Series Thread: Pittsburgh vs Columbus

[Kin]

To be fair, they were the 4th best team in the NHL and got to play the 3rd best team in the first round. This playoff system is messed up.

I get that argument but honestly I think these playoffs are really hammering home the point that the regular season doesn't really establish a clear distinction between what teams are good and what teams are less good. Between the loser point and parity I think there's a very grey area between "4th best record" and "4th best team".

 

[hockeyfan1]

The playoffs are like a second season where unexpected results abound.  Sometimes they are two completely different seasons with clearly different results than usual.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

To be fair, they were the 4th best team in the NHL and got to play the 3rd best team in the first round. This playoff system is messed up.

I get that argument but honestly I think these playoffs are really hammering home the point that the regular season doesn't really establish a clear distinction between what teams are good and what teams are less good. Between the loser point and parity I think there's a very grey area between "4th best record" and "4th best team".

Further to that, Pittsburgh and Columbus would have played each other in the 1st round under the old playoff format too.

edit: Nevermind, Columbus wasn't in the "Atlantic" division before the format change.

 

[bustaheims]

I get that argument but honestly I think these playoffs are really hammering home the point that the regular season doesn't really establish a clear distinction between what teams are good and what teams are less good. Between the loser point and parity I think there's a very grey area between "4th best record" and "4th best team".

That, and, with Columbus specifically, that 16 winning streak obviously inflated their record. Their pace for the rest of the season puts them fighting for the last wildcard. They were really a middle of the pack team that had an exceptional 6 weeks in the first half of the season.

 

[Peter D.]

To be fair, they were the 4th best team in the NHL and got to play the 3rd best team in the first round. This playoff system is messed up.

I think any team would have beaten the Blue Jackets in the 1st round.  They had playoff fodder written all over them.

 

[Peter D.]

Oh, and someone please explain again why Malkin wasn't picked as a top 100 player.  He gives Crosby a run for best player in the world when he's healthy and at the top of his game.

 

[TimKerr]

To be fair, they were the 4th best team in the NHL and got to play the 3rd best team in the first round. This playoff system is messed up.

I get that argument but honestly I think these playoffs are really hammering home the point that the regular season doesn't really establish a clear distinction between what teams are good and what teams are less good. Between the loser point and parity I think there's a very grey area between "4th best record" and "4th best team".

Further to that, Pittsburgh and Columbus would have played each other in the 1st round under the old playoff format too.

edit: Nevermind, Columbus wasn't in the "Atlantic" division before the format change.

It should just be seeded 1-8. No Wildcard or 3rd in your division nonsense. If you want to make divisions count for something, you could make the division winners be the 1 and 2 seed and after that seed according to record and then re-seed after each round.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Oh, and someone please explain again why Malkin wasn't picked as a top 100 player.  He gives Crosby a run for best player in the world when he's healthy and at the top of his game.

There's truly no reasonable explanation.  Without even getting into remotely debatable head-to-heads, he should easily rank well ahead of players like Modano, Perreault, Gartner, Ratelle.  Even as a die-hard Leaf fan, there's no way I'd put Keon, Sundin and Sittler in ahead of Malkin.

 

[Kin]

I get that argument but honestly I think these playoffs are really hammering home the point that the regular season doesn't really establish a clear distinction between what teams are good and what teams are less good. Between the loser point and parity I think there's a very grey area between "4th best record" and "4th best team".

That, and, with Columbus specifically, that 16 winning streak obviously inflated their record. Their pace for the rest of the season puts them fighting for the last wildcard. They were really a middle of the pack team that had an exceptional 6 weeks in the first half of the season.

I get the argument that there should be a reward for a team doing well in the regular season but the thing about the parity in the league now is that often times who's #8 or #7 is as much about "what really good team suffered a tough injury" or "what really good team had an inexplicably slow start". Nashville was the pre-season pick from a lot of people, me included, to be one of the best teams in the league. Chicago didn't catcj a break by facing them as opposed to Calgary or whoever.

If we're serious about wanting to reward teams for performance during the regular season I think the only way to meaningfully do it is to let the #1 team pick who they want to play and so on.

 

[Kin]

Oh, and someone please explain again why Malkin wasn't picked as a top 100 player.

The answer is that it was a stupid list made by dumb people.