Talk:2010 Stanley Cup playoffs

Time

I suggest that we put all of the game times in terms of the same time zone. It's confusing to see a list of times; unless you make a point of checking (and I think most people don't), it looks like it's all in the same time zone. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But then you have to pick one time zone, which is pretty arbitrary and will still confuse some people. For example, if it's eastern time then someone may not notice where the page says, "All times are Eastern Daylight Time", check the time for a game on the west cost and then miss it by three hours. I think it makes more sense to simply include the time zone right after the time (which is what the page currently does). That way, nobody can miss it. -- Hux (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly arbitrary, but in my experience, people who do not live in the Eastern Time Zone are accustomed to all times being rendered in terms of ET, both for the virtues of commonality and the fact that it is likely to be convenient to the most actual users of the information. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Team order

I notice that each game is listed the opposite way around from the usual format, i.e. on this page the home team in each match-up is listed first whereas US convention is "[away team] v. [home team]". The stadium is linked, so that helps to avoid confusion a little, but it still might be confusing to a lot of readers to see, for example, "San Jose Sharks 1–2 Colorado Avalanche", and have to figure out that the game was actually played in San Jose. Was this ordering done for a reason that I'm not seeing? If so, no problem. But if not then I'd be happy to go in and switch them all around. -- Hux (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in that here in Canada as well, we use the away vs. home format. However, if you notice all the previous Stanley Cup playoff pages here (2009 Stanley Cup playoffs, 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs, and so on), the format has always been home vs. away. I think that if we were to change this page, then the other pages should be changed as well so that the format remains consistent between all the playoff pages. Bcperson89 (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. Since I'm new I may be wrong but can we not just edit the template to fix it for everything? If not, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to switch team1 with team2 One95 (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with changing the template directly is that it would automatically reverse the convention currently used to list each individual goal, where the time of the score appears toward the middle of the table and the assists are displayed toward the outside. If you guys want to keep that style, you're going to still have to fix this page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just realized that. Well I like having home team on the right side but I'll leave it for the more seasoned wikipedia users to deal with it if they want. One95 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The same debate arose last year. It seems screwy, but as long as it's consistent... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted this issue to the template's talk page. Someone suggested that the solution would be to make the Away team Team1. That way they would appear on the correct side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Every Stanley Cup playoff article from the 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs has used this template. It is only a matter of who has the time and technical expertise to go through every single series from then until now and switch team1 to away and team2 to home (and fix all the respective goals) to get the NHL's away@home. Also, as a note to the "Assists in game summaries" discussion below, the previous pages list only the goals, and do not include the assists. Bcperson89 (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

After 4 games

ALL of the Eastern Conference quarterfinal series were 3-1 after four games. ALL of the Western Conference quarterfinal series were 2-2 after four games. (1) Is there a good way to include this in the article? It is very interesting to note. (2) Does anyone know if something like this has ever happened before, or at least where we could easily check? --Spidey104^contribs 03:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but not I'm not sure if there is a good way to include it in the article, because the placing of miscellaneous trivia within an article is usually discouraged. As for the other bit, I'm not sure about that. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

stat leaders

why not put flags? usefull info. Slaja (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they aren't representing their countries while they are playing for their club team. There is no national component to the Stanley Cup Playoffs. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Assists in game summaries

As we near the end of the first round, I am curious to see what everyone thinks of the addition of assists in the game summary tables. In the past, we've just listed goal scorers, but now we see an incredible expansion of information in these tables. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information such as stats. Is this just too much information? Thoughts? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too much. Detailed statistical information can be found all over the internet. By the end of the playoffs, this will add 10–15 KB (estimate) to the article size. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit the other day, which has since been undone, shows that for a 6-game period, there is about a 2.5 kB decrease in article size. I take the lack of discussion on this matter as agreement that assists are unnecessary, and will remove them from all series in a day or so. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The size reduction that is related to removal of assists is a bit misleading as the formatting takes a good chunk of that 2.5 kB. I would favor holding out until the playoffs are completed prior to removing any statistics that are considered to be in excess, as well as the keeping the formatting as it is a lot easier to navigate through and edit the information as it is currently formatted. Once the playoffs are completed and after the majority of editing of the summary boxes is complete, then it would be best to remove the formatting at that time.

On a second note regarding the inclusion of assists, as per the policy I think the summary box helps with adhering to the policy. As noted in the policy "Long and sprawling lists of statistics (including sporting results) may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." I believe that the feature of the template which allows for much of the extraneous information to be hidden keeps the article fairly neat and readable, while offering additional information which is also easily accessible but not overtly encroaching upon the casual reader of the article. —Sukh17 ^Talk 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the convenience formatting from completed series. I've left the assists in for now since this discussion is at an impasse. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be OK if the assists were removed. If you look at the previous Stanley Cup pages (from 2007 Stanley Cup playoffs until this year's playoffs, the previous use of the template had been restricted to listing only the person who scored the goal. Perhaps we should remove the assists to make things consistent between the pages? Bcperson89 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning for excluding the assists in this years playoffs should not be with respect to what was done in the past. If we simply relied on precedence, we would not have adopted this template to begin with. I believe that the manner in which the template has been constructed, it provides the reader with the upfront information (the results of the individual games within the series) without throwing out excessive statistics which consume the visual space of the article, but are accessible instead to those who wish to have this information. Thus, in my opinion, the inclusion of the assists as they are included now does not detract from the purpose of Wikipedia and only adds value to the article. —Sukh17 ^Talk 05:55, 3 May 2010 2010 (UTC)

Would you, or someone else, be willing to go through the previous playoff articles and add the assists? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be there. Then again I thought listing the individual goal scorers was also to much. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

East playoff seeds

Please do not put teams in the semifinal brackets yet! As the page says, teams pairings are re-seeded after the first round. If the Canadiens win their first round series, they will play the Penguins (and the Bruins will play the Flyers). But if the Capitals win, they will play the Flyers, and the Bruins will play the Penguins. None of this is determined yet, so please wait until the end of all relevant games to make these changes. ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need to advance any team to the 2nd round until we know exactly what line they'll be on. The whole point of the bracket is to visually communicate the concept of re-seeding, which it is doing wonderfully right now: we have several bolded teams advancing, but they aren't placed in the 2nd round yet precisely because the pairings are indeterminate. In fact, if Chicago wins tonight, there really isn't any need to put, say, Phoenix/Detroit on the one line in the West bracket. Anybody who visually inspects the bracket would be able to see that's the last remaining series and the winner would advance. There's no need to insult the intelligence of the reader by spelling that out just to get credit for more Wikifiddling. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you'd think there's no need to so insult the reader, but apparently you would be wrong. ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 03:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This diff is hilariously bad. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added in the Flyers and Penguins into the brackets as they can no longer play each other. If Washington wins the series, they will play the Flyers and the Penguins play the Bruins. If the Habs win, they play the Penguins and the Flyers play the Bruins. However, Flyers and Pens can not meet in the 2nd round. However, the change was immediately turned back even though it is a valid and confirmed state of the playoffs. Someone please makes this change permanent. Chaosof99 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The reasons you just described above are exactly why the brackets are not filled in. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh won't meet; however, we still do not know yet what the pairings will be (and the proper places for the teams within the bracket) until the completion of the Montreal/Washington series. Bcperson89 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So the only problem is which series in the top part of the bracket in the graphical depiction? And this is relevant how? Sorry, but preventing a valuable and relevant edit based on the way it looks (as if it couldn't be changed later) is pedantic. Chaosof99 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So, why can't we put Philadelphia in as the #4 seed? That is clearly the case. There is no disputing that.

Because they are the 7th seed. In regards to matchups, the Canadiens would be the lowest remaining seed at 8 if they win Wednesday night. ccwaters (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right! My bad. I must not have had enough coffee this morning.

West region

Vancouver can not possibly play San Jose. Either they'll play the blackhawks, or if the blackhawks lose, they'll play the redwings/coyotes. I don't see why Vancouver can't be advanced in the pair that doesn't have San Jose. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks moved on officially, non issue. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi, the reason for that would be is that before the Chicago series it was unknown whether they would be the higher seed or the lower seed, and therefore whether to put them in the top or bottom of that pair. If Nashville had won they'd have played Detroit or Phoenix and been the higher seed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.153.42 (talk • contribs)

I would note, too, that in the 3rd and 4th rounds, this bracket design does not bother with having the home team on top necessarily, since the pairings are fixed. Because the 2nd round is a "reset" after the 1st round, we have placed the home team on top because there's no reason not to, but there is a reason not to in the 3rd and 4th rounds. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver vs Chicago will now begin on Saturday at 8:00pm ET. Game 2 will be on Monday, time TBD. Since the article is semiprotected I can't edit. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/stanleycup/Stanleycupsecondary/story/2010/04/28/sp-hnic-schedule.html One95 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Goaltenders

How come Craig Anderson is not included on the list of goaltending leaders despite having the second best save percentage in the playoffs? 75.0.182.65 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Official Round 2 Schedule

The schedule has been released for all playoff round 2 series. They include schedules for both scenarios (MTL or WSH win). http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=527392 One95 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just filled in the tables with that data. However, some of the times (but not the dates) for the West series depend on the conclusion of the Montreal/Washington series tonight; I have left those as TBD until we know which of Montreal or Washington will be moving on. Bcperson89 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The TV networks have also been finalized and can be added to the tables.
PIT/MTL is VS, CBC & RDS (Game 2 on NBC/CBC/RDS).
BOS/PHI is TSN & VS (Game 1 NBC & TSN)
SJS/DET is TSN & VS
VAN/CHI is CBC & VS One95 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Premature edits

It would seem that the protection for this page was inadequate, as someone advanced Montreal to the next round well before their game with Washington was over. I was watching a baseball game on another channel and had refreshed this article, and saw Montreal advanced, so I switched the station and there were at least 30 seconds remaining in a 1-goal game. I think this is unacceptable, but is there anything that we can do about it? MrArticleOne (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen this quite a lot in the past, but I am not sure what we can do, since people seem to think the game is over if one team is leading and there is only a minute left (despite situations such as the late 3rd period goal in game 5 of the Chicago/Nashville series). Bcperson89 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone also got anxious and put "No scoring" for the third period. We should start messaging any editors making empty (e.g. speculating on possible next-round matchups) or premature edits, and tell them to relax a bit. "Guess what, guys! I was the first to edit Wikipedia's period three scoring summary for game 7 of the round 1 Montreal–Washington series of the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs!" See how unimpressive it sounds when it's spelled out? In other words: No one cares. Your mom doesn't care. Not even the Care Bears care, OK? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem is, I think, people think it's "cool" to be responsible for or otherwise get credit for making that particular edit, so they want to get the jump on legitimate editors making legitimate edits. One potential avenue is name-and-shame, but I don't know anything about Wikipedia's more formal disciplinary tools. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it with 2-3 minutes left. Anyway... 2nd round schedule: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=527392 ccwaters (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What's with the useless stats before each series?

I notice that this game has meaningless trivia described before each series. So what if they teams have met a dozen time in the past. The teams are not the same this year and past years' performance is no indicator of performance in this year. The best statistic might be head-to-head match-ups from the current season. Wikipedia is not in favour of trivia sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see it as trivia. Past series are often brought up and compared by commentators during games on TV. Jmj713 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it isn't trivial. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I also do not agree with the assertion that "teams are not the same this year and past years' performance is no indicator of performance in this year". Then, by that logic, we shouldn't count how many Stanley Cups a team has won. The Canadiens that won Cups at the beginning of the 20th century, and the Canadiens that won it late in the 20th century are clearly not the same teams. I think playoff series should be viewed as events by two franchises. The NHL even keeps track of how many times each team has played another in the playoffs. For instance, Boston and Montreal (a possible Eastern Conference Finals series) have played a record 32 series. This is not trivia; it is fact. Jmj713 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Are all facts non-trivial? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In this vein, what's with the comment in the lede about 3 division champions from the same conference getting bounced in 1998? That would have been impossible when there were only 2 divisions per conference. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between indicating that the Leafs haven't won the cup since 1967 (they haven't had a championship-quality team since then) and that the Canadiens have won the cup more often than any other team and "This is the third second-round series between Vancouver and Chicago under the current playoff format. Vancouver and Chicago competed in the Western Conference Semi-final the previous year, with the Blackhawks winning the series 4–2. In 1995, the Blackhawks swept the series." Does that tell me anything about the current series? The fact that the Canadiens were champions doesn't tell me anything about the series. The fact that Manchester United has had as much Stanley Cup success since 1970 as the Leafs have is just as valid a statement to add to any lead section as what's there now. Just as "the makers of the Prius and the Jamacian bobsleigh team have nothing in common" does. There is no bearing on the series. And the fact that morons on TV, Radio, and other forms of media like to spout useless trivia doesn't make it any less useless or trivial.

So with that out of the way I'll ask again: why do we have useless stats before each series. Be prepared for it to be deleted if you can't offer a good answer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I already did. Jmj713 (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No you neither deleted the useless trivia nor did you explain with any amount of reason why they should be there. Did you read my comment? Shall we add "The Dallas Cowboys have never been defeated in a second round series by a team for Pennsylvania" or perhaps "No oil tanker has ever successfully progressed past the second round"? They're just as valid as the the current team match-ups being compared to previous year match-ups. Your logic is flawed. They are not events between two franchises of any sort which is my entire point. They are between the two current teams who happen to be owned by a specific franchise. To suggest otherwise shows no logic at all. Consider that they meant absolutely nothing to the outcome of the first round and you should understand why they need to be removed. Playoff beards are also a tradition that is not carried-on in Wikipedia articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the logic or lack thereof behind historical sports facts. Jmj713 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an option. You attempted to explain the logic. Two of us told you why it didn't make sense. Someone is going to have to explain why this trivia listed or it will have to be removed. Trivia is trivia regardless of who spouts it off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but what exactly did you explain? I think I gave a reasonable and logical explanation, while you went on a tangent about the Dallas Cowboys and the Jamaican bobsled team. Jmj713 (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You didn't explain anything either. I just added trivia: useless information about a sports franchise that has no bearing on the series. The presumption is that the performance of teams in the franchise history has some sort of bearing on the way that the current teams will play. It obviously doesn't. It should therefore not be included as it's trivia. Check the second paragraph of the lead section to trivia and you'll understand: "knowledge that is nice to have but not essential".

Why should the trivia that's currently there not be replaced with other equally useless trivia? What is the purpose of the trivia that's there? Is it a predictor or is it just there to amuse and entertain? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We obviously have a different idea of what constitutes trivia. For you then, List of Stanley Cup champions and List of Stanley Cup Finals appearances are trivia articles and should be deleted. I strongly disagree, because past performance is not trivial, it's just facts which show how a given franchise has performed against another franchise throughout history, and for me historical data is important and non-trivial. Jmj713 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are history articles and when categorized and labelled correctly have a place in an encyclopedia.

Once again you didn't answer the question. What is the purpose of the trivia that's there? Is it a predictor or is it just there to amuse and entertain? Are you somehow suggesting that it's a history of the meeting of the teams? Then why isn't the season match-up presented as well? Why isn't it labelled as such? It's in the section on the current match-ups. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can certainly be expounded upon, perhaps taking into account the season series, as well as prose for the series overview for the completed series. Jmj713 (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you please answer the question as posed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's there for historical buffs. But you're correct, distant past meetings between franchises is irrelevant to the current meetings (though sports commentatories would have you believe otherwise - in hopes of good ratings). GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Any trivia added to the next round, will be deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's clarify what is and is not trivial. We should mentioned how the teams matched up against each other in the regular season, as well as the result if they met in the previous season's playoffs (not three seasons ago, not 12 seasons ago, but last seasons). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Recent history is fine, especially regular season match-ups. Once a the coach and a few players have changed, it's really a different team. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't historical matchups fine? It's a historical fact that the Bruins and the Canadiens have played 32 playoff series, the most in NHL history. If they both advance to the Eastern Conference Finals, it'll be 33 times. Why isn't this okay to mention? Jmj713 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that is an NHL record, it's also fine. What we want to avoid is mentioning the result of a playoff series between two teams 15 years ago. That information is completely irrelevant and unhelpful to a reader. Yes, it is a "fact". It is also a fact that Sidney Crosby has 10 fingers and 10 toes, but we don't need to mention that in every article where his name is mentioned. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the number of fingers is irrelevant. Perhaps mentioning the actual scores from past series should be removed, but I strongly believe that at least the last meeting must be mentioned, especially if it occurred a long time ago, as is the case with the current Bruins-Flyers series (previous series was in 1978). I should note that it wasn't me that added most of those details, but I am very much interested in the overall history of the NHL, and thus these details are important to me, and I see a great need of an article where playoff series would be enumerated. I've attempted such a thing in my sandbox, but didn't really receive any feedback, apart from a single person calling it trivia, which I firmly believe it isn't. I'm hoping to complete the article in my sandbox and publish it; time allowing. Anyone wishing to help is more than welcome. Then, perhaps, users can find all the information on past series they need, and we won't need these "useless" facts in the article. Jmj713 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Well the play-off record of the franchises five years ago when fewer than 5% of the team from that time and today even match is also irrelevant. I agree that saying it's the fourth time that the franchises have met in the round is fine. To state the outcomes of those series is not. It suggests that there is some significance between those past meetings and the current meeting. Since there no significance in mentioning it, it's the same as mentioning how many fingers and toes a player has. It is therefore, by definition, trivial. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's great that you agree that "saying it's the fourth time that the franchises have met in the round is fine." Feel free to remove any mention of actual scores, like I said, but please keep mentions of any past meeting between the franchises. Jmj713 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So apparently the fact that Philadelphia won the semi-final series two years ago 4–1 is non-trivial based on the information above because? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent statistics, especially statistics about their last meeting are not trivial because they will be something talked about often which makes them notable information. Randomly stating they they played in 1935 and that the result was 4-1 (unless that was the last time they met) would be trivial. But the result of their last meeting is not trivial to the franchise. Note I said franchise not team.... There is a difference, the team is no longer the same as its changed each year and the players are different. But the franchise itself is the same. This is something we often are very clear about keeping separate in such situations. The result of their last meeting is relevant to the franchise, but not necessarily the team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't worth fighting over particularly since the teams met only two years ago. You obviously haven't read any of the material above. So if the last time the franchises met was twenty years ago it's obvious that the information is useless. The same can be said if it was ten or even as recently as five years ago. The point is, it's non-encyclopedic and trivial. There are rules about it but most people who watch sports don't understand that. That too was discussed above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No I read everything above and I don't agree. The very definition of something notable and not trivial is that it is something that is talked about widely. An example of trivial would be a single mention that x player on team a is the brother in law of y player on team b. But the historical results of the franchise are notable facts about the match up. Past results can influence many aspects of the current matchup, even if the players are different a perfect example that was actually talked about on the radio the other day is the San Jose Sharks. There was only a couple players I forget how many, maybe 2, who were there for the first few flops of the team in the playoffs. However, the pressure placed on the team from fans and management and the media etc because of it, influences the outcome. It doesn't matter that the players are different now from the players then, the extra pressure is still there etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Past match-ups cannot effect anything in a current series. Ever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you clearly have never played a sport. Past matchups always play a role in the current situation. It can often cause you to do things like "grip your stick tighter" or take a team too lightly because you mopped the floor with them in the past. Ask any professional hockey player, and I have heard a number talk about it, that past matchups even when they were not involved in the previous matchup affects how they play and how they prepare. And remember matchups are not just about whats happening on the ice. Match ups are also about the fans and their reactions to the games. These articles are not purely about what happens on the ice, its about everything surrounding the games. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have and it still doesn't matter. Psychology is not an issue in most modern series' because teams have staff who deal with that for the players. If it actually affected the current series, the way it will affect the series should be the discussion of articles on the subject by professionals. It's not. It's all locker room banter. Also, if past the performance in a past series actually had any effect it would be simple to say "you last played in 1967. Franchise X won, four games to two so there's no need to contest this year's series. It's all just talk that "sports professionals" throw out so they can fill time or their column. You can look at the statistics and see that there's no significance and as such it's trivia. This is what was resolved above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said that they determine the outcome which is what you suggest with your 1967 comment. I just said that they were one of a number of factors that play into the series. Nothing is ever predetermined, but it still colours the situation which is where the relevance comes. I also note that I don't see anything resolved above, I see two editors (mostly just you) pushing another editor into submission. The information is not about predetermined outcomes its about the atmosphere surrounding the series which is just as historically encyclopedic as anything else. Over the last few years we have actually been hoping people would expand these sections to include more prose about such things like the fans reactions and whatnot. Its all part of the same package. -DJSasso (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. You don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and an almanac. If you read carefully, there are many others who side with the removal of trivia, but this discussion is a waste since the series is is over and the past performance made no difference on this series and it was just trivia: information that didn't inform the reader of anything useful regarding the series being played. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be condescending, actually just straight listing of the scores of the current series would actually be more like an almanac than adding this sort of information. Almanacs are generally just stats and lists of achievements. My position is to actually try and push these articles past just being almanac like articles. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thou does protest too much. A little trivia never hurt anyone. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blasted, that stinks. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read WP:TRIVIA closely, it does not disallow the inclusion of trivia in an article, but merely how such trivia is presented to the reader. The facts themselves are not the issue here: the problem is with their organization... Bcperson89 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup that is something that people who quote WP:TRIVIA often miss. "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But there are other policies that attempt to exclude trivia. In all, trivia should be removed. If it's a valid fact, it should be included. However how teh teams played in the 1990s is not relevant to the current series. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we have this trivia stuff in the other NHL playoff articles (I'm too lazy to look at'em all)? GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course because most sports fans don't know the difference between relevant facts and trivia. If you're gong to suggest that precedent should take effect, don't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting all those things from all those (NHL playoffs) articles is a daunting task. If you're eager to see'm gone? you can delete them. Overall, I'm quite neutral about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Time Zones

Looks like everything is in EST. Should we not list game times as the local start time and designate which time zone? 209.121.225.250 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion popped up earlier on the page. I think it is easier to list everything in Eastern time (even though I live on the Pacific coast) because the NHL lists all of its games as starting in Eastern time (even if both teams are from the West). Also, times have always been listed in Eastern time in all the previous Stanley Cup pages. Additionally, it becomes a moot point when the series is over, as the times will no longer be listed. Bcperson89 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, but what about adding the ET so as to make sure readers are clear that this is ET? In its current state the times are somewhat meaningless as one would have to eiter know it was in ET from reading the talk page or go to a second source to confirm the time zone. 209.121.225.250 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it says right at the top of the section that all times are in eastern. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Goalie minimum minutes

Who came up with the minimum minutes threshold for the goalies leaders. The ABSOLUTE minimum already disqualifies anyone that lost in the 1st round. There should be a RELATIVE minimum. The IIHF uses a 40% of the goalies teams's total minutes as the threshold [1]. This eliminates a goalie that stood in for a scoreless period, but still allowos for a good performance that was victim to poor offensive support. ccwaters (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit was made by User:Alrin[2] and does appear to be calculated to exclude first-round goaltenders since Ilya Bryzgalov has 419 minutes [3]. Not sure what the logic behind that is, but he appears to be a Bruin's fan and they made the second-round and Anderson and Miller have better save percentages than Rask, but he's still number five in the playoffs without the "elimination". Unless he explains why the change was implemented, it's easy enough to undo and update for tonight's games. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides, it needs to be changed since it says "top five" and there are six goalies listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the six goalies are supposed to be there. If you read carefully, it says "This is a combined table of the top five goaltenders based on goals against average and the top five goaltenders based on save percentage". Thus, the inclusion of more than 5 goalies merely represents which criteria was used to get the goalie into the top 5. On the topic of goalie elimination minutes, I agree that the unexplained minutes threshold should go. Bcperson89 (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's what we have used in previous years. I believe the reason was to eliminate goalies who only played a small number of games which causes the stats to be skewed. The reason for 420 was I believe based on making sure the goalies had not been a couple game wonder but played a full series. It may have been based on the number the NHL uses to qualify for their top x lists. But I forget. -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep I was right, its based on the cutoff the NHL uses partway through the playoffs. See Talk:2009 Stanley Cup playoffs#Goaltending explosion for last years discussion. The old minimum was 4 games and we had switched to what nhl.com has been using in the later rounds which was the 420 minutes (aka 7 games). -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok... If its going to stay at 420 throughout, then I'm less worried about it. I still say a relative % like my IIHF tournament example would translate well to the playoffs which an undetermined amount of games played per team. ccwaters (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with going by a relative amount in the NHL playoffs is that a team can get knocked out in 240 minutes, 40% of which is only 96 minutes, or just under five periods. Indeed, it is a stretch to include any goalie on a team knocked out in the first round. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you go to NHL.com, and check either GAA or Sv% from last season's playoffs, you will notice only nine goaltenders are listed (and the same nine on both lists). Then, sorting by TOI, the top nine goalies are the same from the GAA and Sv% lists, with the cutoff falling between 426:41 and 379:44. I estimated last year that the cutoff was 420 minutes, since that's a full round. An argument here at Wikipedia which complemented this NHL.com technicality was that a goalie who does not go deep into the playoffs (and thus has little TOI) should not be considered a "top goalie".

For these playoffs, NHL.com is less stringent. Again comparing GAA, Sv%, and TOI, they currently list the top 15 goalies, with the cutoff falling between 298:44 and 210:43. I estimate it is 240 minutes—about how much time a goalie plays to win a round.

I say go with 240 this year, at least for now. They may have lowered the cutoff because it's early in the playoffs, and stats from the eliminated goalies can still be fairly compared with the remaining ones. Just keep an eye on whether they bump the cutoff up to 420 minutes later in the playoffs. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That's not the way it is now though. Perhaps you could put it back until the NHL changes it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely missed this discussion (hence my latest edit), but DJSasso was on the mark when stating it was the platform used in previous years, and that was the logic behind my original edit. My being a Bruins fan had no bearing on the edit whatsoever. — Alrin (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Directed at Twas Now's 96 minutes comment Here are the current stats. I have no problem if Miller, Anderson, or Bryzgalov were ultimately on the leaderboard. The point of having minutes qualifiers is to keep Huet's 19 minute "shutout" off. No methodology can be perfect, but I would be willing to take the risk that a backup goaltender would actually make in on the leader board playing 1.5 games on the losing end of a 4 game sweep in the first round. ccwaters (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mackhuffer, 5 May 2010

Alex Ovechkin does not play for the Detroit Red Wings; he plays for the Washington Capitals.

Mackhuffer (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

it wouldn't hurt if you narrowed it down a bit more. I think I got it though. Statistical leaders? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Effects of the playoffs

There should be something on the effects of the playoffs, like the riot in Montreal after it won game 7 over Pittsburgh. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The riot can be mentioned in the Montreal vs. Pittsburgh section with one or two sentences. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone else will have to do it, the page is editlocked. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Too-many-men-on-the-ice epidemic

Should something about the incredible amount of too-many-men-on-the-ice penalties in the playoffs (33 as of round 2) be mentioned? Especially since at least twice such a penalty has decided a series. Toomai Glittershine (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think not. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia v Montreal

Why is #8 Montreal on top of #7 Philadelphia in the bracket? The top seed is placed on top of the bottom seed in every round except this one, it looks a little unprofessional. Is there a good reason for this? It even says not to switch them in the edit page, but gives no explanation why (unless I'm just missing it). I see where someone says that being the team on top just indicated they came from the top of the bracket, but this explanation doesn't work because the NHL reseeds teams, it doesn't use a true bracket system like the NBA. By this logic, San Jose would've played Chicago in round two because they come from the top of the bracket. In order to reseed teams like the NHL does, Philadelphia should be on top and Montreal should be placed on bottom; again this also provides consistency across the playoff tree, as the top seed is on top of the bottom seed in every round except this one.. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergoalie1617 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not positioning, it's a ladder. After the second round, home-ice advantage is no longer represented. Please see Template:NHLBracket --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at prior years, 2007 is the most recent year in which (coincidentally) the conference finals had the higher seed on top. It's important to keep in mind that the NHL doesn't really use "brackets" as such. The brackets in these annual articles are merely a visual aid, to tell at a glance who's-playing-who and how far along the playoffs are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it? I don't see it in 2007... the numbers fit either way. If you look at 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs, we had a close situation in the West where #6 played #8. Guess that's always how it's been done. I think I see a long talk on that page about it too but haven't really gotten around to reading all of it... I made an error of switching them (because I thought it represented home-ice advantage) and I'll accept this for consistency -- Frufru (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For consistency? if you want consistency, fix any page that doesn't do it the correct way. The way this ladder has it displayed is correct with Montreal on top as they are coming from the top game. Alternately, fix the the template to remove the lines so as not to indicate the ladder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying now. I just said that I now agree with you that Montreal should be on top. I've looked at the previous playoff brackets up to when this format was introduced in 1994 and in all conference finals where the lower seeded team came from the top, that team is displayed at the top, so I don't see what there is to fix. -- Frufru (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look between round one and two there are no lines because between round one and two they reseed the teams. As of round two its brackets that are used and the positioning is based on brackets. The NHL only reseeds the teams from the 1st to the 2nd round but not after that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the OP's premise is mistaken. This article treats it as a bracket. In the third round, a seed being on top or bottom has only to do with where it fell in the bracket, not with its seeding as such. Likewise, in the championship series, east is on top and west is on bottom no matter which team has the home ice edge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't reseed after the second round because there's only two teams, the NHL has top seed on top in every round of the playoffs in their brackets (if you look at the NHL Playoffs Challenge on the NHL website, you can confirm this). Supergoalie1617 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at http://www.nhl.com/cup/round1/index.html#?navid=nav-stn-plyfs, I don't see a ladder. Since I don't see a ladder, your point is moot.

I see how the NHL template looks, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong and needs to be changed if it wants to be accurate. It's not a ladder; it is positioning. The NBA has a ladder, the NHL has positioning. I have to be honest, I'm surprised hockey fans didn't know this. I'm not arguing that the template isn't being followed properly, I'm saying that the template is wrong. I don't expect this to get changed, I know how incredibly stubborn wiki editors are, which is why I really don't bother editing anymore, but honestly, for your benefits, it's small stuff like this that causes teachers to fail students for turning in a paper with a references page filled with wikipedia links. If wiki wants to be considered a reliable source of information, making (and defending) small mistakes like this is not the way to go. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if your point wasn't moot, this isn't the NHL site page, it's Wikipedia. The ladder is the model and it's what visually makes sense. If the lines were not there, we could talk about re-seeding every round. We don't mind you making small mistakes. That's what the rest of the wikipedians are there to catch and correct, which is what makes wikipedia a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wha wha what? Wikipedia is reliable? Are you high? Try to put Wikipedia as a source on a term paper at school... watch yourself get a fat red checkmark right next to it. If Wiki sees that the NHL does things one way, but Wiki wants to do things it's own way, that makes Wiki a reliable source? Saying that Wiki can use a bracket system instead of the reseeding system the NHL uses because "This isn't the NHL site, it's Wikipedia" is like saying "NHL says they play with a puck, but we're saying they play with a football, because this isn't the NHL site page, it's Wikipedia." Come on now, you see edit wars on half the pages on Wiki, I got yelled at once for removing a single, unsourced line from a page after asking about it on the talk page and not hearing any feedback for a week (feel free to read my user page, it's really short, at least the guy arguing with me admitted he was mistaken). Wiki even has a page that goes into this very issue, your own editors think it's unreliable! "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia." And btw, I said to look at the "NHL Playoffs Challenge" on the NHL website, not look just at the NHL website. If you're going to call yourself an editor, it wouldn't hurt to read people's posts before responding. And again (more proof you aren't paying attention to my posts), I am saying that the model used for the playoff tree is incorrect itself, I'm not saying I'm unaware how the tree works.

Wiki editors are not here to help with mistakes and come to a consensus, they are here to go on power trips and write the article as they see fit. Read the "Why is this even an article?" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reaction_to_officiating_in_Super_Bowl_XL#Why_is_this_even_an_article.3F. It shows four editors telling one person their page violates Wiki policies and should be moved, yet the one author disagrees, so the page stays. Yet by your thinking that page is a reliable, credible source. Read the "School structure" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deer_Valley_High_School_%28Antioch,_California%29&direction=prev&oldid=286947085, my high school. I fought to get that changed to something a tad less immature several times, but it kept popping back up because anybody can come in here and put whatever they want in an article because anyone can edit Wikipedia (thankfully the problem has been put to rest finally). Long story short... don't try to tell someone Wiki is a reliable source. You will lose that argument forever.

And by the way, the model for the NHL playoff tree on this page isn't right; the NHL reseeds teams, they don't use a bracket system. We should remove the bracket lines on the playoff tree; also Philadelphia on top and Montreal on the bottom would be the proper way to do it, and it would create uniformity with all the other individual brackets on the playoff tree. Thank you.Supergoalie1617 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a visual aid, and the seedings are listed throughout the brackets just for convenience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the NHL do things any particular way? You have still not displayed your source on the NHL web site. If this were an article and not a talk page I would either slap a {{Citation needed|date=May 2010}} on it or I'd just revert it. As it is, you have no source for your comment. I tried to find it. And if you're stupid enough to use any one source on any paper, you'd get a big fat red x through your paper. Wikipedia or any other source is fallible. Comparing sources is the right way to create a paper. BTW: My kids get great marks on their papers when they start with Wikipedia. This conversation is not appropriate here thoug. Take it to Stephen Colbert's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can tell you to check out the "NHL Playoff Challenge" on the NHL website, but I'll try it a third time here, hopefully this time you figure it out (but I doubt it). It takes a second to create an account, but if you do you can see an NHL playoff tree with Philadelphia on top and Montreal on bottom in the Eastern side of the bracket. Here is the exact link that will take you there (again, you would have to make an account, which takes less than a minute) http://challenge.nhl.com/. If you aren't willing to take one minute to verify this, then you cannot call yourself a serious editor, I'm sorry. I never said I would use only Wiki as a source for a paper, don't assume I would or put words in my mouth; if you're going to take the time to debate me, use only what I'm saying, don't make stuff up because it helps your argument. You need to learn to read people's arguments more carefully if you want to call yourself an editor. I shouldn't have to tell you that. If your kids are using Wiki as a reference, they are not learning much, and if their teacher gives them great marks for using Wiki as a source, then your teacher is a bad teacher. Let them try using Wiki as a reference in college and see where that gets them (see links below to read about just how foolish you would have to be to use Wiki as a source in college, best of luck to your kids if you still tell them Wiki is a reliable source of information). I've seen many students at my old college get bad marks for using Wiki as one of their sources. I even did it once for my Political Science class, and I got graded down for it. No intelligent teacher will accept it, because they know there are editors like yourself on Wiki who, even though they are presented with evidence that their way of thinking is wrong (like I am doing), they will still do things their own way and ignore any argument that challenges them (as you are doing). This is the #1 problem with Wiki; any editor can write whatever they want, even though they are presented with proof that their way is wrong. Let me turn this around on you; you get on me for not showing sources (which I am, you just aren't paying any attention whatsoever to my posts), yet where are your sources for saying that the NHL uses a bracket system instead of reseeding? Can you find me a link to trump one from the NHL website itself? Good luck with that.

I have shown you a link that shows the NHL's playoff tree, which shows that the NHL has Philadelphia on top of the bracket over Montreal. If you can't take the time to check this out real quick, then I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say about this anymore. The link proves I am correct and you are wrong, which I'm sure is why you have been avoiding it. Is this playoff tree issue the end of the world? No. Will people die if you leave it as it is? Of course not. But if editors like yourself can't even get basic things like this right, how can you be expected to write decent articles on larger, grander topics? If you do check out the link I sent you (which, by the way, you will make me eat my words if you do) and see that the NHL has a different bracket than the Wiki one, but you insist on doing things the Wikipedia way regardless, Wiki will never be considered a reliable source of information; it will be nothing more than a handful of "editors" dominating articles, writing in whatever they want even if they have been shown that their way of thinking is incorrect, refusing to listen to what anybody else has to say, just like it is now.

The links I promised about using Wiki as a reference in college. There are many many more online, just do a quick Google search.

http://www.virtuallyadvising.com/content/news/uwirenews20060402wikipedia.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/

Bottom line, the template is wrong, should be fixed. Not a major issue, but still wrong nonetheless. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not wrong, its just formatted differently. There is a difference. Wrong would be incorrect information. But its not delivering incorrect information. You are assuming that its trying to show home/away etc like those other examples you are showing, but we are not concerned with showing home and away, we are trying to show the path to the finals without it being confusing to non-hockey/sports fans. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is how it's done here. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the template has been edited to include a message to clarify the bracket. One95 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The teams are NOT re-seeded

The teams are re-seeded going into the conference finals. That's why Philadelphia has home ice advantage in this series despite Montreal coming from #1's bracket. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia had a higher seed in the East, and that's why they have home ice advantage over Montreal. The brackets after the first round don't show home ice advantage, they show which bracket they came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If they showed which bracket they came from, in the second round Boston would play against the 1 vs 8 team because it came from the 3 vs 6 bracket. But that's not how it works in the NHL; teams are not organized according to which bracket they came from, they are re-organized to favour the higher-ranking team. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Please allow me copy and paste so you can see what the rest of us see. "Pairings are re-seeded after the first round"". That means in the second round, the whole table is re-jigged. This was explained above. This is not the NHL, it's a representation of their lay-offs. Again, this is explained above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The pairings are also re-seeded after the second round. If they weren't, then Montreal would have home-ice because they came from the 1 vs 8 bracket. The fact that Philadelphia has home ice shows that they are re-seeded after the second round. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The pairing may be reseeded by the NHL (even though they're not) but this is a representation. Look at the lines between the second and third rounds. Do you see how they exist where none exist between the first and second rounds. The ladder does not represent home-ice advantage in the third round, which is what you seem to be implying, it simply represents from where in the ladder the team arrived. Please allow me to remind you of WP:3RR before you change the table again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So remove the lines. Teams are reseeded between the second and third rounds (as evidenced by the fact that home ice goes to the higher ranking team and not to the one that came from 1 vs 8), so the lines shouldn't be there. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. The position in the brackets is only to show which pair of teams each of the Final Four came from, it has nothing to do with home ice edge. Home ice is indeed determined by "seeding", but that's not what the bracket is intending to show. Check this discussion for comparable articles for each of the last few years, and you'll see the same misunderstandings and debates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The line will not be removed because the template is used for all previous competitions. The teems are not reseeded. Reseeding is only done between the first and second rounds. Otherwise Montreal would have played Pittsburgh Penguins in the second round. Instead. The top-placing team plays the lowest placing team. That's what reseeding means. There is no need to reseed in the next round because there are only two teams. Home-ice advantage is given to the more successful team. That does not mean that things have been reseeded. Again, the visual representation is simply to show where the teams came from, not who has home-ice advantage. Again, the visual representation is simply to show where the teams came from, not who has home-ice advantage. Again, the visual representation is simply to show where the teams came from, not who has home-ice advantage. I don't know if you've bothered to read that, so let me say it again, even more forecfully--because it's been said several time already and you seem to be ignoring it: the visual representation is simply to show where the teams came from, not who has home-ice advantage. I trust you understand that now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So fix the template to make it show that teams have been re-seeded in the third round. Again, so fix the template to make it show that teams have been re-seeded in the third round. Again, so fix the template to make it show that teams have been re-seeded in the third round. I don't know if you've bothered to read that, so let me say it again, even more forecfully--because it's been said several time already and you seem to be ignoring it: so fix the template to make it show that teams have been re-seeded in the third round. 24.68.50.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

You've got it wrong. There is no "re-seeding" for the third round, as there are only 2 teams left in the conference at that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)There's no re-seeding, officially, so there's nothing to fix. You keep assuming that the team with home-ice advantage should be on top when in fact, it shouldn't. Since there's not thing wrong with the template, there's nothing to fix. This has been explained above. Also the fact that the three previous Stanley Cup playoffs have used this template means that it's worked just fine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

After looking over this animated discussion, I tend to agree with the Anon. Here's my reasoning: for each pairing (after the first round), we can choose one of two standards for deciding which team is listed on top. The first option is always giving it to the team with home ice advantage. The second option, which Walter Görlitz seems to prefer, is listing first whichever team was in a physically higher bracket on the page in the previous round first. The problem now is that we are not consistent with this. In the third round, we are following the "higher on the page in the last round" model by putting Montreal on top. However, in the second round we seem to be putting the home-ice team on top. Walter seems to be arguing (in bold) that we are never moving teams solely to put the home-ice team on top, however, in the second round Montreal would be on the top of the Montreal-Pittsburgh pairing given that Montreal came from a bracket that was physically higher on the page than Pittsburgh. We had to readjust those two from where they came from to put Pittsburgh over Montreal, which suggests that we did adjust it to match home-ice advantage. I see two options, either change the second round so that the team that came from (physically on the page) higher up is on top, or change the third round so that the team with the higher ranking is on top. It looks careless to change format between the second and third round. Personally, I would rather see the home ice team on top and the lines between the second and third round removed. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand. I'm also sorry that we have to explain this yet again. There are no lines between the first and second rounds. That's not my preference, it's a fact. That is done because the NHL re-seeds the teams so that the pairings favour a higher placement in the regular season. Between the second and third rounds, the table represents a ladder and no longer represents home-ice advantage only placement from the previous round. The ladder then represents more traditional elimination tournaments. If this were the FIFA World Cup or similar event, there is no re-seeding after the first round or second rounds. Placement is determined in those tournaments based on group play only and victory in the previous round. It's obvious that most people don't understand that in the table and perhaps a new template should be selected for next year's Stanley Cup Finals to avoid confusing those who come to Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand how the table works, please don't patronize me, you would do well to understand that not everyone who disagrees with you lacks understanding. My argument is about how the table should work, as was the anon's before they were blocked. I think that the table should not switch formats between the second and third rounds. If the second round is always going to put the home-ice team on top regardless of the physical placement of the two teams in the previous round, then the table would look neater if the third round did the same and the lines between the second and third round were removed. I think the ladder is fine in the final given the colour change, though it would be nice to add something to show who had home ice. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel like I'm talking-down to you because, despite your protestations, you don't understand how it work. You understand how you'd like it to work or how you think it should work. This, however, is not the place to discuss that. Go talk about it on the template's page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome, this is a perennial discussion (you even took part in the 2006 discussion) and the consensus for the last few years (2009, 2008a, 2008b) has been as Walter Görlitz suggests. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Walter, the table was designed by Wikipedians, we can change how it works. Yes, I know how it is currently set up. Everyone who disagrees with you knows how it is currently set up. We are not stupid. The argument is about how it should be set up, and the argument was started here way back when because this page had far more traffic than does the template's page. Twas, the past debates seem to follow the argument that Walter is making, simply arguing that people deviating from the standard should be stopped and discrediting anyone who questions the merit of the standard. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And if the Flyers and Blackhawks move on to the finals, what are you going to do, put the west on top and the east on the bottom? What would be the point of that? The purpose of the chart is to visually summarize how the playoffs are going. That's all it is. It's not intended to have any great significance about details such as home ice advantage. If you ask me, thereal problem is in the details farther down, where they have the home team listed first all the time, which is screwy - but that's what the consensus has been, so that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the colour change makes the last round special enough that it can be different. If you really don't want to make the third round match home-ice advantage, I would prefer seeing Montreal over Pittsburgh in the second round so that there is no re-ordering at all and order (within pairings) is always based on order in the last round. It's the inconsistency that I don't like; you order by home ice for the second round and not in the third. And I agree with you about the order farther down the page, that's a bit confusing, but if that's the standard I guess people who read the sports pages more than me aren't confused by it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's known during the Conference Semi-finals, that the winners of those 2 series will meet in the next round (the Conference Finals). This certainty isn't the case during the Conference Quarter-finals, as to who meets who in the next round (the Conference Semi-finals). GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence the lack of lines between round 1 and 2. This thing gets re-debated every year. The current solution is consistent with the past several years. The chart is only a visual aid. It is not intended to have any deep significance other than who's playing who in each round. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If people try to change it every year, that sugests to me that listing round three by home ice and getting rid of the lines would be more intuitive. I just can't see an advantage to switching formats between rounds two and three. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

