Hockey

PopTodd · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:46 pm

DumpJack Wrote:

PopTodd Wrote:

GREATEST GOALIE EVER?

He certainly has more rings than any other.

Ken Dryden might disagree with you.

Quote:

.....his NHL debut in mid-season 1971 for the Canadiens, and became the backbone of six Stanley Cup winning teams in the 1970s. During that first playoff season Dryden won the Conn Smythe Trophy, 1971, as the playoffs' most valuable player. The following year Dryden won the Calder Trophy, 1972, as the Rookie of the year because the previous year he did not play enough regular season games to be eligible...Compared to most other goaltending greats, Dryden's NHL career was extremely short: only seven full seasons. Therefore, statistically he did not amass record totals in most categories. As he played all his years with a dynasty and retired before he could pass his prime, his statistical percentages are unparalleled. His regular season totals include a .790 winning percentage, a 2.24 goals against average, and, most incredibly, losing only 57 games while recording 46 shutouts in 397 total games. No other modern goaltender has ever been even remotely close to earning nearly as many shutouts as recording losing games. He won the Vezina Trophy five times for allowing the fewest goals and in the same years was selected as a First Team All-Star. Despite the comparative brevity of his career, in 1998, he was ranked number 25 on The Hockey News' list of the 100 Greatest Hockey Players.

Hegel · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:20 pm

Mike Grier - scored against Chicago last night.

Brashear - beats up a lot of dudes.

nacho · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:39 pm

Also, Ray Emery, Anson Carter, Georges Laraque, Jarome Iginla

(too lazy for pics)

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:42 pm

Hockey bores me to tears, which probably has a lot to do with having little knowledge of the game. I have watched Olympic hockey in the past though.

NHL games are also insanely expensive. We got free Caps tickets a few years ago, and they were ~$70 and we were <10 rows from the top of the fucking MCI Center.

A point no one has brought up yet (that I saw as I quickly skimmed the thread): though there are women's hockey teams, it's a pretty male dominant sport, which cuts out half your audience, which is already pretty small. Yes, women are pretty well shut out of football, but sports like basketball and soccer take relatively little set-up or equipment, and gals can play too. That leaves hockey in the group with wrestling, which is mostly guys and not particularly widespread.

As for niche sports, I'll take lacrosse, which also has plenty of women's leagues:

Z · **Joined:** Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:38 pm **Posts:** 7979

Elvis Fu Wrote:

NHL games are also insanely expensive. We got free Caps tickets a few years ago, and they were ~$70 and we were <10 rows from the top of the fucking MCI Center.

yeah, but basketball tickets have similar pricing structures. also, i have never been to a hockey game that didn't have a very full crowd. the fans do attend well, but ratings will never be high.

Hegel · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:59 pm

Elvis Fu Wrote:

Hockey bores me to tears, which probably has a lot to do with having little knowledge of the game. I have watched Olympic hockey in the past though.

NHL games are also insanely expensive. We got free Caps tickets a few years ago, and they were ~$70 and we were <10 rows from the top of the fucking MCI Center.

A point no one has brought up yet (that I saw as I quickly skimmed the thread): though there are women's hockey teams, it's a pretty male dominant sport, which cuts out half your audience, which is already pretty small. Yes, women are pretty well shut out of football, but sports like basketball and soccer take relatively little set-up or equipment, and gals can play too. That leaves hockey in the group with wrestling, which is mostly guys and not particularly widespread.

As for niche sports, I'll take lacrosse, which also has plenty of women's leagues:

Not 100% sure, but the cost of Caps tickets could have a lot to do with the area. It's not like Redskins tickets are reasonably priced either.

You can get seats for a caps game for 10 bucks where you are right up by the rafters. Tickets for the "VIP" section, or the first couple rows, tickets are 225 bucks. However, sitting in any seats in the 100 level section on either side of the ice it is only 90 bucks. You would probably be sitting at the top of RFK for 225. Not to argue, but the tickets are much much cheaper than a lot of other sports. Don't get me wrong, I think most sports tickets are severely overpriced and if you aren't all that interested in hockey then you wouldn't even consider paying 90 bucks for a decent seat at a game. It would just be unreasonable.

I think the women league comment is pretty apt to a point. I know plenty of women who are more hardcore hockey fans than some of the other dudes I know, but I think it would open up the possibility if there were more women leagues, etc. I know college has a lot of women's hockey teams though. They just can't go any further...

Ex Lion Tamer · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:21 pm

Yail Bloor Wrote:

south pacific Wrote:

Yail Bloor Wrote:

I enjoy hockey but freely admit that it will never be more than a niche sport.

Yeah. I think this is partially due to the violence.

I saw a couple Blackhawk games back in the day and they are more exciting to watch in a stadium than on TV.

I'd say violence ranks fourth in why its not popular (and maybe first or second in why it IS popular):

1. Translates bad to TV (as PT mantioned)
2. Foreigners (unpronounceable names, etc.)
3. Most people didnt play it growing up (unlike baseball, hoops, and even soccer)
4. Violence

The key to enjoying hockey on TV is to not obsess about where the puck is at all times. Watch the flow of the game, get to know the structure and learn to anticipate where the puck will be going, and you'll figure out how to watch the game without knowing exactly where the puck is at all times.

