WorkingOvertime

You're confusing correlation with causation. The top-scorers are largely younger players, and younger players are more likely to wear visors. This is a product of the mandatory visors in the CHL, and the prevalence of visors in top Euro leagues- it has nothing to do with skill. The above result supports that visors shouldn't be mandatory. The players are exposed to visors, and can then choose to keep them. Therefore, it isn't that the players don't know the benefits of visors, but that they don't like them.

It looks like bicep to head to me. The elbow was up but it was not the principle point of contact. I hate game misconducts on debatable hits. Let the player stay in the game, and the league can give a suspension. The hit occurred so quickly that I don't think the ref can accurately determine the point of contact.

You are forgetting a big difference here: NHL teams seem fine in paying players when they get injured. Workplace injuries result in worker's compensation from the company to the person who is injured. Normal employers tend to want to minimize this risk, while professional sports don't (to a degree). NHL revenues for most teams are based on their success (Toronto notwithstanding). Therefore, the owners want their star players to preform at their best level, and for some this involves not wearing a visor or cage (cage for all players). The amount of facial injuries that occur because of not wearing a visor are very small, especially when only star players are concerned. Based on your belief, there should be full cages, no fighting, no hitting, not shots over 30mph, etc because they all lead to injuries. The NHL (and all professional sports) are different than a normal workplace. Comparing them isn't correct. Have you ever tried not wearing a visor? If you haven't played without a visor, your example isn't relevant because a visor allows much better visibility than a cage. The removal of the visor only extends the gains you experienced in moving from cage to visor. Since Crosby and Dats can score without visors, then all players should be forced to wear visors? This argument is ridiculous at best.

See the bold section of the above quote. I don't know why some posters on this board, some of which have never played hockey, believe that they know more about a player's health than the player. Should the hockey player be able to force you to eat healthy, not drink, not smoke, etc? How ignorant do you think Bert is when it comes to visors are being in the league for so many years? Visors don't eliminate many facial injuries. A lot of players get cut by their own visor, and visors can also deflect a stick into someone's eye. While visors likely reduce the amount of facial injuries, they are not perfect. Therefore, why not then force all players to wear cages/fishbowls? While this is a stretch, cages are safer than visors and it seems the pro-visor posters are all about safety.

Sorry- I must have passed that over. To me, having the playoffs last so long is exciting. Also, I think teams like Columbus, Nashville, etc. would likely lose fan support if they never made the playoffs.

In theory, a bye seems reasonable, but in practice it wouldn't work IMO. The teams receiving a bye would have to wait for the first series to end. This would take 2+ weeks if at least one of the series goes seven games. To me, this is too long for a team to sit without playing any games. This could lead to even more upsets, with skill having a smaller impact than what you mentioned.

I was about to make that picture my avatar too.... Abby has definitely gotten better in his balance. His execution still needs work, but that will come with experience now that his balance has improved so much.

So you would like the NHL to be the size it was in the 90's? During the 90's the NHL had between 22-28 teams. Even if 8 teams were eliminated, I don't think you would see teams as stacked as you suggest. The teams to fold would likely be those who have little support. These teams don't have many stars either. I would argue that the average fan can name the same percentage of players. Your example including the Red Wings and Colorado is an extreme outlier. The Wings compiled some of the best rosters of that era and their battles with Colorado are a result of that. Also, both teams were in the playoffs every season 1995-2000. Therefore, you example is of two of the leagues best teams. Can you name anyone on the 1990's Edmonton teams? How about any of the other rivalries during the 90's? If anything, the Wings not having a great rivalry now is due to parity. The average person will not watch a sport they don't understand. Hockey isn't difficult to understand- either is changing your car's oil- but people who are ignorant about the rules will have less interest. Obviously, more exposure would lead to more viewers, but interest has to proceed exposure. I agree, the shootout is terrible and creates the appearance of parity. Here is a thread on HFBoards with rankings using a three point season. http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=31879135

What he said. If you watch the fan video of Tatar's fight, you'll see the Boyce controlled until he and Tatar got off balance. Boyce threw a lot of body shots, possibly because Tatar didn't ditch his lid. Not to take anything from Tatar, because he certainly impressed in fighting a larger Boyce, but Abby did better in his fight.

Good interview by Joey after the game. He seems to have a good focus going forward.

Awesome pic!

BERT! And he's so cool, he just goes for the fist bump.

I hope E rag-dolls Lupul before this game is over.

Abby's balance has improved a lot since last year. His technique still needs some work, but that is more of an experience thing. Good to see him ditch the lid tonight too. Hopefully he can build on his awesome game against Vancouver and the fight tonight.

I think football being the most popular US league supports my point. You can ask most 10 year old children and they can tell you the basic rules of football- this is not true for hockey. Football is educated to most Americans at a young age, and therefore most Americans can follow an NFL game. However, a lot of people who don't grow up playing hockey don't know the rules. Therefore, they are less likely to watch hockey.

Have you seen the playoff race this year? There are only a few teams that have been out of it for the past month. This year and least year have had great competition for the 6-8 spots in each conference. IMO this is parity. You speak of the salary cap having an effect, but I think it is more the salary floor. There are teams in the NHL that don't spend anywhere near the cap. I don't think fans are attracted to star players as much as we think. Fans are (generally) attracted to winning, which is usually correlated with star players. If the league contracts, so would the amount of playoff teams, and there would still be teams that aren't as good. In fact, removing teams would likely make less people interested in hockey. I don't see many Phoenix fans flying/driving to other arenas if the Coyotes cease to exist. I think the NHL is at a good amount of teams, now they just need to fix the markets. Please point me in the direct of the filler players that attempt to injure, beat up, and attack the star players. Other than Cooke, who would likely have the skill to play in an NHL with ~4 less teams, I'm not sure what games you are watching the have this conclusion. I think attracting fans to the NHL is more of a grassroots thing. Hockey is a difficult sport to understand; therefore, many potential fans are too confused to pick up the game. I think people like us, those who are knowledgeable about hockey, need to help educate our interested friends, family, etc.

Full article are link. Source- TSN http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=359481

Off the top of my head, Vancouver and Tampa Bay don't have heavyweights. Glass is game, but I don't think he should be stepping up to Boogard, Carkner, Orr, etc. This change would be made over the summer, so the Wings could pick someone up to enforce. The argument for removing the instigator is that if your team picks on my star player, my team will pick on your star player while you're in the box. Also, dirty players like Cooke would also have to answer to the other players and the league.

Who, in the NHL, gets chirped for wearing a visor in today's NHL? There is talk after players with visors square-up with players without visors because that is much more dangerous for the player who may punch the visor. Also, the players you mentioned came into the NHL when visors were rare, so seeing them change isn't surprising. As I said before, not wearing a visor is a risk the player decides on. This is no different from the risks we choose on a day-to-day basis.

I think people underestimate the amount of injuries that can be caused by visors. They likely reduce the amount of serious eye injuries, but they can also cut you (as you said) or direct a stick into your face. I've been using a visor since I've been able to ditch the cage. I never went without one because I knew I would probably like having nothing more than a wearing a visor. However, I like knowing I have the choice to not wear a visor. If you and I have the choice, I believe the players getting paid 500+k/year should also have the chance.

Seriously? This is life, we all take risks that we are comfortable with. Some choose to drink, some choose to smoke, some choose to eat unhealthy, and some choose not to wear a visor when playing hockey. They are all controllable, but not wearing a visor is the least likely to kill you. Should we now compare all of your life decisions to that of your neighbor's child? Why should we be telling hockey plays what they can and cannot choose to wear on their helmet? I don't think any of them are ignorant to the possible injuries of not wearing a visor. A lot of facial injuries occur to players with visors, but the change to cages would probably seem ridiculous to most.

To want extra equipment for yourself is fine, but to insinuate that players not wanting visors or other equipment are idiots is disrespectful IMO. If a hockey player added equipment for every injury they received, they'd be driving around in tanks on the ice. Hockey is a dangerous sport- you will get hurt.

I largely agree with E. Sometime I think it shouldn't be called, and other times it should. The problem, like you stated, is that the rule can't accurately be enforced if it isn't black and white.

The Wings would likely pick up an enforcer if this were to happen (as would the other 'enforcerless' teams). Some have suggested to remove the instigator if a penalty occurs- I haven't thought enough about this for an opinion, but it is an interesting suggestion.

I think Holland brought I. Flip over as a favor (in addition to helping GR). I. Flip likely realized that he would need to go to the AHL before the NHL, and GR is probably best for him since V. Flip is nearby. Then, if Holland likes him, he can move to the Wings. Otherwise, he can sign with another NHL team or go back to Europe.