Topic: The Sports Thread

[orthonorm]

Sorta regretting not putting a grand on UK as 2 1/2 pt. dogs at work on Friday. Probably cudda got the spread up to 3 1/2.

The UK hate in my area artificially pushes the line.

[orthonorm]

Sorta regretting not putting a grand on UK as 2 1/2 pt. dogs at work on Friday. Probably cudda got the spread up to 3 1/2.

The UK hate in my area artificially pushes the line.

Nail biter. I wudda had an extra grand Monday. With two seconds and down by 4 KY came back to lose but beat the spread.

[PeterTheAleut]

Does anybody for either UConn or Butler even know how to put a round ball through a round basket anymore? When the winning team shoots worse than 35% from the field and still wins by 12, you know it's a bad night.

[IsmiLiora]

Does anybody for either UConn or Butler even know how to put a round ball through a round basket anymore? When the winning team shoots worse than 35% from the field and still wins by 12, you know it's a bad night.

The whole Final Four was very anti-climactic, IMO.

I looked at my friend and said, "That's why I don't watch college ball." Sloppy, sloppy playing.

[JimCBrooklyn]

Thank goodness College Basketball is over, baseball is upon us, and the NHL/NBA playoffs are almost as well!

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I thoroughly enjoyed the NCAA tournament. I like watching sports where people actually play as a team, exert 100% effort, and play defense. But now I'll have to wait until Fall to see such things again. Enjoy your NBA and MLB.


Selam

[Asteriktos]

I was going to make a sarcastic joke about MLB players not playing defense... then I remembered that my Pirates were last in the entire league last year in defense... so nevermind 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

I was going to make a sarcastic joke about MLB players not playing defense... then I remembered that my Pirates were last in the entire league last year in defense... so nevermind 

Well, in baseball, pitching is defense; so I admit that pro baseball players take defense seriously. And baseball does provide some nice diving catches. But defense in the NBA? Only when "it counts."


Selam

[orthonorm]

I thoroughly enjoyed the NCAA tournament. I like watching sports where people actually play as a team, exert 100% effort, and play defense. But now I'll have to wait until Fall to see such things again. Enjoy your NBA and MLB.


Selam

Exactly. Women's basketball ain't bad either.

[IsmiLiora]

I thoroughly enjoyed the NCAA tournament. I like watching sports where people actually play as a team, exert 100% effort, and play defense. But now I'll have to wait until Fall to see such things again. Enjoy your NBA and MLB.


Selam

Ahem, I would like to argue that there was a lot of sloppy ball handling and a lot of ridiculous shots taken during the NCAA finals. It's not just a pro/college thing. That set of games was just overall disappointing.

And I DO like the WNBA too!  And MLB: Let's go METS!

[Asteriktos]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

[Gkterra]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

[Cymbyz]

Well, the Aggie gals gigged the Irish gals, and now, March Madness is officially over.

[JimCBrooklyn]

I thoroughly enjoyed the NCAA tournament. I like watching sports where people actually play as a team, exert 100% effort, and play defense. But now I'll have to wait until Fall to see such things again. Enjoy your NBA and MLB.


Selam

Ahem, I would like to argue that there was a lot of sloppy ball handling and a lot of ridiculous shots taken during the NCAA finals. It's not just a pro/college thing. That set of games was just overall disappointing.

And I DO like the WNBA too!   And MLB: Let's go METS!

What a Met game last night. So glad I woke myself up at 4am to watch most of it.
LGM

As for basketball, I like the NBA just fine, it's not my favorite; I revolve around baseball and hockey, the sports I played from childhood through college, but I find the assertion that there is better D played in college ball to be really fishy. One of my issues with college ball (among MANY others, about which I wrote an article last year)  is the lack of D in the game...

[chrevbel]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

Yes.  Or you attempt to watch both, which is how they end up looking like Asteriktos' description.  For some reason, I guess the brain reaches its limits in simultaneously keeping track of one moving object (the ball) and one stationary (the wall).

[JimCBrooklyn]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

Yes.  Or you attempt to watch both, which is how they end up looking like Asteriktos' description.  For some reason, I guess the brain reaches its limits in simultaneously keeping track of one moving object (the ball) and one stationary (the wall).

In my experience as a lifelong 2B, it ain't that complex. You go after the ball until it drops, no matter what you think.

[Gkterra]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

Yes.  Or you attempt to watch both, which is how they end up looking like Asteriktos' description.  For some reason, I guess the brain reaches its limits in simultaneously keeping track of one moving object (the ball) and one stationary (the wall).

In my experience as a lifelong 2B, it ain't that complex. You go after the ball until it drops, no matter what you think.

