Series Talk: Stanley Cup Playoffs 2024

[henchman21]

Pretty sure you’re correct with that one. Obviously everyone would love for the Avs to win more but really since the move to Denver you have:

Dead Things - 4
Pens/Hawks/Devils/Bolts/Avs - 3
Kings - 2
Stars/Canes/Ducks/Bruins/Caps/Blues/Vegas - 1

Literally one team has won more, 4 others have matched and 8 (possibly 9 if someone other than the Stars win this year) other teams that have won at all in a 32 team league. Still dreaming this core will catch lightning in a bottle once more but we’ve seen a level of success most fanbases could only dream of in the last 28 years

Yes... but cap era (18 seasons)

Hawks/Pens -3
Kings/Bolts -2
Canes/Avs/Ducks/Bruins/Knights/Blues/Caps/Wings - 1

When we look at recent history the Avs move down quite a bit.

Extending past just the Cup though, in the Cap era, the Avs have advanced to the conference finals just once and that was the year they won the Cup. Beyond that, they have not gotten out of the 2nd round another time in 18 years. So this is all about which perspective we take and each side had a point.

 

[dahrougem2]

I had Heiskanen above Makar on my Norris ballot. I’m prepared to take some heat for that one.

Rightfully so. Makar was not good defensively this season.

 

[Alex Jones]

Yes... but cap era (18 seasons)

Hawks/Pens -3
Kings/Bolts -2
Canes/Avs/Ducks/Bruins/Knights/Blues/Caps/Wings - 1

When we look at recent history the Avs move down quite a bit.

Extending past just the Cup though, in the Cap era, the Avs have advanced to the conference finals just once and that was the year they won the Cup. Beyond that, they have not gotten out of the 2nd round another time in 18 years. So this is all about which perspective we take and each side had a point.

Yea but how much of that is just timing? When the cap era started the Avs were were just barely past it as contenders. They were this current core in like 2-3 seasons. Cap era was perfectly timed to hit the decline and rebuild years. Obviously the rebuild didn't go perfectly, but they still built another cup winner.

 

[the_fan]

54 points in 71 games won’t get you the Norris this days. That’s what Heiskanen had. It may have been enough like 10 years ago or something, but with d-men putting up 80,90, 100 points this days, 54 points is no where close to even be top 5 in Norris voting

 

[Balthazar]

Rightfully so. Makar was not good defensively this season.

That's because he needed surgery

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

54 points in 71 games won’t get you the Norris this days. That’s what Heiskanen had. It may have been enough like 10 years ago or something, but with d-men putting up 80,90, 100 points this days, 54 points is no where close to even be top 5 in Norris voting

An absolutely horrific way of looking at it.

 

[dahrougem2]

That's because he needed surgery

Nobody can convince me this guy was healthy.

 

[the_fan]

An absolutely horrific way of looking at it.

It’s just a fact. How will 54 points get you the Norris when there are like few d-men putting up 80+ points ahead of you?

 

[GeoRox89]

Yes... but cap era (18 seasons)

Hawks/Pens -3
Kings/Bolts -2
Canes/Avs/Ducks/Bruins/Knights/Blues/Caps/Wings - 1

When we look at recent history the Avs move down quite a bit.

Extending past just the Cup though, in the Cap era, the Avs have advanced to the conference finals just once and that was the year they won the Cup. Beyond that, they have not gotten out of the 2nd round another time in 18 years. So this is all about which perspective we take and each side had a point.

Fair enough. Making the WCF more than once would’ve been nice. If they aren’t going to win the Cup though I strongly prefer losing the WCF or round 2 over the SCF.

Probably on an island with this but I just enjoy the experience a lot more when my teams lose earlier instead of right at the end (if losing had to happen). Was way less bothered by the 2012 and 2014 Broncos than the 2013 SB loss. Greatly preferred the last two World Cups to that penalties loss in the Euro final and those two losses to Barca in the UCL final were a lot harder to watch than earlier exits.

Of the teams that won only one Cup in the cap era, yes I do think making more CF/SCFs is more impressive than what the Avs have done. I’d take that one Cup and never leaving the second round (a la the Caps) over a bunch of runs to the final 2/4 but no ultimate prize any day.

 

[dahrougem2]

It’s just a fact. How will 54 points get you the Norris when there are like few d-men putting up 80+ points ahead of you?

The Norris should never have become the "who puts up the most points" award.

 

[Chiarelli]

54 points in 71 games won’t get you the Norris this days. That’s what Heiskanen had. It may have been enough like 10 years ago or something, but with d-men putting up 80,90, 100 points this days, 54 points is no where close to even be top 5 in Norris voting

An absolutely horrific way of looking at it.

both fair points honestly. The NHL needs a defensive d man and offensive d man award badly. It will continue to go to the highest scoring player that isn't a complete liability defensively (like Barrie) or in the case of Karlsson you just have to completely blow everyone out of the water.

 

[henchman21]

Yea but how much of that is just timing? When the cap era started the Avs were were just barely past it as contenders. They were this current core in like 2-3 seasons. Cap era was perfectly timed to hit the decline and rebuild years. Obviously the rebuild didn't go perfectly, but they still built another cup winner.

The Avs went through at least 2, if not 3 rebuilds (this being the 3rd) before it stuck. Rebuilds aren't a guarantee. Just saying though the success of the last ~20 years is just not that high when compared around the league. There is success, but not at the Pens/Hawks/Kings/Bolts level. The team that came from Quebec may have only won 2 Cups in 6 years, but in between they made the conference final 3 times... and in the 7th year. 6 of 7 years the Avs were one of the final 4 teams in the league. That's a lot of sustained success. It really isn't the same right now. A cup and 4 2nd round losses just isn't the same sort of stretch.

In a much more extreme example it is likely extending success to 40 years would make the Oilers look like an extremely successful franchise, when they really aren't. Utilizing the cutoff for one of the best modern 7 year stretches will make the Avs look great, but if you start it in 2003, it isn't nearly as impressive.

 

[the_fan]

The Norris should never have become the "who puts up the most points" award.

It really shouldn’t but when the difference is like 40 points where someone scores 50 and another one 90, that’s hard to overlook and give the Norris to the one that scored 50

 

[Chiarelli]

The Avs went through at least 2, if not 3 rebuilds (this being the 3rd) before it stuck. Rebuilds aren't a guarantee. Just saying though the success of the last ~20 years is just not that high when compared around the league. There is success, but not at the Pens/Hawks/Kings/Bolts level. The team that came from Quebec may have only won 2 Cups in 6 years, but in between they made the conference final 3 times... and in the 7th year. 6 of 7 years the Avs were one of the final 4 teams in the league. That's a lot of sustained success. It really isn't the same right now. A cup and 4 2nd round losses just isn't the same sort of stretch.

In a much more extreme example it is likely extending success to 40 years would make the Oilers look like an extremely successful franchise, when they really aren't. Utilizing the cutoff for one of the best modern 7 year stretches will make the Avs look great, but if you start it in 2003, it isn't nearly as impressive.

agreed. The one caveat is the league was 26 teams in 1996, 30 in 2001, and now at 32. Larger pool makes it a bit tougher for sure.




Random facts I found out while looking the number of teams up:


- There really isn't an "Original 6" in my eyes... more like a longest standing/oldest 6. NHL was founded in 1917. Boston came in 1924. While Detroit (Cougars, then Falcons, then Red Wings), Chicago (Black Hawks until 1986), and NYR didn't come in until 1926. There was a ton of relocation/folding/expansion/contraction from 1917 to 1942. Called the Original 6 because there existed only 6 teams from 1942 to 1967.

I did not know any of this and if it's factually incorrect feel free to correct me anybody.

History of organizational changes in the NHL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[henchman21]

agreed. The one caveat is the league was 26 teams in 1996, 30 in 2001, and now at 32. Larger pool makes it a bit tougher for sure.




Random facts I found out while looking the number of teams up:


- There really isn't an "Original 6" in my eyes... more like a longest standing/oldest 6. NHL was founded in 1917. Boston came in 1924. While Detroit (Cougars, then Falcons, then Red Wings), Chicago (Black Hawks until 1986), and NYR didn't come in until 1926. There was a ton of relocation/folding/expansion/contraction from 1917 to 1942. Called the Original 6 because there existed only 6 teams from 1942 to 1967.

I did not know any of this and if it's factually incorrect feel free to correct me anybody.

History of organizational changes in the NHL - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't personally think there is a huge difference between 30 and 32... but from 21 to 32 is an enormous difference. Especially considering 16 teams made the playoffs when it was 21 teams. That's a 24 team playoff today (which I'm not against).

The Original 6 is basically the survivor teams that brought the NHL to some stability so it could expand in a profitable fashion.

 

[MacKaRant]

both fair points honestly. The NHL needs a defensive d man and offensive d man award badly. It will continue to go to the highest scoring player that isn't a complete liability defensively (like Barrie) or in the case of Karlsson you just have to completely blow everyone out of the water.

I agree with this sentiment, but I always find this to be a bit blurred to be honest. There are multiple ways to defend. There is being able to keep puck possession with controlled zone exits and smart play with good gap control and denying the blue line. Then there is the old fashioned, archetypal defensive play of being physical, tying up sticks, and intimidating opponents.

Statistically, it's the first style that leads to better on ice results, so shouldn't we consider that style as the better defensive style even if it doesn't result in as many obvious defensive plays?

Like, if all you're doing is chipping the puck off the glass to clear the zone, then the puck comes right back in and you get the chance to make another defensive play. (See Toronto.) But is that helping your team win?

 

[Pokecheque]

I had Heiskanen above Makar on my Norris ballot. I’m prepared to take some heat for that one.

Eh. That’s the right call.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I agree with this sentiment, but I always find this to be a bit blurred to be honest. There are multiple ways to defend. There is being able to keep puck possession with controlled zone exits and smart play with good gap control and denying the blue line. Then there is the old fashioned, archetypal defensive play of being physical, tying up sticks, and intimidating opponents.

Statistically, it's the first style that leads to better on ice results, so shouldn't we consider that style as the better defensive style even if it doesn't result in as many obvious defensive plays?

Like, if all you're doing is chipping the puck off the glass to clear the zone, then the puck comes right back in and you get the chance to make another defensive play. (See Toronto.) But is that helping your team win?

It depends on how the award is written? It could easily be written to be awarded to the player who best excels at certain defensive metrics. It could even be auto-awarded like the Rocket if they came up with a formula for tracking the defensive metrics. Personally though...I'd have it voted on by the players and allow them to figure it out. They'll probably come up with the guy that is the hardest to play against.

 

[henchman21]

I don’t think you can derive it down to metrics, but you can see there are certain defensemen who are at different levels defensively. Obviously Forsling… but Slavin, Miro… soon to be Faber. They are unlikely to get the proper recognition for their abilities and that sucks.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I don’t think you can derive it down to metrics, but you can see there are certain defensemen who are at different levels defensively. Obviously Forsling… but Slavin, Miro… soon to be Faber. They are unlikely to get the proper recognition for their abilities and that sucks.

That's why I'd like to see it voted on by players. They know what's up. Also, I tend to think of awards voted on by the players to be a bit more prestigious for some reason.

 

[henchman21]

That's why I'd like to see it voted on by players. They know what's up. Also, I tend to think of awards voted on by the players to be a bit more prestigious for some reason.

They do… I’d say they do error on the side of reputation too. Especially if they don’t play in the same conference.

 

[GeoRox89]

Oooof cheering for the Panthers but that was a pathetic attempt at a sell job by Ekblad on that slash

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Cale Makar would've scored there. Just sayin'.

 

[dahrougem2]

They do… I’d say they do error on the side of reputation too. Especially if they don’t play in the same conference.

Oh no doubt. Just check out The Athletic asking them who the hardest defensemen to play against is and Hedman won by a ton. That shouldn't be the answer lol.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

They do… I’d say they do error on the side of reputation too. Especially if they don’t play in the same conference.

Oh no doubt. Just check out The Athletic asking them who the hardest defensemen to play against is and Hedman won by a ton. That shouldn't be the answer lol.

Well damn. Maybe it should be awarded by the three of us then?