Why were the Sharks only 5th

[aarond 0]

I knew the Sharks were better than their record before this series started. But now that we're four games in, this team is even better than I thought they were. Their forecheck is absolutely brutal. It takes everything the Wings have just to clear the zone sometimes. Their top line is fierce. Probably the best line the league. So I knew these guys weren't your average 5 seed, but when these guys are on, they look like the best team in the league. So why did they finish so low?

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Top teams in each division get top 3 seeds (Detroit, Anaheim, Vancouver). Nashville had a better record than San Jose, so, SJ is 5th.

[regwinguofmfan 0]

They play some good teams 8 times a year.

While we play some turds 8 times a year.

I think that works to our disadvantage that we have to play Chicago, St Louis, C-Bus for 24 games.

Like playing minor league teams.

[aarond 0]

Top teams in each division get top 3 seeds (Detroit, Anaheim, Vancouver). Nashville had a better record than San Jose, so, SJ is 5th.

lol Thanks. What a brilliant theorist you are.

Edited May 3, 2007 by aarond

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Well, if you want more of a theorhetical answer. Here's mine.

They play Anaheim 8 times and Anaheim is better than them because they play the same style with a better goalie.

[good morning 10]

They play some good teams 8 times a year.

While we play some turds 8 times a year.

I think that works to our disadvantage that we have to play Chicago, St Louis, C-Bus for 24 games.

Like playing minor league teams.

This excuse was debunked here before.

Just for the record:

Detroit went 15-3-5 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis. 35 points in 24 games.

San Jose went 12-4-0 vs LA/Phoenix...gaining 24 points in 16 games against the two worst teams in the conference.

Detroit went 7-1 vs LA/Phoenix, for 14 points in 8 games vs the two worst.

San Jose went 10-2-0 vs Columbus/Chicago/St. Louis to get 20 points in 12 games.

So against five of the six worst teams in the Conference, Detroit went 22-4-5 for 49 points in 31 games, while San Jose went 22-6-0 for 44 points in 28 games.

That means, excluding head-to-head games, Detroit went 27-12-8 for 62 points in 47 games against Playoff clubs, Edmonton, Colorado, and the East, while San Jose went 26-19-5 for 57 points in 50 games against those same opponents.

So in other words...Detroit gained more points and more wins in fewer games against better teams, while San Jose gained points at the same rate against weak teams.

Please never try the 'weak division' argument when it's so easily refuted.

[tipetz22 0]

They play some good teams 8 times a year.

While we play some turds 8 times a year.

I think that works to our disadvantage that we have to play Chicago, St Louis, C-Bus for 24 games.

Like playing minor league teams.

I think that some one had some good info on how the Central isn't the weakest division, I can't find the post (can someone help!) Thanks, Good Morning!

I forget that the Pacific has such power houses like Phoenix and LA

Edited May 3, 2007 by tipetz22

[JaketheShark 0]

I knew the Sharks were better than their record before this series started. But now that we're four games in, this team is even better than I thought they were. Their forecheck is absolutely brutal. It takes everything the Wings have just to clear the zone sometimes. Their top line is fierce. Probably the best line the league. So I knew these guys weren't your average 5 seed, but when these guys are on, they look like the best team in the league. So why did they finish so low?

Sharks had more points than Vancouver and only 6 less than the Wings. You expected them to be easy? All the top teams in the West are very talented and very close in points. I'm also wondering why Nashville, who had more points than the Sharks, was blown out in 5. Calgary barely held off Colorado's late run to make the playoffs but were very tough at home, gave the Wings a tough series. Sharks are much better than the Flames.

Sharks, when on their game, do look like they should run away with the Presidents Trophy but they can also look like they shouldn't even be in the playoffs. I put it down to the fact that they are one of the youngest teams in the league and young players are more inconsistent, with the exception of Vlasic who is amazing. At one point the Sharks were the youngest team by average age in the NHL, but after acquiring Guerin and Rivet I'm not sure if that's still true.

[68 Z-28 0]

The Sharks were tied for the second best record in the league. They would be a second seed in the west, right behind Nashville, if there weren't the 3 point games

[BlueMonk 102]

I watched a lot of their games on Center Ice this year. I think the Sharks played down to the level of their opposition a lot. I was saying all season that they were the class of the Western Conference, along with Anaheim. You can't get too wrapped up in seedings. There are teams built for the playoffs, and teams not built for the playoffs. I felt the Sharks were one of the best suited to create huge problems for other teams. In a Salary Cap league, it's hard to amass the kind of talent, size (especially) and skill they have.

[hockeysattva 8]

Since this homework is being reposted, I just thought I would point out one thing that kind of bothers me.

In his finally analysis he leaves out head to head games, they really only seperated by a point and three games in the against good teams catagory.

Also, to add my thinking. I don't think they are so good really, but I think they kinda have Detroits number.

Lastly, having the fifth best record in the confernce for the whole regular season does not necessarily mean the team is fifth best in the playoffs. SJ definitely finished better than the Nucks (for example). Seeding is probably not the best power evaluation IMO. But, ESPN is not either.

[Draperfan01 0]

This excuse was debunked here before.

ummm.. Hate to say it but your math is a little faulty.

There are 2 ways your math is faulty.

1. The Sharks had 20 points in 12 games against the Wing's divisional opponents. This works out to a 1.666PPG

The Wings had 35 points in 24 games against their own division for a 1.46PPG.

So if that pattern were to hold, the Sharks would have more points if they swapped places with the Wings and the Wings would have less.

2. The Wings gained 5 points in 31 games against the 5 weakest teams, and then gained 5 points in 51 games the rest of the time. This means that they were gaining points at a greater rate in their division, again pointing to the weaker division as the root cause.

Not that I like the results, but I'm a math and physics teacher. I just had to point out the faulty application of math...

[Guest GodofHockeyStevieY19]

The Sharks were tied for the second best record in the league.

Umm, sorry buddy. The Red Wings had the second best record in the league(behind the Sabres). And the Sharks were certainly not tied with the Wings.

[aarond 0]

Sharks had more points than Vancouver and only 6 less than the Wings. You expected them to be easy?

Uh, no. I didn't expect them to be easy. Show me where I said or implied that. In fact, I specifically said that I thought they were better than their record.

Umm, sorry buddy. The Red Wings had the second best record in the league(behind the Sabres). And the Sharks were certainly not tied with the Wings.

I think he might be talking about winning percentage wise.

[DRW Dominance 255]

SJ was the 5 seed only because they couldn't force games into OT. They had alot of regulation losses.

[68 Z-28 0]

Umm, sorry buddy. The Red Wings had the second best record in the league(behind the Sabres). And the Sharks were certainly not tied with the Wings.

I didn't make any mention about points. If you take the wins vs loses(OT or Regulation), Sharks had a better record than Detriot.

[Guest Crymson]

They were fifth because Anaheim defeated them in their division, Detroit and Vancouver were the two other division leaders, and Nashville had a better record.

I don't get your point. FYI, when we're on, we're also pretty damned good.

I didn't make any mention about points. If you take the wins vs loses(OT or Regulation), Sharks had a better record than Detriot.

The Wings suck in shootouts. Shootouts made the difference in this record you speak of. Shootouts do not define a team's acumen; the team with the better breakaway players wins.

[68 Z-28 0]

They were fifth because Anaheim defeated them in their division, Detroit and Vancouver were the two other division leaders, and Nashville had a better record.

I don't get your point. FYI, when we're on, we're also pretty damned good.

I understand how why and where the Sharks ended up where they did. And I'm not saying Detriot is a bad team. You don't make the second round of the playoffs usually if you are a bad team.

My only point that I was trying to make is that the POINTS and standings don't reflect the Sharks seeding as it would have if the points system was dropped and we just looked at wins/losses(loss reguardless of when).

The Wings suck in shootouts. Shootouts made the difference in this record you speak of. Shootouts do not define a team's acumen; the team with the better breakaway players wins.

Sharks aren't too stout on the shootout either. During the regular season we joked about how the equipment manager would come out and install a blindfold on Nabby when/if we went to a shootout. IMO it's nothing more than a circus act.

Edited May 4, 2007 by 68 Z-28

[Guest Agalloch]

I'm trying to remember how many shootouts we did win this year, just out of curiosity. Two, I think? One against Colorado, and one against Nashville.

Then we lost like, ten or so.

[Vincanni 1]

Detroit was 2-8 in shoot outs, while San Jose was 2-2.

[Kp-Wings 3]

Anaheim is an awesome team. That is why the Sharks finished #5 in the West. Whether or not the Sharks did good against the Ducks themselves, the Ducks ruled the NHL at various times this season.

[norrisnick 1]

I didn't make any mention about points. If you take the wins vs loses(OT or Regulation), Sharks had a better record than Detriot.

It's a bit self-serving to do away with 3 point games by simply dropping the OTL point.

Detroit had the most regulation wins and fewest regulation losses this season. So all the extra crap helped all the other teams more than it helped Detroit.

[aarond 0]

I don't get your point.

Yea, I can see that.

The question I am asking, put another way, is this: in your opinion, why didn't the Sharks have a better record? Not that it's bad, but the 5th seed seems low for a team this good. I guess there's no good answer for it. They just got unlucky having the Ducks in their division, which meant that 4th seed was the best they can do.

While we're on the point, does anybody think the NHL's seeding system is retarded? Personally, I like the system the NBA employed this year. The only thing I don't like about the NBA's, but which I do like about the NHL's, is they don't reseed after each round, whereas the NHL does. If they combined systems, it would be a good system. But nothing can beat the old division system from the old school.

FYI, when we're on, we're also pretty damned good.

Did I say we're not?

Edited May 4, 2007 by aarond

[norrisnick 1]

The question I am asking, put another way, is this: in your opinion, why didn't the Sharks have a better record? Not that it's bad, but the 5th seed seems low for a team this good. Do you understand what I'm asking now?

Would being the 4th seed be any better? You might have an argument for the Preds being seeded too high given the way San Jose dispatched them, but I woulnd't necessarily place them ahead of Anaheim or Detroit and Vancouver got the 3rd seed for winning the Northwest.

Is that one spot that big of a deal?

[Grypho 195]

I watched a lot of their games on Center Ice this year. I think the Sharks played down to the level of their opposition a lot.

Good observation, I was going to say the exact same thing. I think the Sharks spend a lot of time trying to get an accurate read on their opponents (as opposed to the Ducks, who like to do less reading and more dictating of play right from the jump). So while the Sharks appear to adopt some of the pacing and tempo of their opponents, which looks reactinonary to me at first, they do risk getting sucked into the other team's rhythm, pace, and style of play, which may be superior in its own right. But I do think there's wisdom to the style, and that it pays off in the long run.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Grypho