Around the NHL 2019-20

[LTS]

Just now, Thorny said:

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. 

A team finishes the season with a certain overall rank.  There will be expectations of them to beat certain teams they could be matched up against in the playoffs.  If they beat them, yes, I am happy, but they were supposed to beat them so I am not as happy.

In short, if you make it to the playoffs, you just go win games.  That's all.  If the team goes out in the first round because they matched up against the team that won the President's Trophy people are going to say, "Well, they lost to the best team in the league this year."  It's only when you lose to those who finish below you in points that it's a big disappointment.

It's why winning the President's Trophy isn't always the best thing.  The expectations are that you will the Cup, because you were the best team. Teams that squeak in are usually more loose and ready to play.  

In the 06 playoffs the Sabres should have won the Cup.  The Sabres lost the battle of attrition. It impacted their ability to win games, and they still almost overcame the setbacks to win.  So yes, that's horribly disappointing.  But had they lost in round 1 or 2 before all the injuries set in, it would have been an even monumental disappointment. That said, if Carolina was the second best team in the conference the Sabres might have beat them before all the injuries and then they might have been able to hold out over the remaining teams because they weren't as good.

It's all ifs and buts.... in the end, you win or you go home.  Certainly owners want more games, it does equal more revenue.  If you want that, build your team to win the Cup and they will win round 1, 2, 3, and 4.  You will get your games.  No sense in being rewarded for being almost good enough by getting into Round 2.

[Thorner]

17 minutes ago, LTS said:

A team finishes the season with a certain overall rank.  There will be expectations of them to beat certain teams they could be matched up against in the playoffs.  If they beat them, yes, I am happy, but they were supposed to beat them so I am not as happy.

In short, if you make it to the playoffs, you just go win games.  That's all.  If the team goes out in the first round because they matched up against the team that won the President's Trophy people are going to say, "Well, they lost to the best team in the league this year."  It's only when you lose to those who finish below you in points that it's a big disappointment.

It's why winning the President's Trophy isn't always the best thing.  The expectations are that you will the Cup, because you were the best team. Teams that squeak in are usually more loose and ready to play.  

In the 06 playoffs the Sabres should have won the Cup.  The Sabres lost the battle of attrition. It impacted their ability to win games, and they still almost overcame the setbacks to win.  So yes, that's horribly disappointing.  But had they lost in round 1 or 2 before all the injuries set in, it would have been an even monumental disappointment. That said, if Carolina was the second best team in the conference the Sabres might have beat them before all the injuries and then they might have been able to hold out over the remaining teams because they weren't as good.

It's all ifs and buts.... in the end, you win or you go home.  Certainly owners want more games, it does equal more revenue.  If you want that, build your team to win the Cup and they will win round 1, 2, 3, and 4.  You will get your games.  No sense in being rewarded for being almost good enough by getting into Round 2.

It's not the be all end all, but nothing in that post gives a reason for why we SHOULD have a less fair system. It's all valid points but it's attempting to explain away why we should be ok with a system that leads to less accurate matchups based on a several month long season. Why can't all the stuff you laid out be true, yet still attempt to maximize the format to provide the best chance of "fairness". To me, it's about doing what is necessary to make the regular season as meaningful as possible. We know how big of a role "momentum" can play in the playoffs, if your team gets hot and gets on a roll. It's tough to get on that roll if a team runs into a tougher matchup to start than they reasonably should have. 

The fans at large have made it known they prefer the old system, based on what Bob McKenzie and others have relayed. He said it comes down to convincing Bettman. 

The bolded is much easier said than done. 31 teams are competing for the same thing. People like to pretend that the only thing that matters is the Cup, but it's just not true. Winning rounds and advancing matters to teams and fans and the format should attempt to provide the most fair layout based on the portion of the season that lasts the longest by a significant amount. 

Teams have been known to fire and hire personnel based on where they exit the playoffs. Things like draft position are also affected. We can sit here and say "oh well, gotta win them all anyways", but to me that isn't a great reason for not altering the system to make it better, even if it'll never be perfect. 

Edited November 2, 2019 by Thorny

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's not the be all end all, but nothing in that post gives a reason for why we SHOULD have a less fair system. It's all valid points but it's attempting to explain away why we should be ok with a system that leads to less accurate matchups based on a several month long season. Why can't all the stuff you laid out be true, yet still attempt to maximize the format to provide the best chance of "fairness". To me, it's about doing what is necessary to make the regular season as meaningful as possible. We know how big of a role "momentum" can play in the playoffs, if your team gets hot and gets on a roll. It's tough to get on that roll if a team runs into a tougher matchup to start than they reasonably should have. 

