Jump to content

ruxpin

Member
  • Content Count

    22,278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    373

Blog Comments posted by ruxpin

  1. 23 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

     

    Amen!

     

     

    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. 

    You saw my post regarding baseball in the other thread, but I completely agree with the baseball thing. 

     

    I didn't like the interleague thing, either. I actually view it (and always have) as an interruption to the season. 

     

    "I don't get to see certain players every year" blah blah blah.  First of all, is your television broken?  This isn't the 1970s where if they don't come to town - - or you don't go to theirs - - you don't see them. Second, so what?  I don't think that's what a team sport is supposed to be about.  I respect someone who has that opinion but I fundamentally disagree with it.  

     

    I think some of the ideas or trends - - the balanced schedule (it's effect made worse by way too many teams), the death of the importance of regional rivalries, illogical emphasis on parity (especially in hockey where "parity" is entirely a manufactured FRAUD), emphasis on "skill" at the expense of emotion and force, ending games with dog and pony shows, etc. is castrating the sport and making it a painfully boring milktoast snoozefest. 

     

    It's honestly increasingly difficult to watch a full game and with every "improvement" they're making that worse.  

    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, hf101 said:

     

    As a fan who goes to about 10 home games a year, I personally like to see the teams we don't play as often.  I wouldn't like the idea of having to wait a couple of years to see McDavid, or the Wild or Johnny Gaudreau.  Granted there are teams I wait until the next year to go watch them play, but I would rather go to one of those games vs multiple games vs the Rangers or Islanders.  

     

    For me the next alignment is less about playing mostly the divisions and building rivalries as it is about parity throughout the league and with that mindset playing the rest of the league as often as possible beyond your conference.  So the  ( East vs West play 2 x) is just a little less important than ( Inter conference - 3 x) which is a little less important than Division play 4 x or 4x +1)  I believe this is essentially what the league has now with 2 Conferences and 2 divisions within each conference and not playing every team in a division 4 x)

     

    I think the above is a better measure for League parity than playing the few teams in a division 6 times if we went with less play throughout the East vs West.  So when teams like Tampa Bay and Nashville post over 50 wins in a season they basically won vs every team in the League at least once throughout the season, we know that these two teams are truly the best in a given year.

     

    Thanks for the explanation.   I don't mean this as an insult in any way, and not that I'm right or you're wrong ,just an observation:  we have two diametrically opposed priorities when it comes to this subject.  I really think it's the wrong way to go to do everything in the name of parity.  That's what the cap and reverse order of draft, etc. is for.  I would firmly argue that if it's not weighted to division there's absolutely zero purpose or argument to even having divisions.    People are putting divisions together using travel arguments -- which is utter crap if we're playing everyone equally or only one more time.     Others based on rivalries.  Also crap.

     

    Just list the 32 teams in one grouping and whatever 16 teams arbitrarily come out with the better record in this snoozefest called "parity" and made ever worse by incessant three point games and non-hockey activities like a shootout or speed grocery shopping get to go to the playoffs!    Whoohoo.  I may become exclusively a football fan before long

     

    That said, if they're going to stay essentially the same as now (and the bolded above), I'm okay with that.  Going with more divisions and NOT weighting to divisional play renders the divisions utterly pointless, IMO.

     

  3. On 3/18/2018 at 10:32 AM, hf101 said:

    EASTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)


    Northeast Division: Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Boston, Buffalo
    Atlantic Division: N.Y. Rangers, N.Y. Islanders, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia
    Southeast Division: Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Florida

     

    WESTERN CONFERENCE: (16 teams)


    Northwest Division: Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Seattle, Colorado
    Pacific Division: San Jose, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Vegas, Arizona
    Central Division: Winnipeg, Minnesota, Chicago, St. Louis, Nashville, Dallas

     

     

    By the way, if we're going to go with 6 divisions, this is exactly the way I'd break up the teams.  I'd still be in favor of somehow scheduling so that intra-division is weighted, and then intra-conference, and then inter-conference.   I *think* (without going through the iterations) that this would be difficult -- at least the weighted intradivision -- with unbalanced divisions.   But I think I actually prefer it to 8 divisions.

