Time to End the All-Star Game
- Thread starter L K
- Start date
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Peter D. said:
Weird fact: Crosby's only actually played in 1 All-Star game. He missed 3 chances because of Olympic years, 1 because of a lockout, and the rest due to injury.
Kin
New member
Peter D. said:
It's sort of the coda to the John Scott stuff. Anyone complaining about how Scott being there demeans what it means to be an All-Star has to then explain how Komarov and Faulk making it because of the 1 "star" per team rule while any number of more deserving players don't doesn't result in essentially the same thing.
Nik the Trik said:
If there was a team of players in this tournament who aren't picked they would probably win the whole thing.
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
No reason someone complaining about Scott has to explain how the 1-star per team rule is substantially different. It isn't; but there is some difference between the two. Komarov and Faulk are skilled players having good years. While other teams would have additional representatives that are certainly better (Chicago could easily send 5 guys), Scott is one of the worst players in the NHL. With Komarov and Faulk, there's at least solid arguments they're currently playing as one of the best player's on their respective teams.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Which renders it a difference of degree, not something materially different.
But more to the point, I think that's why when people talk about Scott affecting the "integrity" of the process or radically altering what it means to be an All-Star they can only do that if they entirely divorce their opinions from what the All-Star game actually is as opposed to a sort of idealized concept. It's not a game for just the best and the brightest or only the most deserving and someone like Komarov being there is the result of a policy of fairly crass and cynical commercialism. That policy, which has existed for years and generally accepted, seems to be much more of an affront to the ideals being professed than fans goofing around with one of the roster spots.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
Because when people object to John Scott on the All-Star team the ideals they profess aren't "The All-Star game is supposed to be about broad representation of the league wherein talent is ultimately secondary to what team a guy plays on", they argue that the All-Star game is supposed to be a meritocracy. But how can it be if significant numbers of the roster spots every year have nothing to do with who's a better hockey player than who but just are about choosing the best players off terrible teams?
When people criticize the Scott choice they do so by trying to attach ideals to the game that it simply doesn't represent. It's not a meritocracy. It's not even really about rewarding the best hockey players. People can say it's an All-STAR game all they want but Crosby's a star, not Komarov. Does Komarov shooting at an unsustainably high percentage over 40 games make him better than Crosby? Does it even make him better than Kadri?
If someone were to say "I don't like John Scott being on the All-Star team because the All-Star game is supposed to be about rewarding the guys who superficially put up good stats in the first half of the season provided there's enough regional representation to satisfy the people in the NHL's marketing department" then at least that'd be honest. But one additional spot not being merit-based does not fundamentally subvert the nature of what's going on.
Bullfrog
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
The bolded part is where I believe your argument fails. It is supposed to be a meritocracy. But that doesn't necessarily mean solely the 50 best players in the league (by however that's measured, whether it's past performance or current 1/2 year performance.) Ensuring every team is represented doesn't significantly erode the merit standard of selecting a player. Having John Scott -- easily argued as one of the worst players in the league -- is definitely more of an affront than having the best player on the worst team. Particularly with current league parity, the best player on the worst team is generally a very good player and in most cases would already be in the running for an all-star spot.
Your "honest" statement is essentially how I feel. But I definitely disagree with your last statement. It's a matter of degree. While someone who is picked solely because his team needed a representative (such as Komarov) will probably be less deserving of other players, at least he's still being selected based on his skill. Scott is there as a joke. One that I can see the humour in, but still disagree with.
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
And this is where I think your argument fails. That's exactly what a meritocracy would be. Once you start allowing for breaks and exceptions because fans want to honour a retiring great or for regional representation then it's not one. At that point what you're saying to Fans who voted for Scott is "It's not solely a meritocracy but the reasons you are ok with it not being one in certain cases is different than the reasons I'm ok with it not being one in certain cases" and that's not a fundamental difference in anything but opinion.
