View Full Version : Divisional Play is ruining the integrity of the game
Yup.
I hate it.. all it does is punish teams in strong divisions while aiding teams in horrible divisions. Need proof?
Wings record vs St. Louis, LA, San Jose, Phoenix, Anahiem, Columbus, Chicago and Minnesota 14-1
Against Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton 1-5.
I think it was a monstrous mistake for the NHL to allow teams to beat up on weak teams in their own division like this. I've always thought divisional play was stupid, and now that there's even more divsiional games this problem is only going to get worse before it gets better.
MadDevil
11-18-05, 1:11 AM
What's the difference though between a team beating up on weaker teams within their division or them beating up on weaker teams from a different division? I really don't have a problem with the schedule, and I think it's a bit early, only 20 games in to say that the schedule is completely ruining the game.
Teams that are bottom feeders in their divisions this year might not be as bad next year, or the year after. Besides, I really don't think teams like Detroit, or Ottawa would have that different of a record if they didn't play so many divisional games.
By the way, part if this hatred wouldn't be the fact that the Oilers are 3-4 against their division would it?:D
Oilers are in the toughest division in hockey, and have to fight for a playoff spot while a team like St. Louis last year can make it in because they get 4 free wins that the Oilers don't get... this year Nashville gets to play 12 more games against Columbus, Chicago and St. Louis while we play 12 more against Calgary, Colorado and Minnesota.
It's a stupid setup. There's no reason you can't have a some-what balanced schedule.
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 2:47 AM
Oilers are in the toughest division in hockey,
I have to disagree, the north east div. is definately tougher and possibly the Atlantic as well. But I do agree it does suck that the leafs play Ottawa, Montreal and Boston 8 times each. Buffalo would give Nashville a run for second in the central, but they will be fighting to stay out of the basement in the Northeast.
I have to disagree, the north east div. is definately tougher and possibly the Atlantic as well. But I do agree it does suck that the leafs play Ottawa, Montreal and Boston 8 times each. Buffalo would give Nashville a run for second in the central, but they will be fighting to stay out of the basement in the Northeast.
First off.. Atlantic?
You can't be serious?
There's two teams in that division that are of anyones concern. Three teams that have been outscored, two of which are into the double digits. Pittsburgh has had 23 more goals against than for.. BOTTOM FEEDER.
Secondly; NE? How? Ottawa is the class of the league, but after that? Buffalo sucks, and is worse than Minnesota.
Toronto, Boston, Montreal or Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado.
Toronto, Boston and Montreal are a combined -10 and 2 games under .500 (count the OTL as a L)
Edmonton, Calgary and Colorado are a combined +16 and 6 games over .500
4/5 teams in the NW are harder. There are no free wins.
And Buffalo would give Nashville a run for 2nd? :laughing: Have you ever even watched a Nashville game? An amazing defensive core that beats the hell out of Buffalo's, a speedy, high-octane group of forwards and one of the best 'tenders in the league. Buffalo has what? A guy who made a career playing beside Peter Forsberg and Jay McKee? Oh, and a rookie goalie... who's hurt.
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 3:13 AM
Don't get a boner over your stupid +/- stat. The simple fact is you have to score a lot more goals to win in the Atlantic and Northeast divisions to win.
The goaltenders are better, the stars are bigger and brighter, and the divisions are harder to win in.
Don't get a boner over your stupid +/- stat. The simple fact is you have to score a lot more goals to win in the Atlantic and Northeast divisions to win.
The goaltenders are better, the stars are bigger and brighter, and the divisions are harder to win in.
.. except my +/- stat is right.
Check the history of it, very few teams ever out perform it. Hell, even this early in the season with a massive amount of variables (GP, against who) it's still holding up if you look at it. Divisionally with only roughly 20 GP out of 30 teams, there are SIX out of place.
So, how about you don't get a boner over your eastern bias? Thanks :thumb:
...I'm still trying to get over how you sound Al Strachan right now :rollover:
I love arguments like"the goaltenders are better because I saw this guy once, and he made a glove save" and that "the stars are bigger and brighter, because Mats Sundin once ate a bowl of chunky soup and was on TV"
If statisitics don't back you up in any way, shape or form.. chances are you're wrong.
http://oilfans.com/article.php?id=NEWS-2005-08-24
Check it out. It proves you wrong.. again. You'll get used to it eventually.
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 3:55 AM
Go ahead compare all the players position by position, the NE is way more tallented than the NW.
Hasek, Theodore, Belfour vs. Kiprusoff, Markkanen, Aebischer
1.Alfie, Heats, Thornton vs. Iggy, Bert, Naslund
2.Sundin, Spezza, Murray vs. Sakic , Hejduk, Tanguay
3.Havlat, Samsonov, Koivu vs. Gaborik, Smyth, Morrison
4.Oneil, Lindros, Allison vs Amonte, Reinprect, Horcoff
5.Briere, Kovalev, Zednik vs Hemsky, Rolston, h. Sedin
6.Zhamnov, Ryder, Ribeiro vs. Turgeon, Stoll, Torres
After line three the NW starts getting thin.
The NE is the toughest division to win in at this time. The Western conference as a whole is weaker team-wise than the East.
Not counting tonight, the NE division has scored 27 more goals than the NW to this point which translates into over a 100 goal difference by the end of the season. If having to score more goals per game to get a win doesn't make it harder to win what does?
Newfie John
11-18-05, 7:25 AM
The NE division is the toughest division in hockey. You have the best team in the league right now in it(Ottawa). The leafs, could finish 4th in the east, The Habs, who have been doing very well this season and could also finish 4th in the east, you have Buffalo who will make the playoffs this year. Then you have Boston who could also make the playoffs this year, they won the division the last season we played.
Max Power
11-18-05, 10:07 AM
I have to agree the North east is a tougher division then the North West for many reasons. You can't take away from any of the teams using stats as Ottawa has been the one running up the score on all of these teams excluding Montreal.
Saying this I agree with PDO on both aspects that 8 games are too much and they should go down to 6. Also North West is not far behind as being the toughest division and I would say is equally as tough for the teams on it as they are all playoff contenders.
I especially don?t like the fact that each team doesn?t play each other at least once
flyerfan2
11-18-05, 12:39 PM
Yup.
I hate it.. all it does is punish teams in strong divisions while aiding teams in horrible divisions. Need proof?
Wings record vs St. Louis, LA, San Jose, Phoenix, Anahiem, Columbus, Chicago and Minnesota 14-1
Against Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton 1-5.
I think it was a monstrous mistake for the NHL to allow teams to beat up on weak teams in their own division like this. I've always thought divisional play was stupid, and now that there's even more divsiional games this problem is only going to get worse before it gets better.Sounds like a bunch of crap whinning from a fan of a crappy team.!! The 80's are over so get over it the Oilers are a fringe team at best.!! Looks good on them also.!!!
Madferret
11-18-05, 12:48 PM
Sounds like a bunch of crap whinning from a fan of a crappy team.!! The 80's are over so get over it the Oilers are a fringe team at best.!! Looks good on them also.!!!
Well done. :rolleyes:
flyerfan2
11-18-05, 1:02 PM
Well done. :rolleyes: Gee still full of knowledgeable insight i see Dev.:thumb: good boy.!!
I like the idea of teams in the same division battling each other so often for playoff spots. This allows teams to secure playoff spots against the very teams they are competing against for thoughs spots. It also makes for some more intense games when each game carry's a four point swing against a divisional team.
Madferret
11-18-05, 1:11 PM
Gee still full of knowledgeable insight i see Dev.:thumb: good boy.!!
Ok, well done crappy crap crap. Better?
:)
Oilers are in the toughest division in hockey, and have to fight for a playoff spot while a team like St. Louis last year can make it in because they get 4 free wins that the Oilers don't get... this year Nashville gets to play 12 more games against Columbus, Chicago and St. Louis while we play 12 more against Calgary, Colorado and Minnesota.
It's a stupid setup. There's no reason you can't have a some-what balanced schedule.
I have to agree, the conference standings will be totally out of whack by years end due to the complete lack of a balanced schedule, it is an unfair and totally ridiculous way to determine playoff rankings, and I believe was done so more to increase scoring than to create rivalries, and even that in itself has gone too far, with all the divisional play we basically now have 6 mini-leagues with a bit of interleague play thrown in. :no:
It seems the league has pulled out all the stops, including all integrity, in order to get those goals/game averages up, and I for one don't care for our game being turned into basketball on ice.
MadDevil
11-18-05, 3:07 PM
No matter what kind of schedule the NHL has, people will always bitch about the schedule being unfair to their team. Right now it may seem unfair, but who's to say the Southeast will be a crappy division 3 years from now? Maybe the Northeast won't be as tough as it is now 3 years down the road, so on and so forth...
The league changes, and so will the toughness of the divisions. Something I'm wondering though, if the Oilers weren't in a tough division, would you still be complaining about it? If, say the Oilers were in first place in the division because their division opponents weren't as good as they are now?
I think we should give the schedule more than 20 games before we start destroying it.:thumb:
Max Power
11-18-05, 3:34 PM
because their division opponents weren't as good as they are now?
I think we should give the schedule more than 20 games before we start destroying it.:thumb:
It still doesn?t change the fact that I may not see my team play let's say Detroit for 1 or 2 years. To me it's not the competition but more the diversity. 6 games is enough to heighten rivalries and will also give the opportunity for each team to play each other at least twice a year
No matter what kind of schedule the NHL has, people will always bitch about the schedule being unfair to their team. Right now it may seem unfair, but who's to say the Southeast will be a crappy division 3 years from now? Maybe the Northeast won't be as tough as it is now 3 years down the road, so on and so forth...
The league changes, and so will the toughness of the divisions. Something I'm wondering though, if the Oilers weren't in a tough division, would you still be complaining about it? If, say the Oilers were in first place in the division because their division opponents weren't as good as they are now?
I think we should give the schedule more than 20 games before we start destroying it.:thumb:
If you're talking to me, I'm not an Oilers fan, my teams are the Wings and Canucks who are at the top of their respective divisions. But that's not the point, the point is, how can you properly determine Conference playoff seeding when the teams are playing almost half their games against only 4 other teams in their own division?
MadDevil
11-18-05, 4:07 PM
It still doesn?t change the fact that I may not see my team play let's say Detroit for 1 or 2 years. To me it's not the competition but more the diversity. 6 games is enough to heighten rivalries and will also give the opportunity for each team to play each other at least twice a year
I do agree that it would be nice if a team played every team in the league at least once a season, but I don't think the new shedule is "ruining the integrity of the game". That seems a bit harsh to me, considering we're not even halfway through the season.
The one thing that bothers me with the new schedule is that fans of certain teams won't get to see some of the exciting talent from the other conference. Western Conference teams don't get to see much of Kovalchuk, Heatley, Spezza, Thornton, Sundin, Luongo, Brodeur, and others in the Eastern Conference. Easter Conference teams don't see much of Sakic, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Nash, Modano, Niedermayer, etc.
I will give the NHL the benefit of the doubt for at least this season, with so much change, it will take a while to get used to the "new NHL". I think it's going to take more than one season for the fans to adjust to all the changes.
I think 6 games each against division opponents is fine. That makes up about 30% of the schedule. That's more than enough devoted to 4 teams.
But I think 8 games each is too much. Quite frankly I would like to see the Devils and Islanders a few less times per season... in favor of some Western teams coming in that I don't get a good look at very often, especially the far west coast teams that don't usually play before 10:30 PM my time.
As far as this set-up being advantageous to some teams... it does look like Detroit and Nashville will have an easy go of it in the central. But on the other hand, Ottawa is 10-0-0 in the Northeast, and most agree that division is no cake-walk.
Newfie John
11-18-05, 5:25 PM
If we see divisional play too much, it won't be as intense or as interesting IMO. I'd like to see it back down to 6.
Leafs_Fa_Life
11-18-05, 5:34 PM
If we see divisional play too much, it won't be as intense or as interesting IMO. I'd like to see it back down to 6.
Yeah, I agree.
I don't like seeing the same teams over and over again.
KB in Kelowna
11-18-05, 5:47 PM
The schedule is a result of cost cutting by the owners. More divisional games less travel across the continent. The Devils have a three game road trip in January where they play Detroit, Chicago and St.Louis if I recall and that will be the only time they play outside the eastern time zone all season. Old time original six rivalries and intra-Canadian rivalries are the big losers in this arrangement. I like the new game as it is more wide open than what we saw in the ate 90's and early this decade, but the new sched should be looked at in the near future.
The schedule is a result of cost cutting by the owners. More divisional games less travel across the continent. The Devils have a three game road trip in January where they play Detroit, Chicago and St.Louis if I recall and that will be the only time they play outside the eastern time zone all season. Old time original six rivalries and intra-Canadian rivalries are the big losers in this arrangement. I like the new game as it is more wide open than what we saw in the ate 90's and early this decade, but the new sched should be looked at in the near future.
The travel thing is just one more aspect of the lack of balance. Sure the Eastern teams don't have to travel, they never did as much, but now their travel is an hour or 2 at most within the division, while out west, despite increased division play, the travel is still very significant for many of the teams, especially in the Northwest division, which again leads to lack of parity in playoff seedings.
KB in Kelowna
11-18-05, 5:56 PM
The travel thing is just one more aspect of the lack of balance. Sure the Eastern teams don't have to travel, they never did as much, but now their travel is an hour or 2 at most within the division, while out west, despite increased division play, the travel is still very significant for many of the teams, especially in the Northwest division, which again leads to lack of parity in playoff seedings.
