On Injuries in the NHL

Injuries in the NHL are an interesting thing. First, let's go with the elephant in the room where unless an ailment is blatantly obvious, the description states "upper-body" or "lower-body" regardless of anything between a concussion to a broken toe. Most other sports will present injury reports as "shoulder", or "knee", or "ribs" or what have you. But no, the NHL could fill an Us Weekly with injury rumors before anything certain comes to light.

The thing that occurs on the ice, though, is that these athletes play through injury seemingly more often than any other sport and the playoffs are a perennial gallery of guys playing through injury. Two years ago, Ryan Miller of the Buffalo Sabres played with a concussion through a seven-game exit in the first round before admitting his brain was essentially out of place. This season, of note, Nathan Horton of Boston is risking a nagging shoulder injury to play in this best-of-seven series. And tonight, we have Patrice Bergeron of Boston and Jonathan Toews of Chicago supposedly listed to dress despite unconfirmed, to my knowledge, injuries.

Now there is something admirable in this mindset. Compare it to Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls, who was deemed healthy by doctors for the lion's share of the season but wouldn't play because of some mental block. That doesn't happen in the NHL, where if the man can play you can bet the skin on your back that he will be suited up for his usual minutes. And this even carries over to the coaching staff where you could argue the players are somewhat pressured to hop back on the ice a couple shifts before they might be ready. You ride the horses that got you there in the first place, and you don't want to insert a call-up into the roster who could become a liability in a potential elimination game. The league had to institute the "Quiet Room" because prior to Sidney Crosby missing significant time over two seasons, concussion testing on the bench went something like "are you good to play? Good, tape an asprin to it, your line is on next."

On the other side of things, though, this behaviour has to be absolute hell for General Managers and Owners. The former because they sign the contracts and the latter because they sign the checks for these players. And this comes into effect not only in a salary cap world, but keeping in mind that the salary cap comes down by around six million green bills with the portrait of George Washington.

Take Nathan Horton for example, who is listed to become an Unrestricted Free Agent after the Stanley Cup Final concludes in a season where his salary weighed in at $5.5 million and a cap hit of $4 million. Playing top line as he does, this man is going to get paid well on the market. If he skates and gets injured with shoulder surgery essentially certain, his opening day status becomes uncertain and his upcoming contract is compromised. But why, after questions about whether he would dress after Game 1 of the Final, would this man risk potentially his career to remain in the lineup to this day? Well, Because It's the Cup.

There is pride in this idea of playing but there is also stubbornness which factors in and that could actually prove to be detriment. Would you rather have a top player not playing at 100% or a marginal player who maybe saw a quarter of the season in the starting roster and has skated in practice with the team through the playoffs and is just itching for their chance to make an impact? I'm sure many would ask "well, what percentage are we talking about for my top line guy?" I would argue that the playoffs are the time of the year that the players on the ice are expected to elevate their play and a top line player who can only elevate their play with an injury to just below what is normally expected of them, well they might be expendable in these circumstances.

The league pays considerable lip service to cutting dirty plays and unnecessary injuries out of the sport. But the fact is that with any physical sport injuries are part of the equation and the only way to alleviate those aspects is to take some of that physical presence out of the game. The Department of Player Safety and the Quiet Room are considerable steps to these issues but part of the onus is on the player in question to say "I could play but I don't know how effective I will be on the ice because I am not feeling up to the level I know I can play" or something to that effect.

We saw this with Gregory Campbell in the Boston-Pittsburgh series, where after breaking his leg blocking a shot on a penalty kill, Campbell stayed on the ice for about a minute before hobbling to the bench. The two main sides to this argument are he should have stayed down on the ice to call the play dead instead of creating essentially a 5-on-3 advantage for the opponent versus that was an illustration of the blue collar work ethic of the Boston Bruins and the City of Boston at large. Hyperbole can work both ways, and at the end of the day Campbell did his job in finishing his shift and showed bravery in attempting to keep blocking shots, but was it the smart choice as far as his health is concerned?

Having this level of bravado can affect your team whether it draws strength or detriment and this can only be judged in hindsight. As a player, I can imagine that you would want to do everything in your power to help your team succeed, but where do you draw the line by judging yourself fit and unfit for play? Odds are these players are not unfamiliar to these situations, but when greater things than a win are at stake it could be argued that the needs of the team outweigh the needs of the personal pride.