I wrote a few years ago about diving & player's incentives.
It appears like it would be a good idea to branch these concepts out the hits to the head.
Many people were calling for a suspension after Cooke's hit on Savard. It all happens so fast, so it's hard to tell if Cooke was trying to hit his head or hit his shoulder and missed. I doubt Cooke wanted to concuss Savard. Even if they suspended Cooke it wouldn't effect the Penguin's all that much. Management would not be punished for using the player. The team is not punished for not discouraging this activity. A depth player is kept off the roster for a week. Easily replaceable. Suspensions do next to nothing to prevent hits to the head.
Many people would agree that it is often best to create rules and design systems that encourage self enforcement (encourage people to "tattle - tale" or reprimand their equals). In systems like these there are far more eyes keeping watch over the player's actions. Lets say a player hits another player in the head and doesn't get caught (minor incident, no injuries). The coach isn't going to bench the player. It's quite possible he will be praised for finishing his check.
Now lets set up some new rules:
- If any part of a player's arm or shoulder contacts a opposing team member in the head a automatic 5 minute major penalty will be assessed.
- Subsequently, if determined by a referee, a intent to injure 5 minute penalty can be added.
- This penalty can be called after video review if a player is injured.
Some adjustments would have to be made for face washes etc, but you get the point...
In terms of marginal goals a 5 minute major is worth about -0.5 goals and would cost the team about 10% of a win (or about $100,000). A 2 game suspension would've cost Cooke $30,000 personally.
With these rules, an undetected hit would result in the coach benching the player for fear that they could get caught next time. Team mates would not be happy if they lose the game because of this penalty.
You could still suspend the player if you like. And of course the NHL prefers their system of dice justice.
Things have changed a little since then with:Mason, Backstrom, Rask, Pavelec and Varlamov also taking the #1 (or close) spots on the roster. Some are doing well others are getting by.
I write this because Price continues to receive substantial amount of critism from the Montreal media [archived version]. This isn't new in Montreal, they have been complaining about Price since he started. Prior to the 2009 playoffs these comments were quite common: "Will somebody please tell Bob Gainey to put Halak in nets before we are swept by Boston". I'm not sure if Montreal fans expects every goalie they draft to be the next Roy, but you cannot expect the same performance from a 22 year Price as 25 year old Price (or 24 year old Halak). Further to that here's the data for Price and Halak.
As a result of management's insistence, Price has 126 games experience vs. Halak's 80.
I quickly copied all the Polls on Mirtle's site: From the Rink. And used the information to generate a simple prediction. How I got the Pts column is I took an average points for each position and multiplied by the percentage of votes for that position. So for example over the past few years the team in 8th position in the standings has average 92 points. So every 8th place vote gets 92 points. So first place votes (116 points) are worth a lot more than second place votes (110 points). It doesn't make a huge difference if you vote 7th (93.5 points) or 6th (94.5 points) as those positions are quite similar. I threw out votes for 15th or 1st depending on the team's average standings.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
