Superblow Me

Think of the game of hockey. Easy enough.

Picture the last ten Kings games. A bipolar affair.

Imagine there were none before it and the playoffs started now. Why?

Now say we play Phoenix next game and we win. Their season is now over.

You have to wait a week for the next Kings game. It’s against San Jose. We win! Niemi had an off night but too bad, no more hockey in Northern California for 4 months.

Another week drags by and we play Detroit. Oh boy. The game goes to OT and we win on a questionable call by the referee. yippee!

No hockey now for two weeks. Crosby’s team hasn’t even seen the ice for almost a month but still, every damn radio and tv station won’t shut up about him. The Kings are all set to play the Bruins. One game, winner take all. People are excited about the game but even more so, millions set their DVRs so they don’t miss the $4 million Big Bear Mountain Ski Resort commercial. I hear it has singing dogs and monkeys masturbating.

Game day arrives and the streets are empty. All are tuned in to watch the year’s biggest event. Kings vs. Bruins. People who don’t even know what icing means will be watching and cheering. It should only take 4 or 5 hours until we know who wins. It would go faster, but between each period Madonna will slip one of Janet Jackson’s nipples up her ass and that will slow things down. The national anthem is set to be sung by some rapper with a lisp whose name more closely resembles a chemical compound found in cleaning agents than anything a parent may write on a birth certificate. No matter, our ears have gone deaf to the sound of drums blaring fight songs for each team that all really sound the same. A mountain of people carry on as if they never left college though they weren’t intelligent enough to be accepted in the first place.

Meanwhile I’m out of town, very glad that I watch football instead of hockey and that I get to see my team play at least 82 times a year. That when my team makes it to the playoffs and the finals and I’ll get to watch them at least twice in my stadium each round. Thank god I am a football fan and that when my team wins a championship it will be because they have proven themselves to be the best beyond doubt and reason, that the whims a single day brings have been ironed out and rendered neutral by the tests of time and the magic of the rematch.

It’s also pretty cool that for one Sunday each year, the golf courses won’t be crowded.

Enjoy watching the Super Bowl as much as I will enjoy avoiding it.



Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , , ,

15 replies

  1. A perfect piece for this day.Thank you!

  2. Great article. My thoughts exactly about that sport.

  3. Written like a True Hockey Fan..Amen..me too
    GO KINGS GO!!!

  4. Funny article but not accurate. The best team does not always win in hockey, either. For instance, because the playoffs are so much longer, this leaves much more time for injuries to occur, often a greater disparity in injuries from team to team, than in football.

    What I mean is, say in football there is an average of 1 injury per team in the playoffs (lower than there really is because thats the nature of the sport, but just for example). That could mean come superbowl time, each of the two teams has one injured player, or at worst, one team has two injuries, one has zero.

    In hockey, its so much longer, the average injuries per team will be much higher than they would be if they just played 1 game per round. You could have four injured players per team, or you could have 8-0, or 6-2, really outweighed. You could have the Kings without their top line center and with their best winger injured, while SJ is almost 100% healthy.

    Its not just the injuries, either. Like I said, sometimes the best team doesnt win. And lets remember, whenever a series goes to 7 games, it still comes down to the whims of a single day or however you put it. Chris Campoli doesnt give away a goal every game, or most games, but it happened in game 7 and it cost the Blackhawks a series. They were neck and neck with Vancouver, whose to say who was better. Even thats probably not the best example.

    So I dont buy this article at all. I have more emotional investment in hockey, but football is a fantastic sport, with life or death plays and suspense every 3 downs at minimum. It really is, to be honest, a much better honed sport than the NHL. What I mean is either by sheer genius or chance, having a 100 yard field with the width they used just so happened to be the perfect size to allow running backs and receivers alike to succeed, have their strengths and weaknesses. Its enough room for great highlight plays without leaving too much space that defenses wouldnt have a chance. And the way the rulebook works with this, the way everything works in concert with everything else, its really the perfect sport right now. Basketball its too easy to score, hockey theres no room for creativity anymore and they dont score enough. Football is the sport where the way they have it organized right now in the NFL is the closest to perfect of any of the other sports.

    So if you dont watch it, youre missing out. Fantastic games, fantastic moments, incredible athletes, amazing skill, such a great combination of finesse from the quarterback position surrounded by brutish muscular guys trying to destroy him.

    Its a great game. Wasnt the best superbowl ever but as usual it came down to an incredibly exciting fourth quarter.

    • Two things.

      Your point about injuries is superfluous. Depth in case of injuries is part of being a good team.

      Sports are, in general, silly and competition is ultimately a stupid human flaw. The only perfect sport is gladiator combat to the death.

      • Its not superfluous in tight playoff series. Depth is PART of being a good team, doesnt mean injuries to key players dont affect playoff series. Maybe you thought I was being a biased Kings fan trying to make excuses for the Kings losing to the Sharks, and reacted accordingly, but thats not what I maent. Who knows if Kopitar makes a difference, I agree the Kings dont have depth and that is why they lose, not bad luck.

        But other situations. If Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin both get injured at the end of the Eastern Conference Finals, youre telling me that would be “superfluous” to the outcome of the Final? The Penguins are as deep as any team with those two in the lineup, but that doesnt mean injuries cant affect playoff series in which they are in.

        But really, injuries werent my point. My point was that, for a bunch of reasons, 7 game series arent always won by the best team, and football is a fantastic sport. Trust me, Ive watched hockey much longer than Ive watched football, I am a hockey fan first, but when it comes to watching a football game as a neutral as opposed to watching a hockey game as a neutral, there is often no competition. The football game is far more entertaining. We like watching the Kings because there is so much suspense and excitement just around the outcome, each goal that is scored and what it will mean for the season. But if we werent Kings fans, when you think about Kings games, what else really is there? They barely ever score, every game is a slow slog, there is no creativity or excitement on display, no plays that take you out of your seat (figuratively). In terms of key moments, the only key moments are if youre behind by 1 goal with 10 minutes left in the game you need to score, and if youre ahead you need to keep them from scoring. In football, like I said, its every three downs, every huge catch (did you see the one last night)?

        1. So injuries are not always superfluous to the outcome of a series. I dont know why you would say that when its simply not true. If its because I gave a potentially poor example in Kopitar, then I apologize, but I still dont know why you would say that.

        2. Maybe this is a case of you dont know until youve tried it, but trust me, you are missing out on football. Your blog was funny like I said, and its always nice to have a go at other sports when youre primarily a fan of one, but as funny as it was, it was equally inaccurate. You should try watching the sport sometime, next season when theres a marquee matchup, I think you would like it. Might give you an idea how far hockey has fallen, too, at least for the neutral in 90% of games.

        • You said my post was funny, which is where my interest in this subject lives and dies.

          But speaking of funny, you keep using the word ‘inaccurate’ which is funny because it’s inaccurate. We are talking about my opinions here.

          Fact: football plays far fewer games than hockey in a season

          Opinion: I think that’s lame

          Fact: football playoffs are single game eliminations

          Opinion: I think that’s lame

          Fact: many people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials

          Opinion: I think that’s lame

          That’s essentially my post and it’s anything but inaccurate because those simple facts are true and my feelings about them are truly my feelings. Disagree with me all you want but please stop being silly by insisting my opinions are misstated facts. Also go back and read my usage of the word superfluous so you may understand what it was referring to since your response clearly indicates you are applying it in a way I never used it.

          • Surly, come on.

            “Your point about injuries is superfluous.”

            Thats what you said. I said it was inaccurate. Either injuries can affect the outcome of a playoff series, or they can’t. I said they can. Logic suggests they can. My example of a team losing its two best players suggests they can. While teams dont lose their two best players every day, or every year, its certainly within the realm of possibility, and logic would certainly dictate that would impact the outcome of a playoff series involving the team.

            And most of all, history shows us that injuries have affected playoff series. Its not definitively provable, as in a mathematical proof, but it doesnt have to be. Even if you can’t prove that injuries have affected playoff series in the past, and any reasonable observer of hockey would agree that it has, but even if you can’t prove it’s happened before, the point is that it can. You can’t tell me the Penguins losing Crosby and Malkin would not decrease the Penguins odds of winning any playoff series.

            So Surly (by the way you’ve been in sort of a surly mood lately, at least towards me) (get it? “surly?” HAH), what you said is inaccurate, just as you saying it’s not inaccurate when it is is also inaccurate. “That’s essentially my post and it’s anything but inaccurate because those simple facts are true and my feelings about them are truly my feelings. ”

            Just because it’s your post does not mean you didn’t say something that is untrue.

            “Thank god I am a football fan and that when my team wins a championship it will be because they have proven themselves to be the best beyond doubt and reason, that the whims a single day brings have been ironed out and rendered neutral by the tests of time and the magic of the rematch.”

            You’re of course actually talking about hockey, not football, so your assertion is that when a hockey teams “wins a championship it will be because they have proven themselves to be the best beyond doubt and reason, that the whims a single day brings have been ironed out and rendered neutral by the tests of time and the magic of the rematch.”

            That’s very absolute, and thus inaccurate. You assert that the Cup winner has been “proven…the best beyond any doubt and reason…that the whims a single day brings have been…rendered neutral by the tests of time…”

            But they aren’t always rendered neutral, especially when there are significant injuries involved. And the best team does not always win, certainly not beyond any doubt and reason, as the Bruins surviving multiple game seven’s in the playoffs, and very fortunately so against Montreal, would prove.

            So that’s something just in your article that is untrue. It’s not an opinion that isnt right or wrong, just an opinion, its just not true. Call it factually inaccurate, or inaccurate by logical deduction, by observation, its just inaccurate.

            And Ive already been over it, but you saying “Your point about injuries is superfluous” is also untrue. It’s not an opinion. Injuries are not always superfluous or irrelevant to the outcome of a playoff series. You claiming that just because any good team should depth makes my point about injuries superfluous is not true, again by deduction or observation or whatever else. Ill use deduction right now to prove it. What would you consider good depth? Would having ten 50 goal scorers on your team qualify as good depth? (Thats 10x more than most any team). Ok, what if all 10 get injured for a playoff series? Now you have bad depth, which proves the point that injuries can affect depth, so if your argument was that injuries are superfluous because good teams should have depth, well, not when injuries can affect depth.

            Anyway, a pointless exchange. I was just pointing out casually that hockey’s outcomes are not always more foolproof and exact than football’s. I wasnt expecting…however you would characterize your reaction…back in return. It was a good article, I wasnt implying otherwise. You could probably characterize it like, say, The Tudors television show, or any entertaining but historically inaccurate period piece. Some people dislike them on the basis of them being inaccurate, I personally dont mind and am just looking for the best story to be told, but I also dont make the mistake of relying on them to teach me history.

            I think I already said this, but you basically had a good go at football while pumping up hockey, it was amusing, just the negative implications made about football and its playoff outcomes weren’t accurate, just as characterizing stanley cup playoff outcomes beyond any doubt and reason. I think your point was that hockey playoff series outcomes are immune to the whims of a single day because they span 10 days, so therefore the “whims a single day brings (can be) ironed out and rendered neutral by the tests of time.” But I think you’re forgetting that sometimes 10 day periods have their whims, too, often equally as unbalanced as the whims of a single day. Look at Sidney Crosby, hes been having two unlucky years, not days. Same thing can happen to a team.

          • Alright, since I like you and you point a lot of thought into that response, allow me to go point by point here.

            ““Your point about injuries is superfluous.”

            Thats what you said. I said it was inaccurate. Either injuries can affect the outcome of a playoff series, or they can’t. I said they can. Logic suggests they can. My example of a team losing its two best players suggests they can. While teams dont lose their two best players every day, or every year, its certainly within the realm of possibility, and logic would certainly dictate that would impact the outcome of a playoff series involving the team.”

            You are working off the premise that I said “injuries are superfluous” which is not what I said. I said your POINT about injuries is superfluous. Very different. What was your point? Your point was that the fact that injuries occur and are more likely to occur in a longer NHL season than in a shorter football season negates my assertion that the best team is more likely to win the Stanley Cup than the best team is likely to win the superbowl. It’s a wild variable though. That’s why I said depth is part of being a good team. When was the last time a team that wasn’t very good won the Cup just because the other team had a ton of injuries? Are you going to tell me that the 2002-2003 Kings were a good team? They SHOULD have been a good team, but they couldn’t handle losing Allison and Deadmarsh and were ultimately, a bad team. Coulda, woulda shoulda ain’t a part of sports. I could just as easily say that the cheerleaders in football are more prominent and hotter than ice girls in hockey, and therefore football players are more likely to be distracted which means that hockey games are less affected by external factors so ipso facto deductum, hockey games are more indicative of pure athleticism. That’s obviously hyperbole, but its superfluous. Injuries happen, they happen to everyone.

            “And most of all, history shows us that injuries have affected playoff series. Its not definitively provable, as in a mathematical proof, but it doesnt have to be. Even if you can’t prove that injuries have affected playoff series in the past, and any reasonable observer of hockey would agree that it has, but even if you can’t prove it’s happened before, the point is that it can. You can’t tell me the Penguins losing Crosby and Malkin would not decrease the Penguins odds of winning any playoff series.”

            OK, sure, but again I never said that injuries don’t affect the outcome of playoff series, so whatever. Sucks for the Penguins. Tough titty. A Penguins team with Crosby is a better team than a Penguins team without Crosby. They don’t get to be a better team just because Crosby SHOULD be healthy. Many people think that Mario Lemieux was a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky, but too bad, he couldn’t stay healthy like Wayne did and therefore the record books will never have Lemieux’s name at the top. That titty may be tough, but its still in your face and it ain’t going nowhere till you suckle it.

            “Just because it’s your post does not mean you didn’t say something that is untrue.”

            I apologize for not framing everything I wrote with “My opinion is that” Let’s try this again, my opinion is that a long playoff series is less prone to be decided by the whims of a day than a single game elimination series.”

            That’s very absolute, and thus inaccurate. You assert that the Cup winner has been “proven…the best beyond any doubt and reason…that the whims a single day brings have been…rendered neutral by the tests of time…”

            Again, I’ll apologize for my brusk writing style if it makes you realize I’m giving you my thoughts and not trying to shove facts down your throat.

            But they aren’t always rendered neutral, especially when there are significant injuries involved. And the best team does not always win, certainly not beyond any doubt and reason, as the Bruins surviving multiple game seven’s in the playoffs, and very fortunately so against Montreal, would prove.

            If anything, the Bruins persevering through all those 7 games playoff series ABSOLUTELY made them the best team. Who the hell else can do that? No one in NHL history, that’s who.

            And Ive already been over it, but you saying “Your point about injuries is superfluous” is also untrue. It’s not an opinion. Injuries are not always superfluous or irrelevant to the outcome of a playoff series. You claiming that just because any good team should depth makes my point about injuries superfluous is not true, again by deduction or observation or whatever else. Ill use deduction right now to prove it. What would you consider good depth? Would having ten 50 goal scorers on your team qualify as good depth? (Thats 10x more than most any team). Ok, what if all 10 get injured for a playoff series? Now you have bad depth, which proves the point that injuries can affect depth, so if your argument was that injuries are superfluous because good teams should have depth, well, not when injuries can affect depth.

            You aren’t using deduction, you are using misplaced hyperbole, which is, again superfluous because it is all rooted in a misunderstanding of my point. Good depth is not something that can be quantified by any measure other than results. If you have 10 50 goal scorers and they all get injured, you aren’t just unlucky, god and the spirits of the realm hate you. Luck plays its part, sure, but I will address this in a minute…

            just the negative implications made about football and its playoff outcomes weren’t accurate, just as characterizing stanley cup playoff outcomes beyond any doubt and reason.

            I disagree. You’ve yet to make a compelling case otherwise to me.

            Why?

            Because the law of averages accounts for aberrations. That’s why its the law of averages. In single game elimination, there are no averages. You slip a coin, it lands hands, end of story. In hockey, you get to flip that coin many, many times, and it is a fact that one side of a coin weighs more than the other and that when the flip is repeated enough times, the heavy side will fall more often than the lighter side. As in hockey, when you play 7 game series, though a single game may and will likely be affected by the “whims” of a day, that is averaged out over the course of a series. One team can have one lucky bounce one day, the other team can have theirs the next, thus the lucky bounce is LESS of a factor. That’s what I mean by “not affected by the whims of a day” and things being “ironed out” so that there can be no doubt. In my mind! You can doubt all you want. But I look at the superbowl (assuming I watched it) and say “well that could have gone the other way on another day”. In the Stanley Cup finals I don’t, because I see that teams decide their own fate more than the powers of chance do. Of course whims happen, of course injuries affect a team, of course sometimes a lesser team can win over a better team… but really, if a “lesser” team manages to beat a “better” team in a 7 game playoff series, you can’t really call them the “lesser” team, can you?

          • As for the word superfluous, Im responding to it in the context you used it in, that you viewed my point about injuries superfluous because good teams should have depth, anyway. Reading it again, I mean that seems like its what you meant. Thats what you said. I cant think of what else it would mean. Maybe if you hadnt put in the comment about good teams having depth in the same thought you could have meant it differently, but with that sentence there it really only makes sense in one context, which is what Ive been responding to.

            Not that it matters siiigh. I think this whole exchange is superfluous!

  5. Enjoy watching the Super Bowl as much as I will enjoy avoiding it.

    … Oh wow. You’re THAT Guy.

    Sorry to hear that. You missed a great game and a great time, and this is coming from a genuine non-football fan.

    • “oh wow”

      Me not liking football is news to you? Trouble paying attention there lately?

      • … Not liking football has nothing to do with it. Well, maybe it has a LITTLE to do with it. I’m no football fan either, but it was still an entertaining game. But hey, I guess your mileage may vary.

        • Really? To me not liking football has everything to do with not watching the superbowl seeing as its the only reason I don’t watch it.

          I suppose your point is that you just like watching championship games. I don’t. I’m not a sports fan. I’m a hockey fan. If its a subject I don’t care about then I don’t care Who wins.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,042 other followers

%d bloggers like this: