If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated)   20 reasons why the NHL Playoffs are the best in sports   (nhl.si.com) divider line 74
    More: Cool, Stanley Cup playoffs, Conn Smythe Trophy, playoff beard, Gordie Howe, sudden death, Hockey Hall of Fame, playoffs, Dale Hunter  
•       •       •

2079 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Jun 2013 at 7:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-05 05:53:56 PM
List has both History's Greatest Monster (#5) and the B's comeback against Toronto this year, so it's good.

It should have mentioned 'pulling the goalie' explicitly though -- I can't think of anything equivalent in any other sport.  Baseball has sort of the same feel with bringing in the infield, but that's a purely defensive move (even though high-risk), and soccer occasionally gets the fantods when a coach rearranges the midfielders, but really, who cares about soccer?
 
2013-06-05 05:56:07 PM
Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!
 
2013-06-05 05:56:57 PM
because, by the time they are over, a new season starts.
 
2013-06-05 06:07:09 PM

Delawheredad: Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!


I completely disagree.

There's a reason they call it the second season. You battle for 82 games to get in and once you do, anything can happen. Top teams get upset, hangers on go all the way.

You. Never. Know.

The Stanley Cup is the hardest trophy to win and I wouldn't want it any other way.
 
2013-06-05 06:11:24 PM

Delawheredad: Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!


I think you are a little math challenged or haven't been watching since the early 90's.
There are 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, while technically possible I suppose, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a sub .500 in the playoffs since there have been 30 teams.
 
2013-06-05 06:18:56 PM

Delawheredad: Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!


people like you make no sense to me.

More playoff games is always better. The regular season determines home ice advantage, it culls the bottom 14 teams, and sets us up for two months of the best hockey in the world. It's awesome and I wouldn't have it any other way either.

Last year the Kings were way down in the standings. They clawed their way up to last place to make the playoffs in their conference, and they steamrolled their way to the Finals. that is awesome. If there were only 6 or 8 teams or whatever baseball does way fewer fanbases get playoff hockey, and there is always a chance for an epic upset. yer crazy.
 
2013-06-05 07:06:25 PM

sno man: Delawheredad: Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!

I think you are a little math challenged or haven't been watching since the early 90's.
There are 30 teams, 16 in the playoffs, while technically possible I suppose, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a sub .500 in the playoffs since there have been 30 teams.


Depends how you define sub-.500.  Last year's Stanley Cup champions were 40-27-15 in the regular season.  One way to look at that is that they won 40 games, and lost (whether in regulation, OT or shootout) 42.
 
2013-06-05 07:15:06 PM

ManateeGag: because, by the time they are over, a new season starts.


And the season used to end before the middle of frigging summer.
 
2013-06-05 07:20:06 PM

El_Perro: Depends how you define sub-.500.  Last year's Stanley Cup champions were 40-27-15 in the regular season.  One way to look at that is that they won 40 games, and lost (whether in regulation, OT or shootout) 42.


the correct way to look at it, however, is that those are considered ties. what's concerning is when you look at how many of the 40 were shootout wins.
 
2013-06-05 07:44:54 PM
#1 Playing through pain. From now on, every time there is a fark thread for some MLB player who goes on the 10 day DL for a hang nail or hemorrhoids or some such nonsense, I will post the clip of Carey Price skating to the bench, handing the coach a couple of his teeth and putting his mask back on.  And I hate the Canadiens.
 
2013-06-05 07:48:19 PM
More playoff games are not always better.

Better championship series - College basketball, World Cup soccer.
Even - Pro football
Worse - Pro basketball, baseball
 
2013-06-05 07:48:29 PM

hockeyfarker: El_Perro: Depends how you define sub-.500.  Last year's Stanley Cup champions were 40-27-15 in the regular season.  One way to look at that is that they won 40 games, and lost (whether in regulation, OT or shootout) 42.

the correct way to look at it, however, is that those are considered ties. what's concerning is when you look at how many of the 40 were shootout wins.


I really wish they'd change the points rules to adjust for shoot out wins. 2 for a win in regulation or OT, 1 for a shoot out win, 0 points for losing, but use overtime losses as a higher priority tiebreaker, maybe after head to head wins or something.
 
2013-06-05 07:49:04 PM

Anderson's Pooper: #1 Playing through pain. From now on, every time there is a fark thread for some MLB player who goes on the 10 day DL for a hang nail or hemorrhoids or some such nonsense, I will post the clip of Carey Price skating to the bench, handing the coach a couple of his teeth and putting his mask back on.  And I hate the Canadiens.


This so god damned much.
 
2013-06-05 07:54:41 PM

Ham Sandvich: hockeyfarker: El_Perro: Depends how you define sub-.500.  Last year's Stanley Cup champions were 40-27-15 in the regular season.  One way to look at that is that they won 40 games, and lost (whether in regulation, OT or shootout) 42.

the correct way to look at it, however, is that those are considered ties. what's concerning is when you look at how many of the 40 were shootout wins.

I really wish they'd change the points rules to adjust for shoot out wins. 2 for a win in regulation or OT, 1 for a shoot out win, 0 points for losing, but use overtime losses as a higher priority tiebreaker, maybe after head to head wins or something.


Screw tradition, how about every game is worth 3 points, win in regulation 3points, win in overtime, or  shoot out 2pts. lose in OT or SO 1pt.
 
2013-06-05 08:00:27 PM

INeedAName: More playoff games are not always better.

Better championship series - College basketball, World Cup soccer.
Even - Pro football
Worse - Pro basketball, baseball


well, obviously.
 
2013-06-05 08:11:04 PM
21.  Tons of butthurt fans on the internet screaming about how it's rigged
 
2013-06-05 08:16:25 PM
The absolute best playoff games in the U.S. are the NFL conference championships.
 
2013-06-05 08:32:53 PM
"He didn't give him the opportunity to play that puck"

Say what?
 
2013-06-05 08:34:45 PM
All but two teams get to play?
 
2013-06-05 08:38:25 PM
Oops...meant that for the game thread.
 
2013-06-05 08:48:06 PM
#1-20:  The last five minutes of a hockey game are the most exciting in sports.  Basketball could come close, and football occasionally does.  But there are TOO GODDAMN MANY stoppages of play in a good basketball game, and a good 2-minute drill in football just isn't reliable enough (to say nothing of the insipid delay after a score).

The last five minutes of a competitive hockey game only get faster, and there's very little chance the whole thing comes to a screeching halt - because coaches get what, one timeout per game?
 
2013-06-05 08:57:52 PM

UNC_Samurai: #1-20:  The last five minutes of a hockey game are the most exciting in sports.  Basketball could come close, and football occasionally does.  But there are TOO GODDAMN MANY stoppages of play in a good basketball game, and a good 2-minute drill in football just isn't reliable enough (to say nothing of the insipid delay after a score).

The last five minutes of a competitive hockey game only get faster, and there's very little chance the whole thing comes to a screeching halt - because coaches get what, one timeout per game?


everything you need to know about a basketball game happens in the last 2 clock minutes... 30 real minutes.
 
2013-06-05 09:00:49 PM
How is Steve Smith scoring on his own goal a reason?

HOW?
 
2013-06-05 09:01:47 PM

VvonderJesus: The absolute best playoff games in the U.S. are the NFL conference championships.


Seriously.
 
2013-06-05 09:05:32 PM

sno man: UNC_Samurai: #1-20:  The last five minutes of a hockey game are the most exciting in sports.  Basketball could come close, and football occasionally does.  But there are TOO GODDAMN MANY stoppages of play in a good basketball game, and a good 2-minute drill in football just isn't reliable enough (to say nothing of the insipid delay after a score).

The last five minutes of a competitive hockey game only get faster, and there's very little chance the whole thing comes to a screeching halt - because coaches get what, one timeout per game?

everything you need to know about a basketball game happens in the last 2 clock minutes... 30 real minutes.


I will heartily agree, and I'm one of the biggest ACC* basketball fans on this site.

*Proudly supporting everyone except the University of New Jersey at Durham and [EXCOMMUNICATE TRAITORIS]
 
2013-06-05 09:14:58 PM
ACC through me a sec... Raptors home court is the Air Canada Center... Go Leafs!
 
2013-06-05 09:22:29 PM
Ranking any playoffs over the NFL is a joke. 12 teams out of 32 means outside of some #1 seeds, every team played their heart out all year to get there and single elimination makes every game extremely meaningful. You have teams go 11-5 and MISS the playoffs. Over half the league making the playoffs really dilute it all and best of 7 format also makes each game less meaningful. And the argument that the Stanley cup is the hardest to win is nonsensical
 
2013-06-05 09:26:03 PM

sno man: Screw tradition, how about every game is worth 3 points, win in regulation 3points, win in overtime, or shoot out 2pts. lose in OT or SO 1pt.


