Interesting Comment from Ron MacLean

[toby91_ca 620]

So, Ron was on The Fan 590 today and he suggested that one of the reasons teams do not play a more wide open style of game is because only 16 teams make the playoffs. Obviously there are other reasons, but this is an interesting one that I never thought of and it makes some sense. Now he wasn't suggesting more teams need to make the playoffs, I think he was just stating the way it is.

Back when 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs, they played a more wide open, run and gun game for the most part. Now that only 16 of 30 make the playoffs, each game is so much more serious, guys can't relax and just play, they need to do whatever they can to avoid losing, which means defense first.

[FinRedWing 172]

Yeah,I think good old Ron might just have a point there.

[auxlepli 17]

That's a very good point.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

It is a good point, but I wouldnt really like to see more teams meet in the playoffs. Unless it meant the top couple seeds or the division winners got out of the 1st round, or only had to play a best of 5 instead of 7 or something along those lines..Its already the toughest playoff run in all of sports. No need to add more rounds.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

I don't know about that. For that to really be an issue, I think there would have to be more 'bubble' teams come playoff time.

Look at last years bottom line: 92 points in the east (NYI) and 96 points by (CAL).

4 teams in the east had a legit shot, Toronto, Montreal, Carolina, and Florida.

1 team in the west had a legit shot, Colorado.

Just a quick thought. I've always had a problem with the division winners being seeded 1, 2, and 3. I think that should be changed. My idea? Simply garuntee the division winners a playoff spot, not necessarily a top 3 spot. I think it would make the playoffs a but more interesting. You'd have the teams seeded from 'best' to 'worst'.

Edited November 8, 2007 by BringHomeTheCup!

[Hank 0]

So, Ron was on The Fan 590 today and he suggested that one of the reasons teams do not play a more wide open style of game is because only 16 teams make the playoffs. Obviously there are other reasons, but this is an interesting one that I never thought of and it makes some sense. Now he wasn't suggesting more teams need to make the playoffs, I think he was just stating the way it is.

Back when 16 out of 21 teams made the playoffs, they played a more wide open, run and gun game for the most part. Now that only 16 of 30 make the playoffs, each game is so much more serious, guys can't relax and just play, they need to do whatever they can to avoid losing, which means defense first.

This is very true. It should also be noted that back then the players salaries were so low that teams made money regardless if they went to the playoffs or not. Owners didn’t mind letting them play run and gun to entertain the crowd because they weren't going to go broke either way. It's why the Leafs continue to play the way they do despite defense winning Cups.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Wow what a wonderfully idiotic idea by Ron Maclean? Maybe the league should just play regular season games to amuse the fans with scoring, and then let every team into the playoffs. Of course teams play harder defensively when they know that more is on the line. How is this a great point or a news flash on his part? Hockey in the 80's was always wide open, even in the playoffs when teams had a lot to play for. It has nothing to do with the number of teams that make it.

[WingNut199 0]

meh..

Edited November 8, 2007 by WingNut199

[betterREDthandead 58]

I don't really buy this theory at all.

And even if there's a grain of truth to it, following to the conclusion that the playoffs should be expanded would be a horrible idea.

[Yzermaniac192005 0]

Interesting comment indeed, but I was just thinking the same thing last night - only opposite of Ron.

I think theres TOO many teams in the playoffs. It should be the division winners and a wild card, like baseball. With 8 teams getting in per conference, it waters down the regular season. You can win half your games and get in. It actually makes the season more boring then it should. If only four teams got in per conference, you'd see more people at the arenas because these games, especially division rival ones, because they mean that much more.

If you don't believe me, just look at Tiger games. Its true that they filled up the stadium very nicely night in and night out, but against div rivals, there wasn't a ticket to be had. The place was jam packed because the games meant so much, even at the beginning of the season.

I believe it should be div winners and a wild card. Keep 82 games, thats fine, but it'll make games more intense and usually intensity equals happiness for us fans.

[sibiriak 84]

Interesting comment indeed, but I was just thinking the same thing last night - only opposite of Ron.

I think theres TOO many teams in the playoffs. It should be the division winners and a wild card, like baseball. With 8 teams getting in per conference, it waters down the regular season. You can win half your games and get in. It actually makes the season more boring then it should. If only four teams got in per conference, you'd see more people at the arenas because these games, especially division rival ones, because they mean that much more.

If you don't believe me, just look at Tiger games. Its true that they filled up the stadium very nicely night in and night out, but against div rivals, there wasn't a ticket to be had. The place was jam packed because the games meant so much, even at the beginning of the season.

I believe it should be div winners and a wild card. Keep 82 games, thats fine, but it'll make games more intense and usually intensity equals happiness for us fans.

In this scenario, by January half the teams will have lost any reasonable shot at the playoffs, and will have nothing to play for. And the fans of these teams will have nothing to come to the arena for.

[toby91_ca 620]

Wow what a wonderfully idiotic idea by Ron Maclean?

I didn't catch the whole interview, but I don't think Ron was putting forth any ideas of fixing things. I think he was simply stating why he thought teams play more defensively nowadays. He wasn't suggesting there shoudl be any changes (i.e. more teams in the playoffs). Basically saying, when the number of teams missing the playoffs is increased from 5 to 14, most teams may move away from a wide open style of play because there is just too much on the line.

[Yemack 1]

Well... whether you are playing in 80s or 70s or in 2030, the best defense is air tight defense. I agree somewhat that there is less incentive to 'win' every game during the season but right now the strategy that prioritizes on defense is the best tactic out there. Every team wants to be the winner and win Stanley cup every year. Why wouldn't teams use the best available and most efficient strategy just because there is less incentive to win? I would bet that nobody is happy just being a loser.

Beside I wouldn't call current Red Wings strategy purely a defensive strategy. We generate so many offense from our blueliners and everybody is chipping in on offence and defense. I would call it 'Total Hockey' strategy similar to 'Total Soccer' from European Football.

This isn't 1980s anymore. Technical aspects of the game are infinitely better now. Also goalies are almost invincible compared to 80s and before. The Game has evolved ever since 94-95 Devil's Cup run and the result is what we are seeing now. I don't think it has much to do with 30 teams or 21 teams

Edited November 8, 2007 by Yemack

[Yzerfan1999 81]

Interesting point, but I hope they don't think about expanding the playoffs.

16 teams and 4 rounds already lasts about 2 months, it doesn't need to get any longer.

..Unless they make the rounds best of 5 until the finals?

I like how baseball works - its short and sweet and goes on just long enough to keep everyone excited.

[Yzermaniac192005 0]

In this scenario, by January half the teams will have lost any reasonable shot at the playoffs, and will have nothing to play for. And the fans of these teams will have nothing to come to the arena for.

Eh...well, then there you go. By January, you'll know who's in contention and who's not. You'll know who's going to be buyers or sellers at the deadline. And teams can evaluate younger players if they know they can't make it.

I know it would drive a few teams into the ground, but lets just put it into perspective. Say each conference, like baseball, gets only 4 teams into the playoffs. The division winners and then a wild card. Lets say our Wings suddenly fall off the table a bit and would get the 5th spot in the playoffs if the season ended today. Okay, thats fine, none of us would really care because there's 8 spots for us to get in.

But, say they're in that 5th position with two months to go. They're chasing the wild card spot and the Central leader in the 4 team playoff setting. Each game is crucial, especially against Central rivals and those ahead of us. Attendance would definitely go up, and hockey would start to get fans back because they have a reason to watch.

As for those teams that fall into the ground, its their own damn fault. In this NHL, everyone has a fair shot with the cap. These players have a reason to play for. When 8 teams make it, you can get by on mediocrity. If only 4 do, then every game against division rivals is precious and you'd see much better hockey.

[Third Man In 2,091]

I think Ron's got the right cause for the decrease in scoring but the wrong explanation. Scoring IS down because there are now 30 instead of 21 teams. But I don't think the explanation is that a lower percentage of teams make the playoffs, therefore games are tighter. Rather, I think the leagues is overexpanded, so the collection of offensive talent on any given team is overall much less. Defensive positioning is easier to coach than goal scoring.

[Third Man In 2,091]

Duplicate Post

Edited November 9, 2007 by Third Man In

[eva unit zero 271]

I think Ron's got the right cause for the decrease in scoring but the wrong explanation. Scoring IS down because there are now 30 instead of 21 teams. But I don't think the explanation is that a lower percentage of teams make the playoffs, therefore games are tighter. Rather, I think the leagues is overexpanded, so the collection of offensive talent on any given team is overall much less. Defensive positioning is easier to coach than goal scoring.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How many times must I go over how wrong this thought is.

[YoungGuns1340 1]

I think Ron's got the right cause for the decrease in scoring but the wrong explanation. Scoring IS down because there are now 30 instead of 21 teams. But I don't think the explanation is that a lower percentage of teams make the playoffs, therefore games are tighter. Rather, I think the leagues is overexpanded, so the collection of offensive talent on any given team is overall much less. Defensive positioning is easier to coach than goal scoring.

See, now this I really agree with, and is one of he reasons I think if they want teams in places like Las Vegas, then they should relocate and not expand.

Ive noticed this mainly because it seems like every team out there is in need of a top 6 winger and/or a top 4 Dman. Particularly for forwards, there arent enough to go around anymore.

What would really be interesting to see was an idea I think proposed by Wayne Gretzky. Go ahead an expand the league if more markets is what you want, but decrease the team roster. Back in the day you basically running 3 lines allowed for the star players to be out on the ice more often. Sure it would mean athletes would have to be better conditioned (and maybe a response to that would be a 75 game season or so...but the league would never go for that especially with mking money being the #1 priority) but Im sure top 6ers wouldnt mind seeing 25 minutes a game instead of 20.

It would be really interesting to see teams play with 10 regular forwards instead of 12...

[Third Man In 2,091]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How many times must I go over how wrong this thought is.

Apparently one more time. Saying it's wrong three--no, four--times instead of once doesn't convince me

[toby91_ca 620]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How many times must I go over how wrong this thought is.

I agree, that point of view is simply incorrect. The number of actual talented players in the league is vastly greater than when there were 21 teams.

Back when there were 21 teams, each team had about 15 or 16 Canadians on the team, maybe a couple of Americans. You didn't see too many Europeans in the league. Basically, the league was only drawing talent from one part of the globe, now they are drawing talent from everywhere.

To suggest the talent has been watered down as compared to the 80s is simply incorrect. There were guys the played in the NHL in the 80s that probably wouldn't make the roster in today's game.

[Third Man In 2,091]

Thanks t91 for giving a more detailed response.

I certainly agree that the influx of European players has helped. But overexpansion and now the salary cap that it's spawned, for better or for worse, has undoubtedly led to less overall talent and scoring.

I'm not arguing this is the only cause--certainly, the game is going through a much more defensive phase than it was in in the 80s, goalies are bigger, better, and better handling the puck, etc. But I think my explanation has a lot more to do with decreased scoring than a lower percentage of teams making the playoffs.

Edit: I say 'certainly' a lot, even when no one is certain about anything.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Third Man In

[Third Man In 2,091]

I should add that one of the problems I see with the European influx argument is that while yes these players have added skill to the league, they are often forced to play a trapping or dump and chase style instead of the puck possession style they're used to. I think this makes especially the mid-level European players less effective than they might be (imagine D-Mac in his prime if he played in Europe for a puck possession team on a larger ice surface--he wouldn't have been as effective)

So while Europeans have helped, I don't think their effect on scoring is as high as is often supposed.

[toby91_ca 620]

I should add that one of the problems I see with the European influx argument is that while yes these players have added skill to the league, they are often forced to play a trapping or dump and chase style instead of the puck possession style they're used to. I think this makes especially the mid-level European players less effective than they might be (imagine D-Mac in his prime if he played in Europe for a puck possession team on a larger ice surface--he wouldn't have been as effective)

So while Europeans have helped, I don't think their effect on scoring is as high as is often supposed.

What you are describing is decreased offense due to the defensive style of play these days. It has nothing to do with level of talent available.

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

While playing sports as a we little lad I was tought 1 thing you win championships from playing good defence thats the same in any sport I believe Ron hit that right on the head.

Edited November 9, 2007 by DEVILSWATERBOY