HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   What teams might be (dis)advantaged by a short season? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1301189)

dennilfloss 12-04-2012 04:29 AM

What teams might be (dis)advantaged by a short season?
 
For example if, after the lockout, the season is somehow salvaged but only 45 games with a short training camp, wouldn't a team that generally starts strong but fades later in a normal season (for example due to players who are markedly older and/or more prone to injury, due to inexperience, etc...) be advantaged? What teams could therefore perform better in such a short season, either by advancing further in the playoffs or even just making the playoffs if they tend to miss them?

Also what teams might be markedly disadvantaged by a short season and shortened training camp? For example a team that just hired a new coach and will need time to learn his system or signed/lost a bunch of free agents and needs time for chemistry to be re-established.

Also would the type of system employed (e.g. trap vs run & gun) have much of a different effect in a short season? Would a team composed of smaller, more nimble players be advantaged or disadvantaged compared to a team with bigger but slower, more positionally-emphasized, less creative players?

If you don't want to name specific teams, feel free to talk in terms of generalities with regard to system, player types, etc...

drugold 12-04-2012 04:49 AM

Edmonton will benefit by staying in the AHL all season.

Hynh 12-04-2012 05:06 AM

If it starts soon enough the Oilers will be disadvantaged due to RNH being at the WJC.

Perhaps even enough to steal MacKinnon.

GuineaPig 12-04-2012 05:09 AM

Good teams, essentially. Small samples help bad teams that get lucky and harm good teams that get unlucky, as there might not be enough time for either to regress.

TheDevilMadeMe 12-04-2012 05:20 AM

Teams that tend to play "playoff hockey" in the regular season could have an advantage because they won't be as burnt out come playoff time. I know there was a widespread belief in NJ after a couple of upset first round losses that Jacques Lemaire burnt his team out in the regular season by playing intense playoff hockey from day 1. And there was some speculation that the 1994-95 team might have suffered the same fate if that season was the full 82 games.

Soedy 12-04-2012 08:27 AM

I can definetly see the Avs profite from it as they struggled to the end of the regular season the last two years.

Cashville 12-04-2012 08:42 AM

Might be tough for the Preds; we're typically fairly consistent through the regular season, but we're starting a ton of young guys, especially on defense, and we don't have that Suter / Weber pairing to fall back on. Blum / Ellis / Josi can be solid starters on the blue line, but I'd rather have a full 82 game season for them to develop a groove. Forwards like Smith and Wilson also have high ceilings, but are young and streaky. Bourque is young as well, but he plays a Darren Helm-esque game and I think he'd be fine regardless how long the season goes.

SMantzas 12-04-2012 08:52 AM

Devils would be disadvantaged because Brodeur ALWAYS plays terrible in October and recently, November

Four Boilermakers 12-04-2012 09:05 AM

It would be worse for teams with multiple new acquisitions, such as Dallas (Roy, Jagr, Whitney) because the new guys won't have as much time to adjust to the new system and teammates.

Tavaresfan91 12-04-2012 09:09 AM

The islanders because they usually have a really slow November which usually ruins there year. Basically a shortened season gives them less of a chance to **** up

Soedy 12-04-2012 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMantzas (Post 56231569)
Devils would be disadvantaged because Brodeur ALWAYS plays terrible in October and recently, November

As far as I know, the season didn't start in october or november ;)

ACC1224 12-04-2012 09:19 AM

With every game having additional meaning a shorten schedule definately favours the good Teams.

Hynh 12-04-2012 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACC1224 (Post 56232037)
With every game having additional meaning a shorten schedule definately favours the good Teams.

The opposite actually. A good team can be beat by a bad call or stupid penalty only so many times. Less games means those mistakes are more prevalent.

Shoalzie 12-04-2012 09:35 AM

I don't know of a specific team but any team that has a bad start is probably screwed. If they play only 40-50 games...you can't play poorly in the first 10-15 and expect to make the playoffs. And a hot start can definitely go a long way.

The other factor would be if they just go with intra-conference play...teams that obviously play well within their conference will benefit from that format. The top 5 against the West last year...Vancouver, Nashville, Detroit, St. Louis and Phoenix. The top 5 against the East last year...Rangers, New Jersey, Boston/Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

Barrie22 12-04-2012 09:35 AM

the leafs (i mean this), they are usually quick starters. haven't they been one of the best teams in the 1st month or 2 of the seasons the past few years?

edmonton if they can start like they did last season
minny same thing.
avs same thing.

basically any team that jumps the start, but fail at the end.

a shortened season helps the sprinter in a marathon, while a full season helps the jogger in a marathon.

Judrix 12-04-2012 09:40 AM

the Hawks could be advantaged. They usually start fast, then have semi-collapses in the middle of the season.

NJDevs26 12-04-2012 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMantzas (Post 56231569)
Devils would be disadvantaged because Brodeur ALWAYS plays terrible in October and recently, November

Not to mention Henrique being hurt for a few weeks, at least.

ZARTONK 12-04-2012 09:45 AM

Id say that teams that dont rely on physical play to win will be advantaged because the risk of injury to key players is lessened

ACC1224 12-04-2012 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hynh (Post 56232207)
The opposite actually. A good team can be beat by a bad call or stupid penalty only so many times. Less games means those mistakes are more prevalent.

Those are isolated incidents in a 60 minute game. When games have more meaning the better Team almost always wins.

xX Hot Fuss 12-04-2012 09:51 AM

:hawks for sure

-Toews and Hossa won't be rushed back from injuries
-Keith and Seabrook won't be burned out from playing the most minutes in the NHL
-a lot of the young guys are getting plenty of practice in the AHL this year

MessierII 12-04-2012 09:57 AM

Edmonton is the most advantaged team. They have 4/5ths of their powerplay playing together on the same team and have guys like Yakupov transitioning into pro in Russia and have every injured player recouping. Their entire top line is just building more chemistry.

Most disadvantaged team is probably Anaheim because Getzlaf and Perry are on contract years and their organization is kind of a mess.

The Red Line 12-04-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judrix (Post 56232409)
the Hawks could be advantaged. They usually start fast, then have semi-collapses in the middle of the season.

Same with the Wings really. Both teams usually fly out of the gate, then the injuries seem to pile on midway through the season.

Ari91 12-04-2012 10:46 AM

Might be an advantage to Dallas as they're known to collapse near the end of the season so a shortened season may help.

Kings started slow and got hot late into the season. Maybe they could be at a disadvantage.

Leafs started hot last year and faltered severely at the end of the season so that could be an advantage, but they also have a new coach and it's hard to say if the losses under Carlyle were a result of still needing time to adjust to a new system or if they were simply too defeated at that point. But the new coach could be a disadvantage. To be honest though, Leafs always find some new way to lose so the odds are in their favour that either way, it's a disadvantage for them.

Edmonton could be at an advantage with having all of their star players playing hockey right now. Though I don't know if any of their defense are playing right now.

mighty all the way 12-04-2012 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 56232729)
Edmonton is the most advantaged team. They have 4/5ths of their powerplay playing together on the same team and have guys like Yakupov transitioning into pro in Russia and have every injured player recouping. Their entire top line is just building more chemistry.

Most disadvantaged team is probably Anaheim because Getzlaf and Perry are on contract years and their organization is kind of a mess.

I agree with everything but why is the team disadvantage this year if Getz and Perry are on contract years? Don't players usually play better when on contract years? Now I can see us being screwed next year if they dont sign.

Lacaar 12-04-2012 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mighty all the way (Post 56233745)
I agree with everything but why is the team disadvantage this year if Getz and Perry are on contract years? Don't players usually play better when on contract years? Now I can see us being screwed next year if they dont sign.

I agree with you. It should be an advantage. If they're ever going to be motivated to kick butt, this is the year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.