|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 25, 2015 4:56:01 GMT
What I'm going to find interesting is who's going to be the 1st 3 on 0 break away & miss. Or the 1st goalie to make the highlight of the nite save. You better start a new thread once the season starts Nite, called "Highlite of the Nite", which you can submit after every nights games are over. Since you will be up in Fort Nelson, all games will be over before you hit the sack, so you can check all games for the winner. Can't wait. |
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jun 25, 2015 13:07:25 GMT
They still didn't get it right. Now you need to build a team to play 5 on 5 (regular season and playoffs) and pond hockey 3 on 3. As long as the loser point still exists all these gimmicks are irrelevant. I agree with what you're implying. 3 on 3 is more gimmicky than 4 on 4, and really a whole new frontier. The more I think about it ...the more it seems like terrible, convoluted/bandaid idea.
Unfortunately though....all this gimmickry is hardly irrelevant. Somebody always misses the playoffs by a point or 2. This new reality will immediately impact "reasonable potential", by at least a few points. For example, if the Bruins miss out on the "winner point' a couple more times because they don't have "pond strength", and those 2 points stay in the East....that's a 4 point swing. Huge.
We know the current margin for points is razor thin. Everywhere in the league.
This past regular season, the Bruins ended regulation tied 27 times. 27 freakin games out of 82! The leagues best regular season team, the Rangers, had 17. That's still a high number. Still a huge "new" potential to win or lose points.
Went back a year, to the Bruins prez cup season. They were tied 16 times after regulation. This little nugget alone is worth it's own thread. Wow! 16 last year, 27 this year. A pretty good example of margins isn't it.
It just seems to me...this little 3 on 3 gimmick can be hugely exploited. Unfortunately...if it "can be"...that probably translates into "should be'.
I chuckle when I think about Bobby Orr, in a 3 on 3 NHL o/t format. The league would have had no choice but to can it, a month into the schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Markwart on Jun 25, 2015 13:21:16 GMT
How about the old Oil? Gretzky, Coffey, Kurri followed by Anderson, Messier, Lowe.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbrennan92 on Jun 25, 2015 13:33:32 GMT
This is going to be awesome to watch. Im all for this team not being involved in as many shootouts. They were absolutely brutal last year in shootouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jun 25, 2015 14:23:04 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds.
People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way?
I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 25, 2015 14:46:08 GMT
I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs. Hell yeah!! |
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Jun 25, 2015 14:49:47 GMT
In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds.Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? That is what the NHL is shooting for and I think it will be really close. |
|
|
|
Post by Bslegion on Jun 25, 2015 15:03:04 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds. People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs.says whom the Bruins of last season would have won more 3 on 3 than SO ? 3 on 3 if a whole different game (still not NHL hockey in my book) and there's no proof the Bruins would have had or have better success than in the SO.
Steve, my irrelevancy was more towards the loser point. That's what I would like eliminated and would have a bigger impact between a game that ends in tie in regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Jun 25, 2015 15:12:22 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds. People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs. I would think the opposite. For me 3 on 3 is high emphasis on speed and skill. They have some, but not as much as a lot of other teams. Teams like Chicago, Rangers, etc..have more speed and skill up front. I'd look out for Florida too.
|
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Jun 25, 2015 15:44:49 GMT
This sucks
|
|
|
|
Post by socca10 on Jun 25, 2015 16:36:35 GMT
It's sad to hear about 3 v 3. I wish they would have just extended 4 v 4 to ten minutes and dropped the shootout altogether. I would not be disappointed as a fan if I sat through ten action packed minutes and a tie was declared. Well said. Would have preferred that or 4v4 for 5, 3v3 for 5, call it a night... Straight to 3v3? That's just as bad as straight to penalties after regulation. |
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Jun 25, 2015 16:40:43 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds. People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs. I would think the opposite. For me 3 on 3 is high emphasis on speed and skill. They have some, but not as much as a lot of other teams. Teams like Chicago, Rangers, etc..have more speed and skill up front. I'd look out for Florida too.
So the Bruins should acquire some speedsters. I've heard Kessel is available...oops, sorry, just kidding! |
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 25, 2015 16:55:16 GMT
Kessel, Ribeiro & Cooke are available ! Might not be a bad threesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Jun 25, 2015 17:22:13 GMT
How about the old Oil? Gretzky, Coffey, Kurri followed by Anderson, Messier, Lowe. With the first three you would have no need for the other three....the game would be long over |
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jun 25, 2015 17:27:09 GMT
Kessel, Ribeiro & pussy are available ! Might not be a bad threesome. Lol! Forgot that name was banned! |
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jun 25, 2015 19:37:46 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds. People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs. I love your optimism Oates. Your judgement is another story.
