OT: Leafs/NHL Thread

[ciueli]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

[ATLTimekeeper]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

Scoring is tallied continuously in basketball, so there's a purer reflection of the gameplay, but because scoring is less of a reflection of gameplay in hockey there's more tension throughout the game. If you're overly impressed by dunks and 3s and fastbreaks, cool, but there's not much tension or tension relief leading to those plays. That's why the cliche of "you just have to watch the last 5 minutes" has always had a grain of truth. That's really the only time there's comparable tension.

[HumbleRen]

Hockey is too random for me to be invested in but I hope Maple Leafs pull out a series win.

The fanbase deserves it.

[JB7]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. The NBA is the one sport where one player overall dominates more than any other sport (other than tennis ).

Look at the championship winners. Dominated by teams with single individuals who win constantly. It is actually the one team sport where if you have that player, your chance of success is significantly higher. Think Bill Russell, Jordan, Curry, Lebron, Shaq/Kobe, Duncan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, etc.

While positions can matter greatly in other sports, the overall game is influenced by so many different players and plays, that the outcomes are less determined.

Because rotations are so tight (usually 8 or less players in the playoffs), one player playing most of the game can have a dominating presence over the outcome of the game.

What makes the NBA so interesting is the personalities, which are outsized because of the influence they have over success, the money they make and therefore their own ego's.

Mind you, this year there is more parity because the superstars (Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Durant) are aging out, and the one young one Giannis had an injury, and his team wasn't able to support him enough to get through the 1st round. The question is, outside of Giannis, who will be the next younger star to elevate to superstar (championship winner) status? Jokic, Tatum, Booker?

[ciueli]

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

Scoring is tallied continuously in basketball, so there's a purer reflection of the gameplay, but because scoring is less of a reflection of gameplay in hockey there's more tension throughout the game. If you're overly impressed by dunks and 3s and fastbreaks, cool, but there's not much tension or tension relief leading to those plays. That's why the cliche of "you just have to watch the last 5 minutes" has always had a grain of truth. That's really the only time there's comparable tension.

The last time I tried to get into hockey it was the early 2000s, I think the Leafs were playing the Hurricanes in the playoffs. Every game it was the same story, the Hurricanes would push really hard to win the first goal, then once they had a 1-0 lead they would completely change how they played just sit back and ride that 1 goal lead as long as they could, waiting for the Leafs to make a mistake and maybe get a run out for another goal. Horrible and frustrating to watch, I really dislike games where you can get a lucky fluke goal and just ride it for the rest of the game, it's so boring to watch, soccer is exactly like this as well. It's like the entire rule set of the game is designed to specifically prevent scoring at a fundamental level, the fact the goalie can play the entire game while other stars at any other position can play maybe 40% of the game at most just biases it toward having star level goaltending.

Sure basketball you might be able to skip watching all but the end of a close game, but you're not going to know what the turning point of the game was, or what actually brought the winning team to victory. If you only watch the end of the Raptors' 2019 first round series game 2 against the Orlando Magic you wouldn't have seen them play defence so good in the 1st quarter it virtually stole the Orlando players' souls. The rest of the game was pretty even, they won on the strength of dominating the first quarter.

[JB7]

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

Scoring is tallied continuously in basketball, so there's a purer reflection of the gameplay, but because scoring is less of a reflection of gameplay in hockey there's more tension throughout the game. If you're overly impressed by dunks and 3s and fastbreaks, cool, but there's not much tension or tension relief leading to those plays. That's why the cliche of "you just have to watch the last 5 minutes" has always had a grain of truth. That's really the only time there's comparable tension.

The last time I tried to get into hockey it was the early 2000s, I think the Leafs were playing the Hurricanes in the playoffs. Every game it was the same story, the Hurricanes would push really hard to win the first goal, then once they had a 1-0 lead they would completely change how they played just sit back and ride that 1 goal lead as long as they could, waiting for the Leafs to make a mistake and maybe get a run out for another goal. Horrible and frustrating to watch, I really dislike games where you can get a lucky fluke goal and just ride it for the rest of the game, it's so boring to watch, soccer is exactly like this as well. It's like the entire rule set of the game is designed to specifically prevent scoring at a fundamental level, the fact the goalie can play the entire game while other stars at any other position can play maybe 40% of the game at most just biases it toward having star level goaltending.