I like this but I don't think they should even have the shootout -- just put 10 minutes on the OT clock and if nobody scores they both end up with 1 point.  So it comes to:

3 for a regulation win
2 for an OT win
1 for an OT loss or a tie
0 for a regulation loss

It's a little weird bc some games will be worth 2 points while others will be worth 3, but the same is true now and the system is far worse.
 
2013-06-05 09:30:11 PM
If you genuinely enjoy your sport and are not watching the sport because of an addiction to "surprise outcomes" (*cough* football *cough*), your desire should be more games.  (Although obviously, within reason.  We're not setting up best-of-seventeens to make things accurate.  You lose four games, you've lost your right to complain.)  Baseball, hockey, and football all have the same problem: Their outcomes are volatile because the design of the sport is volatile.  You can't really get around that.  So if you have a "second season", there's no "shocking outcome" or excitement to be had in a seven-game series when every team has a very good chance of winning.  Same goes for the one-and-done format in college basketball, professional football, etc.  There's a reason that baseball determined its league champions through the grind of a 162-game format.

Professional basketball actually comes the closest, because the design of the sport is not volatile, and offers over 100-plus scoring opportunities for both teams during the course of a game.  Now apply that to a "win four games" format, and there you go.  So many playoff series are thought to be such a foregone conclusion, that when the underdog wins, it's genuinely interesting and exciting.  (And the NBA Playoffs will only become more volatile because the three-point shot is becoming a dominant style and mismatch, much as athletic teams, good defensive teams, and dominant interior teams do.)  The problem with the NBA Playoffs is that the first round is usually never in doubt, and making it a seven-game format tends to suck the steam out of the system.  But why I would be opposed to a format where the best teams are the ones that win?  I want to watch the highest level of play possible.  Underdogs are drama.  Champions are entertainment.

Mr_Ectomy: How is Steve Smith scoring on his own goal a reason?

HOW?


Because the author took things that could apply to all playoff series and decided it was good enough to post on the internet.  Yes, it's stupid.
 
2013-06-05 09:33:50 PM

JonPace: You have teams go 11-5 and MISS the playoffs.


That's happened exactly once since the NFL went to 6 teams per conference in the playoffs.  It'd be just as accurate for me to say "You have teams go 7-9 and HOST a playoff game."
 
2013-06-05 09:41:52 PM

balki1867: sno man: Screw tradition, how about every game is worth 3 points, win in regulation 3points, win in overtime, or shoot out 2pts. lose in OT or SO 1pt.

I like this but I don't think they should even have the shootout -- just put 10 minutes on the OT clock and if nobody scores they both end up with 1 point.  So it comes to:

3 for a regulation win
2 for an OT win
1 for an OT loss or a tie
0 for a regulation loss

It's a little weird bc some games will be worth 2 points while others will be worth 3, but the same is true now and the system is far worse.


I'd be okay with that too, more for a clean win as aposed to more for a tie-ish
 
2013-06-05 10:07:20 PM

Mr_Ectomy: How is Steve Smith scoring on his own goal a reason?

HOW?


because it's fantastic. the agony of defeat defined, hahaha


JonPace: Over half the league making the playoffs really dilute it all and best of 7 format also makes each game less meaningful. And the argument that the Stanley cup is the hardest to win is nonsensical


yeah, saying it's hard to need 16 wins in potentially 28 games playing every other night with the fastest men on earth in a full contact sport is nonsensical, right. go play with your ball and then stand around for ten minutes.
 
2013-06-05 10:21:09 PM

Delawheredad: Play all season to eliminate what six teams and sub .500 teams have very real possibilities of getting in. Yeah that's great and doesn't render you regular season meaningless does it? I love the NHL but it has ALWAYS had the worst playoff system in sports EVEN in the six team era!


You've got it ass backwards.

The playoffs are the worst? The playoffs are the ONLY part worth watching in the NHL.

The NHL regular season is awful, horrible, terrible, turrible... the worst in all "professional" sport. It's chock full of meaningless games to market Cindy Criesby to the soccer moms, and has nothing about delivering good product on the ice.

sno man: Screw tradition, how about every game is worth 3 points, win in regulation 3points, win in overtime, or shoot out 2pts. lose in OT or SO 1pt.


Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points.
OT loss 1 point.
Shootout win 1 point.

/Shootout loss -1 point.
 
2013-06-05 10:24:00 PM
List is okay i guess if youre a hockey fan, go ahead and claim its better than other sports without actually comparing it to any of them.  Keep doing that hockey circle jerk.
 
2013-06-05 10:31:02 PM
SI is hardly a fanatical hockey publication. Why not just admit that the Stanley Cup Playoffs are pretty damn good whether you like hockey or not?
 
2013-06-05 10:39:08 PM
NHL playoff hockey: the wildest, most exciting playoff season of any major sport. Period. I don't even know why anyone would argue against it. Sure, football's one-and-done has a measure of desperation/underdog shock to it, but for sheer non-stop mayhem while the game clock runs, there is nothing like playoff hockey.
 
2013-06-05 10:53:52 PM
My problem is that, as a Sabres fan, I have been trained by the team to believe that everything prior to February is meaningless because the damn team NEVER tries until their backs are up against the wall towards the end of the season. Then suddenly everyone in Buffalo is talking about the Sabres dramatic battle for 8th place for a few weeks, until it's clear that they've gone back into the tank again for yet another year.

It's a shame because a whole generation of Buffalo area kids has grown up watching a bunch of slackers waste half a season every year because the Sabres are never competing for the top slots.  They're just content to make a half-hearted stab at last place before heading out to their country clubs.

So, if you ask me if more games are better I'm going to say not for teams like the Sabres that put up a shiatty effort year after year after year.
 
2013-06-05 10:54:41 PM
Decent article but the octopus is stupid.
 
2013-06-05 10:55:43 PM
These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.
 
2013-06-05 10:58:04 PM
Absolutely nothing beats an overtime game in the NHL playoffs. Especially a game 7.
 
2013-06-05 10:59:08 PM

John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.


I don't think you can truly measure hockey's popularity by TV ratings in comparison to massively popular sports like football.  Just because hockey will never put up numbers like football or basketball doesn't mean it's not a very popular sport.
 
2013-06-05 11:00:24 PM

John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.


Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.
 
2013-06-05 11:04:42 PM

Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.


It also has better ratings than (insert awful non-critically acclaimed show)

Let's not go down this crappy illogical wall of text.
 
2013-06-05 11:18:33 PM

thecpt: Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.

It also has better ratings than (insert awful non-critically acclaimed show)

Let's not go down this crappy illogical wall of text.


Then why did you start it?
 
2013-06-05 11:23:24 PM

Satan's Chocolate Starfish: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

I don't think you can truly measure hockey's popularity by TV ratings in comparison to massively popular

Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.


thecpt: Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.

It also has better ratings than (insert awful non-critically acclaimed show)

Let's not go down this crappy illogical wall of text.

sports like football.  Just because hockey will never put up numbers like football or basketball doesn't mean it's not a very popular sport.


Guys? I don't hate hockey. It's kinda cool. Just understand that your passion and saying "it's the best" doesn't mean that everyone is gonna sign up.

person? Yeah, it's awesome. But on tv, it is HORRID.
 
2013-06-05 11:25:15 PM
IN person
 
2013-06-05 11:30:34 PM

Flappyhead: thecpt: Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.

It also has better ratings than (insert awful non-critically acclaimed show)

Let's not go down this crappy illogical wall of text.

Then why did you start it?


Ack, reading fail, my bad.
 
2013-06-05 11:30:58 PM

Flappyhead: thecpt: Syder: John Buck 41: These anecdotes explain why the TV ratings are so massive.

Oh, wait.

Two and a Half Men has better ratings than Breaking Bad.

It also has better ratings than (insert awful non-critically acclaimed show)

Let's not go down this crappy illogical wall of text.

Then why did you start it?


Farking read what actually happened. Hint: the handles are there in the post.
 
2013-06-05 11:35:35 PM

John Buck 41: IN person


It really is fun. Also want to piggy back, I don't hate the sport or anything. It's just hockey has seemingly hit cult status, at least when it's discussed between fans. The need to say its better is just bizarre to me.
 
2013-06-05 11:38:40 PM

thecpt: John Buck 41: IN person

It really is fun. Also want to piggy back, I don't hate the sport or anything. It's just hockey has seemingly hit cult status, at least when it's discussed between fans. The need to say its better is just bizarre to me.


I just dont think it will ever move beyond cult/niche status. It's just too inaccessible for too many people.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report