The Oilers have won the draft lottery and will pick 1st overall for the 3rd straight year. You have to feel for Columbus who desperately needed this pick. While it might not be the deepest or most talent-laden draft in recent years, there is still some high end skill available and some hidden gems. Here is a look at how I see the first 14 picks going...right now....
1. Edmonton - Nail Yakupov - The rich get richer. Oilers have the option to trade this for the stud defender they require (Shea Weber perhaps?) but the likelihood is they hang on and add an equally as talented goal scoring winger as Taylor Hall to the mix. The Oilers are like the Penguins of wingers.
2. Columbus - Filip Forsberg - Forsberg is the safest pick at this point for the Blue Jackets, along with Ryan Murray. Either of those two picks makes sense and helps Columbus establish a new identity...again....Intersting though as Grigorenko could be a possibility for them and would be that style of centre they have sought for Rick Nash....if they don't move him.
3. Montreal - Mikhail Grigorenko - An easy transition for the Quebec Remparts star, he has a style similar to Joe Thornton and can amplify the skill sets of those around him.
4. New York Islanders - Ryan Murray - Loaded with good young forwards, Murray would be a steal for the Islanders here, they will be watching the Columbus pick intently and if Murray falls he fits perfectly for the Isles.
5. Toronto - Matt Dumba - The Leafs have the chance to do it right, Dumba has future captain written all over him, he is loved everywhere he plays and his style is the kind of style that fans love. This would be the start of the that rebuild we've heard of for so long, done the right way. Galchenyuk is another potential pick at this point, but as talented as he is, would just be more of the same for the Leafs.
6. Anaheim - Morgan Rielly - Smart pick at this point, a year or two away but as intelligent as they come from the backend.
7. Minnesota - Jacob Trouba - High end defender gives them some good stability to compliment one of the best stables of forward prospects in the NHL.
8. Carolina - Radek Faksa - They have good young D, Faksa is a very good offensive player that could flourish with some of the speed they have in their organization.
9. Winnipeg - Alex Galchenyuk - This could be a stretch to see him fall to this spot. Personally, I'm not as high on him as most. The Leafs could jump on him, so could Carolina, but I'm slotting him in here for now as he definintely won't fall past Winnipeg. Galchenyuk is a bit polarizing at times and his injury status is something that has hurt his stock a bit, but he is one of only a handful of players who truly have elite offensive pro-potential. That being said, he's the riskiest of that small group.
10. Tampa Bay - Griffin Reinhart - Tampa's defensive depth is actually quite strong, players like Barberio and Gudas are very promising prospects in the not too distant future, but passing on Reinhart here just isn't something they should do.
11. Washington - Brendan Gaunce - Gaunce is what Washington is missing, he is a very competitive player with excellent two-way potential and good grit. He has the energy and fire to fuel a change in the US capital.
12. Buffalo - Cody Ceci - They keep finding good value in the mid 1st round, Ceci is just that and one of the most underrated players in the draft.
13. Dallas - Sebastien Collberg - Speedy outside presence that can score a nice fit for Stars. Teravainen another potential pick at this point as is Peterborough defender Slater Koekoek.
14. Calgary - Zemgus Girgensons - Has the offensive skill the Flames need and the grit and physicality that fans in souther Alberta have grown to expect from their team.
Showing posts with label NHL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHL. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Revisiting different point systems for NHL standings - pre playoff edition
The point system in place now for the NHL is not ideal and doesn't optimally indicate who the best teams are.
Since my original blog on the idea of a 5 point system I have had a ton of feedback, and I've made alterations but also included some of the other options I've discussed with people.
A 3 points system seems easiest (but not necessarily best), each game would have a 3 point value on it. A regulation win is 3 points, a regulation loss 0. An OT or shootout win would be worth 2 points, while a loss in an extra frame only worth 1. Clean, simple, easy to compute, but OT and SO being worth the same still irks me a bit. The earlier a game ends indicates which team was better on a given night, and how much better. Winning in a game should be worth more than winning in a skills display.
