OFFICIAL 2019-2020 NHL Thread

[ExtraSlow]

For one year, where they didn't have the time to make drastic changes, I think this format is just fine.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For one year, where they didn't have the time to make drastic changes, I think this format is just fine.

It's tolerable, but when you see it deleting maybe literally the two best players in the league (Crosby & McDavid) before the playoffs when they were quite simply going to make it... How is the league winning?
And, they did have time. Enough time when your whole job on earth is to create a fair system to abbreviate the final games and playoffs. Weeks & months to develop and they moved ahead with "hey, let's bring teams in that weren't going to make it and give them the opportunity to eliminate teams that were going to make it in as little as 3 wins."

[The_Rural_Juror]

Didn't McDavid delete himself by being on that team?

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's tolerable, but when you see it deleting maybe literally the two best players in the league (Crosby & McDavid) before the playoffs when they were quite simply going to make it... How is the league winning?
And, they did have time. Enough time when your whole job on earth is to create a fair system to abbreviate the final games and playoffs. Weeks & months to develop and they moved ahead with "hey, let's bring teams in that weren't going to make it and give them the opportunity to eliminate teams that were going to make it in as little as 3 wins."

Totally disagree.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's tolerable, but when you see it deleting maybe literally the two best players in the league (Crosby & McDavid) before the playoffs when they were quite simply going to make it... How is the league winning?
And, they did have time. Enough time when your whole job on earth is to create a fair system to abbreviate the final games and playoffs. Weeks & months to develop and they moved ahead with "hey, let's bring teams in that weren't going to make it and give them the opportunity to eliminate teams that were going to make it in as little as 3 wins."

The regular season didn’t finish. There wasn’t enough time or ice to complete the regular season. Of the teams that had to play a qualifying round, none clinched a playoff spot, and none were mathematically eliminated from a playoff spot. There was zero guarantee that either team would have made it if the regular season completed. Oilers were only 4 points away from being out (with 8th place flames having a game in hand and 10th place wild having 2 games in hand) when the season was halted. Pittsburg fans may have more to complain about as it was a bigger gap, 5 points out of 8th with a game in hand. But still, neither team had clinched at that point and would have been a short losing streak away from not making it.

At the end of the day, they just had to wins short series with the lowest ranked team in the qualifiers to make it. You would have a better argument if the series was close, but both teams lost the series 3-1. Just because you have the best player doesn’t guarantee you a playoff spot. Of the 5 years that best player ever mcdavid has been playing, he’s made the playoffs once, deleting himself out of the playoffs 4 times. Is that also unfair?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The regular season didn’t finish. There wasn’t enough time or ice to complete the regular season. Of the teams that had to play a qualifying round, none clinched a playoff spot, and none were mathematically eliminated from a playoff spot. There was zero guarantee that either team would have made it if the regular season completed. Oilers were only 4 points away from being out (with 8th place flames having a game in hand and 10th place wild having 2 games in hand) when the season was halted. Pittsburg fans may have more to complain about as it was a bigger gap, 5 points out of 8th with a game in hand. But still, neither team had clinched at that point and would have been a short losing streak away from not making it.

At the end of the day, they just had to wins short series with the lowest ranked team in the qualifiers to make it. You would have a better argument if the series was close, but both teams lost the series 3-1. Just because you have the best player doesn’t guarantee you a playoff spot. Of the 5 years that best player ever mcdavid has been playing, he’s made the playoffs once, deleting himself out of the playoffs 4 times. Is that also unfair?

I think my friend told me one of those teams had a 95% chance of making it while Chicago was so certain they would not make it that they had already traded a Vezina finalist goalie at the deadline.
If the NHL felt the need to invite teams that were not forecast to make the playoffs, they should've made them face a much more horrific uphill battle than a simple best-of-5. Participant medals, anyone?
Fuck Montreal and fuck Chicago (and I'm a big Chicago fan, BTW). Neither would've made it without a meteorite wiping two more teams off the map.
"You had 70 games to not suck. You failed. I feel bad, so if you can put together 3 decent games, I'll let you into the playoffs for no reason". Put another way:
"I'll ignore 95.7% of your season of you manage to do good in this 4.3% part".
Either leave those teams out, or, force them through 5-10 games where the prize is lottery tickets to only two actual playoff spots where they then face the top team. They should've been put through the meat grinder to qualify.
No - they never should've been invited.

[Team_Mclaren]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think my friend told me one of those teams had a 95% chance of making it while Chicago was so certain they would not make it that they had already traded a Vezina finalist goalie at the deadline.
If the NHL felt the need to invite teams that were not forecast to make the playoffs, they should've made them face a much more horrific uphill battle than a simple best-of-5. Participant medals, anyone?
Fuck Montreal and fuck Chicago (and I'm a big Chicago fan, BTW). Neither would've made it without a meteorite wiping two more teams off the map.
"You had 70 games to not suck. You failed. I feel bad, so if you can put together 3 decent games, I'll let you into the playoffs for no reason". Put another way:
"I'll ignore 95.7% of your season of you manage to do good in this 4.3% part".
Either leave those teams out, or, force them through 5-10 games where the prize is lottery tickets to only two actual playoff spots where they then face the top team. They should've been put through the meat grinder to qualify.
No - they never should've been invited.

St.Louis had the WORST record in the league on Jan 3rd 2019 and won the cup, so your % of playoff chance argument doesn't really hold up.]

You just seen bitter AF that the pens couldnt beat a shitty Canadiens team. And it really wasnt even close.

[88CRX]

Oilers fan logic.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

St.Louis had the WORST record in the league on Jan 3rd 2019 and won the cup, so your % of playoff chance argument doesn't really hold up.]

You just seen bitter AF that the pens couldnt beat a shitty Canadiens team. And it really wasnt even close.

Yes. Once in one hundred years of NHL, a thing that never should've happened, did happen.
By the time that season was over, the Blues were in third and I'm sure there's a way to project back to the ~70 game mark but I don't know how.

You know who cares about "mathematically eliminated"? The media in Toronto and Vancouver. The rest of the NHL doesn't wander around in March saying "hey - ya never know! Detroit could win their next 12 straight while every other team loses their next 10. #FingersCrossed"

[Team_Mclaren]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes. Once in one hundred years of NHL, a thing that never should've happened, did happen.
By the time that season was over, the Blues were in third and I'm sure there's a way to project back to the ~70 game mark but I don't know how.

You know who cares about "mathematically eliminated"? The media in Toronto and Vancouver. The rest of the NHL doesn't wander around in March saying "hey - ya never know! Detroit could win their next 12 straight while every other team loses their next 10. #FingersCrossed"

Actually all teams do, lol Math doesn't lie. Every team/player/management knows you're not officially in until you are IN mathematically. And you are not out till you are mathematically out.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually all teams do, lol Math doesn't lie. Every team/player/management knows you're not officially in until you are IN mathematically. And you are not out till you are mathematically out.

They use statistical projections and that lets them estimate with a high degree of accuracy their positions roughly 20 games ahead so that they can plan and make adjustments as they deem necessary.
You are making it sound like Detroit thought everything was rosy posey until suddenly they were mathematically eliminated. They knew lloooonnnggg before that.

Chicago also were so confident that they were not making the playoffs that they traded a Vezina finalist goalie. The only projections that resulted in Chicago or Montreal making the playoffs involved an unrealistic losing streak by another team. Management that truly gambles by ignoring readily available stats right in front of them don't stay in management long.

[speedog]

A good team will rise to the occasion regardless of the path they need to travel, anyone who argues against that is just a sore loser.

[ExtraSlow]

^^^^agree.

The NHL didn't "lose" McDavid and Crosby. McDavid and Crosby lost. There's a big difference.

[ThePenIsMightier]

^Yes and ^^yes. Let me be crystal clear that I'm not focused on trying to deny that.

Both teams "should have" won and they dropped the ball and they need to take a lot of ownership for dropping that ball.

Ideally, an elimination series is best of seven and for good reason. While virtually no one comes back from a 3-0 it's maybe once every season or two that a team comes back to win after being down 3-1. So, that was a bit shitty but it would be easier to live with if you were not forced to play a team that had no business being there.

This is "participant medal culture" that let Montreal and Chicago define their season by 3 games instead of the 70 that showed they weren't going to make it. I love a Cinderella story, but not when they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.
It looks like this Chicago situation is going to get corrected by Vegas, but Montreal is not so certain.

I don't want a team that had virtually zero chance of making the playoffs "winning" the cup. They either shouldn't have been invited, or, they should have had a much tougher journey to qualify. Instead, it was "3 wins & in!"

Both Edmonton and Pittsburgh fucked up but their work over the season should not have been erased by teams beyond the fringe in only 3 losses.


Edit - the NHL does lose when superstars don't make the playoffs. It's big news and big press when Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid and Stamkos are lighting the lamp with hat tricks and OT winners deep in the playoffs.
The whole League benefits from those exciting stories.

[ExtraSlow]

well, you write in to the league and let them know that next time the regular season is shortened without warning and teams have played an uneven number of games, that you have a better solution. Myself, I think it was a reasonable solution to the issue of uneven games played, it created excitement in more cities, even if only for a short while, and the teams that played well advanced. I am not offended by the way this played out, even if it wasn't perfect.

[asp integra]

And sometimes you just run into a team with a hot goalie. There are a lot of teams that went on to win the Stanley cup that literally made playoffs on the last day of the regular season.
Look at the Flames in 2004, were they the best team? No, but they came together at the right time, and Kipper was absolutely insane.

[Ca_Silvia13]

NHLPA also signed off on the arrangement. So it's not like Betman handed them a shitty deal. Everyone agreed to 5 game playoff and life in the bubble.

[Team_Mclaren]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They use statistical projections and that lets them estimate with a high degree of accuracy their positions roughly 20 games ahead so that they can plan and make adjustments as they deem necessary.
You are making it sound like Detroit thought everything was rosy posey until suddenly they were mathematically eliminated. They knew lloooonnnggg before that.

Chicago also were so confident that they were not making the playoffs that they traded a Vezina finalist goalie. The only projections that resulted in Chicago or Montreal making the playoffs involved an unrealistic losing streak by another team. Management that truly gambles by ignoring readily available stats right in front of them don't stay in management long.

By your logic St.Louis shouldve sell the team in 2019 and start fresh, good thing they didn't, and that's the beauty of sports.

by your same logic, the 8th seed should have a harder road to advance vs. the 1st seed. But that's not the case as both needs 4 games to advance to the next round. I feel like you are trying to reward the regular season more than it should. Your argument seem to be that it should be a 7 game series to play in?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

^Yes and ^^yes. Let me be crystal clear that I'm not focused on trying to deny that.

Both teams "should have" won and they dropped the ball and they need to take a lot of ownership for dropping that ball.

Ideally, an elimination series is best of seven and for good reason. While virtually no one comes back from a 3-0 it's maybe once every season or two that a team comes back to win after being down 3-1. So, that was a bit shitty but it would be easier to live with if you were not forced to play a team that had no business being there.

This is "participant medal culture" that let Montreal and Chicago define their season by 3 games instead of the 70 that showed they weren't going to make it. I love a Cinderella story, but not when they didn't deserve to be there in the first place.
It looks like this Chicago situation is going to get corrected by Vegas, but Montreal is not so certain.

I don't want a team that had virtually zero chance of making the playoffs "winning" the cup. They either shouldn't have been invited, or, they should have had a much tougher journey to qualify. Instead, it was "3 wins & in!"

Both Edmonton and Pittsburgh fucked up but their work over the season should not have been erased by teams beyond the fringe in only 3 losses.


Edit - the NHL does lose when superstars don't make the playoffs. It's big news and big press when Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid and Stamkos are lighting the lamp with hat tricks and OT winners deep in the playoffs.
The whole League benefits from those exciting stories.

We really should go to 9 game series to eliminate statistical variability even further.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Who cares. No matter what it'll be called the Asterick Cup and if it's the only ring you ever win well, I feel bad for you son.