the admiral

(NHL Playoffs) Rite of Spring 2017: can't go on, no, I'll go on

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, 2001mark said:

If, IF, the Leafs were to miraculously get past the Caps, an advantage should be if the Pens finish off the Jackets early & are sitting around unable to stop daydreaming about the semis & final.

 

As for the bracket, I like the first round as it is, yet they've got to go back to the 2nd round best v worst etc.   To this day, I think the NBA is stupid for their bracket, & now the NHL is forming an unloved format era of its own.

Right now, 'penalizing' wild card teams unable to control geography is good, + I like first round division matchups.  Ditch it for the 2nd round.

But who are you really penalizing? You’ve rewarded Boston and Ottawa for being mediocre teams in a :censored:ty division, and penalized Pittsburgh and Columbus for not finishing with the league’s best record. Toronto is getting exactly what it deserves. The Rangers are playing the team they’d play anyway in a straight 1-8 seed setup, and if anything were “rewarded” by not getting Columbus (if you’d give 1 and 2 seeds to the division winners, as the pre-1998/99/2000 expansion system did).

 

I get that this season is a bit of an anomaly, and likely won’t play out in this extreme of a way again, but that something similar’s happened before — the Adams had three of the league’s four best teams in 1989/90 — should have served as enough of a deterrent from a competitive balance standpoint to avoid it. The teams that perform best in the regular season should be awarded the best possible route to the championship.

 

The NHL is absolutely getting what it set out to achieve with this playoff format, though — a near-guaranteed Crosby/Ovechkin series — so congratulations to the league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have zero problem with any league's unbalanced scheduling matching up division teams (who are not division winners) in a first round.  Strength of a division in an unbalanced schedule is purely subjective.

If the AL East never again sees a 100 game winner, that doesn't mean an AL Central or West team winning 100 games makes them objectively better in an unbalanced league.  It's like the Boise St. argument in college football - 1 strong win that matters in an undefeated season.

 

If the Blackhawks played the Ducks as often as they do the Blues, or the Senators played the Blue Jackets as often as they do the Panthers... then yeah, sure 1-8 is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 2001mark said:

I have zero problem with any league's unbalanced scheduling matching up division teams (who are not division winners) in a first round.  Strength of a division in an unbalanced schedule is purely subjective.

If the AL East never again sees a 100 game winner, that doesn't mean an AL Central or West team winning 100 games makes them objectively better in an unbalanced league.  It's like the Boise St. argument in college football - 1 strong win that matters in an undefeated season.

 

If the Blackhawks played the Ducks as often as they do the Blues, or the Senators played the Blue Jackets as often as they do the Panthers... then yeah, sure 1-8 is it.

Scheduling inside the division isn’t balanced either, though. And you’re talking about a nine-game schedule difference between the Blue Jackets and Senators (one that’ll be only seven next year!). It’s the complete opposite of the Boise State argument, actually — of that 12-game football schedule, you effectively share 11 opponents.

 

And I say that as someone that argued baseball shouldn’t go to best record to determine home field in the World Series — because, between an AL and NL team, they could feasibly have no opponents in common. There’s a very stark difference between the schedule the Cubs played last year and the one the Indians did.

 

But there’s little tangible difference in schedule strength between the Blue Jackets and Senators, and surely not enough to force this system. The Jackets had 108 points this year, the Senators 98. You can’t tell me the Jackets gained 10 points because they played the Penguins and Capitals more often, and the Canadiens and Bruins less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL Playoffs are more broken than Matt Hardy 

 

broken_matt_hardy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMG_1562.thumb.JPG.b3cd0fb63d5576f477646e6c5724095e.JPG

 

The only reason I'm watching game 4 of this is because I have tickets. kid's lying on the ice while blood flows out of his eye socket. Play is allowed to continue around him because it wasn't "obvious" enough of an injury to blow the whistle and the penguins tie it up because of course. I knew as soon as he went down and they didn't blow the whistle they were gonna score. I knew. They are the St. Louis Cardinals troll birds of hockey. If you're a penguins fan you know that's an ultra lame way to tie the game. Our fourth goal bounced off an open door? Your third goal bounced off zach Werenski's eye socket. There was probably blood on the puck as it went into the net. No comparison. 

 

The league's gotta change that rule. It's bad optics (pun not intended) for a guy to be on the ice after getting shot in the face and the game doesn't stop instantly. And then to add insult to injury he couldn't play in overtime. 

 

Games one and two didn't bother me that much but last night felt cheated. :censored: this matchup. :censored: those officials. :censored: this league. I see one team who knows they can get away with everything and another who isn't sure what the rules even are anymore. 

 

edit: be nice if the guy who's gonna win the Vezina would make a save and stop looking like it's his first time on ice skates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

IMG_1562.thumb.JPG.b3cd0fb63d5576f477646e6c5724095e.JPG

 

The only reason I'm watching game 4 of this is because I have tickets. kid's lying on the ice while blood flows out of his eye socket. Play is allowed to continue around him because it wasn't "obvious" enough of an injury to blow the whistle and the penguins tie it up because of course. I knew as soon as he went down and they didn't blow the whistle they were gonna score. I knew. They are the St. Louis Cardinals troll birds of hockey. If you're a penguins fan you know that's an ultra lame way to tie the game. Our fourth goal bounced off an open door? Your third goal bounced off zach Werenski's eye socket. There was probably blood on the puck as it went into the net. No comparison. 

 

The league's gotta change that rule. It's bad optics (pun not intended) for a guy to be on the ice after getting shot in the face and the game doesn't stop instantly. And then to add insult to injury he couldn't play in overtime. 

 

Games one and two didn't bother me that much but last night felt cheated. :censored: this matchup. :censored: those officials. :censored: this league. I see one team who knows they can get away with everything and another who isn't sure what the rules even are anymore. 

 

edit: be nice if the guy who's gonna win the Vezina would make a save and stop looking like it's his first time on ice skates. 

Had he stayed down they would have blown the whistle, but he didn't stay down and was skating towards the bench so it's game on which is the right call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ltp74 said:

Had he stayed down they would have blown the whistle, but he didn't stay down and was skating towards the bench so it's game on which is the right call.

 

He was down long enough to show blood on the ice, a good five seconds. The rule is if the injury is "obvious" that the player requires immediate medical attention then a whistle must blow the game dead regardless of what's happening in the game. Once it became apparent they weren't going to get the benefit of an appropriately blown whistle, that's when he got up. It's at the official's discretion what obvious means. To me a guy taking a shot in the face, falling to the ice, and bleeding is obvious. Bleeding out of your face if you're a Columbus Blue Jacket = not obvious if you're one of the 4 striped dudes on the ice in Columbus. It was the wrong call. 

 

Even if none of that were true, if you're a penguins fan just admit that's a lame way to tie the game. I wouldn't want my team to score a goal in that fashion. 

 

Maybe in the future if a goal is scored while one team has a dead player on the ice we can go back and review that maybe a whistle should've blown and the goal doesn't count? The medical profession is kind of against moving around when you have an injury so in the interest of player safety so an injured guy isn't killing himself to get off the ice and in the interest of fairness to the team who has to play man down through no fault of their own and while waiting for a whistle maybe the rule needs to change.  It's just looks really bad to go on and on about player safety, but we let play continue while a guy bleeds profusely out of his face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, if they reviewed a goal in Ottawa-Boston because Boston might have been offsides 45 seconds before the goal was scored they should have reviewed and waved that off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

He was down long enough to show blood on the ice, a good five seconds. The rule is if the injury is "obvious" that the player requires immediate medical attention then a whistle must blow the game dead regardless of what's happening in the game. Once it became apparent they weren't going to get the benefit of an appropriately blown whistle, that's when he got up. It's at the official's discretion what obvious means. To me a guy taking a shot in the face, falling to the ice, and bleeding is obvious. Bleeding out of your face if you're a Columbus Blue Jackets = not obvious if you're one of the 4 striped dudes on the ice in Columbus. It was the wrong call. 

 

Even if none of that were true, if you're a penguins fan just admit that's a lame way to tie the game. I wouldn't want my team to score a goal in that fashion. 

 

Maybe in the future if a goal is scored while one team has a dead player on the ice we can go back and review that maybe a whistle should've blown and the goal doesn't count? The medical profession is kind of against moving around when you have an injury so in the interest of player safety so an injured guy isn't killing himself to get off the ice and in the interest of fairness to the team who has to play man down and while waiting for a whistle maybe the rule needs to change.  It's just looks really bad to go on and on about player safety, but we let play continue while a guy bleeds profusely out of his face. 

Ha! First there's no such thing as a "lame way" to score a goal, it's hockey goals get scored in all kinds of different manners, with your line of thinking the goal off the door is just as "lame."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ltp74 said:

Ha! First there's no such thing as a "lame way" to score a goal, it's hockey goals get scored in all kinds of different manners, with your line of thinking the goal off the door is just as "lame."

 

It didn't maim an opponent. That's the difference. 

 

I wouldn't want my team to score that way and I wouldn't feel good knowing we got a cheap one because a dude was injured. That's all I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a lame way to tie a game. Yes, it was a bad call. Yes, I feel kind of weird about winning a game like that.

 

Yes, I think the ref(s) were in a bad spot to see a pool of blood under a player laying on the ice while watching the play which was in the lower part of the offensive zone, while said player was near the blue line. The play wasn't "going on around him". I find it really hard to believe they would have let it go in that case. It all happens so fast when it goes in real time and you follow the puck.

 

That isn't a perfect excuse because the whistle still probably should have blown anyway. It's just a thought as to why it happened that way.

 

I think this has happened many times before in much less-pivotal games and moments, which again, doesn't excuse anything, but I've seen it happen. It's at the ref's digression to blow the whistle. I've seen them blow it as soon as a guy is falling and he hops right back up.

 

There's a lack of consistency in this matter, but collusion? Favoritism? Come on, man, you know that's bull :censored:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maz said:

Yes, it's a lame way to tie a game. Yes, it was a bad call.

 

Yes, I think if anyone other than Pittsburgh had done this you wouldn't be having a conniption. 

 

A. welcome back.

 

B. thank you for saying that. 

 

C. If that happened against any opponent I'd feel the same way.


D. That a Pittsburgh team was the beneficiary of such a thing is just so...perfect. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a couple thoughts and added some stuff to my post after that, making it less.... combative. I realized afterwards it was a little off-color of a comment. But like I say in the edited one: Really? Collusion? Favoritism? I hope that isn't what you're saying, you're a smart guy.

 

(Also, seeing the OU logo in your signature next to a Bengals logo makes me chuckle a little inside when I have a girlfirend who went to OU and hates the Bengals (She's from Pittsburgh and a huge Steelers fan), so she'd shudder at the sight of that. Haha.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

I wouldn't want my team to score that way and I wouldn't feel good knowing we got a cheap one because a dude was injured. That's all I'm saying. 

I thought it was odd that they continued play, but what are the players supposed to do? Stop playing because of an injured player, even without a whistle?

 

This falls in the category of unfortunate, but it wasn't cheap or lame. To suggest that is to suggest collusion of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JWhiz96 said:

I thought it was odd that they continued play, but what are the players supposed to do? Stop playing because of an injured player, even without a whistle?

 

This falls in the category of unfortunate, but it wasn't cheap or lame. To suggest that is to suggest collusion of some sort.

 

That's why I'm not blaming the players.

 

It was still cheap, though, because the goal didn't come on fair terms. I'd feel icky about it if that were my team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, maz said:

I had a couple thoughts and added some stuff to my post after that, making it less.... combative. I realized afterwards it was a little off-color of a comment. But like I say in the edited one: Really? Collusion? Favoritism? I hope that isn't what you're saying, you're a smart guy.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's disappointing that the officials so clearly dropped the ball last night. I don't believe it to be deliberately one sided for one team. I do believe it to be annoying. Game 1 and 2 were clear that one team was better and one team who didn't play well (especially that team's goaltender). If we are gonna win a game in this series we need everything to be on the level. 

 

If we get the calls tomorrow night I'll change my tune, but missed calls led to two Pittsburgh goals last night which is a huge swing in a game that was decided in overtime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's disappointing that the officials so clearly dropped the ball last night. I don't believe it to be deliberately one sided for one team. I do believe it to be annoying. Game 1 and 2 were clear that one team was better and one team who didn't play well (especially that team's goaltender). If we are gonna win a game in this series we need everything to be on the level. 

 

If we get the calls tomorrow night I'll change my tune, but missed calls led to two Pittsburgh goals last night which is a huge swing in a game that was decided in overtime. 

 

Not gonna argue with the officiating being horrible, it was. Lot's of ticky-tacky calls or no-calls both ways. I will argue that the Dubinsky cross-check which lead to the Pens' fourth goal, if that is what you're referring to, was a textbook cross-checking penalty. If that isn't what you meant, I'd have to see what other goal/call it was.

 

Jackets had so many inches-close chances that I truly believe this game still could have gone either way.

 

Regardless, I felt like the Pens played better for much of the game, save for the scary first period. I'm hoping they continue to play like they have and bring back whatever validation they lost last night to their success in this series and move on to the next round. I like winning, I don't like winning controversially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maz said:

 

Not gonna argue with the officiating being horrible, it was. Lot's of ticky-tacky calls or no-calls both ways. I will argue that the Dubinsky cross-check which lead to the Pens' fourth goal, if that is what you're referring to, was a textbook cross-checking penalty. If that isn't what you meant, I'd have to see what other goal/call it was.

 

Wasn't referring to that. That was idiotic. Was referring to Kessel's WWE horsecollar takedown of Seth Jones that created the turnover that created the second goal. It was either holding or interference or both. 

 

I'd have brushed that off as "playoff hockey officiating" if they didn't turn around shortly thereafter and give Nick Foligno an interference penalty on something I've seen dozens of times throughout the series. If they're going to be bad I want them to be bad consistently for both sides. Haven't seen that yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.