Friday, November 13, 2009

One Thing I Don't Get

One thing I don't understand is how people can slam Pascal Leclaire while at the same time admitting that our defense corps is not up to scratch? Take this missive about last night's game:
You can point the finger at Pascal Leclaire and Alex Kovalev for having another bad game but to me, the Senators are carrying an inept set of defenseman who have zero defensive acumen and zero character on the ice.
...ok, that's a bit more even-handed than I first read it. Here's a better one:
Holy crap Pascal Leclaire. I thought I kind of put you on notice about those soft goals. I get that they’re going to happen, but they shouldn’t be happening to us first! That’s Martin Gerber Bush League Goaltending. You’ve got to step it up a bit here buddy. I understand there’s a lot of pressure to playing in a Canadian market, and I get that you had the flu, but there was a reason we were so excited only 15 short games ago. You seemed to deflect everything; point shots, criticism, redirections, invitations to the orthodontist. You name it, and you just weren’t having it. Find your mojo Pascal, and do it quick. Brian Elliott is chomping at the bit.
Really, how can you blame Leclaire for failing to back-stop the team when he is being put in situations that he shouldn't be in?

This has long been a pet peeve of mine. I never thought Gerber was the incompetent clown that many made him out to be. I have long thought that Gerber was a solid, if unspectacular goalie who didn't get the necessary support from the guys in front of him.

There are many nights when Martin Brodeur couldn't win with these guys on the ice in front of him. Blaming Leclaire for everyone else's failings is just short-sighted.

Conspiracy Theory

Sensay examines the suspicious penalty record of this year's Ottawa Senators.

This all feeds into the "fighting" debate because the single best argument in favor of fighting is that it is required so the players can regulate the rules-breaking that the officials don't call penalties on.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Ottawa as a Sports Town

Ugh, maybe I didn't need to see the Philly game tonight. Perhaps the less said about that the better -- I'm sure the usual suspects will trot out the usual saws. Instead, lets poke some bears.

So Out Of Left Field is muttering that the attendance drop at Scotiabank Place is the end of Ottawa's romance with the Senators.

The thing of it is: Ottawa isn't a Sports town. Never has been. What Ottawa is, is a government town. And as such, the residents treat their recreational pursuits as entertainment. As in, the pursuit of fun.

And losing, as we all remember from those gym classes in primary school, isn't fun.

Now there are some people in this town who are truly passionate about their sports. The thing of it is that there are not enough of them to maintain a sporting enterprise through the inevitable rough spots.

Anyone doubting this can only look to the parade of people who stepped up for their opportunity to own the Ottawa Rough Riders or Renegades or whatever. And then lost their shirt, and stepped aside for the next group in the parade. Heck, some owners even came around twice (hello Gleibermans!) When the team was winning -- at least, according to the history books, there is some suggestion that it was winning -- the fan base was there. Once the wins started to dry up, so did the fan base. The end result was the CFL left Ottawa not once, but twice.

Similarly, the triple-A baseball team. When the Lynx were winning, people flocked to the stadium. Once that ended, so did the fans. And now we have a fine baseball stadium that stands empty with insufficient parking and isn't on any major transit service.

The hype surrounding attempts to bring back the CFL or baseball to Ottawa is always interesting, because after the prospective ownership group, the most "support" seems to come from the municipal politicians and the media. What makes this interesting is that both of these groups end up being the loudest supporters, but probably expect to go to the games for free -- or even, as is the case of some sports reporters, get paid to go. If you ask the average fan in the city (forget the average citizen) you get indifference, at best.

Now in some respects hockey is an exception to this rule. The 67's have a built-in fan base of hockey parents plus kids who are hoping to be the next generation. They also have very modest costs, which means they can live within their gate receipts. And the Senators will always have a value intrinsic to the NHL franchise that they represent.

However, as far as the fans go, there is a real possibility that a lack of production on the ice will be reflected in a lack of fans in the arena.

