NHL 2016-17

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Calgary is the hottest team in the league with 9 straight wins.@iacas will probably say the streak ends against the Pens. But as of late, no one is playing better. The back line is clicking. Brian Elliott is looking like a legit playoff number one. That being said, are they a one and done or do they have a legitimate chance to make a deep run to say the Semifinals? (The conference finals for you traditionalists.)

Any given (day) in the NHL…

Calgary has mostly beaten non-playoff teams in their current streak. The Western Conference is particularly weak this year. Despite that, and their streak (the Pens are on their own five-game streak), they're still 14 points behind the Pens…

And the Pens are dressing 11 forwards because seven of their best players are out: Letang, Hagelin, Maatta, Daley, Cullen, Rust, Hornquist… Some good talent there.

So I expect a good game, but I don't really ever predict single game outcomes. Any given day in the NHL…

[tmac20]

I can't believe how insanely good the metro is this year compared to any other division. It shows that the current wild card playoff format really sucks... as of right now, it would definitely be more beneficial for a metro team to finish 4th in their division than 2nd or 3rd. 4th place means they're in the first wild card spot and play a weaker Ottawa or Montreal team first round. Whereas 2nd or 3rd probably means you play one of Pens/Caps/BJs...

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, tmac20 said:

I can't believe how insanely good the metro is this year compared to any other division. It shows that the current wild card playoff format really sucks... as of right now, it would definitely be more beneficial for a metro team to finish 4th in their division than 2nd or 3rd. 4th place means they're in the first wild card spot and play a weaker Ottawa or Montreal team first round. Whereas 2nd or 3rd probably means you play one of Pens/Caps/BJs...

Yeah and like the MLB wild card games, when the Pirates, Cardinals, and Cubs had the three best records in baseball, they all had to play (and eliminate) each other in the first six games of the playoffs.  So stupid.

This year the Caps, Pens, and BJs could almost be in the same situation (the Wild are still T3 with CBJ).

[Warren Zevon]

So yeah, the Oilers, in the playoffs.  

 

The last time that happened I still had a full head of hair.  It's been a downright miserable decade until now.  

[mcanadiens]

It's been a weird freaking year for sure. We had a hot start, miserable two-month plus stretch, a coaching change and a resurgence. They've looked decent sometimes, but I've also seen some of the worst efforts I ever seen out of an NHL team.

The win against Florida put them in. Trying to remember that the call it the Second Season for a reason. 

 

[Ernest Jones]

3 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

It's been a weird freaking year for sure. We had a hot start, miserable two-month plus stretch, a coaching change and a resurgence. They've looked decent sometimes, but I've also seen some of the worst efforts I ever seen out of an NHL team.

The win against Florida put them in. Trying to remember that the call it the Second Season for a reason. 

 

 

We live and die by Carey Price. We just don't have the offense. Galchenyuk really needs to get his shit together.

[onthehunt526]

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

We live and die by Carey Price. We just don't have the offense. Galchenyuk really needs to get his shit together.

Last year there were zero Canadian teams in the postseason, it looks like this year only Vancouver and Winnipeg won't be playing the second season, Edmonton, Montreal, (Calgary is basically in they only really need an OT Loss and a Loss by LA to clinch), and Ottawa and Toronto should probably make it.

The surprise after 26 consecutive seasons making the playoffs, the Red Wings will not make it.

I'm not sure is Little Caesar's Arena opening next season or 2018-19?

[Ernest Jones]

36 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Last year there were zero Canadian teams in the postseason, it looks like this year only Vancouver and Winnipeg won't be playing the second season, Edmonton, Montreal, (Calgary is basically in they only really need an OT Loss and a Loss by LA to clinch), and Ottawa and Toronto should probably make it.

The surprise after 26 consecutive seasons making the playoffs, the Red Wings will not make it.

I'm not sure is Little Caesar's Arena opening next season or 2018-19?

First time in something like 25 years that Detroit doesn't make the dance?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

I'm not sure is Little Caesar's Arena opening next season or 2018-19?

This was the last year for the Joe Louis Dump Arena.

[mcanadiens]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

This was the last year for the Joe Louis Dump Arena.

They forgot the press box when they built that place. I remember trying to squeeze my fat butt down the row for the CCHA playoffs back in the day.

[billchao]

6 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

The surprise after 26 consecutive seasons making the playoffs, the Red Wings will not make it.

That's not really a surprise at all. What's surprising is how they've managed to make the playoffs every year despite having a lower draft pick every year. Of course the NHL does have an obscene amount of teams in the playoffs, so there's that to consider.

They were going to have to hit the reboot button at some point and constantly making the playoffs despite not actually being good enough to contend for the cup probably hurt them in the long run.

[Ernest Jones]

59 minutes ago, billchao said:

That's not really a surprise at all. What's surprising is how they've managed to make the playoffs every year despite having a lower draft pick every year. Of course the NHL does have an obscene amount of teams in the playoffs, so there's that to consider.

They were going to have to hit the reboot button at some point and constantly making the playoffs despite not actually being good enough to contend for the cup probably hurt them in the long run.

The "loser point" really f**ks up the standings. 

In theory, a team could lose EVERY GAME in ot and finish with 82 points, which in some years will get you in, or really f-ing close. 

That is nonsense.  

[billchao]

2 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

The "loser point" really f**ks up the standings. 

In theory, a team could lose EVERY GAME in ot and finish with 82 points, which in some years will get you in, or really f-ing close. 

That is nonsense.  

What I don't understand is why it is awarded at the end of regulation. It should be awarded at the end of OT, should the game go to a shootout. OT winners should be awarded 2 points and the loser 0.

When there used to be tie games, the point was awarded to each team when the game ended in a tie, after the 5 minute OT period. It makes no sense to give each team a point first and then decide the winner of the extra point in OT.

[onthehunt526]

4 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

The "loser point" really f**ks up the standings. 

In theory, a team could lose EVERY GAME in ot and finish with 82 points, which in some years will get you in, or really f-ing close. 

That is nonsense.  

I think the NHL has three options here:

1. Bring Ties Back. The problem with Ties is most teams would play the 5 minute overtime trying not to lose the game. In 1998-99, the NHL added the Overtime Loss point to the standings, to try to encourage teams to "go for the win" Then came 4-on-4, now 3-on-3. So if your going be tied after 60 minutes with both teams receiving a point. No need for overtime.

2. Get rid of regular season overtime. If you feel the need to have a "loser point" get rid of the 5-minute period altogether and just go straight to the shootout. Though 3-on-3 has eliminated a lot of shootouts, if you need a "loser point" just go straight to the shootout. Yes there would still be extra points in the standings, but I think the incentive to win in regulation will be there with...

3. Introduce the international 3-point system for the standings. Which is pretty simple.

3 points: Win in Regulation

2 points: Win in OT/Shootout

1 point: Loss in OT or Shootout

0 points: Loss in Regulation

Tiebreakers in standings would be simple: Whoever has more regulation wins... 

I personally like the "original" two-point system, though Ties suck for people watching the game casually, it makes the standings easier to figure out.

Side note: Calgary punched their ticket to the playoffs by beating the Sharks tonight. The Pacific Division is a damn mess. Any one of the 4 playoff teams can still get the No. 1 seed in the Division.

Speaking of the playoffs, I think the format is just "OK". It's the right concept going back to the divisionalish set-up, but get rid of the damn wild cards. I understand that the divisions in the East with 8 teams would be upset by only the top-4 in each division making the playoffs. 

I recently read an article about the current format and how it needs to be tweaked. Some say that the old conference playoff was better, even the old straight divisional playoff was ok. But this is garbage, and it needs to get changed. I hope that when the NHL gets a 32nd team, they revisit it. 

For all of you Ranger fans out there, here's my example: the Rangers have more points than any team in the Atlantic. As the first wild card they would play the lower seeded division champion, which is Montreal. They would not receive home ice advantage in any round. Not even the Second Round if they got past Montreal. This is where the system is flawed. 

But I guess the NHL stole the "crossover rule" from the CFL. Who's crossover rule is just as dumb.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

The "loser point" really f**ks up the standings. 

In theory, a team could lose EVERY GAME in ot and finish with 82 points, which in some years will get you in, or really f-ing close. 

That is nonsense.  

Haven't they done studies and found that it wouldn't have affected much at all in the past so many years?

[onthehunt526]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Haven't they done studies and found that it wouldn't have affected much at all in the past so many years?

Erik, 

It probably doesn't effect the final standings very much at all (by position)

What it does is artificially keep more teams alive for the playoffs mathematically longer. 

One thing I'll say about Calgary's turn around, is we've mostly gotten the job done in regulation and a few in overtime (save the win against the Pens. Sorry, Erik)

I think the "loser point" however is part of the reason there is a clusterf@$# in for the Pacific Division title. Anaheim has 11 OTL Calgary has 4. Would Calgary lead the division if you took the Extra points out. I don't know. I haven't studied the standings that much. 

All I know is, the final week is going to be fun to watch.

Oh and Erik, see you in the Finals.

[Warren Zevon]

In my heart of hearts, I'd really like to see the Islanders sneak into the last wild card spot in the east.   

And when Edmonton and San Jose meet up in the first round those 8:30 starts are going to make the next day at work extra brutal.  

[mcanadiens]

It's all good now. 

Haven't lost a single stinking game yet. 

Bloody damn shame I won't see much of the first week of it.

Edited April 10, 2017 by mcanadiens