You are a Twins fan, yes?Gil Dobie wrote:I don't mind it.89Hen wrote: I think you went a little further Gil. Sounded like you were expressing why you liked it.
BTW, I will be rooting for the NL WC to beat the Dodgers.
You are a Twins fan, yes?Gil Dobie wrote:I don't mind it.89Hen wrote: I think you went a little further Gil. Sounded like you were expressing why you liked it.
Nope, just pulling the Twins with the Tigers down this year.89Hen wrote:You are a Twins fan, yes?Gil Dobie wrote:
I don't mind it.
Because there may have been as many as 15 teams that were better than them during the regular season.89Hen wrote:They are an NHL team. Why is it a bad thing?CAA Flagship wrote: Why is an 8th placed team winning the cup a good thing?
So why have playoffs at all? Man, you are more a moving target than Klean on the NFL thread.CAA Flagship wrote:Because there may have been as many as 15 teams that were better than them during the regular season.89Hen wrote: They are an NHL team. Why is it a bad thing?
Yes. Baseball = right. Hockey = WrongGil Dobie wrote:In 2012, the team with the 13th most points won the Stanley Cup. Many years the cup comes down to a hot goalie. Even with the play-in game, baseball only has 10 teams in the playoffs.CAA Flagship wrote: Why is an 8th placed team winning the cup a good thing?
89Hen wrote:You are a Twins fan, yes?Gil Dobie wrote:
I don't mind it.
BTW, I will be rooting for the NL WC to beat the Dodgers.
You mean 40,001dbackjon wrote:Great post for number 40,000
Why is it wrong in baseball?CAA Flagship wrote:Yes. Baseball = right. Hockey = WrongGil Dobie wrote:
In 2012, the team with the 13th most points won the Stanley Cup. Many years the cup comes down to a hot goalie. Even with the play-in game, baseball only has 10 teams in the playoffs.
Was referring to previous post.89Hen wrote:You mean 40,001dbackjon wrote:Great post for number 40,000
Ugh.89Hen wrote:So why have playoffs at all? Man, you are more a moving target than Klean on the NFL thread.CAA Flagship wrote: Because there may have been as many as 15 teams that were better than them during the regular season.
What? Where? Who?89Hen wrote:Why is it wrong in baseball?CAA Flagship wrote: Yes. Baseball = right. Hockey = Wrong
They must have lost a couple of series to one or both of those teams, no? Can't be just 2 series lost the entire year.dbackjon wrote:89Hen wrote: You are a Twins fan, yes?
BTW, I will be rooting for the NL WC to beat the Dodgers.
Dodgers have lost season series to only two teams this year - Dbacks and Rockies
A lot to digest here JSO.CAA Flagship wrote:Ugh.89Hen wrote: So why have playoffs at all? Man, you are more a moving target than Klean on the NFL thread.
I'm OK with playoffs, but it should not exceed a certain percentage of the league. 10/30 is OK. 16/31 (NHL) is too many.
I recognize that teams experience key injuries during the season, or make trades during the season that improve them in the second half. And I recognize that WC teams may have a better record than Division winners. Also, from a perspective of maintaining fan interest in the league, WC teams do a tremendous job in August and September. For these reasons, I like an appropriate number of WC teams. But I believe that basketball is the only sport that has a truly effective home field/court advantage (Football being a distant second).
Once the playoffs start, I want to see the higher seeds with an appropriate advantage as a reward for their accomplishments during the season. I don't believe that 1 extra home game in a series is enough of a reward.
But forcing the WC teams to burn an ace in a single game playoff helps to tilt the advantage to the top seed. I like that (and this year is a good example of how many teams can stay in the WC race well into Sept with the 2nd WC slot >>> two birds, one stone).
They were 8-11 vs Arizona, including losing last 6 (3 at home, 3 on the road) to ArizonaCAA Flagship wrote:They must have lost a couple of series to one or both of those teams, no? Can't be just 2 series lost the entire year.dbackjon wrote:
Dodgers have lost season series to only two teams this year - Dbacks and Rockies
Season series.CAA Flagship wrote:They must have lost a couple of series to one or both of those teams, no? Can't be just 2 series lost the entire year.dbackjon wrote:
Dodgers have lost season series to only two teams this year - Dbacks and Rockies
And the NHL winner depends mostly on a hot goalie.89Hen wrote:A lot to digest here JSO.CAA Flagship wrote: Ugh.
I'm OK with playoffs, but it should not exceed a certain percentage of the league. 10/30 is OK. 16/31 (NHL) is too many.
I recognize that teams experience key injuries during the season, or make trades during the season that improve them in the second half. And I recognize that WC teams may have a better record than Division winners. Also, from a perspective of maintaining fan interest in the league, WC teams do a tremendous job in August and September. For these reasons, I like an appropriate number of WC teams. But I believe that basketball is the only sport that has a truly effective home field/court advantage (Football being a distant second).
Once the playoffs start, I want to see the higher seeds with an appropriate advantage as a reward for their accomplishments during the season. I don't believe that 1 extra home game in a series is enough of a reward.
But forcing the WC teams to burn an ace in a single game playoff helps to tilt the advantage to the top seed. I like that (and this year is a good example of how many teams can stay in the WC race well into Sept with the 2nd WC slot >>> two birds, one stone).
Playoff size should be different for every sport. I think the more games played during the regular season, the fewer playoff teams there should be (BTW, I'm all for cutting a month off the baseball season, but that's for another thread). Many times in the NHL, there's not a lot separating 1st from 8th or 1st in the division to barely making the playoffs. Last year Toronto was the #8 team in the Eastern and they were only 8 points behind division winner Montreal (one more regulation loss than the Habs). Nashville was the #8 seed in the West and I had no problem with them making the finals (and they didn't have to sit their starting goalie in Game 1 of the first round).
IMO, in the playoffs it's you line up your best team, I line up my best team and we go at it. You feel it's better for baseball that the #1 seed get a bigger advantage in that regard and I don't. We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
NBA... I'd rather watch women's bowling (not kidding) but the "home court advantage" is a mirage. It's just that there is no longer parity in that league. The home team wins most of the time because there is a GIANT rift in the talent of the top 2-4 teams in the league and the rest of the pack. It's only one of the reasons I loathe the NBA.
That's somewhat a fallacy Gil. A hot goalie can win you a game or two, but did you know the Lowest GAA and highest Save Percentage in the playoffs 2016?... Braden Holtby. I'm too familiar with how that turned out.Gil Dobie wrote:And the NHL winner depends mostly on a hot goalie.
Hockey plays 80 games and a fairly balanced schedule. There is no reason that the cutoff can't be at 10 or 12 teams vs. the 16. In fact, I have a better way of doing the NHL playoffs but.......different thread.89Hen wrote:A lot to digest here JSO.CAA Flagship wrote: Ugh.
I'm OK with playoffs, but it should not exceed a certain percentage of the league. 10/30 is OK. 16/31 (NHL) is too many.
I recognize that teams experience key injuries during the season, or make trades during the season that improve them in the second half. And I recognize that WC teams may have a better record than Division winners. Also, from a perspective of maintaining fan interest in the league, WC teams do a tremendous job in August and September. For these reasons, I like an appropriate number of WC teams. But I believe that basketball is the only sport that has a truly effective home field/court advantage (Football being a distant second).
Once the playoffs start, I want to see the higher seeds with an appropriate advantage as a reward for their accomplishments during the season. I don't believe that 1 extra home game in a series is enough of a reward.
But forcing the WC teams to burn an ace in a single game playoff helps to tilt the advantage to the top seed. I like that (and this year is a good example of how many teams can stay in the WC race well into Sept with the 2nd WC slot >>> two birds, one stone).
Playoff size should be different for every sport. I think the more games played during the regular season, the fewer playoff teams there should be (BTW, I'm all for cutting a month off the baseball season, but that's for another thread). Many times in the NHL, there's not a lot separating 1st from 8th or 1st in the division to barely making the playoffs. Last year Toronto was the #8 team in the Eastern and they were only 8 points behind division winner Montreal (one more regulation loss than the Habs). Nashville was the #8 seed in the West and I had no problem with them making the finals (and they didn't have to sit their starting goalie in Game 1 of the first round).
IMO, in the playoffs it's you line up your best team, I line up my best team and we go at it. You feel it's better for baseball that the #1 seed get a bigger advantage in that regard and I don't. We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
NBA... I'd rather watch women's bowling (not kidding) but the "home court advantage" is a mirage. It's just that there is no longer parity in that league. The home team wins most of the time because there is a GIANT rift in the talent of the top 2-4 teams in the league and the rest of the pack. It's only one of the reasons I loathe the NBA.
Ahh, dyslexia on my part. Gracias89Hen wrote:Season series.CAA Flagship wrote: They must have lost a couple of series to one or both of those teams, no? Can't be just 2 series lost the entire year.
For NHL, then you're talking about teams sitting around for two weeks while a series goes 7 games???? No thanks. 8 is too few, and I don't like byes, so I'm stuck with 16. And the fact that the 8 seed has won the Cup (went last year) pretty much supports that they're not letting in too many dregs.CAA Flagship wrote:Hockey plays 80 games and a fairly balanced schedule. There is no reason that the cutoff can't be at 10 or 12 teams vs. the 16. In fact, I have a better way of doing the NHL playoffs but.......different thread.89Hen wrote: A lot to digest here JSO.
Playoff size should be different for every sport. I think the more games played during the regular season, the fewer playoff teams there should be (BTW, I'm all for cutting a month off the baseball season, but that's for another thread). Many times in the NHL, there's not a lot separating 1st from 8th or 1st in the division to barely making the playoffs. Last year Toronto was the #8 team in the Eastern and they were only 8 points behind division winner Montreal (one more regulation loss than the Habs). Nashville was the #8 seed in the West and I had no problem with them making the finals (and they didn't have to sit their starting goalie in Game 1 of the first round).
IMO, in the playoffs it's you line up your best team, I line up my best team and we go at it. You feel it's better for baseball that the #1 seed get a bigger advantage in that regard and I don't. We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
NBA... I'd rather watch women's bowling (not kidding) but the "home court advantage" is a mirage. It's just that there is no longer parity in that league. The home team wins most of the time because there is a GIANT rift in the talent of the top 2-4 teams in the league and the rest of the pack. It's only one of the reasons I loathe the NBA.
Again, 162 games is a long season. Should be a bigger advantage for higher seeds. OK, agree to disagree.
There is no question that basketball is the biggest home advantage in sports. It's not just talent. It's a matter of the background for shooters. And home crowd has something to do with it also, helping to energize the home team. "Energizing the team" does not work in baseball nearly as much as in hockey, football and basketball. Baseball home crowds just make the celebration after the play better.
On basketball, I'm talking about two closely matched teams, pro or college. Even the RPI calculation recognizes the homecourt advantage. And I think oddsmakers give the biggest edge to home basketball teams than any other sport.89Hen wrote:For NHL, then you're talking about teams sitting around for two weeks while a series goes 7 games???? No thanks. 8 is too few, and I don't like byes, so I'm stuck with 16. And the fact that the 8 seed has won the Cup (went last year) pretty much supports that they're not letting in too many dregs.CAA Flagship wrote: Hockey plays 80 games and a fairly balanced schedule. There is no reason that the cutoff can't be at 10 or 12 teams vs. the 16. In fact, I have a better way of doing the NHL playoffs but.......different thread.
Again, 162 games is a long season. Should be a bigger advantage for higher seeds. OK, agree to disagree.
There is no question that basketball is the biggest home advantage in sports. It's not just talent. It's a matter of the background for shooters. And home crowd has something to do with it also, helping to energize the home team. "Energizing the team" does not work in baseball nearly as much as in hockey, football and basketball. Baseball home crowds just make the celebration after the play better.
On the NBA, you can't prove that in any way, shape or form. Talent wins out in bball. How many #8's have beaten #1's? I think the answer is still none. Rest my case on that one.
You lost me quickly on this post Flaggy... and a vast majority of hockey fans I'm guessing too. Round robin? This isn't gay soccer.CAA Flagship wrote:I agree with you on hockey. Can't sit and wait. But if you went to say 12 teams, one of the things you could do is include a round robin type format...