     

    I suppose in the interest of travel that you could flip San Jose and Colorado, but I really don't like breaking up the California teams.  Oddly, I was okay with WoW splitting up the New York Metro teams but that's kind of weird, too.    I like yours because, especially in the east but for the most part in the west, your arrangement keeps traditional rivalries in common divisions.  

     

    In the effort to at least weight intra-conference games, what would your thoughts be of an eastern division only playing two of the western divisions in any given year and then rotating them?   It would keep teams like Winnipeg or Edmonton, etc., from going 2 years without playing Toronto like a true rotation would have, but they would miss Toronto 1 out of every three years.  What would that look like mathematically?

     

    So, the east divisions would play 2 divisions in the west (home and away).  That would be either 20 or 22 games depending upon which division they matched up with.   Oh man, this is getting unwieldy already. 

     

    So, if you continue with the above and just play every intraconference team 4 times, that gets you 60.   You'd have a total of 80 or 82 games depending which interconference divisions you play.   You could potentially just randomly add 2 games for teams at the 80 threshhold.  i don't know how  to allocate those.  I guess an extra home and away against someone?   Say it were this year, though.   Would it be fair that Pittsburgh played Washington two extra times while the Flyers play Buffalo?   I'm not sure.

     

    The other possibility is that you play each intrerconference team twice.   That gets 32.

    Intra-division 6 times.   (Either 24 or 30 games depending upon size of division)

     

    That's either 56 or 62.

    Then, 2 times against the other intra-conference teams.  22 or 20 depending upon the division again. 

    If my math is right, that gets 78 or 82 games.     I guess you have to randomly add 4 games somewhere but I'm not sure how that's done that no one's whining about playing the Caps or Pens or Lightning extra times while someone else plays Ottawa or Buffalo (just using this year as an example).  

     

    I've had a bit of rum, so the above may be off, but I think it's right.

     

    Maybe the eastern team plays the western division with the 6 teams every year and rotates the 5-team divisions?    That way it's always 22 games.     

    And then they play each of the other 15 intra-conference teams 4 times for 60.

    That gets you a schedule of 82 games for everyone.

     

    The problem with this is that 6 teams in each conference get to see the other conference every single year.   It's probably okay for those of us in Philly or Washington (except for those who get to see each team).  The lucky thing is that in your set up above, all Canadian teams are in 6 team divisions so at least the Canadian teams all get to see each other every year.

     

    I don't know.  I still think 4 divisions of 8 is easiest but I'm at least coming around to entertaining this.

     

     

    • Thanks 1
  4. 1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

    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

     

    Of the two, I like this better but either is the best to date.   I'd settle for either one if we're going with 8 4-division teams (an alignment which would, in general, not be my preference for reasons stated earlier).

     

    I'm starting to move to HF's "cut the baby in half" idea as a fallback despite the dislike of uneven divisions when there are two options that make them even.    WoW, I hadn't actually thought of the possibility you raised of all one division making the playoffs until you raised that issue.  I suppose that's happened in the NFL (I can't think of a specific example at the moment, but I think it's happened), but it really isn't a preferred result.

     

    I think it would happen in the above scenario, wouldn't it?    Toronto would be the only team from Division 1, Boston the only one from Division 2,  All 4 teams from division 3 are currently in, and then 2 from Division 4.    I actually prefer that, though, to the idea that the top 2 teams from each get in and you have a situation where a Detroit or Ottawa get in by default despite having horrible seasons.   Same with division 2, although the Islanders or Rangers could still possibly make it in the current format (mathematically, if not realistically).  

     

    I still prefer the 2 x  8 in each conference, though.  (Ironically, I was against that concept when they first introduced it!)

    • Like 1
  5. 28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

    But what about my newly retooled eastern conference divisions?  :unsure[1]:

    (shown below)

     

    On 3/20/2018 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

     

    28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

     

    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.)

     

    A couple of things.   Your team selection isn't horrible.   With only four teams in a division, I don't think you can avoid issues like this, but I think you probably want to keep Montreal in a division with at least Boston.   I like your division one and it makes sense--except, for me, the absence of Montreal.   The 8-team divisions avoid some (probably not all) of this.

     

    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.    It's the inter vs. intra division (and then the inter-conference) play of the schedule.    I'd want to weight the schedule so that intra-division teams play each other more often than they play others, but with only four, how many times do you really (as a Flyer fan, for example) really want to play Pitt, Buffalo (ew) and Washington before that becomes a bit boring or absurd (or absurdly boring?)   "Oh, it's Thursday, must be one of Pitt, Buffalo, or Washington!"   

     

    For divisions to work -- for me (YMMV) -- it should be the teams in that division rising to the top or bottom largely due to playing each other and being the best among that grouping...and then going on to play the best of the others.    I think 4 is too shallow a pool for this to be done effectively (and with an eye to some entertainment value).  To me, it wouldn't be.   It's also why I keep using the word "shallow," because I'm not just thinking in terms of playoffs.  

     

    I think 8 is too many, actually, and may be why @hf101 was trying to cut the baby in half with a 5-5-6 format.    But 8 at least gets a larger pool of intra-division play while still allowing for teams to play the other divisions.  And the number of times a team plays each intra-division opponent doesn't reach the level of the fans thinking, "oh, THEM again!"  

     

    The 5-5-6 that HF advocated probably fits this part of my criteria nicely provided they go the route  of the NFL and only play one inter-conference division each season.   ie., weighted first for intra-division, then intra-conference, and then 2 games (or maybe three, I haven't yet given a lot of thought about how to allocate the games in this set-up) against one inter-conference division.   The obvious problem with this is that Toronto, for example, would only see Winnipeg once every three years.  That may not be palatable for either market (especially for Winnipeg since Toronto would be a gate draw).   Plus, I'm not a fan of the uneven divisions when there are obvious ways to balance them.  And let's not give the league the excuse to add 4 more teams just to make it even.

     

    8 keeps most natural "rivalries" in tact.  I agree with HF that this has been overly-abused.   But, again to use the NFL comparison (sorry), Eagles, Giants and Cowboys fans get up for games against each other far more than other games (unless in context of playoff positioning, etc.).   An Eagles-Cowboys game gets people charged regardless of context.   And there's clearly no geographic reason why Dallas & Philly should be grouped together, right?  Pitt-Philly in hockey the same way (regarding people getting up for the game, not the geographic oddness) -- although waning due to recent Pitt success and Philly ineptitude.   Contrarily, in baseball when they realigned the divisions years ago, Pitt-Philly went from being a huge draw to "meh,"  only to be replaced by other other rivalries (although I don't think Florida-Philly has ever been on the same level).

     

    I just like 8 better due to the depth of intradivision play and the ability to keep more "rival" cities (for lack of a better term--I don't mean to over-exaggerate this) together in groups.

     

    As you have them, they're okay, if not particularly exciting.   I don't think I'd hate them.  My biggest problems are the Montreal thing (more important of the two) and not being terribly excited about the division the Flyers would be stuck in.  I'm not at all interested in Buffalo and never have been.  But they have to be in someone's division, right?

     

    Oh, real quick.  No one answered me about the typical desire to have Buffalo and Boston together.   Why is that?  Are you aware of people in those cities actually thinking that's a thing or is it just that they both start with B or that they have simply usually been in the same division? 

  6. 1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

    how does having eight divisions make things shallow?

    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. 

     

    I know the NFL has small divisions but it works due to the small number of games.  

     

    With the large number of games, only 4 becomes pointless. To me it weakens the regular season. At four, don't even bother with divisions. It's silly. 

     

    Not as silly as 6 uneven divisions when that isn't remotely necessary, but still silly. 

  7. On 3/18/2018 at 12:48 PM, More Hockey Stats said:

    It would rather be

    Interconference: 2x16 = 32

    Intraconference, Interdivision: 3x8 = 24

    Intraconference, Intradivision: 4x7 = 28

    For the total of 84, where they already had been some time ago.

     

    I don't have any problem with this.

     

    Or...This idea kind of stinks in the sense there will be some teams and, therefore, some players you don't get to see every year, but in the NFL, a team only plays one division in the other conference each year--which rotates.  I'm not sure with television and streaming if it's as big a deal anymore if you don't see a team every year.  YMMV.

     

    So, 

    Interconference - ONE division:   2 x 8 = 16

    Intraconference, Interdivision:  3 x 8 = 24

    Intraconference, Intradivision:  6 x 7 = 42

    Total of 82.   It's one more game than currently, but I don't know that the owners will be upset about 1 extra game receipts.

    The 3 versus the intraconference/interdivision (just like yours) makes it that you have a different number of away games than home games against certain opponents, but that would be flipped every other year, as well (in theory).    And the bulk of your points (or lack of) would  come against teams in your division.   Under this set up, I would keep the current 3 x 3 + 2 playoff format we currently have, but I wouldn't be opposed to straight up division winners get top seeds and the rest of the 6 at large seeded 3-8.

  8. 13 minutes ago, belowthegoalline said:

    And you're going to shove Dallas from the Central Time Zone into the western most division? And bring Calgary and Edmonton over to the "Central"? Doesn't make sense to me.

     

    I agree.   My preference would be bringing the Oilers and Flames to Division 4 and moving Colorado and Dallas to Division 3.   Makes sense for Dallas but not as much for Colorado.   

     

    Wait a minute.  I screwed it up altogether.  I had Colorado in two divisions (maybe they'd have a better shot if they played in two?). I forgot Vancouver.  Hope they don't burn any buses over it.  Try this again:

     

    "Central' (Division 3) Pacific(ish) (Division 4)
    Dallas Stars Vancouver Canucks
    Colorado Avalanche Seattle Whachamacallilts
    Winnipeg Jets San Jose Sharks
    Minnesota Wild Anaheim Ducks
    St. Louis Blues Los Angeles Kings
    Chicago BlackHawks Vegas Golden Knights
    Nashville Predators Calgary Flames
    Arizona Coyotes. Edmonton Oilers

     

    I kind of wanted to keep Arizona out west because of Vegas, but it really doesn't matter.   You have two Mountain Time Zone teams in Division 3 and two in Division 4.   Not ideal but not a horrible thing.   I guess 4 divisions/conference gets around that, but I really don't like 4x4.  The divisions are too shallow and become pointless after awhile.   And, really, having a division of just the 4 Mountain time zone teams really doesn't cut down on travel much for any of them.  Edmonton to Phoenix is about the same flight time as Edmonton to LA and as Winnipeg to Phoenix.   So, I think the travel works.

  9. 36 minutes ago, 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.

     

    Then people will complain about THAT, and the NHL will sit there scratching their heads saying, "Man we gotta change this again".

     

    I still do like the two Conference set up (East-West) and keep FOUR divisions! Less divisions means each one is deeper, which in turn means the weaker teams will sink to the bottom and will have almost zero chance claim a playoff spot!

     

    This.  Completely this.  All day every day this.   I really dislike the 6 division idea, primarily because there are two other options that cut the cake in equal portions and this does NOT.   

     

    7 minutes ago, hf101 said:

    vs concentrating on divisional play as the league has now.

     

     

    If you're not going to concentrate on divisional play --something I would advocate on principle--there's no point to having divisions.   Neither for competition/rivalry sake nor for the idea of cutting down travel.   The only purpose to them at that point is for sorting.  No other.  So unless you're going to concentrate on divisional play and build rivalries, cut down on travel, etc., don't bother.  Go back to the 1982 version (that was the year, wasn't it?) of simply ranking teams 1-32  and the top 16 get into the playoffs.

     

    36 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

    And for the love of puck, just go back to the top 8 teams in each Conference getting in with the two division winners getting seeds 1 and 2!! Everyone else, by points, goes 3-8, and then you go 1v8, 2v7 etc.

     

    I could argue this either way, but I'm okay with this.

     

  10. 14 minutes ago, hf101 said:

    Each team plays their division 1 or 2 extra times total - 5 additional games.

     

    Out of the 82 games in a season, the only difference here basically in a conference is the divisions with 5 teams would play one extra random divisional game.  Otherwise, it is equal.

     

    But it's not equal except in ways that begs the question, "Why bother having divisions?"

     

    The 1 or 2 extra games versus intradivision opponents is different for the divisions with 6 that it is for those with 5.     You have 8 playoff seeds across 3 divisions, one of them having an extra team.   This is all something to go ahead and swallow if it were necessary, but it isn't.

     

    Go with 2 divisions of 8 per conference and there's no "otherwise, it's equal."  It just IS equal.   The 4 x 2 is equal, too, but now we're just into a ridiculous number of too-shallow divisions.

  11. 9 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

    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

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  12. Quote

    Division #1: Tampa Bay Lightning, Florida Panthers, Carolina Hurricanes, and Washington Capitals.

    Division #2: Philadelphia Flyers, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, and New York Islanders.

    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.

     

    The first two divisions are easy to put together. You can use the geography to put Division 1 together, and you maintain the rivalry of Tampa/Florida. The second division also makes sense, since all of those teams are basically right on top of each other.

     

    It gets a little trickier after that, but in keeping a “northeast/west” theme here would make sense. You can lump the Sabres and Bruins together, as well as the Jackets and Wings. So then it’s about putting the other four teams in good spots, but those could easily be flipped around a bit.

     

    I often do this too.   Why?   What about Buffalo and Boston makes them go together other than that they both start with B?   I'm actually asking because I tend to do it too.

     

    The more I'm thinking about this the less I like four divisions in each conference.   The way you have the above makes sense on many levels, but I don't like a scenario that has Pitt and Philly in two separate divisions.   But I don't have a way that makes sense in order to compensate for that.   I feel like somehow Buffalo geographically makes more sense with Division #4 but I don't know who from #4 I'd put in #3 to make that move possible.   Although, I think maybe flip Toronto to 3 and Sabres to 4 so that you have a Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal thing going on.   Boston makes sense with most of them from a historical perspective.   I agree that #1 and #2 just make sense geographically.   

     

    Ultimately, I think I like  two divisions of 8 (well, I like it better.  As I already said, there are too many teams.).

     

    Division 1 Division 2

    Tampa Bay Lightning

    Boston Bruins
    Florida Panthers Bufffalo Sabres
    Carolina Hurricanes Ottawa Senators
    Washington Capitals Montreal Canadiens
    Philadelphia Flyers Columbus Blue Jackets
    New Jersey Devils Detroit Red Wings
    New York Rangers Toronto Maple Leafs
    New York Islanders Pittsburgh Penguins

     

    It's admittedly not ideal.   And I still don't get Pitt and Philly in the same division.   But you can't split up the NYC-area teams.  The only other option--which is poor--is flipping the Capitals for the Penguins.    So, I guess it is what it is.      There may be developing a situation, too, that east and west conference don't play each other every year.  With 8 teams in a division, even if you just play ONE division from the other conference twice, it's already 16 games (20% of the season).  The other intraconference division 4 times gets you 32 games.   We're up to 48 games with 34 games left for your own division.   They would never lop 2 games off of the schedule and go to 80 games, but that would certainly make the math easier.

     

    You could play your own division 4 times and each of the other divisions twice to get the same effect.   But the Flyers, Devils, Caps, Rangers, and Islanders each only playing the Penguins twice (once at home) would be tough to swallow.

     

    Quote

    Division #1: Anaheim Ducks, Los Angeles Kings, Arizona Coyotes, and Dallas Stars.

    Division #2: San Jose Sharks, Seattle, Vancouver Canucks, and Vegas Golden Knights.

    Division #3: Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, and Winnipeg Jets.

    Division #4: Minnesota Wild, Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, and Nashville Predators.