The fans at large have made it known they prefer the old system, based on what Bob McKenzie and others have relayed. He said it comes down to convincing Bettman. 

The bolded is much easier said than done. 31 teams are competing for the same thing. People like to pretend that the only thing that matters is the Cup, but it's just not true. Winning rounds and advancing matters to teams and fans and the format should attempt to provide the most fair layout based on the portion of the season that lasts the longest by a significant amount. 

Teams have been known to fire and hire personnel based on where they exit the playoffs. Things like draft position are also affected. We can sit here and say "oh well, gotta win them all anyways", but to me that isn't a great reason for not altering the system to make it better, even if it'll never be perfect. 

If I had to choose a format, then I agree with you. I just don't think any system is that much more "fair" than another and really, really don't think the seeding should matter when all 16 teams have the same goal in mind.....get in and win. But I also don't like shootouts and the loser points either.

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

If I had to choose a format, then I agree with you. I just don't think any system is that much more "fair" than another and really, really don't think the seeding should matter when all 16 teams have the same goal in mind.....get in and win. But I also don't like shootouts and the loser points either.

I know I'm in a small minority, but I also dislike 3 v 3 OT. It's not hockey, to me. 

[drnkirishone]

53 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know I'm in a small minority, but I also dislike 3 v 3 OT. It's not hockey, to me. 

You probaly also hate puppies and boobies

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

You probaly also hate puppies and boobies

Negatory. 

[LTS]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

It's not the be all end all, but nothing in that post gives a reason for why we SHOULD have a less fair system. It's all valid points but it's attempting to explain away why we should be ok with a system that leads to less accurate matchups based on a several month long season. Why can't all the stuff you laid out be true, yet still attempt to maximize the format to provide the best chance of "fairness". To me, it's about doing what is necessary to make the regular season as meaningful as possible. We know how big of a role "momentum" can play in the playoffs, if your team gets hot and gets on a roll. It's tough to get on that roll if a team runs into a tougher matchup to start than they reasonably should have. 

The fans at large have made it known they prefer the old system, based on what Bob McKenzie and others have relayed. He said it comes down to convincing Bettman. 

The bolded is much easier said than done. 31 teams are competing for the same thing. People like to pretend that the only thing that matters is the Cup, but it's just not true. Winning rounds and advancing matters to teams and fans and the format should attempt to provide the most fair layout based on the portion of the season that lasts the longest by a significant amount. 

Teams have been known to fire and hire personnel based on where they exit the playoffs. Things like draft position are also affected. We can sit here and say "oh well, gotta win them all anyways", but to me that isn't a great reason for not altering the system to make it better, even if it'll never be perfect. 

For the bolded.. there are only 16 teams who compete for the same thing.  We're talking about the playoffs, not the regular season. 

Overall, I get your point.  The alternative at the moment is that the intra-division quarter finals create rivalries that the 1-8 matchups don't necessarily create.  Do I care? No.  Do some people, yes, I suppose they do.  

That said, using the 1-8 system begs the question as to why even bother with divisions?  If you used a 1-16 system you'd ask the same thing about conferences... or at least I would.

There are arguments to say, pair up the winner of each division to get to the final.  There is an argument for pairing up the conference winners.. I can see all angles and I suppose that's why, at the end of it all, I just don't care enough.  You play the season to get in, you play the playoffs to win.  Who cares who's next up.. you win and move on.  I'm not dismissing the argument you are making, I could live with any format based on 50% of the teams making the playoffs (thinking ahead to Seattle). I would support an argument that says 6 from each.. I'd just never support more than 50% (again, 16 of 31 teams not withstanding at present).

 

[SwampD]

Who said sports was or should be fair? ?

Interesting stuff, Randall.

ftr, I like the current system. Seems to make for more interesting first round matchups.

[Zamboni]

14 hours ago, Thorny said:

I know I'm in a small minority, but I also dislike 3 v 3 OT. It's not hockey, to me. 

Agree. Neither are shootouts. Those are even less “hockey”. But, here we are. The glorious NHL and their wisdom.

 

[inkman]

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

Negatory. 

Test:

 

[Zamboni]

They really need to cut that grass and weeds back more

[SwampD]

3 hours ago, inkman said:

Test:

 

I passed.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

4 hours ago, inkman said:

Test:

 

I want to come back as a puppy in my next life.

[Taro T]

Still think the best format would be (after Seattle comes in) giving the top 4 teams in each division make the playoffs and then have 1 play 4 and 2 go v 3.

2nd round would work cross conference (higher seeded team in Div 1 plays lower seeded team in Div 2.  Likewise Divs 3 & 4.

After that, you battle across conferences.  Again top remaining seed plays lower seed from other side.

The Stanley Cup matches up the 2 survivors.  While this doesn't minimize travel and could someday result in a Finals that is a subway or freeway series or even a battle of Alberta; if those are the 2 best teams, why shouldn't they meet in the Finals?

It makes doing well in the regular season important as the higher remaining seeds get them weaker remaining ones.  It also keeps divisions and conferences important as those are who you work throughout 1st and those regular season games against those teams are the most important of their battles during the regular season as they are the 4 point games that set up your early playoff games (should you get there).

And fully realize this is not a popular format.  But it also has a historical basis to it.  (That's what they used in the early 70's before the league expanded to 18 teams.)

[Eleven]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

if those are the 2 best teams, why shouldn't they meet in the Finals?

The best two teams rarely will meet in the finals no matter what system is used.  Injuries can come up at the wrong time, teams get hot at the right time, etc.  It's a tournament, but it doesn't necessarily result in the best teams advancing or winning.

[inkman]

I searched for both Sherwood and Lucic with no results so here you go

 

[LGR4GM]

I like the Flames fans trying to defend this saying it was a "vicious jab" against their goalie. If that's a vicious jab than what Lucic did to Miller should be called genocide. 

[shrader]

19 hours ago, inkman said:

Test:

 

They really need to turn this into some sort of psychological test: what did you see first.  And I'll admit it, I saw the puppy first.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

The best two teams rarely will meet in the finals no matter what system is used.  Injuries can come up at the wrong time, teams get hot at the right time, etc.  It's a tournament, but it doesn't necessarily result in the best teams advancing or winning.

True.  But this is the only format (besides 1v16 and continuing to reshuffle so the top remaining team plays the lowest remaining team throughout) that gives ANY possibility of having the 2 best teams meet in the Finals should they both be from the same division (or even conference).

[inkman]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I like the Flames fans trying to defend this saying it was a "vicious jab" against their goalie. If that's a vicious jab than what Lucic did to Miller should be called genocide. 

It's amazing how many of those tough guys are out there. That's just hockey. Don't touch my goalie. I get protecting your goalie. Sucker punching a dude in the face when your real motive was to atone for your ***** turn over.  It's about as petty as it gets.  

Edited November 4, 2019 by inkman

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

True.  But this is the only format (besides 1v16 and continuing to reshuffle so the top remaining team plays the lowest remaining team throughout) that gives ANY possibility of having the 2 best teams meet in the Finals should they both be from the same division (or even conference).

Conferences in pro sports are useless at this point, except to guarantee that some of the population on each side of the continent will be interested in the championship. Travel costs are hardly an issue anymore. Just get rid of conferences and go with divisions, and you can have a 1v4 and 2v3 format after divisional playoffs are exhausted.  Then, we also can have more division games since we're not worried about playing certain numbers of games in the conference.  (Of course, this will disproportionately favor the winners of weak divisions.) 

(This is not the same as leagues in baseball.)

[WildCard]

40 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Conferences in pro sports are useless at this point, except to guarantee that some of the population on each side of the continent will be interested in the championship. Travel costs are hardly an issue anymore. Just get rid of conferences and go with divisions, and you can have a 1v4 and 2v3 format after divisional playoffs are exhausted.  Then, we also can have more division games since we're not worried about playing certain numbers of games in the conference.  (Of course, this will disproportionately favor the winners of weak divisions.) 

(This is not the same as leagues in baseball.)

The leagues in baseball will be pretty useless as far as rule differences go soon enough; the NL will adopt the DH eventually. 

Though there is so much more travel in baseball leagues are a necessity anyways 

[Brawndo]

He’s not wrong 

[Eleven]

8 minutes ago, WildCard said:

the NL will adopt the DH eventually

Death first.

[WildCard]

8 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

He’s not wrong 

That dude can kick rocks

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Death first.

Can't say I blame you but it's gonna happen. Harper and Machado going to NL teams was a pretty big flag