Hockey Shootouts

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

Or Bettman could admit that the Sun Belt experiment has been a terrible failure and move the teams places where hockey matters, then the South East Division won't be a problem anymore.

Having our own Napoleon admit he's wrong is on par to happening as finding someone you'd' want to vote for come election time.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

Or Bettman could admit that the Sun Belt experiment has been a terrible failure and move the teams places where hockey matters, then the South East Division won't be a problem anymore.

Agreed.. I coudlnt agree more in fact!

But Bettman will never do that... bastard he is!!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I know the NHL is trying to grow rivalries in that area in particular where the overall hockey markets of the combined are the weakest of all divisions. (not insulting all those teams, just stating a fact as far as attendance and the fact theres no teams that have been around a while.) The old playoff sysytem would work well for this.

It's a little hard to take the top four teams from each division when there are three divisions in each conference. That's twelve qualifiers, and with after the first two rounds of intradivision play, you're left with three teams. How is that going to work?

You could take the top two in each division plus two wild cards for a total of 8 qualifiers in each conference, but now you've got wild cards. How do they fit into a divisionally-based playoff?

The only option would be to realign the league back into two divisions per conference. But that would mean large divsions (seven and eight teams).

Another item to note is the schedule. Divisional games have been reduced in recent years in order to boost interconference games (and even at their highest divisional games still accounted for a small proportion of the games played).

[AndrewG]

Maybe i am the only guy old enought to remember the old system.

It was 4 divisions, top 4 teams in each made it.

At the time 3 divisions had 5 teams while the other (Patrick) had 6 teams.

You simply divide the league into 4 divisions, and if one division has odd amount of teams... well its been done historically before in the NHL.


First round, divisional semi

Secodn round, divisional final

Third round, conference final

Forth round, league final.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The only option would be to realign the league back into two divisions per conference. But that would mean large divsions (seven and eight teams).

Worked for baseball for quite a while, or what AndrewG said.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Worked for baseball for quite a while, or what AndrewG said.

Different sport.

I don't see the NHL realigning back into four divisions with an 8-7-8-7 structure. The closest it's come to that was when it was 7-7-6-6 from 1993-94 to 1994-95 and 7-6-7-6 fom 1995-96 to 1997-98. It did have a 7-7 setup from 1970-71 to 1971-72 and 8-8 from 1972-73 to 1973-74.

There is also the schedule to consider with larger divisions.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Take a look at any standings individual year from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. (HockeyDB.com) Now of coruse they played fewer games, mostly 70 games per year for most of that time. But if you look at ratio of ties to games played, then look at the standings any of the past 4 years and take all games won in SO or OT and mark it as a tie, Id bet my left nut, (My favorite one) youll have a higher tie to games played ratio that pre SO/OT.

Saying there's more in the past 4 years compared to previously is ridiculous. It's only because they've had the shootout for the past 4 years. If they had the shootout back in the days you refer to, the stats would be quite similar. You can't compare it to pre shootout times, there's absolutely ZERO stats to compare it to.


Teams don't try as hard as they could in overtime, they know they already have a point. They don't care as much, there's no incentive to win when you have just as much a chance for two points in the shootout.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

AS FAR AS TEAMS 7 AND 8 MAKIGN THE PLAYOFFS!!

(this coudl be a new thread)

I liked the old playoff system where the top 4 teams of eahc division made the playoffs.

WHY??

You have for a near decade, a crappy Norris division (1980s) With Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago and St Louis.

In the current playoff system, most years especially the early 80s', this division sees only 1 guy making playoffs.

When the top 4 of the division make the playoffs despite the fact outside division games you get your ass kicked, a game between Toronto and the North Stars who are both 15 gmaes under .500 in March will have alot more meaning.

Youll get stronger rivalries becuase forst 2 rounds of the playoffs you play divisional foe.

I find that the current set up is just blah.. YES the better teams tend to make it in. But more teams more importantly the fans, get less interested quicker. This hurts the games popularity IMHO and hurts it finanacially as well in the terms of asses in the seats.

So how is it better if the top 4 make it? Using your example, a crappy Norris, why should any of those crappy teams qualify for the play-offs?
How does a division game have more meaning then the current system?
The system works much better now because EVERY game in your conference means something and it builds good rivalries and the fans benefit from that.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Maybe i am the only guy old enought to remember the old system.

It was 4 divisions, top 4 teams in each made it.

At the time 3 divisions had 5 teams while the other (Patrick) had 6 teams.

You simply divide the league into 4 divisions, and if one division has odd amount of teams... well its been done historically before in the NHL.


First round, divisional semi

Secodn round, divisional final

Third round, conference final

Forth round, league final.

You're not that old because before they had 21 teams they had different systems too. It was still divisional based for the most part except for a period in the late 60's early 70's when they did some crossovers.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Different sport.

Indeed. One that has been more successful then the NHL as well. Weird.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

There is also the schedule to consider with larger divisions.

More teams that folks actually want to see and less chum? Ya that'd be a shame. I could see more games against teams like Toronto, Boston, Detroit, Montreal/Ottawa and less against Florida, Phoenix, and Anaheim? I"m probably alone in this but that doesn't bother me in the least.

Originally Posted by BruceM

The system works much better now because EVERY game in your conference means something and it builds good rivalries and the fans benefit from that.

There is the intense rivalry in the SouthEast of who won't finish last this year, that's something to go for for sure. Also in whatever Detroit's division is now, it was almost as bad until the other guys started to get their act together.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

There is the intense rivalry in the SouthEast of who won't finish last this year, that's something to go for for sure. Also in whatever Detroit's division is now, it was almost as bad until the other guys started to get their act together.

Really? Besides Carolina who else in the Southeast is in on this "Intense" rivalry? Try looking at the Standings - the rivalry comes from the Northeast. It's between the Leafs and Hurricanes.

Another one who needs to look at his history - try checking out how well the Blues did every season until just a short while ago. They were in the same division as Detroit and always competitive. And this is exactly why the Conference games are important and create the rivalries - because as I said, EVERY game in your conference is important.

I know one thing for sure, you'll never see the NHL go back to a Division Heavy schedule. The fans won't stand for it as has already been witnessed. They want to see the other superstars in the league more than once a season, and rightfully so.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BruceM

It was still divisional based for the most part except for a period in the late 60's early 70's when they did some crossovers.

It was more varied than that. I can post a breakdown of the NHL's playoff formats if requested.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It was more varied than that. I can post a breakdown of the NHL's playoff formats if requested.

Actually I was wrong, until 74-75 the play-offs were all divisional matchups (other than the Cup Final of course). There were only two divisions during that period.


I'm well versed in Hockey Play-off formats, thank you.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Really? Besides Carolina who else in the Southeast is in on this "Intense" rivalry? Try looking at the Standings - the rivalry comes from the Northeast. It's between the Leafs and Hurricanes.

Twenty games does not a rivalry make. I was referring more to the last few years, where if you dind't win the division, you didn't make the playoffs period and the teams would usually be found in the lower echelons. And judging from the standings, they are once again (Carolina 16th, Atlanta 9th, Tampa Bay 10th, Florida 13th)

Originally Posted by BruceM

Another one who needs to look at his history - try checking out how well the Blues did every season until just a short while ago. They were in the same division as Detroit and always competitive.

Hence the almost. Perhaps I should have specified recent history to dissuade the history attack dogs?

Originally Posted by BruceM

I know one thing for sure, you'll never see the NHL go back to a Division Heavy schedule. The fans won't stand for it as has already been witnessed. They want to see the other superstars in the league more than once a season, and rightfully so.

From the current schedule they'll still be waiting, at least for any stars outside their conference. How many folks in the East are having a gander at Thorton or Iginla this year? How many folks in the West will be seeing Crosby or Oveckin? We've gone from a schedule that was division heavy to one where you're seeing teams on a bi-yearly basis. The scheduling isnt' exactly a shining light for what's good in this league (although it's blazing compared to say, the officiating, or league management)

ON that note, we're starting to veer off the topic of this thread. Time to steer it back...maybe.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I'm well versed in Hockey Play-off formats, thank you.

You and I might be, but that doesn't mean the other folks reading this thread are. Perhaps they might be interested as a general item.

Originally Posted by BruceM

Actually I was wrong, until 74-75 the play-offs were all divisional matchups (other than the Cup Final of course).

You were correct the first time.

From 1967-68 to 1969-70, the top four teams in each division made the playoffs. The first round consisted of 1v3 and 2v4, the winner of the first round met for the division title. The division finalists played for the Stanley Cup.

In 1970-71, the first round was the same. However, the second round was was changed so that the winner of the 1v3 matchup in one division played the winner of the 2v4 matchup from the other division. The winners of the altered second round played for the Stanley Cup.

In 1971-72, the matchups in the first round were changed from 1v3 and 2v4 to 1v4 and 2v3. The second round now matched the 1v4 winner in one division against the 2v3 winner from the other division. This format was used through the 1973-74 season.


For those wondering how it worked after that:

Beginning in 1974-75, with the expansion of the NHL from a two division league into a two conferece, four division league, the playoffs were changed again. The top three teams from each division qualified. The four division winners received a bye; the remaining eight teams were pooled together without regard to conference and seeded based on their record. The matchups were 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5. The four winners of the first round were then pooled with the four division winners, and the teams reseeded based on regular season record without regard to conference or division title. The matchups were again 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5. The third round consisted of the four remaining teams, reseeded again based only on regular season record and disregarding conference and division titles. The matchups were 1v4 and 2v3. The two winning teams then played for the Stanley Cup.

In 1977-78, the teams qualifying for the playoffs was changed to the top two teams in each division plus four wild card teams. The wild card qualifiers were selected based only on regular season record without regard to conference. The rest of the playoffs were the same.

In 1979-80, the playoffs were expanded to 16 clubs. The four division winners and 12 wild cards qualified for the playoffs. The wild card were determined solely by regular season record without regard to conferece. In each round of the playoffs the contesting clubs were seeded by regular season record only, with no regard given to division title or conference. The first round was 1v16, 2v15, 3v14, 4v13, 5v12, 6v11, 7v10, and 8v9. The second round matched up 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, and 4v5. The third round matchups were 1v4 and 2v3. The final two clubs played for the Stanley Cup.

In 1981-82, the 16 post-season qualifiers was changed to be the top four teams in each division. In each division, the matchups were 1v4 and 2v3. The two winning clubs then played in the Division finals. The two division finalists in each conference then played in the Conference finals. The two conference champions then played for the Stanley Cup. This playoff format lasted up through the 1992-93 season.

In 1993-94, the playoffs were changed to a conference-based qualifying and matching system, which is the same method used now.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Twenty games does not a rivalry make. I was referring more to the last few years, where if you dind't win the division, you didn't make the playoffs period and the teams would usually be found in the lower echelons. And judging from the standings, they are once again (Carolina 16th, Atlanta 9th, Tampa Bay 10th, Florida 13th)

Hmmm, I was sure you said "This Year" in your reply.

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

There is the intense rivalry in the SouthEast of who won't finish last this year, that's something to go for for sure.

Yes, I thought so.


Also, will you PLEASE go look at the standings, and then tell me that Atlanta, Tampa Bay, and Florida are not in contention. Florida, in 13th overall, is 2 points out of 8th and 3 points out of 5th. Hardly fighting for last place.

[Cod]

Like the BCS in college football, I like the concept; however, I believe the system could be tweaked a bit. For example, as someone mentioned in an earlier a post, a shootout win should not equivalate to the same amount of points as a regular win.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Also, will you PLEASE go look at the standings, and then tell me that Atlanta, Tampa Bay, and Florida are not in contention. Florida, in 13th overall, is 2 points out of 8th and 3 points out of 5th. Hardly fighting for last place.

As I stated, we're hardly far into the season either.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by BruceM

So how is it better if the top 4 make it? Using your example, a crappy Norris, why should any of those crappy teams qualify for the play-offs?
How does a division game have more meaning then the current system?
The system works much better now because EVERY game in your conference means something and it builds good rivalries and the fans benefit from that.

Your quite annoying... apparently not willing to respect others views.. but Ill try to continue this as a discussion... revuiew your replies and you will see your hardly respecting what are OPINIONS, and at least to are, are coming off as disresepctful, so please, unless I am reading that wrong, lets have some respect.

The Smythe, Adams and Patrick also had some great races durign same "How the Bore us int he Norris' period. The Norris WAS the weakest division and I sued it as example becuase even in that division things were interesting. The Patrick where Washington was a perennial bootom feeder, but becuase it had the extra team, another club was going to be odd man out of playoffs too.

How does a division game in old system have more meaning than current system? Becuase when you are competing for playoff spot with only 4 other teams instead of the entire conference, more teams are 'in the race' for playoff position. NOW WITH 7 and 8 teams per division, which modern league has.. well... it wouldnt work as well. The math isnt there becuase basically HALF of each division woudlnt make playoffs

Probably my biggest point to make though is that with current conference system is that there is no longer the same rivalries, especially in the playoffs liek there used to be. I mean as much as I hate the Leafs, when Ottawa and Toronto played each other several times in a short span on the playoffs, it was great rivalry. But the chances of the same teams meeting in playoffs is lessened with new system.

I just think a big root to these problems is the fact there are too many temas in the NHL, toomany teams in bad markets to be mroe specific.

Saying there's more in the past 4 years compared to previously is ridiculous. It's only because they've had the shootout for the past 4 years. If they had the shootout back in the days you refer to, the stats would be quite similar. You can't compare it to pre shootout times, there's absolutely ZERO stats to compare it to.

There are PLENTY of stats, every single season had game results, WHICH INCLUDED TIES!

My comment was that there are more games that go to OT and SO now a days in comparason to pre OT and SO that ended in ties. If the NHL took out OT and SO youd have a record amount of ties! So lets look at standings here form the 1960's 70's, thats 20 years in case you werent aware Bruce:

In the 60's there were 2826 games played, 489 were ties, so 17.3% of games ended in ties.

In the 70's there were 6740 games played, 1102 were ties, so 16.35% of games ended in ties.

With Shootout, 4 seasons there have been 1230 games played, 281 ended in SO ot OT so WOULD HAVE BEEN TIES, which represents 22.85% ended regulation in ties.

For 20 seasons the tie to gp percentage was within 1%, thats very steady.. and consider because of expansioin the amount of games played doubled form one decade to the other, thats a very consistant percentage.

So to have a 6.5% higher ratrio oF games that end in a tie after regulation in 4 years of OT/SO would be in comparason A RECORD AMOUNT OF TIES AFTER REGULATION IN THIS PERIOD.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Saying there's more in the past 4 years compared to previously is ridiculous. It's only because they've had the shootout for the past 4 years. If they had the shootout back in the days you refer to, the stats would be quite similar.

As shown in my previous post, this statement by you is wrong. More games are ending tied after 60 minutes in last 4 years than the last 2 complete decades prior to OT or SO, which had stable ratios from the first 10 years in comparason to the second used to establish a number to compare.

Were all giving opinions in this thread, which of course means none of us are wrong. But when we are talking numbers, we have to check, especially when we are backing our opinions.

"I dont like SO because it boils down to individual play, not team play." - Is a valid opinion we can agree or disagree with. there is no right or wrong.

"There would be same amount of ties now a days without SO and OT then there were prior to implimentation of these." Is a statement that can be looked up by checking factual numbers. There IS a right and wrong in the sence of how many games eneded as ties after regulation in both these period, these are actual real numbers. Its not an opinion, its a fact.