30 Apr 10
Originally posted by darvlayIf it were a once in 10 year phenomenon (or a once in 5 year phenomenon), you could just say the Caps choked and leave it at that.
I'm really not buying your argument, dude. Sorry. Teams who deserve to be in the second round are there now. Who cares who's "better" by your standards? Your standards are irrelevant. Simple as that.
The Caps choked that bad. It was epic.
But this happens practically every year in the NHL.
Did the Sharks choke against the Ducks last year? How about the B's against Carolina?
How about Montreal getting bounced by Philly in 2008?
Did the Wings and Sharks both "choke" to allow the 8 seed Oilers to reach the finals in 2006?
etc.
This happens too often to just call it a choke and be done with it.
30 Apr 10
Originally posted by darvlayI didn't say it's so terrible that games are decided by luck. That's part of sports. Baseball has even more luck (why should a hitter be better off fouling a ball back than popping up to the shortstop?)
Also, I'd rather a game be decided by so-called "lucky bounces" than by referees calling fouls, umpires calling strikes or the hundreds of yards given out each game by football refs.
But the NHL should acknowledge this and deal with it rather than allowing is marquee teams and players to go down early in the playoffs year after year and pretend that all these "upsets" are somehow good for the sport.
01 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I don't understand your logic here.
[b
But the NHL should acknowledge this and deal with it rather than allowing is marquee teams and players to go down early in the playoffs year after year and pretend that all these "upsets" are somehow good for the sport.[/b]
If the NHL reduces the amount of teams in the playoffs, then that means Washington would have had to play an even tougher opponent in the 1st round. That just makes it tougher for Washington to get out of the first round!!??!
Your "solution" will actually mean more first round losses for 1st place teams.
It sounds like you haven't considered the ENTIRE playoff format. The format is geared to give the higher ranked teams the advantage. In round 2, the teams are re-seeded so that the highest rank team plays the lowest ranked team. What this ensures is that the highest ranked team will ALWAYS play the lowest ranked team throughout the entire playoffs.
You shouldnt' discount this advantage. This advantage is what the regular season is for. You seem to think it's only a trivial advantage (if you recognize it at all) but it's not. If the 7th ranked team beats the 2nd ranked team, and 3 and 4 beat 5 and 6, then that means that 1 plays 7 instead of 1 playing 4 as would happen if all the favourites won.
What this ensures, is that if there is ANY upset in round 1, the number 1 ranked team will get to play that lower ranked team in round 2. I don't think you fully understand how much of an advantage that is.
You say the regular season is marginalized but the reality is that the playoff format makes the regular season very important. You play the regular season in order to gain the playoff advantage. Now, if you choke or decide, "Hey, i don't get paid for the playoffs so i'm not going to put out a full effort and risk injury when i can just go home to europe instead because i don't really care about a stanley cup" then I don't care how many points your team scored in the reg season, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway.
It's no mystery why washington gets bounced every year despite all that talent.
02 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessIf the NHL reduces the amount of teams in the playoffs, then that means Washington would have had to play an even tougher opponent in the 1st round. That just makes it tougher for Washington to get out of the first round!!??!
I don't understand your logic here.
If the NHL reduces the amount of teams in the playoffs, then that means Washington would have had to play an even tougher opponent in the 1st round. That just makes it tougher for Washington to get out of the first round!!??!
Your "solution" will actually mean more first round losses for 1st place teams.
It's no mystery why washington gets bounced every year despite all that talent.
If there were 6 playoff teams in each conference, then the Caps would get a bye into the second round and would get to play (in this case), a tired Boston team in the second round. It seems to me that this is an advantage fitting their regular season.
If you shrunk it to 4 teams in each conference, there simply would be no non-deserving teams and Wash-Pitt would have made a great first round series.
It sounds like you haven't considered the ENTIRE playoff format. The format is geared to give the higher ranked teams the advantage. In round 2, the teams are re-seeded so that the highest rank team plays the lowest ranked team. What this ensures is that the highest ranked team will ALWAYS play the lowest ranked team throughout the entire playoffs.
You shouldnt' discount this advantage. This advantage is what the regular season is for. You seem to think it's only a trivial advantage (if you recognize it at all) but it's not. If the 7th ranked team beats the 2nd ranked team, and 3 and 4 beat 5 and 6, then that means that 1 plays 7 instead of 1 playing 4 as would happen if all the favourites won.
You hit the nail on the head (in terms of my position). I do think it's only a small advantage (I wouldn't say "trivial," but small). I'm basing this on history. The number of low seeds advancing to the finals should indicate that seeding doesn't matter that much.
You say the regular season is marginalized but the reality is that the playoff format makes the regular season very important. You play the regular season in order to gain the playoff advantage. Now, if you choke or decide, "Hey, i don't get paid for the playoffs so i'm not going to put out a full effort and risk injury when i can just go home to europe instead because i don't really care about a stanley cup" then I don't care how many points your team scored in the reg season, you don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway.
I sincerely do not think that Alex Ovechkin and Nick Backstrom and Alex Semin don't care about the Stanley Cup. They care every bit as much as Crosby and Lidstrom and Halak. The were simply victimized by the nature of the sport. The nature of the sport breeds upsets. Just look at even a basic analysis of the historical record on this issue.
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/upset-of-capitals-has-n-h-l-precedents/
Everyone said the same things about Joe Thorton. Does Thorton suddenly care more this year?
Besides, there are so many teams in recent memory that alternate between deep runs and early bounces. The Red Wings and Devils had tremendous runs from the mid 90s forward, but each got bounced early on multiple occasions during their runs. Did they all simply care less in the years they got bounced early? Hardly.
Next year, the Caps will probably go in as a 3 or 4 seed and make it to the finals or win a Cup. That's typically what happens to these good teams. They're "heartless" and "not built for the playoffs" until suddenly, one year, they are (maybe SJ this year?). Then, the pundits will laud the coach and pontificate about their change in attitude and increased focus on defense and teamwork and all that jazz. In fact, when they win, it will be simply because they get the bounces that year.
04 May 10
Originally posted by sh76Bah, bullocks to that.
[b]If the NHL reduces the amount of teams in the playoffs, then that means Washington would have had to play an even tougher opponent in the 1st round. That just makes it tougher for Washington to get out of the first round!!??!
If there were 6 playoff teams in each conference, then the Caps would get a bye into the second round and would get to play (i ...[text shortened]... when they win, it will be simply because they get the bounces that year.[/b]
If you have less teams in the playoffs then that means fewer games for ovechkin/crosby to potentially play.
You seem to be saying you want the playoff rounds to be more important and you think that by having fewer playoff rounds, they will become more important just like in baseball.
Well, the easy response to that is that baseball plays twice as many regular season games as the NHL so of course MLB's regular season should count for more.
NHL's regular season is half as long so it makes sense the playoffs would be twice as long.
04 May 10
1 edit
I agree with sh76 - I find that the regular season in the NHL is totally pointless. The games have ZERO tension. For any team that's any good, there's absolutely nothing at stake. The only drama is which mediocre teams will get those final berths. The same thing also applies for the NBA - too many teams make the playoffs - you can finish below .500 and still make it. The Knicks are in the running WAY too long into the season every year. Pfffttt...
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf the season was only 40 games, do you think the standings would be much different than they finished this year? If the season was 200 games long, do you think the standings would be much different than how they finished after 80 games?
I agree with sh76 - I find that the regular season in the NHL is totally pointless. ...
Please state how many games you think the season should be and explain why that will make a difference on the final standings.
Assume injuries do not occur.
05 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessIt's not the length of the regular season (although you make a good case for significantly reducing the lengths of these seasons). When you allow half the teams to make the playoffs, the regular season becomes pointless for any team that's any good. Barring an injury, only the mediocre teams ever need to worry that they won't make the playoffs.
If the season was only 40 games, do you think the standings would be much different than they finished this year? If the season was 200 games long, do you think the standings would be much different than how they finished after 80 games?
Please state how many games you think the season should be and explain why that will make a difference on the final standings.
Assume injuries do not occur.
If you reserve the playoffs for the truly elite teams, then the regular season games become important, and there's a certain honor to merely making it to post-season -- there's a reason why the month of October has a certain reverence that the months of April and May lack.
07 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Very RustyWhat we're seeing is that the supposedy good teams arent' as good as their records indicate. Thank god there are more teams in the playoffs to expose these fraudsters for the mediocre teams they really are....
Two more games won and the 8th seed Habs could be in the 3rd round. 🙂
Habs vs Bruins
Sharks vs Hawks
Habs vs Sharks
09 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessI know it's much easier to say after last night, but the clock is striking midnight for the Habs. Unless they get an extraodrinary number of lucky bounces in games 6 and 7, Habs are toast.
What we're seeing is that the supposedy good teams arent' as good as their records indicate. Thank god there are more teams in the playoffs to expose these fraudsters for the mediocre teams they really are....
Habs vs Bruins
Sharks vs Hawks
Habs vs Sharks
By the way, for uzless and darvlay, did the Sharks all of a sudden gain "heart" or did they suddenly become a "playoff hockey team" after years of flunking out in the first round?
Or are they finally getting the bounces this year that they never got before.
Next year, the Caps will probably have this kind of run. Law of averages. Luck evens out in the long term.
10 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Man, take a look at the injuries Boston had to deal with all year. No wonder they finished low. They got key guys back and injuries that some key guys were playing with started to heal.
Oh, and look at the Bruins.
When they have the best over-all record last year they get bounced in the second round.
This year, they made the playoffs by a grand total of 4 points and they're a game away from the semis.
Face it, the regular season simply doesn't matter that much.
It is no surprise to any real fan that boston is playing well. it's just too bad that injury bug is creeping up again. Kreijc was excellent last year but was playing hurt this year. Now he's out just as he was getting better.
Same with MTL. They had injuries all year. Now they have their TOP 3 defensemen hurt. There is no way in hell they should even be close to pittsburgh but they are playing with heart and determination while pittsburgh and sidney crybaby float around like tinkerbells.
As for San Jose. Can you say Pavelski? Can you say a resurgent Marleau? Can you pronounce SECONDARY SCORING?? How about i be more specific....Can you say finally San Jose doesn't have to worry about making thornton feel like he has to score all the goals? Nabokov finally stopping some pucks in the playoffs is helping too.
I find it laughable you offer up "luck" as the reason for victories. Montreal has one 6 games...how many of their goals to attribute "lucky bounces"??? Ha, most of MTL's goals are on constant highlight reel rotation. Dude, strap em up and you'll see what difference EFFORT makes in a game. Your "analysis" smacks of armchair quarterbackism and maddenism's.