SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted October 21, 2007 What would be the point of having a forum then? I don't know BRTD..... I don't know..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted October 22, 2007 I guess I would like your explanation of "better". Do you mean better as in better or do you take better solely as the one word reference to "won the playoff series"? The '91 North Stars beat two teams that had 20+ more wins in the regular season as well as the defending champs in their run to meet Mario. As far as I can see the only thing you could point to in support of them being "better" than those three teams is the fact that they advanced, which leads to circular reasoning. Why did the North Stars beat the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? They were better. Why were the North Stars better than the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? They beat them. ... Sorry it took so long to respond... As far as the playoffs go... simple answer is yes won the playoff series. As for the circular reasoning though, not so much. Why did the North Stars beat the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? They were better. Why were the North Stars better than the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? You can always point to reasons why a team won the series. Special teams, hot goalie, clutch, etc. Who's the better team? The one that dominates the series and loses or the that holds on a wins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norrisnick 1 Report post Posted October 22, 2007 Sorry it took so long to respond... As far as the playoffs go... simple answer is yes won the playoff series. As for the circular reasoning though, not so much. Why did the North Stars beat the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? They were better. Why were the North Stars better than the Hawks, Blues, and Oilers? You can always point to reasons why a team won the series. Special teams, hot goalie, clutch, etc. Who's the better team? The one that dominates the series and loses or the that holds on a wins. The team that dominates. Does the better team win every game? If not, why does playing anywhere from 4 to 7 of them in a row in any way change the answer from the first question? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted October 23, 2007 The team that dominates. Does the better team win every game? If not, why does playing anywhere from 4 to 7 of them in a row in any way change the answer from the first question? Why the team that dominates? Should the team that dominates get credited and continue on or the team that wins? Because it's easier to dominate games and win during the regular season then why not just award the Stanley Cup in lieu of the President's Trophy? To answer your question ,no the better team, by either of our definitions, doesn't win every game. That's part of the reason for the best of ___ series. The theory goes that it's easier to beat a team once than to beat them multiple times in a short span of time. Also that by playing those multiple games it will alleviate, once again in theory, from fluke teams winning. Say for instance the NHL was a one and done league. This past seasons Cup finals would have been Buffalo vs. the Winner of the Sharks/Ducks game. Otherwise things would have remained unchanged. For the '06 playoffs Detroit, Calgary, and Nashville would have made it into the second round while the east wouldn't see a change until Conference finals were Buffalo would have moved on instead of cup winner Carolina. For the '04 playoffs Boston, Ottawa, and Vancouver would have moved on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted October 23, 2007 Why the team that dominates? Should the team that dominates get credited and continue on or the team that wins? Because it's easier to dominate games and win during the regular season then why not just award the Stanley Cup in lieu of the President's Trophy? To answer your question ,no the better team, by either of our definitions, doesn't win every game. That's part of the reason for the best of ___ series. The theory goes that it's easier to beat a team once than to beat them multiple times in a short span of time. Also that by playing those multiple games it will alleviate, once again in theory, from fluke teams winning. Say for instance the NHL was a one and done league. This past seasons Cup finals would have been Buffalo vs. the Winner of the Sharks/Ducks game. Otherwise things would have remained unchanged. For the '06 playoffs Detroit, Calgary, and Nashville would have made it into the second round while the east wouldn't see a change until Conference finals were Buffalo would have moved on instead of cup winner Carolina. For the '04 playoffs Boston, Ottawa, and Vancouver would have moved on. It is possible for the better team to lose a best of seven series. It is not likely and does not happen often, but it definitely happens. A good example of how being the better team guarantees nothing is St.Louis vs Vancouver 2003. Vancouver was the far superior team at forward, and given the Blues' injuries on defense, Vancouver had the superior defense corps as well. Yet St. Louis pushed Vancouver to the brink of elimination before folding due to the lack of their top players and the fact that Vancouver was so significantly better that the series shouldn't have even been a contest. In wins for the Blues, Vancouver averaged 0.67 GF and 22.3 shots per game, compared to 3.75 GF and 29 shots per game in wins for the Canucks. In the first three contests--two Blues wins and one Canuck win--the Canucks averaged 1.0 GF on 19 shots per game, compared with 3.5 GF on 31.5 shots over the final four games. By comparison, in the first three games, the Blues scored 3.33 GF on 26.3 shots, compared with 2.75 GF on 29.25 shots over the final four games. The Blues posted 4.33 GF on 24 shots in wins, and 2 GF on 31.25 shots in losses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