I guess the key is to stop trying to watch the puck and watch the players instead.

DumpJack · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:26 pm

Yail Bloor Wrote:

I'd say violence ranks fourth in why its not popular (and maybe first or second in why it IS popular):

1. Translates bad to TV (as PT mantioned)
2. Foreigners (unpronounceable names, etc.)
3. Most people didnt play it growing up (unlike baseball, hoops, and even soccer)
4. Violence

I think this is a better list of why it isn't popular in the US, period. The majority of Canadians and Europeans probably only get the chance to watch it on television, yet Hockey Night in Canada is basically a tradition here, so I guess the violence isn't an issue at all. Same with the foreign issue, although others like Don Cherry will riff on them occasionally (in fact, it's the European's tendency to avoid physical/violent play that raises the ire of Don.) But some of the most popular players in Canada weren't even homegrown, from current players like Mats Sundin or retired guys like Jarri Kurri. Vladislav Tretiak was even honoured by the Governor-General in 2006.

However, pretty much everybody plays hockey here, male and female.

Damen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:50 pm

Yail Bloor Wrote:

Damen Wrote:

None of the big "all sports guru's" who either work for or constantly appear on ESPN seem to be very hockey knowledgable. PTI, Around the Horn... stuff like that either ignores hockey or gives it a mediocre effort.

ESPN covered hockey much more thoroughly when they actually carried the games; notice how ESPN has downplayed Arena Football and NASCAR for the last several years until now that they carry them they are everywhere. That's just business.

I mean the NHL ALL Star Game didnt outdraw Law & Order reruns on cable.

It's not the lack of coverage, it's the hockey knowledge of the ESPN personalities. It's totally acceptable in the sports journalism community to be huge enough to get your own half hour show on ESPN or nationally syndicated radio show & not be able to have anything intelligent to say about hockey.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:42 am

Damen Wrote:

It's not the lack of coverage, it's the hockey knowledge of the ESPN personalities. It's totally acceptable in the sports journalism community to be huge enough to get your own half hour show on ESPN or nationally syndicated radio show & not be able to have anything intelligent to say about hockey.

The same could be said for NASCAR, and it is currently 1,000,000x more popular than hockey.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:44 am

Also, the real reason hockey lost popularity in America even before the lockout was the New Jersey Devils and that damn boring ass style of clutch and grab, dump and chase style of play.

Rick Derris · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:54 am

Z Wrote:

Elvis Fu Wrote:

NHL games are also insanely expensive. We got free Caps tickets a few years ago, and they were ~$70 and we were <10 rows from the top of the fucking MCI Center.

yeah, but basketball tickets have similar pricing structures. also, i have never been to a hockey game that didn't have a very full crowd. the fans do attend well, but ratings will never be high.

I 100% agree Fu. I've never actually paid to go to a Thrashers game. It's always some hook up that I've had.

IMO, to really make someone a fan you have to be down there near the glass and really be involved in the game. Yes, some tickets are affordable, around $10, but they are so far up in the nosebleeds that you might as well watch it on TV. There are only a few seats at that price too. They then jump to $28.

If you want to be anywhere CLOSE to the glass they are a minimum of $75. Fuck that.

You can buy Braves tickets for $15 and have great seats in the outfield.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:13 am

Rick Derris Wrote:

I 100% agree Fu. I've never actually paid to go to a Thrashers game. It's always some hook up that I've had.

IMO, to really make someone a fan you have to be down there near the glass and really be involved in the game. Yes, some tickets are affordable, around $10, but they are so far up in the nosebleeds that you might as well watch it on TV. There are only a few seats at that price too. They then jump to $28.

If you want to be anywhere CLOSE to the glass they are a minimum of $75. Fuck that.

Have to disagree with you here, Derris. I've done the $10 ticket thing at Phillips several times and it is not bad at all, and much better than watching on TV. Plus, if the game isnt sold out, you can scout out some season ticket holder who didnt show up's seats during the 1st period and then move down to them for the 2nd and 3rd.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:26 am

Hegel Wrote:

Not 100% sure, but the cost of Caps tickets could have a lot to do with the area. It's not like Redskins tickets are reasonably priced either.

You can get seats for a caps game for 10 bucks where you are right up by the rafters. Tickets for the "VIP" section, or the first couple rows, tickets are 225 bucks. However, sitting in any seats in the 100 level section on either side of the ice it is only 90 bucks. You would probably be sitting at the top of RFK for 225. Not to argue, but the tickets are much much cheaper than a lot of other sports. Don't get me wrong, I think most sports tickets are severely overpriced and if you aren't all that interested in hockey then you wouldn't even consider paying 90 bucks for a decent seat at a game. It would just be unreasonable.

Redskins & Caps aren't comparable. Not only because the Caps play 40 games at home, Redskins play 8, but the NFL has considerably higher demand than the NHL. Especially the Redskins, who have that ridiculous wait for season tickets.

Granted, I last went to a game before the strike, so prices may have come down to get people back in. But even so, we sat somewhere around Section 433 which is still $50. (The photo showing the view is not even close to accurate). Take a family of four, and that's $200 before you have to pay for parking (or Metro, which is actually cheap), $6 sodas, etc.

You can buy upper deck Orioles tickets for less than $20 each. As Z pointed out, NBA tickets are comparable: $48. But again, the popularity plays into that, because it's easier to drop $200 on kids who enjoy watching or playing basketball or have LeBron jerseys than dropping $200 on taking a chance that they might become hockey fans.

Rick Derris · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:26 am

Yail Bloor Wrote:

Rick Derris Wrote:

I 100% agree Fu. I've never actually paid to go to a Thrashers game. It's always some hook up that I've had.

IMO, to really make someone a fan you have to be down there near the glass and really be involved in the game. Yes, some tickets are affordable, around $10, but they are so far up in the nosebleeds that you might as well watch it on TV. There are only a few seats at that price too. They then jump to $28.

If you want to be anywhere CLOSE to the glass they are a minimum of $75. Fuck that.

Have to disagree with you here, Derris. I've done the $10 ticket thing at Phillips several times and it is not bad at all, and much better than watching on TV. Plus, if the game isnt sold out, you can scout out some season ticket holder who didnt show up's seats during the 1st period and then move down to them for the 2nd and 3rd.

Yeah, guess I'm spoiled with KK's work hook up.

Sad Thrasher fact from 3 years ago:

I was at a Thrasher game at club level when Mike Vick ran for the touchdown for the OT win against Minnesota. I walked up to the club area to watch the game and there were more people watching the end of that game on a big screen than actually watching the Thrashers.

In their defense, they were already out of the playoffs and the season only had about 3-4 games left.

Elvis Fu · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:29 am

PS: I haven't paid for an Orioles game in years. I get free tickets from vendors or the paper.

The paper seats are the best seats on the fucking planet. First row right beside the first base coach's box.

Hegel · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:14 am

Elvis Fu Wrote:

Hegel Wrote:

Not 100% sure, but the cost of Caps tickets could have a lot to do with the area. It's not like Redskins tickets are reasonably priced either.

You can get seats for a caps game for 10 bucks where you are right up by the rafters. Tickets for the "VIP" section, or the first couple rows, tickets are 225 bucks. However, sitting in any seats in the 100 level section on either side of the ice it is only 90 bucks. You would probably be sitting at the top of RFK for 225. Not to argue, but the tickets are much much cheaper than a lot of other sports. Don't get me wrong, I think most sports tickets are severely overpriced and if you aren't all that interested in hockey then you wouldn't even consider paying 90 bucks for a decent seat at a game. It would just be unreasonable.

Redskins & Caps aren't comparable. Not only because the Caps play 40 games at home, Redskins play 8, but the NFL has considerably higher demand than the NHL. Especially the Redskins, who have that ridiculous wait for season tickets.

Granted, I last went to a game before the strike, so prices may have come down to get people back in. But even so, we sat somewhere around Section 433 which is still $50. (The photo showing the view is not even close to accurate). Take a family of four, and that's $200 before you have to pay for parking (or Metro, which is actually cheap), $6 sodas, etc.

You can buy upper deck Orioles tickets for less than $20 each. As Z pointed out, NBA tickets are comparable: $48. But again, the popularity plays into that, because it's easier to drop $200 on kids who enjoy watching or playing basketball or have LeBron jerseys than dropping $200 on taking a chance that they might become hockey fans.

In that same way, the Orioles play twice as many games as the Caps which may be part of the reason for cheaper tickets. I was in DC not too long ago and we almost went to the Islanders v Caps game but we couldnt bring ourselves to pay 75 bucks for the tickets, and I am a hockey fan. ALthough, I am not a Caps fan and they win almost as much as the Blackhawks, so it made not going a bit of an easier decision.

Damen · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:58 pm

Hockey is an easy sport to get cheap & good seats for. First of all you never sit in the end your team only scores once. Unless you've got a great goaltender & that's what you want to see. Of course in LA I've never had to face that issue :lol:

And you never sit low unless you're at center ice or relatively close. The corners down low are traps. For me I'd rather be high & see everything than be close to half the action & not see the other 50% of the game. And I've gone both ways. I go to 15 Kings games a year & pay between $26.50 & $31.50 sitting in a corner up top. Every so often I get a $70-$100 seats for free or cheap & rarely do the expensive seats wow me. I've also sat behind the nets & hate it. Up top, center ice to a corner, at the end your team scores twice. For the money it's the best seats.

Yail Bloor · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:26 pm

Elvis Fu Wrote:

PS: I haven't paid for an Orioles game in years. I get free tickets from vendors or the paper.

The paper seats are the best seats on the fucking planet. First row right beside the first base coach's box.

I've paid my own money for exactly ONE Braves game in the ten years they've been at Turner Field and been to many many more.

Bell South's Yellow Pages division used to get my favorites, field level, right behind third base.

Hegel · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:49 pm

Thought some of you may want to read about the poor poor status of one of the original six

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=29 ... rvice=page

Hockey

Who is online