Parity

[toby91_ca 620]

Well, in case no one has noticed, parity in this league is upon us. Look at the current last place team, they still have a winning % close to .400. The last time the place team hasn't had that good of a winning % was 20 years ago and even then, there were far more poor teams, so it's not the same. Most of the league right now is hovering around .500. There are a few teams that are doing significantly better, but that's about it.

I'm just trying to wonder if I like it this way and, to be honest, I really don't. I liked it when the league had powerhouse teams, I liked Dynasties (not that they came around very often). I liked it when there were always a few teams that got a pounding occassionaly.

I can't help but wonder if this is another reason why scoring is down. You no longer get into the playoffs easily by simply being one of the better teams, you no longer have those nights were a team comes in and your star players just light it up against the weak competition.

Remember when Ottawa was terrible? Atlanta? Some may say it is also due to the fact that there hasn't been a new expansion team in awhile to beat up on, but I don't buy into that. Detroit and Toronto had terrible seasons not that long ago as well, along with many other teams that had been in the league for years.

Just a quick rant, no real purpose. I'm on the fence a little I suppose, but definately leaning to the "not liking it" side.

[BlueMonk 102]

I don't like it either, and we're probably in the minority.

[Kutcher 0]

How could you not like the fact that the league is getting more competitive and just better as a whole? I mean wouldnt you rather see 82 GREAT hockey games than 60 okay ones and 22 that got boring after the 7th goal?

Edited November 14, 2007 by Kutcher

[blues_demitra38 11]

Good topic. Parity is definitely here and it won't be going anywhere soon. But I don't think there is reason to not like it.

Yeah, Wings fans don't like it, Rangers fans probably don't like it either. In the past, Adam Foote would've signed with Detroit but now that there's something called a budget the Wings have to think about where they want to spend their money and where they want to build from within and so Foote goes to the team who offers hi mthe most, Columbus, a team that would have never been able to compete with Detroit in attracting free agents. It's a lot more challenging to be a GM these days because of this.

Few teams might be upset but the tradeoff is worth it as more fanbases will be built on the premise that "Hey, we got a shot at getting into the playoffs." This is how the league will grow, this is how demand for the league will increase; national exposure should soon follow suit.

[toby91_ca 620]

How could you not like the fact that the leagues is getting more competitive and just better as a whole? I mean wouldnt you rather see 82 GREAT hockey games than 60 okay ones and 22 that got boring after the 7th goal?

I think it would depend on why there is parity. I think the main reason there is parity now is due to the style of play each team plays. You can't have every team play a run and gun offensive style because they simply don't have the talent necessary to win that type of game. Therefore, you have teams playing a defensive, smothering style of game which gives them a chance to win, even though they may be less talented.

I would love to see 82 great games from each team, but that's not what I am seeing now. What I see now is mostly below average games with the occasional great game. I was far more excited watching games in years gone by than I am now.

To me, the only thing that is going to increase scoring and make games more exciting is to change the way teams approach games (i.e. play more run and gun). However, this will never happen because there is too much on the line. Every team has to play to not lose and the way to do that is to play as defensively as possible. There is no rule that you can put in place that will fight that....from what I can tell.

The more calls for hooking, holding, etc. has been somewhat good, but has the game really changed that much because of it? Have many guys actually stopped the hooking and holding? For the most part, I think it has just resulted in more powerplays, which isn't more exciting. I haven't done the research, but I bet if you did, you would see that even strength scoring is WAY DOWN compared to 15 years ago. Maybe it will just take more time for the game to change...we'll see.

[b.shanafan14 733]

I haven't personally been effected by it yet, but I definately understand what you mean. I hate how every team in baseball hovers around .500 and a team that wins half of their games is a playoff contender. But then again, I hate baseball all together

[eva unit zero 271]

I think it would depend on why there is parity. I think the main reason there is parity now is due to the style of play each team plays. You can't have every team play a run and gun offensive style because they simply don't have the talent necessary to win that type of game. Therefore, you have teams playing a defensive, smothering style of game which gives them a chance to win, even though they may be less talented.

I would love to see 82 great games from each team, but that's not what I am seeing now. What I see now is mostly below average games with the occasional great game. I was far more excited watching games in years gone by than I am now.

To me, the only thing that is going to increase scoring and make games more exciting is to change the way teams approach games (i.e. play more run and gun). However, this will never happen because there is too much on the line. Every team has to play to not lose and the way to do that is to play as defensively as possible. There is no rule that you can put in place that will fight that....from what I can tell.

A rule that would help limit overly defensive play:

Regulation/OT win: 3 points

Shootout win: 2 points

Shootout loss: 1 point.

Regulation/OT loss: 0 points.

This puts more emphasis on winning the game instead of not losing it; teams will kill off the end of OT with overly defensive hockey if they think they have a better chance for the same points in a shootout. This would make for much better overtimes, especially in conference games; If you are competing for playoff position with your opponent, you would rather win in regulation or OT and gain 3 points, as opposed to win in a shootout and gain one point.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I dont like it, and its not that I don't like the competition, but it belittles significant rivalries that build up over multiple years, becasue everyone is almost exactly as good as everyone else. There are no dynasties, no team to love to hate for consecutive years. But this is the result of the salary cap, which I also believe is responsible for lower scoring games (someone else said it, but it makes sense because teams are more diluted)

[Kutcher 0]

A rule that would help limit overly defensive play:

Regulation/OT win: 3 points

Shootout win: 2 points

Shootout loss: 1 point.

Regulation/OT loss: 0 points.

This puts more emphasis on winning the game instead of not losing it; teams will kill off the end of OT with overly defensive hockey if they think they have a better chance for the same points in a shootout. This would make for much better overtimes, especially in conference games; If you are competing for playoff position with your opponent, you would rather win in regulation or OT and gain 3 points, as opposed to win in a shootout and gain one point.

Wouldn't that cause for more teams trying to get into the shootout after regulation? Since they are guaranteed a point instead of getting no points at all.

They should just do 3 pts for a regulation win 2pts for an OT win and 1pt for a shootout win, quit rewarding teams for losing. It's just not right to reward a team for a losing effort, no matter how well they played.

But I see what you were saying Toby, I would like to see more offensive games, not necessarily more scoring, just better but I think there is too much of a lack of talent in that department. There's too many role players for that, so with that said I'm glad the s***ty teams are getting better at what the game has become I can't wait until the Wings have a legit contender at taking the Division.

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

yes I have noticed it and I dont like it will we ever see 3 teams dominate like the Wings, Devils and Avs did from 94 until 2002 . I say no way Betmans new league has stopped that from Happening, just imagine without a salary cap how good the Wings and Senators could be get rid of the cap Betman blws

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I don't like this parity thing either. I want the Blues, Blackhawks, and Blue Jackets to suck, so that we can have the division wrapped up by January, and start worrying about potential playoff matchups by February.

[Guest MrSandMan]

Well, in case no one has noticed, parity in this league is upon us. Look at the current last place team, they still have a winning % close to .400. The last time the place team hasn't had that good of a winning % was 20 years ago and even then, there were far more poor teams, so it's not the same. Most of the league right now is hovering around .500. There are a few teams that are doing significantly better, but that's about it.

I'm just trying to wonder if I like it this way and, to be honest, I really don't. I liked it when the league had powerhouse teams, I liked Dynasties (not that they came around very often). I liked it when there were always a few teams that got a pounding occassionaly.

I can't help but wonder if this is another reason why scoring is down. You no longer get into the playoffs easily by simply being one of the better teams, you no longer have those nights were a team comes in and your star players just light it up against the weak competition.

Remember when Ottawa was terrible? Atlanta? Some may say it is also due to the fact that there hasn't been a new expansion team in awhile to beat up on, but I don't buy into that. Detroit and Toronto had terrible seasons not that long ago as well, along with many other teams that had been in the league for years.

Just a quick rant, no real purpose. I'm on the fence a little I suppose, but definately leaning to the "not liking it" side.

Correct me if I'm wrong... but what I read in this quote is that you're pissed off that Detroit's winning streak came to an end, we lost back to back to small time central teams, and Z's point streak came to an end. Am I correct?

I want Detroit to have losses and adversity. I want to see Detroit dig, claw, and fight their way into the playoffs instead of going in with 20 points more than the top teams only to be swept in the first round.

That's just my opinion though.

Edited November 14, 2007 by MrSandMan

[toby91_ca 620]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but what I read in this quote is that you're pissed off that Detroit's winning streak came to an end, we lost back to back to small time central teams, and Z's point streak came to an end. Am I correct?

