NHL Off-Topic thread

[Money99]

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/14...rt-researchers

Quote:

In the opening game of the second-round series between the Chicago Blackhawks and the Minnesota Wild last May, the teams were tied 3-3 through almost two periods at the United Center. With less than a minute left in the frame, Chicago’s Teuvo Teravainen corralled a puck that was bouncing along the boards in the Minnesota zone. He turned and flipped it toward the net. It tumbled through the air. There was a typical amount of fencing in front of Devan Dubnyk’s crease, so the Wild goalie didn’t see the puck until just before it passed over his shoulder. That goal, the product of much good fortune and a smattering of skill, won the game for the Blackhawks, who would sweep the Wild — two of the four wins came in one-goal games — on the way to winning the Stanley Cup. It also was totally unremarkable, in that it was a perfect Playoff Goal, the kind that seem to be a result of a series of slow-motion car wrecks as much as they seem to be a perfectly executed play. This is the thing about playoff hockey: as much thought goes into the coaching and the analysis and the predictions, so much of it comes down to luck.

I found this article very fascinating and also incredibly true.
Especially this quote:

Quote:

“If somebody makes a lucky shot in basketball, it doesn’t change the season,” Hosoi says. “Where, if someone has a lucky shot in hockey, it can have a big effect.”

No other sport is like this. One very unlucky bounce can result in a failed season or a loss of the Stanley Cup.

This is just reason # 232982 as to why the league needs more scoring.
Why should a better team pack up their bags in the first round because of one or two very unlucky bounces.
We see time and time again where the better team loses and it has nothing to do with lack of effort.
Every team in the playoffs plays as a team, so I don't think anyone can make the tired argument that "Sure, Team A has more talent, but Team B plays more like TEAM".
It's BS.
The game is so tight these days that one dumb bounce can change the course of history.

[slickdtc]

I think 7 game series and 4 rounds eliminates teams that are just lucky. We've seen some miraculous runs but I haven't felt like the last bunch of Cup winners were anything short of being the best team.

I kinda like the randomness of the playoffs. Everything is visibly ratcheted up, every shot on goal carries that much more weight. It's about just creating an opportunity.

If scoring stayed as it was but the intensity was this high in Game 45 of the regular season, there wouldn't be any issues. But regular season games can drag as teams just pack it in to gain a point. With the playoffs being winner takes all, there's no conservative BS to salvage a tie through regulation.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by slickdtc

I think 7 game series and 4 rounds eliminates teams that are just lucky. We've seen some miraculous runs but I haven't felt like the last bunch of Cup winners were anything short of being the best team. I kinda like the randomness of the playoffs. Everything is visibly ratcheted up, every shot on goal carries that much more weight. It's about just creating an opportunity. If scoring stayed as it was but the intensity was this high in Game 45 of the regular season, there wouldn't be any issues. But regular season games can drag as teams just pack it in to gain a point. With the playoffs being winner takes all, there's no conservative BS to salvage a tie through regulation.

I've noticed this as well.
It seemed like pre-lockout, there were lots of Cinderella teams that would march to the Cup (Duck 03, Flames 04, Canes 02, etc).
But lately, you really have to be good to make it there. And typically, the best teams from each conference represent.

I still think there's more randomness in playoff hockey than any other sport.

I also think the regular season should be 60 games. There's a reason that football only plays 16 and baseball plays 162.
Basketball is a lot more physical than some hockey fans give it credit for, but it's not as physical. Then why do they play the same amount of games?

Hockey should be no more than 70 IMO, and I think 65 would be perfect.
People can wail about stats, but realistically, the stats are muffed up anyway due to goalies, coaching styles, etc.
50 goals today is like 80 in 1983.

I'd rather see a shortened season where each game matters more and the players are more rested so they can perform near top capacity each and every game.

[Madman55]

Quote: Originally Posted by Money99

Once Little went down, Sheifle's production went into another gear. I think he's closer to $4.5M than Kadri is - who I believe is a 50-point guy under the very best circumstances. I think Sheifle is capable of 70+ points and being a true #1 centre.

I've never been a fan of Scheifele and I'm wary when any player has a season like that in a contract year. I realize he's a young player who's developing still but it took him 3 full seasons to hit 20 goals and 50 points. Personally, I think he should sign a bridge deal and see if that production continues.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madman55

I've never been a fan of Scheifele and I'm wary when any player has a season like that in a contract year. I realize he's a young player who's developing still but it took him 3 full seasons to hit 20 goals and 50 points. Personally, I think he should sign a bridge deal and see if that production continues.

Good points.
It's hard to gauge if the improvement was due to finally growing into a pro, being provided with top minutes (after Little went out) or simply trying harder because it's a contract year.

Considering his uptick in production once the #1 spot opened up, I'd say his improvement was mostly based on getting prime minutes on the top line and finally getting a chance to show his offensive skills.

Maybe not the best comparison, but I see similarities to Seguin's breakout season.
After being buried on the 3rd line, and as a RW in Boston, at 21YO he finally broke out in Dallas as their top centre. Playing with Benn certainly doesn't hurt.

Claude Giroux is another. The season he turned 22, they converted him to a centre, gave him the keys to the car and he took off.

So maybe this is just another case of a young player getting a chance to shine by providing them a platform to succeed.

I'm sure his agent will want to see him get paid large.
If Kadri got $4.5M, then I think Scheifele will want more considering he scored 12 more goals and 16 more points.
If he's willing to give up a year on Free Agency, I could see him getting around $27-$28M over 5 years.
If not, then he's probably signing a $20/4 year deal.

[DrJones]

The NHL is never going to reduce the number of regular season games. Next question.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

The NHL is never going to reduce the number of regular season games. Next question.

Apparently the PA has asked for a reduced schedule in the past with the owners agreeing as long as the players take the subsequent paycut.
That's where the discussion ends.

During the last lockout, there were reports that a few US teams would prefer a shortened season that began in late November, early December.

So you never know. Maybe one day the PA says they're ready to cut 15% of the schedule for a 15% cut. Doubtful, but not out of the realm of possibilities.

[rdnk]

Wings may be oddly well positioned for an expansion draft if one was to occur:

If they protect:

Goalies:
Mrazek

Defensemen:
Smith
Marchenko
Dekeyser

Forwards:
Nyquist
Tatar
Larkin
A.A (if he's eligable to be selected, if not, protect Pulkkinen)
Zetterberg (you could gamble on him not being selected, and protect someone else)
Sheahan
Abdelkader

They only player they could lose in this situation I would be disappointed in is Mike Green, but at least in that scenario it opens up serious cap space. If NTCs prevent a player from being selected, then they can protect someone else over Abby.