a 7-3 victory.

It's interesting to note that Seattle's red, white and green uniforms were too similar to Ottawa's red, white and black uniforms for every one's comfort.  So the Senators agree to change to white sweaters.  Hmmm, beginning of the home whites tradition we all pine for these days?

The 1920-21 season again saw Seattle and Vancouver matched up in the two game playoff duel for the right to play for the Cup.  This time the Millionaires badly beat Seattle 13-2.  In the east Ottawa was once again the champs and this match with the Millionaires attracted a record 11,000 fans to the first game.  The teams split the first four games and once again Vancouver was denied the cup in the fifth and deciding game.

The 1921-22 season saw a lot of change.  The PCHA introduced the penalty shot and had a new competitor in the west, the Western Canada Hockey League.  Seattle finished first in the PCHA but lost the playoff to Vancouver, 2-0, (that's still goals, by the way).  Regina from the new league challenged Vancouver for the right to represent the West in the battle for the Stanley Cup.  Vancouver prevailed and headed east to play Toronto for the Cup.  Toronto was now known as the St. Patricks and again the series went to game five.  Doesn't that sound odd?  Toronto prevailed and once again Vancouver went home as the forgotten runner-up.

1922-23 saw Vancouver finish first in the league and advance through the playoff.  This time Ottawa traveled west to take on Vancouver, eliminating them and then dispensing with the WCHL Edmonton team as well to win the Cup.

The 1923-24 season again saw Vancouver advance through the playoff of the PCHA and Calgary won the WCHL.  Both teams traveled east to face Montreal for the Cup.  Montreal beat both teams to hoist the cup.  Did they "hoist" it then?  I don't know.

The next two seasons were nothing but turmoil for both of the western leagues and in short order there was nothing left of either league.  Vancouver did not appear in the playoffs in either year.

Now I must admit that I might have tricked you a little bit, Vancouver did win the Stanley Cup in 1915 against Ottawa.  However, that league was then known as the NHA, not the NHL.  It's the one and only Cup win for the city of Vancouver...1915, that's almost a hundred years ago...
 
Source: The Complete Encyclopedia of Hockey edited by Zander Hollander and Hal Bock, 1974, Prentice-Hall


     

Living Next to Canadians – What is it Good For?

by J. Scott Moore

Absolutely nothing.

I used to live next to a family of Canadians.  One day, a day when the Avs were playing the Blues, a hot day in May...it was the Western Conference Finals...and I stepped outside between periods. It was May 12th, 2001 and according to weather records it was about 80 degrees. Yep, that’s how I remember it. My eyes rebelled against the bright sun, after all I’d just spent a couple hours locked in my cave-like living room, all outside light blocked so I could see every detail of the game on my 27” standard definition tube television set. We've come a long way baby.

And there was my Canadian neighbor smoking a cigarette on her porch. “How are the Avs doing, eh?” She asked, clearly aware of the game yet seemingly indifferent, just making conversation. And yes, she really did say “eh?” always, and with every sentence. But none of the rest of the family did.
I stared in astonishment at my Canadian neighbor and asked, “Aren’t you watching?” Resisting the urge to say “eh?”
“No, we like baseball.”
Dead silence.
They were from Quebec. Bitterness? She didn’t seem bitter. I became nervous about the silence as I tried to reconcile “eh?” with a love of baseball.
Thankfully she proceeded by asking how Roy was doing.
“Um, fine.” I said, not really thinking about it.
I couldn’t get back inside fast enough.

Thinking back I realize they never even introduced me to poutine. That right there ought to be a crime!! Maybe they liked wings better??

In the end I decided that they had been exiled…for obvious reasons, eh?

Hockey: the Perfect Game

by J. Scott Moore

Clearly Vancouver was offside on that play. Notice that they didn’t have the video to “prove” he was onside till the end of the game? Well, even with today’s technology it takes time to doctor video.

But anyway…I have a different topic for today.

At a very high level, the game of hockey has been perfected. By that I mean the large concepts of the game; the red line, the blue line and the number of players on the ice. Professional hockey was once played with six skaters a side and I believe the five skaters are perfect. As well, the 5-on-4 play is perfect for the game when a penalty is levied against one team or the other. The 5-on-3 is fine for the occasional situation involving egregious offenses.

