On Racism and Herb Carnegie

I'm a lucky man. I've been raised in a household that held virtually no prejudices to any person, and I was raised by a family that instilled to me a sense of respect for all people. It also helped that my best friend in grade school was the daughter of a native of my small community and an immigrant from the Philippines, thus my interaction with an ethnicity other than my own came at an early age and let me know first hand that even people that don't look like me are still just people like myself. I think this is a valuable thing to learn when growing up.

I am sorry for people who have been trapped in a cycle of racism, in which their surroundings have branded into them a disrespect for other cultures and a misplaced anger, a fear of the other and a resulting hatred thereof.

To me a root cause of racism is a homogeneity of interactions during a persons first experiences in life. It is easy to hate something you don't know when you never even have to deal with it and never met a person that disagrees with you in this regard. To me, most racists, (as well as people with other prejudices) simply don't have a sense that other people are still just people.

So why am I talking about racism on a hockey blog? Thankfully it is not because some dumbass has thrown a banana at Wayne Simmonds or Evander Kane. Rather it's because I recently read Herb Carnegie's biography "A Fly in a Pail of Milk".

Carnegie was virtually the first black star player, but since he played his professional career during the 40s and 50s he was denied a place in the highest tier of professional hockey, the NHL. Most infamous is still an incident in which Toronto Maple Leafs owner Conn Smythe proclaimed that he would pay any man $10.000 to turn Herb Carnegie into a white man.


However, while the book brings up the racism Carnegie faced during the childhood and his playing career, it does a whole lot more than simply tell us that racism is a bad thing. It also shows why racism is a bad thing. The biography does a wonderful job at portraying Herb Carnegie as a genuine human being, with passions, ambitions, talents and feelings. The respect he has for his parents, the love for his wife and their elopement, his struggle to balance his hockey career and his home life, his dejectedness after the New York Rangers refused to put him on their NHL team rather than a farm team, his desire to teach children valuable lessons about life as well as hockey, his passion for hockey and for golf, his thankfulness for being given a real chance at a career when he applied for a job in sales after his playing career ended. They all provide a sense of humanity, and it illustrates that racism is bad because it robs a person of this humanity.


That black men like Carnegie were and still are disrespected and had and still have to overcome artificial cultural barricades is most unfair because they are still just people. Carnegie himself also seems to touch on the root cause of racism I explored earlier. As he explains, he never faced racism from any teammate, who I presume have gotten to know him quite well. Rather the most racism he has experienced were from strangers, people in the crowd and executives. People who don't seem to understand that even people who look different than themselves are still people.

While I don't think that racism can be cured by forcing a racist to interact with a person of a different race on a real human level, I think it is most definitely a stepping stone and definitely something that would help kids that are growing up to never become racist. However, even reading a book like "A Fly in a Pail of Milk" could provide such an understanding of a person of a different race as a person just like the reader, and this is genuinely a good lesson to learn.

Flyers vs. Rangers - A long time coming

The Playoffs start tonight and while I am still not entirely happy with the new restructured NHL, it is kind of undeniable that it resulted in some compelling first round matchups. Chicago vs. St. Louis should make for some quality hockey with one Stanley Cup hopeful gone after seven games or less. San Jose vs. Los Angeles should make a new great rivalry. Boston and Detroit also looks to be very interesting.

For my favorite team it means that they meet one of their more traditional rivals in the New York Rangers. Personally I would have rather had the Penguins, simply because it is a better matchup. Against the Rangers is kind of 50-50, and home ice advantage could be a deciding factor as the Flyers have failed to beat the Rangers in Madison Square Garden in their last eight tries. The matchup is however not hopeless and Giroux and Co. would be loathe to do anything but beat the Rangers.

The two teams have had a longstanding animosity, mostly fueled by the rivalry between the two cities. As an outside observer it seems to me that the dichotomy between Philadelphia and New York is rooted in how each view the other. New York is seen as a high society town, but is also called out for arrogance and entitlement, while Philadelphia is more associated with a working-class mentality, but also regarded as violent and low-brow. This rivalry is also noted in other sports, particularly football as the Philadelphia Eagles an the New York Giants have been division rivals for ages. In Baseball, the New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies also don't exactly like each other.

