Good Days...For Now

Oh Happy Days

These are heady days for me as a sports fan. If you've read my handy little description on the right hand side, you'll notice that I'm an Ottawa Senators, Toronto Raptors and Toronto Blue Jays fan. Something of a weird combination, I know. I can't help it that I was born in Ottawa and have a soft spot for professional baseball and basketball. All three of the teams I support are enjoying a remarkable run. The Senators have reeled off eight wins in a row, the Raptors have won four straight and the Jays have yet to lose in 2010 (That's right folks, things are going to be so bad for the Blue Jays this year that I am distinctly worried they might find a way to lose games before the season even starts. Thankfully, they are exceeding my expectations).

Being a fan of the Senators and Raptors is actually a remarkably similar experience this year. Both are fifth seeds in the Eastern Conference. Both went through tough patches that had people, myself included, wondering if they would even make the playoffs. And now both seem to be headed in the right direction. The Raptors just knocked off the defending champion Lakers, the Sens just knocked off the defending champion Penguins. So this all sounds very nice. What's the catch in that ominous title?

Well, I don't think either of these teams can win the championship. To my mind, the Raptors have the better chance of the two, but both teams are seriously flawed. The Senators have some top end talent in Jason Spezza, Daniel Alfredsson and Alexei-hey I'm suddenly motivated-Kovalev, but they lack depth and their goaltending is unproven. I think their ceiling is probably the fourth or fifth seed in the East and possibly a victory in a playoff round or two.

Meanwhile, the Raptors have a sublime offense, but still can't really play defense to save their lives. It's been a lot better during their hot play of late, but I still don't know how they can beat the Bostons and Clevelands of the world in a best of seven series. If they were to make it past the second round, it would be considered a major success. This whole year just feels kinda "eh". But it could be worse; I could be an Edmonton Oilers, New Jersey Nets, Washington Nationals fan. If this person exists, they should really just stop watching sports for a couple of years. Things can only get better. Right?


Doppelganger

I have found Phil Kessel's doppelganger: Alexandre Daigle. Now, obviously, you should take this with a grain of salt. Well, maybe more like a whole spoonful. I do think Kessel is a better player than Daigle, but you have to admit that through their first four seasons, they have eerily similar numbers:

Kessel: 264 GP, 81 Goals, 76 Assists, 157 PTS
Daigle: 263 GP, 67 Goals, 89 Assists, 156 PTS

And you're telling me that production is worth two 1st round picks, one 2nd round pick and then over 5 million a year? Look, if I was a Leafs fan, and I'm not, but living in Toronto I get NOTHING but Leafs coverage, I would be up in arms over this. The Leafs haven't been this bad in a long, long time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Brian Burke, you've really messed this one up. Big time.

NB

Clean Check

Today, Nick Kypreos said some rather interesting things about the mindset of hockey players during a lunchtime radio show. The most relevant quote:

“I’m not proud to say it, but I felt like if I could kill somebody with a legal check, I would do it,” Kypreos said, reflecting on his career during a discussion on vicious bodychecking — whether clean or illegal — on The Fan 590.

“That’s how much emotion, and outside the norm (of society that a hockey player) can get ... there is no rhyme or reason.

“I have been out there and looked at another guy’s eyes and I thought ‘I could kill you.’ ”

Now. I should start by saying I have never played a game of professional hockey. If you want to discount my opinion for that reason, you are free to go ahead and do so. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if a sporting event is eliciting that sort of reaction, something is wrong. I am all for heated competition, but there should NEVER be a point where death is even contemplated.

Read Kypreos' comments again. He certainly seems to be implying that had he been given the chance to kill another player with what he defines as a "clean check", he would have done it. That is highly disturbing for a number of reasons:

1) Kypreos chose the term kill carefully, and used it deliberately. There was no hyperbole in the way he spoke. He did not use the word kill to exaggerate "hit very hard". He definitely meant "to take the the life of another human being".

2) While Nick Kypreos explained that he was not proud of having felt that way, he did attempt to justify his thoughts. In reading the rest of the article, it becomes clear that Kypreos would say he is merely a victim of his surroundings. There is "...stuff that will make you snap.." and that body checking can involve "...drawing some emotions you're not proud of". Kypreos is suggesting that placed in the same situation, everyone else would have done the same. It's just the way the game is played etc.

3) Maybe the scariest underlying part of all is the implication that it would be possible to kill someone with a "clean check", one for which, as a player, you not only could legally perform, but should feel obliged to do so. The furor surrounding the recent rash of injuries in hockey that have been caused by hits to the head has revealed a mentality in the upper echelons of the game wherein the only question of whether a player was in the right was whether he lead with his shoulder or his elbow, or did the hit take place when the injured party still had the puck?

Why is it okay to shrug off debilitating injuries in the name of...what exactly? What is so great about seeing players lying prone on the ice? But if it's a "clean check", it's okay?

"...the key to trying to deliver a punishing hit or exact a measure of revenge is to do it legally. That’s where Cormier failed miserably".

That's what Toronto Sun's Gary Loewen wrote in that same Kypreos column. And he is so very, very wrong. Patrice Cormier failed miserably as a human being not because he led with his elbow in hitting Mikael Tam, but because he left the bench with the intention of hurting Mikael Tam. The elbow is scary, but the beeline Cormier takes is even scarier.

Which takes me back to Kypreos' original statements. I think it says a lot about the state of the game that Kypreos says something like that and almost no one bats an eyelash. Google the term "Nick Kypreos kill". Almost no results relating to his insane comments. You know why? Because he said he would do it with a "clean check". One day, something horrible is going to happen because of what the rules would define as permissible. Maybe then we can finally talk about the consequences of "clean checks" like rational human beings.

NB

The Wood was Brought

Before this weekend's playoff game against the Arizona Cardinals, New Orleans' coach had the great idea of giving of all his players baseball bats and encouraging them to "bring the wood" on Sunday. Apparently one player took the message to heart:

"At a team meeting Friday night, Saints head coach Sean Payton passed out baseball bats to all his players, inscribed with the saying: "Bring the wood." Bush was so enamored with the lumber that he took it to the Superdome on Saturday and even carried it with him onto the field. At kickoff, Payton had to tell him to put it down."

Well, Reggie Bush was outstanding and the Saints absolutely demolished the Cardinals. But why "bring the wood"? Why baseball bats? Thinking of renaming the team New Orleans Mafioso? I'm really not sure I understand Sean Payton's message. And why was Reggie Bush so taken by the bat? But above all else, why did a horribly cheesy gimmick apparently galvanize a professional athlete?

So many more questions than answers.

NB

Pierre McGuire

If you watch hockey in Canada, you can't help but be exposed to Pierre McGuire. Pierre is something of a polarizing figure. I don't particularly enjoy his brand of commentary, but apparently lots of people in Canada think highly of him. He certainly gets excited about the game, and I won't fault him for that. It's a lot more enjoyable viewing when it seems like the commentators genuinely want to be working the game. He also seems to do his homework before games because he often cites weird little anecdotes about the players. Again, not my cup of tea, I don't really care which Bantam team Matt Stajan played for, but it shows he's invested in his job. So he has his strengths , and even though they aren't necessarily what I look for in a good commentator, I will acknowledge he isn't all bad.

He is a lot bad, though.

During tonight's Leafs-Flyers game, broadcast on TSN, Pierre said something about Mike Richards that bordered on the insane. I'll paraphrase:

"Mike Richards is a real leader! As he skated by the Flyers bench he said: 'Come on guys, let's pick this up!' There may have been questions about Richards earlier this season, but there's no question now. Mike Richards is a leader!" (Those of you unfamiliar with Pierre McGuire may initially think I used too many exclamation marks in describing his tone. You are very wrong my friends. I considered using more. Many, many more.)

McGuire had spent a good chunk of the first period heaping praise on Richards for wholly unremarkable play, but this one line was so over the top that I just started cackling like a maniac. What does it mean that Pierre thinks this is a good example of leadership? One so good, in fact, that he felt the need to highlight it to a national audience. Does he get blown away every time someone in his life accomplishes a menial task? "You just made it down the block without tripping over your own shoelaces? That's an unbelievable level of balance! There used to be questions about your ability to walk upright, but not anymore! You can definitely put one foot in front of another! Outstanding!"(At the same time, I think Pierre would make an excellent life coach and motivator. Having someone pump you up every time you did your laundry would be pretty awesome).

This is typical of McGuire's commenting style. I often get the feeling that he comes into a game with a storyline in mind. "Player X is good at Y, so look for examples of this to reinforce pre-game comments". The issue is that this often devolves into Pierre trying to ram a square peg into a circular hole. Maybe Mike Richards is a good leader, but that instance Pierre screamed about for 30 seconds certainly did not prove it. If anything, it makes me question Richards' leadership, considering how inane of a situation was just provided as a supposedly outstanding example. That's a good reason to think he's a good leader, Pierre? Really?

The other problem this creates is that it becomes impossible for Pierre to ratchet it up a notch if there ever is a big play that warrants top of your lungs screaming. The reason you want to keep things low-key 95% of the time is so that when something incredible happens that 5% of the time, you have a different level to go to. Pierre doesn't have another level. And if he does have one that he has been saving all this time, God help us all. If he's somehow involved in the commentary for the gold medal game, and Mike Richards scores the game-winning goal in overtime, after telling the team "Come on! We can do this!", it might be just enough to get Pierre to that extra level. I think we'll have to call in a SWAT team to take him down.

I think in limited doses, Pierre could be effective. As far as the pre-game show goes, I actually think he does a pretty decent job. But when he's forced to carry the colour commentary, he tends to over-compensate, and at least two or three times a game he'll say something crazy. I'm writing this because I don't know who's providing the colour commentary for the Olympics. And I'm scared.

NB

Heartbreak City

For my Canadian readers, Tuesday night was probably a roller coaster of emotions. I'm speaking, of course, about the gold medal game of the World Junior Hockey Championships. In one of the most entertaining hockey games I have seen in a long time, the United States triumphed over Canada 6-5 in overtime. The action was back and forth, played with almost reckless abandon. As Canada, or more correctly Jordan Eberle, completed a furious comeback from two goals down to tie the game at 5 with time winding down in the third period, the rink in Saskatoon was about ready to explode. The game went into overtime, and ended the way it had been played: with the U.S on an odd-man rush. Everyone I was watching the game with went silent. Less than a minute earlier, you couldn't hear yourself think. Heartbreak City indeed. (Link is to Gus Johnson's classic call of the end game from UCLA-Gonzaga in the NCAA tournament a couple years back. Wait for it. Trust me.) But why are we so drawn to the event?

There's something uniquely Canadian about our obsession with the World Junior Championships. No other country cares about the tournament in even remotely the same way. The attendance figures support this, the incredible amount of media coverage dedicated to the event support this, the completely insane viewership numbers support this, and especially the way that bar, that is normally so dead, was hopping the other night support this. Our obsession with safeguarding the game as our own plays a big part. I can't think of another major sport with a worldwide following where the dominant country is so consumed by the notion of owning the game. No one European or Latin American country claims to own soccer in the way we claim to own hockey. Even the Americans aren't nearly as protective of baseball. So when our national pride is on the line, it only makes sense that emotions would run high.

We also love the unpredictable nature of the games. Though the players chosen are the elite of their age category, they are still just kids. They make mistakes. A lot of them. One of the reasons the gold medal game was so thrilling was exactly because the players were amateurs. Even with a two goal lead and less than 5 minutes remaining in the third period, the Americans suddenly found themselves running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Where was the dominant performance of the first 30 minutes? I hate to speculate on intangibles like pressure and momentum, but it sure looked like having 15,000 fans screaming and pounding the boards had something to do with Canada getting back into it. This turn of events would never have taken place in the NHL. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, sheer excitement can make up for a sloppily played game.

Still, the tournament has its problems. For the Canadian team, they only played two competitive games throughout. In particular, there was one game where they obliterated the poor Latvians 16-0. And that scoreline isn't the only one of its kind. Look at some of the scores from the rest of the tournament. Lopsided doesn't even begin to describe it. Obviously Canada, and probably the Russians despite their weak showing this year, will routinely beat up on at least a couple of teams every tournament. It would be a mistake to reduce the number of participating teams to 4 or 6, but the complete lack of competition until the semi-final round is certainly a negative.

The fact that the tournament is basically a Canadian event is also somewhat of a negative. It barely even registers as a sporting event outside of the True North, Strong and Free. When the tournament is held in European locations, the empty seats speak volumes to that fact. So, sure, we get really excited about it, but almost no one else does. That's something of a problem for a tournament called the World Junior Hockey Championships, and not the Canadian World Junior Invite (through it sure feels that way sometimes).

As Canadians, we will overlook all the warts. The problems that plague the tournament are merely endearing qualities to us. Canada won 16-0? Good for the boys, who cares about competitive balance? We will build up all of our heroes to a staggering degree; Jordan Eberle will never have to pay for a meal in Canadian restaurant for the rest of his life. And when we win, we'll throw parties like no other country would. But when we lose, it'll hurt worse than it would for everyone else too. Heartbreak City indeed.

Choices

Selecting Team Canada is an onerous task and I don't envy Steve Yzerman and his assistants. If their team fails to deliver a gold medal on home soil, the backlash from not only the hockey community, but Canadians as a people, will be tremendous. If one of the players has a poor game, his selection to the team will be questioned. If Canada fails to medal, the Prime Minister will have to come out of hiding to declare a state of emergency. There is a lot at stake for them, let's leave it at that.

I think that, for the most part, Stevie Y. has done a good job. The three goalies were clear choices, so I won't even go over them here. The top 9 forwards were also fairly obvious, and he seems to have chosen correctly:

Nash - Crosby - Iginla
Heatley - Thornton - Marleau
Staal - Getzlaf - Perry

Those would be my combinations, though I think you could put the names into a randomizer and still come out with three dominating forward lines. The theoretical fourth line, to me, would be:

Morrow - Richards - Toews

Those seem like good choices to me. Mike Richards is debatable, and maybe the other Richards deserved it more, but I like Toews and Morrow quite a bit. It's certainly a whole lot better than the Kris Draper selection, or my personal favourite, the immortal Rob Zamuner. I bet you'd forgotten about that one. In 1998, Rob Zamuner played for the Canadian Olympic team. Let's pause to consider that one, friends.



[Pause]



Okay, pause over. Also, in that famous shootout against the Czech Republic, the Canadian shooters were Theoren Fleury, Raymond Bourque, Joe Nieuwendyk, Eric Lindros and Brendan Shanahan. While Wayne Gretzky sat on the bench, those five were charged with scoring on Dominik Hasek at the pinnacle of his powers. RAYMOND BOURQUE! Sorry, that just kind of slipped out. BOURQUE! As you can imagine, it's still a touchy issue.

Back to the subject at hand. I think the only questionable forward selection is Patrice Bergeron, and since he's probably the thirteenth forward, that shouldn't be a big deal. The person that should be up in arms over this is Marc Savard. How do you look at those numbers and choose Bergeron? Or the best part, how do Team Canada executives go to scout Bruins games, and then miss Savard? How does that happen? Did he somehow offend Yzerman personally? I am flabbergasted.

The choices on defense are a little stranger:

Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, Drew Doughty, Brent Seabrook, Duncan Keith, Shea Weber and Dan Boyle.

I think that Duncan Keith, Dan Boyle, Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger are locks. I am not a big Pronger fan, but he's played well so far this year. He's +11 on a Philadelphia team that's only scored three more goals than it's given up. Weber is certainly a defensible choice, but the Seabrook and Doughty choices are a little weird. The conventional choice would have been Jay Bouwmeester. He's soaking up almost 27 minutes per game, mostly against the opponent's top line, and he's a solid + 9.

However, I think the real missed opportunity was Mike Green. Okay, I know he is not super defensively. Well, maybe I know he's mediocre.... okay, okay, he's not good, alright? Everyone knows that. He's also a point a game player with an outrageous level of skill. No one makes a better breakout pass in the NHL. No defenseman carries the puck better than him. And no one, no one, runs a power play better than him. How does Brent Seabrook and his magical .37 Career Points/Game average get the nod over Mike Green? Yes, Rick Nash dangled him that one time. Yes, he had a bad run in the playoffs last year. But if Canada's power play goes bad, Green will be sorely missed.

On the whole, I do respect the fact that they didn't go for old veterans that had more experience than some of the youngsters that were chosen. Any of the forwards is markedly better than say Ryan Smyth or Shane Doan. And resisting the temptation to create a true checking line is a stroke of genius in my mind. Even the hypothetical fourth line will be able to generate offensive chances. So, on the whole, kudos Steve Yzerman. You did a very credible job. Now, if this teams mucks it up, none of it will matter, you'll still get kicked out of Canada.

NB

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

I am taking a brief Christmas hiatus. I'll be back early in the New Year. Safe and happy holidays to all!

NB