View Single Post
05-14-2013, 10:51 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,755
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
How about the "curses" associated with the Presidents Trophy, Wales Trophy, and Campbell Bowl? I have no idea why the media still talks about them. I mean, Crosby doesn't touch the Wales Trophy in 2008, they lose. Then he does in 2009, they win. Scott Stevens actually hoisted the Wales Trophy in 2000 (the year they came back from 3-1 down), and they won.

As for the Presidents Trophy "curse", which is mainly a product of short term memory due to a few early losers (Sharks, Caps, Canucks) in the last few years. This is anomalous, throughout the NHL's history the first-place team is more likely to win the Cup than any other seed.
I have never liked how each team doesn't even look at the trophies. For starters, one of those teams is going to go no further than that trophy. They won't win the Cup. Pick it up, be proud of your accomplishment and still keep gunning for the real Cup. I mean, you are one of two teams left. Take a minute and soak it in. I am pretty much the anti-superstitious type. I don't care for playoff beards either. You are in control with what happens on the ice. Not whether or not you had the audacity to pick up a conference trophy.

Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
My in-laws (brother and father) like to blame Fuhr for that one. Moog fans, of course.
On that particular play, I would blame Fuhr 10% and Smith 90%. It really wasn't Fuhr's fault at all. Smith panicked and instead of using the boards to ring the puck around he put it in his own net. However, the Oilers as a team were to blame themselves in for being in that position to begin with.

Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
No, the "dead ball era" refers to how they made baseballs prior to 1920. In 1920, MLB added a cork center to the baseball which created a livelier ball. A livelier ball resulted in more home runs and extra base hits. The other unofficial "dead ball era" in MLB history was in the late 1960's, when pitching was extremely strong. After Bob Gibson's incredible 1968 season, among other great seasons from other pitchers, MLB lowered the height of the mound by 5 inches. This reduced the advantage the pitcher had over hitters.
That's the theory. In reality I have always believed the theory was that Babe Ruth came in with a different style and focused more on home runs. Ruth hit a lot of home runs and he was the first player to really swing for the fences. This bothered a lot of baseball purists because Ruth would hit a homer and then jog around the bases. He wouldn't hustle at that time because he didn't have to. It bothered Ty Cobb a lot. Before Ruth came around the home run wasn't used as much of a weapon. Baseball was a game of singles, base stealing and even sacrifice bunting. Trying to swing for the fences was too much of a risk and a very low percentage play. This is why Cobb had such a wonderful batting average. He focused on hitting singles rather than parking the ball over the fence. But when Ruth had success hitting home runs other teams and other players copied it. Thus bringing in the live ball.

This also explains why Ted Williams is the last player to hit .400 in 1941. Before him it wasn't altogether uncommon for a player to hit .400 in a season. But it became more rare by his time because the long ball was favoured and a player would hit for power rather than just average. Williams did both well though. Anyway, I've always thought this was the best explanation to a more "livelier ball".

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote