Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam
Don't say shit like that, I nearly died from laughing so hard.
If by that you mean the top teams in the East are better than the ones in the West, sure. *Chi-town clears up their goaltending issues in the playoffs they have a solid chance of going far, maybe winning the Cup. *The only issue is that the Capitals will embarrass anyone in the West they meet, their offense is simply too strong for even Thornton/Murderface/Marleau to match.
|
Well, let's just take a look at the facts shall we?
If the league was formatted in a way that would put the 16 best teams in the playoffs, as opposed to the best 8 in each conference, this is what we'd be looking at:
1. Washington
2. San Jose
3. Chicago
4. Phoenix
5. Vancouver
6. New Jersey
7. Detroit
8. Pittsburgh
9. Los Angeles
10. Nashville
11. Buffalo
12. Colorado
13. Ottawa
14. Boston
15. St. Louis
16. Anaheim
That's 10 from the West and 6 from the East. Isn't that strange? Especially when you consider the fact that Eastern Conference teams, such as your beloved Washington, get to pad their stats by facing teams like Toronto, Atlanta, Carolina, Tampa Bay, and Florida several times a season. I'll admit, Washington's goal differential isn't too shabby when they're facing AHL equivilents 18-20 times a year. Let them face real competition, and then we'll see if their numbers hold up. I would wager a schedule that includes more inter-conference play and a revised playoff format would yield a fraction of capable Eastern teams.
The idea that any team in the East will steamroll over a Western conference team is laughable. Of the 16 teams I've listed, only 3 EC teams are .500 or over against the West. Those teams include the Caps (10-8), the Sabres (10-8), and the Sens (9-9). Do those numbers sound dominant to you? If so, you might want to get your head checked. Extrapolate that to a best-of-seven series that includes travel and time changes and you've got a pretty fair draw. But wait, let's take a look at the Western elite's records against the East:
San Jose 12-6
Chicago 11-7
Vancouver 13-5
Phoenix 11-7
Detroit 9-9
And that's just the elite. Throw in the other four WC (who, by the way, are all .500 or over), and you've got 10 squads who've shown just how "good" the East really are against true competiton.
The idea that the top teams in the East, by which I'm assuming you mean to be Washington, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, and maybe Buffalo, are better than their Western counterparts, i.e. San Jose, Chicago, Phoenix, Vancouver, and Detroit, is unsubstantiated to say the least. I'm betting anyone with a passing interest in the actual GAME OF HOCKEY, by which I mean one who follows the entire league as opposed to relying on East Coast bias to get them through their lives, would agree that the top teams in the West would decimate ANY EC team with ease in a first-round matchup. *However, the fact that the only playoff series between East and West occurs in the finals allows these weaker Eastern teams to hide behind lopsided series between wannabes (Philadelphia, Montreal, Boston) and teams with actual skill. The edge given to the eventual Eastern Conf. winners is evident in the minimal travel, those previously mentioned lackluster teams, and the lack of elite goaltending/defense corps contrasted by the major influx of high-level offensive talent from the Q and Europe. The East has always been run-and-gun, and it's not changing anytime soon.
I'm not saying that the Eastern elite aren't worthy opponents, I'm saying that the Eastern Conference as a group is a joke. If you truly believe otherwise, you'll have to prove your inane position to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge regarding the true disparity between the East and West.