Brad Marchand Can't Help Himself.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Actually the above statement shows your total lack of understanding of the NHL.

No, I understand the NHL just fine. You're whining because nobody is pointing how other guys are or are not punished by the NHL. Those incidents don't have anything to do with one another. And no matter what the NHL does, if we fans have some sympathy (or none) when your guy gets punished, that also has nothing to do with any other player or the NHL. I know you want to mash it all up in your head, but some of this stuff really doesn't have anything at all to do with the other stuff.

[Por_sha911]

Eric you totally ignored my logical point.

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Actually the above statement shows your total lack of understanding of the NHL. Every coach will tell you the same thing: they don't care if the game is called tight or loose as long as its the same for both sides. Likewise, when supplementary punishment is considered, the NHL always shows other events of similar circumstance to show perspective as to what is or isn't acceptable.
Go back to shuffleboard.

Maybe try badminton.

[billybek]

The imbalance in how the fines and suspensions are distributed to different players depends on their past history. Increasingly they are ramping up the fines for repeat offenders.
When they start leveling fines that really hit these guys in the pocketbook the problem players in the NHL will start to behave.
Theoren was indeed a pretty good little pest and also a very good hockey player. He certainly had his demons and wasn't the cleanest player on the ice but not comparable to BM (see what I did there?) in any way. TF's suspensions were centred around substance abuse and behavior linked to that substance abuse.
Maybe we can start to call BM Number 2 like on Star Trek?

[Por_sha911]

billy, you get extra credit for the play on words.

Theoren was indeed a pretty good little pest and also a very good hockey player. He certainly had his demons and wasn't the cleanest player on the ice but not comparable to BM (see what I did there?) in any way.

Hmmm, personal bias wouldn't shade your opinion on this, would it? I predict that 20 years from now they will say the same about Marchand in comparison to whoever the newest instigator is.

Small clarification: the NHL does not take past history into account when deciding if an incident is worthy of supplemental punishment. They do take past history into account when deciding the punishment for an infraction. The coach wants the calls on the ice to be the same for everyone whether its slashing or a quick whistle when the puck is near the goalie.

Watch the video:


So, I believe there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. I believe that agitators have a place in the NHL just like enforcers. Some of the most respected men in the NHL admired these guys.

Lets agree to condemn dangerous people that injure other players. We don't need Raffi Torres or Matt Cooke but lets stop making believe that these guys are supposed to be altar boys. The N in NHL is nasty and it takes guts to play in the league.

Agitators get paid good money to be the guy everyone loves to hate. SOME of them are a double threat because they are also excellent players. Say what you will but IMO "the little ball of hate" is worth every penny he makes (as long as he is on my side of the ice).

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Eric you totally ignored my logical point.
Maybe try badminton.

Nope. I didn't. You're whining about *fan reaction* to what the NHL does or does not do. That doesn't have anything to do with anything. Fans can complain or gloat as they see fit, and it has nothing at all to do with the NHL and how it does stuff. Not only that, the NHL's policy on punishment is not linear or transparent, and repeat troublemakers have ALWAYS gotten punished more heavily. Brad Marchand is a repeat troublemaker. As far as separating on-ice with after-action punishment, no duh coaches want it called equal. They'd like every day to be a new day, where their guy had never caused trouble before. But those guys in stripes are just as human as the rest of us, and if they are watching the troublemakers a little more closely, how can anyone NOT expect that?

I understand that you think you're making some sort of logical argument, but you're not. Your argument is based on false comparison and lack of internal knowledge on the subject. IOW, emotional.

[Buckterrier]

Por_sha is a homer. Are you going to defend Marchand for last years stick between an opponent's legs trying to take out his nut sack? He's dirty. Sugar coat it anyway you'd like, enforcer, agitator, etc. He is a dirty player plain & simple.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Buckterrier

Por_sha is a homer. Are you going to defend Marchand for last years stick between an opponent's legs trying to take out his nut sack? He's dirty. Sugar coat it anyway you'd like, enforcer, agitator, etc. He is a dirty player plain & simple.

The fact that he also has some pretty good hockey skills is besides the point. If he were only a goon, nobody would even care.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by SilberUrS6

Nope. I didn't. You're whining about *fan reaction* to what the NHL does or does not do. That doesn't have anything to do with anything. Fans can complain or gloat as they see fit, and it has nothing at all to do with the NHL and how it does stuff. Not only that, the NHL's policy on punishment is not linear or transparent, and repeat troublemakers have ALWAYS gotten punished more heavily. Brad Marchand is a repeat troublemaker. As far as separating on-ice with after-action punishment, no duh coaches want it called equal. They'd like every day to be a new day, where their guy had never caused trouble before. But those guys in stripes are just as human as the rest of us, and if they are watching the troublemakers a little more closely, how can anyone NOT expect that?

I understand that you think you're making some sort of logical argument, but you're not. Your argument is based on false comparison and lack of internal knowledge on the subject. IOW, emotional.

When did I talk about fan reaction? Fail.
You completely ignored stats I posted. Fail.
You didn't read where I said that supplimental punishment is not decided on the player's history but if they are found guilty then the amount of punishment is. Fail.
You ignore facts and attack the speaker. Final fail. Game misconduct. Now ignored.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by Buckterrier

Por_sha is a homer. Are you going to defend Marchand for last years stick between an opponent's legs trying to take out his nut sack? He's dirty. Sugar coat it anyway you'd like, enforcer, agitator, etc. He is a dirty player plain & simple.

Wasn't that Lucic?
And you're a bozo.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

When did I talk about fan reaction? Fail.

"Why isn't anyone complaining about..."

LOL, OK. I guess the "anyone" you were talking about there are now imaginary?

[creaturecat]

the agitator link brought back some fine NHL memories.
the Eddie Shack highlight was priceless.

[Por_sha911]

The list in that video are all legends in their own right. Admired by some of the finest in NHL past and present. They made a living being hated. Now I wonder if I can collect on the hate being spewed at me for admiring Marchand...?

On a side note, did anyone see the Bruins/Rangers game yesterday? I didn't see the the Bruins winning and had them totally written off when the Rangers went up 3-2.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

The list in that video are all legends in their own right. Admired by some of the finest in NHL past and present. They made a living being hated. Now I wonder if I can collect on the hate being spewed at me for admiring Marchand...?

On a side note, did anyone see the Bruins/Rangers game yesterday? I didn't see the the Bruins winning and had them totally written off when the Rangers went up 3-2.

Yup, a classic comeback or a classic meltdown take your pick.

[Por_sha911]

I think a little of both. The B's didn't lose heart when things looked bad and King Henry didn't look his best in the 3rd. Seems like Lundqvist is getting old or is he just having a bad year?

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

I think a little of both. The B's didn't lose heart when things looked bad and King Henry didn't look his best in the 3rd. Seems like Lundqvist is getting old or is he just having a bad year?

Unknown at this point, but he is slowing down. Remember when Brodeur began his slide? Good games, bad games, great saves , soft goals. It happens.

[911boost]

Wasn't Verbeek the "the little ball of hate"?

Just because Odip***** called BM that, doesn't mean you can.

[yel911]

Brad's on fire!!! He's a slayer off the ice too!!!

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by BSiple

Wasn't Verbeek the "the little ball of hate"?
Just because Odip***** called BM that, doesn't mean you can.

Old news: 2013: Goodness, Gracious, Great Balls Of Hate! - Stanley Cup of Chowder

Pat was a fan of the nickname. "There's something about it that I liked. It spoke to that I wasn't an easy player to play against." It came from his teammates and he took it as "a badge of honor."

So of course, we finally get down to the reason for the call: Does Pat "Little Ball of Hate" Verbeek think it's okay that Brad Marchand is getting called "Little Ball of Hate" by the President of the United States, among others? "Yeah," the 1063 point, 2905 PIM former player said, "I think he should take it as a badge of honor.

The media have used the term for years as well. This also reminds me how people love to hate players from the other team but are quiet about the agitators and enforcers on their own teams. Haters gonna hate.

[SilberUrS6]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

This also reminds me how people love to hate players from the other team but are quiet about the agitators and enforcers on their own teams. Haters gonna hate.

Nope, nothing about fan reaction here. Nosiree....

[911boost]

Oh I don't hate him, karma always comes back around.

Homers always going to be homers will be just as apt to say for you.