I’m not real hot on the 4-on-4 play that we see pretty often. Many argue favorably that it opens up the ice while others argue against, that it favors certain teams. I certainly think that every team in the league builds a team to compete 5-on-5 and for the special teams of penalty killing or the power play. In other words, 5-on-5 or 5-on-4. The remaining situations can’t be much more than a small percentage of the game as a whole. That would be 5-on-3, 4-on-4 or God forbid, 3-on-3.

At the risk of sounding like the purists that I have chided in the past: 4-on-4 is roller hockey and 3-on-3 is pond hockey. Nothing against either of those games. I have the accessibility of roller hockey to thank for getting me into the sport. But the three are different games with different goals and strategies. When you try to play NHL hockey with only three or four players to a side, it changes the game. And not for the better in my opinion.

Last night in the Stanley Cup finals, in the second period there was a 5-on-3 for mere moments before the team with the advantage was called for another penalty resulting in a 4-on-3 situation. As I’ve already made clear, I think that is a ratio best left to the other games, not the National Hockey League.

The solution?

Instead of putting another guy in the box, let’s let one out. So instead of a 5-on-3 turning into a 4-on-3, it shifts to a 5-on-4. A ratio that I feel is more suited for the rules that govern this game.

Here’s how it works: anytime there are there are two guys from one team in the box there is a chance for my new rule to take effect. If the team on the power play commits a penalty resulting in neither team icing five skaters the rule kicks in by putting one of the two players in the box back on the ice instead of the power play team losing the offending player to the sin bin.  I'm only talking about minor penalties.

But obviously this is going to make a lot of people howl at the injustice of a player committing a penalty and not ending up in the box. Look at it this way, players commit “good” penalties, you hear that phrase all the time and isn’t that a matter of working the rules to your advantage? The fact is with this new rule the offending team will still only have a one player advantage; it will be 5-on-4 instead of 4-on-3.

To keep the game flowing I would also like to see this done on the fly. Like a delayed penalty the referee will indicate the penalty but will not stop play. Here’s where it gets a bit hairy, but it would really be slick if it worked: the team with two guys in the box (aware of this new rule) would be on the alert for just such a call. The box official also must be on high alert as it is his job to quickly open the door to release the player with the least time left on his penalty. This player will integrate right into the play just as any player would after finishing his time in the box. All this done, the referee lowers his arm indicating proper completion of my nifty new rule.

See, I told you I’m not a purist.

Stanley Cup Finals Blog Challenge

by J. Scott Moore

That Tapeleg guy is a rascal. Yesterday morning I innocently clicked on a link to his latest blog post and next thing you know I’m calling him names on Twitter.

He starts this shit about languishing bloggers and I start looking over my shoulder, guiltily.
Crap.
I challenge you to write everyday till the middle of June, he says.
Crap. That’s a lot.
He says: that might seem like a lot.
Whoa.

What a bastard. Like I don’t have other things to do. One thing I know I can always count on is Tapeleg tweeting about something motivational, completely sensible and irresistibly important. Jerk.

There’s no getting around it. I’ll be working on this challenge for the next 15 days. It’s just the kick in the pants I needed. Thanks you bastard Tapeleg!!

Well this is certainly a good time to predict my Stanley Cup finals winner. Boston in six. Has to be six so they are at home. Sure, sure, seven games with double OT would be exciting but I really want the Bruins to win at home. So it won’t be seven games and I’m not so greedy as to predict a sweep by the Bruins. Although it would be sweet like cherry pie!

This is purely based on fandom of the lowest kind: rooting against the other team, no stats, no analysis. I hate the Canucks. The only way I would root for them is if they were playing the Red Wings, which isn’t currently possible. And this isn’t just about the past. It’s about the fact that Roberto Luongo is a douche-bucket. The Sedin twins are creepy, times två. By the way, what’s with Yahoo listing one as 6-1 and the other as 6-2? There’s a conspiracy for ya Vancouver!! And I’ve never been one to blindly root for a team just because they are in my team’s division.

In addition, I simply want to see Tim Thomas win the Cup