Hence the 5 point system. I like the idea of all games being equal in points given out, so I have made an ammendment which actually makes more logical sense. The idea of the 5 point system would be this:
Regulation win - 5pts
Overtime win - 4 pts
Shootout win - 3 pts
Shootout loss - 2 pts
Overtime loss - 1 pt
Regulation loss - 0 pts
This system would reward the teams for winning earlier as it takes more skill to win a game in regulation then in an extra period or shootout. On the same side, teams should be rewarded for how long they can hang in with the winning team. It is much harder and the teams are obviously more equal on that particular day the more frames are needed to decide a winner. This system would also put a huge benefit to teams who go for it in overtime as opposed to playing for a shootout. Think two division rivals in overtime, you can go for a shootout win and gain 1 extra point over your rival, or go for it in OT and gain 3 extra points.
The biggest knock on the 5 point system is how hard it would be and how much math would be required to just calculate the totals for the average fan sitting around having a beer and knocking back another slice of pizza with their friends. Records would likely have to be displayed in order of points: Regulation Wins - Overtime Wins - Shootout Wins - Shootout Losses - Overtime Losses - Regulation Losses. For example the Rangers record now would read 38-8-4-5-2-22. Which seems quite complicated, especially since now we normally display recirds as 50-22-7. That is a tough sell.
Where the 5 point system picks up steam, is in the amount of points that teams get for losing games. It is much lower. In the current system, Florida has 18.68% of their total points from losses. Carolina and Montreal are over 20%. In the current system Florida is up by 3 points on Washington. That will require wins in Washington's final 2 games to pass the Panthers. However, in a 5 point system they still only trail by 3 points. Something that is made up in a single winning game. Washington has actually won 3 more games than Florida this year, so that 18.68% points from losses could in fact get the Panthers into the playoffs over a team that has performed better.
Not trying to take anything away form the Panthers, who could still end up the better team in all 3 point systems but the standings should be a lot closer than they actually are. Buffalo who is also right behind those two teams would actually stand to get hurt the most by another system. Right now they are 2 points those very same Capitals, but with a higher percentage of their point total coming from losses, they would end up 4 points back in a 3 point system and 9 back in a 5 point system. This has massive implications, because the Sabres have a game in hand on the Capitals. A single win and they are notted up with the Caps as opposed to having to win at least 1 game plus in the other systems.
In the West, it's even more prevelent, and again, a playoff spot could be determined because of it. Currently San Jose sits 8th, a single point ahead of 9th place Dallas. In a 3 point system, they would sit tied, both with 120pts. In a 5 point system, Dallas would actually be 4 points up on San Jose. The reason for this is again the amount of points acquired by San Jose in losses as compared to Dallas. Dallas has the 3rd lowest percentage of points gained from losses in the entire NHL, at 5.62%. Only Detroit (5.05%) and Boston (4.08%) have lower scores. San Jose on the other hand, hovers just above the league average (11.04%) at 11.11%.. That translates to 5 points for Dallas, and 10 for San Jose in the current system.
Also in the West, St. Louis would be the number one seed by almost 2 wins in every system except the current one, where they are actually 1 point behind 1st place Vancouver. Might not seem like a big deal now, but what if the Blues have to put up with the Green Men in game 7 of the conference finals?
All in all it might seem like a lot of fuss to make for some very small changes in the standings, but the fact is there is a ton riding on those subtlties and the current system fails to reward the absolute best performing teams throughout the season.
Since my original blog on the idea of a 5 point system I have had a ton of feedback, and I've made alterations but also included some of the other options I've discussed with people.
A 3 points system seems easiest (but not necessarily best), each game would have a 3 point value on it. A regulation win is 3 points, a regulation loss 0. An OT or shootout win would be worth 2 points, while a loss in an extra frame only worth 1. Clean, simple, easy to compute, but OT and SO being worth the same still irks me a bit. The earlier a game ends indicates which team was better on a given night, and how much better. Winning in a game should be worth more than winning in a skills display.