Sure basketball you might be able to skip watching all but the end of a close game, but you're not going to know what the turning point of the game was, or what actually brought the winning team to victory. If you only watch the end of the Raptors' 2019 first round series game 2 against the Orlando Magic you wouldn't have seen them play defence so good in the 1st quarter it virtually stole the Orlando players' souls. The rest of the game was pretty even, they won on the strength of dominating the first quarter.

It is the unpredictable nature of sports like hockey and soccer that make them so exciting. Games can turn on one moment, one play, and the outcomes are less determined.

The NBA is very predictable, so it is not the actual winner that generates excitement. It is the events that occur in game play that create interest. Curry going off for 50pts in game 7 for instance.

I got sick of watching the Leafs because they have become so predictable. And you pointed it out above. In sports like hockey and soccer, defense trumps offense in terms of winning in playoffs. Leafs keep on running out offensive focused teams that failed every year in the first round. They happened to make it through this year (probably by luck), because they were dominated offensively by Tampa most games, forcing them to focus on defense more, and then they capitalized (could argue this was luck) on their opportunities (won three games in overtime). But first two games against Florida seem to be the same old story with the Leafs from previous years. Too much focus on O, and not enough on D.

[ATLTimekeeper]

The last time I tried to get into hockey it was the early 2000s, I think the Leafs were playing the Hurricanes in the playoffs. Every game it was the same story, the Hurricanes would push really hard to win the first goal, then once they had a 1-0 lead they would completely change how they played just sit back and ride that 1 goal lead as long as they could, waiting for the Leafs to make a mistake and maybe get a run out for another goal. Horrible and frustrating to watch, I really dislike games where you can get a lucky fluke goal and just ride it for the rest of the game, it's so boring to watch, soccer is exactly like this as well. It's like the entire rule set of the game is designed to specifically prevent scoring at a fundamental level, the fact the goalie can play the entire game while other stars at any other position can play maybe 40% of the game at most just biases it toward having star level goaltending.

The game changed dramatically since the early 2000s, so it is more challenging to just clutch and grab your way to a low scoring win, and a penalty can change the fortunes of those teams trying to protect their lead.

Scoring has to mean something, defense has to mean something, or the sport grows dull. If you watched the NBA in the early 2000s, I'd bet a 3 pointer meant more to you than it does now, or you've just forgotten the importance of that shot.

While you might not like luck factors in sports, I watch sports for the unpredictability. So in the NHL they have a decent balance of that, where an 8 seed can make it to the Finals. It's frustrating for favourites, but keeps the total fanbase invested. The NBA has a different business model, and you see a lot of disaffected fanbases that just wait around for their team to get the next LeBron.

[ciueli]

Scoring is tallied continuously in basketball, so there's a purer reflection of the gameplay, but because scoring is less of a reflection of gameplay in hockey there's more tension throughout the game. If you're overly impressed by dunks and 3s and fastbreaks, cool, but there's not much tension or tension relief leading to those plays. That's why the cliche of "you just have to watch the last 5 minutes" has always had a grain of truth. That's really the only time there's comparable tension.

The last time I tried to get into hockey it was the early 2000s, I think the Leafs were playing the Hurricanes in the playoffs. Every game it was the same story, the Hurricanes would push really hard to win the first goal, then once they had a 1-0 lead they would completely change how they played just sit back and ride that 1 goal lead as long as they could, waiting for the Leafs to make a mistake and maybe get a run out for another goal. Horrible and frustrating to watch, I really dislike games where you can get a lucky fluke goal and just ride it for the rest of the game, it's so boring to watch, soccer is exactly like this as well. It's like the entire rule set of the game is designed to specifically prevent scoring at a fundamental level, the fact the goalie can play the entire game while other stars at any other position can play maybe 40% of the game at most just biases it toward having star level goaltending.

Sure basketball you might be able to skip watching all but the end of a close game, but you're not going to know what the turning point of the game was, or what actually brought the winning team to victory. If you only watch the end of the Raptors' 2019 first round series game 2 against the Orlando Magic you wouldn't have seen them play defence so good in the 1st quarter it virtually stole the Orlando players' souls. The rest of the game was pretty even, they won on the strength of dominating the first quarter.

It is the unpredictably of sports like hockey and soccer that make them so exciting. Games can turn on one moment, one play, and the outcomes are less determined.

The NBA is very predictable, so it is not the actual winner that generates excitement. It is the events that occur in game play that create interest. Curry going off for 50pts in game 7 for instance.

Yeah, I don't really get the attraction of something being unpredictable, that's not really interesting to me. Two people having a coin flipping contest to see who can flip more heads than tails is unpredictable, but it's not interesting, it's just random.

I prefer to watch great players succeed playing the sport they play. As you say, Steph going off in game 7 to win the series for the Warriors even though I would have loved to see the Kings advance. Harden going nuts to take game 1 for the 76ers without Embiid even though I don't like the 76ers as a Raptors fan. Losing to LeBron all those times hurt, but, you know, it made sense because he was better than anyone else on our team and we got outplayed plain and simple. It's much worse losing because of dumb randomness or in spite of the fact that your team outplayed the other team and they just got some lucky goals. I don't know how people stand watching that, it's massively frustrating. You know what they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.

[pingpongrac]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

It's also possible (and more likely) that the best player on an NHL/MLB title team is a position player and not a goalie/pitcher. Just last year the Avs won it all despite their goalie tandem allowing 2.65 goals per game with a .903 SV% because of their high-powered offence led by their top line and a defenceman while the Astros won it all due to a collective effort from the top of the rotation down to the bullpen (which allowed like half a dozen runs in the entire postseason) with just enough offence.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove with the "watch 5 minutes and you'll see..." bit. 5 minutes of basketball naturally has more scoring, but you get the same variety of different plays in the NHL. There is a lot more to it than just dumping and chasing. That has just become an increasingly important part of the game as teams/players have adjusted over the years – just like how one could say the NBA is all about three-point shooting now.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Yeah, I don't really get the attraction of something being unpredictable, that's not really interesting to me. Two people having a coin flipping contest to see who can flip more heads than tails is unpredictable, but it's not interesting, it's just random.

That's just a dumb analogy. It's not interesting because they're not athletes playing a kids game, they're just flipping coins.

I prefer to watch great players succeed playing the sport they play. As you say, Steph going off in game 7 to win the series for the Warriors even though I would have loved to see the Kings advance. Harden going nuts to take game 1 for the 76ers without Embiid even though I don't like the 76ers as a Raptors fan. Losing to LeBron all those times hurt, but, you know, it made sense because he was better than anyone else on our team and we got outplayed plain and simple. It's much worse losing because of dumb randomness or in spite of the fact that your team outplayed the other team and they just got some lucky goals. I don't know how people stand watching that, it's massively frustrating. You know what they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.

You're argument is that it would be less interesting if we upset LeBron in the playoffs. Or that LeBron upsetting the Warriors coming back from 1-3 was massively frustrating

[ciueli]

Yeah, I don't really get the attraction of something being unpredictable, that's not really interesting to me. Two people having a coin flipping contest to see who can flip more heads than tails is unpredictable, but it's not interesting, it's just random.

That's just a dumb analogy. It's not interesting because they're not athletes playing a kids game, they're just flipping coins.

But that's exactly what you said isn't it, that it's the fact that it's unpredictable that makes it interesting and exciting? This is the same reason I don't get football, the most popular sport in America. I guess some people love the idea that their team can win because of a fumble and recover leading to a touchdown that is as much as 50% of the entire scoring in a game on one play, they like the idea of making organized sports more like coin flipping, not less.

I prefer to watch great players succeed playing the sport they play. As you say, Steph going off in game 7 to win the series for the Warriors even though I would have loved to see the Kings advance. Harden going nuts to take game 1 for the 76ers without Embiid even though I don't like the 76ers as a Raptors fan. Losing to LeBron all those times hurt, but, you know, it made sense because he was better than anyone else on our team and we got outplayed plain and simple. It's much worse losing because of dumb randomness or in spite of the fact that your team outplayed the other team and they just got some lucky goals. I don't know how people stand watching that, it's massively frustrating. You know what they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.

You're argument is that it would be less interesting if we upset LeBron in the playoffs. Or that LeBron upsetting the Warriors coming back from 1-3 was massively frustrating

Not at all, the LeBron Cavs and Steph Warriors were evenly matched teams, it's really interesting to see evenly matched teams go against each other in a test of skill. If we had upset LeBron in the playoffs that would have meant we were actually the better team because that's how basketball works, worse teams don't beat better teams barring injuries or bad officials.

