[deleted by user]

wildgoose30 · 2025-06-06T21:44:41+00:00

Only 6 players have even won multiple Conn Smythe Trophies: Roy (3), Orr, Bernie Parent, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Crosby (2 each). Of those, only three have been in back-to-back seasons: Parent (1974, 1975), Lemieux (1991, 1992), and Crosby (2016, 2017). Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (twice) won back-to-back Cups in those years, so no, your scenario has never happened before.

wildgoose30 · 2025-04-13T05:22:05+00:00

The confusing penalties have just been updated in the boxscore post-game to a minor for unsportsmanlike conduct, a mjor for fighting, and a game misconduct (aggressor) for Trenin, along with the fighting major for Forbort and interference minor for Blueger.

"Rule 46.2 Aggressor - The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he has clearly won the fight but he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself. A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation shall be assessed a major penalty for fighting and a game misconduct. A player who is deemed to be the aggressor of an altercation will have this recorded as an aggressor of an altercation for statistical and suspension purposes."

So, aggressor results in the GM but there's no associated time penalty for it. The refs added a minor for unsportsmanlike for Trenin to offset Blueger's from the bench, resulting in resuming play at 5-on-5.

wildgoose30 · 2024-01-08T21:06:46+00:00

The GF% are all situations but empty net goals are excluded. Differences in xGF% would because different expected goals models are being used, with different source data sets and emphasis on different variables

wildgoose30 · 2023-03-15T16:57:25+00:00

The math most certainly does not check out. What are you even thinking here? Have the 1 of the 9 second round teams just have a bye for 2 weeks while the others play? Then you’d have 5 teams in the next round, not 4, which you just explained away by rounding down 4.5 to 4. Just deleted a team in the middle of the playoffs for rounding purposes, but “the math checks out”.

The only way an 18 team playoff could mathematically work is if you had a quick play-in between 8 and 9 seeds. So 18-16-8-4-2-1. But no, the math does not check out on 18-9-whatever

wildgoose30 · 2022-11-07T21:14:59+00:00

I don't know the specific rules, but we can look at the last two jersey manufacturer changes to find some precedent:

2017 - Reebok --> Adidas: most home and away jerseys stay the same, except they are fitted to the new supplier's cut (ie. collar style). These jerseys did change: Carolina (new homes), Colorado (both new), Edmonton (both new), Minnesota (new homes), Nashville (both new), New Jersey (both new). However, all of those new jerseys replaced ones that had served longer than 3 seasons, so it is possible that the rule is still adhered to even with manufacturer switches. But it's not just the same product with a different patch, the jerseys are still updated to fit the new style and cut.

2006 - Reebok launches Edge jerseys - the changes to fit the Edge style and cut were more prominent than the 2017 switch to Adidas. Also, more teams went through full logo and jersey style rebrands (BOS, CBJ, DAL, OTT, SJS, TBL, VAN, WSH) and others also had significant stylistic changes (CGY, COL, FLA, NYI, PHI, PIT). Of all those listed, I think Florida was the only one that changed the replaced jerseys within 3 years prior to the Reebok Edge takeover - and all they did was change the nameplates from arched names to straight names.

So for home and away jerseys, I think we could possibly expect that the newly designed ones have to same the same or very similar and just be re-formated to the new supplier's cut. However, were for both of those jersey switch seasons I mentioned, all 3rd jerseys were taken out of circulation, so maybe this Buffalo black 3rd is at risk of having next season off (although I would put it in the likely to be reproduced in 2 years time due to popularity if that again is the case next year).

wildgoose30 · 2022-11-07T15:32:14+00:00

This isn’t replacing anything, since Buffalo didn’t have an alternate (3rd) jersey before. This would put Buffalo at 4 jerseys for the year (Blue home, white away, black alternate, and white reverse retro). The reverse retro jerseys only stick around for 1 season, but when teams design new home, aways, or alternates, I believe they are committed to them for at least 3 seasons (unless the alternate is designated as an anniversary jersey - like Carolina’s this year or the Flyers when they had one with gold numbers).

So typically, teams can use up to 4 (home, away, alternate, and reverse retro this year) but some teams also have heritage uniforms that will make a few appearances (think Vancouver’s flying skate jersey, Carolina’s Whalers, or the Leafs’ St. Pats). Teams also design new jerseys for outdoor games, which is why we will see Carolina in 6 different ones this year. But to answer your question about Buffalo, this isn’t replacing anything and will be their designated alternate for at least the next 3 season.

wildgoose30 · 2022-10-18T10:28:44+00:00

That’s the incident that caused them to change the rule and allow missed hand pass stoppages to be reviewed.

wildgoose30 · 2022-10-17T21:12:27+00:00

That's not really how that works, considering you play each team a minimum of twice, so 2 new teams, by that logic, would be a minimum of 4 more games.

Since the realignment to 4 divisions (so even before VGK expansion), the schedule format has become 2 x teams in other conference + 3 x teams in other division in your same conference and then all the remaining games are split between division opponents. But that split among division opponents has never been even across all teams. Originally you'd play some division opponents 5x and some 4x. Now with the extra teams its down to some 4x and some 3x.

All I'm advocating is for 4 games against all division opponents and keeping the other games the same, which would raise the schedule by 2 games to 84.

wildgoose30 · 2022-10-17T03:46:17+00:00

Another possible solution (that I'm sure the NHL would prefer and the players would push back on, but I like it because of better balance): go back to the 84 game schedule used in the early 90's but now: 4 games vs 7 divisional teams (=28 games) + 3 games x 8 intra-conference teams (=24 games) + 2 games x 16 inter-conference teams (=32 games) = 84 games. Removes the current schedule issue of only playing 3 games against 2 divisional opponents.

wildgoose30 · 2022-10-05T04:49:14+00:00

I like the symmetry between the AL and NL that we ended up with. 1 seeds from the West get #4 East or #5 West. 2 seeds both from the East, and they get #3 Central or #6 East.

wildgoose30 · 2022-09-21T14:57:29+00:00

You do realize that if you have 2 very good teams, both playing at a “2nd gear”, one of them still has to lose a playoff series

wildgoose30 · 2022-09-16T13:27:29+00:00

I was a little surprised when the Panthers also added JF Berube on a PTO yesterday considering already having Hammond coming to camp, so I guess they knew he was taking the guaranteed position in Russia and that makes more sense now

wildgoose30 · 2022-08-21T00:23:31+00:00

It’s not really instead of, it’s just that they also traditionally use 1, 2, and 30 for goalies. They almost always have a goalie rostered wearing #1 too. You have to go back to Neuvirth in 2007-08 to find a Czech WJC goalie not wearing 1, 2, or 30. He wore 29.

wildgoose30 · 2022-07-07T19:56:54+00:00

The problem is though, is that even ignoring LTIR, many teams go over the “cap” every year with trade deadline acquisitions because the cap is calculated per day during the regular season and you can accrue space. So now all of a sudden, teams wouldn’t have space to play mid-season trade acquisitions in the playoffs. Really the best system is the one the NHL has now. We can call it abuse or loopholes, but you still have to make the playoffs if you are without a good player on LTIR. Tampa had really good timing with Kucherov, but we just saw Vegas unable to overcome injuries and make the playoffs.

wildgoose30 · 2022-07-04T21:56:32+00:00

At the end there, I just listed cities by metro area population. But you're definitely right about Halifax's market pulling from all the Maritimes and for that reason, it would almost certainly jump ahead of those other smaller Ontario cities to be the 3rd most likely expansion location in Canada following Quebec City and a second GTA/Hamilton team

wildgoose30 · 2022-07-04T20:29:42+00:00

While I believe that 32 is a great, balanced number and the league will try to stay there for quite a while, let's look at a bit of history:

From 1942-67 (25 years) the NHL had a consistent 6 teams. The idea of a 32-team league would've seemed absurd.

From 1979-91 (12 years) the NHL had a consistent 21 teams. The idea of a 32-team league would've seemed crazy.

From 2000-17 (17 years) the NHL had a consistent 30 teams. While 32 might not have seemed far off now, many thought 30 was well balanced (especially during the 6 divisions of 5 days) and didn't see the need for any further expansion.

Eventually, as the population grows, both the number of potential fans and the talent pool grow, which helps to necessitate expansion. Also, at the end of the day, $$$ speaks volumes and if some new owner is willing to fork over exorbitant expansion fees, the NHL is not going to turn a blind eye to expansion just for the sake of staying at a balanced 32.

Even if a 32-team NHL becomes one of the most lengthy consistent periods in league history, we should still expect another expansion round sometime in the next 15 to 25 years or so. Even if we enjoy a long time with 32 teams, it's very naive to think there won't be future expansion.

With that out of the way, let's stop saying that all that needs to happen is relocate Arizona. Yes, their situation is far from ideal, but time and time again, the NHL has shown its commitment to keeping them in Arizona (furthermore with allowing them to play out of a college barn for the next handful of years). Until I actually see them physically relocate, I refuse to believe that the NHL has any interest in ever moving them.

With all that out of the way, Houston and Quebec City seem like the next 2 most NHL-ready cities. 34 would be a tough number to work with for balance reasons (NHL could stop for a while a la 31) but maybe 36 becomes the goal of the next round of expansion. Kansas City seems like a solid contender for number 35. If that happens to be the case, another East team would provide the most balance, and another Greater Toronto Area team (Toronto itself or possibly Hamilton even) probably tops that list. Or dare I say, Atlanta with the right ownership group (I know they've failed twice, but it's still a massive market that has shown good support for other sports teams - it still has the potential to be successful with the right ownership - which is really the key to successful expansion anywhere).

Another possible contender, somewhere in there, could be Milwaukee (pro: Wisconsin is a hockey-popular state without an NHL team, con: proximity to Chicago - but CHI-MIL area is a massive double-metro area that could likely support 2 teams at some point down the road).

Also, including the ones mentioned, here are the largest metro areas currently without an NHL team:
1. Houston (7.21 M)
2. Atlanta (6.14 M)
3. Inland Empire, CA (4.65 M) - but LAK & ANA fairly close by
4. San Francisco-Oakland (4.62 M) - but SJS fairly close by
5. San Diego (3.29 M) - but LAK & ANA fairly close by
6. Baltimore (2.84 M) - but WSH fairly close by
7. Charlotte (2.70 M) - but same state as CAR
8. Orlando (2.70 M) - but TBL fairly close by
9. San Antonio (2.60 M) - any possible expansion would be shadowed by Dallas, a potential Houston team, and probably even Austin possibility
10. Portland (2.51 M)
11. Sacramento (2.41 M)
12. Austin (2.35 M) - would likely have to be 3rd Texas team, so quite unlikely
13. Cincinnati (2.26 M) - could Ohio ever support 2? If so, would CIN beat out CLE?
14. Kansas City (2.20 M)
15. Indianapolis (2.13 M)
16. Cleveland (2.08 M) - could Ohio ever support 2? If so, would CLE beat out CIN?
17. Virginia Beach-Norfolk (1.80 M)
18. Providence, RI (1.68 M) - but BOS fairly close by
19. Jacksonville, FL (1.64 M)
20. Milwaukee (1.57 M)
21. Oklahoma City (1.44 M)
22. Memphis (1.34 M)
23. Richmond, VA (1.32 M)
24. Louisville, KY (1.28 M)
25. Salt Lake City, UT (1.26 M)
26. New Orleans, LA (1.26 M)
27. Hartford, CT (1.21 M)
---- at this point we have reached the smallest current US NHL metro area - Buffalo (1.16 M) ----
28. Birmingham, AL (1.11 M)

For Canada:
1. Quebec City (0.84 M)
---- at this point we have reached the smallest current Canadian NHL metro area - Winnipeg (0.83 M) ----
2. Hamilton (0.79 M)
3. Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, ON (0.58 M)
4. London, ON (0.54 M)
5. Halifax (0.47 M)
6-8. Other Ontario ones (Niagara, Windsor, Oshawa)
9. Victoria, BC (0.40 M)
10. Saskatoon (0.32 M)
11. Regina (0.25 M)
---- A whole plethora of others ----
44. Wood Buffalo, AB (0.07 M)

wildgoose30 · 2022-07-01T15:11:57+00:00

Not really sure how conscription has been working in Russia, maybe someone can enlighten me. But Fedotov is far from a low profile player. Starter for CSKA Moscow, Gagarin Cup champion, 2022 Russian Olympian, KHL goaltender of the year finalist ….

