On Residency, the Big Moves and Blanks

Part 2 of our year-end mailbag...

Well, well. I said I would be back with Part 2 of the Mailbag, and here we are. So many questions, so little time. Thanks so much for all your positive responses to the first part, and all of your love about Broomgate. A reminder that Episodes 1 and 2 of Broomgate: A Curling Scandal launch tomorrow! You can get them wherever you get your podcasts. If you’ve yet to hear the trailer and want to subscribe so you can get Episode 1 and 2 the second they are released, click here:

https://link.chtbl.com/ijykS7P8

On with the mailbag!

Wouldn’t be a year-end mailbag if we didn’t discuss residency! I think it’s fairly tough to argue that residency rules haven’t hampered the growth of curling, particularly in smaller curling provinces. If you play in a mid- or low-tier province, the fact that curlers are now actively looking to parachute into your province to beat you can never be seen as a good thing, in my eyes. At least from a participation standpoint. From a competitive standpoint, knowing you have to play better teams maybe forces you to try different competitive strategies in order to keep up with the Joneses (I mean this metaphorically, but in some cases, literally Team Jones).

That said, it’s a hard spot for Curling Canada because nowhere else on earth has to deal with this, and it’s their job to win medals. It’s also very tough to argue that the lapse of residency rules hasn’t improved us on the world stage and allowed us to compete. Both Team Homan and Team Gushue in their current form do not exist without the residency rules as they are now constructed, and I don’t think anyone would say those two teams didn’t give us our best chance to win (and in Homan’s case, they did win). I think the Wild Card rules this year, with removing the top 3 teams from provincials competition, has helped a little bit, but the problem there too is that those Wild Cards are statistically much more likely to come from top-tier curling provinces than mid-tier ones, Gushue’s berth excepted (sorry NL), and thus, it’s still a tough out to win your province.

Taking all of that into consideration, however, there are other ways to grow the game outside of “making the Brier/Scotties as many times as possible”, and it would be easy to balance out the residency rule effect with some other changes to the game, some of which I detailed in my newsletter last week.

Best move of the offseason for me is Laurie St-Georges adding Lisa Weagle. I know that we look to the big-ticket skip moves often, but I think Lisa is going to bring experience and know-how to that team that will automatically raise their level. I think most of us who have watched them over the years at the Scotties have seen the flashes of brilliance and thought that team could be capable of more, and I think Lisa helps them unlock some of that.

I would not say this is the "worst” move because they couldn’t do anything about it, but I think the team hurt the most by the changes is Team Carruthers. I think they made probably the strongest move they could have based on who was available by adding Catlin Schneider at the third position, but losing someone of Brad’s calibre throwing the brick, and losing him to a rival, is the toughest offseason hand that was dealt.

Quite frankly though, and I have no inside knowledge of this, but I am hearing there’s a chance Brendan Bottcher is taking next year off. If that is truly the case, then that’s the worst move. Canada’s cutthroat team system forcing this year’s second-best skip by points (130 more than third place!), who also happens to be 32, into a year off is a really tough pill to swallow for the country, for Curling Canada and for the fans.

I talked about this on my fun year-wrap appearance on From the Hack, but there really isn’t much precedent for the #2 team in Canada and #4 in the World replacing their skip in the middle of a quad without some sort of retirement/injury forcing the change. So I’m more inclined to think it’s a one-off, but it does give us a further glimpse into the increasingly professional nature of the game and what these teams are now willing to do to get to the Olympics.

There’s two sides to this. So let’s start with the second question, because I think that makes more sense. Most curling teams do enjoy hanging out with each other, and in a lot of cases, there are very tight bonds there. As I’ve said before, there’s a reason why Marc Kennedy and Ben Hebert keep returning to play with one another. There’s a reason why Brad Gushue and Mark Nichols have played together their whole lives. There’s a reason why Colton Flasch has consistently played with the Marsh Brothers. Yes, talent is a factor. If Ben Hebert wasn’t very good, then it wouldn’t matter how much Marc liked playing with him, at some point he would move on to a better lead that he felt could help him win. There needs to be a marriage of talent and friendship. But if the talent is there, more often than not, you’re looking to play with people that you have a friendship with, or believe you could have a friendship with.

