• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Time to End the All-Star Game

I know Crosby's having a subpar year based on his standards, but you'd think the league would do everything in their powers to have their biggest and most marketable star there.

 
Leo Komarov - All-Star

I'm looking forward to the look on some guys faces when Komarov starts forechecking like a demon during the game. ;D

Which skills competition do we think Leo will be best suited to?
 
Peter D. said:
I know Crosby's having a subpar year based on his standards, but you'd think the league would do everything in their powers to have their biggest and most marketable star there.

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.
 
Patrick said:
Leo Komarov - All-Star

I'm looking forward to the look on some guys faces when Komarov starts forechecking like a demon during the game. ;D

Which skills competition do we think Leo will be best suited to?
OMG... Komarov an all star! I'm surprised the team even acknowledged it. JVR or Kadri not available?
 
Peter D. said:
I know Crosby's having a subpar year based on his standards, but you'd think the league would do everything in their powers to have their biggest and most marketable star there.

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.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Peter D. said:
I know Crosby's having a subpar year based on his standards, but you'd think the league would do everything in their powers to have their biggest and most marketable star there.

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.
Why isn't Crosby going? How do all star teams get picked? Did he say no?
 
Nik the Trik 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.

If there was a team of players in this tournament who aren't picked they would probably win the whole thing.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Peter D. said:
I know Crosby's having a subpar year based on his standards, but you'd think the league would do everything in their powers to have their biggest and most marketable star there.

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.

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.
 
Bullfrog 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.

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.
 
Nik the Trik said:
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.

I can't wrap my head around that one, to be honest. How can picking the worst player in the NHL be less of an affront than picking someone who's at least one of the best on his team?
 
Bullfrog said:
I can't wrap my head around that one, to be honest. How can picking the worst player in the NHL be less of an affront than picking someone who's at least one of the best on his team?

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.
 
Nik the Trik 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.

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.
 
Bullfrog 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.)

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:
Your "honest" statement is essentially how I feel.

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.
 
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?
 
Bullfrog said:
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.

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:
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?

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.
 
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.
 

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top