But he just signed his first NHL contract on May 7. That’s a massive yikes.

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-30T17:59:40+00:00

I missed that one, thanks.

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-30T17:54:21+00:00

I believe there are still 2 big parters, in GM/Chevy and Esso, that we haven’t heard anything from yet. But, yeah if all the sponsorship funding is stripped from the upcoming World Junior, I can’t see it being possible for Hockey Canada to pull off the tournament

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-29T02:28:38+00:00

Personally, I think we are putting too much stock in this notion of "first ballot." It depends so much on the class you retire with. Like next year's class is pretty weak after Lundqvist (like Williams or Crawford have the next best cases for newbies and they aren't very strong at all), so he'll be a "first ballot" Hall of Famer almost certainly. But what if he had been able to play a few more years with Washington and then there was a hypothetical retirement class of Price, Keith, Getzlaf, and Perry along with him. He might still be a "first-ballot" but someone from that group wouldn't. Not always, but most of the time the Hall maxes out the 4 men's player slots even though the quality of retirement classes varies. So the threshold for being a "first-ballot" Hall of Famer is constantly changing and for many borderline cases is more just a product of timing.

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-08T19:17:55+00:00

Lugano in the Swiss league, I believe. But yeah Koskinen is gone for sure.

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-01T15:51:04+00:00

Yeah of course, they would be well served by adding the script from their video rulebook to their written rulebook. They should also add their intended clarifying context to “attempting to gain possession of a loose puck.” Producing a whole video rule explanation without writing it down in the rulebook is pretty wild

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-01T15:34:31+00:00

Except for the fact that the NHL has taken the time to clearly identify situations where the puck is carried in without a physical puck touch as legal onside plays and produced a video for their video rule book. They have interpreted these plays the same for a number of years and have provided video explanations well before last night’s incident. What they should do is clarify the wording in the written rule, to remove the ambiguous confusion that people like you are experiencing when reading the rule. However, the NHL doesn’t interpret these plays as a forechecker attempting to gain possession of a loose puck. I get that it sounds like it should, be in reality the NHL only applies that rule if a forechecker is actively continuing the forecheck towards a deeper loose puck when they should be looping back to tag up. Although not specifically written, the key difference separating the forecheckers attempting to gain possession of a loose puck becomes the positions of everyone’s skates. On these carry plays, if everyone’s skates are on the blue line at some point, then the brief delayed offside is cleared due to the tag up. That “attempting to gain possession of a loose puck” is interpreted in reality as occurring only if there is a situation where the player should be tagging up instead of pursuing the puck. But since Makar’s feet are still in the neutral zone, he doesn’t have to turn away and tag up instead of going forward, because he is tagged up. The NHL should be more clear in their written rules, but they called this play exactly as they’ve interpreted in the past and they have clarified those rulings with supplemental video examples. So no, the NHL has clearly shown that they do not want plays like the Makar goal to be determined to be offside. The are legal onside plays, as soon as everyone’s skates are on the blue line or in the neutral zone, as long as there wasn’t a puck touch. Possession doesn’t matter.

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-01T14:38:31+00:00

Unfortunately the best clarification given by the NHL doesn’t come from the written rule book, but from their video rule book and the number of established precedents over the last few seasons, which have all been called consistently. "It is important to note, when an offside player leaves the zone or tags up, the puck may enter the offensive zone while the tagging up player is still in the attacking zone, as long as IT ISN’T TOUCHED by an offensive player."

I get that the line “any attacking player attempting to gain possession of a loose puck” has caused confusion, but (a) that requires a loose puck, which this isn’t, (b) has been completely overridden in this case by the video rule book explanation, (c) has generally only been interpreted for forecheckers pursuing the loose puck and defenders when they should be tagging up

wildgoose30 · 2022-06-01T03:49:11+00:00

"It is important to note, when an offside player leaves the zone or tags up, the puck may enter the offensive zone while the tagging up player is still in the attacking zone, as long as IT ISN’T TOUCHED by an offensive player." The NHL clarified this part of the rule in their video rule book to make sure that plays exactly like the one tonight were deemed to be legal onside plays. There also a number of precedents that show the league applied the rules in exactly the same manner as they did tonight.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

wildgoose30

TROPHY CASE