     

     

    I think if we're staying with 4 divisions that I flip the Coyotes and Stars for the Sharks and Vegas just as a matter of geography.   Vegas wouldn't have been my first choice there, but you can't split up Seattle and Vancouver.  I think that natural geographic rivalry will be pivotal especially early for Seattle.

     

    In fact, now that I'm looking at it I get the reasoning behind divisions #1 and #2 as is.   I'm not a huge fan of San Jose in a different division than LA and Anaheim, but it may be necessary.    

     

    The other two divisions make sense to me as is.

     

    They again make more sense to me as two divisions of 8 teams, though.

     

     

    Division 3 Division 4 
    Edmonton Oilers Anaheim Ducks
    Calgary Flames Los Angeles Kings
    Colorado Avalanche Arizona Coyotes
    Winnipeg jets Dallas Stars
    Minnesota Wild San Jose Sharks
    Chicago Blackhawks Seattle Whatchamahoozits
    St. Louis Blues Colorado Avalanche
    Nashville Predators Vegas Golden Knights

     

    The presence  of the Alberta teams in division 3 make travel there a beast, but it's really the only way this format makes sense.     And you keep the California teams together but still lend San Jose to a possible rivalry with the Seattle/Vancouver teams.

     

    Unless sticking Dallas and Arizona in division 3 and moving Edmonton & Calgary to division 4 makes sense.   I'm not sure that it does.

     

    Eight teams in a division is not ideal.   But it stays in line with what they already have set up.  It's too many in a division, IMO, but 8 divisions is too many and 4 in each is too few.    I don't see anywhere to go in between.   So of two not-so-great choices, I'd prefer the 4 divisions of 8 format.  YMMV.

     

    Really cool topic, btw.

  13. I thoroughly enjoy your posts, Scott.

     

    I like Karlsson for 2015.   Nothing against Price--who had a terrific season--but I don't like a goalie for it.  If there was a season in which you give it to a goalie (or a defenseman), though, last year was it.   My only comment pointing toward Price over Karlsson is that as good as Karlsson was, the Sens got there because of a hot goalie and a Turris/Stone tandem that caught fire down the stretch (and Karlsson, too).  But the point is if Karlsson goes down they have a chance.  An unlikely chance, but a chance.  If Price goes down it's close the doors and go home.   That's an MVP, to me.

     

    Yes on Lindstrom.  He'd have gotten my vote.

     

    I'm actually less hard on Coffey than most, but he was a disaster if caught in his end, particularly in the corner.  I give it to either forward that year, but Coffey deserves to be in that conversation.   But again, despite my dislike of giving it to goalies, I'm good with Hasek if Brodeur doesn't get it (That's just for @JagerMeister).

     

    Bourque deserved to be as close as he was in 1990.  That vote went the way I think it should have in terms of who eked it out, but I'm with you in being astounded that he was left off.  You have to imagine that's a forward bias for some voters (the point to your thread, I think).

     

    I loved Potvin as a player.  Given that I was a Flyers' fan even back then, that's hard to say, but I did.  I also loved Trottier.   My vote goes to him, but Potvin is second.   Hard to argue against The Flower and Dionne, but I'm with you in leaving Dionne off. (On the other hand, Dionne had Taylor and....?   Trottier and Potvin had a pretty good developing cast).

     

    Agree with every word on Robinson.  Yes, LaFleur wins.  Robinson is #2.

  14. Love this blog.

     

    @Mr.Beantown  -- Terrific points about Quick.  Pick him for your playoff pools but careful in regular season.  Good call. 

     

    I'm in a keeper league, so I'm definitely keeping Bishop.  I'm selling on Niemi, though.  He put up decent fantasy stats last year, but I wonder a bit about the psychology of the team in front of him with taking away C's and the weird reindeer games that front office has played all offseason.   I'll probably start the season with Bishop and two random draft choices and play it from there.

     

    I'd like to know why the "buyer beware" on Varly, though.  Just being controversial or you figure this year has to be a step back from last both for the team and the goalie?

     

    I think the Mason call is reasonable, though.  Hope it's wrong, but it's reasonable.

×
×
  • Create New...