NHL Thread: Season 2018-2019

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Yes, that deserves 4.

In person hearing, possibility for 5+

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Playing with fire? Do elaborate.

Let's just say that Canada has been entertaining that type of stuff for a while. So it is not surprising to the envelope getting pushed more and more.

[WhipperSnapper]

No. I'm not surprised. It's still not good. The CBC picking it up legitimizing the fake news media and delegitimizing the good the SJW has done. She just didn't know when to stop social justicing. Knowing where or when to stop is one the hardest things to do for anyone.

[Andy6]

Well, Big Buff had a pretty good "head shot" too ... and so the Legend of Binnington endeth.

[theman23]

At least Kadri seems to give a shit. Going to be a shame to lose him again. The Kucherov hit was way worse but I guess he got off lightly because he has no history.

[The Chemist]

Hands up all those who thought that the Lightning would be one game away from being swept by the Blue Jackets. Oh, no one?

Just goes to show that the regular season really doesn't mean much when it comes down to it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Just goes to show that the regular season really doesn't mean much when it comes down to it.

Probably a good indicator why the NBA commissioner is looking at a shorter season:

Originally Posted by NBA

Silver mentioned everything from shorter games to a shorter season Friday as ways the NBA could make its future product better for players and fans.

"The format we have in place now - I'm a traditionalist on one hand, but on the other hand it's 50 years old or so, presenting an 82-game season, and there's nothing magical about it," Silver said.

https://www.nba.com/article/2019/04/...ers-nba-format

This would apply to the NHL, as well. Season is too long, parity is too high, and at the end of the day the accomplishments of the regular season effectively mean nothing when playoff games are seemingly coinflips. North American sports leagues strive for franchise-driven parity and equalness but at some point there has to be a reward for actually having the best team. Tampa hasn't lost yet, and them coming back to win four straight wouldn't shock me at this point, but it's pretty jarring to think of them getting swept aside after the season they've had and should make everyone extremely cautious when weighing the actual value of the regular season moving forward.

Silver mentions adapting European-style soccer tournaments to the NBA as one idea:

Originally Posted by NBA

Silver has pointed to European soccer as something that could bring new interest to the NBA by offering teams more opportunities to win something, instead of just having one champion.

"That's why I'm particularly interested in looking at different kinds of formats -- at midseason tournaments, for example, play-in tournaments -- because even accepting that players have so many miles on their bodies, there may be better ways to present it," Silver said. "Assuming guys are going to play 82 games, maybe there should be a certain number of games in the regular season and then there should be two tournaments throughout the season."

He acknowledged that model would require a change of thinking in American fans, who are used to only caring about the winner of the NBA Finals.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Hands up all those who thought that the Lightning would be one game away from being swept by the Blue Jackets. Oh, no one?

Just goes to show that the regular season really doesn't mean much when it comes down to it.

My preschooler daughter suddenly adopted the Blue Jackets as her favourite team 3 weeks ago, out of nowhere. I guess she saw it coming, she must have known that the combination of Tortorella's motivating presence and the late season adds would put them over the top. I sure didn't.

Apart from ruining a ton of pool teams and playoff brackets, this turn of events will really open up the Cup race in the east and make it more interesting.

I will say that as a Jets fan, watching Duchene work his magic for CBJ and Stone doing the same for VGK kind of breaks my heart. I'm sure Sens fans will concur.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Probably a good indicator why the NBA commissioner is looking at a shorter season:

The NHL season is absurdly long and would lose nothing from being shortened to the 70, or hell, even 60 game range. I figured it would never happen because of the obvious massive loss in revenue from axing 10-25 games off every team's schedule.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by esquire

The NHL season is absurdly long and would lose nothing from being shortened to the 70, or hell, even 60 game range. I figured it would never happen because of the obvious massive loss in revenue from axing 10-25 games off every team's schedule.

Bingo...

All this talk about a shortened NHL season is silly.

Everyone knows the playoff are....the playoffs. Crazy out comes happen. And that's why we love the playoffs.

[lrt's friend]

We better be careful with comparisons between the NBA and NHL.

I am not a fan of the NBA but I have heard about the predictability of the NBA playoffs, whereas the NHL playoffs are less so. This is actually an advantage to the NHL in my opinion. Everybody loves Cinderella runs and the occasional underdog winning a series. It makes the playoffs more compelling.

The NHL playoffs already give the top teams an easier ride in theory by giving them a weaker opponent. I don't see why we need to give top teams a further advantage (like a bye in the first round) to make the playoffs more predictable.

The NHL playoffs are a war of attrition and giving certain teams an even easier ride just won't be as fun nor will it be fair. A true champion needs to demonstrate their greatness during the playoffs, not by giving them a substantially easier way through.

