2019-2020 Around the League Thread - Part III
- Thread starter SoundwaveIsCharisma
- Start date
- Status
Metallo
NWOBHM forever \m/
dahrougem2
Registered User
NHL Hitz was not made by EA
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
Yeah, and this ain't it obviously.
MarkT
Heretic
- Nov 11, 2017
- 3,997
- 4,513
After reading this article (Down Goes Brown: Possible NHL playoff formats, from ideal to...) I decided to try to make a playoff play-in system I would be happy with.
I didn't like any of the presented options for a lot of reasons. I didn't think it was fair to just go to the playoffs because teams in the wild card race are so close that we have no idea who would actually end up in the playoffs if the season were played out. However, I also didn't like any option that eliminated any of the top seeds after only one or two games or on the other hand options that only had the top seeds involved. Finally, I didn't like any option that has only some teams getting warm-up games (play-in or otherwise).
So, the following is what I came up with to be as fair as possible. Every team in the league over .500 is involved, and the top 2 seeds in each division are guaranteed a playoff spot at least. After the two games indicated, the playoffs could run as normal, or could involve shorter series (at least in the earlier rounds).
Game 1
The seeding was done by looking at win %. Rather than have the highest seed play the lowest though, I had teams closest in the standings (plus seeds 3 & 4 in each division) play each other first to establish position. The second round determines final positioning and home ice advantage through the playoffs (ties would be determined by win%).
Also, it worked out entirely be coincidence that the win % for each team allowed me to map out the opponents for each game no matter who wins the previous matchup. The potential opponents you see in the image reflect how it would work in reality.
Now, of course this assumes that the playoffs are even happening, but if they are happening, I think I'd rather have these 2 play-in games and rounds of best-out-of-5 or even out of 3, than best of 7 starting with the 16 teams currently in a playoff spot (or ranked by win %). It simply wouldn't be fair for bubble teams like Winnipeg, Columbus, or either New York team to miss the playoffs without getting at least a chance to play their way in.
Let me know what you think, or if you have a better idea I'd love to hear that too.
I didn't like any of the presented options for a lot of reasons. I didn't think it was fair to just go to the playoffs because teams in the wild card race are so close that we have no idea who would actually end up in the playoffs if the season were played out. However, I also didn't like any option that eliminated any of the top seeds after only one or two games or on the other hand options that only had the top seeds involved. Finally, I didn't like any option that has only some teams getting warm-up games (play-in or otherwise).
So, the following is what I came up with to be as fair as possible. Every team in the league over .500 is involved, and the top 2 seeds in each division are guaranteed a playoff spot at least. After the two games indicated, the playoffs could run as normal, or could involve shorter series (at least in the earlier rounds).
Game 1
- The 1st and 2nd seed in each division play to determine who wins the division and gets home-ice advantage within the division for the playoffs.
- The 3rd and 4th seed in each division play to determine who gets to play for 2nd place and who has to fight for a wild card spot.
- The 9th and 10th seed in the conference play an elimination game for the chance to play for a wild card spot.
- The 11th and 12th seed in the conference also play an elimination game for the chance to play for a wild card spot.
- The home team is the team with the higher regular season win %
- The division winners in each conference play for the conference championship and home-ice advantage within the conference.
- The losers of the division title games play the winners of the 3rd/4th seed games for 2nd place in the division and home ice. This would be a preview game of a 1st round matchup.
- The losers of the 3rd/4th seed games play the winners of the elimination games. The teams with the highest regular season win % play the teams with the lowest. The winners of these games earn wild card spots; the losers are eliminated.
The seeding was done by looking at win %. Rather than have the highest seed play the lowest though, I had teams closest in the standings (plus seeds 3 & 4 in each division) play each other first to establish position. The second round determines final positioning and home ice advantage through the playoffs (ties would be determined by win%).
Also, it worked out entirely be coincidence that the win % for each team allowed me to map out the opponents for each game no matter who wins the previous matchup. The potential opponents you see in the image reflect how it would work in reality.
Now, of course this assumes that the playoffs are even happening, but if they are happening, I think I'd rather have these 2 play-in games and rounds of best-out-of-5 or even out of 3, than best of 7 starting with the 16 teams currently in a playoff spot (or ranked by win %). It simply wouldn't be fair for bubble teams like Winnipeg, Columbus, or either New York team to miss the playoffs without getting at least a chance to play their way in.
Let me know what you think, or if you have a better idea I'd love to hear that too.
expatriatedtexan
Habitual Line Stepper
- Aug 17, 2005
- 16,744
- 12,297
After reading this article (Down Goes Brown: Possible NHL playoff formats, from ideal to...) I decided to try to make a playoff play-in system I would be happy with.
I didn't like any of the presented options for a lot of reasons. I didn't think it was fair to just go to the playoffs because teams in the wild card race are so close that we have no idea who would actually end up in the playoffs if the season were played out. However, I also didn't like any option that eliminated any of the top seeds after only one or two games or on the other hand options that only had the top seeds involved. Finally, I didn't like any option that has only some teams getting warm-up games (play-in or otherwise).
So, the following is what I came up with to be as fair as possible. Every team in the league over .500 is involved, and the top 2 seeds in each division are guaranteed a playoff spot at least. After the two games indicated, the playoffs could run as normal, or could involve shorter series (at least in the earlier rounds).
Game 1
Game 2
- The 1st and 2nd seed in each division play to determine who wins the division and gets home-ice advantage within the division for the playoffs.
- The 3rd and 4th seed in each division play to determine who gets to play for 2nd place and who has to fight for a wild card spot.
- The 9th and 10th seed in the conference play an elimination game for the chance to play for a wild card spot.
- The 11th and 12th seed in the conference also play an elimination game for the chance to play for a wild card spot.
- The home team is the team with the higher regular season win %
- The division winners in each conference play for the conference championship and home-ice advantage within the conference.
- The losers of the division title games play the winners of the 3rd/4th seed games for 2nd place in the division and home ice. This would be a preview game of a 1st round matchup.
- The losers of the 3rd/4th seed games play the winners of the elimination games. The teams with the highest regular season win % play the teams with the lowest. The winners of these games earn wild card spots; the losers are eliminated.
The seeding was done by looking at win %. Rather than have the highest seed play the lowest though, I had teams closest in the standings (plus seeds 3 & 4 in each division) play each other first to establish position. The second round determines final positioning and home ice advantage through the playoffs (ties would be determined by win%).
Also, it worked out entirely be coincidence that the win % for each team allowed me to map out the opponents for each game no matter who wins the previous matchup. The potential opponents you see in the image reflect how it would work in reality.
Now, of course this assumes that the playoffs are even happening, but if they are happening, I think I'd rather have these 2 play-in games and rounds of best-out-of-5 or even out of 3, than best of 7 starting with the 16 teams currently in a playoff spot (or ranked by win %). It simply wouldn't be fair for bubble teams like Winnipeg, Columbus, or either New York team to miss the playoffs without getting at least a chance to play their way in.
Let me know what you think, or if you have a better idea I'd love to hear that too.
My favorite part of that DGB's article was this little gem:
(Also, while I won’t give it its own section, I want to highlight the proposal by Vince Masi of ESPN which would include every team that is still mathematically alive. It’s basically the “everyone makes it” format, except you shut the door in the face of the Red Wings and make them stare sadly through the window while everyone else plays. Somehow, I love this.)
NHL’s Bill Daly: Playing a full 82-game season in 2020-21 is top priority
NHL's Bill Daly: Playing a full 82-game season in 2020-21 is...
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Several mentions have been about the tv deals... I’m sure something could be worked out. It would be so much easier to cut games out of next year, everyone still starts on an even playing field, and push the start back.
Records this year have already been made. We’re in the final sprint ffs, and the league would rather toss all of it out and start over, when you could have both a finish to this year, and a fair (but shorter) season next year??
NHL's Bill Daly: Playing a full 82-game season in 2020-21 is...
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Several mentions have been about the tv deals... I’m sure something could be worked out. It would be so much easier to cut games out of next year, everyone still starts on an even playing field, and push the start back.
Records this year have already been made. We’re in the final sprint ffs, and the league would rather toss all of it out and start over, when you could have both a finish to this year, and a fair (but shorter) season next year??
I like the idea the players proposed. Training camps at the end of July, finish the season and playoffs August-September, draft and free agency in October, and start the season in November. I think the league needs to seriously look at cutting 7-10 games next year to try and get back on normal schedule. Play 65 games (so what would normally be October and maybe a couple more just to cut down back to backs)and play as normal. It makes sense and could work. The players sound to mostly be on board, so let's get it done.
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
This season is already riddled with asterisks. I believe the league would like to keep this the only one.
So what if we play each team in the East once instead of twice next year, big f***ing deal. Yeah, some are going to be home and some away, who cares? No one seems to care the NFL schedule ends up screwing some teams and making it easier for others. Otherwise, NFL teams would have to play 62 games a season to make it ‘fair’ (every team home and away).
The fact is, starting next year at 0-0-0 and having a shorter season is way better than throwing 42-20-8 in the garbage and starting over just so you have 82 games next year.
The fact is, starting next year at 0-0-0 and having a shorter season is way better than throwing 42-20-8 in the garbage and starting over just so you have 82 games next year.
McMetal
Writer of Wrongs
- Sep 29, 2015
- 14,169
- 12,232
There's just too much speculation and rumors going around right now. Nobody really has a clue what the timeline might be for when a season COULD resume, so while it's interesting to postulate what the parameters of that might look like, it's also kind of exhausting to read articles that report such speculation when their guess is basically as good as mine.
Soedy
All Hail Cale
I absolutely loved the trading cards. I might try this out really digging for some over the top arcade hockey right now.
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,648
What do you make of the college free agents the Flames signed? Typically college FA’s seem to be underwhelming, but there seems to be some excitement among their media/fans that they got some really talented players.
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
NHL Awards 2020: Who We’re Picking For Annual Honors If Regular Season Doesn’t Resume
The writer seems to put Hughes over Makar primarily based on Makar playing with such a strong defensive partner by the name of Graves. It raises some interesting discussions in my mind.
Highlights -
Hart Trophy - Panarin
MacKinnon should get high marks for how he’s carried an Avs team that’s been equal parts successful and injury-riddled. However, Colorado already was a proven commodity.
Calder Trophy - Hughes
So, Hughes’ comments earlier this month about being the best rookie over the last 30 games was not wrong, even if it was taken out of context on Twitter. And while it’s a tight race, Hughes has backed it up, even if the conversation is different had Makar stayed healthy, since he probably would’ve put up more points.
However, the Corsi for both blueliners’ common defensive partners tells an interesting story. Bear with us here. Christopher Tanev, Hughes’ mate most often, had a 49.46 Corsi For percentage with Hughes and 39.93 Corsi For percentage without the rookie. Hughes still had a 57.70 Corsi For percentage without Tanev. Ryan Graves, Makar’s most common partner, has a 53.14 Corsi For with the UMass product, and 51.88 without Makar. Makar had a 46.94 Corsi For without Graves. All the while, Makar (73.86 percent) had more offensive zone starts than Hughes (66.93 percent).
What’s all this mumbo jumbo mean? It means Hughes’ play independent of his defensive partner was better than Makar’s, even though Hughes was put in less advantageous situations. And Tanev fared worse without Hughes than Graves did with Makar. That’s what helps settle this deadlocked race.
GM of the Year - Sakic
But Sakic took some gambles and fared well from them. Andre Burakovsky has been a good get, and you could say the Avs won the Tyson Barrie-Nazem Kadri trade, even with Kadri’s injury woes. He also let Semyon Varlamov walk, and instead signed Pavel Francouz, who effectively took over the starting job from Philipp Grubauer at a quarter of the cost of Varlamov. One has to think the cheap acquisition of Vladislav Namestnikov in February only would’ve helped his case.
The writer seems to put Hughes over Makar primarily based on Makar playing with such a strong defensive partner by the name of Graves. It raises some interesting discussions in my mind.
Highlights -
Hart Trophy - Panarin
MacKinnon should get high marks for how he’s carried an Avs team that’s been equal parts successful and injury-riddled. However, Colorado already was a proven commodity.
Calder Trophy - Hughes
So, Hughes’ comments earlier this month about being the best rookie over the last 30 games was not wrong, even if it was taken out of context on Twitter. And while it’s a tight race, Hughes has backed it up, even if the conversation is different had Makar stayed healthy, since he probably would’ve put up more points.
However, the Corsi for both blueliners’ common defensive partners tells an interesting story. Bear with us here. Christopher Tanev, Hughes’ mate most often, had a 49.46 Corsi For percentage with Hughes and 39.93 Corsi For percentage without the rookie. Hughes still had a 57.70 Corsi For percentage without Tanev. Ryan Graves, Makar’s most common partner, has a 53.14 Corsi For with the UMass product, and 51.88 without Makar. Makar had a 46.94 Corsi For without Graves. All the while, Makar (73.86 percent) had more offensive zone starts than Hughes (66.93 percent).
What’s all this mumbo jumbo mean? It means Hughes’ play independent of his defensive partner was better than Makar’s, even though Hughes was put in less advantageous situations. And Tanev fared worse without Hughes than Graves did with Makar. That’s what helps settle this deadlocked race.
GM of the Year - Sakic
But Sakic took some gambles and fared well from them. Andre Burakovsky has been a good get, and you could say the Avs won the Tyson Barrie-Nazem Kadri trade, even with Kadri’s injury woes. He also let Semyon Varlamov walk, and instead signed Pavel Francouz, who effectively took over the starting job from Philipp Grubauer at a quarter of the cost of Varlamov. One has to think the cheap acquisition of Vladislav Namestnikov in February only would’ve helped his case.
Last edited:
Rookie Watch: Avalanche's Makar best in Central Division
"It wouldn't surprise me if he's the fastest guy in the League already ... his speed is unbelievable," Avalanche defenseman Erik Johnson said. "He's just so fast and his edge work is fantastic. You just don't see players come around like this. I don't have enough words to say how good he's going to be and how good he already is."
"It wouldn't surprise me if he's the fastest guy in the League already ... his speed is unbelievable," Avalanche defenseman Erik Johnson said. "He's just so fast and his edge work is fantastic. You just don't see players come around like this. I don't have enough words to say how good he's going to be and how good he already is."
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,648
I don’t hate what the writer is saying here on the Hughes/Makar conversation. Though, I do think he’s missing a couple points.
He’s basically saying, to use a football analogy, that Hughes gets you more consistent yardage every play. I would entertain that Makar gives you more one-play touchdowns.
And one other note on the corsi numbers. I would guess that Girard factors into this a bit. Graves spent time with Girard when Makar was down which would inflate his away from Makar corsi numbers. Girard in my mind, is better than all Van defenceman except for Hughes.
As for the GM of the year. I agree. Sakic easily. You look at pretty much all the moves he made working out nearly perfectly and it’s a slam dunk.
I forgot about the trading cards! I might have to see if there’s any way I can play this on my computer too...
Also, I want the 360 arcade version back. “Was that a banana?!”
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
avsfan09
Registered User
Soedy
All Hail Cale
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
Yeah, I reckon it would. I recently tried playing an old shitty game with DirectDraw on an ISO and I couldn't get the colors corrected, so I'm still scarred by the experience.
Metallo
NWOBHM forever \m/
The only thing I needed to see was the last game we played Vancouver where Hughes was invisible and the absolute dominant game Makar had in returning to the lineup. Take into account the extreme lack of luck that Makar had all season with posts and its just a no contest. I hope enough voters have done their homework and actually looked at both players play.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $12,250.00Event closes- Updated: