HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   News Article: November 1 and playoff seeding (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1521667)

RangerBoy 10-22-2013 03:07 PM

November 1 and playoff seeding
 
Elliotte Friedman wrote something very interesting about teams and playoff seeding.

Quote:

In last week's 30 Thoughts, there was one statistic a few people asked about, that just three of 32 NHL teams at least four points out of a playoff spot on Nov. 1 recovered to make the playoffs from 2005-06 to 2011-12 (Sources say no hockey was played by that date in 2012-13).

It is amazing to see how the "loser point" has changed the NHL game. The last season before its introduction was 1998-99. Back then, you got two points for a win, one for a tie and nothing if you lost in overtime. There was no shootout.

That year, the two worst teams in the NHL as we threw out our Halloween costumes were the Colorado Avalanche (2-6-1) and San Jose Sharks (1-6-2). They were four and five points out of the playoffs, respectively. The Avalanche were a powerhouse and recovered to finish second in the Western Conference and reach the conference final. Their first-round opponent? The Sharks.

That simply does not happen anymore. Since the shootout entered the NHL, we've never had a season in which two teams came from that far back to make it. And only one of the three comeback kings was more than four points out. That was Calgary. The Flames were seven points out in 2006-07, then went 40-22-9 to make it. The other survivors were the Buffalo Sabres (2010-11) and Boston Bruins (2011-12). The Sabres went 40-22-8; the Bruins, 45-22-4.

Generally, working yourself into a panic about what your team does in the first 10 games is a bad idea. But what really stands out about this particular season is how many teams are in danger of falling so far behind.

For example, the highest number of teams to fall at least four points out of the playoffs by Nov. 1 in our sample size is seven. That was 2006-07, the year Calgary made it. The lowest was two. This year, there are, potentially, seven such teams in the Eastern Conference (remember the crossovers). The West has three.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hoc...ly-in-nhl.html

The Rangers are currently 4 points behind the Islanders for 3rd in the division. They are 6 points behind the 2 potential wild cards which are currently Montreal and TB.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/standings

The Rangers have 5 games remaining before November 1

@Philly
@Detroit
Montreal
@Islanders
Buffalo

Henrik Lundqvist isn't 100%. He has a nagging injury. His status for the Philly game in unknown.

Quote:

"I can't say 100% sure that (Lundqvist) is going to be good to go on Thursday, but I can't say 100% sure that he's not gonna be there," coach Alain Vigneault said. "He's getting better. He's got something that he's been dealing with here for a little bit of time, and since we had four days in between games, we figured it was the right time to try and nip this in the bud here."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ho...#ixzz2iTlkuz2j

The math isn't very good for the Rangers if they don't get going these next 10 days. Three teams out of 32.

azaloum90 10-22-2013 03:13 PM

There are only 30 NHL teams... wtf

NYR Viper 10-22-2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerBoy (Post 73044779)
Elliotte Friedman wrote something very interesting about teams and playoff seeding.



http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hoc...ly-in-nhl.html

The Rangers are currently 4 points behind the Islanders for 3rd in the division. They are 6 points behind the 2 potential wild cards which are currently Montreal and TB.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/standings

The Rangers have 5 games remaining before November 1

@Philly
@Detroit
Montreal
@Islanders
Buffalo

Henrik Lundqvist isn't 100%. He has a nagging injury. His status for the Philly game in unknown.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ho...#ixzz2iTlkuz2j

The math isn't very good for the Rangers if they don't get going these next 10 days. Three teams out of 32.

That's very telling. People don't seem to understand that teams can pretty much lose a playoff spot early in the season like this. They will be lucky, with the injuries they have and the way they are playing, to get 3-4 points out of those games.

Gardner McKay 10-22-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR Viper (Post 73045217)
That's very telling. People don't seem to understand that teams can pretty much lose a playoff spot early in the season like this. They will be lucky, with the injuries they have and the way they are playing, to get 3-4 points out of those games.

But... but... but... I thought it was too early to hit the panic button?!?!?!? :laugh: (not directed at you Viper).

NYR Viper 10-22-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardner McKay (Post 73045351)
But... but... but... I thought it was too early to hit the panic button?!?!?!? :laugh: (not directed at you Viper).

I think it's early, but the next 5 games will be very telling. They need to get at least a couple of wins in their next 5 to keep pace and keep their heads above water. Losing 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5 and they are pretty close to out of it by November already.

OverTheCap 10-22-2013 03:28 PM

The Rangers had some bad starts in 2006-07 and 2007-08, but those teams managed to rebound in November. They have to get their act together soon.

It would help if the Rangers could push games to OT and pile up some loser points at the very least. So far their losses haven't even been close.

Gardner McKay 10-22-2013 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverTheCap (Post 73045713)
The Rangers had some bad starts in 2006-07 and 2007-08, but those teams managed to rebound in November. They have to get their act together soon.

It would help if the Rangers could push games to OT and pile up some loser points at the very least. So far their losses haven't even been close.

You have to actually show up to the games in order to be able to play for a loser point. This team isn't showing up. I think Viper makes a good point. Losing 4 of 5 or even a 1-3-1... puts us at 3-9 or 3-8-1. That will take a very strong run to come back from.

NYR Viper 10-22-2013 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardner McKay (Post 73046557)
You have to actually show up to the games in order to be able to play for a loser point. This team isn't showing up. I think Viper makes a good point. Losing 4 of 5 or even a 1-3-1... puts us at 3-9 or 3-8-1. That will take a very strong run to come back from.

The problem becomes the number of teams they have to leapfrog in order to make the wildcard spots.

Championship* 10-22-2013 03:51 PM

It's getting real close to honesty time here.

Trxjw 10-22-2013 03:51 PM

Scary math. Don't think we'll see anything done until after the next 4 games at the earliest. More likely they wait until Thanksgiving to fully assess the situation.

OverTheCap 10-22-2013 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gardner McKay (Post 73046557)
You have to actually show up to the games in order to be able to play for a loser point. This team isn't showing up. I think Viper makes a good point. Losing 4 of 5 or even a 1-3-1... puts us at 3-9 or 3-8-1. That will take a very strong run to come back from.

I agree, and this is why I never discounted the blowout losses as just another loss. If you play a close, competitive game, you have a better chance of coming away with at least a point. This team just gives up after they get scored on.

Rangers Fail 10-22-2013 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverTheCap (Post 73047065)
I agree, and this is why I never discounted the blowout losses as just another loss. If you play a close, competitive game, you have a better chance of coming away with at least a point. This team just gives up after they get scored on.

Hell, this team gives up on the rare occasion that they actually do score.

Ail 10-22-2013 04:01 PM

The other thing was that all of those teams that came back to make it were actually GOOD teams finding their way. The Rangers do not look like a good team that just needs to dig in and get traction. They look lost. They look like a bubble team. A bubble team is not going to be one of those outliers that can climb back from a hole dug too deeply.

Those numbers do not bode well for that team.

It's only the preseason, however.

RangerBoy 10-22-2013 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverTheCap (Post 73045713)
The Rangers had some bad starts in 2006-07 and 2007-08, but those teams managed to rebound in November. They have to get their act together soon.

It would help if the Rangers could push games to OT and pile up some loser points at the very least. So far their losses haven't even been close.

Those teams weren't more than 4 points out a playoff spot by Halloween. In 2007-08,the Rangers were ninth at the All-Star break. They were a 1 point behind 8th or they were losing a tiebreaker for 8th tied in points. They didn't have to make up much ground.

GAGLine 10-22-2013 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azaloum90 (Post 73045045)
There are only 30 NHL teams... wtf

32 teams over 7 years. Some of the same teams more than once, obviously.

jacko23 10-22-2013 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ailurophile (Post 73047261)
The other thing was that all of those teams that came back to make it were actually GOOD teams finding their way. The Rangers do not look like a good team that just needs to dig in and get traction. They look lost. They look like a bubble team. A bubble team is not going to be one of those outliers that can climb back from a hole dug too deeply.

Those numbers do not bode well for that team.

It's only the preseason, however.

what bubble would that be, exactly? the top 5 pick bubble? cos they for sure dont look like a playoff bubble team.

Ail 10-22-2013 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacko23 (Post 73048389)
what bubble would that be, exactly? the top 5 pick bubble? cos they for sure dont look like a playoff bubble team.

Without injuries I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are a bubble team. With injuries though, yeah you're probably right.

Kane One 10-22-2013 04:43 PM

There's a new playoff format, so these stats are useless.

Ail 10-22-2013 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane One (Post 73049193)
There's a new playoff format, so these stats are useless.