No, this has nothing to do with Detroit, I would have had the same thoughts last week, or last year even, or even earlier than that.

Timing of the post is just a coincidence.

But I see what you were saying Toby, I would like to see more offensive games, not necessarily more scoring, just better but I think there is too much of a lack of talent in that department. There's too many role players for that, so with that said I'm glad the s***ty teams are getting better at what the game has become I can't wait until the Wings have a legit contender at taking the Division.

I agree, it's not just more goals (though I would like to see this), it just more exciting games that I am looking for.

Case in point is the Montreal vs. Ottawa game the other day. That was the most exciting game I have watched so far this year and there were only 4 goals scored (one of which was EN).

[theman19 47]

I remember clearly,..CLEARLY, when the Bolts were the laughing stock of the NHL. Me and my friends growing up, would tell each other things like "you're going to play for the lightining when you grow up!" It was an insult,..then they won a cup and i remember me and my friends looking around going,.....what is going on.

[rick zombo 3,739]

I remember clearly,..CLEARLY, when the Bolts were the laughing stock of the NHL. Me and my friends growing up, would tell each other things like "you're going to play for the lightining when you grow up!" It was an insult,..then they won a cup and i remember me and my friends looking around going,.....what is going on.

The Lightning are a great example of a team that started out in the basement and drafting/builing a team that was capapble of winning the cup. They are not an example of team helped by league parity. They, like the Red Wings of the 90s used there misfortune to draft a core of winners.

If anything, the Lightning are an example of a team KILLED by parity. They could have dominated for a few more years except that they had to dismantle their team due to cap restraints. All this while the rest of the league was allowed to get better becasue of the cap.

edit to add: Imagine, as a Wings fan, how much it would have sucked to lose Fedorov in 98 because of Cap restictions on the heals of winning a cup the year before. Or any of the Wings key players. That's waht happened to Tampa.

Edited November 14, 2007 by rick zombo

[BlueMonk 102]

My position against parity isn't really about being a fan of a formerly free-spending team like the Red Wings. I'm a Lions fan, and I don't care for the parity we've seen in the NFL, either. The hard salary cap is something I'd prefer not to see in a pro sports league, partly (but not exclusively) because of this issue. That being said, teams like the Senators and Red Wings have continued to thrive despite the new CBA. And the New England Patriots certainly haven't let the NFL cap get in the way of sustaining excellence. But overall, it tends to evenly distribute talent. Well, the most exciting hockey I've watched in my lifetime was between teams that shamelessly hoarded talent. The kind of talent one team can't keep anymore. The 70s Habs, the Gretzky Oilers, the Wings and Avs of the 90s; teams stacked with talent on all four lines, playing end to end hockey with great skill, creating great rivalries along the way. And even the teams that aren't among the elite get a full house when the visiting team is one of the great teams in the league. Dynasties fill the seats both at home and away.

It's personal preference. I understand both sides. But for me, I'm squarely in the non-parity camp. I'm probably not going to change your mind, and you're probably not going to change mine.

[rick zombo 3,739]

My position against parity isn't really about being a fan of a formerly free-spending team like the Red Wings. I'm a Lions fan, and I don't care for the parity we've seen in the NFL, either. The hard salary cap is something I'd prefer not to see in a pro sports league, partly (but not exclusively) because of this issue. That being said, teams like the Senators and Red Wings have continued to thrive despite the new CBA. And the New England Patriots certainly haven't let the NFL cap get in the way of sustaining excellence. But overall, it tends to evenly distribute talent. Well, the most exciting hockey I've watched in my lifetime was between teams that shamelessly hoarded talent. The kind of talent one team can't keep anymore. The 70s Habs, the Gretzky Oilers, the Wings and Avs of the 90s; teams stacked with talent on all four lines, playing end to end hockey with great skill, creating great rivalries along the way. And even the teams that aren't among the elite get a full house when the visiting team is one of the great teams in the league. Dynasties fill the seats both at home and away.

It's personal preference. I understand both sides. But for me, I'm squarely in the non-parity camp. I'm probably not going to change your mind, and you're probably not going to change mine.

I fully agree with you. Non- Parity.

[BlueMonk 102]

A rule that would help limit overly defensive play:

Regulation/OT win: 3 points

Shootout win: 2 points

Shootout loss: 1 point.

Regulation/OT loss: 0 points.

This puts more emphasis on winning the game instead of not losing it; teams will kill off the end of OT with overly defensive hockey if they think they have a better chance for the same points in a shootout. This would make for much better overtimes, especially in conference games; If you are competing for playoff position with your opponent, you would rather win in regulation or OT and gain 3 points, as opposed to win in a shootout and gain one point.

It puts more emphasis on winning the game, but only in a vacuum of one team's consideration. The problem is teams don't just have to rack up points, they ultimately have to rack up more than the other teams in their division/conference. Because of this, I'm not convinced that systems like the one you're outlining will have the desired effect. With teams playing such heavily divisional schedules, there will be lots of nights when it's too risky for a team to lose the full three point swing by taking chances in regulation. I'd be concerned that this would still encourage the safety of "just getting to OT," where the worst that can happen is losing one point in the standings to a rival, as opposed to three.

We'll never know until the league puts a system like this in place, of course. But I think these are artificial solutions to a perceived problem with the game itself, and ultimately teams tried to win at least as much back when there were ties and no points for losing in OT, which is ironic.

[cprice12 117]

No parity?

Ok, well... someone has to suck then, if you don't want parity.

Do the Wings want to volunteer? I'll vote for them to suck it up for a while. That's fair.

I'm guessing you guys would be in favor of parity then, eh?

There was a time when the Wings were God awful, for quite some time. And I am sure people were saying, "you're going to play for the Wings when you grow up."...and that was an insult.

Parity is a good thing for the growth of the league.

[egroen 384]

It is really disappointing for me to see a team like the Lightning have to be dismantled right after winning the Cup. I hate how in the NFL virtually any team has a chance to win the Super Bowl each year. Dynasties are fun to be a part of, whether you are rooting for them, or rooting for them to fall.

I think they should allow a luxury tax, so at the very least a team would be allowed to keep it's core together for a few years, after having success. Seeing teams broken apart just makes me sad

Parity is a good thing for the growth of the league.

Where would you point to for evidence?

It seems like whenever a particular sport was at it's zenith of popularity, there are always 2,3 or 4 dynasties or great teams going at it. Not twenty teams, equally skilled, each with a good chance of winning.

Edited November 14, 2007 by egroen

[BlueMonk 102]

No parity?

Ok, well... someone has to suck then, if you don't want parity.

Do the Wings want to volunteer? I'll vote for them to suck it up for a while. That's fair.

I'm guessing you guys would be in favor of parity then, eh?

What kind of parity are you talking about? Even now, some team has to suck. Unless you mean a league of 30 teams that all have the same record. No idea why anyone would be interested in watching that, but to each his own, I guess.

Parity is a good thing for the growth of the league.

The greatest growth of the league came during an era when there were a) dynasties and b) no salary cap.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

No parity?

Ok, well... someone has to suck then, if you don't want parity.

Do the Wings want to volunteer? I'll vote for them to suck it up for a while. That's fair.

I'm guessing you guys would be in favor of parity then, eh?

There was a time when the Wings were God awful, for quite some time. And I am sure people were saying, "you're going to play for the Wings when you grow up."...and that was an insult.

Parity is a good thing for the growth of the league.

No team has to suck if their organization doesn't want them to. (Sans the Rags who, even with their money spent, werent managed very well.) Theres nothing going to stop a team from being at least a decent middle-of-the-pack team if the organization is willing to dedicate money and time to it in a non-salary cap era.

[Barrie 900]

I don't like it either, and we're probably in the minority.

I'm with you guys. Things were better before the lockout. I liked it when teams could load up with salaries and stars. Since the lockout, only Detroit, Ottawa, and sometimes Carolina are really good. Before the Lockout it was Detroit, Toronto, Philly, Colorado, Dallas, Boston, Vancouver, and NJ. I miss those days already.

Scoring is down because besides a few teams at the top and bottom, every team is similar in skill and ability. It's funny how the league doesn't recognize that.

[cprice12 117]

I liked it when teams could load up with salaries and stars.

I bet you did. The year before the lockout, the Wings had the highest payroll in the league at over 77 million.

Sheesh. Must have been nice.

[skacore 2]

I bet you did. The year before the lockout, the Wings had the highest payroll in the league at over 77 million.

Sheesh. Must have been nice.

I thought NYR had more??