Almost any learned activity repeated over time can become a learned instinct, like riding a bike. you rarely think about it, you just do it, it's not complex at all.
judging where the ball is going based on speed angle and trajectory are all visual cues, this is what (I) use (i play outfield and shortstop)
same for judging when i'm approaching the wall, i use awareness of my surroundings, which is just prior visual reference,(hitting the wall is less important than catching the ball) all played out together instinctively.
i was taught to keep my eyes on the ball, not where i'm going, it's to easy to lose that little ball, which could be why thats the way (I) do it.
but as my Grandfather used to tell me, "Just because i taught you to do it this way, doesn't mean it's the only right way to do it"

BTW your description, is my description, way more simplified, as far as i can see. My description is just  my own personal experience and YMMV

[JimCBrooklyn]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

Yes.  Or you attempt to watch both, which is how they end up looking like Asteriktos' description.  For some reason, I guess the brain reaches its limits in simultaneously keeping track of one moving object (the ball) and one stationary (the wall).

In my experience as a lifelong 2B, it ain't that complex. You go after the ball until it drops, no matter what you think.

Almost any learned activity repeated over time can become a learned instinct, like riding a bike. you rarely think about it, you just do it, it's not complex at all.
judging where the ball is going based on speed angle and trajectory are all visual cues, this is what (I) use (i play outfield and shortstop)
same for judging when i'm approaching the wall, i use awareness of my surroundings, which is just prior visual reference,(hitting the wall is less important than catching the ball) all played out together instinctively.
i was taught to keep my eyes on the ball, not where i'm going, it's to easy to lose that little ball, which could be why thats the way (I) do it.
but as my Grandfather used to tell me, "Just because i taught you to do it this way, doesn't mean it's the only right way to do it"

BTW your description, is my description, way more simplified, as far as i can see. My description is just  my own personal experience and YMMV

Quite.
And here's to Mets-Phils being a US time day game today, so that I don't have to get up at 4am to watch it like the last 2 nights. Let's Go Mets! В Перед Метс!

[PeterTheAleut]

A question from someone that was never particularly good at baseball... when a pop up is in the field of play, players can usually pinpoint exactly where they need to be to catch the ball. Yet when there is a pop up that ends up 20 feet up into the seats, players run through foul territory like they have no clue where the ball is going to come down. Why is it that at times a player can judge the trajectory and speed that he needs to run to catch a ball, yet at other times they are completely clueless about where the ball will come down?

when the ball is popped up you instinctively run to where the ball is heading.
you don't look where your heading, you keep your eye on the ball, which is why you see some of them run right into the wall.

Yes.  Or you attempt to watch both, which is how they end up looking like Asteriktos' description.  For some reason, I guess the brain reaches its limits in simultaneously keeping track of one moving object (the ball) and one stationary (the wall).

In my experience as a lifelong 2B, it ain't that complex. You go after the ball until it drops, no matter what you think.

Then there's Bob Uecker and his advice on how to catch a knuckleball. "Wait until it stops rolling, then pick it up."

[Asteriktos]

Thanks for the explanation

Btw, in other baseball news, God knows what's best for Manny 

[CBGardner]

I can't believe my Rockies lost to the Pirates last night. Was a great game but we just couldn't hold on. Plus the ball travles weird in all these low altitude parks.

[Asteriktos]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

[Fr. George]

Weird happinings in Baseball: one week in, and the Orioles and Indians are in 1st in their respective divisions, and the Pirates are second.

Last night's Tribe game was phenomenal - a 10-run 4th to remember for awhile.

[JimCBrooklyn]

Carlos Beltran.

[Fr. George]

I'm going to bask in the glory of my Indians, who are playing more like the club that electrified the 90's than the one which stunk up the aughts.  Yes, it's only 9 games of 162, but it's good enough for now.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I could count the amount of hockey games I watched this season on one hand, but the Habs are in the playoffs, so my interest is peaked.

[Asteriktos]

You sir, have forfeited your rights to call yourself a Canadian. For shame!

[Entscheidungsproblem]

You sir, have forfeited your rights to call yourself a Canadian. For shame!

  That is no completely true.  I take great pleasure in the Maple Leafs losing, which is used by some to measure how Canadian you truly are.

[CBGardner]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

Baseball is often better on the radio than on tv imo though. It feels like childhood. Not because I had no tv but long car trips in the summer always had baseball on the waves!

[Asteriktos]

^ The main issue with the radio for me, I think, is that I tend to miss a lot because I get into other things. An inning ends and I go to do some dishes, and end up missing an inning or two. Or I check my email, or OC.net, and am so focused on that that I tune out what's happening in the game (unless the announces are getting really excited). I guess I'm just better when I have visual cues to remind me when the game is back on.

[Asteriktos]

You sir, have forfeited your rights to call yourself a Canadian. For shame!

  That is no completely true.  I take great pleasure in the Maple Leafs losing, which is used by some to measure how Canadian you truly are.

Oh, well I stand corrected 

[CBGardner]

^ The main issue with the radio for me, I think, is that I tend to miss a lot because I get into other things. An inning ends and I go to do some dishes, and end up missing an inning or two. Or I check my email, or OC.net, and am so focused on that that I tune out what's happening in the game (unless the announces are getting really excited). I guess I'm just better when I have visual cues to remind me when the game is back on.

Ah this is very true. I've missed too many homers doing dishes or laundry 
It's better when you can sit on the porch with a cold brew and listen free of distraction.

[JimCBrooklyn]

I could count the amount of hockey games I watched this season on one hand, but the Habs are in the playoffs, so my interest is peaked.

BRUINS.
Should be a quick and easy series. From someone who couldn't count how many hockey games I've watched or played this year.
Go get em B's. I'll be up from 3-6am for every game.

That said, aside from being a Bruins fan, most compelling, in terms of pure hockey, series of the first round have to be Kings-Sharks, Canucks-Hawks, or TB-Pitt. If Sid could fix his bruised brains, it would be a wild one, Sid vs. stamkos, but even so, it'll be good.

[John of the North]

Hockey needs to return to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swWwkG7JRDk

No more dump and chase, chippy stuff...just pure skill.

Also, I have a theory that increased head shots and injuries are due to the improved safety quality of equipment and the increased amount of said equipment. On the other hand, they probably didn't track head injuries back then due to lack of knowledge, so my theory remains unproven.

[JimCBrooklyn]

Hockey needs to return to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swWwkG7JRDk

No more dump and chase, chippy stuff...just pure skill.

Also, I have a theory that increased head shots and injuries are due to the improved safety quality of equipment and the increased amount of said equipment. On the other hand, they probably didn't track head injuries back then due to lack of knowledge, so my theory remains unproven.

The game that was played from about 1995-2004, i.e., the Marty Brodeur and the trap era, was chippy and dump and chasey. The post lockout game, in large part thanks to Brendan Shanahan, is probably the most skill-based form of the game we've ever seen. Ovy, Sid, Stamkos, Malkin, Heatley, the Sedins, Kopitar, Kovalchuk, Patty Kane, Toews, Iggy, Staal, yadayadayada? Trouble is, the game alienated a lot of folks by not addressing the lack of skill earlier, and then compounded it with the lockout, so there are tons of people left who don't recognize the quality of hockey being played right now. If you're in Edmonton, I think Mr.'s Eberle and Hall could speak to this, and I believe your arch-rival Jarome Iginla to be one of the most exciting players ever.

It's a fairly common theory that the new equipment has contributed to injuries/headshots, that I definitely agree with. The armor is so thick, yet so permitting in terms of movement and speed, that players feel invincible, and go all out in their hits. I'm a goalie, bit I've skated out here and there, and you definitely put a lot more into your hit when you're heavily armored. This is why Football will always be more violent than Rugby, despite the fact that it would seem to be the opposite.

[Fr. George]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

Baseball is often better on the radio than on tv imo though.

I have found very few exceptions to this.  In Cleveland, we've been blessed with a few top-quality radio play-by-play callers (especially Tom Hamilton for baseball and Joe Tait for basketball); listening to the TV guys is usually a bit worse than walking into a room of infants who all have bleeding diaper rash.

[CBGardner]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

Baseball is often better on the radio than on tv imo though.

I have found very few exceptions to this.  In Cleveland, we've been blessed with a few top-quality radio play-by-play callers (especially Tom Hamilton for baseball and Joe Tait for basketball); listening to the TV guys is usually a bit worse than walking into a room of infants who all have bleeding diaper rash.

What a horrid image 

[JimCBrooklyn]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

Baseball is often better on the radio than on tv imo though.

I have found very few exceptions to this.  In Cleveland, we've been blessed with a few top-quality radio play-by-play callers (especially Tom Hamilton for baseball and Joe Tait for basketball); listening to the TV guys is usually a bit worse than walking into a room of infants who all have bleeding diaper rash.

They are excellent! Whenever I've been in range of them, I've given them a listen. I think TV just depends. To me the best 5 TV crews are:
1. Dodgers. Vin. One-man show of perfection.
2. Mets. Gary Cohen is a great, level-headed play-by-play man (with a good HR call), Keith has a tendency to be wild, but also knows an awful lot about the game, and Ronnie was a great pitcher and an ivy-leaguer to boot, not to mention that they played together. It's a privilege to watch them.
3. Orioles. Outside of Scully, nobody's got a better voice for the job than Gary Thorne.
4. Red Sox. They can be lightning rods, but Remy and Orsillo do a fine job, and I think it is reflected when Red Sox fans elect Remy as the "honorary President" of Red Sox Nation, which is dumb, but it is what it is, and Orsillo gets the big MLB Network playoff games. Orsillo, to me, is very good at impartiality.
5. Angels. I don't know very much about Rojas and Gubizca, other than that when I've watched Angel games on their broadcast (I always get the MLB cable package and MLB.TV on the computer, which is why I watch so many bcasts...), I've been soundly impressed.
Honorary 6th, would have been much higher, Harry Kalas. I hate the Phillies, but he was awesome, plus I do a great impression of him. Memory Eternal.

The worst? Not too tough:
1. Yankees. (And I'm not just being a hater. I actually like the radio team, as goofy and off-the-wall as John Sterling is, he's a fine showman) Michael Kay comes off as incredibly pompous, and wildly biased. I don't know a broadcaster that will call a routine defensive play like it's a web gem more than him. To boot, they surround him with a rotating crew of washed-up Yankee has beens looking for work. It surprises me that they can't do better.
2. Detroit. Always sounds very unprofessional, not even in a biased sort of way, just disorganized. This is what happens when someone like Ernie Harwell leaves, I guess.
3. Chip Caray(TBS/MLB/Floating...). I don't think I need to elaborate on that point.
4. Jon Miller (SF/ESPN). Talks down to the audience, without ever adding all that much. I don't get the hype. He actually bothers me more than Morgan.
5. Toronto. Buck Martinez is simply grating. I had to stop listening to the MLB Home Plate morning show on account of him.

[TheMathematician]

ah, the time has come for playoffs


LETS GO BUFFALO

[orthonorm]

I wish I could have actually watched it. They had a Penguins game on the channel that normally carries the Pirates here, so I watched the Pens first. Then I found out that the Pirates were still playing, so I had to settle for listening to the game on a radio station website. That was one long game!

Baseball is often better on the radio than on tv imo though. It feels like childhood. Not because I had no tv but long car trips in the summer always had baseball on the waves!

Absolute truth. Watching baseball on TV is like watching paint dry with horrible commercials interspersed. Quietly on the radio, it is like . . . something paints does that is not terribly boring with commercials you can tune out.

[John of the North]

BRUINS.
Should be a quick and easy series. From someone who couldn't count how many hockey games I've watched or played this year.
Go get em B's. I'll be up from 3-6am for every game.

That said, aside from being a Bruins fan, most compelling, in terms of pure hockey, series of the first round have to be Kings-Sharks, Canucks-Hawks, or TB-Pitt. If Sid could fix his bruised brains, it would be a wild one, Sid vs. stamkos, but even so, it'll be good.

How 'bout dem Bruins...

The game that was played from about 1995-2004, i.e., the Marty Brodeur and the trap era, was chippy and dump and chasey. The post lockout game, in large part thanks to Brendan Shanahan, is probably the most skill-based form of the game we've ever seen. Ovy, Sid, Stamkos, Malkin, Heatley, the Sedins, Kopitar, Kovalchuk, Patty Kane, Toews, Iggy, Staal, yadayadayada? Trouble is, the game alienated a lot of folks by not addressing the lack of skill earlier, and then compounded it with the lockout, so there are tons of people left who don't recognize the quality of hockey being played right now. If you're in Edmonton, I think Mr.'s Eberle and Hall could speak to this, and I believe your arch-rival Jarome Iginla to be one of the most exciting players ever.

I think if we judge by recent standards...things are certainly more exciting than they have been. At the same time, it's a pity they haven't always kept the statistics they do now...a comparison would help. How do the number of faceoffs compare, shots etc. (Comparing to the early days...pre-1942 and pre-1917)

I think it is impossible to say for certain how the game would feel played by pre-NHL rules. Add a sweeper (7th player), remove the blue lines, no forward pass, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to adopting a bigger ice surface either.

As you can tell, I am a bit old school. As far as I am concerned, worldly matters have suffered greatly since 1910.

[JimCBrooklyn]

BRUINS.
Should be a quick and easy series. From someone who couldn't count how many hockey games I've watched or played this year.
Go get em B's. I'll be up from 3-6am for every game.

That said, aside from being a Bruins fan, most compelling, in terms of pure hockey, series of the first round have to be Kings-Sharks, Canucks-Hawks, or TB-Pitt. If Sid could fix his bruised brains, it would be a wild one, Sid vs. stamkos, but even so, it'll be good.

How 'bout dem Bruins...

The game that was played from about 1995-2004, i.e., the Marty Brodeur and the trap era, was chippy and dump and chasey. The post lockout game, in large part thanks to Brendan Shanahan, is probably the most skill-based form of the game we've ever seen. Ovy, Sid, Stamkos, Malkin, Heatley, the Sedins, Kopitar, Kovalchuk, Patty Kane, Toews, Iggy, Staal, yadayadayada? Trouble is, the game alienated a lot of folks by not addressing the lack of skill earlier, and then compounded it with the lockout, so there are tons of people left who don't recognize the quality of hockey being played right now. If you're in Edmonton, I think Mr.'s Eberle and Hall could speak to this, and I believe your arch-rival Jarome Iginla to be one of the most exciting players ever.

I think if we judge by recent standards...things are certainly more exciting than they have been. At the same time, it's a pity they haven't always kept the statistics they do now...a comparison would help. How do the number of faceoffs compare, shots etc.

I think it is impossible to say for certain how the game would feel played by pre-NHL rules. Add a sweeper (7th player), remove the blue lines, no forward pass, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to adopting a bigger ice surface either.

As you can tell, I am a bit old school. As far as I am concerned, worldly matters have suffered greatly since 1910.

I don't want to seem anti-old school, either; I have as much respect for the historical game, and interest in it, as anyone; I just think that the reality is that the one ice product is probably of a higher quality than it ever has been. Does this make it more intriguing than watching Howe v. Richard? No. I watch about 6-7 sports in all: Baseball, Hockey, Football, Basketball, Soccer (Intl, French, Russian, some EPL, the occasional MLS), Racing, some golf, but Baseball and Hockey are my two beloved sports, and I feel the same way about Baseball. We have enough documentation of the game of the past to make it fairly clear that the crop of modern players have more refined talent (and this is notwithstanding 'roids, as that turns into a whole other thing) than any prior generation, but let me watch baseball from 1940-1969 any day!

[John of the North]

I don't want to seem anti-old school, either; I have as much respect for the historical game, and interest in it, as anyone; I just think that the reality is that the one ice product is probably of a higher quality than it ever has been. Does this make it more intriguing than watching Howe v. Richard? No. I watch about 6-7 sports in all: Baseball, Hockey, Football, Basketball, Soccer (Intl, French, Russian, some EPL, the occasional MLS), Racing, some golf, but Baseball and Hockey are my two beloved sports, and I feel the same way about Baseball. We have enough documentation of the game of the past to make it fairly clear that the crop of modern players have more refined talent (and this is notwithstanding 'roids, as that turns into a whole other thing) than any prior generation, but let me watch baseball from 1940-1969 any day!

But "higher quality" is rather subjective. Is what we have higher quality, or do we only think it is because we never got to see what the game was like before 1917??

I certainly will admit that players today are prepared from a younger age, practice harder, have better on ice training etc. And that certain skilled moves are happening now that would never have made it into the game otherwise. I.e.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlsAIQfhfPU

It comes back to how quality is defined.

"Cooper Smeaton, a referee of the day, regarded Stewart as one of the all time greats.

"In today's game," said Smeaton back in the 1980s, "Nels would have scored 100 goals. He was terrific in front of the net, a big strong fellow who had moves like a cat. Stewart never seemed to be paying any attention to where the puck was and, if you were checking him, he'd even hold little conversation with you; but the minute he'd see the puck coming his way he'd bump you, take the puck and go off and score.""

http://montrealmaroons.blogspot.com/2008/03/nels-stewart.html

If true, Stewart would have smashed the record for goals in a season. But he didn't play in the 1980s or now, that's the problem. Also, his style of play doesn't sound too pretty. But if quality is defined by goals scored...looks like Stewart would have been quality.

Of course, the record for goals scored in one season post-lockout by one player is Ovechkin with 75 in 07-08, tied for 23rd on the list.

Don't get me wrong. I think watching a team ice the puck 80 times a game to protect a one goal lead would have been pretty boring, before they instituted the icing rule. But I'm not sure it would be fair to the game to say one era has higher quality than the other. Who knows, if it was possible to combine modern-day off-ice conditioning with old-school rules...our players may be even better than they are now.

[Asteriktos]

Remaking Fox Sports channels into "Root Sports" is, was, and ever will be a supremely dumb idea. And that's all I've got to say about that.

[JimCBrooklyn]

BRUUUUUIIIIIINS!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow.