Glow Puck is back!

Twenty-two years ago, the National Hockey League's broadcasting partner, Fox, broke out a technology that would revolutionize the game. After much work with the league to be sure puck integrity wasn't harmed, a micro-chip was embedded in the puck, allowing the puck's speed and (almost) exact path to be tracked; further, it allowed the guys in the control room to add effects: a hazy blue glow, a trail, a comet trail. This was FoxTrax. Or, as it has come to be known, Glow Puck.





The idea behind FoxTrax was, I guess, a good one. One of the chief complaints leveled against hockey since pretty much forever is that it's hard to follow the puck on TV. It moves too fast! It's too small! There are too many players! In truth, I can kind of understand this, and I try to be understanding. Just because have no problem following the action doesn't mean it's easy, it just means I've been doing it for as long as I can remember; I grew up in a hockey family, after all. Surely, this revolutionary technology would bring new fans flocking to the game?

It was panned.

Well, it was panned by hockey fans, anyway. Frankly, it looked stupid, added clutter, and was a distraction. Instead of being able to follow the wider play, the Glow Puck made it hard to watch anything BUT the puck. It reduced the game to a cartoon, or a video game. And it didn't lead to new fans flocking to the game. After Fox lost the broadcast rights to the NHL, the Glow Puck faded away, never to return (sadly, the other Fox innovation, the 18-minute intermission which merely allowed for three extra minutes of commercials, didn't).

And now it's back.

This weekend, the NHL introduced its much ballyhooed player tracking technology. Pucks and player shoulder pads have a chip embedded in them that allow sensors to know exactly where everything is on the ice at all times, how far apart players are, how fast everything is moving--and will allow the wonks in the control room to add effects: a blue trail to the puck, lines connecting players, bubbles over the players' heads. It will revolutionize the game, and bring in new fans by the thousands!

Or, not.

Now, there are some interesting things about this. It's interesting to see how fast players move. It will be interesting to see if Alexander Ovechkin can break 100 mph on his slap shot in game situations. It will be interesting--and sobering--when someone calculates the force of a Radko Gudas shoulder to the head of an unsuspecting player. But keep it off the ice, please. Keep it out of live play.

The funny thing about some of this, of course, is that it's less necessary than it was 22 years ago. We're living in the age of high definition television, where everything is rendered in exquisite detail. My smart phone has a better picture than the TV set I watched the 1996 All Star game on! We don't need puck trails, we can see it now! What we might need is better arena lighting and better camera angles, not more graphics.


Maybe this is just me being a cranky old man yelling "Get off my lawn!" at the clouds. Maybe the League and its broadcast partners will employ this judiciously, or make it available on special, 'enhanced broadcasts'  that you can pay extra for (hah, I might pay extra to get rid of it!). Maybe I'll get used to it, the way I've gotten used to advertisements on the boards, and all players wearing helmets and visors. Time will tell.

Do you like computer enhancements for your sport?
 

From the Department of "NOW I've Seen Everything"

Okay, first off, I'm going to admit that this is a blatant 'filler post' that has nothing to do with writing. The fact is, once again I was unprepared this morning, then got home late, had a late dinner, so here we are, with me trying to maintain something of a schedule. Then again, maybe you'll find something inspiring.

On the way home from work this afternoon, I heard this story on the radio. My first thought was, "Are you effing kidding me?" And let me tell you, my inner voice was not saying this in that "Wow, how cool is that?" sort of tone, but in tones that were condescending, snide, and snarky.

But I'll also admit the "Are you effing kidding me?" was quickly followed by another thought: "I'm going to have to Youtube that." And so, I give you three words that have no business going together: Dog Surf Competition. Enjoy.



And, in a classic example of falling down the internet rabbit hole, here's Kama, the surfing pig.



Ever surfed? Ever surfed with a pig or a dog? Tell us about it!

Stanley Cup Favorites--Or Not

The National Hockey League playoffs are rolling along, more than halfway through round two. As I write this, eight teams have already been eliminated in the first round, one has been taken out of the second round, and another could be knocked out by ten thirty this evening. As always, the playoffs has provided drama, thrills and controversy in equal measure, heroes and goats, and further proof that no one really seems to know what goaltender interference is. 

My own Bruins went down in the first round, losing to Ottawa in six games, which means I can actually enjoy watching the games for a change (playoff hockey is probably the most excruciatingly exhilarating thing in the sports world. It's only when you don't have a dog in the fight that you can truly appreciate the game as a game.). Still, it's always more interesting when you're rooting for someone; I just need to figure out who. With that in mind, I'll list out the remaining teams, and some pros and cons of rooting for them. Maybe by the time I'm done, I'll know who to root for.

Anaheim Ducks

Pros: Well, uh, there's…hmm. Can I come back to this?

Cons: Ryan Kesler. Ryan Getzlaf. Corey Perry. The fact that the team, originally owned by Disney, was actually named after a movie franchise. Coach Randy Carlyle reminds me an awful lot of Dean Wormer. Maybe that's a pro?

Pros, part deux: Honestly, I still got nothing. As far as I can tell, the Ducks have no redeeming qualities at all. That was easy!

Edmonton Oilers

Pros: A Canadian team hasn't won the Stanley Cup since 1993. They practically invented the game, for God's sakes. Let 'em have one.

Cons: They switched to those awful orange jerseys. That's unforgivable. Sportscasters on Hockey Night in Canada insist on calling Ryan Nugent-Hopkins 'RNH.'

Nashville Predators

Pros: A Cup victory for P.K. Subban will give the management of the Montreal Canadiens an ulcer the size of Tycho. As a Bruins fan, anything that does that is fine by me (and I like Subban, now that he's not on Montreal anymore).

Cons: With 46 games played for the Predators, it's possible that Mike Ribeiro gets his name on the Cup.

New York Rangers

Throw it into Mount Doom, Master Mats!

Pros: A win means they can finally stop talking about Mark Messier and 1994. They were my Dad's favorite team, and I have a lot of friends and family who would be really happy if they won. Mats Zuccarello would be the first hobbit to get his name engraved on the Stanley Cup. 

Cons: New Yorkers are insufferable when their teams win championships. A deep playoff run means having to look at an ever-increasing number of bandwagon celebrities in the Madison Square Garden crowd.

Ottawa Senators

Pros: See Oilers, Edmonton. Also, the original Ottawa Senators won 11 Stanley Cups in the NHL's early days before moving to St. Louis and folding in 1935. As such, the Senators, who rejoined the NHL in 1992, would be the first "Zombie Team" to win the Cup. That'd be kind of cool. And we'd get two more rounds of Coach Guy Boucher doing stuff like this:

Cons: The Senators have a bunch of sneaky-dirty guys who are jerks. And not just because they eliminated the Bruins. Since the NHL is a league of copycats, a Senators Cup win might set the NHL back about 20 years, as everyone decides to employ a boring system with a bunch of marginally-talented players. We'd have two more rounds of Guy Boucher, and frankly, Guy Boucher scares the bejeebus out of me:

Pittsburgh Penguins

Pros: There hasn't been a back-to-back Cup champion since Detroit in 97 and 98; it's time we had one. A second consecutive Cup for Phil Kessel would be a giant "FU" to the Boston media who savaged him when he left the Bruins and might earn him some of the respect he deserves.

Cons: A third championship for Sidney Crosby would make listening to NBC coverage of the Penguins even more insufferable than it is now--and it's pretty insufferable.

Washington Capitals

Pros: A win for the Caps might just shut up some of the unfair criticism directed at Alex Ovechkin, who has only scored more goals by a long shot than anyone else since he entered the league. It would also mean Justin Williams is still perfect in his career in game 7s. They have a guy named Beagle--who doesn't like a beagle?

Cons: I still hate Braden Holtby for almost single-handedly knocking out the Bruins in 2012. Tom Wilson is a dangerous player who needs to stop leaping into hits. I'm not real happy with anything from Washington these days.

The verdict

 

Well, that was very helpful. As expected, writing all this out has helped me figure this out. So, who do I want to win the Stanley Cup now that the Bruins are out? Well, um...err...Bruins in 2018!

Can you root for anyone when your favorite team is out of the playoffs? How do you decide?

Super (Sneaky) Advertising

Crap, here I am, stuck again.

Some time yesterday I had an idea for a blog post, one that was actually about writing. Nothing huge, mind you. The way I envisioned it, it would be short and sweet, a couple of paragraphs at best.

I don't know what I was doing when it came into my head. I might have been actually writing, or we may have been driving the Magpie to the bus station (she came home for a visit this weekend; it's good to be a senior with no classes on Friday!), or I may have been doing something else. "I like that," I thought. "I may have to use that on Monday."

Yeah.

Except I didn't write it down.

And so, here we are.

I didn't watch the Super Bowl last night, but I looked at the boxscore when it was over, took a spin through the 'play by play' list, and all I could think was, "Wow, this looks like the most boring Super Bowl ever!" If you watched it, was it as bad as the recap made it look?

A lot is being made over Peyton Manning kissing the Papa John's pizza guy on TV, and at least twice telling interviewers, "I'm going to drink a lot of Budweisers." Questions of taste in beer and pizza aside, some vilified Manning for blatant, inappropriate product placement. Seems all the goodwill Peyton garnered for beating Tom Brady and the Patriots was immediately squandered.

I have to wonder, though: is it all that different from "I'm going to Disney World"? Maybe, in the sense that those commercials are commercials, and a post-game press conference or sideline interview isn't expected to be about product placement, right?

Oh. Hmm. Okay, then.

Granted, comparing a hockey coach's mid-season, post-game interview with a spontaneous, post-game event is a bit of an apples-to-oranges thing. The truth is, just about everything in sports these days, especially the big events, is about advertising and product placement. How many times did the announcers mention that the game was being played in Levi's Stadium? I'm willing to bet that, just before the opening kickoff, viewers were told that the kickoff was being sponsored by Met Life or Go Daddy or someone. And that half-time show, that was all Pepsi, right?

I wouldn't be overly upset with Manning. For all we know, he might just equate Budweiser with beer, the way millions of people think a copy machine is a Xerox or a facial tissue is a Kleenex or a can of soda is a Coke. Just wait--it won't be long until the team names in the end zones take up half the space they do now, with a sponsor name taking up the rest, or the uniforms the players wear are covered with advertisements. I'll be more upset by that then a throw-in plug that may or may not have been an accident.

That's it for me. Did you watch the game? What did you think?

On Dynasties

Most of the people in my life that I know are from New York, especially Long Island and the New York City region. This was made all the more clear last night, when my Facebook feed erupted in gloating after the Denver Broncos defeated the New England Patriots in last night's AFC title game. No seventh trip to the Super Bowl for coach Bill Belichick, quarterback Tom Brady, and the rest of the Pats. No fifth Super Bowl title for the hated team from New England. My friends who are Jets fans were joined by a lot of others from all across the country in gleefully waving

to New England.

Of course, this also leads to predictions of New England's demise. Tom Brady is 38, ancient for a quarterback. Coach Bill Belichick can't do this forever. And in the modern world of sports, there's no way they can hold this winning team together for much longer, right? Jets fans (and, seemingly, everyone else) are salivating over a season of mediocrity from New England, or even something as bad as Belichick's first season in New England, when the Patriots went five and eleven. Everyone would like to see New England plunged back into the dark ages, maybe into a run as desperately bad as the Detroit Lions of 2008 (winless) or the Columbia University football squad (forty-four consecutive losses). That would be sweet revenge, right?

Maybe not.

Though the Patriots can no longer quite be considered a true dynasty team in the sense of what the word means (multiple consecutive championships, like the New York Yankees who won five straight World Series titles, the Montreal Canadiens, who won five straight Stanley Cups and appeared in an astounding ten consecutive Stanley Cup finals, or the Boston Celtics and their eight straight NBA championships) their consistent winning record is the closest thing we have in sports right now. The changes that have occurred in modern sports--salary caps, free agency, endless expansion, of leagues and playoffs--have all but knocked off the true dynasties, and that's too bad, in my opinion.

The people who run the sports leagues want parity, and there's something to be said for it. As a fan, it's nice to look at your team and your favorite sports league at the beginning of a season and think, "We've got a shot." It's also nice to know that rebuilding your team to contender status doesn't have to take a generation. Playoff races are more intense and upsets in the playoffs are more likely--hooray for parity! Yet, I feel like we're losing something at the same time.

Dynasties give us someone to hate. They also give us someone to look up to, to grudgingly admire. Dynasty teams tend to bring out the best in their opponents, even if they end up making them look silly. They serve as motivation and provide a template for other general managers. And if we're lucky, and our general manager is any good, we fans have hope that, some day, our team will be the one sitting on the throne and running off championship after championship.

We don't know if the Patriots are done. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But I think that, when they are finally gone (as all dynasties must eventually fall), some of those Jets fans will one day look back and say (grudgingly), "Yeah, that was one hell of a football team."

Have a great week, everyone.

The Recency Effect

Deryk Engelland scored for the NHL's Calgary Flames on Wednesday night. Twice.

This is news because they were Engelland's first two goals of the season, his first in more than a year (literally), and because he had only scored 13 times in the previous 310 games of his career. More important, his second goal tied Calgary's game with the Dallas Stars and earned the Flames a point--a point which moved them one ahead of the Los Angeles Kings for the final playoff spot in the NHL's Western Conference. Josh Cooper, a writer for the hockey blog, Puck Daddy, wrote, "If the Kings miss the postseason by one point, they will be cursing Deryk 'freaking' Engelland and his first two goals of the season up and down Southern California."

Yes, it's that kind of season

Over in the Eastern Conference my beloved Boston Bruins--a popular preseason pick to win the conference and tabbed by more than a few to win the Stanley Cup--are also a point out of a playoff spot. And if they fail to qualify, many will point to a game the Bruins lost last week to the Ottawa Senators, the team sitting one point ahead of them in the standings, as the loss that sank their season.

Yes, it's that time of year where fans (and media and, to a lesser extent, players and coaches) point to one game as the reason they missed the playoffs. In the inevitable post-mortems of wasted seasons, they will bemoan that one game that made the difference in the season--and it will be a game that occurred somewhere in the final week or two of the regular season.

Meanwhile, Opening Day (and yes, I believe it is written in caps like that) for Major League Baseball is just over a week away and you can bet that no one will get their jock straps in a twist over a loss in April--who cares about a loss in April? It's just one game out of 162, no big deal, plenty of time to make it up. About the only people who care about a baseball loss in April are managers who are starting on the hot seat, pitchers who get stuck with the 'L', and fantasy baseball players. And when August slips into September and teams are watching their playoff hopes slipping away, no one will say, "If only we'd won on Opening Day!"

Is there an official term for this? I'd call it "The Recency Effect," though apparently that term is already in use for something else--our tendency to remember the last things on a list first. It's kind of the same, don't you think? In the world of sports (particularly fandom), it's our tendency to place greater emphasis on recent events. A loss in a tight playoff race is more important than one that happened in the first week of the season. For the Bruins, everyone will point to that loss against Ottawa at the end of March, but what about the one in January? Or the shootout loss to the Senators in December? How about that mid-October game where they blew a 3-1 lead against Montreal and lost, 6-4? Win any one of those games in regulation and, all other things being equal*), they would still be a point up on Ottawa and that March loss wouldn't look quite so big right now. Every loss is important, even the ones that happened four months ago.

I'm wondering if The Recency Effect (as I've defined it) infects other parts of our lives as well, or if it's something that we reserve especially for sport. What do you think?


* sports fans are big on a particular brand of Magical Thinking that assumes all other things are always equal, and I may actually have another post on that in the near future. Break? Did I say I was taking a break?