Once again, I have already conceded that the revenue capabilities of the two teams is not equal; it is the one true weakness of the comparison. However, that doesn't falter the argument IMO.
Also keep in mind...some posters have been advocating that Nashville's talent development is a testament to their management, the fact that they are a low budget team forces them to do this. So right there, there is an offsetting effect. Business's adjust to their economic situation, a team that has a low budget will put more resources into player development and retention, whereas a team with a higher budget will put more resources into player recruitment.
No, I never said that.
But the OP concluded something along the lines of "Nashville's management is good, Montreal's management is putrid," yet I have thoroughly pointed out that their situations/results are extremely similar (if not Montreal having the edge), so why the disparity in opinion?
It is extremely easy to show that the western conference is substantially stronger.
In the 2010-2011 season, the EC teams had 608 wins, and the WC had 622 wins.
In the 2009-2010 season, the EC teams had 595 wins, and the WC teams had 635 wins.
If you think about it, every game played produces 1 win, and the two conferences play the same number of games, and have the same number of teams. Thus, if the WC teams have more total wins, it means they're dominating the inter-conference games.
That makes no sense. We have a much bigger budget and can spend more ressources in both categories.
We just don't put the right people in the right place.
It wasn't worded great.
I am not going to defend Montreal's prospect development, it has a pretty poor record.
However, my point was that a high revenue team does not need to focus solely on player development and retention of assets; because it has the ability to make up for that in other categories.
Nashville for example will spend substantially less resources on pro scouting and free agency compared to player development. Whereas Montreal will be closer to the opposite. This is a testament to their situations as hockey clubs, and I don't think people should inevitably place an inordinate emphasis on Nashville's player development being better, just as I would refrain from making arguments about Montreal being able to sign free agents at a much higher rate as a judgement of management.
The OP was just an proverbial "spark to the fire" of a hypothesis I have been developing for some time.
The obvious answer is yes? Okay, how about you take the tail out from between your legs and actually argue my premises like a man?
If your big theories revolve around Habs fan evaluating talent through a fickle lense that changes its focal point based on the highs and lows of the team, this isn't new , it exists, and it exists in all fan bases.
If you're using this as an opportunity to erase or dispute that Nashville's people, processes, and decision making methods has on at least one occasion got the better of their counterparts on the Habs, well then the arguments on .
Poile and Trotz are great assets for an organization. I heard the Poile interview over his DL moves.
These guys have a clue, our people look like clowns compared to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
buddahsmoka1,
It is extremely easy to show that the western conference is substantially stronger.
In the 2010-2011 season, the EC teams had 608 wins, and the WC had 622 wins.
In the 2009-2010 season, the EC teams had 595 wins, and the WC teams had 635 wins.
If you think about it, every game played produces 1 win, and the two conferences play the same number of games, and have the same number of teams. Thus, if the WC teams have more total wins, it means they're dominating the inter-conference games.
But that has little difference on the relative placement of each team in different conferences.
For example, just because the West has more points, doesn't make the playoffs in that conference of a particular team more difficult to accomplish.
In order to actually quantify the relative difficulty of making the playoffs in each conference you would have to cross-analyze the disparity of points between the teams within the conference, not between the two conferences. I do not have the time, discipline, or interest to do this...at all.
But regardless, I really don't want to get into a debate which conference is "tougher." There are countless threads you can look through on the main boards to get your fix.
But anyways, I have a mid-term to study for, I'll be back later.
If your big theories revolve around Habs fan evaluating talent through a fickle lense that changes its focal point based on the highs and lows of the team, this isn't new , it exists, and it exists in all fan bases.
If you're using this as an opportunity to erase or dispute that Nashville's people, processes, and decision making methods has on at least one occasion got the better of their counterparts on the Habs, well then the arguments on .
Wrong. Please (don't) try again.
If you actually want a thorough answer from me (which if you haven't noticed, I have been giving the other two) then you can go ahead and try to refute any of my arguments, or hell (here's a novel idea!) make some logical ones of your own.
But that has little difference on the relative placement of each team in different conferences.
For example, just because the West has more points, doesn't make the playoffs in that conference of a particular team more difficult to accomplish.
You're shifting the goalposts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1
In order to actually quantify the relative difficulty of making the playoffs in each conference you would have to cross-analyze the disparity of points between the teams within the conference, not between the two conferences. I do not have the time, discipline, or interest to do this...at all.
That is actually irrelevant. The total number of wins obtained from intra-conference play is the same for each conference.
But that has little difference on the relative placement of each team in different conferences.
For example, just because the West has more points, doesn't make the playoffs in that conference of a particular team more difficult to accomplish.
In order to actually quantify the relative difficulty of making the playoffs in each conference you would have to cross-analyze the disparity of points between the teams within the conference, not between the two conferences. I do not have the time, discipline, or interest to do this...at all.
But regardless, I really don't want to get into a debate which conference is "tougher." There are countless threads you can look through on the main boards to get your fix.
But anyways, I have a mid-term to study for, I'll be back later.
I wouldn't even mention the conference before talking about the division.
They're 5th when they have to face the Wings, Blues and Hawks 6 times each.
To top that, they're 5th in the LEAGUE in wins. They have the second most wins vs. West. And they're 13-3-3 against the strongest division.
They're a really good team this year, just 5 years after the 07 cap casualties.
If you actually want a thorough answer from me (which if you haven't noticed, I have been giving the other two) then you can go ahead and try to refute any of my arguments, or hell (here's a novel idea!) make some logical ones of your own.
You have made the argument a non starter to someone with finite time. In your mind you've kryptonited all quantitative analysis that attempts to measure the success of the two teams by saying "you don't know what the Habs would do if they were in the other conference".
If you remain closed to the possibility that Team A is better than TEam B, it's impossible for you to see the superiority of people and processes employed by Team A.
You have made the argument a non starter to someone with finite time. In your mind you've kryptonited all quantitative analysis that attempts to measure the success of the two teams by saying "you don't know what the Habs would do if they were in the other conference".
Once again you have proved to have the reading comprehension skills of a preschooler.
I provided analysis in two main categories:
-Standings
-Playoff success.
Neither of those are in favour of the Preds. The bold was in response to something completely unrelated, the premise of "the eastern conference is weaker."
But thanks for playing again.
Quote:
If you remain closed to the possibility that Team A is better than TEam B, it's impossible for you to see the superiority of people and processes employed by Team A.
And you have not provided a single argument towards Team A being better.
And I don't expect one, because you are nothing but a troll. Don't bother replying, I won't be able to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion
You're shifting the goalposts.
How is that moving the goal posts?
Your premise was "the playoffs/standings are harder to reach in the West because of X." Yet, your argument for X was insufficient IMO.
Quote:
That is actually irrelevant. The total number of wins obtained from intra-conference play is the same for each conference.
It is 100% more relevant than points derived from inter-conference play, which plays a minor role in attaining the playoffs for any given team.
