NHLPA Player Poll 2017/2018

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Best ice must mean for drinks in the room.

Seriously, I still think the dome has bad ice, but it's relative. IMO it's bad considering (a) the Dome doesn't have basketball or arena football; (b) we are in Canada; and (c) we once had the among the best ice anywhere.

It's certainly not as bad as some southern rinks, which get affected by ambient temperature and other sports. That said, I was in Glendale for the Flames game, at ice level, and it was cold (and I didn't see a lot of bad ice).

There was a distinct lack of Jagr in some of those categories (eg. favorite player growing up). I wonder if he was active during the poll and therefore not eligible.

I take Hasek over Roy, Brodeur or Price.

Still do apparently.

From what I learned about ice plants, is that temperature isn't the biggest hurdle to good ice, it's humidity. We are very fortunate here in that regard.

The Dome has always had some of the best ice in the league sans a couple seasons that the plant wasnt working correctly and had to be replaced.

[Strange Brew]

Hopefully the complaints about the ice can start to go away now.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Someone thought Steve Ott would make a good coach? Weird.

11 players, apparently.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Best ice must mean for drinks in the room.

Seriously, I still think the dome has bad ice, but it's relative. IMO it's bad considering (a) the Dome doesn't have basketball or arena football; (b) we are in Canada; and (c) we once had the among the best ice anywhere.

It's certainly not as bad as some southern rinks, which get affected by ambient temperature and other sports. That said, I was in Glendale for the Flames game, at ice level, and it was cold (and I didn't see a lot of bad ice).

There was a distinct lack of Jagr in some of those categories (eg. favorite player growing up). I wonder if he was active during the poll and therefore not eligible.

I take Hasek over Roy, Brodeur or Price.

I believe the ice plant was completely replaced after the flood. I assume the ice has been good since then.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Just mathematically, by the way, this is wrong:

Assuming everything else is equal, if you go to overtime in a 3 point system, you're either getting 2 points or 1. Your point value is 1.5. If you go for broke in regulation, and we assume the game ends before OT, you're getting 3 points or 0. Your point value again is 1.5. Of course, things aren't equal, and teams that press tend to have more success, which is why trailing teams tend to produce most of the offense in a game they're behind in.

I'm just saying that most head coaches are by nature conservative. Most would take a high odds at 2 or 1 points over lesser odds for 3 points late in mid-season games. If we aren't seeing coaches go for broke to ensure an 2 points in regulation now I don't see what's going to change with the carrot of an extra point to finish a team before extra time. I just don't see much of a change in coaching mentality from a 3 point system.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes there is. It's objectively awful. The opinions of hockey players cannot change that. I don't know what their justification for that view is, but if it's what Huntingwhale said (being "in a playoff race") then they're just deluding themselves. It does not encourage playoff races, it makes it nearly impossible to catch up.

It also encourages defensive play such that the better strategy is to try not to get scored on rather than to score goals... in a league that can't figure out how to increase excitement and scoring. A team that wins 0 games in regulation but goes to overtime 90% of the time will have a better record than a team that wins 60% of its games in regulation but only gets to overtime 10% of the time.

So either they're stupid, delusional, or most likely, they just don't think that much about it and so answered the poll question with "it's fine I guess".

That's a strange way to look at it. Unlike you or me, these are quite literally the professional athletes who strap on the skates everyday and play the game in front of thousands. These are the people who live, breath and play the game for a living. They have a much better pulse and feel for the game then you or me ever possibly could.

Forgive me if I take the opinion of the professionals who actually partake in NHL games, over random internet posters sitting at a desk all day.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm just saying that most head coaches are by nature conservative. Most would take a high odds at 2 or 1 points over lesser odds for 3 points late in mid-season games. If we aren't seeing coaches go for broke to ensure an 2 points in regulation now I don't see what's going to change with the carrot of an extra point to finish a team before extra time. I just don't see much of a change in coaching mentality from a 3 point system.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're wrong simply because the change in the system would mandate a change in coaching philosophy. It would take time for that change to happen as people see what actually works, but as more aggressive teams tend to thrive more than they do in the current system, those teams and coaches will be emulated by other clubs, and coaches with that mentality will be more likely to get and keep jobs.

To look at it from the opposite perspective, it's not at all surprising that most NHL head coaches are conservative. The current system incentivizes them to be conservative, because conservatism, over the course of an 82 game season, lends itself to a higher point total in the standings owing to the way things are set up. I'm saying those incentives are the exact opposite of what the league (rightly) says it wants: a more exciting product. Change the system, and watch the game follow over the course of the following few years.

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

That's a strange way to look at it. Unlike you or me, these are quite literally the professional athletes who strap on the skates everyday and play the game in front of thousands. These are the people who live, breath and play the game for a living. They have a much better pulse and feel for the game then you or me ever possibly could.

I don't really buy into appeals to authority in general, but in this case I don't think the guys you're delegating your opinion to have any particular authority on this subject, which is about the structure of the league. They're professional athletes; they're good at skating, have faster reflexes and better genetic predisposition to feats of physical prowess than most of us. But a large proportion of them just sort of finished high school and have never had to think particularly hard about anything outside of physical tasks. They're not the best people to ask about how to set the incentives up to ensure that you get the best entertainment product. I put far more stock in the opinions of smart, informed observers, like Friedman or Burtch or Mirtle, than I would in what Phil Kessel thinks - and even then, only if they have good reasons for it. In this case, I think Burtch (who did the math on the value of defence vs offense given the loser point) is very convincing.

EDIT: To be clear, I'd be much more willing to listen to Phil Kessel's views about what defenseman is hardest to play against as opposed to Elliotte Friedman's, because that's an area where the player actually does have expertise. I'd still ask him why he picked whoever he picked, though.

Forgive me if I take the opinion of the professionals who actually partake in NHL games, over random internet posters sitting at a desk all day.

Or you could form your own view, rather than letting people decide what you think by proxy. Just an idea, I don't know, I'm some guy sitting at a desk.

[N-E-B]

I always shook my head at the "Saddledome has bad ice" excuse. Never agreed with it, and the players don't either.

[browna]

The Dome ice used to be the best.
The plant has been fixed or replaced upwards of 8 times since the ‘95 renovation and again after the flood.
I’ve heard that the plant is as good as it gets, and now other arena and environment factors prevent the ice plant from making any better ice. 5th on that list is pretty impressive for the oldest league building.

While Queneville would be my hands down pick if he wanted to leave Chicago and take on a new challenge in Canada, Lindy Ruff may not be a bad sleeper choice either. AV is likely to leave the Rangers and I assume Ruff would is well, and I guess AV would be considered too. Whoever it is,a vet coach who’s success is documented, though Ruff’s success in Buffalo was a while too far back, is what this roster needs in their next dressing room leader.

[Toonage]

If Coach Q gets the boot from Chicago they will still owe him $6M a year for a few more years. That means any team interested in him would have to pay him more than $6M a year otherwise, why bother.

$6m+per year just doesn't sound like the Calgary Flames to me.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Toonage

If Coach Q gets the boot from Chicago they will still owe him $6M a year for a few more years. That means any team interested in him would have to pay him more than $6M a year otherwise, why bother.

$6m+per year just doesn't sound like the Calgary Flames to me.

I'd be shocked if Coach Q gets the boot simply because Chicago has missed the playoffs, largely due to an injury to Crawford.

He hasn't gotten dumb overnight.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Best ice must mean for drinks in the room.

Seriously, I still think the dome has bad ice, but it's relative. IMO it's bad considering (a) the Dome doesn't have basketball or arena football; (b) we are in Canada; and (c) we once had the among the best ice anywhere.

None of the teams in the top 5 have either of those sports playing in their arenas, although Calgary does have Lacrosse. shouldn't that move us up a few notches?

[habernac]

When they built the Bell Ctr, there was some kind of agreement that there would be fewer concerts, etc, during the season just so the ice was better.

[Flaming Choy]

The current assistant coach question is a little weird to me. Wouldn't most players only really have input on their own assistant coach, and not from other teams? And would that mean they don't like their current head coach and want to assistant coach promoted instead?

Also wanted to see a poll on least favourite ref.

*edit* One more thought. Didn't they used to have a poll for most over-rated player? I recall Phaneuf being named in the past.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

If Coach Q gets the boot from Chicago they will still owe him $6M a year for a few more years. That means any team interested in him would have to pay him more than $6M a year otherwise, why bother.

$6m+per year just doesn't sound like the Calgary Flames to me.

No, it probably means that whatever new contract he signs for is either gravy to him, or simply sets off against any reduction to his current deal. Depending on his contract and severance provisions.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, it probably means that whatever new contract he signs for is either gravy to him, or simply sets off against any reduction to his current deal. Depending on his contract and severance provisions.

Not sure I understand what you mean.

NHL coaching contracts are guaranteed. If they fire him with two years left he's guaranteed that $6M until someone else hires him, taking Chicago off the hook.

Why would he sign anywhere in that 2 year span if it wasn't for at least the same money he'd be making to sit at home?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Not sure I understand what you mean.

NHL coaching contracts are guaranteed. If they fire him with two years left he's guaranteed that $6M until someone else hires him, taking Chicago off the hook.

Why would he sign anywhere in that 2 year span if it wasn't for at least the same money he'd be making to sit at home?

The contract severance provisions differ IIRC. Some provide a lump sum which can't be altered, new job or no. Some apply typical contact law would say that, if he signed a new deal, he would simply have to set off the difference (i.e. he could only collect $2M if he signs a $4M contract.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Still do apparently.

From what I learned about ice plants, is that temperature isn't the biggest hurdle to good ice, it's humidity. We are very fortunate here in that regard.

The Dome has always had some of the best ice in the league sans a couple seasons that the plant wasnt working correctly and had to be replaced.

Yup, this is why it will forever be a problem in Florida, no matter how cold they make it in the building. There aren't enough de-humidifiers in the world to get rid of all the moisture in the air down here. But the colder the air is, the less moisture it can hold. Moisture can stay in the air if you're near freezing, but when you drop well below freezing, the moisture has to drop out of the air. This is why it's also really important to have cold air in the area of the rink, and it's why even dry and hot areas like Arizona have bad ice too.

The temperature in the fall and spring is a big problem too. It's still in the high 70s at night during games, with a TON of humidity, and if you add a bunch of people to that (haha, I know, I know) they bring a lot of warmth and moisture as well, then the ice gets really soft and slow.

I do notice the poor quality of the ice in Calgary early in every season. For whatever reason, it becomes less noticeable as the season goes on, but there are time that it looks absolutely atrocious.



Edit: Also, it was nice to see Barkov get some love for most underrated. I think some point very soon he's going to finally become "rated" where he should amongst the best centers in the game.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Oh wow, concussions an even bigger epidemic in the league than imagined. How else do you explain 39% of players not voting for Orr as the best defenseman of all time?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Oh wow, concussions an even bigger epidemic in the league than imagined. How else do you explain 39% of players not voting for Orr as the best defenseman of all time?

I would guess it's because Orr last played in 1979 (and his last meaningful hockey was in '75). About 5 players would have even been alive when he played (and then all below age 5).