We could really open a can of worms on the old eatern team vs western team travel arguement. However lets not go there. ;)
The schedule is a result of cost cutting by the owners. More divisional games less travel across the continent. The Devils have a three game road trip in January where they play Detroit, Chicago and St.Louis if I recall and that will be the only time they play outside the eastern time zone all season. Old time original six rivalries and intra-Canadian rivalries are the big losers in this arrangement. I like the new game as it is more wide open than what we saw in the ate 90's and early this decade, but the new sched should be looked at in the near future.
That's a good point, the travel. Many of the Western conference teams have long flights for the majority of their games, even division rivals. That's why Detroit (so I've heard) has long coveted a switch to the Eastern conference.
But you look at a team like the Devils as you mentioned. 3 out of their 4 division opponents don't even require getting on a plane. As for Pittsburgh? maybe an hour flight tops.
Take a look at where Colorado is on a map. No matter who they're playing, they have to travel farther for one game than some East coast teams might travel in weeks.
I do hope they knock it back to 6 games in the near future. If it's to pinch travel pennies like you say, I think that's ridiculous. And not particuarly fair to Western teams who are already saddled with hectic travel to begin with.
However lets not go there.
hehe whoops - didn't see that there. :wave: :boogie:
I like the idea of playing your division more than the other teams in the league. It makes since travel wise, builds rivalries, and makes more "4 point games" out of normally boring matchups. But it's a bit much right now. Ottawa has played 17 games now and only 7 different opponent. That's too repetitive. It also gives strong teams in weak divisions an unfair advantage in the standings when it gets to this level. True teams should just have to take their lumps with the scheduals they're dealt, but it's not fair at this rate. Why does Detroit get 24 games they "should win" right off the bat thanks to being in the same division as Columbus, Chicago, and St Louis? I know hockey has to be played on the ice, but still.
And the North East is tougher than the North West IMO:
Ottawa > Vancouver
Montreal > Colorado
Toronto = Edmonton (very close, so I suppose you could give it to either way. But it's pretty much a wash, really)
Buffalo < Calgary
Boston > Minnesota
But it's a bit much right now. Ottawa has played 17 games now and only 7 different opponent. That's too repetitive.
You think that's bad, The Rangers played 7 of their first 15 games against teams from the same market :rolleyes:
As it stands now they have played 33% of their games against metro NY teams. (yes New Jersey is a metro NY team - they play much closer to NYC than the Islanders).
To put it in perspective, do the math - and that's like the Mets playing the Yankees 53 times in one season :snore:
Sorry but with the complete re-invention of the NHL, these local rivalries, at least here in New York, simply do not hold the intensity they once did. Right now there is nothing special, it's just another game. Almost all of the Ranger are new by a season or less. The Devils are decimated. Both the Isles and Rangers lost all the guys who added fire to their matchups in recent seasons.
You cannot force an exciting rivalry by making them play each other more often. That's already been proven to be the case here in the early going.
I would much rather see some Western teams swing into town now and again. Here is the Rangers entire home schedule against Western teams for this whole season.
December 5 Minnesota
December 13 Vancouver
December 18 Colorado
January 10 Calgary
January 12 Edmonton (do C & E travel together to save money? :conspire:)
That's it - 5 whole big ones! WOOT WOOT!
:snore:
Newfie John
11-18-05, 9:15 PM
I like the idea of playing your division more than the other teams in the league. It makes since travel wise, builds rivalries, and makes more "4 point games" out of normally boring matchups. But it's a bit much right now. Ottawa has played 17 games now and only 7 different opponent. That's too repetitive. It also gives strong teams in weak divisions an unfair advantage in the standings when it gets to this level. True teams should just have to take their lumps with the scheduals they're dealt, but it's not fair at this rate. Why does Detroit get 24 games they "should win" right off the bat thanks to being in the same division as Columbus, Chicago, and St Louis? I know hockey has to be played on the ice, but still.
And the North East is tougher than the North West IMO:
Ottawa > Vancouver
Montreal > Colorado
Toronto = Edmonton (very close, so I suppose you could give it to either way. But it's pretty much a wash, really)
Buffalo < Calgary
Boston > Minnesota
This is offtopic but i'd have to put Toronto>Edmonton. I'm bias ofcourse but we have a better offense and we have better goaltending.
This is offtopic but i'd have to put Toronto>Edmonton. I'm bias ofcourse but we have a better offense and we have better goaltending.
Doot do do..
.899 or .890 SV%
2.89 GAA or 3.43 GAA
5 on 5 Edm has 1 more goal for than Toronto.
5 on 5 Edm has allowed 5 fewer goals.
Edmonton also has played the hardest schedule in the NHL up to this point (7 game roadtrip, 9 of 10 on the road, and 14 games of 21 on the road).
Toronto has a better PP, a better PK (by 1%).. and Edmonton is statistically better in every other single meaningful statistic.
So yes.. you are just biased :).
I also fail to see how its harder to win a game 6-5 than 3-2.
Finally, Andy, is there any reason you sorted in that particular order? I would be comparing Edmonton and Montreal (equal, and I think that is being generous) Calgary is better than Toronto, and Colorado is definetly better than Boston. That just leaves Minnesota and Buffalo.. and while Minnesota is struggling right now, they are injury riddeled and you have to imagine will only get better. Buffalo is a weak sister in the NE, in the NW Minnesota is never a free win.
PDO, I tried to make it as fair as possible. For example, I wouldn't stack Ottawa and Minnesota against each other. In the North East, I think it goes Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Boston in that order with the last two being interchangable depending on the fan. In the North West, it's Vancouver, Colorado, Edmonton, Calgary, Minny. So that lead to this order:
Ottawa - Vancouver
Montreal - Colorado
Toronto - Edmonton
Buffalo - Calgary
Boston - Minnesota
All IMO of course, but that's how'd I'd rank these teams. Instead of Buffalo/Boston being pretty interchangible in the East, you get EDM and COL out West. I just feel the Avs are a bit underrated now after losing guys like Forsberg and Foote and replacing them with no big names. Obviously, they aren't as good as they were before but I'm not convinced they've declined as much as some fans (mostly Canuckle-heads due to the rivalry lol ;)) would have you believe.
KB in Kelowna
11-18-05, 10:21 PM
Well since our glorious leader brought it up, one thing that always got me about the 1994 Rangers was their lack of travel through the playoffs. Now I know it is a result of geography, but imagine if the playoffs were based on league wide rankings 1 vs 16, 2 s 15 etc. I am sure somebody will crunch the numbers and tell us that Ottawa would play say Edmonton and Detroit go against Tampa in round one. That would be interesting, at least to me ;)
PS John, PDO considers Vancouver Leafs West
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 10:23 PM
Toronto is better than Edmonton anyday. So is Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver, Colorado, Boston and of course Ottawa.