Bullfrog said:
Well, leaving aside that I sort of wrote that jokingly as that is such a convoluted sentence that it can't possibly actually represent an ideal, I just think that's not true. All-Star games have always been about giving fans a voice. It's always put what fans want to see over issues of pure merit. That's why the NHL has the one player per team rule, it's why every year Baseball/Basketball guys get voted in on legacy.
And if no matter how many times you're told by people like me or Greg Wyshinski that it's something we actually want to see you're just going to dismiss that as a "joke" then what you're essentially arguing is that if fans have different priorities than you, they shouldn't have a say and arguing that fans shouldn't have a say is by far a greater departure from the traditions of an All-Star game than John Scott being there.
Bullfrog
Active member
Leaving aside that all-star games have not always been about giving fans a voice (the NHL started voting in 1969), I don't think it's simply a matter of opinion. Those players that are selected as a representative are still selected due to their skill level. It's a game about displaying the high skill level (and the entertainment value that comes with that) of these players. The departure from pure merit (i.e. only the best) in selecting regionally is minor compared to the departure in selecting a goon.
With regard to the joke comment, do you honestly think that all the fans who voted for Scott did so out of legitimate interest in seeing someone like him play at the game?
With regard to the joke comment, do you honestly think that all the fans who voted for Scott did so out of legitimate interest in seeing someone like him play at the game?
Kin
New member
Bullfrog said:
But by that same measurement because the All-Star game used to be a "Stanley Cup Champions vs. All-Stars" it's just as easy for me to argue that the idea that participation in the game was simply about skill was never paramount either. If the worst player on the Stanley Cup champions was playing in the All-Star game then it wasn't about skill.
Beyond that we're kind of getting circular here because you're misrepresenting the argument being made. You're saying that Scott is a bigger departure from making selections based on merit than Komarov. I'm not arguing the opposite. I'm saying that selections aren't made on merit so the standard you're holding it to is a lie. I'm saying that John Scott being there as a representation of what fans want to see is closer to being an example of what the game is supposed to be about than pretending that a Columbus Blue Jacket is an All-Star every year. Every year guys get voted on because they're on the hometown team or they used to be good enough or, you know, because they're from Latvia. It's not a departure from what the All-Star game is actually about, just the fantasy of it that isn't true and never was.
Bullfrog said:
Every single one? Probably not. But way more than you're making it out to be. It's absolutely a real reaction from real fans saying that what they have more legitimate interest in that than in seeing the umpteenth version of legitimate all-stars and less-legitimate ones who play for the right teams going at half-speed.
Ovechkin won't be going: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=799971
Says he's been dealing with a nagging issue all year long and needs the time to recover. He'll have to miss Washington's first game after the break as a result.
Says he's been dealing with a nagging issue all year long and needs the time to recover. He'll have to miss Washington's first game after the break as a result.
ZBBM
Active member
The basic problem with the ASG is that it doesn't count for anything. There's only one way to make it relevant: make it a real game, and make it count.
What if teams were awarded points in the standings based on the results of the game? For example -- and yes, a million details would have to be thought of, this is just a concept -- what if the teams whose players are on the ice when a goal is scored each received a point in the standings? The coach would be required to roll 4 lines so players get roughly the same amount of ice time.
So, if the game ends up (say) 8-7 that's 15 extra points in the standings to be divided up between the 30 teams represented. And if Komarov is on the ice for (say) all 8 of them, then suddenly you are in playoff contention.
Now, THAT would make for a meaningful game, with no sandbagging. Ovie would be playing through his "nagging injury," by golly.
What if teams were awarded points in the standings based on the results of the game? For example -- and yes, a million details would have to be thought of, this is just a concept -- what if the teams whose players are on the ice when a goal is scored each received a point in the standings? The coach would be required to roll 4 lines so players get roughly the same amount of ice time.
So, if the game ends up (say) 8-7 that's 15 extra points in the standings to be divided up between the 30 teams represented. And if Komarov is on the ice for (say) all 8 of them, then suddenly you are in playoff contention.
Now, THAT would make for a meaningful game, with no sandbagging. Ovie would be playing through his "nagging injury," by golly.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Dude.
Haha, nice joke post man.