Is it just me or this a very exciting postseason?

[AvsFan29]

After winning 18/23 games when the Avs collapsed, I thought we were done.

I didn't expect us to make the playoffs.

Now we're going to the second round, and if we keep playing well, we can make some noise.

Yes, the playoffs are exciting.

 

[HanSolo]

Not offense, but literally everything you listed makes me wanna sleep for 3 days.

Sure, I want to see the Chiefs beat the Patriots, and I want to see -I don't know, let's say- the Bucks beat the Warriors. If the Bucks/Chiefs win a championship after the Warriors/Pats were eviscerated in the first round, suddenly I don't care anymore.

If, let's say, it ended up being Columbus vs Colorado, everyone outside of Columbus and Colorado would forget it happened in about two days.

One of the most impressive playoff track records left in the tournament -sorry, but it's the truth- belongs to an expansion team.

So then, besides the Rangers going on a full Stanley Cup run what would interest you? Are we supposed to curate series on purpose for the most widely engaging storylines possible? You're on record in this thread saying "NHL doing NHL things" but wouldn't what you seem to want be exactly the NHL doing things in the interest of ratings rather than the competitive spirit of the sport?

 

[AvsFan29]

The problem is that when you have too many highly ranked teams losing early and often, it's almost like we expect it now.

When the '71 Bruins lost in round 1, that was stop the presses stuff because it rarely happened.

Now, top seeds losing- never mind in five or FOUR- is almost becoming routine to a crazy degree.

Like, there's no more shock value.

Who gives a shit?

 

[c9777666]

Sure, I want to see the Chiefs beat the Patriots, and I want to see -I don't know, let's say- the Bucks beat the Warriors. If the Bucks/Chiefs win a championship after the Warriors/Pats were eviscerated in the first round, suddenly I don't care anymore.

NFL playoffs are one and done, so if the Pats have a bad day at the office it's not like, say, NSH losing 5-1 and they can bounce back.

 

[Machinehead]

And yet, we just watched 5 different teams win the last 10 Cups. We had LA, Chicago, and Pittsburgh win 8 Cups in a 9 year span. That ****ing sucked.

People had orgasms over LA vs Chicago in 2014, so respectfully, bullshit.

Pittsburgh was boring af, I'll give you that, but the sporting world absolutely loved LA and Chicago.

What is the NHL supposed to do with Tampa and Calgary? They were frauds. They weren't even like the 2010 Washington Capitals who truly got Halak'd. They got ran off the ice. They were missing something that Stanley Cup winning teams have.

But again, they won 62 games. If they lack what it takes (and I agree on that) that tells me that the regular season is exhibition. That's not good.

Also, it's hard for me to call this "NHL doing NHL things again" when both top seeds losing in the first round has literally never happened in NHL history. We just watched the NHL doing NHL things for the very first time in history and we will probably never see that again in our lifetimes.

But were you surprised? You said yourself you saw it coming.

I saw it coming and showed you the posts to prove it.

Regular season hockey is just not playoff hockey. I'm not going to pretend like I know exactly the ins and outs of how Tampa and Calgary were completely exposed but I do know that there were red flags up for both teams before the playoffs started and I would bet that Jared Bednar and John Tortorella do know exactly how those teams were exposed.

Exactly. Red flags all over. What people are trying to sell me as "shocking" had no shock value at all.

And again, those teams rolled in the regular season, which completely shits on the NHL's season.

Look at the aforementioned Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh. Clearly 3 excellent teams; they won 8 Cups in a 9 year span. Excluding Chicago's 2013 season because it wasn't a full season, those 3 teams averaged exactly 47 wins per season in the other 7 seasons they won a Cup. Roughly 7-8 teams win 47 games every year. These teams were hardly regular season juggernauts, but they were Stanley Cup juggernauts. They clearly had something that teams like San Jose, St. Louis and Washington with comparable regular season performances did not.

Were they regular season juggernauts?

At times, yes: Hawks in 2010, Hawks in 2013, Pens in 2016 (after firing Johnston).

At times, no. But did any of them ever win 38 games?

Putting aside the result of the 2014 Stanley Cup Finals and the 2016 MDSF, did you enjoy the runs of Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh? Was that fun for you? Because that is what juggernaut hockey teams look like. That was not fun for me.

Again, I'll point you back to everyone talking about LA vs Chicago in 2014 like it was the birth of Christ.

That's the last time there was real buzz in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

 

[CenturionOne]

Love this postseason, lot's of upsets to get exited about.

 

[Machinehead]

NFL playoffs are one and done, so if the Pats have a bad day at the office it's not like, say, NSH losing 5-1 and they can bounce back.

That's true, and yet they still make the Championship Round like every year.

And I get that people hate that, but when they lose, it's a real story.

 

[Echo Roku]

Goodness this argument is the dumbest thing I've seen in a long time

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

People had orgasms over LA vs Chicago in 2014, so respectfully, bull****.

Pittsburgh was boring af, I'll give you that, but the sporting world absolutely loved LA and Chicago.



But again, they won 62 games. If they lack what it takes (and I agree on that) that tells me that the regular season is exhibition. That's not good.



But were you surprised? You said yourself you saw it coming.

I saw it coming and showed you the posts to prove it.



Exactly. Red flags all over. What people are trying to sell me as "shocking" had no shock value at all.

And again, those teams rolled in the regular season, which completely ****s on the NHL's season.



Were they regular season juggernauts?

At times, yes: Hawks in 2010, Hawks in 2013, Pens in 2016 (after firing Johnston).

At times, no. But did any of them ever win 38 games?



Again, I'll point you back to everyone talking about LA vs Chicago in 2014 like it was the birth of Christ.

That's the last time there was real buzz in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Personally, I hated LA and Chicago. But I was also a Sharks fan, so there's a lot of bias there. I don't agree that the last time was buzz in the Stanley Cup Playoffs was 2014 and I don't see how you're going to quantify that. It's also quite convenient, for the sake of buzz, that those teams were located in Chicago and Los Angeles.

The 2011-2012 LA Kings won 40 games and went up 3-0 in every single series. Their regular season record of 40-27-15 was the exact same record that missed the playoffs for them in 2014-2015. They were tied for 8th in regular season wins over the span of their 3 Cups and they won a playoff series against every team that was above them except for Boston. They were the furthest thing from regular season juggernauts but they clearly had something special.

It appears to me that your issue with the NHL is less with the playoffs and more with the regular season, and how it is not indicative of success? Because you've also got posts from me saying Tampa Bay and Calgary were fraudulent. It was obvious. Yet they won a bunch of regular season games. To that I say meh, who cares.

 

[Machinehead]

A lot of people have drawn comparisons to 2012, but I don't get 2012 from this. 2012 was the start of LA's "dynasty" and at least the Rangers became a familiar face for a few years, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, at the time, it wasn't prolific by any stretch, but it aged better than it got credit for at the time.

To me, this is 2006 all over again. The Devils and Avs were done, Tampa kind of just died out, and the Red Wings got upset in round 1. We were left with basically no contenders, and ended up with a good but not great team winning the Cup over a hot 8 seed that would soon spiral out of control into being one of the NHL's worst teams. In fact, the two SCF teams have combined for a resounding THREE playoff appearances since then.

With that in mind, does anybody outside of Carolina look back on 2006 and think "man, I wish we could watch that again"?

 

[Machinehead]

Personally, I hated LA and Chicago. But I was also a Sharks fan, so there's a lot of bias there. I don't agree that the last time was buzz in the Stanley Cup Playoffs was 2014 and I don't see how you're going to quantify that. It's also quite convenient, for the sake of buzz, that those teams were located in Chicago and Los Angeles.

The 2011-2012 LA Kings won 40 games and went up 3-0 in every single series. Their regular season record of 40-27-15 was the exact same record that missed the playoffs for them in 2014-2015. They were tied for 8th in regular season wins over the span of their 3 Cups and they won a playoff series against every team that was above them except for Boston. They were the furthest thing from regular season juggernauts but they clearly had something special.

It appears to me that your issue with the NHL is less with the playoffs and more with the regular season, and how it is not indicative of success? Because you've also got posts from me saying Tampa Bay and Calgary were fraudulent. It was obvious. Yet they won a bunch of regular season games. To that I say meh, who cares.

Yeah, you could put it that way.

Don't get me wrong, I get that the playoffs is really what counts, but I don't want seven months of hockey devoid of meaning.

I feel that in the NBA and NFL, I'm at least getting some preview and some momentum building because the playoffs better reflect the standings. Home court/field also actually means something.

 

[Joe Sakic]

Lmao at this entire thread.

Regular season is not the playoffs. The playoffs are an entirely different animal.

Most of you should have figured that out by now. Weren't you around to see the 8th seed Kings win the cup in 2012?

The best regular season team rarely ends up winning the championship in almost every sport. That's why you play the games, that's what makes it worthwhile to watch.

 

[syz]

I've enjoyed what I've seen other than the majority of the Boston/Toronto series, which has looked like pre-season at some points.

 

[Eternal Leaf]

The upsets have been terrific.

But it's game 7s that add that extra bit of magic to this time of year.

 

[c9777666]

Is the NHL regular season about to go the way of the NBA?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Yeah, you could put it that way.

Don't get me wrong, I get that the playoffs is really what counts, but I don't want seven months of hockey devoid of meaning.

I feel that in the NBA and NFL, I'm at least getting some preview and some momentum building because the playoffs better reflect the standings.

Except it's not devoid of meaning. Score-adjusted Fenwick over the past 25 games has very strong predictive power over playoff results.

You keep talking about the NBA. I live dead in the middle of Oracle Arena and SAP Center. About 20 minutes away from each. I went to a Warriors regular season game a couple years back. You wanna talk about boring? The Warriors played against the LA Lakers. They demolished them and set an all-time franchise record in assists. Nobody gave a f***. The crowd was bored. It was like we were watching the Harlem Globetrotters without the theatrics. My friend and I left early because we were so damn bored.

 

[Machinehead]

Lmao at this entire thread.

Regular season is not the playoffs. The playoffs are an entirely different animal.

Most of you should have figured that out by now. Weren't you around to see the 8th seed Kings win the cup in 2012?

The best regular season team rarely ends up winning the championship in almost every sport. That's why you play the games, that's what makes it worthwhile to watch.

No, this is very much a hockey thing.

Teams winning the championship after not being the home team in round 1 has happened a grand total of three times in NBA and NFL history combined.

 

[Machinehead]

Except it's not devoid of meaning. Score-adjusted Fenwick over the past 25 games has very strong predictive power over playoff results.

You keep talking about the NBA. I live dead in the middle of Oracle Arena and SAP Center. About 20 minutes away from each. I went to a Warriors regular season game a couple years back. You wanna talk about boring? The Warriors played against the LA Lakers. They demolished them and set an all-time franchise record in assists. Nobody gave a ****. The crowd was bored. It was like we were watching the Harlem Globetrotters without the theatrics. My friend and I left early because we were so damn bored.

I don't want score-adjusted fenwick. I want 50-win teams winning playoff games. Is that so much to ask?

Yeah, the Warriors are boring, but that's just one team. Every time the Bucks and Raptors played this year, for example, it had playoff implications. That's not to say they were all great games, but they weren't just glorified warm-ups. Nothing in the NHL has playoff implications.

 

[Joe Sakic]

No, this is very much a hockey thing.

Teams winning the championship after not being the home team in round 1 has happened a grand total of three times in NBA and NFL history combined.

That's half the teams in the playoffs, and even less in the NFL where both #1 seeds get an automatic bye to the 2nd round.

The NBA lacks parity imo, and it's not for me. Superstars team up to form super teams. The NHL is entirely different from that.

 

[Machinehead]

That's half the teams in the playoffs, and even less in the NFL where both #1 seeds get an automatic bye to the 2nd round.

The NBA lacks parity imo, and it's not for me. Superstars team up to form super teams. The NHL is entirely different from that.

Ok, it's half the teams in the playoffs. And the top half has won every championship in history but three. I'm not asking for superteams. I'm asking for top half.

The NBA is far from a great league, don't get me wrong. But the NHL has gone in the complete opposite direction where every team is a mass-produced vanilla clone of each other.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I don't want score-adjusted fenwick. I want 50-win teams winning playoff games. Is that so much to ask?

Yeah, the Warriors are boring, but that's just one team. Every time the Bucks and Raptors played this year, for example, it had playoff implications. That's not to say they were all great games, but they weren't just glorified warm-ups. Nothing in the NHL has playoff implications.

Yeah, now this is gross hyperbole. NHL teams that finish as a higher seed are still much more likely to win the Cup. There is just not as large of a gap between them and lower seeds as there is a gap between high seeds and low seeds and other sports.

 

[Grifter3511]

A lot of people have drawn comparisons to 2012, but I don't get 2012 from this. 2012 was the start of LA's "dynasty" and at least the Rangers became a familiar face for a few years, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, at the time, it wasn't prolific by any stretch, but it aged better than it got credit for at the time.

To me, this is 2006 all over again. The Devils and Avs were done, Tampa kind of just died out, and the Red Wings got upset in round 1. We were left with basically no contenders, and ended up with a good but not great team winning the Cup over a hot 8 seed that would soon spiral out of control into being one of the NHL's worst teams. In fact, the two SCF teams have combined for a resounding THREE playoff appearances since then.

With that in mind, does anybody outside of Carolina look back on 2006 and think "man, I wish we could watch that again"?

If its 2006 all over again does that mean we're in a transitional period? The Detroit/Colorado/Jersey (Chicago/Pittsburgh/LA) powerhouses have died out and the next group, whoever it will be, is emerging from this period?

 

[Machinehead]

Yeah, now this is gross hyperbole. NHL teams that finish as a higher seed are still much more likely to win the Cup. There is just not as large of a gap between them and lower seeds as there is a gap between high seeds and low seeds and other sports.

It's not hyperbole.

Again, a team on the road in the first round has won three championships in the NFL and NBA combined.

It's happened three times in the NHL since 2012.

 

[Machinehead]

If its 2006 all over again does that mean we're in a transitional period? The Detroit/Colorado/Avalanche (Chicago/Pittsburgh/LA) powerhouses have died out and the next group, whoever it will be, is emerging from this period?

Yes and no.

2006 was very much a transition period. The problem is that nobody emerged from 2006. The Hurricanes and Oilers went on to be trash.

I'm not convinced the next core of great NHL teams is left in this tournament.

 

[SotasicA]

If Boston loses the next game, and the Caps lose to the Hurricanes, the East would be amazing to see. You'd have one of NY Islanders, Columbus, Carolina or Toronto reach the Cup finals! Any one of those would be a great story. The Islanders because of Trotz returning to the top with another team, and of course the ongoing drama of Tavares the Deserter. Carolina because it would drive Don Cherry mad. Columbus because of the trade deadline moves and one-season Cup window. And of course Toronto because of the history of failure and Cup drought (and Tavares).

Carolina needs to beat the Capitals.