The only reason Edmonton has numbers like it does is because it doesn't face the fire power the Leafs do night in night out. Stick EDM in the NE, and they're growing 'shrooms in the basement. In the Western Conference you don't need to score as many goals to win as in the East. Look at the stats.
Vancouver brings Naslund and Bertuzzi, whereas Ottawa brings Alfredsson, Heatley, Spezza, and Havlat. Colorado has Sakic, Hejduk and Tanguay Whereas Boston brings Thornton, Murray and Samsonov. Calgary's offense is dominated by Iginla with some help from Reinprect whereas Montreal has Kovalev, Koivu, Zednik, Ryder, Ribeiro.
When the Leafs play out side of their division they run into players like Crosby, Staal, Forsberg, Gagne, Palffy, Recchi, Lemieux, Kovalchuk, Hossa, Jagr, Bondra, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, Ovetchkin, Savard, Yashin, Satan.
Outside the NW there is a serious drop in the tallent level of the rest of the west.
Datsyuk, Demitra, Selanne, Nash, Gaborik, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Modano, Guerin, Weight, Tkachuk, Nagy, Fedorov.
Funny the list from the west is no where near as dangerous as the list from the east. It would stand to reason that where the tallent level is higher it will be harder to win.
Toronto is better than Edmonton anyday. So is Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver, Colorado, Boston and of course Ottawa.
Edmonton is better than Toronto any day. So is Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver, Colorado, Boston and of ccourse Ottawa.
It really is easy to say things without any sort of facts, isn't it?
The only reason Edmonton has numbers like it does is because it doesn't face the fire power the Leafs do night in night out. Stick EDM in the NE, and they're growing 'shrooms in the basement. In the Western Conference you don't need to score as many goals to win as in the East. Look at the stats.
Vancouver brings Naslund and Bertuzzi, whereas Ottawa brings Alfredsson, Heatley, Spezza, and Havlat. Colorado has Sakic, Hejduk and Tanguay Whereas Boston brings Thornton, Murray and Samsonov. Calgary's offense is dominated by Iginla with some help from Reinprect whereas Montreal has Kovalev, Koivu, Zednik, Ryder, Ribeiro.
When the Leafs play out side of their division they run into players like Crosby, Staal, Forsberg, Gagne, Palffy, Recchi, Lemieux, Kovalchuk, Hossa, Jagr, Bondra, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, Ovetchkin, Savard, Yashin, Satan.
Outside the NW there is a serious drop in the tallent level of the rest of the west.
Datsyuk, Demitra, Selanne, Nash, Gaborik, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Modano, Guerin, Weight, Tkachuk, Nagy, Fedorov.
Funny the list from the west is no where near as dangerous as the list from the east. It would stand to reason that where the tallent level is higher it will be harder to win.
How about we talk about defenseman if we just want to list a long list of players and then say "well, they're OBVIOUSLY better than these guys." Pronger, Smith, Staios, Hamrlik, Warrenener, Phaneuf, Ohlund, Jovo, Blake, or.. Chara, Redden, Phillips.. uh.. Kaberle.. maybe that Hal Gil guy, oh, how could I forget, Belak!
Charlio, I know you hate Edmonton because they've done something that teams you cheer for haven't.. and that's win championships. It's okay, I'm used to it. However, I'm going to have to ask you to use some sort of.. say.. logic? When you make outrageous comments. Actually, I won't.
I find it extremely humerous that I'll bring up statistics, and you'll argue by saying "McCabe is better than Pronger." Why? "Because I said so. Duh. It's obvious."
Then again, you're a NHL scout, correct? :wicked:
Madferret
11-18-05, 10:49 PM
Toronto is better than Edmonton anyday. So is Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver, Colorado, Boston and of course Ottawa.
The only reason Edmonton has numbers like it does is because it doesn't face the fire power the Leafs do night in night out.
I beg to differ.
I'd take the Oiler roster and future prospects over the Leafs current & prospect group anyday. Which team do you think is better equipped to last the whole season in terms of injury Charlio. How about the bluelines. Any team that has Aki Berg and Wade Belak playing defense, who have been out-shot 95% of their games so far, are going to burn out and crumble by January.
Charlio, do us a favour and post up every game for each team and the result, then tell us again who has faced more firepower. How many times have the Leafs played Vancouver? Calgary? Detroit?
The only reason the Leafs are 5 games under 500, and I can't stress the word only enough, is because of their PP.
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 11:13 PM
You are such a homer. I don't hate Edm,(although their fans are strange) but you sound like I did in the Eighties pulling stats out of my arse to try and make the Leafs seem better than they are. You are doing the same with Edm.
Give it up. Edmonton is in a weaker conference, a weaker division, and faces less tallent night in night out than the Leafs.
Then again, you're a NHL scout, correct?
It's obvious you're not. Edmonton is a middle of the road team and has been for years. You thought Peca would be some 30 goal saviour, with Pronger to the rescue of the Powerplay. Well guess what? The Oilers are lucky to be in such a weak conference, where they will atleast have a shot at the playoffs.
A couple of doses of Ottawa with some Montreal and Philly for dessert would wipe the smile off any Oiler face. Try to stop Hossa, Bondra, Savard and Kovalchuk for a few games and you'd be begging for ol' Joe Sakic and company. You picked on Pittsburg for their minus 20 something, but even with such a huge minus, offensively they are just as, if not more, dangerous than anyone in the NW division. When it comes down to it you can't contain such a powerful offense every night.
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 11:17 PM
I beg to differ.
I'd take the Oiler roster and future prospects over the Leafs current & prospect group anyday. Which team do you think is better equipped to last the whole season in terms of injury Charlio. How about the bluelines. Any team that has Aki Berg and Wade Belak playing defense, who have been out-shot 95% of their games so far, are going to burn out and crumble by January.
Charlio, do us a favour and post up every game for each team and the result, then tell us again who has faced more firepower. How many times have the Leafs played Vancouver? Calgary? Detroit? The only reason the Leafs are 5 games under 500, and I can't stress the word only enough, is because of their PP.
How many times has Edmonton faced Ottawa, Boston, Montreal, Philly, NYR, ATL, PIT, Car, TB ?
What are u smokin'? There is way more firepower in the East.
Madferret
11-18-05, 11:22 PM
Toronto is better than Edmonton anyday. So is Calgary, Montreal, Vancouver, Colorado, Boston and of course Ottawa.
The only reason Edmonton has numbers like it does is because it doesn't face the fire power the Leafs do night in night out.
Ok, I'll do the honours..
Toronto
Senators 3 - 2 L
Canadiens 5 - 4 L
Senators 5 - 6 L
Flyers 2 - 4 W
Thrashers 9 - 1 W
Canadiens 3 - 2 W
Hurricanes 4 - 5 W
Flyers 5 - 2 L
Bruins 4 - 5 W
Bruins 1 - 2 L
Senators 8 - 0 L
Panthers 1 - 2 W
Hurricanes 3 - 4 L
Lightning 3 - 5 W
Capitals 4 - 5 L
Capitals 4 - 6 W
Sabres 2 - 5 L
Canadiens 5 - 4 W
Rangers 1 - 2 W
Bruins 4 - 1 W
Edmonton
Colorado 5-3 W
Vancouver 4-3 W
Ducks 4-2 W
Kings 3-1 L
Stars 3-2 L
Flames 3-0 L
Coyotes 4-3 OT L
Flames 3-1 L
Colorado 7-1 L
Colorado 5-3 L
Stars 5-3 W
Preds 5-1 W
BJ's 5-1 W
Wings 4-3 W
Blues 7-2 W
Stars 4-0 L
Preds 3-2 L
BJ's 3-1 W
Hawks 3-1 L
Colorado 5-2 W
Wings 6-5 W
Edmonton has also played 14 games on the road, including a 7 game road trip. Toronto has played 9 games on the road, only 4 in October.
I ask you again, who has played the better teams up until this point?
You are such a homer. I don't hate Edm,(although their fans are strange) but you sound like I did in the Eighties pulling stats out of my arse to try and make the Leafs seem better than they are. You are doing the same with Edm.
Or, I'm just saying what the stats say. Coincidently the statisitics back up my theories. Who'd of thought I was right.
Give it up. Edmonton is in a weaker conference, a weaker division, and faces less tallent night in night out than the Leafs.
Prove it. Don't just give me names. Give me numbers. I want proof, not rhetoric.
It's obvious you're not.
Really? How come when I think something the statistics back it up then? How come I was able to call that Phoenix would suck. How come I was able to call that Frolov and Demitra would be deadly together? How come I was able to call that Hemsky was a PPG player?
Edmonton is a middle of the road team and has been for years.
We're a middle of the road team this year? I never knew a 100 point team was a middle of the road team. Thanks for keeping me updated! I don't know without you Charlio. That is, besides have a conversation with someone that actually involved logic.
You thought Peca would be some 30 goal saviour,
And he hasn't been, but because of the minutes he's played Horcoff has been. What's your point?
with Pronger to the rescue of the Powerplay.
From 30th to 15th. Looks like it's been rescued to me. Pronger has also (once again) been the best defenseman in the league. 28:28 a night, on pace for 40 points (which, I know means the world to you) and playing in every situation.
Well guess what? The Oilers are lucky to be in such a weak conference, where they will atleast have a shot at the playoffs.
Prove it. Give me statisitics.
A couple of doses of Ottawa with some Montreal and Philly for dessert would wipe the smile off any Oiler face.
Montreal and Philly are at absolute best comparable to Detroit and Colorado. What's your point again?
Try to stop Hossa, Bondra, Savard and Kovalchuk for a few games and you'd be begging for ol' Joe Sakic and company.
I'd love to see the Oiler offense have a field day on that Atlanta defense. You know there's two ends of the ice? Here, let me give you a big picture to simplify thigns for you..
http://www.momsguide.com/icehockey/images/ice_hockey_rink.gif
Okay, now notice these positons called "defenseman" and "goalie"? They're important. You see, you can have all the "firepower" in the world, but you'll never win a game if you score 6 and allow 8. Ever.
You picked on Pittsburg for their minus 20 something, but even with such a huge minus, offensively they are just as, if not more, dangerous than anyone in the NW division. When it comes down to it you can't contain such a powerful offense every night.
Yeah.. too bad they'll score 4 but you'll score 8. It doesn't matter how many goals you score if you can't prevent them.
BTW.
Prove it. :boogie:
charlio lemieux
11-18-05, 11:51 PM
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
Players in bold are from the Eastern Conference.
Rank Player Team Pts
1 Daniel Alfredsson Ott 34
2 Peter Forsberg Phi 33
3 Dany Heatley Ott 31
4t Vaclav Prospal TB 30
4t Eric Staal Car 30
6t Jaromir Jagr NYR 29
6t Jason Spezza Ott 29
8t Simon Gagne Phi 27
8t Bryan McCabe Tor 27
8t Joe Thornton Bos 27
11t Pavol Demitra LA 26
11t Marc Savard Atl 26
13 Markus Naslund Van 25
14t Craig Conroy LA 24
14t Sidney Crosby Pit 24
14t Vincent Lecavalier TB 24
17t Pavel Datsyuk Det 23
17t Alexander Frolov LA 23
17t Marian Hossa Atl 23
17t Saku Koivu Mon 23
17t Alexei Yashin NYI 23
TimmyTabasco
11-19-05, 1:27 AM
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
STATISTICS! STATISTICS! STATISTICS!
Players in bold are from the Eastern Conference.
Whats your point?
That in the East, its easier to score goals? :thumb: :D
Whats your point?
That in the East, its easier to score goals? :thumb: :D
Took the words out of my drunken mouth :rollover:
Newfie John
11-19-05, 9:13 AM
Toronto's offense is better then Edmontons. PDO just because you bring up these 5 on 5 statistics doesn't make a difference. PP is an offensive stat and we have the best one in the league. We have a better offense then you. I dont care what you say, Ed Belfour is better than any of your goalies. Eddie had a rough start, but he's been coming around lately. I'd much rather have Eddie in net then Ty Conklin or minor leaguer Jussi Markkanen.
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 12:17 PM
Whats your point?
That in the East, its easier to score goals? :thumb: :D
No there's less tallent in the West.
Toronto's offense is better then Edmontons. PDO just because you bring up these 5 on 5 statistics doesn't make a difference. PP is an offensive stat and we have the best one in the league. We have a better offense then you. I dont care what you say, Ed Belfour is better than any of your goalies. Eddie had a rough start, but he's been coming around lately. I'd much rather have Eddie in net then Ty Conklin or minor leaguer Jussi Markkanen.
Having a better PP means you have a better offense now?
Thanks for giving me a field day Johnny.
In Johns estimation, the following teams have a better offense than Ottawa:
Toronto, Detroit, Atlanta, Philly, Buffalo, New Jersey, Colorado, Montreal, Carolina and Boston.
Minnesota is also .1% away from having a better offense than Ottawa.
Calling Markkanen a minor leaguer is plain ignorant John. Then again, I'm not sure I should expect anything more.
No there's less tallent in the West.
Because talent is 100% indicitive of goals scored. There's OBVIOUSLY no talent involved when we talking about a great goaltender or a stud defenseman. Chris Pronger? Bum. Dwayne Roloson? Blows.
...
:rollover:
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 6:00 PM
Sorry I guess you haven't heard of Luongo, Hasek or Theodore. But then again how many of those guys have either won a Vezina or have atleast been nominated. Hmmm.
Some punk defenseman named McCabe happens to be leading all defense in scoring. How is Prongers point production going? I heard he got his first goal, when was it, last week? Mccabe only has more points than the West's leading scorer, Demitra. But that doesn't count for anything.
MadDevil
11-19-05, 6:04 PM
Back on topic, I don't necessarily like all the changes made with the schedule, but I'm going to give it more than a quarter of a season before I start destroying the thing.
What would your thoughts be on a schedule like this:
6 games against divisional opponents - 24 games
4 games against conference opponents - 40 games
1 game against each non-conference opponent - 15 games
3 additional games against rivals, or extra games between Original Six teams
The divisional games would still be there, teams would see every team in the league at least once a year, and they would get 3 additional games against rivals or Original Six matchups.
Theodore's been crap, you should've mentioned Lundqvist.
I guess you haven't heard of Joesph, Roloson and Kipper? Man, it's easy to argue like this! I can just list names and feel like I'm accomplishing something!
Prongers on pace for 45 points, but thanks for the concern! There's a reason he's widely considered the best defenseman in the league and McCabe won't even make Team Canada.
Charlio, you've proven everything you'll ever have to. You think McCabe is better than Pronger. I think I might hurt my ribs here.
Some punk defenseman named McCabe happens to be leading all defense in scoring. How is Prongers point production going? I heard he got his first goal, when was it, last week? Mccabe only has more points than the West's leading scorer, Demitra. But that doesn't count for anything.
Don't ever want to lose that beauty... post of the year candidate.
Back on topic, I don't necessarily like all the changes made with the schedule, but I'm going to give it more than a quarter of a season before I start destroying the thing.
What would your thoughts be on a schedule like this:
6 games against divisional opponents - 24 games
4 games against conference opponents - 40 games
1 game against each non-conference opponent - 15 games
3 additional games against rivals, or extra games between Original Six teams
The divisional games would still be there, teams would see every team in the league at least once a year, and they would get 3 additional games against rivals or Original Six matchups.
Make the 3 games mandatory to be played against teams in the other confrence and you'd be set. I know the Canadian teams would be happy to play each other, and I'm sure you can sell the Blackhawks on seeing Crosby and Ovechkin, etc.
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 6:34 PM
Charlio, you've proven everything you'll ever have to. You think McCabe is better than Pronger. I think I might hurt my ribs here.
Don't twist my words, Boy! You better make sure, before you start telling others what I think.
Where did I say McCabe wass better than pronger? I was only responding to your assertion that there weas no "stud defensemen" in the East.
BTW
McCabe is on pace for 100 points.
Check his Average Ice Time Per Game as well.
But you're to much of a Toronto hater and so Oiler Bias you cannot see simple facts. The tallent level of the East is higher than that of the West.
You stated the Oilers where on pace for 100 points, ya well so is almost half the league, woopie do. You said the Phoenix Coyotes Suck, and yet they are only three points behind your mighty Oilers.
Try to look at things objectively.
Back on topic, I don't necessarily like all the changes made with the schedule, but I'm going to give it more than a quarter of a season before I start destroying the thing.
What would your thoughts be on a schedule like this:
6 games against divisional opponents - 24 games
4 games against conference opponents - 40 games
1 game against each non-conference opponent - 15 games
3 additional games against rivals, or extra games between Original Six teams
The divisional games would still be there, teams would see every team in the league at least once a year, and they would get 3 additional games against rivals or Original Six matchups.
Definitely better than the current one, but I don't see why they can't do:
4 games against each conference team (2 home 2 away) = 56
2 games againts 11 teams in other conference (1 home, 1 away) = 22
1 game against the other 4 non-conference teams (2 home 2 away) = 4
Now that's a truly balanced schedule, combine that with a 1 through 8 seeding system (no divisions) and you've got yourself a fair system to determine playoff seedings east and west.
But in today's NHL of charter flights I don't see why they can't expand the season to 87 games and just have everybody play everybody 3 times (1 extra home game this year for each matchup, then next year the other team gets it), and then they could go 1 through 16 to determine playoff seedings.
Talk about making every game count, and count big.
TimmyTabasco
11-19-05, 6:40 PM
No there's less tallent in the West.
Lets take a look at the goaltenders
For wins..how many goaltenders from the west are in the top 10?
-6
For GAA, how many goaltenders from the west are in the top 10
-again, 6
For Save Percentage..how many goaltenders from the west are in the top 10
-again, 6
Its much tougher to score in the Western conference. Unless ofcourse you face St.Louis, Columbus, or Chicago :thumb:
In the east it seems the goaltending isn't that special. Ofcourse with exception to Luongo, Hasek, Lundqvist, and Gerber
In the west you have goaltenders who are playing better..for example
-Legace
-Turco(he has turned his game around)
-Joseph
-Vokoun
-Kipper
-Roloson
-Fernandez
-Labarbera
-Giggy(he has a decent GAA/SP..especially for anaheim)
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 6:42 PM
And none face the fire power found in the east
TimmyTabasco
11-19-05, 6:43 PM
And none face the fire power found in the east
Thats not the point
The firepower in the east, face weaker goaltending..:talkhand:
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 6:55 PM
No, the goaltending only appears weaker due to the higher skill level of the eastern competition.
Thats not the point
The firepower in the east, face weaker goaltending..:talkhand:
Sauceboy, it's falling on very deaf ears.
Al Strachan and Bruce Garrioch are always right, the Sens are too soft to ever beat Toronto in the playoffs and the Leafs are gonig to win the cup this year because they have grit.
MadDevil
11-19-05, 7:10 PM
Why are we even comparing the skill levels of the two conferences? Does it somehow prove that one conference is better than the other?
6 of the last 10 Cups have been won by Western Conference teams, while the Devils and Lightning have been the only two Eastern teams to win Cups since the 93-94 Rangers.
And now I'm off-topic again.:laughing:
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 7:26 PM
Al Strachan and Bruce Garrioch are always right, the Sens are too soft to ever beat Toronto in the playoffs and the Leafs are gonig to win the cup this year because they have grit.
Again if this is any reference towards myself you are again in error. You did make reference of me being Strachan earlier, which I found Very Offensive PDO, so I will take this as a reference to me again. I have not said the Leafs will win the cup. And yet it is inferred that as my apparent alter ego Strachan is saying just that. Quit making stuff up. I have a valid argument for my point of view, and because you cannot find flaws, other than your wonderful +/- aberration(which in itself is flawed), you become insulting, invent things I supposedly said, and start calling names. You asked me for facts and I provided them. You ignored them as is you choice but then you start making up stuff I didn't say. Where are your other facts to support your point. If you Want to debate fine. But don't make stuff up.
Again if this is any reference towards myself you are again in error. You did make reference of me being Strachan earlier, which I found Very Offensive PDO, so I will take this as a reference to me again. I have not said the Leafs will win the cup. And yet it is inferred that as my apparent alter ego Strachan is saying just that. Quit making stuff up. I have a valid argument for my point of view, and because you cannot find flaws, other than your wonderful +/- aberration(which in itself is flawed), you become insulting, invent things I supposedly said, and start calling names. You asked me for facts and I provided them. You ignored them as is you choice but then you start making up stuff I didn't say. Where are your other facts to support your point. If you Want to debate fine. But don't make stuff up.
That's rich.
I'm calling Eastern Bias on you Charlio, yes. You've yet to read that article, eh? And I quote..
During the history of the NHL, there has been a weak correlation between GF and winning percentage (.317) and between GA and winning percentage (-0.37). Strong defence or a strong offence will not suffice alone to guarantee a strong winning percentage. The key is goal differential. The correlation between goal differential and winning percentage since 1917-1918 is 0.93.
Do you understand what that means? At all?
How does this look in practice? The table below sets out the variation between actual and expected winning percentage for the 1115 team seasons that have occurred. Variation represents actual winning percentage minus expected winning percentage. To offer an example of this, the 1989-90 Edmonton Oilers had an actual winning percentage of 0.563 (90 pts divided by 160 possible points). Their goal differential was +32, which would lead us to expect them to post 89 points, for an expected winning percentage of 0.556. Thus, their variation was +.007.
.041%.
In 25 years of the Edmonton Oilers history, that's the most their predicted winning % from GF/GA has been off from their actual winning %. A winning % is determined by your total points divided by your total possible points. A team outperforming this percent is so rare it's considered an anomaly.
Your "facts" involve stats that anyone can fling around in any possible way, and have no real meaning at all.
Anyway, I think my points been proven; that being; you're an NHL scout who makes $100,000 a year because he can look and see who the leading scorer in the NHL is and come to the conclusion that the Eastern Confrence has MORE POWER (cue Tim Allen laugh.) than the Western Confrence. Goal differential is an extremely useful tool and I guess old dogs will never be taught new tricks.
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 7:56 PM
I read the article. So insightful, If a team scores more goals than it lets in it will win. The greater the difference in goals For vs. goals Against the greater the winning percentage. Wow somebody call Einstein!
It is a wonderful equation. But it doesn't erase the fact that facing higher tallent levels in your opponent makes the game harder to win.
You can't take the +/- stats in the West and compare them to the East because there is less of a scoring threat on average in the West than is found in the Easter Conference. Fewer snipers equals fewer goals, it's that simple.
TimmyTabasco
11-19-05, 8:06 PM
Fewer snipers equals fewer goals, it's that simple.
:confused:
The western conference does have its fair share of snipers
:confused:
The western conference does have its fair share of snipers
I'm still waiting for an explanation for how its harder to win a game 6-5 than 3-2. I'm also waiting for an explanation of how you can prove if hte goalies are better or if the snipers are better. Obviously you can't, but it's fun to base arguments off of irrational idea's ;)
BTW, I have a rock that stops Tigers from attacking me. Want proof? I don't see any Tigers here.
Iced Tea
11-19-05, 9:15 PM
What does one conference being better than the other have to do with this discussion? The thread is about playing the same teams 8 stinking times.
I don't want to see the Canucks play the Wild, Flames, Oilers and rotten Avs 8 times. I'd rather see 6 games tops and more games against Detroit, Dallas, even LA and Nashville.
Another thing is the weird schedule the Canucks have against divisional opponents.
October:
1 vs Oilers
3 vs Wild
0 vs Flames
3 vs Avs
November:
0 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
3 vs Avs
December:
3 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
January:
0 vs Oilers
0 vs Wild
1 vs Flames
1 vs Avs
February:
1 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
March:
3 vs Oilers
2 vs Wild
0 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
April:
0 vs Oilers
0 vs Wild
1 vs Flames
1 vs Avs
They have already played the Wild 4 times, the Avs 4 times and play them twice more at the end of November. The Canucks have played the Flames twice and the Oilers once. What is with the wacky schedule? 6 games against the Avs before the end of the second month of the season, how is that creating rivalry when the Canucks and Avs play only twice more in the entire season, once on Jan 28 and once on April 15th, the Canucks last game of the season.
March and April should be when division rivals play most but the Canucks face the Flames and Avs once a piece and considering both these opponents are hated rivals, this is when they should be duking it out. Luckily the Oilers and Wild will be faced in March.
The other weird things is the Canucks are the number one team for most two game sets at other team's arenas. Supposed to be to save travel but the games have been mostly losses.
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 9:25 PM
I'm still waiting for an explanation for how its harder to win a game 6-5 than 3-2. I'm also waiting for an explanation of how you can prove if hte goalies are better or if the snipers are better. Obviously you can't, but it's fun to base arguments off of irrational idea's ;)
BTW, I have a rock that stops Tigers from attacking me. Want proof? I don't see any Tigers here.
Irrational,
Is it , or is it not, hard to score a goal in the NHL?
Answer: Yes it is.
So if I had to score 5 goals to win it would be a harder task than if I only needed to score 3 goals to win.
That is far from irrational thinking. (now I'm irrational?)
Your reasoning is only the opposite. I don't have to score five if I only let in two.
Where the West may use your reasoning, the Arms race in the East has produced several teams with multiple elite players, which makes almost no lead safe.
You think you are funny but you have proven NOTHING. Maybe I haven't either, but atleast I'm not gloating and being ignorant. "Magic tiger rock" get a life!
Irrational,
Is it , or is it not, hard to score a goal in the NHL?
Answer: Yes it is.
I think it's harder to score a goal in the West than the East. Prove me wrong.
You think you are funny but you have proven NOTHING. Maybe I haven't either, but atleast I'm not gloating and being ignorant. "Magic tiger rock" get a life!
Someone's never seen the Simpsons.
charlio lemieux
11-19-05, 9:55 PM
I think it's harder to score a goal in the West than the East. Prove me wrong.
Someone's never seen the Simpsons.
Why is it harder to score a goal in the west? Because there are fewer good goal scrorers. :shrug: :laughing:
You can prove your own point.
As for the rock, I was actually going to give you S#it for not quoting the Simpson's when you used it, but I restrained myself.
Newfie John
11-20-05, 9:52 AM
Having a better PP means you have a better offense now?
Thanks for giving me a field day Johnny.
In Johns estimation, the following teams have a better offense than Ottawa:
Toronto, Detroit, Atlanta, Philly, Buffalo, New Jersey, Colorado, Montreal, Carolina and Boston.
Minnesota is also .1% away from having a better offense than Ottawa.
Calling Markkanen a minor leaguer is plain ignorant John. Then again, I'm not sure I should expect anything more.
I didn't mean a PP alone makes teams better. You know thats not what I meant. But you can't disregard it as you did. It figures into the offensive plan. When you put the PP and ES together you the leafs are a better offensive team then Edmonton. After last night we now have more ES goals then you now too.
Markkanen has played like a minor leaguer so far.
What does one conference being better than the other have to do with this discussion? The thread is about playing the same teams 8 stinking times.
I don't want to see the Canucks play the Wild, Flames, Oilers and rotten Avs 8 times. I'd rather see 6 games tops and more games against Detroit, Dallas, even LA and Nashville.
Another thing is the weird schedule the Canucks have against divisional opponents.
October:
1 vs Oilers
3 vs Wild
0 vs Flames
3 vs Avs
November:
0 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
3 vs Avs
December:
3 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
January:
0 vs Oilers
0 vs Wild
1 vs Flames
1 vs Avs
February:
1 vs Oilers
1 vs Wild
2 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
March:
3 vs Oilers
2 vs Wild
0 vs Flames
0 vs Avs
April:
0 vs Oilers
0 vs Wild
1 vs Flames
1 vs Avs
They have already played the Wild 4 times, the Avs 4 times and play them twice more at the end of November. The Canucks have played the Flames twice and the Oilers once. What is with the wacky schedule? 6 games against the Avs before the end of the second month of the season, how is that creating rivalry when the Canucks and Avs play only twice more in the entire season, once on Jan 28 and once on April 15th, the Canucks last game of the season.
March and April should be when division rivals play most but the Canucks face the Flames and Avs once a piece and considering both these opponents are hated rivals, this is when they should be duking it out. Luckily the Oilers and Wild will be faced in March.
The other weird things is the Canucks are the number one team for most two game sets at other team's arenas. Supposed to be to save travel but the games have been mostly losses.
IT knows. What's with a mod purposely and repeatedly taking this thread WAY off topic??? :no:
Perhaps you two should get a room...
IT knows. What's with a mod purposely and repeatedly taking this thread WAY off topic??? :no:
Perhaps you two should get a room...
Topic: Divisional play is unfair.
Why is it unfair?
Who is it unfair to?
How is it unfair?
Seems like comparing the divisions is a part of this topic to me. Now, I'm kindly going to ask you to not backseat moderate again :wave:
Topic: Divisional play is unfair.
Why is it unfair?
Who is it unfair to?
How is it unfair?
Seems like comparing the divisions is a part of this topic to me. Now, I'm kindly going to ask you to not backseat moderate again :wave:
You're seriously going to claim that a totally bias-based, menushae filled debate about whether the east or west conference has better scorers/goaltenders is on-topic in a thread about whether the division dominated schedule is good or bad?
You're seriously going to claim that a totally bias-based, menushae filled debate between about whether the east or west conference has better scorers/goaltenders is on-topic in a thread about whether the division dominated schedule is good or bad?
I'm seriously going to tell you that you're not in a position to backseat moderate, and that this isn't up for discussion in the open forum. I've asked nicely once, don't push it.
I'm seriously going to tell you that you're not in a position to backseat moderate, and that this isn't up for discussion in the open forum. I've asked nicely once, don't push it.
Fine, but to be accurate, I was merely agreeing with your fellow infallible mod who had stated earlier that it had nothing to do with the topic.
I guess he was wrong too, but then, that's impossible, he's a mod... ;)
Please do not let this thread degrade into personal crap.
Debate the issues till you're blue in the face, but do not personally attack any other member for any reason under any circumstances.
Just a freindly reminder to all. :)
Thanks Mel.
Max Power
11-21-05, 6:08 PM
We'll see how the west compared to east is once we've played more games this year
So far I think it's 1 - 0 for the west and Washington was the winner =]
charlio lemieux
11-21-05, 6:20 PM
WE would need to match up the teams to get an accurate readeing.
Ottawa vs. Detroit
NYR vs. LAK
Carolina vs. Vancouver
Philadelphia vs. Calgary
Montreal vs. Nashville
Tampa Bay vs. Dallas
Toronto vs. Colorado
NYI vs. Phoenix
Atlanta vs. Chicago
Buffalo vs. Edmonton
Florida vs. San Jose
New Jersey vs. St Louis
Boston vs. Anaheim
Pittsburg vs Minnisota
Washington vs Columbus
Daryl Shilling
11-24-05, 10:14 PM
I have no serious problem with increased divisional play, but I think that if it's used then the playoff structure needs to be changed. Conference standings don't really make much sense if clubs play such a large portion of the schedule against only teams in their own division.
It's sort of like how, when looking at stats this season, a person is best off looking by conference, since East and West haven't really played......
Daryl
THE HACK
11-25-05, 4:45 PM
I love divisional play against rivals but 8 games is too much even for me!5 games or even 6 at the most would be enough.Its like every Saturday night the Leafs are playing the Habs!:coffee:
Cheers
MadDevil
11-25-05, 4:55 PM
I love divisional play against rivals but 8 games is too much even for me!5 games or even 6 at the most would be enough.Its like every Saturday night the Leafs are playing the Habs!:coffee:
That's one of the things I don't understand about this new schedule. Take the Canucks for example, by the end of November they'll have played Colorado 6 times, and Minnesota 4 times. That's 10 out of the possible 16 games between those teams gone after the first two months of the season. Those 10 games all happen in a span of 23 games. That's almost half their games against only 2 teams.
I think the new divisional schedule could work out, but they have to spread them out more. I think the NHL went a little overboard with the whole "increased rivalry" thing by trying to cram it down the fans throats by scheduling so many division game close together.
Madferret
11-25-05, 5:04 PM
If they trimmed each divisional game down to 6, the each team would have approximately 10 games to play cross Conference games and not overkill traditional division rivals.
I'm sure they'll make the neccessary adjustements after this year.
TimmyTabasco
11-25-05, 5:48 PM
Yeah, Canucks play the Rotten Avs..twice..back to back..AGAIN next week
However, for the Canucks..this was done for a different reason
The league at first thought to keep Bert suspended longer. So they wanted to get all the games with the Avs/Canucks out of the way before Bertuzzi would come back to play.
Or something like that :eyebug: :conspire:
THE HACK
11-25-05, 7:08 PM
That's one of the things I don't understand about this new schedule. Take the Canucks for example, by the end of November they'll have played Colorado 6 times, and Minnesota 4 times. That's 10 out of the possible 16 games between those teams gone after the first two months of the season. Those 10 games all happen in a span of 23 games. That's almost half their games against only 2 teams.
I think the new divisional schedule could work out, but they have to spread them out more. I think the NHL went a little overboard with the whole "increased rivalry" thing by trying to cram it down the fans throats by scheduling so many division game close together.
You're right,thats just too close together!
Vancouver and Colorado will be fighting it out for the division but for some reason they'll only play each other 2 times in the last 5 months and this is the time you want these teams to be playing each other.This schedule is just whack!
Cheers
KB in Kelowna
11-25-05, 7:22 PM
What gets me is sometimes teams have played a Tuesday and Thurdsay game against each other with a day off, but here have been others that have been a game say in Calagry one Wednesday and then in Edmonton on Thurdsay :shrug: . The Canucks have benefitted from this catching teams tired from the travel at teh tail end of a road trip like San Jose last night. But I wonder about the competavie balance and play off ceedings (sic) in April?
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.