[Fairview4Life]

But that's exactly what you said isn't it, that it's the fact that it's unpredictable that makes it interesting and exciting? This is the same reason I don't get football, the most popular sport in America. I guess some people love the idea that their team can win because of a fumble and recover leading to a touchdown that is as much as 50% of the entire scoring in a game on one play, they like the idea of making organized sports more like coin flipping, not less.

There is a difference between a random number generator being unpredictable, and a sports outcome being unpredictable. The sport still requires a human being playing that sport to be great. Like a goalie standing on his head to steal a series still requires the goalie to play exceptionally well...or have early 2000's gigantic pads.

The unpredictability is why they actually have to play the games.

[ciueli]

But that's exactly what you said isn't it, that it's the fact that it's unpredictable that makes it interesting and exciting? This is the same reason I don't get football, the most popular sport in America. I guess some people love the idea that their team can win because of a fumble and recover leading to a touchdown that is as much as 50% of the entire scoring in a game on one play, they like the idea of making organized sports more like coin flipping, not less.

There is a difference between a random number generator being unpredictable, and a sports outcome being unpredictable. The sport still requires a human being playing that sport to be great. Like a goalie standing on his head to steal a series still requires the goalie to play exceptionally well...or have early 2000's gigantic pads.

The unpredictability is why they actually have to play the games.

The randomness aspect that is negative for me is when games are decided by one player throwing the puck in the general vicinity of the net, having it bounce off a player's skate at a weird angle and go in. That's not really a skill game, it's just a random luck game. Sometimes you see great goals that are pure skill, but a lot of the time the goals are weird flukes. You have circus shots and half court shots in the NBA, but it's different because one basket is so much less of a percentage of the overall scoring that it's rarely going to decide a game between a good team and a bad or mediocre team.

Interesting that you would bring up the goalie pads, because as someone who doesn't really watch hockey but has watched bits and pieces of this Leafs run, their pads look absolutely freaking huge to me. As I said, I really dislike games like this that have two modes, "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead" mode. In the first mode you play normally, trying to score. In the second mode you play differently, just trying to maintain the lead at all costs. It doesn't always work, but it works quite a bit of the time. Hockey reinforces this two mode play with goalies so huge they block almost all of the net because once you have a lead you can just win with defence, it's like basketball was back in the days before they introduced the shot clock, you know, completely unwatchable to the point where it almost died as a sport as a consequence.

[YogurtProducer]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Basketball is the only major sport in which one player can single handedly carry a team, what are you talking about?

[YogurtProducer]

But that's exactly what you said isn't it, that it's the fact that it's unpredictable that makes it interesting and exciting? This is the same reason I don't get football, the most popular sport in America. I guess some people love the idea that their team can win because of a fumble and recover leading to a touchdown that is as much as 50% of the entire scoring in a game on one play, they like the idea of making organized sports more like coin flipping, not less.

There is a difference between a random number generator being unpredictable, and a sports outcome being unpredictable. The sport still requires a human being playing that sport to be great. Like a goalie standing on his head to steal a series still requires the goalie to play exceptionally well...or have early 2000's gigantic pads.

The unpredictability is why they actually have to play the games.

The randomness aspect that is negative for me is when games are decided by one player throwing the puck in the general vicinity of the net, having it bounce off a player's skate at a weird angle and go in. That's not really a skill game, it's just a random luck game. Sometimes you see great goals that are pure skill, but a lot of the time the goals are weird flukes. You have circus shots and half court shots in the NBA, but it's different because one basket is so much less of a percentage of the overall scoring that it's rarely going to decide a game between a good team and a bad or mediocre team.

Interesting that you would bring up the goalie pads, because as someone who doesn't really watch hockey but has watched bits and pieces of this Leafs run, their pads look absolutely freaking huge to me. As I said, I really dislike games like this that have two modes, "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead" mode. In the first mode you play normally, trying to score. In the second mode you play differently, just trying to maintain the lead at all costs. It doesn't always work, but it works quite a bit of the time. Hockey reinforces this two mode play with goalies so huge they block almost all of the net because once you have a lead you can just win with defence, it's like basketball was back in the days before they introduced the shot clock, you know, completely unwatchable to the point where it almost died as a sport as a consequence.

Except in hockey it is good play that eventually leads to luck. Over a 7-game series it is very very difficult and extremely rare to "fluke" your way to a series victory.

IDK what you are even talking about the "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead mode" because that really is not a thing in the modern NHL outside of really, really late in a game (which is no different than NBA teams milking clock late in a game).