Sometimes, a great regular season team is simply not designed for the playoffs when the intensity is revved up to the next level. A great team is one that is designed for the playoffs rather than for winning the President's Trophy. This is part of the strategy of winning the Stanley Cup. Yes, you have to have a team that gets you into the playoffs, but there has to type of character on the team that will win at that level. Of course, there is always luck as well and I am fine with that.

If the Lightning gets knocked out in the first round, then so be it. This will not be the first time that a top team does not make it all the way.

[Calgarian]

Despite the fact that they have pretty much killed my pool, I'm enjoying watching Columbus frustrate the Bolts, the playoffs need a good upset now and again...

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We better be careful with comparisons between the NBA and NHL.

I am not a fan of the NBA but I have heard about the predictability of the NBA playoffs, whereas the NHL playoffs are less so. This is actually an advantage to the NHL in my opinion. Everybody loves Cinderella runs and the occasional underdog winning a series. It makes the playoffs more compelling.

The NHL & NBA are closer than people think in terms of how they operate and run their leagues. One tests something, the other picks it up, and vice versa. It's a nice one-two thing they've got going on.

NBA playoffs are predictable and thus aren't watched until later on, with the season mostly being a formality.

The NHL risks its playoffs having the opposite issue - with a playoffs with extreme parity and randomness it also makes the season mostly a formality.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The NHL playoffs already give the top teams an easier ride in theory by giving them a weaker opponent. I don't see why we need to give top teams a further advantage (like a bye in the first round) to make the playoffs more predictable.

Tampa had arguably the best regular season ever and they've been rewarded with three straight losses. I don't think anyone is actually proposing byes in the first round but what's the point of that great regular season if it doesn't predict anything for us in the post season?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sometimes, a great regular season team is simply not designed for the playoffs when the intensity is revved up to the next level. A great team is one that is designed for the playoffs rather than for winning the President's Trophy.

So, then, what's the point of the regular season? Let's just play playoff hockey for eight months instead.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the Lightning gets knocked out in the first round, then so be it. This will not be the first time that a top team does not make it all the way.

This will be the second year in a row in which something truly random happens that goes against the nature of best team wins, with last year being an expansion team riding all the way to the SCF. A President's Trophy team getting swept in the first round effectively nullifies a lot of the purpose of the regular season in general. At some point i'd like to see the best teams actually win and reliably win, and that makes something like upsets much more impressive. The pre-salary cap days had plenty of these and obviously the construct of such a cap negates that outcome.

I'm probably being dramatic but i'm really worried about the hyper-parity and total randomness that the NHL is irking towards. At some point the best teams need to actually be rewarded for being good, otherwise what's the point? If everything's just completely random let's just flip a coin to see who wins.

@DownGoesBrown makes a similar case with The Athletic:


via Twitter.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The NHL & NBA are closer than people think in terms of how they operate and run their leagues. One tests something, the other picks it up, and vice versa. It's a nice one-two thing they've got going on.

NBA playoffs are predictable and thus aren't watched until later on, with the season mostly being a formality.

The NHL risks its playoffs having the opposite issue - with a playoffs with extreme parity and randomness it also makes the season mostly a formality.


Tampa had arguably the best regular season ever and they've been rewarded with three straight losses. I don't think anyone is actually proposing byes in the first round but what's the point of that great regular season if it doesn't predict anything for us in the post season?


So, then, what's the point of the regular season? Let's just play playoff hockey for eight months instead.



This will be the second year in a row in which something truly random happens that goes against the nature of best team wins, with last year being an expansion team riding all the way to the SCF. A President's Trophy team getting swept in the first round effectively nullifies a lot of the purpose of the regular season in general. At some point i'd like to see the best teams actually win and reliably win, and that makes something like upsets much more impressive. The pre-salary cap days had plenty of these and obviously the construct of such a cap negates that outcome.

I'm probably being dramatic but i'm really worried about the hyper-parity and total randomness that the NHL is irking towards. At some point the best teams need to actually be rewarded for being good, otherwise what's the point? If everything's just completely random let's just flip a coin to see who wins.

@DownGoesBrown makes a similar case with The Athletic:


via Twitter.

We had some top rated teams win the Stanley Cup in recent years. We could argue that Vegas got in last year because the league was far too generous in what they offered an expansion team. This is the opposite to what happened with previous expansion when precious little was given resulting in some poor competitiveness.

How would the league benefit going back to the pre-cap era, when big market teams tried to buy their way into the Stanley Cup. As the league has grown, and the sport has grown, it has been critical that the NHL be more than the Maple Leafs, the Rangers and a few others, and the smaller markets had some sort of opportunity to build a good team. Guaranteed failure will not expand the game.

Even then and with the cap, it is clear how the a certain group of teams make the playoffs pretty well every year.

Why would a top team always deserve an easy track to the final? Often, those top teams become complacent, while others peak as the playoffs begin. There are also some pairings that favour the lower team and are shown through the season series. This is why the NHL playoffs are so hard to predict.

[DoubleK]

Vigneault to the Flyers.

Who's going to coach in Edmonton? Hitch again?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Vigneault to the Flyers.

Who's going to coach in Edmonton? Hitch again?

Kevin Lowe?

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Kevin Lowe?

Haha ya someone from the Red Wine Club.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How would the league benefit going back to the pre-cap era, when big market teams tried to buy their way into the Stanley Cup. As the league has grown, and the sport has grown, it has been critical that the NHL be more than the Maple Leafs, the Rangers and a few others, and the smaller markets had some sort of opportunity to build a good team. Guaranteed failure will not expand the game.

I didn't advocate going back to pre-cap hockey and removing the salary cap altogether. I was just pointing out that the salary cap as it exists is to make all teams more equal by constraining the top spending, top revenue-generating teams.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Even then and with the cap, it is clear how the a certain group of teams make the playoffs pretty well every year.

Yes and no. The NHL is still a league where over half of teams make the playoffs each season. With Carolina qualifying for the playoffs this year there's only two teams who have gone five+ years without qualifying (Buffalo & Arizona).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why would a top team always deserve an easy track to the final?

I think you're arguing past me at this stage. I don't think anyone is arguing for an easier track to the finals for any team; i'm arguing that the season is pointless if top teams can be swept in the first round by weaker teams.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Often, those top teams become complacent, while others peak as the playoffs begin. There are also some pairings that favour the lower team and are shown through the season series. This is why the NHL playoffs are so hard to predict.

Right, but I cannot stress enough how dominant the Lightning were in the regular season. 62 wins, one of the most dominant scoring and winning teams in NHL history. They're the first team in the Cap Era to win a President's Trophy by double digits and the first team to win the league by 20+ points in much longer - and they might get swept in the first round? Ok.

So, again, what's the point of dominating in the regular season (and, thereby, fans watching the regular season and giving it weight) if it means relatively nothing for who you play in the first round or what happens?

I understand that parity is king in franchise sports but I think too much parity is a bad thing at times. There needs to be strong teams and weak teams so that upsets and the regular season actually mean something.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I didn't advocate going back to pre-cap hockey and removing the salary cap altogether. I was just pointing out that the salary cap as it exists is to make all teams more equal by constraining the top spending, top revenue-generating teams.


Yes and no. The NHL is still a league where over half of teams make the playoffs each season. With Carolina qualifying for the playoffs this year there's only two teams who have gone five+ years without qualifying (Buffalo & Arizona).


I think you're arguing past me at this stage. I don't think anyone is arguing for an easier track to the finals for any team; i'm arguing that the season is pointless if top teams can be swept in the first round by weaker teams.


Right, but I cannot stress enough how dominant the Lightning were in the regular season. 62 wins, one of the most dominant scoring and winning teams in NHL history. They're the first team in the Cap Era to win a President's Trophy by double digits and the first team to win the league by 20+ points in much longer - and they might get swept in the first round? Ok.

So, again, what's the point of dominating in the regular season (and, thereby, fans watching the regular season and giving it weight) if it means relatively nothing for who you play in the first round or what happens?

I understand that parity is king in franchise sports but I think too much parity is a bad thing at times. There needs to be strong teams and weak teams so that upsets and the regular season actually mean something.

Maybe it comes down to coaching? I haven't agreed with all the talk of Cooper being a frontrunner for the Jack Adams simply because of all the talent he has to work with - pretty much anyone could make it work when things are going well, as they did for pretty much the whole regular season. But now that they're facing true adversity (something they really didn't face much at all of during the regular season) that's when a good coach would shine through, and he hasn't.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Maybe it comes down to coaching? I haven't agreed with all the talk of Cooper being a frontrunner for the Jack Adams simply because of all the talent he has to work with - pretty much anyone could make it work when things are going well, as they did for pretty much the whole regular season. But now that they're facing true adversity (something they really didn't face much at all of during the regular season) that's when a good coach would shine through, and he hasn't.

That's fair, and it's fair to say Tortorella has outcoached Cooper (as well as Bobrovsky out-goaltending Vasilevskiy, as well as a few others). I suppose my concern about parity and randomness stems more from the general idea of the Lightning losing rather than the practical reasons of which there are a few.