>This is a general replay to all those who have posted on the inclusion
of
>penalties in the game box scores.  First, I did not mean to offend
anyone
>who is using their own leisure time to post game summaries to the list.
>However, I liken the omission of penalties in hockey stats to the
omission
>of errors in a baseball game or fumbles in a football game.  All three
>represent failures which afford the opposition to take advantage of the
>others miscues, whether physical or mental.  Is this not important to
how
>the game is played and why one team is victorious and the other is not?
 
I have no problem with you wanting penalties -- if you like them, that's
OK.
 
 But, no offense, but I don't like your analogy to errors and fumbles.
 
Penalties aren't even close.  Those things in baseball are clearly bad.
No one takes a "good fumble" in football.  Looking at a list of
penalties, there is no way of knowing why the penalty occured.  Was it a
bad call?  Was the player taking a penalty out of necessity?  Was it a
truly dumb play?
 
There's too many possibilities with a penalty in hockey.  I've sort of
chuckled to myself that anyone can find any real significance in looking
at a list of penalties.  I think you're searching in the wrong spots if
you think that's the case.
 
Tell you what ... someone do a study on the correalation to penalties
and wins.  Then we'll know if it's important, and even then, all you
need to do is list total amount of penalties.
 
To me, it's only somewhat more important than a foul in basketball.  I
think that's a better analogy, though to a heightened degree.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.