There's legitimate reason to believe Detroit could lose to Phoenix....especially if Kronwall and Zetterberg aren't at full strength.
things go poorly
There's legitimate reason to believe Detroit could lose to Phoenix....especially if Kronwall and Zetterberg aren't at full strength.
Nothing But Apathy.
Nauseating Blasts of Arrogance.
It's not even close to me, the NHL playoffs are the best playoffs in all of sports. That is particulry true in today's and age. Literally every team in the West and most of the teams in the East are good enough to make a run.
Even when the Pistons were going good and I followed them closely, I still prefered the NHL playoffs by a decent margin. And that's from somebody who grew up playing basketball, while barely playing any hockey. It is a shame that more people in the U.S. don't realize how great the game of hockey is. It literally has everything you could ask for as a sports fan.
It literally has everything you could ask for as a sports fan.
Not true. I love the chess match that goes on in football between the offensive and defensive coaches. Hockey does not offer this. Not that there isn't strategy, with the line changes and so forth, but a lot of the actual play just seems improvised, with players taking lots of bad-angle shots in the hope of a rebound or defensive mistake.
Moreover, what I don't care for about hockey is just how random it seems. Goals are flukes. You can completely outplay the other team and lose by a couple of goals. That just seems crazy.
because there are some chess match type of things that occur in hockey. Teams trying to match up particurly lines with the other teams lines , coaches juggling lines to create better matchups against other teams lines or players and than the opposing coach making adjustments to combat that, and changing forechecking and backchecking strategies during the game to match up with what the other team is doing are examples of some chess match type things. No offense but if you don't believe their are chess match type elements in hockey, than you don't know the sport very well.
With that said I still prefer football over hockey, but hockey is a close second in terms of my favorite sport.
The flukes in hockey often piss me off. It seems that the wings have often lost to inferior teams only because they faced a hot goalie, and the other team got BS goals. Moreover, how many goals are taken from Holmstrom?
But there's something about this fluky nonsense that makes the game even more noble IMHE. It reflects life, doesn't it? And hockey players like Lidstrom face this constant threat of mere chance with a calm reserve. There's something we could all take away from that.
If it's possible that there are professional athletes who could legitimately be held up as models and/or heros, it's hockey players like Lidstrom. I don't think any other sports offer up that prospect, and certainly not the NBA.
Hockey is a great mix of individual vs. team. The NBA in particular is very star laden. Kobe can take over a game and win it for the Lakers (yes, yes, I realize he's struggled doing this in the past season) by himself, and Tom Brady needs Welker or someone to play to his level to win. In hockey, you'll never win without some kind of team effort, but one player can dominate a game.
The Heat have the two best players in the league and a top 5 PF and werent even close to the #1 seed.
The rest of their team sucks and is holding them back
The NBA is more star-laden than most, but don't make the mistake of saying that teams don't matter.
First, you're a douche.
Second, I never said that the team with the best individual players always wins. In fact, I mentioned that the best player in the game struggled this year taking over a game.
Third, it's a fact that one player in the NBA is more valuable than one player in the NHL. Sure, a great team can't emerge without a great, you know, team. However, don't tell me that LeBron didn't win the vast majority of the Cavs games for them, in a way that Gretzky or Howe couldn't do.
In closing, STFU. I thought you made some good points at other times in this thread, but the amount of stupidity you showed by making this post negates however much stock I put in them.
especially when the the actual post is not egregious - and in your case, a reasonable view . . . nevertheless, I downvoted you here.
Your address is petty, amateurish, stupid, etc....
It adds nothing to your otherwise decent post, but instead ruins it.
I didnt mean to address it as 'justina' ... accidentally typed the 'a' somehow.
It just seemed like he was downplaying the importance of teams in the NBA
And Im not a douche. I don't tend to get mad at people on the internet. I don't care enough.
but it came off as hockey teaches life lessons and bball doesnt
I wasn't, and thought I made it pretty clear that Kobe needed his team (going off the assumption that Kobe>everyone else right now).
However, look at payroll in the NBA vs. NHL; using the two defending champions, Kobe accounts for ~27% of payroll, Duncan Keith on the Blackhawks (their highest paid player) accounts for ~10.5% of payroll.
It's simply the case that a star in the NBA does more than a star in the NHL. In this context, there isn't a value judgement. In my original post I said that stars relying on the third line guys (who's minutes in the NBA != NHL) to win might be a good life lesson to take from hockey.
Your post in this thread beg to differ, my friend:
With gems like "seriously you people suck," "but I hate people that perpetuate these false perceptions about the NBA" and "only an idiot could come to the conclusion" just three of your posts in this thread alone tell a pretty different story.
Don't double post on MGoBlog. icanhazcheezburger post for everyones troubles:
This won't be a fair fight since there are so many hockey fans on this site with UM hockey being so big.
I even notice this on other message boards these topics come up from hockey fans so they can all sit around and reforce to themselfs that the NHL is better than the NBA even though no one in the USA watches it besides a few states.
Anyway some huge misconception in this thread.
-Many of the NBA players seem disinterested and seem to worry more about their vodka brand or clothing line sales than winning a championship.
Where did you get this from? Allen Iverson?
-The intensity is just much higher.
Your right. The Bulls vs Knicks series had no intensity. The Celtics and Lakers had no intensity. This beyond wrong.
there is more real drama (NBA has fake drama),
-I guess its the WWE.... sigh..
I could not care less about the NHL but I dont find ways to slam it. I dins it super boring but thats just me. I hope Cwood shows and backs me up...lol
It's not even close to me, the NHL playoffs are the best playoffs in all of sports.
-If true than why does no one watch it? Their ratings are pretty terrible.
eg. No one stated those series you mentioned had no intensity, or any NBA series for that matter. Some simply pointed out that the intensity in the NHL is HIGHER, which immediately implies some level of intensity from the NBA.
eg. Basing quality on ratings is like saying McDonald's hamburgers are the best because they sell the most. Can't say I agree.
But how can you tell that the level of intensity is higher in the NHL? That's a completely subjective observation. Frankly, this carries a whiff of the old "black guys don't have to work hard while white guys are all gritty Ecksteins" line of reasoning.
and I made no such claims.
There are several reasons people argue that the level of intensity in the NHL is higher than that of the NBA. Some of these are:
1. Greater parity between teams ensures that at the least, the first round will feature closer series, more upsets, and fewer blowouts.
2. The NHL is lower scoring than the NBA (obviously) but still features a plethora of scoring chances. This creates a tension surrounding each scoring chance that does not exist in the NBA until the end of the game. It also means that goals in the NHL are far more momentous events than baskets in the NBA.
3. Hockey involves more intense physical activity than basketball. You are allowed to knock down and eliminate players in hockey without being penalized. There are more scrambles for the puck than scrambles for the ball. Fights regularly occur. Etc. This does not mean that basketball players don't work as ahard as hockey players by any means. After all, the best player on a basketball team will play around 40-45 minutes of the game, and play hard throughout the game. The best forward in a hockey game will play maybe 20 minutes or so and the best defensemen maybe 28 minutes (excluding OT games, obviously).
Probably the post I agree with most.
Hands down. Although I do agree with JeepinBen and the NBA doesn't annoy me nearly as much in the later rounds of their playoff.
most of the reasons have already been stated. i just want to add myself to the peanut gallery that understands that although the nba produce a good series here and there, the overall pants-full-of-shit nervousness of the NHL brings out the full range of emotions.
Although watching the NBA can be extremely frustrating at times for numerous reasons, the playoffs are the best basketball you're going to see. All the players turn it up a notch and play their best bball of the season and each game matters more as the series goes along. Plus I like seeing certain players get chippy with each other as the series hits game 4, 5...
Again, the NBA has plenty of faults, the officiating is an absolute joke, but the playoffs are usually entertaining.
except in the NHL players start getting chippy in Game 1 and it never stops.
when compared to Blackhawks/Canucks 1 vs 8 pairing....
There would be a lot more parity in these answers if the Pistons were going into the NBA playoffs as the 3 seed right now.
enjoyed the NHL playoffs more by a decent margin, even when the Pistons were a title contender. And that was despite following the Pistons during the regular season just as closely as the Red Wings during those years.
NHL by 1 million miles. NBA is way too predictable.
There is relative parity within the NHL, unlike the NBA where there might be five teams that can win the title. This makes the opening rounds for the NHL playoffs much more attractive because you can't count anybody out, but as the playoffs progress, the NBA is as if not more entertaining because the quality of the basketball ramps up considerably and oftentimes the matchups are rivalries.
This is another reason why I believe the NBA should contract.
Agreed, the game fixing is a really big open secret and it robs the NBA of any credibility. They don't even really try to hide it anymore.
Do either of you have any basis for this claim, other than Tim Donaghy's book?
Once upon a time I would have said NBA, but now it’s unquestionably the NHL. I truly believe The NBA rigs series to make sure bigger market teams come out of the playoffs. I put David Stern in the same ranks as an organized crime boss.
That and the first few rounds are painful to watch. I can't believe they haven't shrunken the field to 6 teams. The bottom two teams in each division have no chance at winning, and are almost always sub .500 teams.
I truly believe The NBA rigs series to make sure bigger market teams come out of the playoffs
Where do the four-time champion San Antonio Spurs (who play in one of the smallest television markets in the league) fit into this logic? How about the fact that no franchise from the New York area has won in 38 years, by far the longest drought for that area in any of the four major sports?
I'll partly concede the New York point. Even so, they haven't even been competitive in a long time. It's hard to rig a playoff game when they aren't even there. San Antonio has a huge fan base (it's the only show in town), they are often superbly talented, and the San Antonio Market is largely Hispanic: a demographic all pro sports would like to tap.
Not that it lessens your point, but I thought this was interesting:
San Antonio cannot have a "huge" fanbase by virtue of the fact that it's a small market. (And actually, they don't always sell out, even in the playoffs.) And I'm not sure what Hispanic people have to do with anything, given that there are very few Hispanic NBA players.
What are your examples demonstrating? None of the cities you mentioned is even close to New York in size. Would you expect those franchises to be as competitive as a NY team?
It is truly shocking that anyone even tries to defend the NBA here. NBA basketball is absolutely awful to watch. 120-121 every night means *no one* is playing any defense, because the NBA decided after the Pistons won it all that defense was boring to watch.
The NHL, meanwhile, takes the greatest sport on earth, and puts you through a 2-month death march to see if you have what it takes to raise the most beautiful trophy in the world. All you need to do is read the injury reports the two Cup Finalists release after the series is over to know how much more commitment it takes to raise the Cup that to raise the silly looking NBA ... thingy.
If hockey is the greatest sport on earth, why does it have such a hard time attracting fans in the U.S.? It's not that it doesn't have a history in this country. The NHL has been around for a century and we are a perennial gold-medal contender in the Olympics. Yet the NHL, the highest level of the professional game, draws horrendously bad ratings year after year despite the fact that U.S. teams win the Stanley Cup every season. Why is that?
I think that perhaps a country where people routinely pay large sums of money to watch cars drive in circles all afternoon isn't the best place to take a straw poll on what sport is actually the best.
Also, the NHL has suffered from horrendous management in recent years. Right up before the last major labor dispute, the NHL was actually making substantial inroads, had games on ESPN, etc. Now it has relegated itself to crap networks like VS and made a variety of other bad management moves that have really driven down its market share.
Ridiculing U,.S. society is kind of strange, given that 24 of the 30 NHL franchises are here, including four of the Original Six. The vast majority of the world pays far less attention to hockey than even America does.
The NHL has never drawn good ratings. Let's not pretend otherwise. When they were on ESPN, they were often some of ESPN's lowest-rated primetime shows. Reruns of Sportscenter were outdrawing them. The league has always been extremely dependent on gate receipts, which is a tough way to be profitable.
I don't know about that, it's huge in Eastern Europe and Canada.
On top of that, it was the labor strife that ultimately took them off of ESPN anyway. Good point about gate receipts though, and as a side note, those are climbing substantially.
ABC/ESPN couldn't get rid of the NHL fast enough. They were losing a lot of money on the game. They rolled the dice, thinking that Bettman's expansion strategy would pay off, and it failed. Uncertainty about future TV revenues was one of the reasons why NHL owners were so desperate to get cost-certainty in the form of a salary cap.
Ice hockey is big in Canada and a handful of European countries. Again, we are not talking about a sport like soccer where the best players go elsewhere. This continent is hockey's heartland. The best players in the world come here, and in fact, two-thirds of them are from North America. The United States ranks far above the world average when it comes to enthusiasm for the game. But even here, it's struggling to find its niche.
I won't argue with your first paragraph because I think you're right, but the labor situation ultimately ended the relationship, obviously.
As to your second point, I'd say that we won't know for sure until Russia and the rest of the former USSR are developed, (semi)capitalist economies. Right now everyone comes to play in the US because that's where the money is. The KHL has already won a bidding war or two (albeit they won't get a Crosby or even retain a Malkin) and could make big inroads in the next few years.
On top of that, I doubt the NHL will not get a much bigger contract the next time their rights are up for sale. Hockey is on the rise big time, and is much bigger than pre-2005.
People have been predicting hockey's rise in this country for years and years. It's never happened. I doubt it will. What meager support it has is concentrated in the snow belt, which is shrinking population-wise relative to the rest of the country. And it's never caught on at all among non-white audiences.
It's possible that Russia's league could develop as a legitimate rival to the NHL, but that would not be a good development for hockey in the U.S. If anything, it would water the product down as talented Europeans would head to Russia instead of here.
I was speaking more towards hockey in general, and specifically about your comment that it's North American-centric.
I think there have been milestones that show hockey on the rise. The NBA pricing its target demographic out of ticket sales has put hockey into the three spot in attendance, and last summer's USA/Canada game was huge. Hockey has also "come back" to the number three market in the country and I'm assuming a Rangers/Islanders championship one of these years might pay huge dividends in the NY area.
While NASCAR is struggling (thankfully.) NBA if memory serves are stagnant recently, but WAY down since its '98 hey day.
The NHL's ratings are not good by any stretch of the imagination. They're up relative to the time immediately after they cancelled an entire season and went on an obscure network.
The NBA's ratings are indeed much lower than they were in Jordan's heyday, but still routinely about triple what the NHL draws.
I've never paid much attention to NASCAR, although I'm pretty sure it outdraws the NHL by a significant amount.
American Idol's ratings are down, but that last episode of The Cape was way up compared to the other airings. The NHL was fighting to get better ratings than the WNBA not that long ago.