That said, it is because of these friendships that do form that the personal and business can often be very difficult to separate, and why in team breakups, feelings are often hurt. As much as you want to be able to understand as a player that this is ultimately a business, there are feelings involved and it’s impossible to separate them. Now, are there teams where you can see the split coming a mile away and it’s pretty close to mutual and friendships are maintained because it’s clear the “business” side of the game is over? Sure. But are there more situations where you get cut from a team and you feel the worst you’ve ever felt? Definitely.

If we do, it’s a long ways away. Competing to go to the Worlds is way too stitched into this country’s curling fabric to see that go away. If anything, they’ll do what they’re now doing at the Olympic Trials, with doing a best-of-3 or something similar. That way, the better team is more likely to go anyway.

I would actually disagree with this notion. I understand what you’re getting at, but seconds need to be able to draw and have a finesse take-out game far more than they used to. It used to be that seconds were just your best outright hitters, both in the house and runbacks/peels. Now with the five-rock rule, the second position has demanded excellency in drawing and teams are favouring softer-weight hits, which they’ve had to master. Plus, seconds are part of the same evolution that leads have undergone, in that you have to be a beast on the broom now also, or you aren’t considered worthy of a spot on a top team. Teams used to be strictly chosen (or at least mostly chosen) based on shot-making ability and now, if you wanna play front end on a top 10 team, you better be a slab or you’re toast.

It’s a question from a faithful paid subscriber, Bill! Thanks so much for subscribing Bill. From everything I know, I do not believe Dave Murdoch has had a hand in these team changes. I’m sure he would be available as a consultant if teams were looking for advice or a helping hand, but I don’t think he has told any of the teams what to do, or that they have to do it. It’s possible we see a more aggressive Dave after this quad in terms of that stuff as he continues to get the lay of the land here in Canada, but I don’t think he’s involved in things like that right now. And unfortunately for us, no, I don’t see the Leafs beating the Bruins. :(

Fellow curling podcaster Edward has a question for me from the Twitter DMs. Now, as someone who is not from the Territories, I figured this question was best left answered by someone who is. So I texted Kerry Galusha. Here’s what she said:

“That’s an interesting question. When I first read it, I didn’t think it was absolutely crazy, but then thinking about it, it’s a bit weird. We are a part of Canada, so to be excluded from a national event would be weird. I honestly do think the Territories should have one spot at the nationals instead of three though, I’ve always thought this. I don’t see how the Territories are going to continue to develop, we are going to get worse. But that’s a whole other issue lol.”

So there you have it. The answer is no. And a new question has been asked. Maybe next time we’ll tackle that.

Again, no insider knowledge here, and I don’t know this for sure, but I do believe the GSOC is looking strongly at axing blanks. As you said, Nic has been very vocal on Twitter and on his various media appearances since the announcement that he does not like blank ends. Whether that takes effect in time for next season or not I have no idea, and what that makes the format look like, I also don’t know. I’d agree that if it does change, it’ll likely go the MD route of having the hammer flip every end regardless. I’m hoping it doesn’t, because I see some issues with going with alternating hammer.

Does it drive more offence? Well sure, as scores are likely going to look inherently bigger because someone has to score every end. Does it drive more offensive play is the question, and I’m not sure the answer is yes. I think that for a long time, “blank ends” has been a catch-all for complaining curling fans, as they seem to think if blanks are eliminated, teams are gonna go buck-wild. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that eliminating blank ends turns every game into a skins game.

See, the thing with the skins game format is that there’s an inherent value to playing aggressively without the hammer. If you steal, you win the skin. Duh. But it isn’t just that: the value in playing aggressively without the hammer comes because if you steal, you get the skin, but even if you force to one, you get the hammer back (and presumably a better chance to win the next skin, which is now worth more with a carryover). And you also know that if it’s a blank, your opponent keeps hammer for that same, more valuable carryover. You want to avoid that at all costs. I don’t know that there is as much inherent value to stealing if you eliminate blanks and choose an alternating-hammer format.

The problem with alternating hammer is that the team with hammer has less options. Right now, the “good” options are to try to score 2+, or blank. If the hammer alternates every end, their only goal is scoring 2+, and that makes the strategy without the hammer much simpler: prevent them from scoring 2+. This makes playing defensively for the team without hammer not only a strategy, but the most viable strategy. If you know that your opponent is drawing the house for 1 on their last if no rocks are in play, do you not aggressively try to keep all rocks out of play?

You might say, “but John, the 5-rock rule, there will be guards up!” Yeah, but it’s the same strategy that teams currently WITH the hammer would employ. If it looks like they can’t score more than one, a lot of teams with hammer will currently bail, but that isn’t always easy, because most of the time, you’ve started the end with the intent of scoring 2+. You probably have to do some work to get to a bail and a blank, and bailing won’t always be an option. Now, imagine if bailing happens by the team WITHOUT hammer, and happens instantly. “Bailing” will almost always be the best strategy, especially if you think you’re better than your opponent. If you feel confident you are better and can better utilize the hammer, then you’ll spend your ends without hammer mostly content that the other team scores a single. Again, it’s fun to imagine that every team just plays aggressively now with a change, but I don’t think they will.

Let’s run through a scenario. Let’s say it’s early in the game, maybe 1-1 in the third. I think you’ll most likely see the team without hammer actively trying to get the team with hammer to score one. If you’re a defensively-inclined team and you don’t have hammer, your first rock is almost always going into the house. That’s one less guard up right there. Normally, the team without hammer would throw a guard, but because there’s no blank option and they KNOW they get the hammer back next end, they aren’t incentivized to throw a guard at all. That’s the value proposition, right? Right now, the team without hammer is incentivized to play at least a little bit aggressively, because that is their best chance at getting the hammer back. A blank doesn’t get it back for them. Now, if they KNOW they get the hammer back, there is no incentive in trying to do anything other than getting your opponent to score 1, as that’s a MUCH easier situation to manufacture than a steal, especially if your opponent is drawing for a single if the house is empty.

Let’s continue. Probably, the team with hammer throws a corner. If you wanna play REALLY defensive (and your lead is good), you chip it into the house and roll your guard out. If you want to play semi-defensive, you go around it and you’re lying two with one buried behind the corner guard. Now the team with hammer has to decide if they want to put up a second corner guard with you already counting two with one buried around, or they are content with only a single guard up and they follow you around. In either case, a force is almost immediately on the table.

Now, maybe the team with hammer plays a different strategy. You put the first rock in, they throw a centre guard on it. Ok, now at least the play is around the centre, but again, you’re likely only dealing with one guard in play. Team without hammer will likely come around it again on their second, now they’re lying two buried and you’re throwing. You’re certainly going to be very scared to throw a SECOND centre on that (especially early in the game), so you’re either freezing where any chip-off kills you, or you’re running back, which also immediately brings a 1 into play.

Obviously this won’t be every end and some teams will be willing dance partners and it’ll create more interesting games. But I think at the top level of the game, completely eliminating blanks turns curling into a largely 1-point game and that could make games more boring than whatever you think a boring game is now with a team that blanks too much. I think if you eliminate blanks, other rule changes have to come into play to ensure there’s an incentive for teams without hammer to try to steal, or to play aggressively. It works in MD because every end starts with a guard and a rock in the back 4-foot, and there’s only 5 rocks each to work with. There simply isn’t enough time to consistently force your opponent to 1 with their last by playing defensively, the only way out is through. But with 8 rocks, a fresh house, and the hitting ability of top teams…

And of course, we also completely ignoring how this makes the draw to the button even more important than it already is. I think you have to give teams the option if they win the draw to choose whether they want hammer in odds or evens, and the team that wins will pick evens. Going into the game knowing you have hammer in 10? Even more incentive to play defensively. Obviously this entire write-up is predicated on the hammer automatically changing hands and not some sort of different rule set, but I’d imagine if it does change, that’s where it goes, and I’ll be VERY curious to see if it actually increases scoring outside the nominal “a team scores every end so scoring automatically goes up”.

Alright, we made it. Please listen to Broomgate tomorrow. I love you and appreciate you reading, as always.