Is it just me or this a very exciting postseason?

[bauer]

i swear i see this exact post every single season.

newsflash: playoff hockey is exciting.

 

[Reality Check]

I respectfully disagree.

Vegas making the SCF in their 1st season as well as the Caps getting over the hump and beating Pittsburgh were buzz worthy last year.

You also just confirmed his point about the NHL being so watered down.

It's pointless to mention as it will never happen. But the only thing I can think of that might help is cut back on the playoff teams.

 

[OmazingGrace]

Grade A foreshadowing and dialogue imo.

 

[Ncit3]

I hate that people assume the best regular season teams should be gift wrapped the finals.

We have a regular season so teams can jockey for positioning AND hone their skills and teamwork. This time is supposed to make teams better.

The reason the Flames and Lightning lost are because they are SOFT.

Why would we want soft, no effort, surface level teams further along in the playoffs? Watching Mack and Rantanen this last series has proven to me these two guys have balls. They dig deeper and play harder in big games.

Kucherov and Gaudreau are paper tigers. Why would we want to watch them bumble around in the finals?

 

[Grifter3511]

Optics is part of it, yes, but I'm also ****ing bored.

But why? The 8th seeds are playing entertaining hockey. Theres star power on both teams, particularly Avs. If you're bored it's nothing to do with the quality of the game but rather the teams or narrative that you want isnt happening.

 

[Machinehead]

@Machinehead

I think you raise some good points regarding the discrediting of the regular season. But I also think in many respects you're overstating it.

1) Other sports are not exactly immune to similiar problems...I know the NBA is more popular than ever right now, but seriously...what's the point of their regular season, if that's the metric we're using? You can predict the outcome of the regular season + essentially the entirety of the playoffs right now in October: it's the Warriors. As someone who used to absolutely love watching professional basketball...I just can't anymore. I'd be horrified if the NHL moved in the identical direction. I don't want to be able to predict with nearly 100% certainty who's going to be in the finals (again...) before the season has even begun, or anything close to that. The NBA regular season, in terms predicting 'who's going to be the best,' is pretty much pointless -- we already know before they set foot on the court. And yeah, I recognize the NBA is more popular than ever, but to me a plastic-ness has developed in it.

2) Doesn't a sport like the NFL have similiar problems regarding your arguments about the regular season? The playoffs have been all about the Pats for some time regardless of the regular season. They play in a rather pathetic division, had a not that impressive 11-5 record, looked like one of the weakest Pats teams in years, and then once again Brady and Belichick did their things come playoffs. They dummied the #1 seed in the superbowl and exposed the regular season's second highest scoring offense as something of a fraud that put up just 3 points. Kind of made the whole Rams regular season look pointless, if that's the metric we're using here, yeah?

3) I really think you're overstating the NHL's "problem" by looking too much at just this year, which is something of an anomally. Most cup winners do end up being the same, somewhat predictable winners. We had the Pens back to back and in 2009; we had the Hawks win 3 of 6; the Kings won two in the midst of the Hawks' run; and the Bruins and Caps, both very good clubs, won cups in the midst of that as well. The Bruins took down the back to back President's trophy winning Canucks in a 7 game series, and the Caps had historically been one of the best regular season teams before they finally put it together. Point being...the last full decade of cup winners have not been random, outlying teams....it's been the class of the NHL winning the cups, facing off against generally extremely good clubs in the final.

In other words...these playoffs so far are not the norm.

The last potentially anomalous win / final we saw was the Canes vs. Oilers in 2006...I think that era was something of a transition phase, between the era of the Red Wings, Avs, Devils, etc, to the rise of the new perennial contenders of the Pens / Kings / Hawks. The Wings won again in 2008, but before 2006, when the Canes won, 8 of the last 10 Stanley Cups had been won by the Devils, Wings, and Avs.

I think it might be fair to say we are just in another transition phase now. The Hawks / Pens / Kings have fallen, just like the Wings / Devils / Avs did, and I imagine we'll soon see the re-emergence of a perennial set of contenders after perhaps a few more 'random' cups. Just so happens it might not be a team like the Lightning...but a couple of great regular season teams who choke come playoffs isn't exactly an issue unique to the NHL either. As I see it, we're right now just seeing a changing of the old guard since the former class of the league have fallen (only one of them even made the playoffs, the Pens), and the set of new dominant clubs -- the new Hawks, Pens, and Kings -- hasn't quite been sorted out yet.

Ok, let me address the NBA and the NFL.

The NBA is a mess. When I talk about the NBA doing things "right" or should I say more appealing, I like that there's a little bit of a hierarchy in the standings. When the Nets beat the 76ers in game one, that really grabbed my attention. That was a legit upset. I'm expecting a lot of the top seeds to be pushed but ultimately advance, and that's the way it should be. If a top seed does go out it'll be in 7, which is fun. When it happens in 4, I'm like "ok, this is a little weird." And the East is sort of wide open this year. The Bucks, Raptors, 76ers, and Celtics, could all win it. To me that's just wide open enough where it's interesting, but I don't feel like all eight teams have the same chance. Because they shouldn't. So the 2019 NBA Eastern Conference might be an example of what I would like to see. That said, I haven't addressed what's wrong with the NBA because it isn't the place to do so. The Warriors are too much. I like dynasties, and consistent contenders. I think it's good for the sport. But the Warriors need to be on like 7 or 8 and they're on about 13. They make the regular season and the playoffs sort of pointless. And before this year, LeBron was beating better teams in the East because he's LeBron and that was no fun either. So no, while I point to certain things in the NBA that I like, that's not the model to follow.

The NFL is closer. There's a lot to like there. The Patriots have "only" won 6 of 18, whereas the GSW are going for, what, 4 of 5? I like the idea of anybody who wants to compete going through the Patriots. It has happened in the AFC (maybe not enough, but it has happened) and it makes that team look really strong. When the Giants beat the Patriots it was a real story. That said, I do see some issues. The simple repetitiveness of it being the Patriots for 18 years is grating. And what you pointed out this year, that they weren't that impressive, is a problem. They're not 16-0 anymore. They're 11-5 in a bad division and then they're just turning it on and beating teams that people would rather see at this point. That goes back to one of the main things I dislike about the NHL which is that the playoffs is a hard reset and the team winning Cups have gotten into the habit of being meh all season.

You talked about how this isn't the norm and how NHL teams have won multiple championships. That's true, but multiple championships isn't really the driver here. Like I said, the Patriots now and the Patriots 10 years ago offer two completely different dynamics. What I really want to see is that great teams are great all the time. The Hawks, Kings, and Pens were all extremely disappointing, and frankly, extremely boring in the regular season during most of their Cup runs. The Caps won a lot of games, but if you look at the analytics, they basically took the 17-18 regular season off, and they got rewarded for it. Meanwhile, we see a team win 62 games and look what they get for it. That's what I don't like: this feeling that the NHL playoffs is a hard reset and all 16 teams go back to even and have the same chance. I don't care if one team wins multiple championships or not; I want to see that a great team in January was a great team in June.

You mentioned that this is an exception because we're in transition. While I do think it's true that we're in transition, again, it's not really about that. The idea of the regular season being glorified exhibition was true when the same three teams were dominating the Cup, because none of them really gave a shit in the regular season.

What I like about the NBA is that I can reasonably expect a 55-win team to advance over a 45-win team. If they don't, it means that much more. What I like is that the NBA playoffs is a more intense competition compared to the regular season, but it isn't completely alien to the regular season. What I like is that we don't see the Warriors going "lol we don't care" and then winning the NBA title as an 8-seed. That's what I'm going for. Having a team like the Warriors winning four straight Cups is not what I'm going for, and that's a problem with the NBA.

If you want a different example, look at the NHL in the in late 90's and early 00's. You had the Devils, Flyers, Avs, Wings, and Stars. That's five teams that had a really good shot at it. I don't think it needs to be more than five. And it wasn't always those teams -- Buffalo made a run, Washington made a run, Carolina made a run, the Ducks made a run, the Leafs made noise, the Sens made noise. But one of those top teams always emerged. There was a real good balance of open competition and few teams you could rely on to be really good. And those teams were always really good, whether it was October or June. They were never low seeds when they won it all like the Kings were, for example. That made regular season matchups between these teams worthwhile television. It felt like it mattered which one of them got game 7 at home.

Granted, that version of the NHL had it's own issues, mainly related to on-ice things, which is why we got rid of the redline and the ties, but the structure was really, really good.

You could also look at the Premier League for example. You can't compare seasons because the Premier League gives a title for their seasons. Completely different thing. But then you have the Champions League and the FA Cup. The Champions League is open enough where you have upsets and interesting underdogs, but you still have a few really outstanding teams that are going to meet in marquee matchups, and whoever wins it has generally been a top team in their domestic competition as well. The FA Cup has an element of randomness, notoriously so. In the FA Cup, you can just throw out the Premier League standings because this is an entirely different competition. Right now, the NHL playoffs feels to me like the FA Cup, and it should feel more like the Champions League.

 

[Machinehead]

I hate that people assume the best regular season teams should be gift wrapped the finals.

We have a regular season so teams can jockey for positioning AND hone their skills and teamwork. This time is supposed to make teams better.

The reason the Flames and Lightning lost are because they are SOFT.

Why would we want soft, no effort, surface level teams further along in the playoffs? Watching Mack and Rantanen this last series has proven to me these two guys have balls. They dig deeper and play harder in big games.

Kucherov and Gaudreau are paper tigers. Why would we want to watch them bumble around in the finals?

But this doesn't happen.

The last 10 or so years, we have a regular season so the top contenders can rest for 7 months.

 

[c9777666]

I hate that people assume the best regular season teams should be gift wrapped the finals.

We have a regular season so teams can jockey for positioning AND hone their skills and teamwork. This time is supposed to make teams better.

The reason the Flames and Lightning lost are because they are SOFT.

Why would we want soft, no effort, surface level teams further along in the playoffs? Watching Mack and Rantanen this last series has proven to me these two guys have balls. They dig deeper and play harder in big games.

Kucherov and Gaudreau are paper tigers. Why would we want to watch them bumble around in the finals?

Colorado was seemingly a paper tiger because they couldn't stop a beach ball until March and Columbus' playoff track record was cause for some to panic (At one point, I thought Bobrovsky was a modern day Dan Cloutier).

 

[klozge]

Things dont feel as stale. It seems like there’s a new generation of up and coming teams. A few upsets, great series like Toronto and Boston. I feel like this season has been really progressive for the NHL!!

First time in 11 years my team won a playoff round. It's very exciting for me.

 

[Ncit3]

Colorado was seemingly a paper tiger because they couldn't stop a beach ball until March and Columbus' playoff track record was cause for some to panic (At one point, I thought Bobrovsky was a modern day Dan Cloutier).

We had a rough stretch filled with some injuries and bad goalie play.

But people forget we were a leading the West for the first two months.

The better team won.

 

[Machinehead]

ITT: a bunch of people from Colorado tell me how great this is.

Yeah, and all of a sudden, I think the draft lottery is the greatest thing ever invented. Funny how that works.

 

[Avelanche]

Yes.

This a problem.

When any team can be great, nobody is great.

There needs to be a trend for this to be true. Last year no WC team won and the only “upset” was the ducks getting swept. The cup finals were two teams top of their divisions. More likely this is just a fluke then teams are all equal now.

 

[Reality Check]

The main gripe I have about the NBA was getting rid of the first round 5 game series for more television dollars. Two more games isn't the end of the world and upsets probably happen at the same rate. But I just felt there was more intensity and didn't drag on.

Upsets are great. Those Sharks teams in '94 and even '95 were true upsets. Nowadays the shock value and novelty, much like the Winter Classic, have worn off. Mainly because the product is weak.

 

[Machinehead]

There needs to be a trend for this to be true. Last year no WC team won and the only “upset” was the ducks getting swept. The cup finals were two teams top of their divisions. More likely this is just a fluke then teams are all equal now.

The Kings and Hawks both won the Cup as lower seeds in the first round. The Kings did it twice. It's already a trend.

 

[Machinehead]

The main gripe I have about the NBA was getting rid of the first round 5 game series for more television dollars. Two more games isn't the end of the world and upsets probably happen at the same rate. But I just felt there was more intensity and didn't drag on.

Upsets are great. Those Sharks teams in '94 and even '95 were true upsets. Nowadays the shock value and novelty, much like the Winter Classic, have worn off. Mainly because the product is weak.

Exactly. These are not even upsets.

People have said of Colorado and Calgary that the better team won. Sure, it definitely looked that way.

But the better team lost six more games than they won. There's something unhealthy about that.

 

[Grifter3511]

Exactly. These are not even upsets.

People have said of Colorado and Calgary that the better team won. Sure, it definitely looked that way.

But the better team lost six more games than they won. There's something unhealthy about that.

I'd argue that it's the opposite. It's quite healthy. It means we have a league where advantages are minimal and a good number of teams can beat any other team if they are firing on all cylinders.

To me, there is no more exciting aspect to the playoffs (and the first round specifically where almost all the upsets happen) than knowing that any team has the chance to win. Otherwise, why even have a 16 game playoffs. If you want to see the top two teams play each other for the Cup then get rid of the playoffs and just make it a battle between Conference Champions.

The more teams that can realistically win, the healthier the league is. After all, I think what all of us want is more Columbus (teams going all in at the deadline) and less Rangers (purposeful tanking for a better draft pick). And just to be clear, NYR is my team. I'm not singling then out because you're a fan of them.

Also, theres something to be said about the stretch drive. Bottom seeds have been playing playoff hockey for weeks just to get in. Top teams have been coasting and resting. If these playoffs have taught us anything, it's that you cant just flip a switch.

 

[Son Goku]

i swear i see this exact post every single season.

newsflash: playoff hockey is exciting.

Want me to tell you what you don't see every single post season?

 

[Machinehead]

I'd argue that it's the opposite. It's quite healthy. It means we have a league where advantages are minimal and a good number of teams can beat any other team if they are firing on all cylinders.

To me, there is no more exciting aspect to the playoffs (and the first round specifically where almost all the upsets happen) than knowing that any team has the chance to win. Otherwise, why even have a 16 game playoffs. If you want to see the top two teams play each other for the Cup then get rid of the playoffs and just make it a battle between Conference Champions.

The more teams that can realistically win, the healthier the league is. After all, I think what all of us want is more Columbus (teams going all in at the deadline) and less Rangers (purposeful tanking for a better draft pick). And just to be clear, NYR is my team. I'm not singling then out because you're a fan of them.

Also, theres something to be said about the stretch drive. Bottom seeds have been playing playoff hockey for weeks just to get in. Top teams have been coasting and resting. If these playoffs have taught us anything, it's that you cant just flip a switch.

If you think anything you've said here is a good thing, then we just fundamentally disagree.

The whole point of a championship is that not everyone has a chance at it. Otherwise, we should just shake hands and go home after 82 games and nobody wins anything.

 

[behemolari]

This is ****ing boring.

I'm beginning to dislike the NHL playoffs for the same reason everyone dislikes the shootout. It's a random crapshoot.

tell that to Barkov

 

[behemolari]

I hate that people assume the best regular season teams should be gift wrapped the finals.

We have a regular season so teams can jockey for positioning AND hone their skills and teamwork. This time is supposed to make teams better.

The reason the Flames and Lightning lost are because they are SOFT.

Why would we want soft, no effort, surface level teams further along in the playoffs? Watching Mack and Rantanen this last series has proven to me these two guys have balls. They dig deeper and play harder in big games.

Kucherov and Gaudreau are paper tigers. Why would we want to watch them bumble around in the finals?

I absolutely love how things are going this year, it's like watching old skool tournament battle movie like 'bloodsports' etc., there is so much randomness and unpredictability its fun.

I don't get people who puts fanaticism over sports, if your team didn't show up get over it.

 

[Machinehead]

I absolutely love how things are going this year, it's like watching old skool tournament battle movie like 'bloodsports' etc., there is so much randomness and unpredictability its fun.

I don't get people who puts fanaticism over sports, if your team didn't show up get over it.

I was absolutely elated that Tampa Bay lost on a personal level, so there's no bias here.

 

[behemolari]

I was absolutely elated that Tampa Bay lost on a personal level, so there's no bias here.

reason Tampa lost was Jarmo gambling paid off, it was/is extremely well played and I couldn't imagine better result than this for sports

 

[Grifter3511]

If you think anything you've said here is a good thing, then we just fundamentally disagree.

The whole point of a championship is that not everyone has a chance at it. Otherwise, we should just shake hands and go home after 82 games and nobody wins anything.

Well, technically not EVERY team has a chance at it. 16 teams. Just over 50%. Again, as someone living in Vancouver, there is NO WAY the Canucks could compete with ANY of these teams. The horses just aren't there to elevate their game come playoff time. Hence they missed the playoffs. Pretty much every one in Vancouver feels that these teams are in a different class. That is the point of the regular season.

So 50% of teams having a shot is a good thing. Otherwise, like you said, why even bother playing the games? Just award TB the Stanley Cup after the regular season.

But that wouldn't highlight another awesome facet of our game: that the playoffs are a different season. Playoff intensity is a real thing and we have seen it fully on display this post season. When you're playing 82 games, a different team every other night, you're not game planning and you're not firing at more than 80% for a lot of the season. It allows those 'paper tigers' to be successful. It's the same way theres always a team in the NFL that looks awesome in the regular season but gets owned in the first round because they play in a trash division (KC past few years up until this year when they actually were legit).

The regular season rewards talent. The postseason rewards talent that can raise their game and take and give abuse. Some players are showing us they dont have that extra gear. Others (MacKinnon, Rantanen, Benn, etc) are showing us that they do have it.

And you keep referring to top teams losing or winning as a 'real story'. Giants beating Patriots was a real story. To you perhaps. But to me, and many others, it's no more a story than Baltimore beating the 49ers. Theres narratives and drama everywhere. Just not necessarily where you want or expect it. That is a good thing.

 

[Mike Liut]

The better team does not always win in this years playoffs

The team that wants it most has been getting it done.

Regular season records dont mean anything when the playoffs start. So when you say ‘better team doesnt always win”, do you mean the better regular season team?

 

[Grifter3511]

Regular season records dont mean anything when the playoffs start. So when you say ‘better team doesnt always win”, do you mean the better regular season team?

Exactly. As talented as they are, Gaudreau and Monahan are no MacKinnon and Rantanen. Not yet at least