Around the NHL 16-17 part 3 (trades! trades! trades!)

[MrMaster]

What would you do if you won, and you can't say buy the Cleveland Cavaliers.




So glad Tampa won. The only thing that can make this god awful 16-17 NHL season turn out a little better for me is if the Leafs choked at the end and Tampa gets in due to them beating the Sabres in game 82.

They need two points if the isles win out, right?
If so, it might be close. If they just need one more point, they make it.

 

[1972]

Nathan MacKinnon has 16 goals in 80 games...yikes.

 

[sabrebuild]

Nathan MacKinnon has 16 goals in 80 games...yikes.

Bust! Amirite

 

[1972]

Bust! Amirite

Nope, but hasn't had the start to his career as you would expect. A player like him if expected to produce more then he has.

 

[Zip15]

In case you were thinking to yourself, "Is there something else Bettman could screw up?"

 

[LaxSabre]

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

In case you were thinking to yourself, "Is there something else Bettman could screw up?"

Where was all the whining during the '70s and '80s when the playoffs were under a divisional format? To get to the SC Final, you have to beat good teams in the playoffs. It doesn't matter whether it's intra-division or top-8 seeding. There's lots to jump on Bettman about, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Zip15]

Where was all the whining during the '70s and '80s when the playoffs were under a divisional format? To get to the SC Final, you have to beat good teams in the playoffs. It doesn't matter whether it's intra-division or top-8 seeding. There's lots to jump on Bettman about, but this isn't one of them.

Sure it is. This format devalues the regular season. Pittsburgh is 2nd in the NHL and they're going to have to play the 4th best team in the league (CBJ) in the 1st round, and the best team in the NHL (WSH) just to make it to the conference finals. Meanwhile, the 13th best team (BOS) in the league gets to play the 11th best team (OTT) in the 1st round? That's fair?

The goal of the regular season should be to reward the best teams. This system doesn't achieve that. I'm all for simply ranking the teams 1-16, but, failing that - or if you're a "we must keep playoff rivalries!" kind of guy - seeding 1-8 by conference and re-seeding each round (under the old system, I would not have guaranteed a division-winner a top-3 seed, either). That makes the regular season worth a bit more for playoff teams.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sure it is. This format devalues the regular season. Pittsburgh is 2nd in the NHL and they're going to have to play the 4th best team in the league (CBJ) in the 1st round, and the best team in the NHL (WSH) just to make it to the conference finals. Meanwhile, the 13th best team (BOS) in the league gets to play the 11th best team (OTT) in the 1st round? That's fair?

The goal of the regular season should be to reward the best teams. This system doesn't achieve that. I'm all for simply ranking the teams 1-16, but, failing that - or if you're a "we must keep playoff rivalries!" kind of guy - seeding 1-8 by conference and re-seeding each round (under the old system, I would not have guaranteed a division-winner a top-3 seed, either). That makes the regular season worth a bit more for playoff teams.

well if you're going to have divisions there's got to be something that makes the divisions mean something as well right? Otherwise why have them?

If I'm remembering correctly, the original realignment proposal would have had 4 divisions and no wild cards so that the matchups (using the above standings) would be WAS-NYR, PIT-CBJ, MTL-TOR, BOS-OTT. It's not your ideal system, but it's infinitely better than the current system. Teams that have to play each other in the first 2 rounds played the same schedule, no WC situations which gives incentive to finish lower in the standings for easier matchups (see: NYR), and creates the playoff rivalry matchups every year that the league seemed to want that you're not always going to get even with a conference 1-8 seeding.

That better format, that granted people might still grumble about but at least it's "fair", got voted down by the players association iirc, so this isn't entirely a blame gary/NHL situation (similar to the bye weeks/condensed schedule - players wanted it, and back to back games - which can be influenced by team scheduling demands).

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

The new playoff format is complete dog **** and laughable. Absolutely nothing wrong with the old 1-8,2-7 format. Stop trying to ****ING force feed "divisional" rivalries in the playoffs like it's going to make the NHL a better product or make the games more entertaining. Absolutely ridiculous PIT or CBJ are automatically going to be bounced in round 1 due to playing each other.

Again proving why this is a dying league.

 

[Jim Bob]

 

[1972]

8 years after being drafted

John Tavares 66 Points in 77 games played.
Victor Hedman 70 points in 77 games played.


No one saw that coming. Hopefully Ristolainen can track similar to Hedman...

 

[Zip15]

well if you're going to have divisions there's got to be something that makes the divisions mean something as well right? Otherwise why have them?

It would mean something: you get a fancy banner!

If I'm remembering correctly, the original realignment proposal would have had 4 divisions and no wild cards so that the matchups (using the above standings) would be WAS-NYR, PIT-CBJ, MTL-TOR, BOS-OTT. It's not your ideal system, but it's infinitely better than the current system. Teams that have to play each other in the first 2 rounds played the same schedule, no WC situations which gives incentive to finish lower in the standings for easier matchups (see: NYR), and creates the playoff rivalry matchups every year that the league seemed to want that you're not always going to get even with a conference 1-8 seeding.

That better format, that granted people might still grumble about but at least it's "fair", got voted down by the players association iirc, so this isn't entirely a blame gary/NHL situation (similar to the bye weeks/condensed schedule - players wanted it, and back to back games - which can be influenced by team scheduling demands).

That's mostly my point: everything is better than the current system. Perhaps I should've implicated the PA, as well. This system stinks. I feel bad for CBJ and Pittsburgh.

I still love just seeding 1-16. I think a Sabres-Oilers 1st round series would be cool.

 

[Jim Bob]

That's mostly my point: everything is better than the current system. Perhaps I should've implicated the PA, as well. This system stinks. I feel bad for CBJ and Pittsburgh.

I still love just seeding 1-16. I think a Sabres-Oilers 1st round series would be cool.

Given all the added travel that early round East vs West match ups would create, I doubt either the league or the PA really wants to go down that route.

Personally, I wish their were 28 or 32 teams, an even amount of teams in each division, and then go back to the old playoff structure where you play two rounds to determine the four division champions, then you have the conference finals, and then the SC Finals.

But, that's just me.

 

[Jim Bob]

 

[Zip15]

Given all the added travel that early round East vs West match ups would create, I doubt either the league or the PA really wants to go down that route.

Personally, I wish their were 28 or 32 teams, an even amount of teams in each division, and then go back to the old playoff structure where you play two rounds to determine the four division champions, then you have the conference finals, and then the SC Finals.

But, that's just me.

Meh. These guys travel comfortably. Plus, would it really be all that much more travel in a 2-3-2 format between Buffalo and LA - what, five hours one way? - than a Vancouver-Dallas 2-2-1-1-1 setup? Anyways, I'd also be open to 1-8 by conference with re-seeding.

 

[Jim Bob]

Meh. These guys travel comfortably. Plus, would it really be all that much more travel in a 2-3-2 format between Buffalo and LA - what, five hours one way? - than a Vancouver-Dallas 2-2-1-1-1 setup? Anyways, I'd also be open to 1-8 by conference with re-seeding.

I hate 2-3-2. It takes away a lot of the advantage of being the better seed.

Having the 1-8 by conference makes sense if you get rid of the divisions and have more balanced schedules across the conference.

 

[brian_griffin]

In the '70s there was 1-16, 2-15, etc., with re-seeding. And 1st round was 3 games.

In the '80s there was the intra-division format Adams/Norris/Smythe/Patrick to determine the Campbell and Wales conf winners for the finals.

There is NO GUARANTEE a stricter higher-lower seeding system pits the 8 best teams against the 8 worst teams who qualify. What division you play in matters. How your team is performing matters, injuries matter.

There is NO GUARANTEE a higher-point-earning team has a greater probability of winning a series than a lower-point-earning team does against the same opponent. Matchups matter, coaching matters, injuries matter, etc.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Every year there will be a couple teams fading at the end of the reg season who may not deserve to get in. Every year some teams will get an easy draw, some a difficult draw, and some a "Goldilocks" draw for an opponent.

Every year there will be 1 or more upset series. Sometimes there are several in a given round. These are best of 7 series.

Complaining about matchups is foolish, IMO.

 

[Sabretooth]

In the '70s there was 1-16, 2-15, etc., with re-seeding. And 1st round was 3 games.

In the '80s there was the intra-division format Adams/Norris/Smythe/Patrick to determine the Campbell and Wales conf winners for the finals.

There is NO GUARANTEE a stricter higher-lower seeding system pits the 8 best teams against the 8 worst teams who qualify. What division you play in matters. How your team is performing matters, injuries matter.

There is NO GUARANTEE a higher-point-earning team has a greater probability of winning a series than a lower-point-earning team does against the same opponent. Matchups matter, coaching matters, injuries matter, etc.

Much ado about nothing, IMO.

Every year there will be a couple teams fading at the end of the reg season who may not deserve to get in. Every year some teams will get an easy draw, some a difficult draw, and some a "Goldilocks" draw for an opponent.

Every year there will be 1 or more upset series. Sometimes there are several in a given round. These are best of 7 series.

Complaining about matchups is foolish, IMO.

I'm with you in that the matchups don't matter as much as they're being given credit for, but that being the case I have no problem changing the system even if the only difference was better optics.

Can't really feel too bad for cbus when they've been barely better than the sabres for over half the season now. They're 19th in pts% since Jan 1st. The sabres are 21st since then. ****** luck with the 1st rd matchup, but hey at least they're getting some playoff hockey for what just the 3rd time in franchise history? I'd take a bad matchup for the sabres over missing yet again...

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

BG makes the point about standings not necessarily being the telling factor in what teams are better than others. Still, there has to be something for teams to "earn" that will reward them with something in the playoffs. Pts is the best factor. Still though, if someone wants to pursue a fantasy scenario where "the best" plays "the worst" and on down the line, then divisions and conferences become a non-issue altogether. They disappear. You end up with every team playing all other teams a whopping two games, and 20 or so teams a 3rd time. That's the closest thing to "fair" and an uneven or un-weighted schedule as possible...and it sounds pretty damn boring. It's also a huge PITA for travel.

That's the only way to avoid "unfair" playoff match-ups. So go all-in on the "fair fantasy" or acknowledge that a little bit of regionalism, tradition, and practicality have their place. But OH THE HORROR of a couple good teams facing off in the 1st round. Maybe they can still get a participation trophy after their hurt feelings report is thoroughly investigated by the Fans For Fairness Review Board.

 

[sabremike]

When you have the battle of the two best teams in the conference in the second round your playoff system is badly screwed up. In a system that makes sense that matchup doesn't happen until the conference finals.

 

[SundherDome]

In case you were thinking to yourself, "Is there something else Bettman could screw up?"

I prefer this model, I want to see good meaningful hockey in all rounds.

 

[kirby11]

I agree with Zip on this, it makes no sense that the reward for succeeding in the regular season and getting a high seed is playing one of the other best regular season teams in round one because of the need to force divisional rivalries. The playoffs inherently create rivalries themselves bevause, duh, it's win or go home. You're gonna have more animosity toward any opponent in those circumstances.

I'd like to see them go back to 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc (maybe stop the whole "division winner is guaranteed a top spot" thing) and re-seed in the following rounds.

 

[Ethan Edwards]

Meh. These guys travel comfortably. Plus, would it really be all that much more travel in a 2-3-2 format between Buffalo and LA - what, five hours one way? - than a Vancouver-Dallas 2-2-1-1-1 setup? Anyways, I'd also be open to 1-8 by conference with re-seeding.

Not debating your larger overall point about unfair seeding as it's been a good dialogue, so this is definitely an ancillary discussion, but the travel aspect, while not the most important factor, gets dismissed far too easily sometimes. No question this is getting far away from your main/original point, but I wanted to relay my experience in a post far more exhausting than any NY-to-LA coach flight.

Speaking from personal experience in a hockey context, the mere practice of traveling in and of itself is exhausting. I traveled pretty comfortably (no, not nearly as comfortably as an NHLer) at a western school back in the day, with some exceptions only played on weekends, and where road trips were kept to a minimum when possible, but it was at times very mentally and physically draining. (And I had friends in juniors and some other leagues--and there are probably many posters on here, not to mention HS-aged kids where hockey programs are widely dispersed--who put my stories to shame. I grew up in Buffalo, so I had it good by comparison.) You can't really "meh" those travel concerns away IMO.

Yeah, there are some weird geographical anomalies in the Western Conference (and even some in the east) that result in similar 1st round travel, but that doesn't dismiss travel concerns when discussing eliminating conference (1-8) vice league (1-16) seeding IMO. There is a balance that needs to be maintained in order to get it right, and you've properly touched on some of the issues involved, but while it will never be fully eliminated from the equation, reducing the travel burden to the extent possible has to factor in (it's the argument in favor of the 2-3-2, but I personally hate that format, despite its travel benefits). So at least partially based on some of the anecdotes I could tell (so maybe I'm a bit biased), I completely agree with Jim Bob here:

Given all the added travel that early round East vs West match ups would create, I doubt either the league or the PA really wants to go down that route.

 

[Old Navy Goat]

I think travel is a bs response as I've traveled plenty and had no problem adequately performing with little to no time zone adjustment.