I usually don't expect much from the Rangers coverage in the New York Times - but today's article by Jeff Klien is downright bizarre.
Here are his first 3 sentences:
Rangers Coach John Tortorella was asked before Tuesday night’s game against the Canadians what he thought of 3-point games — the N.H.L.’s idiosyncratic formula of letting teams each receive a point for a regulation tie, then awarding a bonus point to the winner in overtime or a shootout.
“I hate ’em,” Tortorella said. “There should just be a winner and a loser."
Presumably he hates them a little less after the Rangers took the bonus point in a 4-3 shootout victory at the Bell Centre.
How's that again? Torts didn't say "let's leave a tie a tie". He said he wants "a winner and a loser". The Rangers won the game by winning the Shoot Out and got 2 points for that. And the bonus point was not awarded to the Rangers - it was awarded to the Canadians - the losing team - for losing in a SO instead of regulation.
Why would Torts be happy the Habs got a point in a Ranger win? That puts Montreal just one point behind us instead of two with a game at hand. Is Jeff even reading his own copy? Does he follow hockey?
And Jeff, if you're going to refer to the Blueshirt Brother's concept of NOOT (no OverTimes) - at least use the proper term and give us a little shoot-out shout-out.
Sens selling structure, but is anyone buying it? - It’s the 2016 hockey offseason. Consider the circumstances: the newly appointed GM’s organization has won...
4 days ago