The Flyers and Rangers have also shared a division for a long time, in fact since 1974 when the NHL dissolved the "East" and "West" Divisions created by the 1967 expansion and formed the Divisions called "Norris", "Adams", "Patrick" and "Smythe". However, considering that the teams have played 276 regular season games against one another (the Flyers most common opponent in the history of the franchise), it is kind of surprising that the teams haven't met in the Playoffs recently. In fact, the last time this happened was in 1997, 17 years ago (let that sink in for a moment).

The Flyers and Rangers met a total of 10 times in the playoffs so far, with the Flyers winning six of those. The first two of those series are of particular interest because of Hall of Fame Coach Fred Shero. Shero actually played for the Rangers for 145 games in three season between 1947 and 1950. He was sent down after that and continued in the minors. After his playing career was over he remained with the Rangers on the coaching staff in their minor league development system.

However, the Rangers seemed unappreciative of his talent as a coach and his long commitment to the club, and appeared unlikely to give him a promotion to head coach any time soon. Without the chance of proving his true worth with the Rangers, he was successfully poached by Flyers General Manager Keith Allen in 1971, one of the kind of moves that gave Allen the nickname "The Thief". The Rangers would soon rue that day when in 1974 the Flyers defeated the Rangers in a playoff series going the full seven games on their way to their first Stanley Cup victory. It was the first time an expansion team beat an Original Arbitrary Six team in a playoff matchup.

The Flyers would make two more appearances in the Stanley Cup Final with Shero, winning again in 1975, but losing against the Canadiens in 1976. However, even the greatest coaches have shelf lives, and Shero himself knew that, submitting a letter of resignation in the '78 offseason and then signed a five year contract to coach the Rangers. However, he was still under contract with the Flyers who had refused to accept the letter. The end result was that the Rangers sent their first round pick for the 1978 NHL Amateur Draft alongside some monetary compensation to the Flyers to avoid tampering charges. The Flyers selected Ken Linseman with that pick.

However, Shero had not lost his coaching mojo and lead the Rangers to a 40 win season the following year. As fate would have it, the Flyers and Rangers would meet in the playoffs and this time the Rangers prevailed 4 games to 1. Shero would manage a fourth appearance in the Final in six years, but would again be vanquished by the dynastic Canadiens.

The next season the two teams would meet again, this time the Flyers would return the favor against their former head coach as this time they took a four games from the Ranges while surrendering only one, but they also could not reach the chalice as they were defeated by the other New York team, the Islanders.

Several more playoff bouts between Broad Street and Broadway followed. A total of five meetings in the 80s seesawed. The Rangers won in 1982 and '83, but were defeated by their upstart little brother both times. The Flyers fired back in '85 and made it to the Final, but lost to the Edmonton Oilers featuring Wayne Gretzky. The Rangers won again in '86 and ended a tormented season by the Flyers who were still shocked by the death of their goalie Pelle Lindbergh. The Rangers for their part lost to the Canadiens. The Flyers took one back in '87, but again fell to the Oilers in the Final. Then the two teams avoided each other until '95, when the Flyers beat the Rangers, reigning Stanley Cup champion at the time, and pulled ahead in playoff series victors, 5-4. The Flyers would lose to the Devils the next round.

When the two teams last met in the actual playoffs, it was seen as a passing of the torch. The Rangers had signed "The Great One", Wayne Gretzky during free agency the previous offseason, while the Flyers had "The Next One" on their roster as Eric Lindros had established himself as a true force in the NHL.

Lindros was acquired by the Flyers during the 1992 draft in a blockbuster trade with the Quebec Nordiques. The Rangers were also in the running for Lindros and the Nordiques actually preferred the offer by the Rangers, but an arbitrator ruled that the Nordiques had already entered into a verbal agreement with the Flyers when their General Manager solicited another offer from the Rangers.

In any case, the Series was hard fought, but Lindros and the Flyers prevailed in five games and moved on to the Stanley Cup Final against the Detroit Red Wings, which was unfortunately lost.

This year is the first time the two teams meet in the postseason since 1997. However, that doesn't mean there haven't been any significant or important games between the two teams since. For example in 2010 the final game of the season was between the two clubs and a playoff berth was on the line. The Rangers had kept themselves alive by defeating the Flyers the previous game at Madison Square Garden and were in a tie with the Flyers. The winner of this game in Philadelphia would jump ahead of the Montreal Canadians for 7th place in the conference. The loser would have nothing to do but book a tee time.

The Rangers 4th line fighter Jody Shelley scored an early game, but the Broadway Blueshirts had little to show elsewhere as the Flyers threw everything they could the other way, outshooting them by a final tally of 47-25. However, their goaltender Henrik Lundqvist held steady and kept everything out, until in the 3rd period Matt Carle finally tied it. The Flyers continued their onslaught but the Rangers could no longer stay back and needed to put out some offense as well. No decision could be made though and the game was pushed into a shootout. Daniel Briere and Claude Giroux scored, while Brian Boucher stopped Olli Jokinen who had to score to keep the game going. This started the Flyers on a nearly miraculous run which ended only in overtime of Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Final that year.

This first round matchup is definitely compelling. Two teams that do not like each other, and who have a long and storied history with each other. As it turns out this matchup usually also has a lot of implication for the rest of the NHL. If you take note with the Exception of 1974 when the Flyers won, every year the Flyers and Rangers met in the playoffs, the team that would defeat the victor of that battle would go on to win the Stanley Cup. It should be interesting to observe whether this pattern holds up, breaks, or perhaps one of the two combatants actually manage to lift Lord Stanley's Chalice this year for themselves.

The Greatest Franchises in the History of the League (and why the Flyers are among them)

With each passing season new history is made. Some franchises improve, find success, write new stories which will later be passed along by fans and media alike. They add to their legacy. Other franchises don't do so well, and while tragedies also make for great stories and add a certain kind of mysticism and intrigue, it requires perseverance to suffer through them and find new glory rather than fail and sink into a swamp of misery.

As a fan of the Flyers I find it interesting how this year went. From the miserable start to a remarkable turnaround which saw them return to the playoffs after last year's absence. It is already a season to remember for it, and it bodes well for the future too. Captain Claude Giroux solidified his role on the team and his position as one of the premier forwards in the league, while a lot of the young talent that surrounds him is also improving and finding their place in the league. Throughout the season the Flyers have shown the resiliency that is required to be successful and the team has with it done their heritage proud.

The Flyers put together another winning season, and the franchise thus remains as the team with the 2nd best yield of points in the history of the league. This will also be the 38th time they will make the playoffs in 47 years of team history, or more than 80% of the time. And while they haven't won the Cup in a while, they are known to make a run with 8 appearances in the Stanley Cup Final, which is the 3rd most of all franchises since they entered the league (and until last year it was tied for 2nd most). The Flyers also have 16 division titles to their name.

They may not have as many Championships as I might like and some other teams do, but they are always a threat to look out for. And the longest lull in their history was a period of 5 years in the early 90s in which they missed the playoffs, but only once were they out of it by more than 4 points.

They are, to put it simple, the picture of constant high level play and continuous success. And even outside just being successful the Flyers have influenced the league, the Broad Street Bullies and the Lindros trade (probably the 2nd most significant trade in NHL history, after the Gretzky trade) just to name a couple of examples.

Still, some people seem to look at me incredulously whenever I exclaim how proud I to be rooting for one of the best franchises within the sport. In their mind, only teams from the Original Arbitrary Six have a claim at such a legacy, which I find strange considering that the expansion of the league began almost 50 years ago.

It appears to me that they are thinking solely in absolutes. Team X has more Cups/Playoff Appearances/Division Titles/1st place finishes etc. than Team Y so it is automatically better, and seem to simply neglect the fact that Team X has been around twice, sometimes three times as long. They also conveniently overlook the fact that it was easier for a franchise to win something back then than it is today. Now a team has to beat 29 other teams. Back then it was only five others.

