Fun article

Take the problem of what we could call NBA "sluggishness." In the regular season, players simply don't seem to be playing hard all the time.

I'm not a hardcore fan or anything, but I think this is pretty clearly an illusion caused by the high quality of defense played.

I've already been putting some serious thought into this very subject, and I'm certain I'm not alone. James is onto something here.

I'm of the opinion that, over the next ten years, the NHL is going to make a strong comeback IF it stops being stupid and gets its games on TV stations most people in the US receive. The reason is that since the disastrous lockout that wiped out a whole season, the NHL has made a strong commitment to making moves (like eliminating two-line passes and putting restrictions on goalie equipment) to make the on-ice game more entertaining to watch. When it comes to the entertainment value of the event, if you build it, they will eventually come.

I'm not a hardcore fan or anything, but I think this is pretty clearly an illusion caused by the high quality of defense played.

But defense and offense are always related to each other. What you perceive as high-quality defense I perceive as partly low-quality offense (because NBA teams don't pass anymore) and partly rules that are still a little too defense-friendly. The "quality of defense" (like the "quality of offense" in any sport is entirely controllable via the rules of the sport.

It's both. There is A LOT more focus on playing defense in the NBA than there was during the 80s. But a large part of that is because the style of offense encourages defenses to play a suffocating, physical style.

Also building your offense around 1 or 2 stars makes you focus on defense at the other spots instead of well-rounded players. A good example is the 76ers Finals team. Larry Brown decided the best way to complement Allen Iverson was to put four guys around him who could play defense and never wanted the ball.

Bill James ought to try to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes :)

In the NBA, the element of predetermination is simply too high. Simply stated, the best team wins too often. If the best team always wins, then the sequence of events leading to victory is meaningless. Who fights for the rebound, who sacrifices his body to keep the ball from rolling out of bounds doesn't matter. The greater team is going to come out on top anyway.

There's an element of ... I don't know what the fallacy is exactly, it's a type of circularity here. Surely the team that wins is the team that fights better for the rebound and sacrifices their bodies (within reason) to keep the ball in bounds.

I think that the perceived dullness of the regular season in the NBA is due to the fact that so many teams make the playoffs, and the season is about twice as long as it needs to be to establish a reasonable playoff seeding. The most interesting NBA regular season in memory was 1998-1999, entirely because with so few games, each game counted more. I don't think they need to shorten the playoffs; they need to shorten the season.

James was talking about making the NBA more competitive from top to bottom, but it doesn't make sense that slowing the game down and giving defenses (it really does win championships) who already use pace to their advantage, another advantage. I don't see how that creates parity. And the NBA would be losing a speed aesthetic that really is fun to watch. Subjective, I know, but it would create some absolutely brutal 70-60 games.

I agree with shortening the game (perhaps to four 9-minute quarters), and I wouldn't hate extending the shot clock to, say, 30 seconds instead of 24. I agree with bringing in the three-point line, and I also strongly advocate enlarging the court.

Meh, that's nice, Bill, but I think I'll still keep looking at baseball players and baseball teams. Good luck with it, though.

Also, it's illogical to argue that money is a disincentive to playing hard. If you doubled the prize money for a car race, would the drivers slow down and start coasting?

I'm not sure this analogy is on all fours. I think you'd see much more cautious driving during a car race if their salaries for that specific race were pre-determined and there wasn't tiered prize money.

Edit: There is tiered prize money in racing, isn't there?

The wider court has gained some steam from fans, and Phil Jackson recently backed the idea. Some extra space would certainly help offenses. My problem with a shorter game, and a longer shot clock is how both would homogenize styles of play. Deep benches, and fast paced offenses would become irrelevant. Even worse, higher foul rates would certainly come with a 36 minute game. I wouldn't want to watch more dribbling and more free throws, and those radical changes appear to help the slow paced top of the league.

Also, it's illogical to argue that money is a disincentive to playing hard. If you doubled the prize money for a car race, would the drivers slow down and start coasting?


If the loser had to go back to a trailer park and work in a KFC maybe they would be more reckless in their racing. I think I would.

I'm not sure what this thread really has to do with baseball, aside from its author. Still, I think it's quite interesting subject matter and should lead to an interesting discussion.

I agree, I think the NHL is the most interesting league in this case
(I guess because it's in the most need of some good advice)

The game as the rules are set up now is as exciting as I've ever seen it (I missed most of the high-flyin' 80s)
They just need to get it on TV in the States

I think the NHL tends to be a little over-ambitious sometimes
There's a tendency to think "hockey's the greatest sport ever, if people just SEE it, they'll be immediately converted" which hasn't worked out so well in a lot of places in the States. They might be better served by working on getting tv coverage rather than the Expansion experiment of 1993-2002 or so.

the NHL always reminds me of the Shirling skit in Kids in the Hall
"But it's ok, shirling's a good sport too"
"Aye! Aye 'tis"

James was talking about making the NBA more competitive from top to bottom, but it doesn't make sense that slowing the game down and giving defenses (it really does win championships) who already use pace to their advantage, another advantage. I don't see how that creates parity. And the NBA would be losing a speed aesthetic that really is fun to watch. Subjective, I know, but it would create some absolutely brutal 70-60 games.

Slowing the game down creates fewer possessions which creates more variance

If each team only got one possession in a game, the best teams would have a pretty marginal edge over the worst teams. If each team got 4,500 possessions in a game the best teams would never lose

Actually, Greg, it's just the opposite: a lot of people WOULD be converted if they watched NHL hockey, but the problem is that most people can't watch it. The league is killing itself with its exclusive TV contract.

I think the NBA suffers most from the last two minutes of close games not even vaguely resembling the rest of the contest. In other sports, they certainly play different tempos with the clock running low, but we don't see NFL teams jumping offside in order to stop the clock at the end of the game.

Oh yeah I agree
I wrote my post poorly

What I meant was, the attitude made them do the wrong thing
Instead of getting people converted by getting their product on TV they seemed more concerned with getting TEAMS in new areas like Nashville and Carolina, Florida and so on

Which didn't work out so well

A less risky way of getting people to see your product would be TV
Which they've done a pretty piss-poor job of so far

As a side note
Maybe they should just nationally televise all Leaf-Habs games

Those guys continually go to OT every time
I haven't seen two mediocre teams play such unfailingly entertaining games in a long time.

Slowing the game down creates fewer possessions which creates more variance

If each team only got one possession in a game, the best teams would have a pretty marginal edge over the worst teams. If each team got 4,500 possessions in a game the best teams would never lose

Not every team uses the same amount of possessions. That's what I've been getting at. 7 of the top ten defenses were 19th or lower in pace (possessions per game) last season. San Antonio and Cleveland, the finals matchup, were in that group. I don't see how eliminating possessions evens the playing field when teams intentionally do it to keep other teams from scoring points.

Actually, Greg, it's just the opposite: a lot of people WOULD be converted if they watched NHL hockey, but the problem is that most people can't watch it. The league is killing itself with its exclusive TV contract.

Up until the strike, the NHL had featured games on ESPN, and NHL 2Nite every single day. The Worldwide Leader gave it all of the hype it was capable of, devoted all of its technical resources to the coverage, and gave it a good timeslot. The ratings were always 100% putrid.

You can argue that today's NHL game is a different animal than the pre-strike game, and you may be right. But TV broadcasters aren't exactly busting down the NHL's door in order to sign a broadcasting contract; "no one watches the NHL" has become the conventional wisdom in the TV biz.

I think I may be one of the few Canadians and NHL fans who is fine with hockey not making it in the States.

Personally I don't mind if hockey players don't make as much as other athletes, or hockey owners don't make as much money. I guess the level of competition would go down if the money really went down and fewer American kids would be tempted to take up hockey. But really the US talent pool isn't a huge portion of the NHL's talent. As long as there's enough money to bring guys over from Europe it's all good to me

Yes, I will argue that. The NHL before the lockout DID suck as a spectator event. But the league made very significant rule changes to speed up the game after the lockout year, and they worked beautifully. NHL hockey now is a very exciting sport to watch.

And yes, I know TV broadcasters weren't in a tizzy over landing the NHL, and I'm sure the NHL signed its exclusive contract because that was the most money, but it was *extremely* short-sighted. The NHL should have accepted less money from ESPN to keep its sport on mainstream TV, where it's easily acceptable. It was a horrendous mistake not to.

I've read that Billy Beane is apparently obsessed with football (soccer) and was a major influence on the decision to bring back the San Jose MLS franchise. Supposedly he really wants to put his talents to work there.

