THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

People seem annoyed at TB for doing the 1-3-1, but there’s no rule you have to send guys over on the forecheck. Philly seemed unwilling to try and advance the puck given the situation, and that seems the larger issue to me.

And of course the best thing was it forced Mike Milbury to leave the game and skip the post-game. Big win for the 1-3-1 there.

Obviously, a basketball rule that forces the puck over the blue line (if there’s no defenders in the defensive zone) might be good.

As a non-hockey fan it sounds pretty fascinating. Sounds identical to old basketball tactics, doesn’t it? Which is why they instituted the 10-second rule for crossing half court?

I don’t know how a rule like that that would work out with hockey since you have that between-blue-lines center zone.

I’m sure the NHL would love to have the equivalent of an NBA “illegal defense” call to enforce. There is no compelling reason why a team with the puck would want to go into the teeth of that defense. I’d guess counter-attacks/turnovers lead to a lot more goals that the rushes do in that situation. The team with possession may actually be at a disadvantage, and it’s not clear, given the natural limitations to passing in hockey, whether this is something that can be overcome. Without major, game altering rule changes, like no offsides, no icing, I’m not sure what one would do here (no offsides, no icing negates the sytem entirely, since you can just skate behind it and dump over the top. But it also basically creates a new sport only somewhat related to current ice hockey).

What I’ve never figured out is what an illegal defense in the NHL looks like in reality. Soccer deals with this too, but I don’t think they ever really solved it. 10 second count equivalents might be the only way to fix it, even though it punishes the offense rather than the defense.

I still don’t see how the onus is placed on Tampa for not forechecking. In every similar sport, the offense controls the ball/puck, and it’s their responsibility to move it.  Why should there be a rule that the defense needs to be aggressive?

Seems to me that the delay of game penalty should be amended to include keeping the puck in your defensive zone for too long (much like the 10 second rule in basketball).

Hockey already has a rule that the puck must be in motion.  If the puck is not moving, the ref should blow the play dead.  Of course, he’s going to give a bit of allowance, especially if he believes that the team is intending to move the puck.  For example, behind the net, you can have the offense regroup, and the puck not move for a second or two.

And in penalty shots, the puck has to be in motion, and in a forward motion.  If the puck stops, or goes backwards, then the play is dead.

Now, clearly, they’ve never anticipated this situation.  If you are down 0-1, you WILL move the puck forward, because you need to score.  If you are up 1-0, the defense WILL pressure you.  So, the situation can only exist in a tie scenario.  There’s really no incentive built-in place for the offense to attack or the defense to pressue, other than not hearing the fans boo.

I mean, fans boo during a powerplay if there’s no shot on net for 20 seconds. But at least there’s an incentive to shoot the puck: you score a goal.

But here?  Man, that’s tough.

I’m a Penguins fan, so hatred of the Flyers is in my blood. But man, I was in love with Philly for about a minute of that game.

I’m hoping that game ends up being a good force, making teams/the league address the trap.

I’m not as versed in baseball history, so I don’t know exactly what was done to address the “dead ball era” or whether this is at all comparable (in degree, I’m sure it’s not). But if we care about the health of the sport, the trap should trouble us.

Make everything 4-on-4, but, since I love the playoffs (as 5-on-5), I’m not crazy about this rule.

Buuuuuut.... you can have fun with it and make it 4-on-4 in the regular season in TIE games only.  If one team has a lead, go back to 5-on-5.  In the playoffs, keep it 5-on-5 the whole way through.

Think about the implication here: NO ENFORCERS will ever play 4-on-4 hockey.  And, if you are down, NO ENFORCERS will ever play 5-on-5 hockey.  They can’t afford to be down two goals.

And if you are up, well, they may show up.

What do you think?