Welcome to August, where nothing is happening and it’s the perfect opportunity to waste everyone’s time with a bunch of nonsense. “Um, slow news day?” No, dummy, it’s a slow news month, so let’s get weird.
Note: Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and style.
Please settle the debate about the proper way to play Puckdoku. (And share any tips you might have.) — Eric C.
If you’re not already playing Puckdoku, you’re still getting work done missing out. The game is based on a bit we did on Puck Soup a few weeks ago, and is basically a hockey version of the Immaculate Grid craze. You’re presented with a 3×3 grid, with teams or accomplishments along the top and side, and you need to fill each space with a player who meets both of his square’s requirements.
How do you win? In theory, by successfully filling out the whole grid, although some people like to go further. Is there a right and wrong way to play? I don’t think so — this is one of those things where everyone should just enjoy what they enjoy, and play however they choose.
That said, you should make up your mind before you start each day’s grid. As best I can tell, there are four distinct ways people play:
• Basic mode: Just get as many right answers as possible, which a lot of days is difficult enough on its own. A right answer is a right answer, and that’s all you’re looking for. I’d imagine this is how most beginners and/or casual fans play.
• Front-runner mode: In this version, you’re trying to guess the most popular answer for each square, which will usually (but not quite always) be an active and/or superstar player. This means you’re looking for the highest possible “uniqueness” score for each square. Or to put it more simply, you want your grid to match the “Popular picks” that show up at the end of the game.
• Sicko mode: The opposite of front-runner mode, this one has you searching for the rarest answers, and the lowest possible uniqueness score. Double-digits is good; single-digits is better. It will not surprise you to know this is how I play.
• Cheater mode: This is like sicko mode, except you research your answers before you enter them to try to get as close as possible to a uniqueness score of zero. I’ll be honest, I don’t really get the appeal here, especially now that you can use this tool to easily find players nobody has ever heard of. But if it’s your cup of tea then go for it, with the only caveat being that you own it — no showing up in conversations between sicko mode fans and pretending your zero was legit.
If anyone has come up with anything more creative, be sure to let us know in the comments.
As far as tips, I’ll pass on a few. First, if you’re stumped on a two-team combo, try to recall a big blockbuster between those two teams, and then use the biggest name (front-runner mode) or the most obscure throw-in (for the sickos). Remember that there’s a one-game minimum, so don’t get tripped up by offseason acquisitions or draft picks who were traded away before debuting. There’s an extreme recency bias in the common answers, so factor that in if you’re trying for a high score. On the other side, many players don’t seem to realize the game uses franchise (not team) history, so dipping back to pick a Whaler for the Hurricanes or a Nordique for the Avalanche will usually result in a much lower score. Try to lock in on a few guys who played for half the league, like Michel Petit and Derick Brassard. And while I can’t prove this, it sure seems anecdotally that there’s a significant crossover between my readers and Puckdoku players; obscure players who get mentioned in my columns get a slight boost for at least a few days, so you sickos should be sure to read everything I write and then avoid those guys.
Finally, when in doubt, remember that Basil McRae played for the entire Norris Division. That’s a Puckdoku tip, but also just generally good life advice.
In the dog days of summer, Puckdoku has delivered what a lot of hockey fans are craving — fun and fresh content to keep them entertained.
A look at how the puzzle game has exploded in popularity over the past six weeks. https://t.co/J0CSBzPIjY
— Ian Mendes (@ian_mendes) August 2, 2023
Crazy idea — what would gameplay look like if the goal was just recessed into the backboards? Bring the boards up to where the goal line is so players can’t stall by handling the puck behind their own net. — @w_tony_w
I’ll admit right up front that I spent way too much time thinking about this. Let’s consider it pro-and-con style.
Pro: As Tony says, no more boring shots of guys standing behind the net waiting for things to set up.
Con: We’d need to figure out new rules for icing.
Pro: No more trapezoid.
Con: No more lacrosse-style goals from behind the net.
Pro: No more arguing over what to call lacrosse-style goals.
Con: No more goals where a guy humiliates the goalie by intentionally bouncing it off his back.
Pro: Ringing it around the boards becomes a legitimately fun play because the goalie would have to get out of the way.
Con: Your team’s goalie would definitely kick an overtime goal into his own net.
Pro: Far fewer nets getting “accidentally” knocked off whenever the defense needs a break.
Con: It would probably take three shifts before somebody suffers a career-ending injury while driving to the net and hitting the edge of the boards at full speed.
