HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   National Hockey League Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=60)
-   -   Why is the West better than the East? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1361695)

Black and Gold 02-27-2013 01:12 PM

Why is the West better than the East?
 
Honestly, I just don't see how the West is that much better than the East? Obviously there are teams like Chicago and Vancouver, but they are really the only proven top teams in their conference. Although Anaheim looks pretty good at this point as well. But other than that, nobody looks elite. Both the Predators and the Blues have been struggling recently, and although the Kings have surged as of late, and I think they can be contenders they're really streaky.

What makes them SO much better than the East?

MessierII 02-27-2013 01:19 PM

It's deeper. It's not about more good teams its about more pretty good teams. There's less seperation between the top teams and the bottom teams.

Teezax 02-27-2013 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black and Gold (Post 60586281)
Honestly, I just don't see how the West is that much better than the East? Obviously there are teams like Chicago and Vancouver, but they are really the only proven top teams in their conference. Although Anaheim looks pretty good at this point as well. But other than that, nobody looks elite. Both the Predators and the Blues have been struggling recently, and although the Kings have surged as of late, and I think they can be contenders they're really streaky.

What makes them SO much better than the East?

It's just opinion, not fact.
Fans of western conference teams are just looking for excuses as to why their respective teams don't make the playoffs.

Sevren 02-27-2013 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60586611)
It's deeper. It's not about more good teams its about more pretty good teams. There's less seperation between the top teams and the bottom teams.

That's pretty much it. The tops teams are the same, and in the past 10 years or so the Cup has gone 5 times on one side and 5 times on the other. But the mid-pack has been better lately in the Western Conference so you could say it's a bit harder to make the playoffs. Then again it helps to play against Columbus and Edmonton.

VeteranNetPresence 02-27-2013 01:22 PM

east has A LOT of crappy teams. west, not so much

Signature 02-27-2013 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60586611)
It's deeper. It's not about more good teams its about more pretty good teams. There's less seperation between the top teams and the bottom teams.

Pretty much this, coupled with the old fact (though hard to say IMO if it's as true now) that the West plays a more defensive, grinding style than the puck-possession finesse style dominant in the Eastern teams.

For what it's worth, the East used to be the stronger Conference. None of these things are set in stone, it's just the latest trend.

OCTA8ON 02-27-2013 01:22 PM

If you take 2 of the eastern conference teams and make them markedly better, then the eastern conference is more comparable to the western. More importantly though, the western conference powerhouse teams involve bigger, more aggressive players, and tight defensive systems that suffocate teams in the east that structure their forwards around 2-3 offensive superstars. The individual BS doesn't fly against teams like the Blues, Kings, Predators, Coyotes, or currently the Blackhawks. This was demonstrated in last year's stanley cup final.

IU Hawks fan 02-27-2013 01:23 PM

The teams in the west know how to keep pucks out of their own net.

coldsteelonice84 02-27-2013 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black and Gold (Post 60586281)
Honestly, I just don't see how the West is that much better than the East? Obviously there are teams like Chicago and Vancouver, but they are really the only proven top teams in their conference. Although Anaheim looks pretty good at this point as well. But other than that, nobody looks elite. Both the Predators and the Blues have been struggling recently, and although the Kings have surged as of late, and I think they can be contenders they're really streaky.

What makes them SO much better than the East?

Personally, I think the defense is a lot better in the West for one. There are more balanced teams too. The Bruins are a complete team in the East but there is a MASSIVE dropoff to the other teams. I mean, you take Crosby off the Pens and they are out of the playoffs. That's your 2nd place team (albeit tied for points). Montreal has improved and part of that has been them staying healthy but I don't see them as a threat. The overall depth in the West is much better. I don't know, looks pretty obvious to me.

MessierII 02-27-2013 01:24 PM

For example right now there's 4 teams in the west with less than 20 points 3 of them have played only 18 games. In the east 8 teams have less than 20 points and only 2 have played 18 games the rest have played more. It's just a deeper conference.

tarheelhockey 02-27-2013 01:24 PM

I don't remember exactly how it finished, but the conferences basically had even records against each other last year.

coldsteelonice84 02-27-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 60586949)
I don't remember exactly how it finished, but the conferences basically had even records against each other last year.

Yeah, they were pretty close last year, embarrassingly lopsided in favor of the West in the years before.

Sevren 02-27-2013 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60586947)
For example right now there's 4 teams in the west with less than 20 points 3 of them have played only 18 games. In the east 8 teams have less than 20 points and only 2 have played 18 games the rest have played more. It's just a deeper conference.

Yes but this year specifically is a bit different. Many surprises and that's bound to happen with some players not playing during the lockout and then the short season. I would take stats for this year with a grain of salt.

