WordsOfWisdom Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 If every team entered the playoffs with the same record (separated 1-8 only by goal differential or whatever), would that make for a more or less interesting playoff? In other words, how much parity is too much parity, or is there such a thing? Would you rather have a team go into the playoffs with 120 points and trounce the other teams before running into the other team with 120 points in the Stanley Cup final, or do you like the idea of seeing eight teams in each conference with 96 points and each series being a coin toss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Hockey Stats Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 4 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said: If every team entered the playoffs with the same record (separated 1-8 only by goal differential or whatever), would that make for a more or less interesting playoff? In other words, how much parity is too much parity, or is there such a thing? Would you rather have a team go into the playoffs with 120 points and trounce the other teams before running into the other team with 120 points in the Stanley Cup final, or do you like the idea of seeing eight teams in each conference with 96 points and each series being a coin toss? I don't understand, you want to rank the teams by goal differential instead of points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 To me the 120 point teams is a much better scenario. The other choice is just boring. Yah, I know that some people (possibly even a lot of people) will not agree, but I suspect that is because they have never actually seen a truly dominant team vs. another dominant team. I think the last time that happened would have been back in the '70's with the Habs or the Flyers. I see what you're doing, WOW.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 8 hours ago, More Hockey Stats said: I don't understand, you want to rank the teams by goal differential instead of points? No. I mean: Do you like when there's a clear favourite going into the playoffs or do you like when all eight teams are roughly the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, BluPuk said: I see what you're doing, WOW.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Hockey Stats Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said: No. I mean: Do you like when there's a clear favourite going into the playoffs or do you like when all eight teams are roughly the same? What difference does it make? [TM] The stats are still the same. And much help did the President Trophy do to its winner last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 5 hours ago, More Hockey Stats said: What difference does it make? Well to use an MMA analogy, it's the difference between a PPV main event having two fighters with 40-0 records and 40 KOs going at it versus having two fighters with 27-11-2 records battling it out for the title. If you know that both contenders are seriously flawed choices, it means the winner is decided primarily based on chance rather than skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 8 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said: No. I mean: Do you like when there's a clear favourite going into the playoffs or do you like when all eight teams are roughly the same? I like the former if the team is the Red Wings. More serious answer: If it's only 1 team, I don't like it as much. I like when there are about 4 at the top. Everyone gets their shot at knocking off one of the 4, but I like a great Final Four. NCAA basketball figured out that formula a long time ago. Rarely do all 4 #1 seeds make it to the Final Four, but when they do, it is fantastic. And so long as each team still has a legitimate shot at beating the top team(s), it's still OK. How many years did the Wings win the President's Trophy by a mile and still get ousted in the first or second round? I didn't like it, but I'd rather have that than a series which is a foregone conclusion from the get-go. But my final answer is that I like the upper echelon of 3-4 better teams to make those final two rounds captivating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 hours ago, SpikeDDS said: I like the former if the team is the Red Wings. I figured as much. 5 hours ago, SpikeDDS said: And so long as each team still has a legitimate shot at beating the top team(s), it's still OK. How many years did the Wings win the President's Trophy by a mile and still get ousted in the first or second round? I didn't like it, but I'd rather have that than a series which is a foregone conclusion from the get-go. I'm having a hard time explaining myself. If you construct a tournament (any tournament), as you progress from beginning to end the challenge becomes: A) Greater B) Lesser C) Same The answer is obviously (A). If you play Wimbleton, you're expecting to run into the #1 seed in the final. (Unless you ARE the #1 seed, in which case you expect to run into the #2 seed.) But you're also expecting that #1 seed to be a better player than any of the ones you've defeated up to that point. Now the only way that can be true in the NHL is if the #1 seed advances and if the #1 seed is notably better in the standings than the other teams. In a league with total parity, every round is the same as the next. Every opponent is as tough as any opponent. It's not the "two best teams" in the final, it's "two of the best" teams in the final. There's a critical difference there. The playoffs don't build to a climax in the same way when your opponents don't increase in difficulty. It would be like playing a video game where every level had exactly the same difficulty. Basically I think parity is good up to a point, but then it becomes a bad thing. A league with total parity is just boring. It's a league without "superheros" and "super villains". You can't root for Clark Kent like you can Superman. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 @WordsOfWisdom I have said this before in other threads that parity for its own sake is bad. Parity should NEVER be an end in itself. It should ALWAYS be a means to an end. Not to hijack this thread and take it political, but I'm going to use a political analogy or two to illustrate my point, so forgive me. I see parity like I see political protest. Both are a means to an end. However, there are some who want to make either one or both the end in themselves. Right now, there are many who are trying to make political protest "good" in itself, no matter what kind of protest it is or what it is against. Doesn't matter. Protest is becoming valued in itself. Same with diversity. Diversity is good...to a point. But diversity for its own sake is meaningless and stupid, despite the fact that so many want to make it the goal itself. ALL of these things SHOULD be means to an end, not the end itself. Diversity is a good idea IN ORDER TO make society more fair and to achieve unity within it. Protest is good if, by doing so, it makes society more ordered, fair, and right in the end, not if it doesn't. Giving the middle finger to Black Lives Matter is protest too, but not protest that is good. When protest doesn't do good, protest is no longer good. The same holds true with parity. At some point, if you make things TOO even, it gets boring. The whole point of parity was that teams like the Montreal Canadiens and, yes, my Red Wings of old that could buy loads of talent would ALMOST make the Stanley Cup a foregone conclusion. ALMOST! The best/worst example was the 2002 Red Wing team. RIDICULOUS how much talent that team had, where Luc Robitaille and Igor Larionow were on the FOURTH LINE! Yes, they lost the first two games of the first round of the playoffs, showing that even a team like that could stumble; that the Cup, even for that team, was not guaranteed. But still, it was ALMOST a forgone conclusion that that team would win the Cup, and they did. Parity was designed to prevent such predictability. But ULTIMATELY, the point of parity is to overall improve the product that the NHL puts on the ice. THAT is what the reason for parity should be, NOT parity for its own sake. That is the answer you are intending to provoke, I think. What makes hockey brilliant is that more than in any other major sport, even before parity, on any given night, any team can beat any other team. There are swings in hockey more than any other major sport. Montreal wins so many games and looks infallible doing so...and then loses 10-0! The Pre-'97 Red Wings win all those President's Cups--without even a close second, and can't get past the second round. If the better team wins every time or close, games would be boring. Why even play them? In hockey, we play because the winner is NOT a forgone conclusion. So parity has its place. Parity should have limits, though, and the limits should be determined by the quality of the product on the ice. To be honest, I think the expansion of the league has done more to wash down the product on the ice than parity has. If there were only 8 teams, but they were all STACKED with talent, and they were all about even, I could watch that hockey all year and never tire of it. Parity is still there, and the product on the ice is fantastic. Parity for its own sake can be a problem, but as I see it expansion and the dilution of talent along with the system that allows mediocre teams to make the playoffs have done more to lower the quality of the product on the ice than parity has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Can't agree with you there, Spike. Parity means mediocrity. Simple as that. It can be spun any way you like but that's the bottom line. Getting hockey fans to accept mediocrity is a BIG part of the NHL's plan to make billions - and it's working. But parity is not good for quality hockey - it's bad from a fan's standpoint. You were so impressed with the U20 world championship - imagine if there were, say 16 teams in the NHL in stead of thirty (one?). Just the best of the best. Overall the hockey would be much, much better to watch. Much higher quality and it would gather fans and expand its popularity based on quality, highly skilled play - not hyperbole. Sadly, the only time we will see real quality hockey any more will be during international tournaments, which the NHL is currently fighting very hard to prevent us from seeing - because it is so much a better product than the NHL. I don't know about you, but that really pisses me off (pardon the language) that the NHL is trying to prevent us from going to the olympics. Almost as if they "own" the game and its players....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, BluPuk said: Almost as if they "own" the game and its players....... They don't own the game, but they do own those players. The NHL will always choose the World Cup over the Olympics because they control the WC. The only reason the NHL went to the Olympics was to further legitimize hockey and try to grow the sport using Olympic credibility. It was basically a "free trial offer" as far as the NHL was concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said: But ULTIMATELY, the point of parity is to overall improve the product that the NHL puts on the ice. THAT is what the reason for parity should be, NOT parity for its own sake. That is the answer you are intending to provoke, I think. Precisely. I would say "team payroll parity" or having a reasonable payroll range is something to strive for (which the NHL has more than done), but not trying to force on-ice parity in that every team is the same or parity in the standings. I would argue that the NHL has too much parity right now and could use less of it. I would like to see the NHL switch to a luxury tax system like Major League Baseball. That way the top spenders can spend money and assemble more dynastic teams. (More importantly, they could keep them together longer.) We need to break up the standings again. That would also mean the elimination of the loser point system. With the exception of teams like Pittsburgh or Chicago that drafted the entire core group of their team and signed them to lifelong contracts, nobody else is able to acquire and retain enough talent to stand out from any other team before bumping into the stupid salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, BluPuk said: Can't agree with you there, Spike. Parity means mediocrity. Simple as that. It can be spun any way you like but that's the bottom line. Getting hockey fans to accept mediocrity is a BIG part of the NHL's plan to make billions - and it's working. But parity is not good for quality hockey - it's bad from a fan's standpoint. You were so impressed with the U20 world championship - imagine if there were, say 16 teams in the NHL in stead of thirty (one?). Just the best of the best. Overall the hockey would be much, much better to watch. Much higher quality and it would gather fans and expand its popularity based on quality, highly skilled play - not hyperbole. Sadly, the only time we will see real quality hockey any more will be during international tournaments, which the NHL is currently fighting very hard to prevent us from seeing - because it is so much a better product than the NHL. I don't know about you, but that really pisses me off (pardon the language) that the NHL is trying to prevent us from going to the olympics. Almost as if they "own" the game and its players....... Wait. First you say you can't agree with me, and then you proceed to write that you agree with me. You seem to be equating league expansion and the salary cap and putting those both under parity, and those are two very different things. Expanding the league doesn't make the teams more even. It dilutes talent, but attempts to increase market. If you re-read my post, I COMPLETELY agree with the idea that expansion is the issue. I DISagree with the hard salary cap being a problem. Let me illustrate: Let's, as you suggested, decrease the number of NHL franchises to 16, but keep a hard salary cap. Obviously the cap must be much higher, because we have to pay better players, and the mediocre ones will now be playing either in the AHL or in Europe. So we keep the cap so that the 16 teams all have equal negotiating power monetarily-speaking. We end up with 16 teams whose 4 lines will now be occupied by our current NHL teams' top two lines. There is no problem with the product on the ice any more, and each team has a legitimate shot of beating all the others on any given night. I MUCH prefer that to one team being so far ahead that winning will be practically eventual. The games would look a lot more like the World Juniors games, except there will be more size that will check some of that speed, and much more skilled D than the Juniors have. But the skill level would harken back to an earlier time when games were more fun to watch than they are now. And if you return to a system where you either win or lose a game and get 2 points or none rather than the loser point, each night one of those evenly matched teams is going to win out. It would be like late-round SCP hockey, but all the time! Now, the only issue will be paying for those teams. Ticket prices won't be staying where they are, nor would TV deals. Hockey would be riveting to watch again. A better product all around. Higher value from a better product. And you still have the cap. That's parity. Lose the dilution of talent and the loser point, and you get a MUCH better product. I still argue that expansion has been far worse a problem that parity has, and your response seems to echo that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said: They don't own the game, but they do own those players. The NHL will always choose the World Cup over the Olympics because they control the WC. The only reason the NHL went to the Olympics was to further legitimize hockey and try to grow the sport using Olympic credibility. It was basically a "free trial offer" as far as the NHL was concerned. AND the players want to represent their countries. The NHLPA has had a lot to do with that. The NHL just went along with it and did what you said to avoid mutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Yes, you're right Spike. The only place we might not agree is on salary cap.... I'd love to see it gone, but, I've done absolutely no thinking about what that would mean beyond it would be an advantage for teams like my Leafs who happen to have lots of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said: AND the players want to represent their countries. The NHLPA has had a lot to do with that. The NHL just went along with it and did what you said to avoid mutiny. Right but the players were representing their country already in the Canada Cup/World Cup tournament, which long predated the NHL's participation in the Olympics. The NHL has been doing international play long before any other major team sports league in North America. It's the one area where the NHL is truly a pioneer and they deserve huge credit for it. The NFL and NBA have nothing on the NHL in this regard. MLB only recently started an international tournament. Again, we're like 50 years into doing this for the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said: Right but the players were representing their country already in the Canada Cup/World Cup tournament, which long predated the NHL's participation in the Olympics. The NHL has been doing international play long before any other major team sports league in North America. It's the one area where the NHL is truly a pioneer and they deserve huge credit for it. The NFL and NBA have nothing on the NHL in this regard. MLB only recently started an international tournament. Again, we're like 50 years into doing this for the NHL. Well, let's be honest--with the NHL ALWAYS having been an international league from its inception, combined with the fact that financially it is drawrfed by all 3 other major sports despite being older than all except maybe baseball, it is only natural that they would pioneer that both because they wanted to and because they NEEDED to. The NFL has no need for Europe. I have no idea why they think expanding over there is a good idea, except that it's the same stupid idea Bergman has had for the NHL. Increase the market. Nothing more. Kill the game. Stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, BluPuk said: Yes, you're right Spike. The only place we might not agree is on salary cap.... I'd love to see it gone, but, I've done absolutely no thinking about what that would mean beyond it would be an advantage for teams like my Leafs who happen to have lots of money. And we should be able to spend it! I absolutely despise the fact that the NHL has a hard salary cap. I think they did it to prevent the Canadian teams from winning. Once our dollar hits 60 cents US then maybe they'll ponder a luxury tax system. You would never see a hard salary cap in Major League Baseball because fans in New York, LA, and Boston would revolt. Why do hard working, high paying NHL fans in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and Boston all accept a revenue system that puts the shackles on their team and keeps the shite teams like Carolina, Florida, Nashville, et all on an equal footing? Speaking as a hockey and baseball fan, you can't pay $10 for MLB tickets to watch a $200 million dollar payroll team. It just doesn't work that way. If you don't ante up, you don't get to watch a premium team. That's fair. Fans in New York pay more for tickets. They deserve to watch a better quality product on the field. The same applies to hockey. Toronto fans pay the highest ticket prices in the league. They should be watching a team that goes 65-15-2, has Crosby, Toews, Keith, Weber, Price, etc... on it, and that blazes a path to the Stanley Cup. It doesn't have to happen every year, but I'd like to see the Leafs get the Yankees treatment for a change. Just take the shackles off and try to out-do the Montreal and Edmonton dynasties from the 70's and 80's. Tear through the league. Clean up the awards. Go 3 in 5, or 4 in 6 or something nice with the Stanley Cups, and have a nice run of division titles, 15+ consecutive playoff appearances, etc. Do I really ask for too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, SpikeDDS said: Well, let's be honest--with the NHL ALWAYS having been an international league from its inception, combined with the fact that financially it is drawrfed by all 3 other major sports despite being older than all except maybe baseball, it is only natural that they would pioneer that both because they wanted to and because they NEEDED to. I think the main issue with hockey's lack of growth is just the high maintenance nature of the game itself. It's a lot like golf. You need a lot of equipment to play hockey and you need a special venue for it. Basketball requires nothing more than a ball and a basket. Football needs only a ball and some open space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said: It doesn't have to happen every year, but I'd like to see the Leafs get the Yankees treatment for a change. Just take the shackles off and try to out-do the Montreal and Edmonton dynasties from the 70's and 80's. Tear through the league. Clean up the awards. Go 3 in 5, or 4 in 6 or something nice with the Stanley Cups, and have a nice run of division titles, 15+ consecutive playoff appearances, etc. Do I really ask for too much? Worked so well for them from 1967 to 2004 when the cap was introduced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeDDS Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 @BluPuk @WordsOfWisdom So it should speak that a Red Wings fan like myself concedes that even though the Wings assembled what is very arguably the best collection of talent in the history of the NHL that won the 2002 Cup, that being able to do that was NOT in the best interests of the NHL. It was certainly in the best interests of Hockeytown! I was right to rein in the spending, because few teams could do it. If only one team could break the salary cap, the season would be a slaughter. It wouldn't even be close against today's teams. There IS a limited place for parity, so long as it serves a purpose and isn't just there for its own sake. Far more of the criticisms that we all seem to share would be better addressed by a contraction of the league. But the NHL continues to expand for expansion's sake. Expansion, like everything else we've discussed is good so long as it improves the game. When it makes the game worse, not better, for the sake of $, it is stupid. Like is true with most things in life, most corruption of good things eventually leads to $ as the reason behind the corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Let's not forget that the NHL was not allowed to participate in any IIHF or IOC events before 1987 because they were "professional". What a joke (like the Russians and Swedes weren't). And it wasn't until 1998 that the NHL allowed "their" players to play. Before then, the dirty "professionals" were not even allowed to play exhibition games for fear that the money-grubbing would rub off on the innocent amateurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.