Future Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Jesus, I guess I just don't understand how a bad team can get 97 points in a season and make the playoffs. ..and have a Hart winner to boot Because when a team is 15th in goals for, 17th in goals against, 21st in SAT%, and has one player score on 38% of the team's goals (with a career-high SH%, btw), they are bad. Especially when a third of the league was sellers by Christmas. They're bad in the same way that Edmonton is bad. McDavid can get them to the playoffs by himself, but they still suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I guess at some point we decided that teams were either good or bad and forgot words like average or mediocre. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 It's splitting hairs to argue that there's a discernible difference between "bad" and "mediocre." The end result is the same: nonsuccess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I guess at some point we decided that teams were either good or bad and forgot words like average or mediocre. Laughable. The Devils were bad. The Blue Jackets, Leafs, Pens, and Caps were mediocre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Im sure every coach would love to be 97 points bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Im sure every coach would love to be 97 points bad In the sense that they'll probably keep their job, sure. But good coaches judge play, not results. Standings aren't a measure of whether or not a team is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 It's splitting hairs to argue that there's a discernible difference between "bad" and "mediocre." The end result is the same: nonsuccess.Firstly, that's ridiculous to say the difference between bad and mediocre is splitting hairs. You're making a black and white argument about something that's not black and white. Secondly, to say that they were bad enough to finish with 66 points but somehow had 97 is made up bullshit. Thirdly, when you're bad and make the moves the Devils made, you can get to mediocre. When you're mediocre and you make those additions, you can get to good... Which is the point here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 In the sense that they'll probably keep their job, sure. But good coaches judge play, not results. Standings aren't a measure of whether or not a team is good.@Phil, this is the definition of splitting hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Firstly, that's ridiculous to say the difference between bad and mediocre is splitting hairs. You're making a black and white argument about something that's not black and white. Secondly, to say that they were bad enough to finish with 66 points but somehow had 97 is made up bullshit. Thirdly, when you're bad and make the moves the Devils made, you can get to mediocre. When you're mediocre and you make those additions, you can get to good... Which is the point here. Agreed, might take a while, but the devils might just be good by the end of the season. They?ve added some key additions, who can do more than just PP. Hall has proven he?s one of the NHL?s elite, and they just added a franchise rookie in Hughes. Their future looks solid. And seems to parallel the Rangers, but with less dead cap space, bad contracts, and top end slightly better offensively. Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 1, 2019 Author Share Posted August 1, 2019 Firstly, that's ridiculous to say the difference between bad and mediocre is splitting hairs. You're making a black and white argument about something that's not black and white. Secondly, to say that they were bad enough to finish with 66 points but somehow had 97 is made up bullshit. Thirdly, when you're bad and make the moves the Devils made, you can get to mediocre. When you're mediocre and you make those additions, you can get to good... Which is the point here. I'm talking about it from a terminology perspective, not the specific point totals you're referencing here. A "bad" team and a "mediocre" team are awfully close in my book. Buffalo, Minnesota, Detroit, Vancouver — these types. I don't disagree with the logic that you can move from one to the next, and then from that to "good," and from "good" to "great." That's all progress. Last year's Devils team were bad or mediocre — I don't think it matters which you call them. This year's team made progress, for sure. They're maybe good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I'm talking about it from a terminology perspective, not the specific point totals you're referencing here. A "bad" team and a "mediocre" team are awfully close in my book. Buffalo, Minnesota, Detroit, Vancouver ? these types. I don't disagree with the logic that you can move from one to the next, and then from that to "good," and from "good" to "great." That's all progress. Last year's Devils team were bad or mediocre ? I don't think it matters which you call them. This year's team made progress, for sure. They're maybe good?Last year's Ottawa team was bad. Finishing with 97 points and having someone try to say they could have also easy swung down by 30 points to miss the playoffs is in no way, shape or form a bad team. Like, I can buy the argument that in another division, they miss the playoffs. I don't buy that they were "bad". Weak division but you still have to win your games. Bad teams lose those games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Last year's Ottawa team was bad. Finishing with 97 points and having someone try to say they could have also easy swung down by 30 points to miss the playoffs is in no way, shape or form a bad team. Like, I can buy the argument that in another division, they miss the playoffs. I don't buy that they were "bad". Weak division but you still have to win your games. Bad teams lose those games. Last year's Ottawa team was bad. Two years ago, Philly and NJD made the playoffs and were bad. Last year, the Isles were bad in the same way. You don't want to get into degrees of bad because you think it is splitting hairs, fine. I just don't think that making the playoffs makes you not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I guess its a matter of opinion but i in no way can buy that a team that makes playoffs can be considered bad. No matter how the word ‘bad’ is twisted. Maybe be ‘average’, or not good enough to win it all? But they were definitely good enough to make playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Last year's Ottawa team was bad. Two years ago, Philly and NJD made the playoffs and were bad. Last year, the Isles were bad in the same way. You don't want to get into degrees of bad because you think it is splitting hairs, fine. I just don't think that making the playoffs makes you not bad.Half the league makes the playoffs so by definition, the worst playoff team is still "average" or "mediocre"... As in... Falling in the middle. So... Not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 I hope the Rangers are a bad team that gets 97 points this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Half the league makes the playoffs so by definition, the worst playoff team is still "average" or "mediocre"... As in... Falling in the middle. So... Not bad. League average can be bad. League average can be good. In 2017, average in the West was way better than average in the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 League average can be bad. League average can be good. In 2017, average in the West was way better than average in the East.While watching you paint yourself into a corner over this made up statement is highly entertaining, the fact is they had 30 more points than the "bad" teams. Maybe you can list out the teams who are bad vs good, stats and standings be damned, so that we all know what the difference is? Then at least we can all work from your frame of reference since it's basically manufactured from thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Strangely, the bad Rangers were even with the Good teams in the west until the trade deadline. NHL has a way to determine this, they call it the playoffs. You're either a playoff team, or youre a non-playoff team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 While watching you paint yourself into a corner over this made up statement is highly entertaining, the fact is they had 30 more points than the "bad" teams. Maybe you can list out the teams who are bad vs good, stats and standings be damned, so that we all know what the difference is? Then at least we can all work from your frame of reference since it's basically manufactured from thin air. I literally did that already when you brought up "mediocre." You are just arguing about the definition of bad. Pick whatever terms you want. Being playoff quality doesn't mean that you're a good team, in any sport, and standings don't determine quality. If they do, then this year's Lightning (128 pts) were no better than the 16-17 Caps (118 pts). The 16-17 Rangers (102 pts) were no better than the 17-18 Devils (97 points). Christ, just look at the 16-17 Atlantic. They had 4 playoff teams, but nobody would say they had 4 good teams. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 I literally did that already when you brought up "mediocre." You are just arguing about the definition of bad. Pick whatever terms you want. Being playoff quality doesn't mean that you're a good team, in any sport, and standings don't determine quality. If they do, then this year's Lightning (128 pts) were no better than the 16-17 Caps (118 pts). The 16-17 Rangers (102 pts) were no better than the 17-18 Devils (97 points). Christ, just look at the 16-17 Atlantic. They had 4 playoff teams, but nobody would say they had 4 good teams.Right. Mediocre. Not bad. You want to live in a world where teams are either good or bad. That world doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 so some teams are bad good, some are medium good, and others are super good. I guess its the degree of goodness we cant agree on. maybe you should've said that the Devils with 97 points weren't that good. But they weren't bad. Buffalo, Ottawa were bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 so some teams are bad good, some are medium good, and others are super good. I guess its the degree of goodness we cant agree on. maybe you should've said that the Devils with 97 points weren't that good. But they weren't bad. Buffalo, Ottawa were bad Well this is still an implication that the Devils were good lol. I'd say they were bad. Buffalo and Ottawa were super duper bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 agree to disagree. but you're wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Because when a team is 15th in goals for, 17th in goals against, 21st in SAT%, and has one player score on 38% of the team's goals (with a career-high SH%, btw), they are bad. Especially when a third of the league was sellers by Christmas. They're bad in the same way that Edmonton is bad. McDavid can get them to the playoffs by himself, but they still suck. Even if we used these stats as the sole basis for forming an opinion, being ranked 15th and 17th is right in the middle of the league in terms of rank. That's the definition of mediocre at the worst no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 Even if we used these stats as the sole basis for forming an opinion, being ranked 15th and 17th is right in the middle of the league in terms of rank. That's the definition of mediocre at the worst no? It's average. Depending on the quality of competition, average can be bad. Average can be good. That year, the league as a whole was down, so the middle of the pack was bad, particularly in the East. Good/Bad has context outside of a single season. I mean, we talk all the time about how it's difficult to compare things like goal scoring from era to era. A great goal scorer in 2019 might score 50. That doesn't necessarily mean they're a better goal scorer than someone who scored 40 pre-lockout. In 2004, 3 guys (Rick Nash, Kovalchuk, Iginla) scored more than 40 goals - all had 41. This year, 11 guys did it. Are we going to sit here and say that Alex DeBrincat is a better goal scorer than Jarome Iginla? Is Robin Lehner (.914) a better goalie than Mike Richter (.904) because he has a better sv%? The same thing applies to teams. Being in the playoffs one year doesn't mean your as good as the teams who made the playoffs another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now