NHL Playoffs, Round 2!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Wins count for teams, not goalies.

But I was under the impression that Toronto had a way better team than Calgary. Or at least that's what Tingkai wanted us to believe.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Asher

But I was under the impression that Toronto had a way better team than Calgary. Or at least that's what Tingkai wanted us to believe.

Mathematically, even if Toronto were an infinitely better team than Calgary, they could only have one more win than the Flames right now.

Not that I support the Leafs. Frankly, I'd almost rather see Philly take the series. I could support Calgary if they eliminated anyone else but Vancouver, so I'm stuck without a team I really want to win the cup. I'm kinda going for Tampa right now, just because I like their team (although they need to get the hell out of Florida). I was really hoping Ottawa was going to come out of the East.

[Agathon]

Calgary are an average team on a good run of results. They aren't even this year's Anaheim since the Ducks swept the Wings and thumped the others.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. The Leafs are capable of playing much better - last night was a disgrace.

[Ben Kenobi]

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Form is an accident, but class is substantial?

[Agathon]

Joke of the year!!!

[Pekka]

Agathon, come on, that's like claiming 10 years old results count on how good a team is right now. The best indicator of how good the team is by seeing where it now is. That makes Flames a pretty good team, now doesn't it?

Sometimes the better team loses, but Flames have endured the playoffs so far, and that's best out of 7 so that has very little to do with cruising through on PURE luck.

You can't measure how good the team is by looking at its rosters only. It only matters how the team performs, and in that, Flames are pretty damn good. They might be over performing, but that's a sign of a great team. Or else we don't even have to play this season but give the trophy to the Avs.

What I'm saying is, that you might get lucky and win few games and beat the better team. But if you beat 'the better teams' over and over again in the playoffs, well.. that tells you something, maybe they play as a team better and get better results because their TEAM is performing better. Maybe the other team has better individuals, but individual success is not measured in team sports. Plus, if these great individuals can't put the team game to work against a lesser opponent.. they really are not that good if they get beat up game after game (playoffs).

[Flubber]

Stats don't tell the whole story since the quality of opposition and of the opposition chances don't show up anywhere.

Both Kipper and Eddie have played amazing, almost supernatural in a number of games . .. and both have had other games where they looked normal and got shelled ( they never looked terrible IMHO)

Who's better?? Long term the nod obviously goes to Eddie-- longer better track record-- This year if I had one game to win . . . I don't know-- too close to call

[Agathon]

Agathon, come on, that's like claiming 10 years old results count on how good a team is right now. The best indicator of how good the team is by seeing where it now is. That makes Flames a pretty good team, now doesn't it?

Teams go on streaks. So do players. Last year people were saying Giguere was the new Roy and that Anaheim were a contender. They didn't even make the playoffs. Nor did Minnesota, or Carolina the year before. The real test for Calgary will be making the playoffs next year. If they can do that they'll be in good shape for long term success. New Jersey is an example of what to do, the New York Rangers what not to do.

Just because the underdogs win doesn't mean they have the better team. Manchester United got beat by Wolves this year, would you say Wolves had the better team?

[Flubber]

To me, if a team wins a series over another team, they are, by definition , the better team in that series. period.

[Pekka]

No I said you can win few games with luck or because the other team played badly. But in playoffs, well you play best out of 7. That minimizes the chances for pure luck though luck is a factor too. If you can't win a lesser team in the best out of 7, then clearly your team is not as good as the other one. It's about the results, not about the rosters. Yes?

Stanley Cup is player every year, so to this years indicator the best team is who wins it. Next year is next year. If the same team manages to win that too, then they are the best team and have been for two years then.

Like said, it's the team performance, not the roster, or the potential or what could have been or should have been. The best team wins the Stanley Cup.

[Pekka]

The only case when the best team would not win the Stanley Cup is if they cheated somehow.

[Ben Kenobi]

Joke of the year!!!

Glad you liked it.

[Hot Mustard]

McCaw has let Brian Burke go.

[joncha]

Originally posted by dejon
McCaw has let Brian Burke go.

[Ben Kenobi]

DIE MCCAW!