Five memorable NHL moments that wouldn’t have been the same without fans

The NHL is on the way back, and we’re just days away from seeing meaningful hockey played for the first time since March. Everything about the situation is deeply weird, from the hubs to the bubbles to the format. But once they actually get out onto the ice and drop the puck, there’s a chance that it might all feel normal.

Well, almost. There’s the small matter of playing without any fans in the building. Is that going to matter? We’ve had this argument before, and no doubt fans around the world will be having it over the next few weeks. For some of us, those empty arenas will be a big distraction. While others will barely notice it at all. Maybe we’ll get a better insight into what’s happening on the ice because we’ll be able to hear the players, coaches and officials more clearly. Or maybe TV will throw a bunch of weird sound effects and CGI into the mix to try to compensate.

Nobody knows what the future holds. And that’s OK because I’m not really the “future” guy around here. But I do know a thing or two about the past, which got me to thinking about some famous and not-so-famous games in NHL history that just wouldn’t have been the same without fans in the building. Today, let’s pay tribute to those die-hards who show up to cheer, boo, pound the glass, wave frantically at the camera and sometimes do a whole lot more than that. Here are five games from NHL history that wouldn’t be as memorable without the fans.

April 19, 2004: Flames at Canucks

The setup: The first-round playoff series between the two rivals had been a classic, and after the Canucks had survived a triple-overtime cliffhanger in Game 6, we headed back to Vancouver for a deciding game.

All of this would have been the same: We would have had a classic from the genre of tight, low-scoring games that defined the era. Jarome Iginla would have still opened the scoring in the first, Matt Cooke would have tied it midway through the third, and Iginla would have restored the lead minutes later. The Flames would have led 2-1 in the final minute, and after a controversial late call against Ed Jovanovski, would have had a chance to ice the game with the goalie out when Iginla got to a loose puck in the neutral zone with seconds left and nobody between him and the open net.

But without fans, we wouldn’t have seen: A fan fire their Canucks jersey on the ice just as Iginla took the shot, nearly landing on the puck and potentially distracting the Flames captain at the game’s most crucial moment.

The shot went just wide, the Canucks scored the tying goal seconds later, and we headed to overtime.

What it would have meant: Quite possibly, nothing. There’s a good case to be made that the toss came just slightly too late for Iginla to see it. Besides, NHL players can get so locked in with a game on the line that they wouldn’t notice a live bear on the ice with then, let alone somebody tossing a jersey on the ice.

Still … I mean, how crazy was that? It’s hard not to play what-if with that moment. What if the jersey had landed on the puck, or blocked it from heading towards the net? I’m not even sure what the rule would be there, and knowing obscure rules is pretty much my beat.

For the record, Iginla didn’t blame the jersey toss for missing the open net, although he was suspiciously noncommittal — his answer was “I don’t know, I was focused.” Since we all know he’s too classy to make excuses, I’m just going to go ahead and interpret that as “I 100 percent missed that empty net because some fan chucked a jersey at me.”

To make matters even crazier, just a few seconds later Iginla had his stick chopped out of his hand by Brendan Morrison, taking him out of the play just before the Canucks tied the game. It was a clear penalty that wasn’t called, and while officials often ignore stuff late, look what the ref is doing at that exact moment: picking up the stray jersey instead of watching Morrison’s hack.

It all could have added up to one of the most controversial moments in playoff history. Instead, the Flames ended up winning in overtime, so Cooke’s tying goal was a Zelepukin and everyone just kind of laughed it off. And the hockey gods got to work plotting a different way to screw over the 2004 Flames.

March 29, 2001: Maple Leafs at Flyers

The setup: Two good teams faced off in a late-season battle with playoff seeding implications, not to mention a rematch of a 1999 playoff meeting and a potential preview of a series that could happen in a few weeks.

All of this would have been the same: The two teams would have played a tight, hard-nosed game. Dan McGillis would have still opened the scoring in the first, with Gary Roberts answering for Toronto in the second. Early in the third, Luke Richardson still would have hit Darcy Tucker, who sold it like he was dead. Tie Domi would have still tried to get at Richardson. Kevin Collins would have intervened because Kevin Collins always intervened. And once things were under control, Domi and Richardson would have headed to the penalty box to serve matching minors for unsportsmanlike conduct.

But without fans, we wouldn’t have seen: Domi presumably wouldn’t have felt the need to squirt his water bottle into the empty stands. That wouldn’t have led to a Flyers fan deciding to get involved, leaning over the glass in the process. And we wouldn’t have all learned a valuable lesson about just how strong that glass actually is.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

A word about those "classless" Red Wing fans

So by now you've no doubt heard about the NHL's latest scandal.

On Friday night, during the most important game in recent league history, Detroit Red Wings fans actually cheered when Penguins' captain Sidney Crosby suffered a knee injury in the second period.

For that sin, Wings fans are taking heat today from the media, blogs, and just about everywhere else.

They stand accused of the one apparently unforgivable sin among hockey fans these days: not being "classy".

Yes, it's time to break out the top hats and monocles. Because while the NHL can forgive fans for being fickle, apathetic, and even just plain non-existent, the one thing we simply can not tolerate is a lack of class.

What happened to us?

Years ago, Ranger fans would throw sugar packets at Bobby Clarke because he was diabetic. But today, fans are expected to treat NHL contest like a peewee house league game: lots of encouragement, hearty cheers for trying hard, and all the players get taken out for ice cream at the end of the game.

Wings fans are only the latest ones to be branded with the scarlet "C". Remember when Leafs fans were classless for cheering when Mark Bell crushed Daniel Alfredsson? Apparently any injury must be met with bowed heads, reverent silence, and perhaps some ceremonial candle lighting.

This should be the rule when it comes to injuries: Unless the player is laying motionless or squirting blood into the stands or otherwise showing sign of a career-threatening injury (i.e. the Michael Irvin Exception), there's nothing wrong with cheering a big hit. Nobody likes to see an injury, but hockey is a contact sport and a few bumps and bruises are part of the deal.

But what about Crosby? "When somebody's injured, I don't think that's something to cheer about," Crosby told reporters. Shouldn't Wings fans have taken his feelings into account?

Please. A 21-year-old multi-millionaire tweaks his knee, and some laid off auto-worker in the stands is supposed to worry about making him feel bad?

The bottom line is that Crosby's injury made it more likely that the Wings would win the game -- which, as you may recall, was game seven of the Stanley Cup finals. Does anybody really expect Wings fans to be upset when Pittsburgh's best player leaves the game?

Of course not. Because after all, this isn't about the fans actually doing anything wrong.

It's about the hockey world's most annoying new trend: fake outrage. And it doesn't take much these days to get hockey fans up on their soap boxes.

Every bad call is a conspiracy. Every bloodied nose should be a suspension. And if any crowd makes the slightest bit of noise in support of someone other than your personal favorite team, go online and start calling them classless.

Mike Milbury made headlines this year when he talked about the "pansification" of hockey. Maybe he should have been talking about the fans.

So enough with talk of being "classy". It's become a cliche. We need a one-year moratorium on the term. If you really feel the need to take aim at another team's fanbase, at least work in the tiniest shred of originality.

And besides, all these fans whimpering about "class" should be careful what they wish for.

After all, do you know which fans are indisputably classy? The ones in the lower bowl of the ACC in Toronto. Those fine folks can always be counted on to applaud politely, never raises their voices, and drink their mineral water with their pinky fingers extended.

Yep, they're classy through and through. They're also the worst fans in the entire league, an absolute embarrassment to real hockey fans everywhere.

And it will be a sad day if Detroit fans ever start taking lessons from them.

Leafs Abomination: The Leaked List of Chapter Titles

The fine folks over at Pension Plan Puppets broke the news today of a new book being released this October - Leafs AbomiNation, by Dave Feschuk and Michael Grange.

Sub-titled "The dismayed fan's handbook to why the Leafs stink and how they can rise again", the book is apparently aimed at fans who thought the Macleans article from last year was great, but just wished it had been 200 pages longer and written by two NBA beat reporters. It features a front cover with a Leaf fan wearing a bag over his head and a very clever "$19.67" price starburst, which we should all appreciate now since it will be covered by an "80% off" sticker by November.

As you'd expect, the folks over at PPP have already gone negative. They assume, without even seeing the book, that it will be nothing more than a long, poorly-written screed that will recycle all the familiar cliches, void of any new ideas and ultimately blaming Leaf fans for everything. But that's not fair. There's no reason to assume the book will be long.

Anyway, I managed to obtain an advanced copy of Leafs AbomiNation. While I don't have permission to print an excerpt, I wanted to do something to give readers a taste of what to expect. So...

Here's a top secret list of the chapter titles from this upcoming masterpiece.

• Not one single Stanley Cup in a generation: An embarrassment that could only happen in Toronto, and 14 other cities



• An unshakable loyalty to the home team through good times and bad, and other terrible character flaws of Maple Leaf fans



• The mysterious and spooky curse of the owner who refused to spend any money on hockey operations for 20 years.



• First Draft Schmaft: How we managed to write this book in one weekend



• An examination of the Leafs' futility using in-depth statistical analysis... no, just kidding, "1967!"



• Things we imagine Leaf fans would say if we'd ever spoken to one



• What MLSE should be doing: Business advice from two guys who make their living in an industry that won't exist anymore in ten years



• Plan the Parade... to the recycling bin



• Why 1927 is more recent than 1967: Advanced theoretical mathematics from Ottawa Senator fans



• Spilling into the streets to celebrate winning a playoff game: Pathetic and lame when Leaf fans do it, admirable passion when it's Calgary and Edmonton



• The Pat Quinn era of sustained regular season success and long playoff runs: Nope, never heard of it



• Montreal Canadiens fans would never meekly put up with a bunch of underachieving, overpaid losers (Note: chapter currently being rewritten)



• Leafs fans are gullible morons who'll buy anything with a Leafs logo on it no matter how awful the product is, or at least we hope so because that's this book's entire business plan

Economics 101: Why "blame the fan" doesn't make sense

MLSE has no incentive to ice a winning team because the ACC is already full every night, even when the team isn't good. If fans refused to buy tickets unless the team was doing well, MLSE would have to invest in a winning team. Therefore, the fans are to blame for the Leafs lack of success.

The argument above is well-known, often repeated, and makes absolutely no sense.

This really shouldn't be complicated, but apparently a lot of people are struggling with it. And since that includes most of our high-paid media stars, I thought I'd spell it out. This is going to be way too basic, to the point that anyone who really does understand economics will be embarrassed by it, but I'm really going to try to make it as simple as possible.

There are two broad categories of things you can sell: Those with a limited supply, and those with an unlimited supply. Airline tickets are a good example of a product with limited supply. There are only so many of them available for each flight, and once they're gone you can't sell anymore. You've made as much money as you're going to make.

On the other hand, if you're selling sneakers you're only limited by demand, and how many you can manage to produce. If demand goes up, and you can make more, you'll make more money. Some products, like MP3s on iTunes, are essentially completely unlimited since it costs nothing to make and store additional product.

Makes sense? Everyone still with me? Even the media guys?

Tickets to a hockey game have a limited supply. If a team sells all its tickets, it can't sell any more. Putting aside the (excruciatingly basic but apparently ignored) possibility of raising ticket prices, once all the tickets are sold then you can't make any more money. And since only the people with tickets are going to need parking and concessions, those are essentially limited too.

So yes, if the owner of a hockey team knows in advance that they will sell out every game, they have no business incentive to change the product.

This is a very sound argument. If it was 1983.

Sure, back when Harold Ballard was in charge the Leafs made most of their money off of gameday sales. So did every other NHL team. Yes, they sold a few jerseys and they made money off of TV rights. But most of the cash came from tickets and concessions.

So the "no incentive to win" argument probably made sense in those days, as Ballard himself confirmed.

Unfortunately for the fan-bashers, that was twenty years ago. Today, the business landscape is very different in the NHL in general, and that's especially true in Toronto.

The Toronto Star reported that the Leafs themselves estimate that by 2011, ticket sales will account for barely one-third of revenue. By then, the Leafs expect to bring in over $300 million a year from sources other than tickets.

Think about that: $300 million every year from non-ticket sources.

Today, the Leafs have revenue streams that Ballard couldn't have dreamed of. Licensed products, which used to mean t-shirts and jerseys and not much else, have expanded to virtually everything you can slap a logo on, including condos. Gameday advertising (or as they like to call it now, "corporate partnerships") brings in revenue that would be unimaginable in the 1980s. Increased competition for TV broadcasts has caused rights prices to skyrocket. Online revenue, still small today, has enormous potential for growth.

All new or greatly increased sources of revenue. All, unlike ticket sales, virtually unlimited.

You think revenue from any of those sources might go up if the Leafs won a Cup?

And that doesn't even touch on the topic of Leafs TV. While the channel isn't a money-maker yet, it's an enormous opportunity for MLSE. The Leafs are trying to follow the same model that the New York Yankees used in launching their own TV empire. The YES network launched in 2002, on the heels of the Yankees winning four World Series in the past six years.

That network's estimated worth now? Try $2 billion. With a "b".

No incentive to win? Really? Really?

Don't forget, the Leafs' primary owner is the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. As a pension, they view the team as an investment to hold onto as long as it increases in value and then eventually sell. That means they need for MLSE to grow. Profits are nice, but investments only go up in value when the company can demonstrate growth. The growth for MLSE is going to come from all of these new revenue streams.

And again, since there's virtually no limit on how many people can watch a game on TV or how many companies can cram an ad onto something, the growth potential is enormous. Especially if the team is winning.

And yet we still hear from reporters -- people who are paid to be experts about the Maple Leafs and the NHL -- who drone on and on about ticket sales. Why?

Could it really be that some of these guys haven't paid for a ticket in 20 years, and so still think about the economics of the game the same way they did back then? Or are they just intentionally misrepresenting the situation because "Blame the Dumb Leaf Fan" is a fun story to write?

I have no idea. But hopefully some basic economics will help at least a few of them see the light.

The bottom line: Arguing that Leafs ownership has no motivation to win because the building is always sold out is like arguing that the increase in concussions must be caused by players not wearing helmets. It's a nice idea, but outdated by 20 years.

The Leafs make a lot of money when they lose. But they'd make even more -- a lot more -- if they could figure out how to win.

MLSE doesn't lose because of lack of interest, they lose because they don't know how to build a winner. And you can't lay that at the feet of the loyal fans.

For what it's worth...

I'm based in Ottawa. I'm not shy about being a Leafs fan, so various Sens (and Habs) fans know where to find me when they want to talk hockey.

There's been a steady stream coming by my desk today to talk about Sundin. Without exception, they're thrilled. Big smiles all around. They were hoping against hope that Mats wouldn't waive, and now it's happened.

If you don't like the Maple Leafs, today is a wonderful day.

You don't measure what's right or wrong for a team based on what other teams' fans think. But it puts a certain perspective on things, even while others try desperately to spin this decision as good news.

The myth of the fickle Leafs fan

I wound up having an interesting discussion with Steve over at hockeyanalysis.com this afternoon. Among the topics we covered was how Leaf fans would react to a rebuilding effort. You can find the full discussion here.

(By the way, if you're a Leaf fan and you don't have leafs.hockeyanalysis.com on your list of sites to check regularly, add it now. There's a lot of great stuff there.)

Anyways, I made a point that I've made elsewhere before, but not on this blog. Here's the gist of it.

There are two common criticisms that are levelled at Leaf fans. These come up fairly often in general, and have been almost constant this year.

• Criticism #1: Leaf fans share much of the blame for the team's lack of success. If they rose up and demanded excellence then ownership would have to respond, but because they keep filling the building every night, there's no motivation for the team to improve and nothing will ever change.
  
  Damien Cox is the undisputed champion of this argument, but he's far from alone. Many have also compared Leaf fans unfavorably to Habs fans, who would never show up in droves to support a loser. Pension Plan Puppets looked at the numbers and found that there's actually no truth at all to that theory, but don't expect it to go away any time soon.
  
  Bottom line: Leaf fans end up being perhaps the only fanbase in sports history to be criticized for selling out the building and supporting the team through good times and bad.
  
  
• Criticism #2: Leaf fans wouldn't accept an honest-to-goodness rebuilding effort. They're all about the quick fix and won't stand for a short-term stay at the bottom of the standings even if it meant long-term gain.
  
  Sometimes this argument is made as a straightforward observation (as was the case in Steve's posts in the discussion linked above). More often, it's accompanied by an unstated but obvious implication: Leaf fans don't have the sophistication to understand how the league works. They're too dumb and impatient to let the team do what it needs to do.

Let's put aside the question of whether either of those arguments are valid, or even fair. We know they're out there, we hear and read them all the time.

Now I don't want to go all Lt. Kaffee on you, but here's my question:If Leaf fans are gullible sheep who won't hesitate to embrace a loser, and they'll pack the building every night regardless of whether the team is good or even competitive... why wouldn't they accept a rebuilding effort?

It doesn't make sense. We've heard for years about how Leaf fans are too dumb to demand a winner. But now, on the verge of a long-needed rebuilding effort, we're supposed to believe that the fans will rise up and demand a contender?

Sorry, folks. I know there's lots of fun to be had and money to be made by bashing Leafs fans. Some of it is no doubt deserved. But on this issue, at least, you need to pick a lane.