Quote:
Originally Posted by OctaneHugo
That can mean a wide variety of things. Such as the East is, actually, better overall than the West, since by all logic teams like the Bruins and Flyers should have been further up - yet they weren't. But in the West the Coyotes are the 4 seed and the Kings and Predators are both in the playoffs - while decent teams, none of those are more than an 7 or 8 at highest, let alone a 4.
|
What does this even mean? Phoenix and L.A. have more wins and more points than basically the entire Eastern Conference, and they aren't "more than a 7 or 8 at highest"? What are you talking about? This isn't the BCS, you can't just arbitrarily award teams playoff positions based on a whim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OctaneHugo
So it's not much of a stretch to shout that the West is garbage at the bottom and the East is so stacked up-and-down that teams couldn't win as easily. After all, the West had 6 teams over 100 points and one directly on the spot; they beat up on the horrible bottom teams while in the East there were a lot of really good teams. Check out the statistics for the bottom rung teams in both conferences - the East has "better" stats.
|
Wow, I'm kind of shocked at how thoroughly you've misinterpreted statistics. It's actually kind of amazing, in a sick way. You're saying that the
Western elite benefit from a poor bottom rung of teams, and that the East doesn't? Let's see, the Western Conference teams who didn't make the playoffs are:
St Louis Blues: 90pts, 9-7-2 vs East
Calgary Flames: 90pts, 11-5-2 vs East
Anaheim Ducks: 89pts, 9-7-2 vs East
Dallas Stars: 88pts, 7-9-2 vs East
Minnesota Wild: 84pts, 10-4-4 vs East
Columbus Blue Jackets: 70pts, 8-7-3 vs East
Edmonton Oilers: 62pts, 7-9-2 vs East
Of these teams, only CBJ and EDM are below .500 clubs. If the Blues, Flames, Ducks, and Stars were in the East, they'd be in the playoffs right now, even though they've had to play against top competition in the West. Even the teams who aren't in the WCP have good-to-decent records against the East, while the same can't be said for the bottom of the Eastern Conference. I'd love for you to find a single statistic that supports the idea that Western elite teams benefit from playing sub-par competition, because the truth of the matter is that the
Eastern elite builds up point totals thanks to teams like Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Carolina, Florida, Toronto, and the New York Islanders, who, aside from Atlanta,
all happen to be below .500 teams. The East has better stats at the bottom, do they? Where? In what category? Goal differential? Don't think so. Regulation wins? I'm not seeing it. Help me out, will ya?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OctaneHugo
Teams win shootouts.
|
Sure, and that really indicates team strength, defensive skill, and fair competition right? I mean, hockey
is really just about putting the puck in the net, and all other aspects are basically unimportant? I guess not, considering the fact that teams get rewarded for losing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OctaneHugo
Oh, by the way, way to also tell everyone that Western Fans are bigger into hockey. Harhar! They sure do love hockey out there in Phoenix and Los Angeles, don't they?
|
Yeah, as a matter of fact they do. I don't see Lightning fans banding together to save their franchise like the Yotes faithful did, and I don't see Atlanta, Florida, or the Islanders having too high of attendance rates either. You've got about 4 teams in the East that don't want, let alone
deserve a franchise in their cities, and you're talking about the West?