Just sounds like you have irrational hatred for hockey because you think it is cool to be different. None of your points make a lick of sense.

[Fairview4Life]

But that's exactly what you said isn't it, that it's the fact that it's unpredictable that makes it interesting and exciting? This is the same reason I don't get football, the most popular sport in America. I guess some people love the idea that their team can win because of a fumble and recover leading to a touchdown that is as much as 50% of the entire scoring in a game on one play, they like the idea of making organized sports more like coin flipping, not less.

There is a difference between a random number generator being unpredictable, and a sports outcome being unpredictable. The sport still requires a human being playing that sport to be great. Like a goalie standing on his head to steal a series still requires the goalie to play exceptionally well...or have early 2000's gigantic pads.

The unpredictability is why they actually have to play the games.

The randomness aspect that is negative for me is when games are decided by one player throwing the puck in the general vicinity of the net, having it bounce off a player's skate at a weird angle and go in. That's not really a skill game, it's just a random luck game. Sometimes you see great goals that are pure skill, but a lot of the time the goals are weird flukes. You have circus shots and half court shots in the NBA, but it's different because one basket is so much less of a percentage of the overall scoring that it's rarely going to decide a game between a good team and a bad or mediocre team.

Interesting that you would bring up the goalie pads, because as someone who doesn't really watch hockey but has watched bits and pieces of this Leafs run, their pads look absolutely freaking huge to me. As I said, I really dislike games like this that have two modes, "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead" mode. In the first mode you play normally, trying to score. In the second mode you play differently, just trying to maintain the lead at all costs. It doesn't always work, but it works quite a bit of the time. Hockey reinforces this two mode play with goalies so huge they block almost all of the net because once you have a lead you can just win with defence, it's like basketball was back in the days before they introduced the shot clock, you know, completely unwatchable to the point where it almost died as a sport as a consequence.

Hockey is a free flowing extremely fast game where small mistakes can lead to big results, because of the skill of the players. It's ok to not like that kind of thing, but it's also something a whole lot of people do like to watch. Playing to win vs. playing not to lose, 2 goal lead being the most dangerous in hockey etc. are cliches for a reason. You can talk about two modes or whatever but teams that grab a lead and hang back lose a whole lot. You can't actually just win with defense. Puck possession is a huge part of the game and just sitting back and letting the other team swarm you and hope your goalie watched some old Hasek videos before the game isn't really a viable strategy. Florida, for example, doesn't just sit back. They are a relentless forechecking team that wins by making you give up the puck.

[GQStylin]

Yeah, I don't really get the attraction of something being unpredictable, that's not really interesting to me. Two people having a coin flipping contest to see who can flip more heads than tails is unpredictable, but it's not interesting, it's just random.

Unpredictability is why pretty much everyone watches sports isn't it? What's the point of watching any sporting event if you already know the outcome? Also as much as people want to see the best athletes be the best, people also probably don't mind seeing upsets and having those best athletes taking a loss. That's what makes sports great.

Losing to LeBron all those times hurt, but, you know, it made sense because he was better than anyone else on our team and we got outplayed plain and simple. It's much worse losing because of dumb randomness or in spite of the fact that your team outplayed the other team and they just got some lucky goals. I don't know how people stand watching that, it's massively frustrating. You know what they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.

I don't disagree that it was fun to see LeBron dominate and often singlehandedly take over games, but at the same time it was just as fun to see his teams getting beat despite his play because its nice to see that even the best can be beaten. In the NBA playoffs its pretty automatic in the 1st round that the higher ranking teams beat the lower ranked ones and it makes for an utterly dull 1st round and often a boring 2nd round as well.

In hockey you can never be sure because its a TRUE team sport and everyone has to be playing their best to win and move on to the next round. In basketball if you have 2-3 star players you can play them 35-40+ mins a game and let them dominate with the rest of the team taking on a much lesser role. In hockey you can't do that and you need your entire team playing well to achieve success and that's what I like seeing much more than the star driven NBA. When you win the Stanley Cup in hockey it truly is a 'team win' compared to the NBA where the best players do most of the work and often the rest of the team is along for the ride.

[ciueli]

There is a difference between a random number generator being unpredictable, and a sports outcome being unpredictable. The sport still requires a human being playing that sport to be great. Like a goalie standing on his head to steal a series still requires the goalie to play exceptionally well...or have early 2000's gigantic pads.

