HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What do you think was the most exciting playoff format

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2012, 07:46 PM
  #51
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So we agree that there are unique circumstances in the playoffs? That means the regular season winner isn't "the best in all circumstances" team.
There are unique circumstances in the regular season as well. There's no reason why a sprint must be better than a marathon.

The playoffs may be different (though they're not actually that different, if playoff results are to be believed), but that by itself does nothing to establish that playoff hockey is a better indication of good teams. Maybe the playoffs are different, but are worse for determining which are the best teams?

And did I not say "best in most circumstances"? I certainly meant to.

Edit: I said "overall" better, which implies better in a majority of circumstances, but not necessarily in all circumstances. Since it arose in the context of team matchups, clearly I did not mean in all circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I get that all things being equal, a larger sample size is better at getting "the correct answer," but not all things are equal.
See above. The playoffs not being equal could in fact mean they are worse. The unproven assumption is that they are better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Generally speaking, yes. There is a huge exception though: the most prestigious trophy of them all, the European Champions Cup, awarded to the Winner of the Champions League.
That's certainly one situation where a playoff system is absolutely necessary. A regular season played by every team in Europe is simply not feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Yes, good point, even if you dislike the playoff system, you cannot take the NHL regular season results as a 1:1 reflection of the actual quality of the teams. But the point of the critics is: it would be fairer to give the Stanley Cup to the best regular season team already. No need for playoffs.
Indeed, even regular-season results cannot be considered completely "accurate". Flukes can happen even over 82 games.

And you're right about the ultimate point. Playoffs are good and all, but it seems more fair to me to reward the team that wins more over a longer period of time than a shorter one. At the very least, the regular-season winner should not be ignored completely at the expense of the playoff winner, as we do in North America.

I'm not advocating that playoff champions should be ignored. Just that regular-season champions should not be.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 07:54 PM
  #52
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
I don't even see this as an issue. Out of the teams you have the same schedule with you failed to come in the top four. You can't compare yourself to a team that has a completely different schedule.



This, the current format is terrible at creating rivalries. The only ones that are made in the playoffs are between teams that are both basically guaranteed to get to at least the second round (I mean how many of the Wings-Avs or Canucks-Hawks series were first round) and therefore have like a 50+% chance at playing each other. However when they are no longer both teams that are basically guaranteed second round, the rivalry dies (Wings-Avs is a good example)
That too. Regardless, people have complained about that type of scenario happening, as it has in the past and even in today's format where a 95 point team will miss the playoffs in the West, yet a 91 point team makes it in the East.

I agree with you though, it doesn't matter. Finish top 4 in your division or go home. Them's the breaks.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 11:59 PM
  #53
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,005
vCash: 500
Divisional rivalries. A team should have to "GET OUT" of their division.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 04:07 AM
  #54
Triffy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
I think it needs to be pointed out that due to the NHL expanding from a relatively small regional league to a much more widely represented one, there are practical reasons for determining the best team using a playoff format. It would be very difficult to have a balanced schedule that a regular season based awarding would require. Number of games should be drastically reduced to make it a viable option.

I think I agree with Iain though. Regular season does better job in determining the best team, if no playoffs exist.

Triffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 06:58 AM
  #55
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
I don't mind the current format, except I'd change it that division winners wouldn't automatically get a top 3 seed in the playoffs. A division win should only guarantee a playoff spot.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 10:15 AM
  #56
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triffy View Post
I think it needs to be pointed out that due to the NHL expanding from a relatively small regional league to a much more widely represented one, there are practical reasons for determining the best team using a playoff format. It would be very difficult to have a balanced schedule that a regular season based awarding would require. Number of games should be drastically reduced to make it a viable option.
I agree, and I did mention I can certainly see having a playoff series between the top teams, East vs. West, at the end of the year. It's not practical to have a continent-wide balanced schedule, but it can be done in conferences.

I guess I'm saying baseball had it best, before they started allowing more and more teams into the post-season.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 10:34 AM
  #57
saskriders
ColinGreening's#1fan
 
saskriders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,251
vCash: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I agree, and I did mention I can certainly see having a playoff series between the top teams, East vs. West, at the end of the year. It's not practical to have a continent-wide balanced schedule, but it can be done in conferences.

I guess I'm saying baseball had it best, before they started allowing more and more teams into the post-season.
I have to disagree, the MLB has a terrible playoff format in my opinion. Teams can go decades without making the playoffs, that is completely unfair to the fans

saskriders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 02:27 PM
  #58
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saskriders View Post
I have to disagree, the MLB has a terrible playoff format in my opinion. Teams can go decades without making the playoffs, that is completely unfair to the fans
Unfair how? The fans get 162 games during the season. Are you saying that's not enough? By this logic shouldn't all teams make the playoffs every year?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 05:12 PM
  #59
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
Playoffs generates money. If no playoffs, there would be no playoff race, which would make it less exciting for fans other than the top teams, which means less money to the teams. This is probably even more the case with a "closed" league like the NHL and other North American leagues, as opposed to league systems where teams can be relegated.

Take for example the Swedish hockey league system, where the fight to avoid relegation often gets as much excitement and publicity as the playoff for the championship.
Level 1. 12 teams, 5x11=55 games. 1-8 go to playoffs. 11-12 go to "kvalserien".
Level 2. 14 teams, 4x13=52 games. 1-3 go to "kvalserien". 4-7 play round robin for a place in "kvalserien". 13-14 will play level 3 teams in round robin to fight for a level 2 place.
Kvalserien: 6 teams, 2x5=10 games. From level 1, teams 11-12. From level 2, teams 1-3 plus one of 4-7. There are the two bottom teams from level 1 fighting hard to remain at level 1, the three top teams from level two trying to move up, and another level 2 team probably in good shape (having won the 4-7 qualification) being an outsider to move up.

LevelReg. finishWhat will happen?What will happen?
11-8 Playoffs (homeice, choose opponent, etc.)
19-10  
111-12 kvalserien, 6 teams, round robin (h+a), 1-2 to level 1, 3-6 to level 2
21-3 Kvalserien, 6 teams, round robin (h+a), 1-2 to level 1, 3-6 to level 2
24-7round robin (h+a), winner to kvalserienKvalserien, 6 teams, round robin (h+a), 1-2 to level 1, 3-6 to level 2
28-12  
213-14 qualification to remain at level 2 or drop out of "elite levels" and into "regionalized levels".

This is a system where basically all 26 teams are involved in very important games throughout season. The ending of the regular seasons are extremely exciting as teams try to reach playoffs, avoid kvalserien, reach kvalserien, reach qualification to kvalserien, or avoid risking relegation to regionalized level 3. Last day of regular seasons ends with some very happy teams and some very disappointed.
Then follows even more excitement. I know that many Swedes finds kvalserien to usually be more exciting and interesting than the playoffs. The level 1 teams desperately wants to remain at level 1, instead of getting relegated, see many players move to other teams, get less attendance the following season resulting in less money, and having to try to climb the hard path back to level 1 again. Level 2 teams have been successful during their regular season, and some has a "now or never" chance to gain promotion, while others may have tried and been close for several seasons.

By the way, the Swedes uses the international point system of 3-2-1-0, as opposed to the NHL's strange 2-2-1-0 point system (in my opinion the most stupid thing to ever happen to the NHL). Always very exiting finishes of the seasons, with most of the teams involved fighting for positions.

Anyway, one of the advantages with NHL the way it is, is that all its players play in the same league, thus giving 30 teams full of players whose stats can be compared to each other. With a divided NHL, we might se some stars at level 1 and others at level 2, and what if say Crosby had played for a level 2 team? Not avaiable for Hart, no Art Ross, etc.? So from a stat point of view, I prefer to have NHL the way it is. But if looking for excitement and important games, the current closed system isn't ideal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
Fair point. But the question is: What's more telling in general, a regular season championship or a playoff championship. The NHL already uses a playoff championship system, so of course most teams don't care for the President's Trophy. But scrap the playoffs and award the Stanley Cup to the regular season champion: that's when the comparison starts. Which system is better? The one that determines the champion based on 82 games or the one that determines the champion based on 4x7=28 games (at most, the Bruins played 25 games last season)?
For the regular season to be fair, every team should meet each other the same number of times, which is difficult with a 30 team league as it would require 58 or 116 games per season, or perhaps 87 games if that's considered OK.
One could also let teams in same conference play each other 4 times = 56 games, and then let them play 30 games against teams from the other conference, totalling 86 games. Then let conference winners play for the Stanley Cup.

plusandminus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 05:27 PM
  #60
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 857
vCash: 500
I notice luck is being discussed.

Don't forget about home and away games, where home ice often (perhaps especially historically) has been a big advantage. The overall better teams usually defeated the worse teams when playing at home. But on the road, it was far more even.
So let's for example say that a team is better than another. They are good enough to win 3 of 4 home games, and 2 of 3 away games versus the worse team. That's 5 wins out of 7, which may be representative for top vs bottom rather than two upper half teams facing each other. Still, it only requires the "worse" team to win two games on "luck" in order to alter the series so that they win it 4-3.
Another case, historically not uncommon during last rounds of Stanley Cup, is that the teams simply tends to win their home games. No matter if one team is overall slightly better, they may still end up being 3-3 after 6 games. Just one away win for the "worse" team would then make them win the series.
One needs to remember that it's not black and white. Teams today are usually relatively even.

Finally, remember Boston-Montreal last year. Montreal was very close to knock out Boston, which would have changed the whole outcome of playoff (since Boston won Stanley Cup).

plusandminus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 05:46 PM
  #61
ricky0034
Registered User
 
ricky0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,258
vCash: 500
I love the current format,I also love the idea of 1-16 seeding

really any format with four best of 7 rounds to get through OTHER THAN THE DIVISIONAL PLAYOFF FORMAT I love

I HATE divisional playoffs though

ricky0034 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 01:35 AM
  #62
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
I prefer the 80's format of divisional play.

Rivalries are built on repeated playoff series. Bruins/Habs, Habs/Nords, Flyers/Rangers, Flyers/Isles, Isles/Rangers, Oilers/Flames etc.
The reason it changed to how we have it today is the monotony of repeated playoff series.

There is only so much fans can take of the same teams over and over again. That is why divisonal games were reduced from 8 to 6 per year.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.