The more we look at this season unfold, the more the Senators start to look like a mid-field team, one which at best can be described as hoping to sneak into the 7th or 8th place for the playoffs. Management isn't giving me the feeling that they know they should be rebuilding the team for a run a few years down the road -- Murray's actions seem to indicate he thinks that he can still "tweak" this team back into a contender. And I really think that ship has sailed.

The problem is that the average fan has to be asking himself: will I be entertained if I go to this game? And if his definition of "entertainment" is "winning", then he is less likely to get the money together and go. I mean, if I'm dropping $200+ on a seat and parking (or the required hour on a bus) and "food", I damn well better get a win out of it, right?

Ottawa has neither the deep tradition of hockey that provides a large number of people who love the game such as Toronto. They also don't have a fan base used to supporting their team through long, painful droughts such as... well, Toronto. And they don't have the sheer numbers of population within travel distance of the arena to ensure that even if the percentage of people who fall into the above two categories starts to dip, they will still be likely to sell enough tickets to make money on the whole exercise no matter what the product on the ice is like. Such as... ok, I'm going to say Toronto again.

In the short term, Ottawa fans will return when the results on the ice return.

If the team lasts into the long term, eventually there will be a tradition of following the team. The kids today will turn into the fans of tomorrow, and as long as the team can hold their attention they have a really good chance of building a more robust (and failure-tolerant) fan base.

As a business, the Senators' ace is the value of the NHL franchise. And since that franchise can be moved (it is possible), there will always be a lineup of people willing to put money down to own it. They may prefer to move the franchise to another market, one where they think the team might be more viable... but they won't just blow away in the wind like so many CFL teams have.

Now personally I think this is overblown hype at this point, yes, even after I've written all the above. Looking at the state of the economy, with people worried about their jobs and all is not conducive to $200 trips to the hockey arena. I think any attendance dip both here in Ottawa as well as Toronto can be traced more to people (and businesses) worrying that they can't afford to spend the money than to a drop in interest in the team. At this point, it's a warning, not a disaster in the making.

Make no mistake about it, a prolonged drop in gate receipts will be a stern test of the current team ownership. But really, to succeed in this town you have to be a winner.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Sensay on hitting in hockey

SenSay talks about hitting in hockey.
I love this GAME. I don’t love the idea of a person suffering a life long injury for no good reason, and least of all for my entertainment.
I'm still grinding through the backlog in my RSS reader, so there are likely to be a few more quick-shots like this in the near future.

The "Hot Goalie" Excuse

So yeah, I went away for a week. Sun, sand, private pool, and the single biggest cockroach I've ever seen (who cooperatively went away for the rest of the week after he'd been tipped).

But before I went away, there was this game against the Atlanta Thrashers. Maybe you remember? If not, let me refresh your memory:

October 31 2009, Atlanta at Ottawa: 3-1 (Final). Shots on goal: 21-51 -- not including those blocked or redirected enroute to the net. In other words, Atlanta goalie Ondrej Pavelec made 50 saves, permitting only a single Mike Fisher offering into the net.

And lo, did the commentators say: The Senators were stymied by a hot goalie.

This is what, the third time that this particular excuse has been trotted out? I remember the first game of the year in New York, when Henrick Lundqvist was granted the dubious honor of being dubbed the first "hot goalie" that the Senators ran into this year.

The thing is, it is just an excuse. It only works if the lack of scoring is unusual. If the Senators of early 2007 (who could seemingly put the puck in the net at will) had been stymied by a goalie, then yes, THAT would be a hot goalie.

But if you just can't score, and that state of being is a regular situation, then you can't just hand wave the whole thing off as running into a "hot goalie". The whole point of the game is to put the puck in the net. If you can't do it, then you have a problem.

And the Senators can't do it regularly, which means they have a problem.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

NHL Suspension Flowcharts

Down Goes Brown reveals the NHL's secret flow chart for handing out suspensions.

...I need a "Hilariously Bad Officiating" tag.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Time Out