It's still only 8 teams from each conference, only now there's 16 teams in the East. One more team to be on the outside looking in. The only thing that changed is how the teams are seeded and wildcards are decided. So if anything the additional team in the East makes this look even worse for the Rangers. The Rangers are 4 points out from the 3rd division seat, and 6 from the wildcards.

The Rangers have the worst goal differential in the NHL, they are tied for the least GF. They have 4 key injuries. Call me negative, but it's not looking too hot.

Kane One 10-22-2013 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ailurophile (Post 73049917)
It's still only 8 teams from each conference, only now there's 16 teams in the East. One more team to be on the outside looking in. The only thing that changed is how the teams are seeded and wildcards are decided. So if anything the additional team in the East makes this look even worse for the Rangers. The Rangers are 4 points out from the 3rd division seat, and 6 from the wildcards.

The Rangers have the worst goal differential in the NHL, they are tied for the least GF. They have 4 key injuries. Call me negative, but it's not looking too hot.

Can someone who is good at figuring out probabilities tell me if this is right?

Old System:
SeedOdds
Top 31/5
41/12
51/11
61/10
71/9
81/8

New System:
SeedOdds
Top 33/8
41/10
41/9

Teams now have to compete with way less teams to get a playoff spot.

Even if I'm wrong, there's a 37.5% chance of automatically making the playoffs, without having to be a wildcard team.

Trxjw 10-22-2013 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane One (Post 73049193)
There's a new playoff format, so these stats are useless.

If anything, the current format makes it even tougher to climb out of the basement. We appear to be in the weaker Eastern division this year, which means it's pretty much that 3rd Metro spot or nothing unless we start winning some games quickly.

Ail 10-22-2013 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane One (Post 73050875)
Can someone who is good at figuring out probabilities tell me if this is right?

Old System:
SeedOdds
Top 31/5
41/12
51/11
61/10
71/9
81/8

New System:
SeedOdds
Top 33/8
41/10
41/9

Teams now have to compete with way less teams to get a playoff spot.

Even if I'm wrong, there's a 37.5% chance of automatically making the playoffs, without having to be a wildcard team.

Statistically it looks better. A 37.5% chance is greater than a 20% chance of winning the division, 12.5% to win the 8th is better than 11.1% with the new wild card, however.

It then becomes a matter of how bad/good is your division compared to the conference. The playing field is not level.

Edit: Are the Rangers better than 5 other teams in their division or 8 other teams in the conference?

Kane One 10-22-2013 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trxjw (Post 73051009)
If anything, the current format makes it even tougher to climb out of the basement. We appear to be in the weaker Eastern division this year, which means it's pretty much that 3rd Metro spot or nothing unless we start winning some games quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ailurophile (Post 73051343)
Statistically it looks better. A 37.5% chance is greater than a 20% chance of winning the division, 12.5% to win the 8th is better than 11.1% with the new wild card, however.

It then becomes a matter of how bad/good is your division compared to the conference. The playing field is not level.

Edit: Are the Rangers better than 6 other teams in their division or 8 other teams in the conference?

If the Rangers snap out of it and the Metro Division is as bad as it sounds, the Rangers should feast off of this "weaker division" like how the Capitals used to off the Southeast Division. I'll accept that 37.5% chance with the risk of a lesser chance at the wildcard teams if the Metro is as weak as people want to make it seem.

With your edit, why 6 teams and not 5? The Rangers are better than 5 teams in this division.

Ail 10-22-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane One (Post 73051487)
If the Rangers snap out of it and the Metro Division is as bad as it sounds, the Rangers should feast off of this "weaker division" like how the Capitals used to off the Southeast Division. I'll accept that 37.5% chance with the risk of a lesser chance at the wildcard teams if the Metro is as weak as people want to make it seem.

With your edit, why 6 teams and not 5? The Rangers are better than 5 teams in this division.

I agree and that seems like their only ticket it in, because I can't see them beating out the next 3 best teams in the Atlantic after their division winners, for the wildcard. (3 because they have 6 teams that right now look like a better team than the Rangers.)

Ail 10-22-2013 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kane One (Post 73051487)
If the Rangers snap out of it and the Metro Division is as bad as it sounds, the Rangers should feast off of this "weaker division" like how the Capitals used to off the Southeast Division. I'll accept that 37.5% chance with the risk of a lesser chance at the wildcard teams if the Metro is as weak as people want to make it seem.

With your edit, why 6 teams and not 5? The Rangers are better than 5 teams in this division.

Yes, meant 5, sorry.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 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.