Paul Bissonnette, an NHL veteran of 202 games, is an engaging social media presence (with nearly 700,000 Twitter followers) who has a thoughtful and unique perspective on the game. He plays for the Ontario Reign of the American Hockey League. Bissonnette will be contributing columns to USA TODAY Sports during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.
Anyone who watched Game 1 of the Eastern Conference quarterfinal between the New York Rangers and Pittsburgh Penguins on Wednesday can appreciate that playing the surging Penguins probably wasn’t the Rangers’ first choice.
Let me be clear that I don’t have any knowledge about the Rangers’ thinking or motivation when goalie Henrik Lundqvist, defenseman Dan Girardi, forwards Mats Zuccarello and Viktor Stalberg didn’t play in the final regular-season game against the Detroit Red Wings.
But I believe the Rangers did what was best for their club that day. If I were managing the Rangers, I would have done exactly what they did.
The argument over whether a team’s interest should take precedence over the perceived integrity of the sport is a fascinating debate. It’s complicated, layered and overflowing with passion.
Going into the Rangers’ final game, the buzz was about how the Rangers would be better off losing the finale because it meant they would stay as a wild card qualifier. Their path toward the Cup would be more favorable. They would've faced the Florida Panthers in the first round, then the Tampa Bay Lightning or Red Wings after. Instead, they have to deal with the Penguins, and a potential matchup with the Presidents’ Trophy-winning Washington Capitals.
The Panthers have had an impressive season, but the Penguins were 14-2-0 in their final 16 games, and they scored four or more goals 11 times in those games.
Given the choice between wrestling the grizzly bear or a wolf, you go with the wolf, even though you know the wolf will present its challenges.
I asked people in my hockey world what they thought and was intrigued to discover they were nearly split evenly on this issue.
My unscientific polling showed younger people tend to think it was acceptable for teams to do whatever they can within the rules to give themselves an advantage.
The older group believes that a team that doesn’t use its best lineup to try to win a game is violating the integrity of the game.
The divide is generational. I’m 31, and maybe I’m at the dividing line because I respect both sides of this argument.
It makes sense that younger people would support what the Rangers did because it was younger people who have pushed forward the advanced statistical analysis agenda.
Today, coaches use advanced stats as a way to determine how to give themselves the best odds of success. If you manipulate your lineup with the hope of giving yourself a better chance of playoff success, isn’t that the same thing?
If you analyze the numbers, the conclusion you would reach is it would be better for the Rangers to face the Panthers than the Penguins.
The fail safe on the lineup manipulation decision: players are never in on the plan. A general manager or coach can only do so much to manipulate a lineup because a player's instinct is to compete.
Despite not having their best lineup against the Red Wings, the Rangers won. Backup goalie Antti Raanta played well. The guys who got promoted played their hearts out. You can change a lineup to give your team less of a chance to win. But you can’t change your lineup to the point that you guarantee a loss.
Another argument against manipulating lineups is that it is impossible to know which is the right path to follow. The Rangers might beat the Penguins, and maybe they would have lost to the Panthers.
Fans often embrace the “bad karma” argument. If you scheme to have a specific matchup, you will lose because karma will bite you.
Here is another thought: If the Rangers would have played Lundqvist against the Red Wings, would it have sent a message that they wanted to play the Penguins because they fear no team? Would the Rangers’ confidence swell?
This is more complicated than you think. The right answer might vary from team to team.
But shouldn’t the coach and general manager be able to do what is in the best interest of their team? It’s their job to concern themselves with their team. These guys are on the hot seat. Do we have the right tell them they can’t do that? I’m asking you because I don’t have the answer. But I do appreciate the debate.
