Parity: The New NHL

[indigobuffalo]

I realize this is more of a main board topic, but I wanted to focus more on our perspective on the matter as Leafs fans.

Anyways, Parity. It’s a word that’s been trending basically since the 2004 lockout ended. But to many, even owners and GMs, it’s apparently a hard concept to keep abreast of.

I would like to bring everyone’s attention to the standings right now.

As I’m writing this, we’re about 25% into the season. There are seven teams below .500 and there is only ONE team with a “losing” record”. That’s the LAK. All the other six are only one game below .500.

The Pittsburgh Penguins and St Louis Blues are in second last place at one game below .500. Both are more than capable of slinging together 5-6 straight wins to right the ship.

Teams are doing terrible things in reactionary moves to being so low in the standings. Chicago is “last place” in the Central division but actually only 3 points back of a playoff spot. Yet they fired one of the best coaches in the league.

Pittsburgh is on the cusp of making a big move based on media talk, and already made a deal with LAK for Pearson.

From the Leafs’ POV, we are so far removed from this panic inducing situation that we’re largely unaware of its existence. But as good as things are now, next season the slightest falter and suddenly people will be on full tilt. Especially here. I mean we’re winning at an unprecedented pace and will likely break more records this year. Yet we have ample fire Babcock threads (some disguised as “critiques”) and plenty of “fire Dubas” chatter. People exist, despite our record, who think the Shanaplan is a disaster.

I do not think we as a fan base are robust enough to weather a 5 game losing streak, which could very nearly capsize a season because of how tight the games are now.

But let this be a reminder, trust the process. Because inevitably, the teams that are going to thrive in the “new NHL” are the ones that have the mettle to stare long and hard into that abyss and not lose themselves in the madness.

Click to read more...

 

[ImpartialNHLfan]

Parity is dull, and the hard cap is crap imo

 

[Al14]

Mike Babcock is a good coach with a few quirks. He is one stubborn man to start off with.

He has a penchant to hang his hat on too many players that, although they work hard, they really don't possess game changing skills. He singles out the potential star players for demotion to lower lines when they make a mistake, however, he seems to turn a blind eye towards hard working players for their miscues.

Hard work, in Babcock's eyes, appears to trump lazy plays made by skill players, and, as a hockey coach, I get that. However, just because you are working hard, you should not be rewarded by being excused for your hiccups. The star skill players are watching.

Home at the SBA, he also chases line matching to the detriment of the team. IMHO, he should be matching up player for player depending on which opposing players are on the ice. He should better trust his skill lines to be able to match up and compete with the other teams skill lines. I can see Babcock trying to ensure his 4th line is not matched up against the opposing teams skill lines. When I coached, I use to assign individual players on every one of my lines to watch, or shadow, dangerous players. I sometimes would ask certain players to double team a dangerous player when they were on the ice with them. I wish Babcock would employ this tactic as opposed to continually chasing line match ups. I think chasing line match ups throws off our teams ability to play their game.

Babcock also needs to let his skill players try to win the games. For example, our number one power play line needs to see more ice time than number two line. Also, he needs to shorten the bench when our team is down a goal or two late in games. Our skill players need to get more ice time in order to change the score when the team needs to catch up on the score board. Please Babcock, double shift the scorers, and sit the plugs when the score dictates it. JMHO.

As for Dubas, I think he is a very smart guy. He has done just about every job there is to speak of in a hockey organization. He was able to bring the Marlies a Calder Cup championship under his GM leadership cap. I trust him to lead the Leafs as long as Shanahan does.

Now, having said the above, I think all talk of firing Babcock, or Dubas, has more to do with fan frustration over years of our team walking in the mediocre wilderness. Patience is the key, for now.

 

[tom leafers]

Sooner or later the good teams are going to separate themselves from the average teams and the tanks will begin to start. A little bit of parity makes it interesting but right now the amount of close teams, specially close to the leafs with how good they have started, makes me uncomfortable lol

 

[JT AM da real deal]

Parity will always be the result of a hard CAP where free markets are suffocated. Everyone is good. Everyone gets a participation award. This has all been premeditated via CBA.

The real issue is where does it go? If we keep down this path then pretty soon will stop keeping score. and standings become a bad way to rank teams. It is a slippery slope this socialist thing that is the current NHL done under the premise of keeping the weaker teams afloat while someone builds the game. Where have you heard that story before in history?

The good news is this CBA will end and I hope the players and the money franchises will stop this Bettman political game.

 

[Thissiteisgarbage]

The cap just allows markets to exist when there shouldn't be one.
As such, it dilutes the quality of the game as fewer teams would mean less players - those players would be of higher quality/we'd have a superior product to watch as fans.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Take away the loser point and you would see a lot less parity.

 

[zeke]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

 

[57 Years No Cup]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

Nice work.

 

[7even]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

Without a baseline "normal" variance you can't draw any conclusions from this. Maybe over 20 years and then test it for significant difference. Too much work for me.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

You could run a regressed standard deviation on the difference figure to see if it was statistically significant. But your point is good as to what constitutes the standard. And then you can run again by changing the time variable to see how many years it would take to be meaningful assuming time is significant. Like you said too much work.

 

[Riellyfan04]

Im just glad nhl isnt like nba lol. When yoh know which team will win right after season ends

 

[Buds17]

The cap just allows markets to exist when there shouldn't be one.
As such, it dilutes the quality of the game as fewer teams would mean less players - those players would be of higher quality/we'd have a superior product to watch as fans.

There'd also be fewer fans. Would be tough to consider the NHL on par with the other big North American sports leagues having fewer teams in comparison as well. Might see the return of dynasties too, which certainly does have its share of appeal. Altogether, some good things overall, some not as much.

 

[Aintboutdatlyfe]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

I don't know what the results would actually be but the range of the data doesn't say much. You're better off looking at the variance and distribution of points between all teams rather than just the Max and Min.

 

[1specter]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

What about the spread between playoff teams

 

[zeke]

I don't know what the results would actually be but the range of the data doesn't say much. You're better off looking at the variance and distribution of points between all teams rather than just the Max and Min.

please proceed, governor.

 

[Aintboutdatlyfe]

please proceed, governor.

Don't have the time nor willingness to do the work, so I respect that part. Just the theory is quite right in its application there.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

There'd also be fewer fans. Would be tough to consider the NHL on par with the other big North American sports leagues having fewer teams in comparison as well. Might see the return of dynasties too, which certainly does have its share of appeal. Altogether, some good things overall, some not as much.

There is no loss of teams in either the NBA or MLB with other systems in place. And in hockey there are 3 teams that could work here in Canada. Halifax, Toronto team2 and Quebec City which are all eastern teams which is real reason Bettman does not like them and they are Canadian. Florida, Carolina and Arizona could all easily move here and the league becomes instantly stronger with packed houses. Decisions are getting made which promote the Bettman agenda not which would be better for the NHL. Again let the free markets work and let owners move/sell weak franchises to places that want the game and can afford the game.

This agenda of let me put rich owner franchises (large franchise fee paid to owners only) in US markets which require a CAP system to support them while I fix the TV deals and the marketing issues to grow the game for all is pure dogwash. As more teams get added requiring the CAP the bigger the Bettman base of support. And the money teams get a smaller and smaller voice. Essentially it is the weaker teams which gain control and Bettman continues his plan. The league gets more and more parity and it becomes impossible to build anything for any 1 team as the league becomes more and more dilluted and boring.

 

[thewave]

There is no more parity now.

This year: 1st place .725pts%, Last place; .342pts% = .383 difference
Last year: 1st place .713pts%, Last place: .378pts% = .335 difference
2007-08: 1st place .701pts%, Last place: .433pts% = .268 difference
1997-98: 1st place .665pts%, Last place: .268pts% = .397 difference
1987-88: 1st place .656pts%, Last place: .319pts% = .337 difference

Parity is BS. They added a loser point to tighten up the field and put a Salary cap on teams, big whoop, so wealthy markets profits are transferred to less viable markets like Arizona. I'd sooner get rid of the loser point and fold 4 teams so we can end the questions like... Is Leivo an NHLer.

 

[Pookie]

I realize this is more of a main board topic, but I wanted to focus more on our perspective on the matter as Leafs fans.

Anyways, Parity. It’s a word that’s been trending basically since the 2004 lockout ended. But to many, even owners and GMs, it’s apparently a hard concept to keep abreast of.

I would like to bring everyone’s attention to the standings right now.

As I’m writing this, we’re about 25% into the season. There are seven teams below .500 and there is only ONE team with a “losing” record”. That’s the LAK. All the other six are only one game below .500.

The Pittsburgh Penguins and St Louis Blues are in second last place at one game below .500. Both are more than capable of slinging together 5-6 straight wins to right the ship.

Teams are doing terrible things in reactionary moves to being so low in the standings. Chicago is “last place” in the Central division but actually only 3 points back of a playoff spot. Yet they fired one of the best coaches in the league.

Pittsburgh is on the cusp of making a big move based on media talk, and already made a deal with LAK for Pearson.

From the Leafs’ POV, we are so far removed from this panic inducing situation that we’re largely unaware of its existence. But as good as things are now, next season the slightest falter and suddenly people will be on full tilt. Especially here. I mean we’re winning at an unprecedented pace and will likely break more records this year. Yet we have ample fire Babcock threads (some disguised as “critiques”) and plenty of “fire Dubas” chatter. People exist, despite our record, who think the Shanaplan is a disaster.

I do not think we as a fan base are robust enough to weather a 5 game losing streak, which could very nearly capsize a season because of how tight the games are now.

But let this be a reminder, trust the process. Because inevitably, the teams that are going to thrive in the “new NHL” are the ones that have the mettle to stare long and hard into that abyss and not lose themselves in the madness.

To add, if our 3 game win streak out West was actually a 3 game losing skid, we’d be out of the a playoff spot today.

 

[Buds17]

There is no loss of teams in either the NBA or MLB with other systems in place. And in hockey there are 3 teams that could work here in Canada. Halifax, Toronto team2 and Quebec City which are all eastern teams which is real reason Bettman does not like them and they are Canadian. Florida, Carolina and Arizona could all easily move here and the league becomes instantly stronger with packed houses. Decisions are getting made which promote the Bettman agenda not which would be better for the NHL. Again let the free markets work and let owners move/sell weak franchises to places that want the game and can afford the game.

This agenda of let me put rich owner franchises (large franchise fee paid to owners only) in US markets which require a CAP system to support them while I fix the TV deals and the marketing issues to grow the game for all is pure dogwash. As more teams get added requiring the CAP the bigger the Bettman base of support. And the money teams get a smaller and smaller voice. Essentially it is the weaker teams which gain control and Bettman continues his plan. The league gets more and more parity and it becomes impossible to build anything for any 1 team as the league becomes more and more dilluted and boring.

Unfortunately the NBA and MLB both only have Toronto representing Canada. I'd like to see the current Leafs in a non-cap NHL, but a team like Pittsburgh just recently won back to back Cups working under the cap, and Chicago and LA both won multiple Cups as well, though not consecutively.

Past dynasties like NYI and Edmonton were fascinating, as was the seven year run of Canadian teams winning the Cup (84-90), but I don't know how realistic a modern NHL without a certain amount of parity would be. At least we don't have all teams having to spend the exact same amount in salaries...though obviously that couldn't really happen.

 

[Jack Bauer]

True parity means many teams have a chance to legitimately win every few years.

The NHL's idea of parity means that nobody feels like a loser regardless of whether you have any success or not.

MLB does it the best in my opinion. And they have no hard cap.

NBA is the worst and they have a system many are pushing for here now where you get Bird rights and other reasons to go beyond the soft upper limit.

 

[Menzinger]

Ive got no reall issue with parity.

The fact that teams can turn things around and be competitive (with a bit of luck and smart management) fairly quickly can only be considered a good thing. If we knew that only a coupl teams were going to have a legit shot at the cup to start the season it would make the hockey year incredibly boring.

A pity That the Leafs were so horribly managed for most of the past 12 years that as fas we weren’t able to take advantage of it

 

[thewave]

True parity means many teams have a chance to legitimately win every few years.

The NHL's idea of parity means that nobody feels like a loser regardless of whether you have any success or not.

MLB does it the best in my opinion. And they have no hard cap.

NBA is the worst and they have a system many are pushing for here now where you get Bird rights and other reasons to go beyond the soft upper limit.

One wage for all, No more private property, sustainable growth and the lot! Caps for all, let's make the world Equal again.

 

[FalcorMulch]

To add, if our 3 game win streak out West was actually a 3 game losing skid, we’d be out of the a playoff spot today.

No, we would be in the final wildcard spot ahead of Washington.