I’ve been a bit… preoccupied of late. I’ve been watching the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs and have been far too consumed with wins, losses, and playoff beard growth to write anything coherent. The playoffs are not quite over, tomorrow we’ll be playing Game 6 of the Finals, but before then, I’d like to share some thoughts.

Specifically, I’d like to talk about goaltending. As a hockey fan and hockey player who relatively late in life at 29, took up goaltending, I have a rather keen perspective on the game both from the perspective of an average, knowledgeable hockey fan who knows little about goaltending, but also from the perspective of a goalie. Let me tell you, from the new perspective, the game has not been the same.

It is from this perspective that I’ve been watching this years’ playoffs. With this added insight, an insight which few hockey fans ever have a chance to attain, one which I certainly didn’t have until taking up the position, I’ve had to listen to thousands (millions?) of sportswriters and Canucks fans, both casual and die-hard, decry our goaltending from their comfortably ignorant perspectives.

At times it’s as if we are watching two different games, but it’s clear to me that Roberto Luongo is stealing the Stanley Cup Finals.

Roberto Luongo of the Canucks makes a save in a 4-0 loss to the host Bruins in Game 4 of the Stanley Cup final at TD Garden.

[Harry How/Getty Images]

Someday I’ll write-up an in-depth exposé on the cult of goaltending, an outsider’s view of the quirky and arcane art of what some call ‘the hardest position in sport’. After which I always add ‘to play well’.

For now though, let’s save that for later. Let’s stick with a few high-level goaltending concepts which may seem foreign at first, which you may not even believe, but which are indeed true and absolutely essential in understanding the position.

Once we establish a common level of understanding about goaltending, and if we can all agree on these points, at least for the duration of this post, then we can all look at Luongo’s play during the Canucks’ 2011 Stanley Cup run to date from about the same perspective. I think that will be helpful.

Key Concepts in Goaltending

Point 1: All saves are percentage plays

This point could also be called: What looks like a great save isn’t always (and vice versa). You know the save where the goalie dives across the net and plucks the puck out of mid-air with his paddle? Like this save that Ray Emery makes in Game 6 of the 2011 Ducks-Predators series.

That’s a good save, but not a great save. Ray Emery did an excellent job of filling space, knowing instinctually that the shot was probably going high, and throwing stick to the middle of the net. That’s an example of great battle, good instincts, and of never giving up on the puck, but that’s where the skill leaves off and the luck takes over.

That save was maybe a 5-percenter. With everything Emery did (and he did a lot), he gave himself about a 5% chance of stopping the puck. Had he done less, the percentages would have been even lower, but he was pretty good on that one. In that situation, 5% of the time the goalie stops the puck by making that save-attempt, but the other 95% of the time, even if the goalie does *exactly* the same thing, it results in a goal. The goalie certainly doesn’t get any credit on those goals that go in, and definitely gets too much credit for the ones that are stopped.

Don’t get me wrong, the goalie is proud of that save, but he knows that it looked better than it really was, that after he did what he could, it was purely a function of luck that the shooter hit where Emery put his stick. The goalie also knows that if it went in, nobody would have cared about the identically impressive save-attempt he made.

Contrast the above save with the following stick save by Tim Thomas in Game 5 of the 2011 Bruins-Lightning series:

Now that is an amazing save. Did you catch the difference? Many might see the Emery save as far more spectacular (which it was) and come to the conclusion that it was far better (which it wasn’t). Where Emery simply threw his stick where he hoped the puck would go and got lucky, Thomas was able to actually react to the shot and tailor his save to it. Thomas displayed the same great battle, instincts, and ‘sticktoitiveness’ that Emery did, but he was also able to add the extra reaction to the puck. Thomas’ save-action was still a fairly low percentage save, but he was able to rely a little bit less on luck to make it.

While spectacular examples of both, Emery’s save was a Blocking Save, and Thomas’ was a Reaction Save. And that leads to my next point.

Point 2: Some shots can’t be stopped

The differences between Blocking and Reaction saves are huge, and telling them apart is sometimes difficult. A Reaction Save is one where the goalie has time to react to the puck and make his save accordingly. A Blocking Save is one where the goalie does not have time to react to the shot and simply chooses the best place to put his body/gloves/stick at the time of the shot, or just before, in order to get the highest percentage of a save.

Often the goalie doesn’t have the luxury of a Reaction Save and will have to use a Blocking Save. Such was the case for Emery’s save. In that situation, he had no chance to react to the shot and had to, for lack of a better word, ‘guess’ and simply fill space.

Of course not all saves are as spectacular as the above. Far more often the goaltender is in position, between the puck and the net, and therefore has a far higher percentage of a save, whether it be Reaction or Blocking.

Take for example the following two saves by Roberto Luongo in Game 5 of the 2011 Canucks-Bruins Stanley Cup Finals. Watch carefully and see if you can tell whether each save is a Blocking Save or a Reaction Save.

So what did you think? Were each Reaction or Blocking? You heard Craig Simpson, colour commentator for Hockey Night in Canada, call the first save off the deflection a “positional save” (blocking) and the second save off the rebound a “reactive save”.

Well, Simpson holds true to form in that half of what he said was completely wrong. In reality, both were Blocking Saves.

The first save was off a deflection of a shot that was going well wide, and fortunately for Canucks fans the puck was deflected directly into the crest on Luongo’s jersey. The time between when it was deflected and when it hit Luongo’s chest was about 0.22s. While that is more than the possible human reaction time to press a button, it is far too little time to react and move a limb more than an whisker’s breath, to say nothing of picking up a new puck trajectory between the two actions. On such a scoring chance, if the deflection is aimed for open net, the puck is going in.

The second save, the one Craig Simpson called a “reactive save” was not a Reaction Save, it was also a Blocking Save. For that one, the puck had bounced off Luongo before he had a chance to try to contain the rebound and it landed in the slot directly on Bergeron’s stick. Bergeron shot it and 0.20s later it hit Luongo’s blocker. If you go through frame by frame, you can see that Luongo starts his Blocking Save action before the puck is shot.

That’s not to diminish the save that Luongo made. If you watch carefully, the puck bounced to Luongo’s right, and he was out of position for the shot, he wasn’t directly between the puck and the centre of the net. As a result, and because his instincts are excellent, Luongo varied up his standard butterfly Blocking Save to focus more on his right side and higher up, as he felt that that is where the shot was going. Importantly though, he did this before reacting to the actual shot, it was a Blocking Save.

Luongo did just about all a goalie could do for that second shot, but it was still a relatively low percentage save. If you pause the video just as the puck hits Luongo’s blocker, you’ll see that Bergeron had quite a bit of net to shoot at (slightly less from the puck’s-eye view than is shown from the camera’s-eye view, but that’s a topic for another time).

Luongo's Blocking Save on Bergeron Rebound

Had he shot at empty net, instead of at Luongo, he would have scored. It would have been an unstoppable shot. Of course that wouldn’t have stopped many people from crucifying Luongo for not saving it.

Why did Luongo start the Blocking Save just before the shot? For the same reason all goalies do. Because he knew that the shooter was in too close, with a proper shot coming, and that he would have had no time to react to it. In such a case, all the goalie can do is block as much of the net as possible. As the position has evolved, the ‘butterfly technique’ (goalie kneeling with pads flared wide, gloves sitting atop pads) has come to the fore as the most effective blocking save technique, it covers the most amount of net, especially down low where still the vast majority of pucks are directed.

Before a shot is taken, the goalie is constantly assessing how close the shooter is and how fast a shot they can expect at the given moment. The goalie has to factor this constantly on the fly, and the moment a shot is imminent, he has to decide between making a Reaction Save and a Blocking Save.

Excellent goalies, like all those who play in the NHL, factor in a staggering number of variables to assess how fast a shot they may be expecting and where it may be going, factors such as the skill of the player, what hand they shoot with, how the shooter is handling the puck (forehand, backhand, in front, etc), whether the puck is bouncing, whether the shooter has defensive pressure or not, etc.

The key takeaway from this point is that, as the shooter gets closer to the goal, and as his ability to get off a quality shot improves, that shooter will pass a threshold where the goalie can no longer react to the puck and has to make a Blocking Save. Sometimes, if the shot is very fast, this can be as far away as the high-slot. And since all Blocking Saves can be beat by simply shooting where the goalie is not, if a shooter can get in tight, has time and space to get off a good shot, and his aim is true, it will be an unstoppable shot.

