What is the third tie breaker. Pheonix and Los Angeles currently have identical ROW. Their records are currently identical. Why does LA lead the division? Is it season series?
What is the third tie breaker. Pheonix and Los Angeles currently have identical ROW. Their records are currently identical. Why does LA lead the division? Is it season series?
Yep, determining placement in the standings based on a four or six game sample size isn't stupid at all.
You're determining placement between the two teams, so head to head should absolutely figure into the equation because you're determining which team is better for seeding. Your sample size argument is totally invalid here.
You're determining placement between the two teams, so head to head should absolutely figure into the equation because you're determining which team is better for seeding. Your sample size argument is totally invalid here.
Because four games completely determines who a better team is.
Because four games completely determines who a better team is.
It sure does when matching the two for seeding. You might have a slight argument if it were the first tie breaker, but as it's not you're point is invalid.
It sure does when matching the two for seeding. You might have a slight argument if it were the first tie breaker, but as it's not you're point is invalid.
It's ridiculous that it's given priority over goal differential, which really tells you more about a team's talent than their overall record anyway.
Come one now, obviously we are an inferior team to the Ducks. I mean, they won the season series 5-1.
That's where you fail. San Jose has more points, so they are the better team for seeding. Head to head only comes into play if there are ties in two other categories (points, then regulation wins). That's why complaining about the sample size of head to head is invalid.
That's where you fail. San Jose has more points, so they are the better team for seeding. Head to head only comes into play if there are ties in two other categories (points, then regulation wins). That's why complaining about the sample size of head to head is invalid.
Come on now, obviously the Sharks are an inferior team to the Coyotes. They won the season series 4-1-1.
That's where you fail. San Jose has more points, so they are the better team for seeding. Head to head only comes into play if there are ties in two other categories (points, then regulation wins). That's why complaining about the sample size of head to head is invalid.
So if you lose a season series 1-5 to a team that you're tied with, that team is obviously better, but if you lose 1-5 to a team that's way behind you in the standings, it doesn't mean anything?
Some teams just have other teams' number. Be it playing style, type of goaltender, what have you.
So if you lose a season series 1-5 to a team that you're tied with, that team is obviously better, but if you lose 1-5 to a team that's way behind you in the standings, it doesn't mean anything?
Some teams just have other teams' number. Be it playing style, type of goaltender, what have you.
"Better for seeding" does not necessarily mean "better" as a whole. Just like the case of division winners, "better for seeding" does not mean they are "better" teams.
I love it when people quote a post they obviously haven't read.
Read the post you quoted, that's the answer to your post.
I look forward to your next reply in your attempt to get the last word in.
What? The Coyotes were just an example of a team that the Sharks could have legitimately been tied with in the standings and received the tiebreaker by virtue of winning the season series but are far worse than the Sharks. Since you scoffed at the Ducks example while missing Juxtaposer's point: if the goal of a tiebreaker is to ensure the better team gets the higher seed, it's a spectacular failure in many real cases.
What? The Coyotes were just an example of a team that the Sharks could have legitimately been tied with in the standings and received the tiebreaker by virtue of winning the season series but are far worse than the Sharks. Since you scoffed at the Ducks example while missing Juxtaposer's point: if the goal of a tiebreaker is to ensure the better team gets the higher seed, it's a spectacular failure in many real cases.
My posts are crystal clear. I'm sorry you don't understand them.
My posts are crystal clear. I'm sorry you don't understand them.
And I'm sorry you don't understand how stupid it is that the NHL gives priority to head-to-head records, which are nothing more than randomness, over goal differential, an actual proven measure of a team's ability, when breaking ties.
