What it Takes to Win in the NHL Today

This post is courtesy of Colby Katz-Lapides, our resident hockey guru.

Somewhere in this new era of fast-paced hockey where penalties are given out for what used to be considered good defense and sticking up for teammates, coaches and players alike seem have to forgotten Conn Smyth's famous credo: "If you can't beat 'em in the alley, you can't beat 'em on the ice." Even with the additional rules to open up the game and the undeniable advance in the skill of NHL players, this bit of advice holds just as true today as it did then.

Since the last hockey lock-out in 1994, along with a significant drop in hockey viewers we have seen a significant drop in hockey hits. Defenders were forced to change their game from physical to finesse, "goons" were forced to produce more with their sticks and less with their fists, and traditional "power-forward" type players slowly became a thing of the pass. The strategy of the game became more like basketball than hockey.

Now I like the rule changes. I think that it makes for much more exciting hockey, but do I think the coaches choice to move away from the physical game, even with the new rules, will help them win more games? Absolutely not – and the dudes from Anaheim who have last lifted the cup would agree.

The year after the lock-out was a strange one. The hockey world was bored as we watched a team that no one cared about beat a team that never should have been there in the Stanley Cup finals. Fighting majors reached an all-time low, and some of the leagues top-players fell to obscurity because of the forced change in their game. Games were decided by two factors: the goalie and the skill-depth of the roster.

Last year, the Anaheim Ducks were by no means the most skilled team in the NHL. They had the star power in Selanne, Niedermayer and Pronger, but past their top line the roster consisted of mostly players never-before heard of. However, the Ducks managed to take down The Detroit Red Wings and the Ottawa Senators, both of which had greater skill on their roster. The Detroit Red Wings, by all means, should have won the cup. What was the difference? Violence. The Ducks led the league by no close measure in fighting majors and accumulated a number of suspensions throughout the playoffs because of dirty play. Their roster was stacked with some of most feared players in the league (Parros, May, Thornton, the list goes on) and even the skill players were always ready to drop the gloves. Every series in their playoff run was won because the other team could no longer endure being on the ice with them. The Ducks found a niche that disappeared the year before, and they rode it home.

This years playoff, so far, has mostly gone to the better teams. Every team that won simply enough was just a much better team than their opponents. Teams like Calgary, Boston, and Anaheim were just too over matched for their physical domination to makeup the difference. One series, however, was turned by physical play alone. The Philadelphia Flyers have been detested around the league all year for their dirty play, and the playoffs didn't seem to slow them down. They took down the red hot Caps and now have a lead on the first seeded Habs because of physical intimidation. Philly was, aside from their physical play, the fourth least skilled team out of sixteen (next to Boston, Nashville, and perhaps Minnesota) but now there is a strong chance that we could see them in the Eastern Conference finals. Some teams get there because of a hot goalie or a dynamite roster. Philly has neither of these. They just beat the hell out of their opponents.

So where does this leave us? Physical teams succeed in the playoffs. Skill teams tend to get scared off. I believe that the league will turn back to dressing goons, allow their players to get instigator penalties and take runs at their opponents. If you can't beat the bullies, then you should join them.

Now watch Philly take Montreal in six and then scare the life out of Sydney Crosby.