The next time you see a goal appear to go right past the goalie without him reacting, ask yourself whether it was actually a stoppable shot. Sometimes you’ll see that the goalie had no chance at all.

Point 3: You can’t stop pucks without good Defense

This point naturally follows from the above two, without good Defense, a goalie has no chance against even half-decent shooters. If a shooter can walk uncontested into the mid-slot and fire an incredibly weak 60mph wrist-shot, the goalie has under 0.2 seconds to react and move a glove or pad in front of the puck. That’s not enough at all and the goalie knows this. If the shooter is anywhere near that close and has time to shoot, the goalie makes a Blocking Save and hopes for the best. If the shooter can hit the corner, he will score every time. Obviously without good defense, these sort of scoring chances materialize more and more often, and NHL shooters will not miss many of them.

If the goalie has good defensive support, not only will it dramatically reduce these golden scoring opportunities, but he can also come out further to a shot. Doing this will cause the puck to ‘see’ far less open net, making it much more difficult to pick a corner on him, even with an uncontested shot.

Tim Thomas is an excellent example of this. He frequently comes well outside the crease to make his saves. Because he is so much closer to the shooter, he fills a much larger part of the net, and therefore it is incredibly hard to both miss Thomas and hit the net with a shot. Of course, that added first-shot coverage comes at a price in that it is much harder to get back in position for a rebound. Fortunately for Thomas, he is an excellent skater and can reposition himself quite quickly, diving if necessary to get back in his net on a quick second shot.

Tim Thomas White Paint Save

However, because he challenges the shooter so much by skating out of his crease, Thomas is susceptible to lateral plays. He relies on his Defense to prevent those plays, and only resorts to the relatively low-percentage, but always amazing diving save on occasion.

Without that vigilance from his Defense, Thomas would not fare nearly as well. It is no coincidence that Thomas’ outstanding numbers started the year Claude Julien took over the head coaching job in Boston and brought in his airtight defensive system.

And one needs look no further than the recent 2011 Bruins-Lightning series for a perfect example of this symbiotic relationship between goaltender and defense. In this series many of the games turned into track-meets, with both teams abandoning the incredibly tight defensive play they had demonstrated in the first two rounds in favour of trading scoring chances on the rush. Both Thomas and Dwayne Roloson had put up incredible numbers before that series, but both goalies were absolutely lit up when their Defensive system stopped defending as hard.

Tim Thomas' Bruins Fan Support after 5-4 Loss in Game 6

[Masshole Sports]

Many blame the goaltenders of course, they see 5 or 6 goals go in and immediately assume that the goalie had an off night, but this isn’t necessarily the case, and wasn’t really for the Bruins-Lightning series. A goalie playing his same game at the same ‘compete’ level can, depending on defensive support, either get a shutout or get lit up for a touch-down. The reverse is certainly true, a goalie can have an off night behind stellar defense and let in few or no goals. The fact is that the number of goals scored is not a good indicator of the quality of goaltending.

Thomas and Roloson had played extraordinarily throughout the playoffs behind excellent defense. As a result, they had been putting up incredible stats. In the Bruins-Lightning series both goalies played just as well, but without their airtight Defense, they were ventilated.

Roberto Luongo

Now that we have a bit better common ground, we can look at Luongo’s goaltending with a more analytical eye. Roberto Luongo has been a polarizing figure around the league and especially in Vancouver. A great many people love him for his play and his leadership on and off the ice. Perhaps just as many hate him though, with the reasons cited most often that he is overrated, that he has never accomplished anything major, that the fans cheer his name when he touches the puck, or that he has Italian heritage and otherwise looks ‘ethnic’, what with his darker skin, heavy beard, and ‘oily hair’.

While I don’t think much needs to be said about the criticism of Luongo’s racial stock, it is worthwhile to consider the critique of his body of work.

It is widely agreed upon in the hockey world that Luongo will always bear the lion’s share of the blame when the Canucks lose, and little or no credit for when the Canucks win. In recent years this has become a fairly common theme in analyzing a team’s success, but Luongo’s case is certainly the most extreme example, with his performance held up to the greatest of double standards.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics

The general reaction to and conventional wisdom about Luongo’s play during the Olympics serve as an excellent example of the double-standard that he faces. After starting the tournament and posting an easy shutout against an overmatched Team Norway, Luongo drew backup-goalie duty for Martin Brodeur, who was to lead Team Canada to gold. Unfortunately, Brodeur looked a bit shaky, posting a 3-2 shoot-out win against Switzerland and a 5-3 loss against a strong Team USA.

After Brodeur’s very un-Brodeur-like play, Luongo got the start in the single-elimination medal playoffs. Luongo played very well, and racked up another four straight wins on the path to Gold.

However, a prevailing feeling among much of the sports world is that Luongo was more of a passenger on the team, that he played well because the team in front of him was so good, and that Team Canada won despite Luongo rather than in-part because of Luongo. While, as we’ve seen, much of a goaltender’s play relies upon a strong team in front of him, it is forgotten that Brodeur looked decidedly poor behind that same Team Canada.

Added criticism on Luongo’s 5-0 Gold Medal winning performance was levied against USA’s tying goal with 24 seconds to go in the Gold Medal game, that goal coming off a rebound that bounced straight onto Parise’s stick. Forgotten or ignored was the fact that the rebound came came off the great save of a very dangerous pinball-deflection.

And little or no hey was made about the incredible save Luongo made against Pavol Demitra with 9 seconds left in the 3-2 win over Slovakia in the semi-final, helping Team Canada get to the Gold Medal game in the first place.

Nor did Luongo get much recognition for his incredibly tough, and somewhat lucky, elbow-save off of Joe Pavelski’s top corner shot, after Scott Niedermayer coughed it up to him directly in front of Luongo. After that save, instead of freezing it, Luongo played it to Niedermayer, who passed it to Crosby, who then did a give-and-go with Iginla to score The Golden Goal.

Fifteen seconds elapse between Luongo’s incredible save and The Golden Goal, but people only remember that ‘Luongo let in the tying goal late.’ This sort of selective memory regarding Roberto Luongo’s play is not limited only to best-on-best international play, it happens during the NHL regular season and Stanley cup playoffs.

The 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs

Luongo’s playoff history appears shaky to most, but an experienced eye can see his game has been solid throughout most of his Stanley Cup Playoff career. While he did play poorly against Chicago in Game 6 of their 2009 series, much of that series was fraught with defensive breakdowns by the Canucks. As a whole, they did not play well enough to win, Luongo was not the reason for the loss.

A similar story was told in 2010 when the Canucks were again defeated by the Blackhawks. Once again, Vancouver’s defensive play was dreadful, this time due in no-small part by the fact that it was riddled with injuries and the call-ups were more of a liability than a hole in the roster would have been. In 2010, Luongo was lit up, but did not play nearly as poorly as the scoreboard might indicate.

This year, familiar shades again haunted the Canucks. After dashing out to a 3-0 series lead against Chicago, the Canucks decided not to play the next two games. Luongo was hung out to dry in the worst way, many of the goals coming off complete defensive breakdowns by the entire team. Like the following goal by Duncan Kieth in which he was able to walk across the mid-slot and wire a slap-shot top-corner. No goalie can be expected to make that save.

In no way should that chance not be buried by the shooter, yet because it came 17 seconds after Chicago’s 2-1 goal, Luongo looked bad in the minds of almost everybody.

That 2-1 goal 17s previous? It was scored by Brian Campbell, who received a quick cross-ice pass from Kane and was able to skate uncontested toward the net and lean into a top-corner snap-shot from inside the face-off dot. Once again, Luongo had no chance on a golden scoring opportunity and an excellent play by Kane and Campbell. Luongo did everything exactly right on that save-attempt, he slid across and got square to the shooter and was perfect in his Blocking Save, but it was still a 75% or so save play, if the shooter hits the corner, he will score.

It was universally agreed that the Canucks played absolutely dreadfully in Games 4 and 5 of the 2011 Vancouver-Chicago series, but still, the talk was about how poor Luongo was, even on shots which he had little or no chance of a save.

Leading up to the Stanley Cup Finals, and aside from Games 4 and 5 of the Chicago series, Luongo’s numbers had been excellent. Sports wags and fans were coming around to accepting his stellar play.