That last one feels like a deal-breaker, but I admit I’m intrigued. I encourage someone to submit this one to the next edition of Rules Court.
Let’s imagine that after decades of not being able to win the Stanley Cup, the seven Canadian teams decide to build their own league north of the border and announce there will be 20 teams in the new league. Your mission is to determine where will be the locations of those 13 new teams. One rule: Each metro area can only have two teams, e.g. only one new team can be added to Toronto. — Samuel F.
OK, let’s do this from easiest to toughest. We start with the existing seven teams, and then we add our allotted one additional team in both Toronto and Montreal. That brings us to nine.
Next up, we have four markets that seem reasonably obvious for a large, all-Canadian league: Hamilton, Quebec City, Halifax and Regina. The first two have been chasing an NHL team for decades, Halifax would love to finally have a big-league team, and if Regina fans would be even half as crazy for hockey as they are for the CFL, they’re a lock. (Seriously, there might not be a more passionate fan base in pro sports.)
That leaves us with seven spots to fill. I’m going to create some geographic rivalries with teams in Victoria (for the Canucks) and St. John’s (for our new Halifax team). I’m going to tip-toe around the huge Maple Leafs market by putting teams in Kitchener and Kingston. I’m going to add a team in Windsor in an attempt to suck in some Detroit fans. And I want one more team in Quebec, so let’s go with Sherbrooke.
As for that last team? You got it, it has to be Sudbury/Thunder Bay.
Have you ever tried to assemble a starting lineup that covers every existing franchise with just six players? — Mark B.
I played around with this for a while, decided it was probably impossible, and set it aside. But then this email arrived …
I did it! Six players, 32 franchises, each player with a minimum of four teams played for:
D: Bryan Marchment – SJS, EDM, WPG, CHI, CAR, TBL, COL, TOR, CGY
D: Mathieu Schneider – MTL, DET, TOR, LAK, NYI, NYR, ANA, WPG, ARI, VAN
RW: Jaromir Jagr – PIT, NYR, WSH, FLA, NJD, PHI, BOS, DAL, CGY
LW: Scottie Upshall – NSH, PHI, ARI, CBJ, FLA, STL
C: Ryan Donato – SJS, SEA, BOS, MIN
G: Robin Lehner – VGK, CHI, OTT, NYI, BUF
— Mark B.
Three things here. First, great work by Mark. Second, Puckdoku players take note. And third, I absolutely love this new thing where you guys send in mailbag questions and then also send in the answers. Please keep this up everyone. If this becomes a thing, I’ll turn this into a daily column.
Speaking of roster-building games …
Not a mailbag question per se, but:
I bet @DownGoesBrown is working on a piece with made-up rosters full of guys named Gord (Gordie, Gordon, Gordo, etc…) and Doug. Who would win?
— Ian Lord (@Ian_Lord) July 17, 2023
Yes, very funny. For the record, I know when I’m being made fun of. No, I’m not doing Team Doug vs. Team Gord, partly because I already covered the first name ground, but mainly because I have too much pride to become a parody of myself. No named-based rosters today.
Other than this next one …
I have been wondering if it is possible to create teams or lineups made with players whose last names begin with Mc and Mac. Maybe a head-to-head, cap-compliant, or an all-time lineup. Feel free to Mc’s and Mac’s as needed. — Brett D.
First things first: Brett 100 percent sent in this question just so he could end it with that terrible pun. And as a dad, I respect it.
Second, while I’m obviously biased here, let’s just go ahead and call it: Team Mc is going to absolutely crush this.
Yes, sure, Team Mac has Nathan MacKinnon up front and Al MacInnis on the back end. But beyond that, I’m not worried. Let’s see what we can come up with …
| FORWARDS | FORWARDS | FORWARDS |
|---|---|---|
|
Rick MacLeish
|
Nathan MacKinnon
|
John MacLean
|
|
Lowell MacDonald
|
Fleming Mackell
|
Paul MacLean
|
|
Clarke MacArthur
|
Craig MacTavish
|
Bob MacMillan
|
|
Kilby MacDonald
|
Mickey MacKay
|
Al MacAdam
|
| DEFENSE | DEFENSE | GOALIES |
|---|---|---|
|
Al MacInnis
|
Al MacNeil
|
Mackenzie Blackwood
|
|
Bill MacKenzie
|
Norm Maciver
|
Joey MacDonald
|
|
Andrew MacDonald
|
Jamie Macoun
|
That’s a solid roster, with a surprisingly long list of semi-interchangeable wingers making the forward lines a strength. But the blue line isn’t all that strong, and I’m not even sure Jamie Macoun should count. And the goaltending is just a mess — we’re letting Mackenzie Blackwood in just so that they’ll have two guys. Ask a Devils fan whether that feels like a good plan with an otherwise solid team.
Can Team Mc match up? Of course we can:
| FORWARDS | FORWARDS | FORWARDS |
|---|---|---|
|
Jared McCann
|
Connor McDavid
|
Lanny McDonald
|
|
Tony McKegney
|
Peter McNab
|
John McKenzie
|
|
Andy McDonald
|
Shawn McEachern
|
Walt McKechnie
|
|
Randy McKay
|
Basil McRae
|
Darren McCarty
|
| DEFENSE | DEFENSE | GOALIES |
|---|---|---|
|
Charlie McAvoy
|
Ryan McDonagh
|
Kirk McLean
|
|
Bucko McDonald
|
Brad McCrimmon
|
Jamie McLennan
|
|
Marty McSorley
|
Bryan McCabe
|
Yeah, that’s a clearly better team. We have one of the best players ever, a Hall of Famer on his wing, an actual goalie, a third line made up of 70- and 80-point guys, and an entire fourth line of enforcers just for the fun of it. And I didn’t even use Sandy McCarthy, Brian McGrattan, Kevin McClelland, Bob McGill, or Jim McKenzie … I’d make a comment here about how everyone with a “Mc” last name is apparently a tough guy, but I recently walked past a mirror, so I will not.
(And if you’re worried that Team Mc’s goon squad will rack up too many PIMs, let’s just say that we’re pretty sure referee Bill McCreary will look the other way.)
How about this as an idea: The Cup-winning team gets to travel with it all season long and bring it to games. They can even have it on the bench with them. Imagine watching Vegas beat Edmonton in January and then take the Cup for a spin after the game? — @PoundTownGown
At first I was intrigued, especially by the idea of teams having the Cup on the bench. I want to see a coach drawing up a play during a timeout while the Cup is peering over his shoulder, possibly with googly eyes attached to it. (And yes, there’s enough room on the bench to make this happen. Give it the backup goalie’s little chair if you need to, those guys would rather play on their phones in the dressing room anyway.)
But then I realized we’d just end up getting into an argument about whether it was appropriate to touch or even acknowledge the Cup in a regular-season game. There are somehow still people who think the whole “don’t touch the conference championship trophy after a grueling Game 7 win” thing is cool, imagine how annoying they’d get if a team acted like they even knew what the Stanley Cup was in mid-February. They wouldn’t be able to say “that’s not the trophy we want” or “act like you’ve been there before,” and I shudder to think about what other dumb stuff they might come up with.
What are your own personal favorite top three columns/stories you have written in your time at The Athletic and why? — Todd C.
My list of personal favorites changes based on my mood, but it tends to focus on stuff that was weird or unique in some way. So a current top three would probably include the simple question about jersey numbers, the Off-Brand All-Star roster and the reasons the NHL is rigged for or against your favorite team.
I also like the ones where I get to be a Leaf fan and commiserate about some crushing loss, but you did say top three, not top 30.
If there was a prospect in next year’s NHL Draft who would be the second worst NHL player in every skill area (second slowest skater, second weakest shot, etc.) but won faceoffs at a 100% rate, when would they be drafted? First overall? Third round? An undrafted future DEL legend?
You’re the only expert I can trust with this question, thanks as always for your great work. — Nick P.
I like this question because it reminds me of one of my all-time favorite sports-related thought experiments: The value of an MLB pitcher who was guaranteed to give up exactly one run in every inning he appeared in. At first, that sounds like a starter with a 9.00 ERA, which would be the worst pitcher in history. But then you start to think about how that guy could be deployed out of the bullpen, guaranteeing wins in some situations and outperforming the percentages in others, and he suddenly becomes extremely valuable.
It all comes down to how you could manipulate high-leverage situations with a sure-thing player. In the case of hockey, I don’t think Mr. Faceoff gets to the same level as Mr. One Run, because his skill isn’t as decisive. You can win a faceoff and still lose possession, for example, or fail to clear the zone. And of course, our player is so bad at everything else that he becomes a liability as soon as the faceoff is done. That’s not as bad as it sounds, since you can do quick line changes, just like teams do with faceoff specialists now, but it still matters, especially if you tried to use him in the offensive zone.
So what would it be worth to know that your team could win every crucial faceoff? You’re basically only going to use the guy on special teams and in late-game situations, but those are your highest leverage moments, so you don’t mind sitting him on the end of the bench for the rest of the game. There’s also the question of how other teams would react — if you know you’re going to lose the faceoff, do you still even put a guy in there to try to keep it from being clean, or do you run a new formation to try to maximize your chance at retrieval?
Here’s where I wound up: At the very least, this guy plays as a regular in the NHL. Given how few guys taken after the first few picks are guaranteed to have long pro careers, I think that makes our faceoff specialist a late first-round pick.
(Also, glove tap to every Maple Leaf fan reading this whole thing and thinking “Wait, you’re just describing what it was like to have Yanic Perreault.”)
Before a statistically significant number of games are played, the value of each team’s draft picks has high uncertainty. All else being equal, which teams’ draft picks do you want in a deal? Put another way, who thinks they’ll be good (low internal value on picks) but really will bust (high actual draft pick)? — Michael S.
I’m not sure there are any slam dunks for the coming year, especially now that the Capitals seem to have accepted their fate and the Lightning still feel a year or two away from the invoice coming due. That said, I think my top five targets would be:
5. Bruins — Even with all the talent they’ve lost, not to mention their heart and soul in Patrice Bergeron, it feels impossible that they could tumble all the way from 130 points to the lottery. But if absolutely everything went wrong … I mean, you’d take your chances, right?
4. Predators — I’m not completely sure what Barry Trotz is doing yet, so it would be worth a call to see if he’d move his pick.
3. Senators — Again, I’m meta-gaming on the GM factor here. Pierre Dorion knows he’s gone if his team misses the playoffs again, so maybe he’d be willing to make a “this won’t be my problem if it goes bad” type of deal for immediate help.
2. Maple Leafs — A new GM, a coach on the hottest of hot seats, no proven goaltending, a years-long streak of reasonably good injury luck that won’t necessarily hold, potential contract and/or trade distractions all year, and a fan base that’s just itching for an excuse to fully turn on these guys. It probably won’t go bad, but if it does, don’t sleep on the possibility of it going really bad.
1. Islanders — Lou seems to be going for it, but everyone else thinks they’ll miss the playoffs (or at least, will make them their pick to miss the playoffs since you have to swap a few teams in and out in each conference). The one problem here is that Lou always seems to lottery protect his picks, even when he’s in Cup-or-bust mode, and apparently nobody has ever pushed back on him and lived to tell the tale.
As a Bruins fan, I’m watching what they’ll do for the captaincy. I’m obviously a Brad Marchand fan, and fully recognize that most fan bases hate him (because they have no sense of humor and are wrong).
But it got me thinking about who the most loved and hated captains have been by other fan bases. Think maybe Joe Sakic on the good end and Scott Stevens on the bad? — Matt D.
It’s the “hated” category that’s fun here. There have been plenty of captains over the years who’ve been respected by other fan bases, including Sakic, Steve Yzerman, Jarome Iginla, Trevor Linden, Ray Bourque and Saku Koivu. I can’t imagine anyone didn’t love Mario Lemieux by the end. And Jean Beliveau may still be the gold standard. All classy, wonderful guys. Boring.
The hated category is tougher. There are certainly guys who are hated by specific fan bases — Joe Thornton by Blues fans, Daniel Alfredsson by the Leafs, John Tavares by the Islanders, Denis Potvin by the Rangers and Mark Messier by the Canucks, a team he definitely never played for.
But overall? Stevens isn’t a bad call. In his day, Eric Lindros was up there. Shane Doan made his share of enemies. So did Chris Chelios and Shayne Corson. So did Bobby Clarke and Derian Hatcher. Dustin Brown probably deserves a mention. And it’s fair to say that Theo Fleury isn’t especially popular these days.
In the end, I’m going to go with Dale Hunter, who was the Capitals’ captain from 1994 to 1999 — which, I’ll remind you, was after he’d plastered Pierre Turgeon and earned a record-setting suspension. He was always a super easy player to hate when he wasn’t on your team, since he was nasty at best and dirty at worst, and also good enough that you couldn’t just dismiss him as a goon. If you’re too young to remember him, just imagine if Tom Wilson was actually as bad as everyone says Tom Wilson is, then make him worse. That was Dale Hunter, and it’s why he’s my pick for the most hated captain of all time.
(Photo of Scott Stevens: Chris Trotman / Getty Images)
Article From & Read More ( Puckdoku tips, most-hated NHL captains, an all-Canadian league: An August DGB mailbag - The Athletic )https://ift.tt/bhWzjrA
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar