WordsOfWisdom

On 23/03/2018 at 9:29 AM, ruxpin said:

I really think it's the wrong way to go to do everything in the name of parity

Amen!

On 23/03/2018 at 9:29 AM, ruxpin said:

I would firmly argue that if it's not weighted to division there's absolutely zero purpose or argument to even having divisions.

Agreed.  The divisions are intended to cut down on travel and build rivalries with your nearest teams. 

I actually hated when baseball started interleague play. Again, as a Jays fan, I have no interest in seeing any of the National League teams unless it's in the World Series. Toronto has no rivalry with any of them. 

Although the system is sunk, here were my revised divisions anyway:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Revised division 2: Boston, Montreal, Rangers, Islanders

Revised division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Capitals, Devils.

Revised division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

That truly nails it I think. 

Yes I know about the Devils, but the New York area has too many teams. Someone gets left out no matter what. I think Rangers and Islanders fans would trade New Jersey for Boston and Montreal any day of the week. 

In baseball, the Yankees and Mets are in separate leagues. 

Actually, wait....... now that I think about it: I'd do this:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

Revised division 2: Boston, Montreal, Rangers, Devils

Revised division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Capitals, Islanders.

Revised division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

There. That covers all the rivalries.  

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

A couple of things.   Your team selection isn't horrible.

Thanks. 

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I think you probably want to keep Montreal in a division with at least Boston.

Now that I think about it,  Boston is a long way from Toronto. How about this:

Revised division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Buffalo, Ottawa

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

My problem with 4-team divisions isn't just the playoff format/seedings.   The four division winners plus 4 at large would be the way to go if you went the 4-team division route.   That part makes enough sense.

Actually I just discovered a major flaw that sinks it:  You can't have all four teams in the division making the playoffs. That's just not right, even with a strong division. It ruins division based rivalries if everyone gets in. 

On 20/03/2018 at 9:33 PM, ruxpin said:

Opinion statements, of course, but shallow because only 4. At 4, why bother even having divisions? And why not the absurdity of 32 divisions.  I like the heavy division play and the best among them moving on to play the best of the others. At 4, it's frankly by definition shallow. As in number of teams shallow. 

 I hate the idea, to be honest. 

But what about my newly retooled eastern conference divisions?  

(shown below)

On 20/03/2018 at 2:22 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Devils

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Capitals. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

Divisions of 4 seems small, but I don't see it as an issue. The 1st place team in each division would get home ice in the playoffs. Everyone else would fight over the remaining 4 wild card spots. (Assuming you want to keep 8 teams in the playoffs per conf.)

Using the division format above, this would be the playoff picture today:   

Division 1:

- Bruins

- Leafs

- Red Wings

- Senators

Division 2:

- Devils

- Rangers

- Islanders

- Canadiens

Division 3:

- Capitals

- Penguins

- Flyers

- Sabres

Division 4:

- Lightning

- Blue Jackets

- Panthers

- Hurricanes

Team seeds would be:

1. Lightning

2. Bruins

3. Capitals

4. Devils

5. Leafs

6. Penguins

7. Blue Jackets

8. Flyers

The Devils (being the product of an exceptionally weak division), would be seeded 4th. That would be the value of winning your division.

On 18/03/2018 at 11:10 AM, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Personally, I think the whole six division idea would be a huge mistake.

Once again, you are diluting the talent within the divisions...spreading it too thin across too many divisions, and, while it may not show right away, it WILL lead to weak division leaders getting in, and a weaker second place team getting in too.

That's the main problem with having too many divisions. You get weak division leaders. However, given the parity in the NHL today, I don't think it really matters any more.

With an 8-division format, you could have the division leaders get in automatically, and be seeded 1-4 (home ice), and then fill out the remaining spots with wild card teams. 

The new eight division format would get the NHL primed and ready for expansion to 40 teams.  

On 18/03/2018 at 10:15 AM, ruxpin said:

 

I prefer this, to be honest.   But I don't think you can break up the NY metro teams.   It doesn't make sense to me for the Rags and Isles to be in one division and the team immediately on the other side of the river in another.   With that exception, it's okay.   Although as a Flyers fan, stuck in a division with Columbus and Buffalo is a snoozefest.  I like that it keeps Pitt, but the other two teams will not be a gate draw in Philly.

Thanks.  I thought about the same thing. The difficulty is, you practically have to make a division out of the New York area teams because they have so many. Someone gets pushed out.   

If you put the Devils back in, then it's bye bye Capitals. 

On 18/03/2018 at 10:04 AM, WordsOfWisdom said:

How about this:

 

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Devils

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Buffalo, Capitals. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Columbus

20 minutes ago, belowthegoalline said:

I agree that this is not ideal for the Leafs. I'm not saying that this will be the final setup. I think they will ultimately end up being with Montreal, Ottawa, and Buffalo. There are so many different ways you could align everything (like the Pacific Division).

How about this:

Division 1: Detroit, Toronto, Boston, Ottawa

Division 2: Montreal, Rangers, Islanders, Capitals

Division 3: Pittsburgh, Philly, Columbus, Buffalo. 

Division 4: Lightning, Panthers, Hurricanes, Devils

"

Division #3: Boston Bruins, Buffalo Sabres, Ottawa Senators, and Montreal Canadiens.

Division #4: Columbus Blue Jackets, Detroit Red Wings, Toronto Maple Leafs, and Pittsburgh Penguins.

"

That would suck so hard for Toronto. Would never fly. You're basically keeping the current division mostly intact but removing the Leafs from all of their current division rivals. Leafs fans would want to see Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, and Montreal.

Columbus would be of no interest to Leafs. Pittsburgh generates no intrinsic interest other than being a good team. Detroit is a classic rival of Toronto but they're rebuilding now and don't hold much appeal. Plus you could never split Pittsburgh and Philadelphia into separate divisions. Wouldn't fly. 

I think fewer divisions is the way to go. Four divisions. Shift someone out to make room for Seattle if needed but no other re-alignment please. 

I went to the website but I didn't see any graphs or anything. I saw lots of tables with statistics but no charts or graphs. 

I do software development so it's something I might be able to help with. I would expect compensation though of course. (I only give my services away for free to family members lol.) 

What do you need help with from a web design standpoint? 

" 15-save shootout should not be the same as 40-save shootout, although for any of the four stats listed above they create two identical entry."

You really should adjust your terminology to avoid confusion. A "shootout" means something very specific in hockey, and what you're referring to is a 15 save or 40 save game.

"Bonus = (Saves - 10) / 200

If there were less than fifteen saves in the shootout, the bonus is assigned the minimum value of 0.025. We consider adding this bonus necessary, because the opposing team is usually gives an extra effort to avoid being shut out even during the garbage time."

Where and how are you coming up with these figures? Are you just assigning arbitrary bonuses?

One comment I would make is that new hockey stats still need to be "fan friendly".  There is a lot of complex analysis work that can go into evaluating players, but it flies over the head of the average fan. 

Your average fan needs something simple and meaningful when it comes to stats.

I do like reading your blog entries though.

I once constructed a system of allocating points to goaltenders called (not surprisingly) "goalie points" (or GPts for short). The idea being that they would accumulate as the season progressed just like points do for skaters.

I scrapped it however because it didn't work well. Basically the way it worked was:

• 1 point for every period that the goalie plays
• 1 point for every 10 saves that the goalie makes
• -2 points for every goal allowed

Thus, a goaltender that has a 30 save shutout performance would get 6 points for that game. (Basically the best performance a goaltender can do without stepping into record breaking 40, 50, 60 save performances and the like.)

30 minutes ago, More Hockey Stats said:

My biggest objection to the 2-2-1-0 system is not that it creates the 0-0-82 paradox, but because it simply creates a mutual incentive to steer the game into the OT. A wrong incentive (Goodhart).

 

In a 3-2-1-0 system OTW is not the same as W (unlike 2-2-1-0), as soon as you let the linguistic similarity go, it's easier to treat these outcomes differently. Call them "Win, Overtime Advantage, Overtime Disadvantage, Loss".

I agree. The existing system encourages teams to get into OT.

However, that can be easily solved in a few different ways:

1. Back to 2-1-0 (wins, losses, and ties). No points just for reaching OT.
2. My modern 2-1-0 + shootout idea (where the only way you can tie is after 3 shooters in a shootout)***.
3. Introduce a 3-1-0 system and bring back ties. (Could remove the shootout for example.)
4. Wins and losses only. (Teams play until someone wins. No more points system.)

***My 2-1-0 + shootout system was actually discussed over the radio one time (because I submitted it to the host as an idea). I can truly call it "my" idea without sounding arrogant (I hope)  because I'm the only person on earth that has ever suggested it. It is truly unique. The notion that you could have a shootout and still have the game end in a tie is something that most people can't wrap their head around. It's a concept that blows people's minds. You could end the shootout after 3 shooters and call it a tie game. At that point, the fans would have seen 60 minutes + 5 minutes of OT + a shootout. They're not being shortchanged. If a team still can't win the game after all of those opportunities, they don't deserve 2 points in my book. And so it would be: the teams would split the 2 points, leaving with 1 each. Ties would be a rare occurrence, but they would happen from time to time. The NHL could stop with the gimmicks in overtime (4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) and just play a normal overtime session. Shootouts would be exciting because the stakes are raised. You could win (getting 2 points), tie (1 point), or lose (0 points). Ditto for overtime. There wouldn't be a safety net like there is now. It's what the NHL has been missing.

The NHL had a problem of too many games ending in a tie back in 1997, 1998, whenever it was. I'm the only person that has ever created a points system that would have solved that problem 20 years ago without damaging the current points structure, without changing the value of wins and losses, without introducing loser points, and while allowing the NHL to either have or not have the shootout. (Okay I promise not to toot my own horn any more tonight.) 

2 hours ago, More Hockey Stats said:

This "problem" is a matter of definition, actually.

 

The 3-2-1-0 point system states that any game is worth 3 points. After a tied regulation it is ruled that 2 out of the 3 are split, and the OT/SO is just a lesser hockey-like competition for a lesser prize of the remaining 3rd point.

 

If baseball's extra innings would be reduced to: one inning for each side without the outfielders, and then a "shootout" between the pitcher and the batter (one pitch, ball/hit/miss), then, yes, the analogy would be in place, however the baseball's current extra innings resemble playoff OT and not the regular season OT.

In leagues that have used a 3-1-0 point system (such as European soccer), a victory was worth 3 points, a tie was worth 1 point, and a loss was worth 0 points. Under such a system, wins and losses had a consistent value under all scenarios (regulation, OT, or whatever). This is a very different concept from what a 3-2-1-0 system offers. 

Although there may be 3 points available in each game, such a system creates an environment of "spoiled victories" and "good losses". You essentially create shades of grey. Some wins are good wins, others are bad wins, etc. Some losses are good losses to have, others become bad losses.

We've already seen a bit of what this looks like with the NHL's current loser point system, and most fans dislike it. It's also fundamentally flawed in a purely mathematically way: 0-0-82 = 82 points > 40-42-0 = 80 points. A team with 0 wins (and 82 losses in overtime) can be positioned ahead of a team with 40 wins. It's the most outrageous math fail in NHL history that the league adopted such a system. 

A 3-2-1-0 system carries the same idea forward and applies it to both wins and losses, further magnifying the problem. At first glance it may seem like the answer, but I liken it to the scene in Indiana Jones where the Nazis open the ark. 

Good discussion though.

Although this topic is covered in other threads already, there is one fundamental problem with a 3-2-1-0 points system which is not solvable:

If you install a 3-2-1-0 points system, then you admit that some victories are worth more than others and also that some losses are worse than others.

To draw an analogy (and to shine a light on how big this flaw is), if the same system were applied to baseball it would mean that winning a game in the first 9 innings is worth 3 wins in the standings, a win in extra innings is only worth 2 wins, and if the game goes to a home run derby after 15 innings, the winner gets 1 win in the standings.

2 hours ago, hf101 said:

I always think the pre-season ranking is tough.  So much of what makes or breaks a season is based on key player injuries which we really can't predict.  What is getting more and more obvious each season is that more and more teams are quite equal with each other on paper

Agreed.

Reimer was a rookie when the Leafs last made the playoffs. I give him a free pass. It wasn't Reimer that collapsed that night against Boston, it was the entire TEAM that collapsed. 

What should have happened is the team should have been back to the playoffs the following year to avenge that loss and move on. Instead, they regressed as a team and Reimer was never given another chance to play until Babcock arrived.

The Leafs absolutely buried Reimer, unlike the Penguins who kept sticking with Fleury. Fleury went from awful to amazing. He's had ups and downs, but Pittsburgh stuck with him. Compare that to Reimer, who has been the best Leafs goalie statistically in ages, and the team has never let him play more than ~35 games in a season? Has Reimer ever been the #1 guy for an entire season in Toronto? No.

When you look at his numbers (regular season and playoff), Reimer should be the #1 goalie and Sparks should be backing him up next season. No more goalie carousel. Reimer is on the cusp of greatness. It appears that he has "figured it out". If the Leafs trade him now, they may be watching him win several Vezina trophies elsewhere.

Anaheim and Pittsburgh are both going to make the playoffs. Look at the standings and both are trending upward. 

Yeah baby!!! 

We'll celebrate 30th place for now, knowing that it may be a while before we're back here again. 

I really thought the Leafs had 30th place locked up this week. 

"Tyler Seguin"

Who needs Tyler Seguin when you've got...... Full Kessel?  

#BrianBurkeTradeLegend

"Parity = mediocrity = boring...."

Agreed.

"NHL = No Hitting League."

Agreed.

"We need a juggernaut to make things interesting....."

A few actually..... so we can look forward to when they play each other. 

I'll always remember that day, and even how one of my classmates broke the news to me, saying: "a plane just hit the World Trade Center (chuckle)". To which my reaction was: 1. What's the World Trade Center?  2. Where is the World Trade Center?  3. WTH are you talking about you nitwit?  4. How did a plane hit it? Must have been a dumb pilot in a Cessna or something.

Then I walked into a packed lounge after class and saw it on CNN, where things immediately became clear.  1. Those two big buildings in New York are/were the WTC. 2. It wasn't a small plane, it was a commercial airliner. 3. It wasn't an accident. That's when the full gravity of the situation began to sink in.

As a sidenote, how long has it taken them to rebuild the WTC? In that same amount of time, an entire city more impressive than New York has been built in Dubai. Just sayin.... construction crews in North America need to step it up a little.