Simply in the interest of fairness we have to handicap the Arbitrary Six to a certain extend, and if it's only dividing a teams success by the number of years of their existence.

But even taking such things into account I will easily admit that the Montreal Canadiens are the cream of the crop. They have won the Cup 24 times (as any Habs fan will pretty quickly remind you) and even after expansion they were a force to be reckoned with. They have the best points yield of any franchise throughout history and a slew of division titles and other accolades. However, their grasp on the power has been waning since their last Cup victory in 1993, with 7 missed playoffs and 7 first round exits since.

On the other hand, Canada's other A6 franchise should be excluded from the "great franchise" debate outright in my opinion. Yes, the Toronto Maple Leafs are no longer a great franchise, and haven't been for a while. They have won the Cup 13 times, but all these victories came when there were seven or fewer teams in the league On one occasion it was only four. It doesn't take a lot of math to figure out that even a base probability of a Cup win is much lower now that 30 teams are in the league.

What nails down the Leafs however is their lack of success ever since the 1967 expansion. They have not only failed to win a Stanley Cup, they have failed to even make it to the Final. In 47 seasons they have only won their division once and missed the playoffs 19 times. And since the lockout that ate the 2004-05 season they have only made the playoffs once, failing in spectacular and soul-crushing fashion in Game 7 to the Boston Bruins. Add in their horrifying collapse this year that rivals that of the New York Mets in 2007, I have a hard time believing that anybody still thinks of them as a great franchise.

This brings me to the Chicago Blackhawks, who are kind of the reverse Leafs. They were absolutely atrocious during the A6 era, qualifying only twice for the playoffs in 14 attempts between from 1944 to 1958. After that they made 28 consecutive playoff appearances from 1969 to 1997, but never managed to win a Cup losing in the Final three times. After another decade of losing and consistent bottom rung finishes they amassed talent through the draft and won the Cup for the 2nd time in four seasons last year.

A similar story is told by looking at the Red Wings, though with a higher peak. They were a force in the Original 6 era, and were a veritable Dynasty in the last two decades, managing to make the Final six times between 1994 and 2009. This year they qualified for the playoffs again, making it their 23rd consecutive year doing so.

However, separating those two runs was the "Dead Wings" era. In between 1966 and 1986, the Red Wings were perennial bottom dwellers, missing the playoffs 16 times and getting past the first round only once. They were the absolute laughingstock of the league and a shame to everything that came before.

For both the Hawks and Wings recent success is fine and dandy, but it can not overshadow their long bouts of futility entirely. A franchise has to live with its history. If I had to make a choice between the two, I would take the Red Wings. The Hawks could prove me wrong in the immediate future though.

The Boston Bruins also have a similar history, though their only true futile years were 8 seasons in the 60s in which they failed to qualify for the post-season. They also had kind of a lull through the 90s and 00s. However, 18 Division Championships and 9 appearances in the Final since the league expanded are a strong language, particularly if added to their recent Cup victory and last years appearance in the Final.

This leaves the New York Rangers, who are definitely a step below all teams named so far. The Original Arbitrary Six era was not kind to them, as they missed the playoffs 18 times in the seasons between 1942 and 1966. In the 6 years they managed to qualify, they made it out of the first round only once, and were then dispatched. There's also the infamous 54 year Cup drought from 1940 to 1994, with little to write about between those years or since that Victory twenty years ago. Even with the advantage of having played within a league that consists of only six teams they were incapable of amassing the accolades like their colleagues from the same era did. The Rangers are an old franchise. Successful is a different matter.

So with the Original Arbitrary Six covered, let's look at some more recent additions to the league.

The  New York Islanders and Edmonton Oilers are a curious case of symmetry. Both teams entered the league in the 70s, wear Orange and Blue, quickly established themselves as veritable dynasties, but have fallen flat ever since and are currently trying to rebuild through the draft. The Oilers have a little bit of a better claim, with one more Cup victory in their history, plus a somewhat miraculous Final appearance in the deviant post-lockout 05-06 season.

However, whatever capital both teams amassed through their dynastic years in the 80s is long gone, fallen by the wayside through years of losing and both teams have become the laughingstock of the league at one time or another through bad management. How the mighty have fallen.

From the 80s we jump to the 90s and 2000s, in which for the most part the Colorado Avalanche and New Jersey Devils split whatever the Red Wings left over.

While Wikipedia is trying to fool people by separating the seasons in Quebec and Colorado, the Avalanche are still the same franchise as the Quebec Nordiques and the Nordiques' years must be taken into account when looking at their franchise history. Make no mistake, the Avs won the Cup in their first season in Colorado because of the players amassed in drafts and trades made in Quebec so it is only fair to count the losing years of the Nordiques against the Avs franchise history. And lose they did often, collecting four consecutive 1st overall draft picks in the late 80s and early 90s.

The Avalanche made good use of those picks, and the rewards for trading away one of those draft choices named Eric Lindros and won two Cups, but the Avalanche never made another appearance in the Final since their last victory in 2001. Since then they have fallen off, but thanks to talented amassed in the drafts they seem to have returned to form. This hasn't delivered anything too outstanding yet, though it seems to be developing that way.

The Devils also once played in Denver, and Kansas before that, but all those years were miserable and hardly worth mentioning. Even after moving to New Jersey little happened, to the point where they were infamously declared to be a "Mickey Mouse franchise" by the best player to ever play the game. However, thanks to four appearances and three victories in the Stanley Cup Final over nine years they managed to get rid of that moniker. But those seemingly dynastic years are now in the rearview mirror and the franchise is running on the fumes of old glory. They had another appearance in the Final only two season ago, but the leading player in it, Ilya Kovalchuk has since "retired" from the league as well, leaving the Devils somewhat stranded, with Martin Brodeur, the last vestige of their glory days appearing to leave the franchise in the immediate future.

Finally, let's take a look at the nouveau riche of the NHL, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Since their incarnation the Penguins were a doormat up to them drafting Mario Lemieux, which was pretty much a race to the bottom with the Devils. The interesting thing though is that even with Lemieux in their lineup, there was little immediate impact. When they drafted Lemieux in 84, they had already missed the playoffs twice. They would miss it another 5 times in the next 6 years before winning two Cups, conveniently falling in between the end of the Oilers Dynasty, and the start of the triumvirate of the Red Wings, Avalanche and Devils. They also only managed to do that after luckily picking up another all-time great forward in Jaromir Jagr.

While continuous playoff appearances followed, the unfortunate illness of Mario Lemieux would put a dent into their hopes of regaining another Cup to the point were they traded an unhappy Jagr for players that never panned out. Mismanagement on both the financial and athletic side followed with the team becoming a bottom dweller just at the right time to pick up a couple more generational talents in Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby, a player they literally won in a lottery. Talk about lucky.

The little secret here is that even after putting up two more Stanley Cup Final appearances and another victory in it, and while retaining those two generational talents, the Penguins are far from threatening now. They have been routinely exposed by a variety of opponents in the playoffs as unfocused and easy to manipulate, and are thus less thought of as the team to beat than other recent Cup winners like Boston, Chicago or Los Angeles.


The NHL has a number of great franchises. I'm lucky to be a fan of one of the best of them as they can very much hang with any other franchise in terms of team success, pride, community and history. If you ask me, while the Canadiens are the clearcut all-time leader, they are slowly fading, and teams like the Flyers, Red Wings and Bruins are gaining on them. Of that pack I think the Flyers are a nose ahead, though that may be bias on my part speaking. The Bruins are improving though and may soon be in position to make a claim for it. However, saying that it isn't close is a mistake I don't think any fan should allow themselves.

Which franchise is truly the best ever can never be truly answered while the league is still running of course, which I hope it will for a long time. This leaves us with continuously adjusting a franchises reputation and whether their recent play solidified their legacy or brought shame on itself and took away from their history. However, this also keeps things interesting as a franchise can not simply rest on its laurels.