Don Cherry is a buffoon, a loudmouth and a relic from a bygone era.
Don’t think this is some kind of backhanded compliment; it isn’t.
For almost as long as he’s been on CBC’s presentation of Hockey Night In Canada, Cherry’s shtick is that he’s an opinionated loudmouth with some fairly popular views on hockey. Which is true: when he was at his peak, Cherry was one of the better analysts out there.
But, as the cliché goes, that was then and this is now.
No longer do any of his comments hold much weight. When asked about fighting in the NHL, his answer isn’t one of intelligence. It’s an insult, a sarcastic reply to anybody who has the gonads to question Don ‘n’ Ron.
Last Saturday, Don’s answer to the reniewed question of hockey violence was to show a 16-year old clip (From a playoff game between Los Angeles and Edmonton, I believe) where he was dressed as a character, sarcastically mocking anybody who thought hockey didn’t belong in the game.
In the midst of a huge playoff race in the East, Don’t main concern was that fighting, that aspect of the game that he loves so much, was going to be taken out. Instead of making any kind of argument, Cherry just showed off his new tie, adorned with doves, “The new mascot of the NHL”.
Again, a sarcastic comment that adds nothing to the debate.
It almost seems that all year, Cherry’s Coaches Corner segments have less and less to do with hockey, and are increasingly just a place where Cherry feels he can talk about whatever. Lately, he’s been on a Support The Troops kick, showing off ties, hats and car accessories bearing that slogan. It’s nice that he cares about the soldiers overseas, but he’s doing this during a hockey telecast.
Think about how silly it would be if any other famous figure started acting in the same way. If John Madden wore an oversized earring and mocked anybody who called football too violent during a pregame segment. If Tim McCarver started hawking Support The Troops hats during baseball telecasts. If Reggie Miller said that Europeans shouldn’t be playing basketball during a halftime show.
I doubt they’d be keeping their jobs.
And why Cherry’s keeping his is beyond me.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The right thing to do with Pete Rose
In an interview on ESPN Radio on Wednesday, former Reds player and manager Pete Rose once again admitted that he bet on baseball on a daily basis.
Yes, he only bet on them to win, which is different, and yet the same, as just betting on baseball.
He also said in the interview that he longer cares about being in the hall of fame.
While this may be true, just as how he claims his betting record is true. In it’s own way, it doesn’t matter. He’s just looking to get reinstated and the question of him in the hall of fame will come up once again.
And, truth be told, Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall Of Fame.
Getting elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame should have little, if anything, to do with a player’s actions off the field. In the past it was never a problem, as players like Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle were elected without any debate on their off-field activites.
After all, Cobb bragged that he once killed a man, was a violent racist and was alleged to have thrown a game (although that was never proven). Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic womanizer who was banned from baseball for associating with gambling in 1983 (he was reinstated in 1985). And despite these character issues, they were allowed in the Hall of Fame.
While’s the argument that what Pete Rose did was bad for the game, I’m not going to refute it. It’s true, betting on your own team has no place in sports.
However, how were his actions any worse then those of other Hall of Famers? Gaylord Perry’s illegal spitball pitch was successful enough to get him to Cooperstown.
How is betting on baseball any worse then using amphetamines, which are now banned by Major League Baseball? I would argue that it’s not, and perhaps even less. Yet players have used them since the 1970s, and numerous Hall of Fame members, such as Hank Aaron, used them.
Of course, there is a world of difference between taking drugs and betting on baseball: drugs only affect the play of yourself, for example, where betting would affect the play of an entire team.
However, at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven that Pete Rose bet on games as a player, and we only have his word, for whatever little it’s worth, that he bet on the Reds to win. Ten years ago, he said that he never bet on baseball at all. And in ten years, maybe he’ll admit to have bet on his Reds to lose.
Either way, it’s irrelevant when it comes to him being in the hall of fame. As a player – not as a manager – Pete Rose was very good, perhaps one of the greatest. And even despite his gambling, any mistakes he made as a manager should not have any impact on his playing career.
So put him in the Hall of Fame and let the Reds retire his number. Mention his 4000 hits and mention his gambling addictions. Let him on the field to witness the ceremony and never let him back. It’s the right thing to do.
Yes, he only bet on them to win, which is different, and yet the same, as just betting on baseball.
He also said in the interview that he longer cares about being in the hall of fame.
While this may be true, just as how he claims his betting record is true. In it’s own way, it doesn’t matter. He’s just looking to get reinstated and the question of him in the hall of fame will come up once again.
And, truth be told, Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall Of Fame.
Getting elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame should have little, if anything, to do with a player’s actions off the field. In the past it was never a problem, as players like Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle were elected without any debate on their off-field activites.
After all, Cobb bragged that he once killed a man, was a violent racist and was alleged to have thrown a game (although that was never proven). Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic womanizer who was banned from baseball for associating with gambling in 1983 (he was reinstated in 1985). And despite these character issues, they were allowed in the Hall of Fame.
While’s the argument that what Pete Rose did was bad for the game, I’m not going to refute it. It’s true, betting on your own team has no place in sports.
However, how were his actions any worse then those of other Hall of Famers? Gaylord Perry’s illegal spitball pitch was successful enough to get him to Cooperstown.
How is betting on baseball any worse then using amphetamines, which are now banned by Major League Baseball? I would argue that it’s not, and perhaps even less. Yet players have used them since the 1970s, and numerous Hall of Fame members, such as Hank Aaron, used them.
Of course, there is a world of difference between taking drugs and betting on baseball: drugs only affect the play of yourself, for example, where betting would affect the play of an entire team.
However, at the end of the day, it has yet to be proven that Pete Rose bet on games as a player, and we only have his word, for whatever little it’s worth, that he bet on the Reds to win. Ten years ago, he said that he never bet on baseball at all. And in ten years, maybe he’ll admit to have bet on his Reds to lose.
Either way, it’s irrelevant when it comes to him being in the hall of fame. As a player – not as a manager – Pete Rose was very good, perhaps one of the greatest. And even despite his gambling, any mistakes he made as a manager should not have any impact on his playing career.
So put him in the Hall of Fame and let the Reds retire his number. Mention his 4000 hits and mention his gambling addictions. Let him on the field to witness the ceremony and never let him back. It’s the right thing to do.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Hockey headgear needs a revolution
With all the talk lately over hitting to the head and it’s legality, the NHL is in a bit of a quandary. It is indeed a rough – and sometimes even violent – game but taking hitting out of it would be a step backwards, both for the players and the fans.
But at the same time, players are getting hurt, often seriously. In a game on Feb. 21, Sabres forward Tim Connolly was forced to leave after taking a hit to the head against the Senators – he’s now on the injured reserve. Calgary defenceman Richie Regehr has been out since December 28th with “concussion like symptoms”. Just by looking through the NHL injury report on tsn.ca, there are 11 players listed as suffering from them.
And the NHL is going to have to do something about it.
But what can the league do about it? You can’t outlaw hitting in a game that’s often fast and violent. You can’t police what is and what isn’t a headshot because it’s often impossible to separate what is and isn’t an intentional hit to the head.
So what can the league do?
One would be to enforce rules already in place, and perhaps bolster them with more rules.
Players are already required to wear helmets and have been since 1979. But there are no rules regarding their chinstraps. When players take a big hit, like Connolly did against Ottawa, and have not fastened their strap, their helmet is very likely to pop off – just like Connolly’s did, leaving his head to hit the ice.
If there was a rule in place that forced players to wear their straps up, it is not hard to see head-related injuries go down, if only because their helmets will be hitting the ice, not their head. The NFL has adopted a rule like this – in that league, all players have to have their straps buckled at the snap.
It’s not a rule that would be hard to enforce – all a referee would have to do is look around before a face-off at the players.
Another change should be to the helmets worn by players. Yes, the ones worn now are better then ones worn in years past and are better then nothing at all but they could be a lot better.
A couple years back, Riddell introduced their line of Revolution football helmets. By making a few changes to the average football helmet – such as “form-fitting” padding and extending it to cover the chin – they can cut the risk of a hit giving a player a concussion.
Why can’t somebody make a helmet like this for the NHL? There is no helmet on the market today that has anything similar to the Riddell Revolution helmet for hockey – although Riddell does make a Revolution model for lacrosse. Why can’t they adapt one for hockey use?
Essentially, it would be an impossible task to rid the NHL of concussions and still have the game resembling anything that is interesting (after all, how many people watch professional ringette?) to fans.
However, it would be easy for the NHL to greatly reduce the risk players would face if they just force players to strap their helmets and if they look into better designed helmets.
But at the same time, players are getting hurt, often seriously. In a game on Feb. 21, Sabres forward Tim Connolly was forced to leave after taking a hit to the head against the Senators – he’s now on the injured reserve. Calgary defenceman Richie Regehr has been out since December 28th with “concussion like symptoms”. Just by looking through the NHL injury report on tsn.ca, there are 11 players listed as suffering from them.
And the NHL is going to have to do something about it.
But what can the league do about it? You can’t outlaw hitting in a game that’s often fast and violent. You can’t police what is and what isn’t a headshot because it’s often impossible to separate what is and isn’t an intentional hit to the head.
So what can the league do?
One would be to enforce rules already in place, and perhaps bolster them with more rules.
Players are already required to wear helmets and have been since 1979. But there are no rules regarding their chinstraps. When players take a big hit, like Connolly did against Ottawa, and have not fastened their strap, their helmet is very likely to pop off – just like Connolly’s did, leaving his head to hit the ice.
If there was a rule in place that forced players to wear their straps up, it is not hard to see head-related injuries go down, if only because their helmets will be hitting the ice, not their head. The NFL has adopted a rule like this – in that league, all players have to have their straps buckled at the snap.
It’s not a rule that would be hard to enforce – all a referee would have to do is look around before a face-off at the players.
Another change should be to the helmets worn by players. Yes, the ones worn now are better then ones worn in years past and are better then nothing at all but they could be a lot better.
A couple years back, Riddell introduced their line of Revolution football helmets. By making a few changes to the average football helmet – such as “form-fitting” padding and extending it to cover the chin – they can cut the risk of a hit giving a player a concussion.
Why can’t somebody make a helmet like this for the NHL? There is no helmet on the market today that has anything similar to the Riddell Revolution helmet for hockey – although Riddell does make a Revolution model for lacrosse. Why can’t they adapt one for hockey use?
Essentially, it would be an impossible task to rid the NHL of concussions and still have the game resembling anything that is interesting (after all, how many people watch professional ringette?) to fans.
However, it would be easy for the NHL to greatly reduce the risk players would face if they just force players to strap their helmets and if they look into better designed helmets.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Who's more valuable to their team? A quick look at Hockey Sabermetrics
This morning I was wondering which player is more valuable to his team: The player whose point total is through the roof? The player who scores the most goals? Or is it the player who has the highest +/- rating?
And thanks to a book I just picked up, I might have the answer.
In a seminal – and, for some reason, out of print – book on hockey and hockey statistics called “The Klein and Reif hockey compendium”, the authors Klein and Reif use a fairly simple method to get a players “true” +/- rating.
The main problem with counting goals or points is that it just measures the offensive output of a player – it says nothing of his two-way play. Goals for are just as, if not less, important as goals against are.
So the stat of Plus/Minus should be good, right?
But it’s not – it’s a good indicator, like using OPS for baseball, but it means almost nothing. A good player on a bad team can have a plus/minus in the toilet – and a bad player on a good team can have a great +/-.
So this is where Team Adjusted +/- (TA+/-) comes into play – it takes all goals scored (and goals scored against) by the team and filters out power-play goals, giving you what the team’s plus minus is. The formula is fairly simple: Team even-strength/shorthanded goals (Goals for – PPG) minus the even-strength goals for (total allowed minus PPG allowed).
Then, to get a player average, you divide by five (five skaters per side, right?)
So what does this mean? It’s easy – it shows what the average player on that team would have for a plus/minus. This, in effect, allows you adjust any player’s +/- so you can compare them equally.
All you have to do is subtract the player’s +/- from the TA+/- to get their adjusted +/- (PA+/-).
And there you go – an equal way to compare hockey player’s +/- without worrying about their team’s overall quality.
So how does this mean anything to anybody?
Let’s say I wanted to solve the question I posed above – which kind of player is better to their team? Would it be the point leader (Sidney Crosby, with 83 points)? Would be the goal leader (Vincent Lecavalier, with 35 goals)? Or would be it the regular +/- leader (Nicklas Lindstrom, with a +36 rating)?
Let’s work with the numbers, then. Here are the goals for each team.
Conversely, here’s what their goals against look like - Remember, the numbers go Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit
Goals Allowed: 116 172 137
PP goals allowed:58 49 50
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Now, here’s each teams adjusted +/- rating:
Even Strength Goals: 119 117 129
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Adjusted Team +/- rating (AT+/-): +11 -6 +42
Now, remembering to divide by five, so we get a player average:
Raw AT+/-: +11 -6 +42
Average Adjusted Player +/- :+2.2 -1.2 8.4
So the average adjusted player +/- for Pittsburgh is 2, for Tampa Bay it's -1 and for Detroit it's +8.
So what does this mean? Simple: That’s the average +/- for any player on that team. We now can use that to adjust the raw +/- for any player. So, to go back to our original three players, we can just check their numbers by subtracting the average from their +/-:
So here, the numbers go: Sidney Crosby, Vincent Lecavalier and Nicklas Lindstrom
Regular +/-: +13 +6 +36
Average Adjusted Player: +/- +2 -1 +8
Player Adjusted +/-: +11 +7 +28
So, by looking at this – by seeing how much better a player is then his team’s average +/- and how important they are to the team - we can see three things: Crosby’s two-way play is a little overrated, Lecavalier’s two-way is a little underrated and Lindstrom, while playing on a team that inflates his +/- by a considerable margin, is still really good.
So there you go – Yes, Lindstrom is the most valuable of the three, since his two-way play (or perhaps just his defense skill) worth about 28 more points then the average player on Detroit.
Once again, thanks to the team of Klein and Reif for their formula here. It's a bit of a shame that they're not doing this anymore.
And thanks to a book I just picked up, I might have the answer.
In a seminal – and, for some reason, out of print – book on hockey and hockey statistics called “The Klein and Reif hockey compendium”, the authors Klein and Reif use a fairly simple method to get a players “true” +/- rating.
The main problem with counting goals or points is that it just measures the offensive output of a player – it says nothing of his two-way play. Goals for are just as, if not less, important as goals against are.
So the stat of Plus/Minus should be good, right?
But it’s not – it’s a good indicator, like using OPS for baseball, but it means almost nothing. A good player on a bad team can have a plus/minus in the toilet – and a bad player on a good team can have a great +/-.
So this is where Team Adjusted +/- (TA+/-) comes into play – it takes all goals scored (and goals scored against) by the team and filters out power-play goals, giving you what the team’s plus minus is. The formula is fairly simple: Team even-strength/shorthanded goals (Goals for – PPG) minus the even-strength goals for (total allowed minus PPG allowed).
Then, to get a player average, you divide by five (five skaters per side, right?)
So what does this mean? It’s easy – it shows what the average player on that team would have for a plus/minus. This, in effect, allows you adjust any player’s +/- so you can compare them equally.
All you have to do is subtract the player’s +/- from the TA+/- to get their adjusted +/- (PA+/-).
And there you go – an equal way to compare hockey player’s +/- without worrying about their team’s overall quality.
So how does this mean anything to anybody?
Let’s say I wanted to solve the question I posed above – which kind of player is better to their team? Would it be the point leader (Sidney Crosby, with 83 points)? Would be the goal leader (Vincent Lecavalier, with 35 goals)? Or would be it the regular +/- leader (Nicklas Lindstrom, with a +36 rating)?
Let’s work with the numbers, then. Here are the goals for each team.
Conversely, here’s what their goals against look like - Remember, the numbers go Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay and Detroit
Goals Allowed: 116 172 137
PP goals allowed:58 49 50
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Now, here’s each teams adjusted +/- rating:
Even Strength Goals: 119 117 129
Even Strength Allowed Goals: 108 123 87
Adjusted Team +/- rating (AT+/-): +11 -6 +42
Now, remembering to divide by five, so we get a player average:
Raw AT+/-: +11 -6 +42
Average Adjusted Player +/- :+2.2 -1.2 8.4
So the average adjusted player +/- for Pittsburgh is 2, for Tampa Bay it's -1 and for Detroit it's +8.
So what does this mean? Simple: That’s the average +/- for any player on that team. We now can use that to adjust the raw +/- for any player. So, to go back to our original three players, we can just check their numbers by subtracting the average from their +/-:
So here, the numbers go: Sidney Crosby, Vincent Lecavalier and Nicklas Lindstrom
Regular +/-: +13 +6 +36
Average Adjusted Player: +/- +2 -1 +8
Player Adjusted +/-: +11 +7 +28
So, by looking at this – by seeing how much better a player is then his team’s average +/- and how important they are to the team - we can see three things: Crosby’s two-way play is a little overrated, Lecavalier’s two-way is a little underrated and Lindstrom, while playing on a team that inflates his +/- by a considerable margin, is still really good.
So there you go – Yes, Lindstrom is the most valuable of the three, since his two-way play (or perhaps just his defense skill) worth about 28 more points then the average player on Detroit.
Once again, thanks to the team of Klein and Reif for their formula here. It's a bit of a shame that they're not doing this anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)