MessierII 02-27-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevren (Post 60587217)
Yes but this year specifically is a bit different. Many surprises and that's bound to happen with some players not playing during the lockout and then the short season. I would take stats for this year with a grain of salt.

It's not an anomaly though. The disparity was at its peak in 2010 when 4 teams in the west missed the playoffs with a better record than 8th place team in the east. While it's better than it was then the west is still deeper every year. Look at the point totals.

coldsteelonice84 02-27-2013 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevren (Post 60587217)
Yes but this year specifically is a bit different. Many surprises and that's bound to happen with some players not playing during the lockout and then the short season. I would take stats for this year with a grain of salt.

Even if you factor in "surprises", the biggest positive surprises have been the Blackhawks and Ducks. The biggest negative surprises have been NYR and Philly, and Pittsburgh to an extent.

Turrican* 02-27-2013 01:34 PM

Top east teams feed on the weaker ones.
Much more parity in the west.

Patmac40 02-27-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan (Post 60586881)
The teams in the west know how to keep pucks out of their own net.

As a whole the West does have a lower Goals Against total than the East but as far as the current playoff teams go the West has 387 GA while the East has 376 with the West teams playing a total of 150 games and East playing 150. Seems pretty even in that regard.

Shakey Rustie 02-27-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leman Russ (Post 60587519)
Top east teams feed on the weaker ones.
Much more parity in the west.

Not true, the Canucks have a losing record vs teams outside their division going 4-5-3, and yet are 6-0-1 vs teams in the Northwest, and all the other teams in the NW occupy 4 of the bottom 5 spots in the Western Conference. And the Canucks have the 3rd most points in the West. Looks to me like the Canucks are the ones that benefit the most from feeding on the weak.

Sevren 02-27-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60587375)
It's not an anomaly though. The disparity was at its peak in 2010 when 4 teams in the west missed the playoffs with a better record than 8th place team in the east. While it's better than it was then the west is still deeper every year. Look at the point totals.

Yes and that's what I said in my first post, the mid pack has been better in the West in the past few years.

But this year is bogus. Teams don't even play against the other conference. There is one dominant team and it's Chicago. Even if they don't play against Eastern opponents, their point streak is very impressive. But that's the only conclusion I can come up with. I believe its been pointed out in another thread that teams in the West currently go to overtime more often, so they pick up more loser points and therefore their teams may have more points than Eastern teams in the end. But that means nothing at all when comparing both conferences.

coldsteelonice84 02-27-2013 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patmac40 (Post 60587657)
As a whole the West does have a lower Goals Against total than the East but as far as the current playoff teams go the West has 387 GA while the East has 376 with the West teams playing a total of 150 games and East playing 150. Seems pretty even in that regard.

Equal on paper, but what are those East teams doing to rival the West teams in goals.....abandoning defense.

Teezax 02-27-2013 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60587375)
It's not an anomaly though. The disparity was at its peak in 2010 when 4 teams in the west missed the playoffs with a better record than 8th place team in the east. While it's better than it was then the west is still deeper every year. Look at the point totals.

you can't look at it that way. If every team's schedule was exactly the same then fine, but it isn't. What's to say that the 8th seeded team in the East wouldn't have had a better record if they played in the West and had say the kings' schedule instead.

Once again, there is no way to prove which conference is better, it is opinion and will always be opinion until every factor is identical for all teams.
Games played/Schedule/travel/opponents etc.

UsernameWasTaken 02-27-2013 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MessierII (Post 60586611)
It's deeper. It's not about more good teams its about more pretty good teams. There's less seperation between the top teams and the bottom teams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leman Russ (Post 60587519)
Top east teams feed on the weaker ones.
Much more parity in the west.

this.

fwiw, eastern conference games tend to be more entertaining to watch than western conference games...obviously, there are exceptions. however, over all, watching teams play a defense-oriented, grinding style isn't the most interesting thing ever.

obviously, some teams are great to watch...detroit, chicago, vancouver, edmonton...but try watching a game b/w st. louis and nashville...Zzzzzzz!

Jee 02-27-2013 01:41 PM

Man, you know your conference is weak when the Montréal Canadiens are on top.

Turrican* 02-27-2013 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shakey Rustie (Post 60587731)
Not true, the Canucks have a losing record vs teams outside their division going 4-5-3, and yet are 6-0-1 vs teams in the Northwest, and all the other teams in the NW occupy 4 of the bottom 5 spots in the Western Conference. And the Canucks have the 3rd most points in the West. Looks to me like the Canucks are the ones that benefit the most from feeding on the weak.

Bottom spots in the west isn't really a bad thing..

5th and 13th place are seperated by 4 points.
It's double that in the East.

Turrican* 02-27-2013 01:41 PM

More than double that actually.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.