Yeah...I did watch most Bruin games last year. In fact I've watched enough hockey, to come to the very straightforward conclusion, that 4 on 4 hockey...is much, much different than 3 on 3. It's barely even the same game as 4 on 4. Apparently, your wisdom is based on the logic that anything that lowers the odds of a shootout...works in the B's favour.....because they were much better 4 on 4. Sorry. It doesn't compute that way in reality.There's just zero basis to make that assumption. And your numbers are misleading. The Bruins went into extra innings 27 times. They were 9 for 27 as far as getting the win, 4 on 4. That's .333. They weren't 9 for 13("marvelous"). Bruins were 4 for 14 in shootouts(.286) Not a huge difference. The B's weren't that much better 4 on 4. And even if they were...that means dik when comparing things to 3 on 3.
You think the B's are better 3 on 3, and would have made the playoffs if this were in play this past season?? That's your opinion, but they would have had to have several more o/t wins to have done it. You'd have a real tough time convincing most avid hockey people this Bruin squad is one of the absolute best 3 on 3. You've said nothing that would further that cause so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2015 20:03:05 GMT
What I'm going to find interesting is who's going to be the 1st 3 on 0 break away & miss. Or the 1st goalie to make the highlight of the nite save. You better start a new thread once the season starts Nite, called "Highlite of the Nite", which you can submit after every nights games are over. Since you will be up in Fort Nelson, all games will be over before you hit the sack, so you can check all games for the winner. Can't wait. That's an awesome idea. Got a lot going on 50. Make sure you remind me. And I made a mistake I'm actually going to Fort St.John which is along the Alaskan Highway! Hello Cold!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2015 6:41:29 GMT
As a hockey fan I think 3 on 3 is going to be awesome. Toews,Kane, Keith? McDavid, Hall and Eberle? The kid line from Tampa Bay? McKinnon, Dushane and Barry. I can't wait! I wish they would've done a 4 on 4 then a 3 on 3, but if this eliminates the shoot-out by even 50% I'm elated.
|
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Jun 26, 2015 12:17:02 GMT
What I'm going to find interesting is who's going to be the 1st 3 on 0 break away & miss. Or the 1st goalie to make the highlight of the nite save. "Highlight of the nite save" That's like kicking the table on the way by, tipping the wine cooler but grabbing it before it spills. |
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jun 26, 2015 13:00:05 GMT
Seriously, if you are bitching about the format in terms of Bruins impact and worried about how they will deal with it... did you even watch last year? I don't like the idea of 3 on 3, but Boston was marvelous in 4 on 4 and terrible in shootouts. The Bruins were 4-10 in shootouts and 9-4 in 4 on 4 OT. In the AHL experiment, games decided in OT skyrocketed to 75%. I'd take those odds. People saying Boston doesn't have the skill set for 3 on 3 are out to lunch. First, the nature of 3 on 3 means teams trade chances and games are often decided quickly. Winning faceoffs can mean getting the first chance and potentially extra chances to end the game. Boston is the best in the biz in that department. Second, with 3 on 3 losing much of the traditional structure of hockey and resorting to a more pond-hockey style, having forwards who can defend and defence who can score is a great advantage. The Bruins have two marvelous young scoring D in Hamilton and Krug and still have Chara who takes up the space of two players on his own and has plenty of scoring skill. They have two fantastic 2-way centers who can score, defend and win draws. And they have some great young speedsters with skill in Marchand, Spooner and Pastrnak. Even Lucic, give him the puck, let him fly down the wing for the net and who's going to be getting in his way? I honestly can't think of a team better built for 3 on 3 OTs. Don't like it, but if it was in place last year Boston's probably in the playoffs. I love your optimism Oates. Your judgement is another story.
Yeah...I did watch most Bruin games last year. In fact I've watched enough hockey, to come to the very straightforward conclusion, that 4 on 4 hockey...is much, much different than 3 on 3. It's barely even the same game as 4 on 4. Apparently, your wisdom is based on the logic that anything that lowers the odds of a shootout...works in the B's favour.....because they were much better 4 on 4. Sorry. It doesn't compute that way in reality.There's just zero basis to make that assumption. And your numbers are misleading. The Bruins went into extra innings 27 times. They were 9 for 27 as far as getting the win, 4 on 4. That's .333. They weren't 9 for 13("marvelous"). Bruins were 4 for 14 in shootouts(.286) Not a huge difference. The B's weren't that much better 4 on 4. And even if they were...that means dik when comparing things to 3 on 3.
You think the B's are better 3 on 3, and would have made the playoffs if this were in play this past season?? That's your opinion, but they would have had to have several more o/t wins to have done it. You'd have a real tough time convincing most avid hockey people this Bruin squad is one of the absolute best 3 on 3. You've said nothing that would further that cause so far.
Your numbers are misleading in saying a .333 in OT. They were 9-4-14. If Boston ends up just as good in 3on3 as they are 4on4, but 75% of games are decided in 3on3 like it was in the AHL, that's an extra 4 wins for the Bruins and (all things being equal) they have 99 or 100 points and are in the playoffs. You can question my judgement, but in reality Boston was the best team (tied with Calgary) in 4 on 4 overtime. You can say 3 on 3 is different, but would you say 3 on 3 is more like 4 on 4 or 5 on 5? Since Boston had a better relative record with fewer skaters, I'd say reducing them is a move in their favor. The fundamental flaw in so many comments here is that many assume less payers = advantage for teams with slick scoring superstars, and that's not the case. It's what people say about 4 on 4, too, but it's not the case there, either. People throw out names like Stamkos, Kane or Seguin, but those teams are actually in the bottom half for 4 on 4 success. As I've said, the key to 3 on 3 OT victory is much more about faceoffs, depth and skilled 2-way players who can both score and defend in an environment that has less structure. Sure, Stammer can snipe, but would you rather him or Bergeron defending if the initial rush is going against you? And few teams have a 1-2-3 scoring punch on the back end like Hamilton, Krug and Chara. In 3 on 3 it's just as likely that it's your D that gets open for the shot as it is your star forward. |
|
|
|
Post by davinator on Jun 26, 2015 16:04:28 GMT
3 on 3....can you say, "stretch pass"?
Be prepared for blueline cherry pickers and hail Mary passes(likely from the goalies too).
A game tailored for Pacioretty and Pernell Karl.
Question(I don't have time to look it up): Do/did shootout losses count toward goaltenders' win/loss records?
If not, then a lot of goaltenders will be pissed because more games will be decided in OT.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jun 26, 2015 18:04:38 GMT
The whole concept of "defend", is meant to be diminished with the advent of 3 on 3. And that's exactly how it worked in the AHL, that's what drove the 75% swing...and that is what makes perfect sense to most of us. Thinking that way is not a "fundamental flaw". More scoring kind of equates to less defending.
And my numbers you're questioning aren't misleading at all. They're explained in detail, and nothing could be more straightforward. In 27 "overtimes" tries, the B's managed to get a 4 on 4 win...9 times. That's a .333 winning percentage, and that ain't nothing to write home about, despite you proclaiming otherwise. Those other 14 shootouts don't impact anything. They only came about because the B's failed to get the victory, "during" 4 on 4.
And I don't get your Calgary reference. There's no basis to make hardly any educated comparison to Boston by bringing up one distorted inconsequential fact. First, they played 26% fewer o/t games than Boston. Second, they won 4 shootouts, while only losing 3, which is day and night compared to Boston. Third, in context, their overall record post regulation computes day and night to Boston.
Statistically, there are only a few conclusions, that could reasonably be projected.
1. If the number of games settled in O/T goes up by 75%, that means the offensive components of the game drive that reality. End of story.
2. The Bruins last year were weak offensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jun 26, 2015 18:28:07 GMT
The whole concept of "defend", is meant to be diminished with the advent of 3 on 3. And that's exactly how it worked in the AHL, that's what drove the 75% swing...and that is what makes perfect sense to most of us. Thinking that way is not a "fundamental flaw". More scoring kind of equates to less defending. And my numbers you're questioning aren't misleading at all. They're explained in detail, and nothing could be more straightforward. In 27 "overtimes" tries, the B's managed to get a 4 on 4 win...9 times. That's a .333 winning percentage, and that ain't nothing to write home about, despite you proclaiming otherwise. Those other 14 shootouts don't impact anything. They only came about because the B's failed to get the victory, "during" 4 on 4. And I don't get your Calgary reference. There's no basis to make hardly any educated comparison to Boston by bringing up one distorted inconsequential fact. First, they played 26% fewer o/t games than Boston. Second, they won 4 shootouts, while only losing 3, which is day and night compared to Boston. Third, in context, their overall record post regulation computes day and night to Boston. Statistically, there are only a few conclusions, that could reasonably be projected. 1. If the number of games settled in O/T goes up by 75%, that means the offensive components of the game drive that reality. End of story. 2. The Bruins last year were weak offensively. a) No, a 9-4-14 record is not a .333 win % by any calculation ever used. .333 implies the bruins lost .666 of the time. You could value the ties at half-win value if you want, but it's not a .333. b) 3 on 3 provides more scoring of course. The flaw is in thinking that this scoring will come from players who have shown a propensity to score in normal hockey situations. Regardless if there is more space on the ice, I like a Bergeron vs Stamkos match up any day. The advantage of a Stamkos is in a 5v4 or 4v3 situation when he goes uncovered. In a 3 on 3 Bergeron should be able to mark his man. c) Calgary tied with Boston in most Overtime (non-shootout) wins. What aren't you grasping? The teams with elite superstar scorers were not especially good in non-shootout OT. I expect this to continue with 3 on 3. When you look at OT leaders from last year, no one stands out. Taveres had 4, Marchand had 3. It's a virtual cluster of a tonne of guys with 2. If anything, OT seems to even the field with prolific scorers scoring proportionally much less when compared to more average players. |
|
|
|
Post by Bslegion on Jun 26, 2015 22:33:42 GMT
3 on 3 hockey Bruins gearing up
|
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Jun 27, 2015 1:32:42 GMT
The whole concept of "defend", is meant to be diminished with the advent of 3 on 3. And that's exactly how it worked in the AHL, that's what drove the 75% swing...and that is what makes perfect sense to most of us. Thinking that way is not a "fundamental flaw". More scoring kind of equates to less defending. And my numbers you're questioning aren't misleading at all. They're explained in detail, and nothing could be more straightforward. In 27 "overtimes" tries, the B's managed to get a 4 on 4 win...9 times. That's a .333 winning percentage, and that ain't nothing to write home about, despite you proclaiming otherwise. Those other 14 shootouts don't impact anything. They only came about because the B's failed to get the victory, "during" 4 on 4. And I don't get your Calgary reference. There's no basis to make hardly any educated comparison to Boston by bringing up one distorted inconsequential fact. First, they played 26% fewer o/t games than Boston. Second, they won 4 shootouts, while only losing 3, which is day and night compared to Boston. Third, in context, their overall record post regulation computes day and night to Boston. Statistically, there are only a few conclusions, that could reasonably be projected. 1. If the number of games settled in O/T goes up by 75%, that means the offensive components of the game drive that reality. End of story. 2. The Bruins last year were weak offensively. a) No, a 9-4-14 record is not a .333 win % by any calculation ever used. .333 implies the bruins lost .666 of the time. You could value the ties at half-win value if you want, but it's not a .333. b) 3 on 3 provides more scoring of course. The flaw is in thinking that this scoring will come from players who have shown a propensity to score in normal hockey situations. Regardless if there is more space on the ice, I like a Bergeron vs Stamkos match up any day. The advantage of a Stamkos is in a 5v4 or 4v3 situation when he goes uncovered. In a 3 on 3 Bergeron should be able to mark his man. c) Calgary tied with Boston in most Overtime (non-shootout) wins. What aren't you grasping? The teams with elite superstar scorers were not especially good in non-shootout OT. I expect this to continue with 3 on 3. When you look at OT leaders from last year, no one stands out. Taveres had 4, Marchand had 3. It's a virtual cluster of a tonne of guys with 2. If anything, OT seems to even the field with prolific scorers scoring proportionally much less when compared to more average players. a) C'mon. Stop wiggling. There's no implication regarding .666 losing. The losing record is black and white. The .333 comes into play only to illustrate "wins" when other criteria muddles the picture(o/t wins, o/t losses, s/o wins, s/o losses),when doing the math in the 75% scenario. You conveniently forget that the Bruins don't get to keep all those S/O points, when the 75% kicks in, because theres less shootouts, and you suggest the o/t win percentage should be based on 13, not 27. If everything stays the same competitively, this is an easy mathematical exercise if 75% is close. Instead of 13 games being decided in ot, that will go to 20, but the .333 doesn't change. Shootouts, would go from 14 to 7, and the .286 would still apply. So, the Bruins would have received only 2 points in the shootout(half as many shootouts..half as many wins). As far as o/t wins, the Bruins would have paced the same, it's just a new total. 20 instead of 13. Instead of the 9 points they got this year, that number would go to 12.8. That totals 14.8 post regulation earned points vs the 12 they actually got, and I don't think 3 on 3 would have been as good. Anyway, they had to get one more point than Pittsburgh to get in, and your scenario doesn't cut it. Sorry. b) it's not that anyone is pinpointing the players that will do the scoring. I agree with your Bergeron-Stampkos thought, but the flaw is assuming that scenario to be the norm 3 on 3. It's not. The fact is, Bergeron in this scenario is "still" more about stopping Stampkos. c) What I'm grasping is an inconsequential, meaningless stat, that warps reality. Sure they both had the same number of ot wins, but when one team plays 26% more games than the other, it's a pretty limp "fact".
|
|