There was talk of how eerily similar Game 7 against Chicago was to the 2010 Gold Medal game, but this time recognition was being given to Luongo for his save on Patrick Sharp in overtime. This save was functionally almost identical to the Campbell 2-1 goal, a 75% or so play where Luongo again slid across beautifully in a Blocking Save position, but where Sharp shot into Luongo, instead of hitting the top corner. On similar save-actions, Luongo did his job, on the first he was the goat, and on the second he was the hero. Those who understand goaltending know that he was very good on both plays with the difference coming down to the shooter.

The Stanley Cup Finals

After doing much heavy lifting in, if not downright stealing, Games 4 and 5 against San Jose in order to send the Canucks to the Finals, after getting a shut-out against Boston in Game 1, and after coming up big in an OT win in Game 2, there was actually talk among sports analysts about Luongo winning the Conn Smythe as the Most Valuable Player in the playoffs.

That’s when things went all kinds of sideways. After going up 2-0 against Boston, and as with the 3-0 series lead against Chicago, Vancouver perhaps was guilty of over-confidence. Whatever the reason though, as with the Chicago series, Vancouver decided not to show up for Games 3 and 4 in Boston.

Once again, it was generally agreed upon that the Canucks were absolutely dreadful across most, if not all, aspects of their game, and especially defensively, but once again, almost all focus was on how ‘poorly’ Luongo played.

Not from all people of course. Some, a relatively silent minority, have had confidence in Luongo. Some with blind faith in him, knowing or hoping that he would see the Canucks through. Others, having watched the games carefully and witnessed the golden scoring opportunities that were gifted to Boston throughout Games 3 and 4, knew that, while Luongo was not perfect, he couldn’t be held accountable for most of the goals that were put past him. They knew that the team’s dreadful performances in Boston could not be laid at the feet of Roberto Luongo, and they knew that no goalie in the world could have prevented blow-outs in those two games.

However true though, that’s not the story that was told. That’s not the reality for the vast majority who laid the blame at Luongo’s feet.

After being unfairly maligned by the media and fans, after being taunted with questions about his home crowd cheering after he was mercy-pulled in Game 4, Luongo would be rightly justified in feeling as if he were left standing alone in the spotlight, on trial for crimes he did not commit, with the whole world against him.

Alone in the Spotlight

Luongo made a statement when he smashed his stick to the ice in defiance after being named first star for his 1-0 shutout in Game 5. Right now Roberto Luongo is angry, he has something to prove, and he is very dangerous.

Most of the faithful knew then and know now, after his outstanding performance in Game 5, that Luongo has a history of excellent play, of stepping up and playing incredibly in some of the biggest games imaginable. We had faith in Luongo, and we hoped that the rest of the team would show up in front of him, completing the team that we had seen play so very well all year.

Whether or not they are Canucks fans, and whether or not they have faith that Luongo can win the Stanley Cup with and for his team, all followers of this year’s Stanley Cup Finals would be well served to take note that Roberto Luongo is stealing the series.

The Canucks have scored 6 goals in 5 Stanley Cup Final games, yet they are leading the series 3-2. That shouldn’t be the case. That can’t have been the case without Roberto Luongo.

One More Win

Going into Game 6 on Monday, I know that Roberto Luongo will be ready, and I’m hopeful that the Canucks will show up and play their game. When they do, they are nearly unbeatable. If we can’t manage a win in Game 6, I am confident that Roberto will save one more game at home for us.

Not in My House, Not on My Land

As a Canuck fan, I have confidence going into Game 6. I believe in the talented group of men that have been fighting all year, fighting for each other and for us fans. I believe in the heart that our players have consistently shown, abandoning any sense of self in order to always put the team first. I believe in the Canucks.

I believe in Luongo.    

The post Not in My House, Not on My Land appeared first on is this your homework?.

As the 2010-2011 NHL Regular Season draws to a close, fans of the Vancouver Canucks have a lot to cheer for. Vancouver’s 40th anniversary in the NHL has been a superlative year in most respects, the team smashing club record after club record, winning for the first time the President’s Trophy by finishing as the best team in the league, and perhaps most importantly, being the odds-on favourite to win the Stanley Cup. *knock wood*

For my money though, as much as the on-ice product, this year it has been the on-air product which has provided so much of the entertainment. If the Fred J. Hume Award goes to the unsung Canuck hero, my vote for its fictive off-ice analog goes to those that bring us the games each night, specifically John Shorthouse, John Garrett, and Dan Murphy, the respective play-by-play man, colour commentator, and game host for Sportsnet Pacific, Vancouver’s local sports network.

To be sure, I enjoy watching my team perform well. I’ve delighted in watching the Sedins put the fear of Norse gods into opposing teams, working impossible magic with their unlikeliest of triplets in Alexander Burrows. I’ve been surprised and thrilled watching the amazing talent and boundless guts of Kesler 2.0, the man who went into the Vancouver 2010 Olympics a great talent with an even greater chip on his shoulder, but who walked away a super-hero with a silver medal hanging proudly on tall shoulders. I have loved watching two of the best goalies in the league develop an unlikely friendship, quietly racking up amazing stats, while most of the hockey world looks in the other direction. I’ve enjoyed all the stories of our team, the struggles they’ve faced, and their consistent response: winning.

Of course, like all Canuck fans, I wish for 16 wins in the post season. That said, seeing the team winning isn’t why I watch the Canucks. If all one cares about is winning, one may as well be a fan of the Yankees. I watch for the drama, the underlying narrative of the team and the players, the feeling of participation in the endeavour.

Participation in the Endeavour

The elite may turn up their noses at professional sport, decrying it as entertainment for the proletariat, seeing sixty minutes or so of arbitrarily structured competition, but missing entirely its persuasive appeal, persuasion which is rich in ethos, logos, and pathos, as if walking past a theatre of antiquity, seeing Aristotle speaking to a rapt group of listeners, dismissing the scene as ‘boring’, without ever having listened. Yes, I just analogized a hockey game with Aristotelian rhetoric, deal with its aptness, I am Canadian.

That richness of experience can come only from following a team closely, the casual watchers witnessing only the surface competition, their participation limited to the shallow feeling of superiority derived through belittling the team and its fans during times of lean, or to the somewhat hollow sharing of revelry found by clambering onto the bandwagon during times of plenty.

The most important, most impactful part of following a team is picking up on the underlying narrative, the back-stories and side-stories of the team and the players, essential understanding without which no empathy can be felt, no part of the endeavour can be shared, watching a game without it like eating your favourite meal with a plugged nose, the experience familiar, yet unsatisfying.

Key to development of this narrative are the broadcasters, like the Fifth Line of a team, they make up an essential part of the game itself, providing a window into the team and its players. Sometimes that window is a cold plate glass sheet, mass produced and impersonal, a barrier as much as a portal, but on rare occasions it is a warm kitchen window, wind billowing the curtains, its sill inviting neighbourly elbows and warm confections, bridging the world outside with the world within.

The Home Team

‘The Johns’ and ‘Murph’ provide more than a simple window into the world of the Canucks, instead having become part of the rich fabric of the experience themselves. Those of us who have followed the team, who have welcomed the Sportsnet crew into our living rooms night after night, have watched a certain magic developing between the Johns since their pairing two seasons ago. They became fast friends, obvious to viewers as more than the professional geniality between coworkers, the seeds of true friendship growing out of the necessity of being tied to each others’ side during long road trips, the roots of their relationship anchoring deeply in the foundations of their shared passions: good hockey and bad food.

The Johns

Murph is a key member in this new gang too, sharing in the in-jokes and making sly references to their exploits, the story behind them sometimes being picked up on by the loyal viewer, but often being missed, left unexplained, intermittent rewards garnering the strongest response from faithful viewers. Dan will often throw softballs up to the guys in the booth, one time presenting an interstitial in Buffalo, its backdrop a giant bowl of hot-wings, his throw to the Johns upstairs a big fat meatball, one that he knew Garrett would be powerless to resist, setting him off on one of his wonderful and bizarre digressions.

The Johns’ love of food features frequently in their banter, reports of an impromptu gastronomical tour of several cities’ best burgers adding relish to an recent swing through the Northeast. At first it wasn’t clear if the ad-libbing was contractual, often coming after a mention of the recent Safeway Score ‘n’ Win featured product, but before long it became clear that Garrett – it’s usually Garrett that starts it – only piped up when it was a product that he especially enjoyed or perhaps something healthy which Mrs. Garrett was trying to get him to eat more of, the products which Garrett had no interest in receiving no added mention.

Sometimes, if you listen carefully just after a break, you can almost hear John Garrett entering the commentator booth with a tray full of nachos, its lava-hot cheese piled in nuclear orange heaps across the months-old chips, Shorty pausing in his summation of the action, almost surely distracted as Garret silently, excitedly mouths: “Look at all the cheese they give you here!”

Extra Cheese for Cheech

[CrumleyFamily]

Of course the Johns’ appeal doesn’t rest on their junk-food predilection alone; they are excellent sportscasters. They know the game and the team very well, the narrative they weave adding incredible depth to the Canucks, the trusted relationship that Murph has with the players allowing some of their individual personalities to shine through the normally featureless facade of Professional Hockey Player and Team Representative.

Both Johns are true Canucks fans, Garrett having been a Vancouver goalie back in the early 80s, Shorthouse deciding as a boy that he wanted to grow up and become the Canucks play-by-play announcer just like his idol, Jim Robson. Each shows their favour differently, with Garrett sometimes seeing the game through Canuck-coloured glasses, quarreling from time to time with Shorty, whose unswerving loyalty for the home team runs so deeply that any sort of advantage through a call leaves in his mouth a bitter taste, preferring always to call it fairly.

Like Lemmon and Matthau, their styles compliment each other beautifully, an odd couple more different than alike, sometimes giving each other grief, but always good-naturedly. This last season, in which they have worked many more games than in previous years, spending much more time together, the Johns have become at times a bit like an old married couple, referencing disputes about calls weeks after the initial spat, obviously belying arguments that had continued off-air, but were ultimately agreed to be disagreed over, for the sake of the viewers.

Their rare and friendly bickering aside, it is always a pleasure to visit with the Johns, their contribution adding entertainment above and beyond the game being played. If you ever get to watch them call a game in Columbus, pay special attention to the pre-game segment; Garrett’s dread of his inevitable interruption by the uncannily timed canon blast and Shorty’s schadenfreudian glee each time it occurs are sure to make anyone a fan of their act, perhaps even a participant in the John Garrett drinking game.

Team Canada

Watching a Canucks game without the Johns is like trying to watch a game in standard definition after experiencing HD Hockey. Games that CBC broadcasts, or especially TSN, are a pale shade of what we’ve become accustomed to on Sportsnet. Unfortunately for Canuck fans, during the most exciting time of the year, the broadcast rights are too expensive for Sportsnet to afford, the games aired instead by CBC.

Hockey Night In Canada Crew

The game on CBC is a bit of a mixed bag. The in-game commentary is often painful, the individual announcers usually calling only a handful of games a year, their unfamiliarity with the team glaring in comparison to the Sportsnet crew, often resulting in pauses in the play-by-play, the announcer searching for a name, floundering, coming up with only “the Canuck defenceman” in their attempts to describe the action. By far the worst though, is listening to some of the commentators struggle to fill the time between plays, their ‘insightful’ comments equal parts inane drivel and mindless parroting of details from the game’s crib sheet: – “Bob, it’s like the Sundin, check that, Sedin brothers know where each other are on the ice.” – “Well you’re right about that Doug, they’re twins you know.”

As bad as the CBC in-game crew is, the Hockey Night in Canada team of analysts is outstanding, Ron MacLean and Kelly Hrudey always insightful. PJ Stock stumbled out of the gate at first, but once he was able to relax, to be himself, and to spar with the rest of the crew like a part of a team, he came into his stride, providing a welcome splash of youth and goofiness on the slightly staid HNIC institution. Being on the West coast, Vancouver viewers are often fortunate enough to miss Don Cherry’s bluster, though we do get the full brunt of Mike Milbury, the CBC blowhard heir-apparent.

Hockey Night in Canada is also home to After Hours, a late-night, live, and informal interview program hosted by the incomparable Scott Oake. As it airs right after the last game of the night, frequently a Canucks game, After Hours often features one or two extended interviews with Canuck players or coaches. These interviews are rare in that the subject usually answers questions openly, without trace of the cliché filled interview persona, providing viewers with great insight into the team, the players, and the game.

