All Things NHL 2012-2013 Edition

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Raffi Torres from Phoenix to San Jose for a third rounder. And the Sharks fans hate him. The Yotes continue with their Californian connection and deal Lombardi to the Ducks. THEN they ship Steve Sullivan to the Devils. And is Mike Smith going to want to re-up there this Summer?

And the Leafs make a move. No, not that one. It's defencemen Ryan O'Byrne from the Av's in exchange for a pick.

How about this one. Wade Redden is reunited with Big Z in Boston. St Louis get future considerations.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Ok, looks like that was worthwhile after all. Just one more trade report expected as the Capitals have done something, but no one knows what it is. GMGM is calling all reporters in for a news conference though so maybe we're ending on another shocker.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

And it turns out to be prospect Filip Forsberg heading to Nashville in exchange for Martin Erat and Michael Latta. Everyone seems to be high on Forsberg but I guess the Caps are full on for the playoffs this year. Really don't see they have enough to go all the way right now. But, the shortened 1995 season brought surprises come playoff time so history suggests you just need to get there and this year anything can happen.

I guess it's only right for the final trade to be an odd one.

[Le Grande Orange]

So no one wants to talk about the NHL's realignment for the 2013-14 season or the change to the playoff format? (The new playoff format is just plain weird.)

[magnet]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

So no one wants to talk about the NHL's realignment for the 2013-14 season or the change to the playoff format? (The new playoff format is just plain weird.)

Nope!

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Muppetus Galacticus

And it turns out to be prospect Filip Forsberg heading to Nashville in exchange for Martin Erat and Michael Latta. Everyone seems to be high on Forsberg but I guess the Caps are full on for the playoffs this year. Really don't see they have enough to go all the way right now. But, the shortened 1995 season brought surprises come playoff time so history suggests you just need to get there and this year anything can happen.

I guess it's only right for the final trade to be an odd one.

Not sure what to think of this one. Forsberg is unproven, though highly rated and comes from a strong bloodline of hockey, so odds are he'll be the real deal. OTH, Erat on the Caps top line will be a solid addition, if that's where they play him. Latta's still a project, but he's starting to adjust to the AHL, so maybe he turns into a 3rd or 4th line centre, time will tell.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

So no one wants to talk about the NHL's realignment for the 2013-14 season or the change to the playoff format? (The new playoff format is just plain weird.)

Yes, well, this is an interesting topic.

On one hand I'm glad to see the 3 division per conference thing gone. Never liked it in hockey, and don't like it in Baseball. Well, let me say I don't like it because there's always a weak division where some team with 10 - 15 fewer points than a few others still gets the 3rd seed.

I like the new format, just wish they had 8 teams in each division. Don't like wildcards, never have.

What I'd prefer to see is, the 2 division winners seeded 1-2 based on points (and other tie breakers if/as required) then rank the remaining 14 teams (12 in one conference currently but would be 14 with 32 teams) from 1 - 14 and the top 6 points wise get in the play-offs (since they insist on having 16 teams make it in, but that's another subject).

Then re-rank after each round for HIA. For the Cup Final, the team with the best record gets HIA.


There's other things they could do that are better I suppose, but imo the new format is an improvement over the old, if for no other reason than the fact they went to 2 divisions from 3 per conference.

I really hope they aren't dumb enough to sell the naming rights for the Divisions. I don't think they are , but in this day and age, and the $$$ they could charge for that, anything is possible.

Please give them names that are meaningful to the sport and league.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

On one hand I'm glad to see the 3 division per conference thing gone. Never liked it in hockey, and don't like it in Baseball. Well, let me say I don't like it because there's always a weak division where some team with 10 - 15 fewer points than a few others still gets the 3rd seed.

The NBA addressed that issue by modifying the seeding rules such that division winners weren't guaranteed the top three seeds. Instead, they were only guaranteed to be in the top four, meaning a wild card team could be seeded as high as #2 if it had a better record than the other two division winners.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Don't like wildcards, never have.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

What I'd prefer to see is, the 2 division winners seeded 1-2 based on points (and other tie breakers if/as required) then rank the remaining 14 teams (12 in one conference currently but would be 14 with 32 teams) from 1 - 14 and the top 6 points wise get in the play-offs (since they insist on having 16 teams make it in, but that's another subject).

You realize you're contradicting yourself, right? You don't like wild cards yet you advocate there being six wild card qualifiers in each conference.

The new format is weird. It's nominally a division-based format yet you could have the first place team in one division playing the fourth place team in the other division while the second and third place teams in each division play each other. The system mixes seeding and positional qualifiers as well as mixing a fixed and open playoff bracket. (It's so unusual I'm at a complete loss as to how to integrate into the customizable playoffs proposal I'm working on for FHM. I've got just about everything else covered, but the NHL's new format is unprecedented and doesn't fit at all within the playoff creation system I've set up. It's got me scratching my head over what to do...)

I don't know why they went with it rather than the simpler system involving the top four teams in each division with a crossover qualifier in cases where a fifth place team in one division had a better record than the fourth place team in the other division. It achieves almost the same result but in a simpler to understand way.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The NBA addressed that issue by modifying the seeding rules such that division winners weren't guaranteed the top three seeds. Instead, they were only guaranteed to be in the top four, meaning a wild card team could be seeded as high as #2 if it had a better record than the other two division winners.

You realize you're contradicting yourself, right? You don't like wild cards yet you advocate there being six wild card qualifiers in each conference.

The new format is weird. It's nominally a division-based format yet you could have the first place team in one division playing the fourth place team in the other division while the second and third place teams in each division play each other. The system mixes seeding and positional qualifiers as well as mixing a fixed and open playoff bracket. (It's so unusual I'm at a complete loss as to how to integrate into the customizable playoffs proposal I'm working on for FHM. I've got just about everything else covered, but the NHL's new format is unprecedented and doesn't fit at all within the playoff creation system I've set up. It's got me scratching my head over what to do...)

I don't know why they went with it rather than the simpler system involving the top four teams in each division with a crossover qualifier in cases where a fifth place team in one division had a better record than the fourth place team in the other division. It achieves almost the same result but in a simpler to understand way.

Not being much of a Basketball fan, I can't really comment on the NBA. I was never quite sure how they did their play-off seedings. I usually follow the scores during play-off time, but could never figure out how they ranked teams.


I don't know if I'm contradicting myself really. You called them WC slots, not me. I prefer to think of them as "play-off" spots. You're right in a sense though, as you could look at them as WC's. The reason I refer to them as play-off spots is because the NHL insists on having 16 teams make the play-offs. Anyway, what they're called is a moot point.

I still think if you give the two division winners the 1 & 2 spot, then the next 6 teams based on points the remaining spots, it's fair. Definitely not perfect, but at least the teams that played the best during the regular season would get in ahead of the teams that didn't. I don't have a problem giving 1 & 2 to the division winners. With 2 divisions, I don't see a "weak sister" getting a high seeding they don't deserve.

The new system, with top 3 and what they call 2 WC's would still see the possibility of teams with lesser points than another making the play-offs. If you give the top seeds to the division winners, then rank the remaining teams by points total, you won't be giving play-off spots to teams with fewer points than another. That's something I could live with.

I also believe, with this new format, you won't have a weak division winner getting a high ranking. Winning the Southeast right now, for example, takes a lot less than winning say the Atlantic. I don't see a weak 7 or 8 team division among the new format.

The system I'm suggesting is pretty much what they do now anyway, division winners then everybody else ranked on points. The only difference being, a team with 88 pts won't get in ahead of a team with 92 pts.


At the end of the day though, they might as well just have 2 conferences of 16 teams, and give the top 8 in each conference a play-off spot. Rank them 1 - 8 and re-rank after each round, higher seed always getting HIA.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

I think there will be eight teams per division in the coming years, especially if Seattle get a team, but I have heard that depends on getting an NBA franchise first. I agree that the playoff structure seems a bit off but I am happy to wait and see how it pans out.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

After expecting a pedestrian deadline day we ended up with seventeen trades which is more than the previous two years where there were sixteen in each. Fewer players have new homes this time though as thirty live bodies were moved compared to thirty-two last year and thirty-five in 2011-12.

Minnesota did indeed send a 1st and a 2nd to the Sabres in the J-Pom deal while Columbus got even more picks to add to their collection along with Gaborik.

Speaking of which, two players from that trade made their Rangers debut last night, Brassard and Moore, along with Clowe from the Sharks, and they all combined for four goals and eight points in their win over the Penguins who themselves have had difficulty slotting their new guys in without issues.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Not being much of a Basketball fan, I can't really comment on the NBA. I was never quite sure how they did their play-off seedings. I usually follow the scores during play-off time, but could never figure out how they ranked teams.

The NBA seeds teams by regular season record, same as all the other leagues. The difference is that division winners aren't guaranteed the top three spots; instead, they are only guaranteed to be among the top four seeds. So the best wild card team can be seeded above a division winner if it has a superior record. The NBA, however, uses a fixed playoff bracket, and home court advantage in a series goes to the team with the better record, not the higher seed.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I don't know if I'm contradicting myself really. You called them WC slots, not me. I prefer to think of them as "play-off" spots. You're right in a sense though, as you could look at them as WC's.

A wild card team by definition is a playoff qualifier which is not a division winner and whose playoff qualification is determined by regular season record only (as opposed to a positional system where the top X number of teams in a division make the playoffs).

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The new system, with top 3 and what they call 2 WC's would still see the possibility of teams with lesser points than another making the play-offs.

Very unlikely as it would require the sixth place team in one division to have a better record than the third place team in the other division.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The system I'm suggesting is pretty much what they do now anyway, division winners then everybody else ranked on points. The only difference being, a team with 88 pts won't get in ahead of a team with 92 pts.

I would guess the move back to a more division-based playoff format is to help reduce travel considerations during the playoffs as well as making playoffs series more television-friendly in terms of competing clubs being from the same division and thus the same time zone.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The NBA seeds teams by regular season record, same as all the other leagues. The difference is that division winners aren't guaranteed the top three spots; instead, they are only guaranteed to be among the top four seeds. So the best wild card team can be seeded above a division winner if it has a superior record. The NBA, however, uses a fixed playoff bracket, and home court advantage in a series goes to the team with the better record, not the higher seed.

Thanks for that explanation, helps me understand it now.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

A wild card team by definition is a playoff qualifier which is not a division winner and whose playoff qualification is determined by regular season record only (as opposed to a positional system where the top X number of teams in a division make the playoffs).

Ok, that's fair enough, but I'm really not interested in debating semantics. What it's called is a moot point. AFAIK the NHL has never "Officially" referred to it as a WC, but for the sake of this discussion we can refer to it as that if it makes it easier.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Very unlikely as it would require the sixth place team in one division to have a better record than the third place team in the other division.

I'm talking fact, not likelihood. You're right, the it's very unlikely, but the possibility does exist. And after watching a number of times the top team from the Southeast getting the 3 seed ahead of 2, 3, even 4 other teams with more points, nothing will surprise me.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I would guess the move back to a more division-based playoff format is to help reduce travel considerations during the playoffs as well as making playoffs series more television-friendly in terms of competing clubs being from the same division and thus the same time zone.

From all I've read and heard, the main reason this happened was because Atlanta moved to Winnipeg. In a live interview with Betteman, he stated matter of factly that had Atlanta not moved, realignment would not even have been discussed. However he also mentioned that once the decision was made to realign, that travel considerations would be one of the main determining factors for the new alignment.

My personal opinion on the travel thing is that it gets blown way out of proportion. These athletes today travel comfortably and quickly. I remember back in the early 80's when the Islanders were in their heyday, Brian Trottier made a comment to the press that teams had a much harder time winning the Cup now (80's) then back in the 50's and 60's. He cited no west coast travel, and only 2 rounds of play-offs.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that rubbish. My response was straight forward and to the point. Mr. Trottier, try travelling by train all the time, try playing a 7 game series in 10 days instead of this foolishness they have now where they get a day off after almost every game. Back then, the first 4 games of a series were usually all played within 5 nights. And you Mr. Trottier, get onboard a plane, get a stewardess serving you, and don't have to collect your own baggage at the other end. Those guys got off the train and had to go get their own gear. Ya, right Brian, it's so much tougher to travel and win the Cup. Too funny.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

... try travelling by train all the time ...

Travelling by train was better than travelling by aircraft, at least according to baseball players. Why? It was summed up this way: a train was a hotel on rails; a plane was a bus with wings. In the heyday of train travel, ball clubs often had their own separate cars as part of the train. There were Pullman sleeper cars so a player could sleep on a long or overnight trip in an actual bed. There was a restaurant car where a player could buy an actual proper hot meal. Compare that to air travel, where meals are rudimentary at best, there is little room to move around, and sleep means being in a somewhat reclined chair. The main advantage for air travel is that it's a lot quicker, especially over long distances (though this is negated to some extent by the ever-increasing amount of time it takes just getting into and out of the airport).

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

My personal opinion on the travel thing is that it gets blown way out of proportion.

It's as least as much about the costs as it is conditions for players. Travel is expensive, and clubs can rack up a lot of miles travelled during a season. Check out this web site which examined the original 2012-13 schedule and estimated the distance travelled by each club.

Insofar as realignment is concerned, the time zone for television broadcasts was an important factor as well.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Travelling by train was better than travelling by aircraft, at least according to baseball players. Why? It was summed up this way: a train was a hotel on rails; a plane was a bus with wings. In the heyday of train travel, ball clubs often had their own separate cars as part of the train. There were Pullman sleeper cars so a player could sleep on a long or overnight trip in an actual bed. There was a restaurant car where a player could buy an actual proper hot meal. Compare that to air travel, where meals are rudimentary at best, there is little room to move around, and sleep means being in a somewhat reclined chair. The main advantage for air travel is that it's a lot quicker, especially over long distances (though this is negated to some extent by the ever-increasing amount of time it takes just getting into and out of the airport).

I'm only going by what I read and garnered from talking to people involved in hockey. I have no idea what Baseball Players put up with, nor am I discussing Baseball right now. However, to think that Baseball playera travel is comparable to hockey players travel is like comparing apples to donuts, it's not even close.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It's as least as much about the costs as it is conditions for players. Travel is expensive, and clubs can rack up a lot of miles travelled during a season. Check out this web site which examined the original 2012-13 schedule and estimated the distance travelled by each club.

Yes, travel is expensive, but I wasn't talking about the company expenses when I said I believe the travel thing is blown way out of proportion. I was talking about the part where players complain about how the travel makes it hard for them.

Seen the web site some time ago. Travel is expensive but travel is part of their business. When you run a business there are some expenses that can't be avoided. You accept that as part of running your business. For the NHL, travel is unavoidable. Sure, they should look to save $$$ where they can. That's why a lot of teams buy their own Jet.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Insofar as realignment is concerned, the time zone for television broadcasts was an important factor as well.

There were more than a couple reasons for the move. I just stated one of them.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

However, to think that Baseball playera travel is comparable to hockey players travel is like comparing apples to donuts, it's not even close.

The point is that train travel was not necessarily inferior to air travel, for the reasons I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

when I said I believe the travel thing is blown way out of proportion.

Unless you're logging the same amount of travel as they are, your assumption of travel being blown out of proportion is not based on any direct experience.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Travel is expensive but travel is part of their business. When you run a business there are some expenses that can't be avoided.

Yes, and that's why moves are made to reduce costs where feasible. If travel costs can be cut by changing the schedule or realigning the divisions, then that'll happen.

[Bluenoser]

Play-off time

Any thoughts?

I'm a Habs fan but I think they're ripe for an upset, and Ottawa is just the team to do it. Time to develop a new play-off rivalry anyway, as this will be their first meeting in the modern era post season.

Pens, Hawks, Ducks all should win easily.

The rest are just too close, Caps been playing lights out but the Rangers have been very good lately too. Rangers are my dark horse pick this year.

Bruins/Leafs - this could be a ruff n tumble affair I'm thinking.

[Muppetus Galacticus]

Chicago in five
Anaheim in six
Vancouver in seven
Los Angeles in four

Pittsburgh in four
Montreal in seven
Washington in six
Boston in five

[sizzlingpopcorn]

I say,

PIT in 5
OTT in 6
WAS in 7
TOR in 7

CHI in 4
ANA in 6
SJS in 6
LA in 6

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Chicago in five
Anaheim in six
Vancouver in seven
Los Angeles in four

Pittsburgh in four
Montreal in seven
Washington in six
Boston in five

Well, you're looking good on Chicago n Boston. Anaheim is quite possible, as is Wash. Habs could happen but I don't see it.

Pens are getting a lesson in hard work from the Islanders, and Vokoun shoulda started game 4 imo. MAF is good, but he gets rattled easily. Seems if he has a bad game (gm 2) it sticks to him for a while (gm 3 & 4) before he can move on from it. Vokoun played very well this year when I saw him (7 or 8 games).

I think LA/STL is over in 6. I see Was & NY going 7.