From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Radical Format Change (flame bait)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:43:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.065053.7848@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.195356.29881@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>The Stanley Cup playoffs more reliably decide whom the best team is than
>>the regular season...
>>
>>1) The Stanley Cup playoffs more reliably produce repeat champions...
>
>I don't think this really supports your point.  You can argue that this in
>fact says that this supports the contention that the Cup playoffs does *not*
>decide the best team, since if champions keep repeating, that might be an
>indication that the format somehow favors some teams unfairly.

No...what it does is force one to look at why the President's Trophy
winner doesn't reliably repeat...and it doesn't because of injuries,
because of an unbalance schedule, an unequal travel schedule, and other
factors.  The Stanley Cup playoffs do favor some teams...good teams.

>>
>>3) Regular season standings are affected by injuries...and by teams
>>undergoing a learning curve.  Liberalized free agency means team
>>turnover is going to be much larger in the future, and a good coach
>>needs about 40 games for coaching to have any effect.
>
>But the playoffs are even more affected by injuries.  One injury to your
>#1 goalie, for example, and you get killed.  This is where I feel that the
>intrinsic unfairness of the playoffs system is, since teams don't get a chance
>to rebound from injury, et al.

You can't eliminate injuries at a critical time from any
system...however the Stanley Cup playoffs last two months, the regular
season lasts six months, thus the affect of injuries is lessened by
about a third, since injuries are essentially random.

>>
>>The regular season in the NHL is a development and learning phase...
>>the playoffs are a testing phase.  As with individuals, teams learn
>>and development and different paces, and the genius of the NHL is
>>that it distinctly the testing phase and the rewards and glory from
>>the learning and development phase.
>
>But we all know that some teams' playing style are more suited to play some
>teams than others.  For example, let's say that Ottawa, Tampa Bay, and San
>Jose are in the playoffs.  Ottawa has just won the Wales Conference playoffs,
>and is waiting for either San Jose or Tampa Bay.  Let's say that the talent
>dictates that Tampa Bay > Ottawa > San Jose, so usually, you'd think that
>Ottawa would prefer facing San Jose.  But it might very well be the case that
>Ottawa's playing style makes it more prone to mistakes that San Jose can
>capitalize on, while Tampa Bay's playing style makes it more prone to lose to
>Ottawa.

Good teams, the Penguins, the Oilers, the Islanders, the Canadiens,
could essentially beat any team at their own game, play any style and
win.  The Oilers didn't beat the Islanders until they beat the Islanders
defensively...for example.  The late seventies Canadiens teams could
be any team on the ice...AND in the alley.  Pittsburgh beat Washington
with Lemieux, and beat the Rangers without Lemieux last year.  Bowman
out Nielsonned Nielson.  Your excuse is the excuse of the Bryan Murray's
and the Roger Nielson's and the Pat Burns's of the NHL, who historically
build one-dimensional and over-specialized hockey teams incapable of
adaptation to an opponent's innovation.

>>
>>There is a strong correlation between regular season performance
>>and playoff performance, but consistant winners in the playoffs tend
>>not to sacrifice player and team development during the regular season.
>
>Say "Minnesota."
>
>Say "N. Y. Rangers."
>
>Say "Edmonton."
>

I posted the stats last year that demonstrated the correlation...perhaps
it is not as reliable as you like.  Pittsburgh, a defending champion,
no less, is the only third or lower place team to win the Stanley Cup
since the basic current alignment went into place in the early eighties.

The Oilers regular season stats for the last few years are misleading...
Ted Green or John Muckler have been handed essentially new hockey teams
in October and it has taken them half-a-season to rebuild the team...
look at where the Oilers rank in the last forty games of the last three
seasons, and their playoff success is unsurprising.    

Minnesota was an anomaly, and anomalies happen infrequently...however,
Chicago did self-destruct, and Caron traded away his team in February
of that season to the Canucks, and the Oilers were banged up after
wars with Calgary and LA...and Casey got hot, and Gainey is one hell
of a coach...but then look at Minnesota's record in the second half of
that season...again, then perhaps the playoff performance is
unsurprising...it took a new coach, Gainey, 40 games, to get his
teams performance up to snuff.

In each case of an alleged poor regular season doing well in the season
recently...look beyond the mere placement in the standings, and you
will see why the Stanley Cup playoffs never lie or mislead like the
regular season standings more often do.

Nielson, B. Murray, and Pat Burns are playoff losers...one shouldn't
look at their regular season stats at all...they sacrifice the
flexibility and adaptability of their teams for a few regular season
points all the time.

Gerald

Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey