Around the NHL 2019-20

[shrader]

19 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No.  (Yes, adding that word changes entirely the point, but it causes one to reach the wrong conclusion. IMHO.)  If at any point in that shooting motion the puck was over the cross bar, a goal should be waived off.

There are MANY times that a puck is contacted by a player with the stick initially above the cross bar but the stick is below the cross bar by the time the puck breaks contact with the stick.  The goal is waived off in those instances.  As it should be. 

So, presumably the entire shooting motion should be considered analogous to the entire deflection motion for the typical 'puck contacted with a high stick prior to the puck entering the net.'

There's one poor choice of wording in that rule that adds to the confusion:

The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

For whatever reason, they added in a line that contradicts the language of the previous sentence.  Technically in this Legg goal scenario, the puck originally made contact with the stick at ice-level so it should be legal.  I don't think for a second that this is their intention though.  They've left the door open for different interpretations.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

There's one poor choice of wording in that rule that adds to the confusion:

 

 

For whatever reason, they added in a line that contradicts the language of the previous sentence.  Technically in this Legg goal scenario, the puck originally made contact with the stick at ice-level so it should be legal.  I don't think for a second that this is their intention though. They've left the door open for different interpretations.

They have.  But this is a situation that has only come up a handful of times in the history of the league and really if they start explicitly writing rules to cover every permutation of every possible situation, they will end up with the NFL's 'catch' rule by the time they're done.  ( Yes, that statement goes against my usual stance that the rules should be written how they're actually intended to be implemented and then enforced to that standard.).

Should it actually become an issue, then they can go back and revisit it.  (Hopefully not via a clarifying memo that no one but the GMs receive.). Considering the likelihood somebody trying that move would get his clock cleaned afterwards (or possibly even while attempting) there wasn't much need for that rule clarification before we entered the kinder gentler NHL.  Maybe it'll be worth clarifying at some point.  Don't see it at present.  YMMV.

[shrader]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

They have.  But this is a situation that has only come up a handful of times in the history of the league and really if they start explicitly writing rules to cover every permutation of every possible situation, they will end up with the NFL's 'catch' rule by the time they're done.  ( Yes, that statement goes against my usual stance that the rules should be written how they're actually intended to be implemented and then enforced to that standard.).

Should it actually become an issue, then they can go back and revisit it.  (Hopefully not via a clarifying memo that no one but the GMs receive.). Considering the likelihood somebody trying that move would get his clock cleaned afterwards (or possibly even while attempting) there wasn't much need for that rule clarification before we entered the kinder gentler NHL.  Maybe it'll be worth clarifying at some point.  Don't see it at present.  YMMV.

It's funny because they actually tried to address it already in the rule book.  There's a specific line that mentions the lacrosse move, but they kind of screwed up with it.  It's in the section about playing the puck with a high stick, but not the disallowed goal section.  I'd have to imagine that this line was added post-Legg.

[Doohicksie]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

No.  (Yes, adding that word changes entirely the point, but it causes one to reach the wrong conclusion. IMHO.)  If at any point in that shooting motion the puck was over the cross bar, a goal should be waived off.

There are MANY times that a puck is contacted by a player with the stick initially above the cross bar but the stick is below the cross bar by the time the puck breaks contact with the stick.  The goal is waived off in those instances.  As it should be. 

So, presumably the entire shooting motion should be considered analogous to the entire deflection motion for the typical 'puck contacted with a high stick prior to the puck entering the net.'

[Taro T]

44 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

?

[Doohicksie]

Face it, we're just a couple of doofusses arguing on the internet.

[nfreeman]

Barnburner in Nashville.  Nashville went up 5-4 over Calgary with 2.5 min to go, and Calgary just tied it at 5 with 36 seconds to go.

EDIT to add:  Calgary came back from down 4-1 in the 3rd before the frenzy at the end.

[nfreeman]

And Tkakzuk wins it on an insane between-the-legs goal with 1 sec to go in OT!

[SwampD]

This Calgary/Nashville game is awesome!

[French Collection]

That was a great third period and OT.

Edited November 1, 2019 by French Collection

[LGR4GM]

wonder how the Sabres game will go tonight... 

[Brawndo]

Louis Domingue traded to New Jersey

[Thorner]

Thought this was kinda interesting.. 

 

[Randall Flagg]

Not sure if anyone caught this, but a little while ago Gary Bettman quipped that besides Toronto fans, everyone really likes the new playoff format - the joke being that they've now twice finished as a high seed with respect to the league, only to be stuck playing another top 5-10 team in the first round, when the "ideal" and "fair" playoff system would be a perfect matchup of seeds 1 & 16, 2 & 15, 3 & 14, etc. I largely agree with this sentiment, as a couple years back the second best team in the league had to face the fourth best team in the league in round one, while the 12th and 13th best teams got lucky and got to play each other. With the split conference setup (which I do like) it can never be perfect, but I was curious to see if the old format performed better in terms of adequately bracketing out teams according to their regular seasons, which are 6 months long, filled with a grueling 82 game schedule, and needs to mean something come playoff time. 

I wasn't sure how to easily visualize this, but figured out a way that kind of works. Take this plot:

The x-axis (horizontal) lists the playoff teams in order of their finish in NHL standings. The y-axis is the position of their opponent. In a "perfect" and ideally "fair" bracket, this is the shape it would have - the higher bars represent an easier opponent, and the lower bars are a team that finishes with a lower number (and thus higher position) in the standings. 

I went through and recorded the seeding matchups of the first round for each of the six years the new format has been implemented, and then the last six years of the previous format, to see if it's possible pick out a difference visually (each plot is one season):
Old Format

New Format

It is.

Neither system works perfectly, and there are wonky years in both, but it's pretty clear that the general linearly decreasing relationship is more prevalent in the old format than in the newer seasons, several of which are damn-near approaching scatter-plot status. There appears to be some justification for the griping of Leafs fans. Of course, the NHL is probably fine with this, sacrificing some "fairness" for the "creating rivalries" angle. I then looked to compare how each seed stacks up on average (it sucks having such small sample sizes, but I stuck with using 6 seasons of the old format so that the sample size error was the same in each case even though there are more seasons of data for the old format):

The average standard deviation for any given position in the old format was 2.83 positions, and it was 3.51 in the new format, so the new format is more volatile on a seed-by-seed basis. In particular, the old format does a good job at the extremes, while it can sometimes jumble things up for seeds 5-11, but those teams in general are usually separated by only handfuls of standing points, if that, so it's not anywhere near as unfair as how screwed up the new format can get for the best/worst playoff teams, in particular for the 2-5 and 12-15 seeds. The new format in general is far more likely to give teams in the 2-5 league ranking range far more difficult opponents than is fair, while accordingly giving the 12-15 seeds an easy ride. For example, the 12th seed's ideal opponent is seed 5 and yet in the new format they face the 10th seed on average! These teams can feasibly be separated by 5-6 wins, which generally indicates a sizable gap between NHL teams. Further, the 4th seed's ideal opponent is the 13th seed, while they average facing the 7th seed under the new format. Remember when Philly made the playoffs 2 years ago? Probably not - they got smoked by the Caps. Toronto had 105 points that year, and Boston  (4th) had to face that Toronto team when on average they should have dealt with the Philly team that didn't really belong in the playoffs, and only finished 1 point ahead of that year's Devils team, which was the weakest playoff team I've seen in a long time.

The format differences don't make that big of a difference every year, because the points distributed among the seeds aren't ever the same and can sometimes group up strangely, but eyebrow-raising matchups happen more often than they used to.

 

[Thorner]

It’s true, the format sucks. 

Those graphs are quite elegant.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thorny

[Weave]

I’d probably feel more strongly about this if my team made the playoffs once in a while so it mattered to me.

[Brawndo]

33 minutes ago, Weave said:

I’d probably feel more strongly about this if my team made the playoffs once in a while so it mattered to me.

This is how I feel about it as well

Edited November 2, 2019 by Brawndo

[Curt]

With regards to the playoff format, great work @Randall Flagg, but as an impartial fan I like the new format where it feels like the good matchups are sort of spread throughout the playoffs and rivalries can grow a little more.  However, if it was the Sabres being randomly put at a disadvantage because of it, I wouldn’t like that.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

Great work on the charts @Randall Flagg as usual.

Here's my personal take on the playoffs.....you're in it to win it. That's the goal no matter how you do it. If you're gonna play with the big boys then act like one. To win it all you will have to be the last one standing whether you go in at seed #1, #5, #10, #16 or anywhere in between. It shouldn't matter because winning is the ultimate goal and you have to win each round no matter whom the opponent is. If you're a #2 and you play #15 or #2 and play #5 in round one, you either beat a lower seed (and the run becomes tougher as you go along) or you beat a higher seed (which could make the run easier going forward). Personally, I'd rather meet the tougher opponent first and get them out of the way early.

Nothing is guaranteed in the playoffs anyway and you can ask teams like Tampa, Caps, Flames, etc.

In order to be the best you have to beat the best. You can also argue that circumstances during the season (such as injuries/trades/player development) could have a team seeded at #16 that is actually a better team than any of the above teams because maybe they are healthy going in and vice versa. If the players don't play to win they won't have a chance.

Go Sabres....and I promise I won't cry about where you are seeded when you make it.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Great work on the charts @Randall Flagg as usual.

Here's my personal take on the playoffs.....you're in it to win it. That's the goal no matter how you do it. If you're gonna play with the big boys then act like one. To win it all you will have to be the last one standing whether you go in at seed #1, #5, #10, #16 or anywhere in between. It shouldn't matter because winning is the ultimate goal and you have to win each round no matter whom the opponent is. If you're a #2 and you play #15 or #2 and play #5 in round one, you either beat a lower seed (and the run becomes tougher as you go along) or you beat a higher seed (which could make the run easier going forward). Personally, I'd rather meet the tougher opponent first and get them out of the way early.

Nothing is guaranteed in the playoffs anyway and you can ask teams like Tampa, Caps, Flames, etc.

In order to be the best you have to beat the best. You can also argue that circumstances during the season (such as injuries/trades/player development) could have a team seeded at #16 that is actually a better team than any of the above teams because maybe they are healthy going in and vice versa. If the players don't play to win they won't have a chance.

Go Sabres....and I promise I won't cry about where you are seeded when you make it.

This is something I completely agree with, unless injuries are impacting your team in which case you'd love to pair up against a "weaker" team first.  But generally speaking, you need to win 4 series, that's that.  

[Randall Flagg]

My preference is the old format, and my reason is simply that it's far easier to immediately determine hypothetical opponents under the old format, because the only useful standings on any site were the conference ones so they'd take preference. Now whenever I look up standings everything defaults to division standings, which are impossible to instantly glean playoff situations or even which teams are in/out from, and then when you find a way to show the wild card standings, it's still work to figure out whose opponents are who, and which teams are closer to falling out (as often the 2/3 seeds actually are closer to missing out than the second wild card team depending on which division is stronger that year). It's annoying as hell.

And I think teams might have more gripes than fans because two teams with great regular seasons have a GUARANTEE that one of them gets a lot less revenue than they should have a CHANCE at getting by each of them playing lower-ranked teams, as they each have to play each other. It weakens the importance of the regular season more often than the old standings do and that's a no-no for me

 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

the old format,

But which old format?  1-16?  1-8?  Divisions?  They have used all sorts of formats.  It's not like any one of them is particularly steeped in tradition.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

My preference is the old format, and my reason is simply that it's far easier to immediately determine hypothetical opponents under the old format, because the only useful standings on any site were the conference ones so they'd take preference. Now whenever I look up standings everything defaults to division standings, which are impossible to instantly glean playoff situations or even which teams are in/out from, and then when you find a way to show the wild card standings, it's still work to figure out whose opponents are who, and which teams are closer to falling out (as often the 2/3 seeds actually are closer to missing out than the second wild card team depending on which division is stronger that year). It's annoying as hell.

And I think teams might have more gripes than fans because two teams with great regular seasons have a GUARANTEE that one of them gets a lot less revenue than they should have a CHANCE at getting by each of them playing lower-ranked teams, as they each have to play each other. It weakens the importance of the regular season more often than the old standings do and that's a no-no for me

 

Like I said in my previous post.....it really all boils down to play your best where ever you are seeded if you want to win. Simple concept.

You use the words "chance" and "revenue" as if they really mean something special. Get in and you have a chance. Get in and play your best and the revenue will come in the same way whether you beat the #1 seed or the #16 seed. Sure you want to be #1 and play much lower seeds in progression but look at Tampa last year and others highly seeded teams of just about any year. There almost always seems to be an upset or more every year. So does it really matter that much? Some years it's injuries. Some , just bad luck/officiating. Some, being out coached/ classed. Let the chips fall where they may and just play like it means something. 

Revenue shouldn't be higher on the list than the fan experience, as it's the fans that create that revenue. Put a good product out there and the fans will be glad to support it. 

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

My preference is the old format, and my reason is simply that it's far easier to immediately determine hypothetical opponents under the old format, because the only useful standings on any site were the conference ones so they'd take preference. Now whenever I look up standings everything defaults to division standings, which are impossible to instantly glean playoff situations or even which teams are in/out from, and then when you find a way to show the wild card standings, it's still work to figure out whose opponents are who, and which teams are closer to falling out (as often the 2/3 seeds actually are closer to missing out than the second wild card team depending on which division is stronger that year). It's annoying as hell.

And I think teams might have more gripes than fans because two teams with great regular seasons have a GUARANTEE that one of them gets a lot less revenue than they should have a CHANCE at getting by each of them playing lower-ranked teams, as they each have to play each other. It weakens the importance of the regular season more often than the old standings do and that's a no-no for me

 

 

5 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Like I said in my previous post.....it really all boils down to play your best where ever you are seeded if you want to win. Simple concept.

You use the words "chance" and "revenue" as if they really mean something special. Get in and you have a chance. Get in and play your best and the revenue will come in the same way whether you beat the #1 seed or the #16 seed. Sure you want to be #1 and play much lower seeds in progression but look at Tampa last year and others highly seeded teams of just about any year. There almost always seems to be an upset or more every year. So does it really matter that much? Some years it's injuries. Some , just bad luck/officiating. Some, being out coached/ classed. Let the chips fall where they may and just play like it means something. 

Revenue shouldn't be higher on the list than the fan experience, as it's the fans that create that revenue. Put a good product out there and the fans will be glad to support it. 

I agree with Flagg, why not choose the system that is the most fair, at the end of the day, it IS a business and teams make a ton of their revenue on playoff home games. It's all well and good to say "win them all", but, teams play a grueling 82 game schedule, the top teams should have the best chance to get the most home playoff games and the ensuing profit. 

As for the bolded, if the fan experience is what matters, I have not seen a poll conducted among fans where it wasn't the old format that was vastly preferred. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thorny

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, LTS said:

This is something I completely agree with, unless injuries are impacting your team in which case you'd love to pair up against a "weaker" team first.  But generally speaking, you need to win 4 series, that's that.  

But there's no sense in pretending that winning 1 series or no series is the same to a fan as winning two or three, that anything short of the Cup all falls into the same category. Advancing further matters, not just for profit, but for the fan. We all look fondly on the 06 playoffs, I doubt we'd feel the same if they'd lost in round 1 or 2. 

I just don't think manufactured rivalries are worth throwing away a quantifiably more fair system. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thorny