The unpredictability is why they actually have to play the games.

The randomness aspect that is negative for me is when games are decided by one player throwing the puck in the general vicinity of the net, having it bounce off a player's skate at a weird angle and go in. That's not really a skill game, it's just a random luck game. Sometimes you see great goals that are pure skill, but a lot of the time the goals are weird flukes. You have circus shots and half court shots in the NBA, but it's different because one basket is so much less of a percentage of the overall scoring that it's rarely going to decide a game between a good team and a bad or mediocre team.

Interesting that you would bring up the goalie pads, because as someone who doesn't really watch hockey but has watched bits and pieces of this Leafs run, their pads look absolutely freaking huge to me. As I said, I really dislike games like this that have two modes, "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead" mode. In the first mode you play normally, trying to score. In the second mode you play differently, just trying to maintain the lead at all costs. It doesn't always work, but it works quite a bit of the time. Hockey reinforces this two mode play with goalies so huge they block almost all of the net because once you have a lead you can just win with defence, it's like basketball was back in the days before they introduced the shot clock, you know, completely unwatchable to the point where it almost died as a sport as a consequence.

Except in hockey it is good play that eventually leads to luck. Over a 7-game series it is very very difficult and extremely rare to "fluke" your way to a series victory.

IDK what you are even talking about the "before we have a lead mode" and "after we have a lead mode" because that really is not a thing in the modern NHL outside of really, really late in a game (which is no different than NBA teams milking clock late in a game).

Just sounds like you have irrational hatred for hockey because you think it is cool to be different. None of your points make a lick of sense.

Once a team has a lead there is no pressure for them to continue scoring, they can sit on the lead and emphasize defence. Get in trouble in your own end? Ice the puck, win the face off, easy out. The other team then needs to take greater and greater risks to get an equalizer, which compromises their own defence and gives better chances to the defending team. It's a simple game exploit. Try this in the NBA outside a comfortable lead in the last few minutes of the game and you will lose, it's just not a real strategy. It's worse in soccer but it's still a thing in hockey.

Game wins happen all the time in hockey to single fluke goals. How many times do you see a basketball team win a game because some player made a single miracle half court shot or circus shot that had a 1% chance of going in? Bascially never. But hockey teams win all the time on a goal that went in off some guy's skate, or there was a tiny gap under the goalie's stick that the puck just squeaked under unexpectedly, or the puck tumbled over the goalie's stick on a weird hop off the ice.

[Michael Jordan]

Leafs had more shots on goal but their defense was really sloppy compared to Florida

I still think they can take the series

[tecumseh18]

This is why basketball is the only good major sport. In every other major sport there’s too much emphasis on one player at one position trumping the play of an entire team (goalie in hockey, pitcher in baseball, quarterback in football).

Huh? How many years did we personally get smacked by the Cavs because of LeBron single-handedly dominating us?

It's possible to win a title with your best player at any one of PG, SG, SF, PF, or C, that's the point. Steph Curry can be the best player on multiple title teams, but so can Shaq. A team built around Giannis plays far differently from one built around Steph, it's a level of diversity other sports don't have.

Spend 5 minutes watching basketball and you'll see scoring plays, dunks, 3 pointers, fast breaks, layups, actual action and a change in game score.

Spend 5 minutes watching hockey and you'll see a face off, some guy accidentally icing the puck, a lot of dump and chase, some line changes that make it hard to tell who is on the ice at any given time. Maybe if you're lucky you'll see the goalie stop a shot that probably had no chance of going in anyway.

Absolutely this. You spend so much for a ticket, and you want to see the stars perform. I always made sure to go to games at the ACC when the Lakers were town, because Kobe was guaranteed - GUARAN - DAMN - TEED - to go off. Maybe he would shoot the dagger, maybe it would rim out, but he was going to be worth watching the whole game. I remember going to see a Washington Capitals game when I was visiting Ottawa (who can afford Leaf tickets for a premium game?). Of course Ovi didn't score. How many Caps games would I have to go see to be guaranteed to see the greatest goal scorer in NHL history score a damn goal? At those prices (plus Ticketmaster vigorish), the cost-benefit analysis doesn't work.

But I hate the narrative that Lebronto beat the Raps single-handedly year after year. Of course The King got his, but it was our players' inability or unwillingness to guard guys like Channing Frye, Kevin Love and J.R. Smith that really killed us.