SI: Kessel named easiest all-star to intimidate
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
BC Buds Fan
New member
Inside the marketing department at SI:
"So we noticed we don't have a big enough following in Ice Hockey...any ideas?"
"Well, who has the largest fan base?"
"The Maple-what? Oh, Leafs? You say they're like the Yankees of Ice Hockey? Perfect. Let's throw some sh*t against the wall and see if anything sticks."
Anonymous polls are just dirty pool by marketing departments looking to increase market share by getting publicity in any way they can. What SI doesn't get is that the only way to get serious hockey following is by getting knowledgeable hockey people to write in-depth, insightful pieces about the game and its players/coaches/fans. But all the knowledgeable sports writers are fixated on college football and basketball, NFL and MLB...oh and NASCAR.
SI, git!
"So we noticed we don't have a big enough following in Ice Hockey...any ideas?"
"Well, who has the largest fan base?"
"The Maple-what? Oh, Leafs? You say they're like the Yankees of Ice Hockey? Perfect. Let's throw some sh*t against the wall and see if anything sticks."
Anonymous polls are just dirty pool by marketing departments looking to increase market share by getting publicity in any way they can. What SI doesn't get is that the only way to get serious hockey following is by getting knowledgeable hockey people to write in-depth, insightful pieces about the game and its players/coaches/fans. But all the knowledgeable sports writers are fixated on college football and basketball, NFL and MLB...oh and NASCAR.
SI, git!
Pucken Chronic
New member
So Nik, what you're saying is you agree with these types of polls? Or SI is credible when it comes to hockey? Or ya think Kessel shoulda dropped the gloves with P K? Or you actually believe Kessel is "the easiest" all-star to intimidate? Or ya just like to argue in damn near every single thread in here? Or you're just real, real fond of posting and seeing your name alot? Just what the hell are you arguing here exactly?
Bullfrog
Active member
13 said:
Of all your questions, I think is the one that should be the easiest to understand if you go back and read the posts.
Nik and I disagree on Kessel on several items, but the fact that he's soft isn't one of the them. I think Kessel is an amazing player and I'm glad he's on the team and glad the Leafs gave up what they did to get him. That said, the truth is he appears to be easy to intimidate. He's like the anti-Grabovski, as it were.
I think where people get stuck on stuff like this is they think it is somehow and indictment of their fanhood. Kessel is a great many things, but he is not a player in the vein of Sundin, Gilmour, Roberts or Clark. Saying that he can be intimidated does not mean that he is not effective. It just means that there is a way to take him off his game.
Kin
Active member
13 said:
Honestly, if you haven't been able to keep up now I've got serious doubts that slowing it down for you will help. However, being a man of the people, I'll spare a few secs to see if we can't get it down to your level and answer your questions in order:
1. This is tough as I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Do I agree with the results? Or do I agree with the aims? In the case of the latter, I don't have any issue with the aims. SI polls players about hockey things. There's nothing sinister about that. As for the results, I genuinely don't know if Kessel is the easiest player in the league to intimidate. To know that, I think, you'd have to watch other players as much as I watch Kessel. I do think the results reflect the reality that Kessel is a player who can be intimidated and I think it's telling that his name came up the most when SI asked this particular question.
2. I think SI is as "credible" as just about anyone else when it comes to hockey. But their credibility isn't really the issue here. I believe that SI would, regardless of the sport, report the results of a poll honestly and, again, this is a poll of NHL players who I do think are fairly credible when it comes to hockey.
3. I genuinely don't care if he does or not. What's at issue is whether or not he can get knocked off his game by physical play.
4. Again, I don't have an opinion on whether he's the "easiest". I believe that his name came up the most when SI asked the 145 players and I think that reflects the reality I've seen with my own two eyes that Kessel can be knocked off his game.
5. I genuinely don't. I'd much prefer it if people read my opinions and just accepted them as bible law on account of them being exceedingly well reasoned. That people continue to disagree with me is actually a source of frustration.
6. I am fond of posting here. Enough to make me the #3 poster on the boards. There's 750 posts separating me and Sarge though, which really gets me down. Trying to catch him, I think, would really cut into my drinking and as much as I like posting, I don't like it that much.
7. It's hard to re-state it all but I think there are several key points. One, people shouldn't be such whiny babies when it comes to things like this. SI polls players. There's nothing inherently dishonest or conspiratorial about that. When SI released their player poll saying that Leafs fans were the most knowledgeable in the league nobody here said "SI? They don't know about hockey and they're just doing it to get page hits - wahhhh". Our opinions shouldn't be dictated by whether we're being flattered or challenged.
Second, it raises a fair point about the deficiencies of Kessel's game, no more, no less. If SI had accompanied a poll like this with an article calling Kessel a wimpy little girl, then I'd buy the bleating and the persecution complex but this is just the opinions of players and it rings true. How much you want to read into this is up to you but to attack SI as though they're being spiteful towards the Leafs or challenge the validity of the idea of taking a player poll doesn't make someone sound all that rational.
Third, like it or not, this is an issue for the Leafs going forward.
Kin
Active member
Bullfrog said:
To make my point on this, let's compare Kessel's last three seasons to another player's.
Kessel's GPG: .44
Mystery Man's GPG: .51
Kessel's PPG: .81
Mystery Man's PPG: 1.09
Kessel this season is on pace for 42 goals and 45 assists if he plays all 82 games. Our mystery man's best season was 40 goals, 44 assists over 73 games.
Now, both players are undeniably effective players, right? Not many players in the league can score like that. Nobody should question whether or not those guys can contribute on the scoresheet.
Anyways, Player B is Alexander Semin who, coincidentally enough, also shows up on this poll. He's clearly a talented player who can score points. There are also serious questions about him and his value to a team who wants to go deep into the playoffs.
The point isn't that Semin is better than Kessel or that they're the same. I know some of the other questions raised about Semin. The point is that they're both "effective" player and that has a certain value. But, let's be fair, one of the reasons most people would be hesitant to throw a ton of money at Semin is that there are real questions about whether or not he can get it done when the chips are down.
hockeyfan1
New member
From: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/02/15/another-poll-another-jab-at-the-toronto-maple-leafs/
You get the feeling that the only reason Sports Illustrated or anyone else conducts anonymous polls of hockey players these days is a way to poke fun at the Toronto Maple Leafs.
...Toronto is going to end up as the punch line.
Coach no one wants to play for? Toronto?s Ron Wilson. Overrated player? Toronto?s Dion Phaneuf. Least likely to win a Stanley Cup? Worst in-game entertainment? Smelliest dressing rooms? Most boring mascot? Blandest concession food? Just fill in the blanks.
...Toronto?s Phil Kessel was named the easiest player to intimidate in the magazine?s Feb. 20th issue (receiving 15% of the votes from a survey of 145 players) in yet another anonymous poll conducted by SI, it was another jab and another reason to snicker at the so-called Centre of the Hockey Universe.
You get the feeling that the only reason Sports Illustrated or anyone else conducts anonymous polls of hockey players these days is a way to poke fun at the Toronto Maple Leafs.
...Toronto is going to end up as the punch line.
Coach no one wants to play for? Toronto?s Ron Wilson. Overrated player? Toronto?s Dion Phaneuf. Least likely to win a Stanley Cup? Worst in-game entertainment? Smelliest dressing rooms? Most boring mascot? Blandest concession food? Just fill in the blanks.
...Toronto?s Phil Kessel was named the easiest player to intimidate in the magazine?s Feb. 20th issue (receiving 15% of the votes from a survey of 145 players) in yet another anonymous poll conducted by SI, it was another jab and another reason to snicker at the so-called Centre of the Hockey Universe.
Optimus Reimer
New member
We can start a poll of our own with this question:
What sports magazine has the worst hockey coverage?
The Choices:
- Sports Illustrated
After you vote we will make the results public in this manner: After an extensive online confidential survey, it was found that Sports Illustrated was the sports magazine with the worst hockey coverage.
What sports magazine has the worst hockey coverage?
The Choices:
- Sports Illustrated
After you vote we will make the results public in this manner: After an extensive online confidential survey, it was found that Sports Illustrated was the sports magazine with the worst hockey coverage.
hockeyfan1 said:
But SI is not saying that the most overrated player is Dion Phanuef. They are saying that in a poll of a group of hockey players, Dion Phanuefs name came up the most. They are not explicitly saying "Dion Phanuef is the most overrated player in the NHL". They are saying "When we asked a group of hockey players who they thought the most overrated player was, the answer we got more often than anybody else was Dion Phanuef". There is a difference there. Like it or not, the team we choose to cheer for has some warts.
Bullfrog
Active member
Saint Nik said:
Definitely a valid point for discussion. Kessel's career average (in only 15 games) for points-per-game in the playoffs is 1.0. On it's own, that's impressive, but I don't know if it's considered statistically significant or not.
Based on his style of play, I'd suspect his ppg might be less in the playoffs, but that's not the case so far. Hopefully we'll have a chance to find out more this year.
hockeyfan1
New member
Andy007 said:
The Leafs have certainly had their fair share of players who disliked playing a physical game and/or were easily intimidated along the boards. Names such as Hammerstrom, Ferguson, McKenny, Thompson, etc., come to mind.
Did Gretzky bodycheck? No.
Mike Bossy? No. (He was checked much more than Gretzky ever was, the reason for his back problems and subsequent retirement at the age of 30).
Do the Sedins dish it out? No.
Some of the NHL's skilled talents were neither checkers nor bitters, per se. Heck, the Leafs own Hammerstrom was easily intimidated (he never fought back even after having taken a wicked slash on his back. Yet, he just kept on playing and contributing).
In the case of Phil Kessel, whether easily intimidated or not, whether a physical player or not, he is doing exactly what is expected of him -- putting the black rubber disc in the net.
And that....is all that counts!
To heck with polls!
Kin
Active member
Bullfrog said:
There's good and bad in Kessel's short playoff history(the points being the good, the benching being the bad) but I think the bigger issue there is the gap between Kessel's role on those Bruins teams and the role he'll be asked to play on the Leafs should the team make the playoffs in the near future.
Not to sound too much like a sports radio host but the question here isn't whether or not Kessel can be a good player on a good team, it's whether or not Kessel can be the guy on a great team. To me, that's an important question because if this team, as currently constructed, is going to make some noise in the playoffs Kessel being a good player probably doesn't get it done.
Kin
Active member
hockeyfan1 said:
You're entirely confusing the issue of a player dishing out punishment and a player being able to take it. Nobody has said that it's a requirement that Kessel throws a ton of bodychecks. The issue is whether or not you can shut a guy down by playing him physically. The idea that you could shut Gretzky down by hitting him would have gotten you laughed at. Nobody could shut Gretzky down by doing anything(although, for all his talents, he never won a cup when he wasn't on a super team where whatever deficiencies he may have had weren't made up for by one of the other all-time greats on the roster).
Do the Sedins throw checks? No. But nobody cares. The bigger issue with the Sedins is that they don't score a ton in the playoffs.
Pucken Chronic
New member
Saint Nik said:
Damn well said!
There is no question in my mind that he is the easiest player to intimidate.
I am just fed up watching his unwillingness to be the first guy in the corner....he will be in the clear a couple strides and have lots of time to get to the puck first, yet he bails to the inside so that he can let the dman get the puck and not hit his fragile body.
This is a contact sport, and we don't necessarily need him dishing out hits, but he needs to be willing to take hits to make plays sometimes. He seems even more lost now that his buddy Lupul is not there to do the heavy lifting in the corners.
Kessel is supposed to be a franchise player, but honestly, do you want to build around a guy who isn't willing to make sacrifices to win? I was quite disgusted that he was wearing the 'A' at times this year. Do you want your teammates watching your leader shy away from contact? or someone who sits on the bench and buries his head between his arms and sulks if things aren't going his way?
Kessel just strikes me as the type who would be happier if they lost 5-3 with him scoring a hat trick rather then winning 5-0 and not being on the score sheet.
'Fragile Phil' needs to get his act together and I hope that Carlyle pushes him to compete more in all aspects of the game. A little tough love wouldn't hurt.
I am just fed up watching his unwillingness to be the first guy in the corner....he will be in the clear a couple strides and have lots of time to get to the puck first, yet he bails to the inside so that he can let the dman get the puck and not hit his fragile body.
This is a contact sport, and we don't necessarily need him dishing out hits, but he needs to be willing to take hits to make plays sometimes. He seems even more lost now that his buddy Lupul is not there to do the heavy lifting in the corners.
Kessel is supposed to be a franchise player, but honestly, do you want to build around a guy who isn't willing to make sacrifices to win? I was quite disgusted that he was wearing the 'A' at times this year. Do you want your teammates watching your leader shy away from contact? or someone who sits on the bench and buries his head between his arms and sulks if things aren't going his way?
Kessel just strikes me as the type who would be happier if they lost 5-3 with him scoring a hat trick rather then winning 5-0 and not being on the score sheet.
'Fragile Phil' needs to get his act together and I hope that Carlyle pushes him to compete more in all aspects of the game. A little tough love wouldn't hurt.