NHL Rule Changes: Awful Idea

I've been a hockey fan for a long time. Yeah, I'm just a lowly Amerikan, but since I was a kid, hockey always interested me, and that interest grew as I got older. I watched more games, studied the stats, learned about the history, I wanted to know everything there was to know about the sport of hockey. I'd like to think I've come to know the sport quite well over the last decade. Am I knowledgeable? Do I really know the game as well as I think? Maybe, maybe not.

As much as I've learned, I always found it a little irritating to find out when the NHL makes a rule change. It's not something I'm used to, but I usually just suck it up and accept it. Even the ridiculous rules, like the goalie's trapezoid, or the over-the-glass delay-of-game penalty. I really hate those.

But now, I've been reading over the last several days that the NHL is tinkering with several more changes. The majority of them just sound like they were high when they thought of them. Alow me to break down the rule changes being considered:


1: Having three faceoff circles, one in each zone, down the centre of the rink:
- Are you serious? How long has the NHL, or any hockey league for that matter, had the usual complement of faceoff circles that have been around for over a century? When did this become a nusiance? I really hope the league has a good excuse for proposing this. Like they were high.

B: The whistle starts play in place of a puck drop:
- Again, are you out of your mind? That's like having players scramble for a basketball, XFL-style in place of a tip-off. Another part of hockey that has worked fine since organized hockey has been around, and that I can't possibly fathom leaving the game.

3: If a player has been deemed to commit a faceoff infraction, he would be required to move back and keep his skates behind a "penalty line" (one foot) to take the faceoff:
- This is getting outlandishly ridiculous already...

4: No-touch icing, in which a referee can blow the whistle as soon as the puck crosses the line:
- I'd prefer if this stays how it is. But I guess I wouldn't complain too much if it took effect.

5: Having the second referee located off the playing surface:
- Huh?

6: Not allowing a team to change lines after committing offsides:
- Ah, finally a rule change that does NOT sound like it was conceived in a drunken state.

7: Three minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, three minutes of 3-on-3, then 2-on-2:
- No way. No bleeping way. I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: overtime is FINE the way it is! Five minutes of overtime then a shootout is not that horrible. Some fans may hate the shootout, but I like it myself.
Shootout debates aside, this is suppsoed to be the National Hockey League. Professional hockey. Not arcade-style hockey, the likes of which you can find on PlayStation 1 arcade hockey games. Rock The Rink, this ain't. Hitz, nope. NHL hockey. There is no logic in continually removing players as overtime drags on. Hate on the shootouts if you will, but I don't understand how anyone canagree with this proposed overtime garbage.

8: Narrowing the shallowness of the net, allowing players more room behind it:
- Just another stupid proposal to increase scoring. Haven't there been enough rule changes in efforts to increase scoring? Several decades ago, a rule was changed (I don't remember which) to increase scoring. Years later, it was changed back to the way it was... in an effort to increase scoring. Why do we need so many rules to increase scoring? Hockey isn't always boring just becasue there aren't always many goals scored.

9: Increase the size of the crease in all directions by three inches.
- I don't get it. I really don't.

Most rule changes, depsite their retardedness, I was able to get over. But these new rule changes being considered, I have to ask why? Why make these ridiculous changes to a game that's fine and fun to watch as it is?
I hope none of these changes take place. Most of them would change the game significantly, and just make it not as fun as it has been. I enjoy hockey because it's fun to watch, it's action-packed, and it's just a joy. It doesn't need to be tainted just because the powers that be aren't happy with the number of goals scored during games. Safety reasons, I can understand. But don't change key parts of it and justify it by saying it'll produce more goals.

WNBA in St. Louis: Why It's A Good Fit

A few weeks ago, my computer was out of commission. I had to resort to other things to occupy (and waste) my time. I was channel-surfing, and I stumbled across ESPN Classic. Up until this point, the only interesting thing I ever saw from this channel was a mini-documentary about how Wayne Gretzky's presence significantly influenced hockey interest in California, and all across the American south.

The second program I ever watched on ESPN Classic was a game I haven't watched since I was a boy. 1995. Chicago Bulls at the Dallas Mavericks. Michael Jordan vs Jason Kidd. But mostly, in my case, Michael Jordan, the man I idolized as a child. I loved MJ, I loved the Bulls, I just loved basketball period. Watching this game seriously brought back memories for me. I've had my nostalgic moments, but this one was one of the biggest. Watching the old Bulls crew again, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Kukoc, and the rest, doing their thing. The only thing missing was the epic introductions that got me fired up before every home game.

I followed the Chicago Bulls as closely as a 6-year-old kid could, back in the day. I watched every piece of Bulls basketball I could. I had Jordan and Pippen jerseys. I watched Space Jam, a lot. I even followed the WNBA for a short time (which I continued just last year, but I'll get back to that). Basically my life was basketball.
Them Mr. Jordan left. The game was never the same. Basketball started getting phased out of my life, making way for other sports, like hockey, football, baseball, boxing, the Olympics. You know, sports I could follow more effectively since St. Louis had those teams. I became a fan of the Cardinals, Rams, and most of all, the Blues. Basketball, for the most part, no longer took up a part of my Ruskie-Polack heart.

Just before the 2009 WNBA season, I came across an article in Sports Illustrated, about then-ex-WNBA'er Chamique Holdsclaw. It mentioned she retired because of severe depression. I can relate, I've been known to get depressed a lot myself. She was making a return that year, so I decided to follow her and show some support. Next thing you know, I'm a fan of the WNBA, Atlanta Dream, Chamique Holdsclaw, and women's basketball. It's very underrated, and deserves way more respect and recogniton it gets now.

So after a little over a year of following and supporting WNBA and Atlanta Dream basketball, it hit me like a slippery fish: this is exactly what the city of St. Louis could use.

A WNBA franchise in St. Louis would mean the revival of professional basketball in the city. 1976 was the last time a pro game was played here, as the ABA's Spirits of St. Louis exited the 75-76 season without a playoff berth, and made plans to pack their bags to play in Salt Lake City, Utah.
There was also the NBA's St. louis Bombers, established in 1946, and folding in 1950.

I realize I just referenced two professional men's franchises in what's supposed to be about women's basketball. Well, the WNBA is professional too.
Attendance for the Bombers and Spirits weren't very impressive, but times have changed. The Scottrade Center holds 19,150 people, and could benefit from additional operation time during the WNBA season. Given the WNBA's attendance figures, not every seat would be likely to be filled. But basketball isn't exactly a forgotten gem in this city. The Mizzou and SLU basketball programs have their followers. And in high school, basketball is just a step below football in popularity. Missouri's poll numbers on ESPN.com are actually higher than some stated with NBA/WNBA franchises, such as Louisiana. A franchise in the Gateway city surely wouldn't be ignored.

The NBA doesn't appear ready to expand anytime soon, and if they were, I'm sure St. Louis wouldn't be very prominent on their radar, but I could be wrong. I am a lot. However, the WNBA might be a little friendlier.

Donna Orender, the next time a team is relocated, or you expand, St. Louis should be high-ranking on your list of possible markets. The Scottrade Center doesn't get much use during WNBA season, and it'd be much less of an issue than with the NBA, since their season clashes with the NHL frequently. The WNBA in St. Louis would indeed be a perfect fit.


I will shortly crate another blog, tracking basketball in St. Louis, including any opportunities that could arise for a professional basketball franchise to come to St. Louis.

What if Tom got tired of all the lousy History-will-be-made" commercials? History will be made.

Johan Franzen scores a mediocre goal against Evgeny Nabokov. Miroslav Satan scores on a breakaway. Marc-Andre Fleury makes a save he's made countless times. Kris Versteeg scores a game-winning goal. Mike Cammalleri bats the puck past Fleury. Little Joe comes up big.

All these semi-awesome moments happening in the NHL Playoffs, it's only right that the NHL take a really cool commercial concept and completely destroy it by churning out a new one every time something questionably cool happens in the playoffs, right? They finally do something I like, and just ruin it by overdoing it.

The History commercials were awesome because not only did they feature some of the greatest players to ever lace a pair of skates, but it made me think: what if there were no Greatness? What if Mario was not so Super? What if Patrick Roy really did play like a rookie? What if Bobby did not fly? The Blues could have had another chance to win the 'Cup, that's what!

But personal team-related feelings aside, the NHL really screwed up here. I know it's probably no big deal, but I'm just getting tired of seeing these new commercials. I realize there are more important things we should be worrying about. Like incompetent referees.
Maybe that should be their next commercial: "what if referees didn't take bets before games on who could botch the game the most? History will be made."
Now THAT would be a commercial worth watching!
But in all seriousness, the NHL really needs to stop making these commercials like it's a bodily function. It was cool at first, but I don't want to see another one just because Antti Niemi made a nice save.

Fighting with wrist tape

"Any player or goalkeeper wearing tape or any other material on his hands (below the wrist) who cuts or injures an opponent during an altercation will receive a match penalty in addition to any other penalties imposed including for fighting under this rule."

Does that or does it not make sense? What if you cut your opponent and you have nothing on your hand? No match penalty. But if you have tape below your wrist, then you get it? I would think that if you have anything above the wrist taped, and you cut the other guy, that would call for a match penalty.

In tonight's Blues-Canucks game, Rick Rypien had his wrist/thumb taped because acording to the announcers, he was nursing a minor thumb sprain. He bloodied Cam Janssen in their fight tonight. And he got a match penalty because of his tape. Except for his thumb, which I highly doubt would contribute to cutting your opponent.

Can someone explain to me why wrist tape (or in Rypien's case, thumb tape) is so dangerous in a fight that the NHL had to make a rule for it?

Mehlville HS hockey vs Blues hockey

I find myself in a difficult position, regarding the schedule of the Mehlville High School hockey club.

Up until my senior year, I had no idea any school in the South STL County area even had a hockey program. A portion of Mehlville's halls are lined with trophy cases, crammed with trophies, ribbons, photos, plaques, and other objects to symbolize the accomplishments of our football/baseball/basketball/track/volleyball/swim teams. One floor below, is a smaller case tucked away in a corner that nobody can see, collecting dust for as long as it's been there. This would be the case belonging to the hockey club. That's how much we care about hockey here. As much as I liked it at MHS, the hockey nut in me was brokenhearted that it took me this long to realize we have a team.

Recently, I decided to take action and get our schedule down, and hope to attend some games. Thankfully, much of the games take place at the Kennedy Recreation Complex, very close to where I live. I was happy I'd get to see my old Panthers club play hockey, it would make me feel like I was back in school, cheering the football team on to victory. This was gonna rule!

Unfortunately, there is a situation that I have no control of whatsoever.

The powers that be have scheduled a large portion of Mehlville's games at the same time as (or close enough to) Blues games, the NHL team I follow and love with all my Ruskie-Polack heart. After tonight, there are no more Mehlville HC games until January, the final month of HS hockey. In that month, there are only two games that are not scheduled during Blues games. One on the 7th, the other on the 21st. Out of 9 games that month (five at Kennedy Rec.), there are only two I can attend without worrying about missing any Blues action.
As much as I'd like to attend those 5 games anyway, I don't want to miss any Blues action either. Simply put, I don't know what to do. If there weren't so many MHS games at the same time as Blues games, this wouldn't be as big of a problem.

What to do, what to do... this is where you come in (I hope). I welcome any and all suggestions on what I should do. Be sure to explain why I should do what you suggest. Thanks in advance!

Jersey From The Future, Courtesy Of The NHL

I just got a look at the NHL's new women's Ice Flirt jerseys. I really don't know what the NHL expects us to think about these, but I think the league decided to go with the "jersey from the future" deal.

Seriously, these look like the kind of jerseys Starfleet would use if they took up a hockey program. Every time I see these, I keep thinking of various Star Trek characters taking on teams from throughout the galaxy, wearing these monstrosities, only with the Federation logo on them. I can just imagine Worf finally getting the chance to take out his aggressions on Quark, by violently bodychecking him. Repeatedly. Or Jean-Luc Picard getting kicked out of a game because he kept instigating fights with various players from Team Borg. Rivalry games between Team Klingon and Team Romulan, or Team Borg vs Team Species 8472, Tellarites vs Andorians...

I could go on and on, but I don't want to disturb anyone further with my nerdiness.

Moving on... I hope I'm not offending any women out there who like these jerseys. I think it's an interesting concept on the NHL's part, they're not bad jerseys. Their futuristic flair really amused me at first glance.

They're Called "Defensemen" For A Reason

A while back, NHL.com was running their "30 teams In 30 Days" feature, basically giving a season preview for all 30 teams. I was reading the Pittsburgh Penguins edition, when something caught my eye. They happened to mention the signing of defenceman Jay McKee. That made me upset because he used to be with the St. Louis Blues, my team. He was one of my favourite players all three years he was with us. And now he was gone, miles away, in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater. As if that wasn't bad enough, while analyzing how well he'd do with his new team, they gave him a decent outlook, even though "he'll never win a Norris Trophy."

That really raised my blood pressure. As I was talking about it with my good friend Melina, she kindly pointed out Jay's poor point production may have something to do with it. It was the second time someone suggested his lack of scoring had to do with his release from St. Louis. While watching the news one day, the sports analyst also mentioned McKee's low point totals since joining the Gateway City. This confused me. Defencemen aren't supposed to be big-time goal scorers, they're supposed to stop the puck from entering their net. It's the forwards' jobs to score, not the defencemen's. Not that a d-man scoring is a bad thing. I have no problem with it, but it shouldn't be used to judge them. And barring offensive capabilities, there's no reason Jay McKee (or any other shot-blocking specialist) should be labeled as one who has no chance at even being nominated for a Norris Trophy. But I realized, that is probably exactly the reason McKee was released from St. Louis.

After doing some research, I confirmed it. Several Norris Trophy winners had high goal totals. For example, Bobby Orr. He was either 2nd or 3rd on his team in goals scored 4 out of his 8 years as a Norris winner. Paul Coffey is the highest-scoring Norris Trophy winner of all time, with 48 goals scored (not to mention a +61 rating) in 1986. Rob Blake scored 23 goals in his 1998 Norris year, despite a -3 rating, which is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to determine a defenceman's effectiveness on the ice. The lowest-scoring Norris winner was Rod Langway, notching 3 goals in 1983. The average for goals scored among Norris Trophy winners is 18, which is 6th in overall team scoring.

Jay McKee's +/- rating was a -2 in his first season as a Blue, which rose to +2, then +11 this past season. In my opinion, that's improvement. Goalscoring aside, McKee has accumulated acceptable +/- ratings throughout his NHL career, and he has done a tremendous job of keeping the puck out of the net. He is known throughout the league as one of the best shot blockers today. He may be injury-prone, but he is amazing at what he does. He wasn't named one of the Buffalo Sabres' alternate captains in 2006 for nothing. Despite all he has going for him, whoever wrote NHL.com's Penguins preview still feels he'll never win a Norris Trophy.

It's unfortunate that scoring plays a role in determining how good a defenceman is, not just his skills on defence. If Bobby Orr, Paul Coffey, Dennis Potvin, Al MacInnis, all had not scored as many goals as they had, would they still have won the Norris Trophy? If Drew Doughty would have scored more this past season, would he have had a better chance at winning the Calder Trophy? If Mike Green wouldn't have scored as many goals as he did in 2009, would he have been nominated? I tend to think not. What if Rod Langway would have scored as many goals as Doug Wilson before him? Would he have won more Norris Trophies? With the NHL's unneccessary yet growing (and perceived) dependency on offensively-minded d-men, I tend to believe so. People like Jay McKee and Drew Doughty are great players who are crucial to their teams. They don't score much, but there's no reason that should matter. While goals by a defenceman isn't neccessarily a abd thing (goals are goals, after all), but they should not be a defenceman's primary objective. Instead of judging them based on goalscoring, let's take their primary role more seriously and judge them for what they really are supposed to do: stop the other team from scoring.