Hence the 5 point system. I like the idea of all games being equal in points given out, so I have made an ammendment which actually makes more logical sense. The idea of the 5 point system would be this:
Regulation win - 5pts
Overtime win - 4 pts
Shootout win - 3 pts
Shootout loss - 2 pts
Overtime loss - 1 pt
Regulation loss - 0 pts
This system would reward the teams for winning earlier as it takes more skill to win a game in regulation then in an extra period or shootout. On the same side, teams should be rewarded for how long they can hang in with the winning team. It is much harder and the teams are obviously more equal on that particular day the more frames are needed to decide a winner. This system would also put a huge benefit to teams who go for it in overtime as opposed to playing for a shootout. Think two division rivals in overtime, you can go for a shootout win and gain 1 extra point over your rival, or go for it in OT and gain 3 extra points.
The biggest knock on the 5 point system is how hard it would be and how much math would be required to just calculate the totals for the average fan sitting around having a beer and knocking back another slice of pizza with their friends. Records would likely have to be displayed in order of points: Regulation Wins - Overtime Wins - Shootout Wins - Shootout Losses - Overtime Losses - Regulation Losses. For example the Rangers record now would read 38-8-4-5-2-22. Which seems quite complicated, especially since now we normally display recirds as 50-22-7. That is a tough sell.
Where the 5 point system picks up steam, is in the amount of points that teams get for losing games. It is much lower. In the current system, Florida has 18.68% of their total points from losses. Carolina and Montreal are over 20%. In the current system Florida is up by 3 points on Washington. That will require wins in Washington's final 2 games to pass the Panthers. However, in a 5 point system they still only trail by 3 points. Something that is made up in a single winning game. Washington has actually won 3 more games than Florida this year, so that 18.68% points from losses could in fact get the Panthers into the playoffs over a team that has performed better.
Not trying to take anything away form the Panthers, who could still end up the better team in all 3 point systems but the standings should be a lot closer than they actually are. Buffalo who is also right behind those two teams would actually stand to get hurt the most by another system. Right now they are 2 points those very same Capitals, but with a higher percentage of their point total coming from losses, they would end up 4 points back in a 3 point system and 9 back in a 5 point system. This has massive implications, because the Sabres have a game in hand on the Capitals. A single win and they are notted up with the Caps as opposed to having to win at least 1 game plus in the other systems.
In the West, it's even more prevelent, and again, a playoff spot could be determined because of it. Currently San Jose sits 8th, a single point ahead of 9th place Dallas. In a 3 point system, they would sit tied, both with 120pts. In a 5 point system, Dallas would actually be 4 points up on San Jose. The reason for this is again the amount of points acquired by San Jose in losses as compared to Dallas. Dallas has the 3rd lowest percentage of points gained from losses in the entire NHL, at 5.62%. Only Detroit (5.05%) and Boston (4.08%) have lower scores. San Jose on the other hand, hovers just above the league average (11.04%) at 11.11%.. That translates to 5 points for Dallas, and 10 for San Jose in the current system.
Also in the West, St. Louis would be the number one seed by almost 2 wins in every system except the current one, where they are actually 1 point behind 1st place Vancouver. Might not seem like a big deal now, but what if the Blues have to put up with the Green Men in game 7 of the conference finals?
All in all it might seem like a lot of fuss to make for some very small changes in the standings, but the fact is there is a ton riding on those subtlties and the current system fails to reward the absolute best performing teams throughout the season.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Why the NHL needs a 5 point system for wins...
The NHL is one of the only sports worldwide that uses a point system to determine it's standings. The NHL has evolved greatly over the past few years, with great innovative thinking and bold decision making. Yet the point structure in which deteremines standings and playoff positions is severely flawed.
Stay with me on this.
A team that wins in regulation is a team that has accomplished something much more desirable than a team that has won in overtime or a shootout. It takes more skill and deserves far better compensation to dispatch an opponent in regulation time than in an extended match. It also takes more skill to win a game in an extra period as opposed to a shootout. Team's playing for shootouts should not be rewarded for cowering by receiving the same amount of points a team who lost in an overtime period by being bold and going for it.
Here is what I propose. It might be novel, it might be idiotic, it might be something already thought of and thrown out, but it's something.
Win a game in regulation - 5 pts
Lose a game in regulation - 0 pts
Win a game in overtime - 4 pts
Lose a game in overtime - 2 pts
Win a game in a shootout - 3 pts
Lose a game in a shootout - 1 pt
This structure awards teams who win the game, in whatever fashion. You will always receive more points for a win. Where the major difference lies in the consolation given to teams who lose in extra frames. As stated before, a team who takes a game to overtime should be rewarded, as should a team who takes a game to a shootout. But they should not be equal compensations.
This system would also get rid of those strange 3 point games we see now. Sure an overtime game would be a 6pt game, but a shootout game would only be a 4 point game. This would encourage teams to attack more and be more offensive in overtime periods, making them that much more exciting. Shootouts would now hold more value too, as one shootout win would be equal to three shootout losses as opposed to the difference of two shootout losses we now see.
Yes this would create some rather complicated high numbers, but it would be a better indication of who the better teams truly are. I'm sure that's worth the math. The biggest benefit of this situation is that it stops rewarding teams for losing. The percentage of points earned in losing efforts would decrease significantly.
As of Feb 29th NHL teams had accumalated almost 11 percent of their points from losses. If the 5 point system was applied that number shrinks to 3.94%. Carolina, the worst offender, had almost a quarter of their points (21.31%) from losses. The lowest percentage in the league, Detroit at 3.45%, was the only team to be under what the league average would be in the 5 point system.
And while the standings wouldn't change dramatically, there would be subtle changes. For example, on Feb 29th, the Maple Leafs stood 3 points behind Winnipeg. A deficit that would require at least 2 games to make up. While in the 5 point system, they were only 5 points back of Winnipeg, a deficit that would require only a single regulation win...well maybe the Leafs weren't a great example to use...(sorry Leaf fans, couldn't resist).
The point is, the gaps are more realistic representations of actual game play achievement in a 5 point system.
I will revisit this again at the conclusion of the season to see if it makes that much of a difference in the playoff structure.
Stay with me on this.
A team that wins in regulation is a team that has accomplished something much more desirable than a team that has won in overtime or a shootout. It takes more skill and deserves far better compensation to dispatch an opponent in regulation time than in an extended match. It also takes more skill to win a game in an extra period as opposed to a shootout. Team's playing for shootouts should not be rewarded for cowering by receiving the same amount of points a team who lost in an overtime period by being bold and going for it.
Here is what I propose. It might be novel, it might be idiotic, it might be something already thought of and thrown out, but it's something.
Win a game in regulation - 5 pts
Lose a game in regulation - 0 pts
Win a game in overtime - 4 pts
Lose a game in overtime - 2 pts
Win a game in a shootout - 3 pts
Lose a game in a shootout - 1 pt
This structure awards teams who win the game, in whatever fashion. You will always receive more points for a win. Where the major difference lies in the consolation given to teams who lose in extra frames. As stated before, a team who takes a game to overtime should be rewarded, as should a team who takes a game to a shootout. But they should not be equal compensations.
This system would also get rid of those strange 3 point games we see now. Sure an overtime game would be a 6pt game, but a shootout game would only be a 4 point game. This would encourage teams to attack more and be more offensive in overtime periods, making them that much more exciting. Shootouts would now hold more value too, as one shootout win would be equal to three shootout losses as opposed to the difference of two shootout losses we now see.
Yes this would create some rather complicated high numbers, but it would be a better indication of who the better teams truly are. I'm sure that's worth the math. The biggest benefit of this situation is that it stops rewarding teams for losing. The percentage of points earned in losing efforts would decrease significantly.
As of Feb 29th NHL teams had accumalated almost 11 percent of their points from losses. If the 5 point system was applied that number shrinks to 3.94%. Carolina, the worst offender, had almost a quarter of their points (21.31%) from losses. The lowest percentage in the league, Detroit at 3.45%, was the only team to be under what the league average would be in the 5 point system.
And while the standings wouldn't change dramatically, there would be subtle changes. For example, on Feb 29th, the Maple Leafs stood 3 points behind Winnipeg. A deficit that would require at least 2 games to make up. While in the 5 point system, they were only 5 points back of Winnipeg, a deficit that would require only a single regulation win...well maybe the Leafs weren't a great example to use...(sorry Leaf fans, couldn't resist).
The point is, the gaps are more realistic representations of actual game play achievement in a 5 point system.
I will revisit this again at the conclusion of the season to see if it makes that much of a difference in the playoff structure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)