The Sports Interview

Scott Oake is unlike other sports interviewers in that he’ll often ask the questions that others know you’re not supposed to ask. Free from the equally clichéd sports interview questions, his interviews are pryingly insightful, if at times painfully awkward. It’s obvious that the players share notes on Scott Oake before their stint on After Hours, coaching each other on their coming interview, drawing up set plays in response to the difficult questions that are sure to come, determined to put on a good show and to not be embarrassed.

The best illustration of an Oake interview would be the episode of After Hours from February 19, 2011, in which he interviews Canuck backup goalie Corey Schneider and Dallas Stars head coach Marc Crawford. Just one example from which is Oake asking Schneider why he had such a terrible start in the AHL early in his career, an incredibly awkward question, but one which is asked with the pure intent of serving as juxtaposition with his phenomenal play this year, a question resulting in an answer which provides a much better insight into Schneider, the development of goaltenders, and what it is like to turn pro, all details that would remain buried without Scott Oake to dig them up.

Roasted Crow

[CBC Hockey Night in Canada]

The whole episode is well worth watching (especially so for Canuck fans who get to see how incredibly poised and mature Schneider is for a rookie), but the Marc Crawford interview is almost indescribable in its entertainment value. Crawford, who used to be the head coach in Vancouver, also worked for a couple years as a HNIC commentator, sitting alongside Oake on the After Hours show, obviously developing a friendship, a familiarity that Oake would exploit to have some good-natured fun with his old comrade. At the end of a night that saw his team thoroughly thrashed by the Canucks, Crawford gamely faced tough questions about his team, gentle mockery of his voice and his hair, and even probing questions regarding his wife and son not moving from Vancouver to Dallas with him, bearing it all without a hair out of place, a picture of inhuman poise with the wry smile of a good sport etched on his face. It was incredibly awkward to watch. To be honest, I’m not sure how much of that particular interview was Oake looking for good insight and how much of it was simply a roast of his old colleague, but it sure was good television.

Sadly, Scott Oake lost his son quite recently, and I would like to pause in my true appreciation of his work to pass along my condolences to him and his family.

In the absence of Oake, Elliotte Friedman took his place on After Hours this past week, and the effect on the show was palpable, the entire tone feeling quite different. Lost was the more personal tone of the interviews, an angle that was surely missed, but in its place was a bit more depth into the hockey itself.

The episode of After Hours from April 2, 2011, featured interviews with Coach Alain Vigneault and Roberto Luongo, providing fascinating glimpses into the message from the coaching staff for a team with little to play for until the post-season, into the new goaltending style that Rollie Melanson has brought to Luongo’s game, and into the somewhat unlikely friendship that Lou has developed with Schneider. It stands as one of the better insights into Canucks hockey we’ve seen from CBC in a long while and is definitely worth watching.

Luongo After Hours

[CBC Hockey Night in Canada]

It seems that while Scott Oake’s strengths lay in teasing the narrative out of the people behind the uniform, Elliotte Friedman’s strengths fall to the analysis, seeing the game of hockey in a way that few career sports commentators ever have. Each is able to ask the perfect question necessary to fill in the fine brush strokes of the greater picture, with each style complimenting each other.

While I look forward to more of Elliotte Friedman and the fresh perspective he brings to After Hours, and while I know the show will certainly be less awkward with him in place of Scott Oake, I will miss the angle that Oake provides. The pairing of the two on After Hours would likely make for some of the best hockey programming, but alas, it is unlikely that CBC would have two hosts travel with the crew.

The Second Season

It looks as if the playoffs will feature Friedman on the Vancouver crew along with Mark Lee and Kevin Weeks. Weeks is an excellent colour commentator and Lee is quite good on the play-by-play, second among the CBC stable only to the former Vancouver caller, Jim Hughson. The too-infrequent games worked by Lee and Weeks have been the best that CBC has offered this year.

Hopefully, familiarity from working so many more games than they have in the regular season will allow the CBC crew to get better and better throughout a long post-season. *knock wood*

Though, no matter how deep the Canucks go in the playoffs, I know I’ll be a little sad to not have the Johns in my living room, sharing in the experience.    

The post The Fifth Line appeared first on is this your homework?.