I have a hard time believing it'll come anywhere close to the major sports here anytime soon, but MLS is a pretty decent example of a modern league created and run well enough to develop some long-term sustainability. And it also is kind of the anti-baseball since it's so difficult to statistically assess.

And yes, I know TV broadcasters weren't in a tizzy over landing the NHL, and I'm sure the NHL signed its exclusive contract because that was the most money, but it was *extremely* short-sighted. The NHL should have accepted less money from ESPN to keep its sport on mainstream TV, where it's easily acceptable. It was a horrendous mistake not to.

I'm not able to discuss too specifically about this, but the Worldwide Leader never made an offer of any kind to the NHL; it isn't as if OLN offered $10 and E5PN offered $8 - the Worldwide Leader effectively offered nothing.

Don't forget that they had just paid broadcasting rights fees for an entire season that didn't happen. It was a sunk cost, and business is business. But they had to scramble for replacement programming AND write the checks - it leaves a bad taste come negotiation-time.

The NHL would be best served, IMO, by signing a Frank Thomas v2006 deal for not much in exchange for some exposure Stateside. And they should take all control of marketing from the broadcaster. They produce the ads, they decide when they run. If they draw the ratings like you say they should, BvA, then they can negotiate a big-money longterm deal next year.

I would be 100% on board with that strategy, and yes, I do strongly believe the NHL, though it could still use a few improvements (like enlarging the nets a little, maybe even enlarging the ice itself), it's now an exciting sport that would draw fans.

I thought everyone loved the outdoor NHL games. Where are those?

Longtime lurker here...

I'm with those who believe that the size of the playoffs is a big influence on the intensity (or lack thereof) of play in the NBA. When sixteen teams make the playoffs, you have 10-12 teams that are all but mortal locks to make it, and a similar number of teams with virtually no chance. That leaves a very small group of teams in the middle for whom making the playoffs is uncertain -- and they're basically fighting for the right to be first-round cannon fodder.

So there's very little meaning to the regular season in the NBA -- and no real reason to bust one's butt unless one is in that middle group of teams. If the NBA decreased the number of playoff teams to eight, you'll see the higher-quality teams work a little harder (because they'd run a real risk of missing the playoffs), and better games as a result.

There's another, more intractable issue here, and that cuts to the nature of the sport, which makes it harder to solve. Baseball, football, and hockey games can all theoretically end in shutouts. It doesn't often happen, but the possibility is always there. There's always the chance that the score you just saw was the final score of the game, and thus every score feels special and important. That's not true in NBA basketball -- the first 70 or so points scored by a team in an NBA game are essentially filler. You don't worry all that much if your team is down ten at halftime. So that's why all the uncertainty and the drama in NBA games are compressed to the last few minutes of the fourth quarter -- that's the only point of the game in which the "decisive" score of the game can possibly occur. (And, of course, NBA teams undercut THAT drama when they chop up those last few minutes with eight timeouts. It's their version of baseball's incessant late-inning pitching changes.)

It's significant that college basketball is perceived as more exciting than NBA basketball -- precisely because the scoring is lower, it's harder to climb out of a hole, and thus there is tension all through the game.

7 of the top ten defenses were 19th or lower in pace (possessions per game) last season.

lol nice cherrypicking

I dont even know what your point is

As far as I can tell you're saying that 1) teams have some control over how many possessions are in their games 2) teams that play with a slower pace allow fewer points, therefore 3) lowering the possessions in a game does not reduce the variance. That doesn't even come close to making sense, but maybe you're trying to say something else

It's not exactly cherrypicking. Most of the better defensive teams have a slow offense that limits opponent possessions, so changing the rules to allow a smaller number of possessions allows those teams to play even slower. I'm not smart enough to figure out how much it reduces variance, but surely there's something wrong with a strategy to create parity when it's exactly how the Spurs, Pistons, Mavericks, Rockets, and Cavaliers play basketball.

and I'm not taking a rock solid stance on this, it just doesn't appear to be a very good way to give bad teams a leg up.

I'm with those who believe that the size of the playoffs is a big influence on the intensity (or lack thereof) of play in the NBA.

The problem with this argument is that the NHL has the same number of teams, the same length of regular season and the same playoff setup, yet NHL players play harder game in and game out than NBA players do. I'm not saying it's entirely not a problem, but I am saying that there's a lot more to it than just the large playoff field.

And I continue to contend the reason college basketball is more entertaining than NBA basketball is that college teams, by and large, pass the ball and NBA teams, by and large, do not. That's partially because NBA basketball revolves more around the superstars and, often, their teammates just get out of their way on offense; but it's also partially because of college basketball's longer shot clock. You have to keep the ball moving or someone will take it from you.

Passing, in basketball, is entertaining and aesthetically pleasing. A beautiful pass that leads to an easy basket--or, even better, a series of beautiful passes--is probably the most exciting play in basketball that doesn't involve a three-pointer at the final buzzer. I feel strongly that a lot of the NBA's marketability problems stem from the noticeable shortage of passing in the league.

The longer shot clock may or may not work, but it's something the NBA should at least try.

The problem with this argument is that the NHL has the same number of teams, the same length of regular season and the same playoff setup, yet NHL players play harder game in and game out than NBA players do. I'm not saying it's entirely not a problem, but I am saying that there's a lot more to it than just the large playoff field.

Here I will emphasize the interesting point made in #26, which I hadn't considered before.

"There's another, more intractable issue here, and that cuts to the nature of the sport, which makes it harder to solve. Baseball, football, and hockey games can all theoretically end in shutouts. It doesn't often happen, but the possibility is always there. There's always the chance that the score you just saw was the final score of the game, and thus every score feels special and important. That's not true in NBA basketball -- the first 70 or so points scored by a team in an NBA game are essentially filler. You don't worry all that much if your team is down ten at halftime. So that's why all the uncertainty and the drama in NBA games are compressed to the last few minutes of the fourth quarter -- that's the only point of the game in which the "decisive" score of the game can possibly occur."

I think the NBA has become too "corporate" to think about major rule changes such as the way the NHL has. Making a major change (expanding the court, changing the shot clock, changing the playoff system, etc.) requires too many people to sign off on and the league is so marketing oriented that they're terrified of doing anything drastic that might have a negative effect on how many sneakers kids buy in Malaysia. So they tinker around the edges with small modifications that don't really change anything whereas the NHL, with nowhere near the marketing structure, is willing to go a lot further. They've made a lot of recent rule modifications (more space behind the net, two-line passes, etc.), whose basketball equivalents the NBA will never consider trying. Plus Stern seems to truly believe that he knows better than anyone else in the world what is best for the league. He might need reminding that Jordan/Magic/Bird played as much a role in bringing back the NBA in the 80s as he did.

EDIT: I'll modify my statement re: rule changes that at least this has been my observation over the last 5-10 years. Another couple years like the last few and the NBA might get a bit more desperate.

Passing in the NBA-don't get me started. Nobody knows how to run a decent fast break, nobody designs an offense around the fast break anymore, but defenses oddly are still geared to stop something which nobody bothers to attempt anyway. [Can't figure that one out]

But it's hard to tweak a sport to get it to look like you want. The Law of Unintended Consequences can run up and bite you hard at precisely the wrong moment. Yeah we could fart with the rules a bit to favor the fast break, or some other solution for some other problem, but I remember the late 70's and how all the run and gun offenses made the NBA, according to certain pundits, look like garbage time, all the time. But as the league moved into the 80's the best teams were fundamentally sound AND ran the break a lot, and very well, a very pleasing combo; you can't write a rule putting a Magic Johnson on the same team as a James Worthy and a Scott Cooper. For whatever reasons teams have moved away from that style of play.

The NHL's popularity problem seems more intractable, and perhaps is a cultural thing in the US which no amount of rules tweaks and expensive promotional pushes can overcome. I was going to say that they needed their equivalent of NFL 1958 or MLB 1975 to gain more permanent fans, and never really got it. Actually the NHL did have an opportunity, when the Rangers won in 1994 in spectacular and exciting fashion, but most the the country outside of NY yawned. If something like that doesn't get their attention nothing will.

The last time I watched an NHL game start to finish (for which I wasn't paid) was in the 1994 playoffs. But I was in New Jersey then; I can understand that people around the country didn't find it as compelling.

Throw the 1994 baseball strike in there, and all of the ducks were lined up for the NHL's entry into the mainstream. But it just didn't happen.

I think that's why the NHL is pushing the Penguins so hard this year, John: They're desperately trying to capture the U.S. market via Sidney Crosby. They have their most marketable superstar since Gretzky (Sidney Crosby) and, though he's in Pittsburgh and not New York, the NHL and its media outlets are determined to get his face plastered everywhere. It's created a frankly very weird situation, where the Pittsburgh Penguins have become the Yankees of the NHL, in the sense that you can hardly load up espn.com without finding the word "Penguins" or "Pens" among the headlines.

At least with the Yankees, you can understand the logic; they have a larger and richer fan base than any other baseball team. But outside of Pittsburgh (which does have a relatively small but very loyal contingent of hockey fans), nobody cares about whether the Pittsburgh Penguins win or lose. But the NHL wants very much to market Sidney Crosby, because they've pinned their US marketing schemes on him.

That's why it blew me away when Crosby re-signed with the Penguins this past offseason; it would seem to make the most sense for everyone involved for him to go to the Rangers, the NHL's salary cap made it such that the Penguins couldn't especially offer more money than other teams (they just were able to negotiate exclusively) and Crosby is a Canadian with no particular natural allegiance to Pittsburgh. Now Crosby will be in Pittsburgh through 2012, and the NHL therefore wants very much to see the Stanley Cup go there a time or two.

You can tell me what you think, but... Sidney Crosby IS an incredible talent, one of the very best ever to come through the ranks of hockey players, but this does not strike me as intelligent marketing strategy. Bottom line is, until the games are on ESPN or NBC or whatever, the NHL is going to continue to become more and more a Canadian sport, no more significant in the U.S. than the CFL. Which is sad.

The lockout just as the sport was gaining some momentum was probably the dumbest thing ever.

I think Hockey's problem is a bit of accident of geography. No one really wonders why Cricket or Australian Rules Football haven't made it in the US, but since Canada is so close there's the notion that it should.

It's not exactly feasible now, and I don't know how it would be in the future, but I think it would be fun if the NHL pursued the European connection more than the American one. The Ducks and Kings played their first two games in England this year so that's the first tiny step.

I think it would be pretty wild to have an AL-NL type thing with North America and Europe...maybe once they get Zefram Cochrane to hurry up already with that warp drive. If any one sport was capable of doing it I'd say it's hockey

It wasn't gaining that much momentum. The lockout caused a crisis that moved the NHL to make some very significant and very needful changes to its on-ice game that might not otherwise have been made. It could prove a useful thing in the long run, if the NHL wises up and gets its product on ESPN, even if it has to do so at a heavy discount.

While lockouts are never good ideas for the health of a league, and this one was especially silly...I don't think there was ever any doubt the players were going to fold, but they wasted a whole season getting around to doing it...I'm not sure what momentum the NHL had going into the lockout. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I think the TV ratings sucked and plenty of teams were in trouble.

That being said I think the actual on-ice product is far superior than what it was before the lockout. Of course I'm not entirely sure the lockout was NECESSARY to get these improvements. All in all I guess I'm saying the lockout WAS pretty dumb, but I don't see what momentum the NHL had, and I think they may be in a better position in the long-run now than in 2003

I really like the sport of hockey, but what the NHL has done in recent years with its standings, eliminating a large number of real losses and driving the league winning percentage up around .570-.580 is nuts. They've forever corrupted the meaning of wins and losses, and nobody affiliated with the league ever acknowledges it. I know it sounds crazy, but this, and not the lockout or anything about style of play, is what has driven me away from the league.

I know what you mean CCG

I find it incredibly annoying, I have no idea why they don't go to a system of

3 points for regulation win
2 for OT win
1 for OT loss

Or if you really hate the points for losing
Back to the
2 win
1 tie
0 for loss

Although you'd have to remove the shootout (you'd get no complains from me on that one)

For you awesome hockey kids, I have a silly question that I actually want a serious answer to.

Why not just get super fat goalies? If your goalie was fat enough couldn't he just block the whole goal?

Not a hockey fan by any stretch, E-X, but I'd imagine it's about the same reason why we don't see an epidemic of midgets with teeny tiny strike zones as pinch-hitters in MLB.

By the way, I really apologize if you feel that I'm using "midget" as a perjorative. I don't mean it that way, but the alternative that I've heard, "little people", isn't nearly descriptive enough. In the NBA, Mugsy Bogues was a little person. David Eckstein is a little person. Neither of these guys are exactly what I was trying to convey in #44.

True, erik, but the facts are that it WOULD work--there are sumo-types that are so big you almost literally could not possibly score on them--and that it's not a violation of the rules. If I owned an NHL team, I absolutely would do it.

I seem the recall the Islanders' owner, who is something of a Bill Veeck wannabe (this is the guy who hired his backup goalie as general manager; no joke) tinkered with the idea but decided against it, probably under pressure from other owners.

Why not just get super fat goalies? If your goalie was fat enough couldn't he just block the whole goal?

People's guts tend to grow out, not sideways. Plus, even fatties would need quick reflexs to get to shots in the corners.

I would expect, Baron, that if someone made a big attempt at this that we'd see a rule such as the one governing midgets in baseball - that a superfat man who just gets in the way of great shotmaking is aesthetically unpleasing and a violation of the spirit of the game.

NHL would be more fun if the rinks were slipperier.

Is "dwarf" the accepted term?

It reminds me of the CBC's dictionary of pronounciations for reporters. Apparently the correct way to pronounce Micmacs (or Mi'kmaqs, I never know what's correct) involves a lot of tongue clicking and generally sounding like you're going challengning a turkey to a duel.

Anyway, there was one interview with a CBC reporter and a Micmac chief, and the CBC guy kept using this elaborate "official" pronounciation. And the chief kept looking at him weird and just saying it "Mick-Mack."

I think there's such a thing as being too careful about what you say

I thought that "dwarf" meant something different than "midget", with regard to proportions of the body.

Slippery rinks!

That's one of the things I love about hockey
You get to see highly trained professional athletes look about as graceful as tree-sloths at least a few times every game.

Back when he was on the Leafs I think Tom Fitzgerald had a clause in his contract that he was required to fall down once a game, unprovoked and entirely away from the play

There's got to be somebody that would try it to win a few easy games before a rule could be put in place...

Hockey's even dumber about "unwritten rules" than baseball

I bet a 500 pound goalie walking on to the ice would result in an immediate brawl before the National Anthems started

There's a lot of talk about the NHL establishing itself, but it's not like it's MLS, which is trying to come from nothing to a major sports league. Ever since I can remember, there have been "4 major sports", with hockey as one of the four. Was it ever on a par with the other sports? NFL and MLB have hundred year traditions, but the NBA doesn't have that.

When did the NHL lose its "major sport" label?

This seems to be the NHL place. The news shows I watch all made a big deal of the Canadian dollar being worth more than the American dollar right now. That has to be huge for Canadian NHL clubs, right? My understanding is that they had to pay their players American, but they collect gate receipts and sell broadcast rights in Canadian.

Hell even Kevin Lowe got in trouble for submitting offer sheets to restricted free agents (which is entirely within the rules, it's just that no one does it due to the excessive draft pick compensation you have to give up if you get the guy)

I guess all sports have it
But hockey's ability to have two rule books, the "official" and the one "everyone knows" always blows my mind

I'm 99% sure NHL players are all paid in American $

So yeah this is good news for Canadian teams
Although with the cap it doesn't really help them compete for players
All of them except Edmonton are already spending at the cap

Edit: Toronto and Montreal would be doing fine no matter what, but I think this especially helps Calgary and Edmonton. I'm not sure what kind of shape Ottawa is in...if there's any justice in the world they are on the brink of financial ruin

I'm amused by the idea that someone might think statistical analysis in sports is dead since all avenues have been thoroughly exhausted after what...like six years of semi-widespread acceptance?

I watch the NBA--& I think race is the big undiscussed issue here.....but LEAVING THAT ASIDE, I'll suggest that if more teams played like the Suns/last year's Warriors, the game would be way more popular. How to produce that via rule changes is tricky, especially when the way the game is called changes so much in the playoffs-

How is the rule phrased in baseball to prevent midgets?

I can see how one could not allow someone to crouch to make their strike zone smaller, but how is it phrased to prevent 2 foot tall folks from going out there?

I'm 99% sure NHL players are all paid in American $

NHL players are all paid in American, and have been for at least the last 15 years.

Also, the high Canadian dollar has been great for Canadian teams, not only in terms of revenue, but in terms of their ability to compete for players.

Basically, as in every league, the salary cap is based on a percentage of the total league revenue. In hockey, I believe that amount is 58%. When the league negotiated the salary cap, they set it at a level where the upper teams (Detroit, Rangers, Leafs) would be forced to cut spending. However, in order to satisfy the players union, they also set a salary floor of 2/3 of the upper limit - which was fine at the time as even the money losing teams could afford to spend 2/3 of the cap without absolutely hemorrhaging money.

Unfortunately, and this is an issue which the NFL/NBA/MLB never really needed to worry about, the league forgot to consider indexing the cap against the Canadian dollar. Since the deal was originally signed, the Canadian dollar has jumped in excess of 20% against the American and, since a disproportionate amount of revenue is generated by the Canadian clubs, it has also pushed up the salary cap (and floor) by a notable amount. The end result has been that many of the US markets are struggling to break even at the raised salary floor, while the Canadian clubs (and a couple higher end American clubs) are provided with additional room under the cap each year, with a much more limited number of clubs who can bid against them. While the difference hasn't been notable yet, mostly because teams are still clearing bad contracts which predate the cap, it is very likely that over the next couple of years, the Canadian clubs will see an increasing number of players returning to Canada to play - especially since the opportunity for non-playing revenue and post-playing career opportunities is much higher in Canada than the US.

So, overall, the high CDN dollar has had the effect of increasing Canadian revenues, increasing the cap, and making it cheaper for Canadian teams to pay for players using $US. The new deal has been an absolute boon for Canada.

People's guts tend to grow out, not sideways. Plus, even fatties would need quick reflexs to get to shots in the corners.

Well, that's where Greg's idea of getting Sumo Wrestlers to do it would be good. Those guys are fricking incredible athletes. In fact, most of them look like normal world-class athletes up to the beginning of high school. But if they are good enough to turn pro, they bulk up, since no matter how good they are, they can't compete with someone with similar skills who is 300 pounds heavier.

But I can see how the league probably wouldn't respond well to that strategy.

Actually, about ten years ago I watched a guy that went maybe 180 soaking wet defeat an authentic 550 pound Japanese sumo champion. No joke. Being smaller and quicker does have its advantages.

How is the rule phrased in baseball to prevent midgets?

IIRC there is no "rule," just the requirement that the Commissioner's Office approve all contracts. (Some such intervention took place in Minnie Minoso's last attempt to play, I recall.)

I was at the NHL game played at the O2 in London. It was packed; probably 40% British NHL Fans, 50% Germans and Scandinavians, 5% exiled north americans and 5% people who seemed to have got lost on the way to the Tate Museum (and didn't know what the heck was going on). My local British Ice Hockey club (Guildford Flames) probably has an average attendance of 1500-1800 people. There's probably about 10 teams in the "London" catchment area that see a similar attendance, FYI.

Actually, about ten years ago I watched a guy that went maybe 180 soaking wet defeat an authentic 550 pound Japanese sumo champion. No joke. Being smaller and quicker does have its advantages.

At sumo? Really?

At sumo? Really?

Wheelchair Basketball, but it was still impressive.

RDF.

I just meant that sometimes people talk about Sumo folks getting beat in UFC or other mixed fighting leagues, but it's a lot different because their body types are tailored to their own sport (or hockey).

It was at sumo.

I'm not sure what momentum the NHL had going into the lockout.

I was talking about the 1994-95 lockout, not the last one. The Rangers had just won the Cup, the network was on ESPN, people were pissed at baseball for going on strike. The league wasn't on its way to being a superpower, but they were gaining lots of new fans and becoming kinda trendy. Then they locked the players out, and most of those new fans and potential new fans realized that they weren't really any different, so screw it.

But, the league is healthy now, and even with low TV ratings, more American kids are playing hockey than ever. More kids in America play hockey than in Canada, and the last few drafts have had lots of Americans at the top portion of the first round. Hell, a kid from San Jose is playing junior in Canada.

They're on the right track, and I think as those kids get older and have their own kids who enjoy the game, it will continue to grow. All that's missing is the TV numbers, which aren't likely to ever reach "acceptable" levels. But, as long as it's available for me to watch, I don't care if even one more human besides me is watching. The only downer is all the junk the league does in vain to try and attract more people. They've decided that there are a huge number of people who would love hockey if only there wasn't any fighting. It's a dumb thought. People who talk about how barbaric a sport is that permits fighting are not holding their breath waiting for it to go away so they can become hockey fans. And the fight against fighting now permits little ####### to go around and serve out concussions and busted knees with silly cheap shots because those little ######## know there are no consequences. That's a far worse alternative to having fistfights. Cheap shots and diving to draw penalties are the two problems with the game, by far.

Well, that's where Greg's idea of getting Sumo Wrestlers to do it would be good. Those guys are fricking incredible athletes.

Can a guy that big skate? Goalies have to be great skaters, I'd expect a sumo guy to break an ankle out there.

I'm really surprised about the hockey love. I recently got back into hockey after about a 7-8 year vacation mostly because the crazy amount of commercials during NFL games for a winter sport. When it goes timeout (commercial), TD/FG (commercial), kickoff (commercial)---this in a game with 40 seconds in between plays already---I really can't deal with it. I needed a better sports fix. But in any case the "New NHL" rules, while not making the die-hards happy, were a great idea and should go a long way to rebuilding the league. In my mind however what should help the NHL the most over any other sport is HDTV. The improvement in the viewing experience between SD and HD in hockey DWARFS that of any other sport. You still can't really appreciate the ridiculous speed of the game without being there but it lets you see the game SO much better.

They need to bring back that FOX Puck-tracker again. Sure, it sucked like ####, but at least someone was TRYING, dammit!

How to produce that via rule changes is tricky, especially when the way the game is called changes so much in the playoffs-

Call the game the way it is called in the regular season?

That's something else the NHL FINALLY did, at least somewhat, last season, and I must say it worked very well. Expect them to do it even more as they stubbornly try to keep the game as wide-open as possible for the Penguins.

(For non-NHL fans, the NHL has had a major problem for many years with referees ceasing to call interference/holding/hooking once the playoffs have begun, and the game drastically changing, slowing down, as players incessantly clutch, grab, and hold opponents. Impeding the progress of an opponent who does not have the puck is illegal in the NHL, always has been, but until last year, the referees would just never call it in the playoffs.)

The NBA's problem is that the underlying mathematics of the league are screwed up. In every sport, there is an element of predetermination and an element of randomness in the outcomes. Who will win the championship next year is not entirely a crapshoot. We know that Kentucky has a better chance of winning the NCAA basketball title than Nebraska does - next year, or in 2019.

I don't get this. First, he makes a point about the NBA using college basketball. Then, he presents no data to backup his opinions. Show the math, please. Maybe he'll do it in a separate book you can buy.

Also, was Florida getting good odds to win NCAA championships 10 years ago?

I just want the NBA to get off my lawn.

NBA:

There are two changes that very strongly contribute to the current model of individual play over team play.

The first is the expansion of the "no-charge" zone. Post-play was already fairly dominant; now if a good post player gets within 4 feet of the basket with the ball, the defense is helpless.

The second is the shortening of the 3-pt line. They moved most of it back out, but the damage was done. The perfect equilibrium is if the 3 point shot has about 2/3 the success rate of a jump shot.

The combination of these two rules has all but eliminated the middle game. The post play is very high percentage so it is emphasized over mid-range shots. 3-pointers are just too good a percentage play to pass up in favor of a 17-footer. The other problem is that it has just been too long for an easy fix. Players aren't practicing those mid-range shots as much. Even the guys who aren't post-players are spending more time on their moves to the basket for the easy 2 than they are at taking a step back off the defender and draining a shot.

Add to that the utter failure of a front office that my NBA team has, and I can't ever root for the laundry.

NHL:

Every time I watch hockey on TV I don't understand why it has any appeal. And every time I go to a game, part of me falls in love with the sport again.

It's just an awful TV sport and the owners have to recognize it. They need to take the hit to have it available mainstream because a sizable percentage of the niche fans that would buy a hockey package for cable are the same ones that will be buying season tickets and not watching on TV anyway.

They need to take the hit to have it available mainstream because a sizable percentage of the niche fans that would buy a hockey package for cable are the same ones that will be buying season tickets and not watching on TV anyway.

It's like Bill Wirtz never left!

I know the traditionalists hate it, but merely making the puck a very bright color that no one else is allowed to wear would make a big difference. I have good eyesight and find it hard to see at times. There are many people, like my Dad, that can never watch hockey at all because he can never see the puck. He loves watching basketball and football.

Being against something like that which does not effect game-play at all has always astounded me.