They try to change it because it's an artificial construct - the NHL doesn't really use a tournament chart, just a list of games. So this is basically wikipedians trying to come up with an optimal presentation. If you think it's bad now, a couple of years ago they still had the lines and were trying to retrofit the first round after successive rounds had been played, which was really misleading. Here's an idea that just popped into my head, as there's nothing to stop it. :) Maybe have different colors for each team rather than the limited color set we currently have; and then stack the brackets for rounds 3 and 4 in such a way that the home edge is always on top, and get rid of the lines altogether, just infer them from the layout. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was fun. I particularly got irked with "The pairings are also re-seeded after the second round. If they weren't, then Montreal would have home-ice because thecame from the 1 vs 8 bracket. The fact that Philadelphia has home ice shows that they are re-seeded after the second round. " Er no. The NBA Playoffs which doesn't reseed gives the home court advantage to the highest seeded team most of the time. See what happened to the Warriors-Jazz series of 2006. Warriors came from the #1 vs. #8 bracket but the Jazz got the higher seed because they had the higher seed. WHich brings me to... isn't the NHL more straightforward? Higher seed = home ice advantage? We don't really have to indicate which team has the home ice advantage because it is inherently simple. Unless you're talking about the finals. –Howard the Duck 05:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add some context, I was intimately involved in the debate and design of the current bracket. One thing that I don't think that gets emphasized enough is this: the whole reason for having the ladder between rounds 2, 3, and 4, but the absence of a ladder between rounds 1 and 2, is to visually communicate the concept of reseeding. See, most people are confused by the concept of re-seeding. The average sports fan's main exposure to a bracket is the NCAA Tournament, in which the pairings are "fixed." The teams simply advance to a particular line, irrespective of whether they are the higher- or lower-seeded team. (Incidentally, this of course doesn't affect which team wears the white "home" jerseys; it's always the higher-seeded team, whether on the top or bottom line for that game). Between rounds 2, 3 and 4, there is no difference between "reseeding" and a simple ladder, whereas there is a big difference in the transition between the 1st and 2nd rounds. Even if the NHL used a "true ladder" (as in the NBA or NCAA), the home designation would not depend on which team was on the top line. Thus, we designed the bracket as we did precisely to emphasize that contrast. The theory is that any time the pairings are arbitrary (i.e., there is no ladder forcing two teams to play each other) we might as well put the home team on top. This is the case in rounds 1 and 2, unlike in the NBA or NCAA. But once there is an effective ladder, we should not, simply because no tournament that uses a ladder ever actually does that. "Reseeding" only speaks to pairings, not home advantage; e.g., the NBA could go to a re-seeded format next year, and home advantage would be left unaffected, because the NBA awards home court advantage on the basis of regular season record, irrespective of seed. The NHL happens to tie the concept of home ice advantage to your seeding, but need not necessarily do so (and they don't in the Cup Finals). This should make apparent that the concept of reseeding only speaks to pairings, not home advantage, and the bracket (like virtually all brackets) is more concerned about showing a tournament path than the particular granularity of home advantage, although when it can show home advantage in a fashion that is consistent with its goals of visually communicating the concept of home advantage, it does. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for spelling

{{editsemiprotected}} -The Montreal Canadiens became the first eight seeded team +The Montreal Canadiens became the first eighth seeded team

Someone fixed it.  Chzz  ►  10:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request for error in bracket

{{editsemiprotected}} Walter Görlitz keeps vandalizing the page and accusing me of vandalism when I fix it, but he says that I'll get in trouble if I fix it one more time. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above, you're the vandal that accusation is not borne-out by the facts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP does not understand the concept of "seeding", so his request needs to be ignored. There is no "re-seeding" for the third round. "Seeding" has to do with WHO PLAYS WHO. By the time you get to the third round, there are only 2 teams left in a conference, so there is no issue of who plays who. Home ice edge is determined by seed value, but the brackets used here are not intended to show home ice edge, as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are adding wrong information to the article and accusing me of personal attacks when I use the exact same language as you. You should rethink your contributions when you have to be so hypocritical when giving people warnings. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? It's plain to see that you don't understand what the term "seeding" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He was talking to me. I tagged his page for calling me a vandal on this talk page, as well as for adding incorrect information to the article. I reverted his edits using WP:TW and marked them as vandalism then warned him of the action on his user talk page to help him avoid the problem in the future. The editor appears to be new to Wikipedia and doesn't quite understand the intricacies. I agree that the editor doesn't understand the difference between seeding and home-ice advantage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, the article was semi'd for the next month, by which time the Cup will be in the hands of this year's winners. I'm rooting for Chicago, just because they haven't won since the early days of the JFK administration, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this user was blocked. They did, as they said, stop editing the article after being warned about 3RR and stuck to the talk page. We want to encourage this kind of behaviour from new users to do. Yes, they could have been a bit more civil, but others called the anon a vandal and used angry bold font before the anon struck back. I really don't see any crime worthy of a block (although there were a couple of one-off vandalims on other pages). This user seems to have been editing in good faith, so I hope they weren't scared off by the block. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It was only for 31 hours, and he's been unblocked anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The fourth offence was only to do a personal attack and even then, it was mild. Glad that the editor was unblocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Home team scoring column

I'm not sure how to correct them here (or on the other NHL playoffs articles), but it's confusing to see the assist players listed & then the scorers (as it's done on the home team side). GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In the previous Stanley Cup playoff articles, this problem didn't exist because the assist players were omitted, and only the goal scorers were listed. Bcperson89 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't realize we were adding assists. The above conversation seemed to be against adding assists. They should be removed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know how to remove them. I can't make sense of it & would only mess up the graphics. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a series of games they are Finals

It is not like European soccer championships where it's all down to a single game. The description is for at least four games, not just one game out of the seven. I reverted all of the singulars. Please discuss if this is not the correct term used universally, say at the related articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another yearly debate, but in this case you are on the side that has been consensus for awhile. The issue most people have is that the NHL has started calling it the Final without the s in their logos which is what causes this debate to come up. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the majority side? Stink. I may have to switch sides since I always cheer for the underdog. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the NHL seemed to stop officially using the "s" about two years ago, but many in the media and others still use it. And thus, the consensus back then, as it is now, is for us to continue to use the most common name and spelling (per WP:COMMONNAME) instead of the NHL's official preference (see also WP:TRADEMARK). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Only checked back to 1999. Going backward, most of the references were singular until the lock-out. After that, there was one singular (as was the link to the main article, which was actually correctly listed as a plural and was brought there via a redirect). They're all plural again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Perhaps we should get an archive going on this page, as it is getting quite large, and some of the topics are not currently being discussed. I would do it myself, but I am not sure as to exactly how to do it. Bcperson89 (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Might as well wait till the finals are over at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks longer at most. Fully concur that an archive is not required. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Messed up San Jose vs Detroit

Hey whoever made this article, sorry I screwed up the San Jose-Detroit section. I meant to add content, which I did, but totally screwed up the box scores. I tried fixing it, but couldn't figure out how to. Can someone please fix it for me? Thanks.

-Jewel15 Jewel15 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it looks like Djsasso fixed it for you. In the future if that happens again click on the view history tab where you can see the revision history of the article and just revert the edit that made the issue. If you're not sure how to do that just experiment in your sandbox until you get it. Deadman137 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725114715/http://www.nhl.com/ice/app?component=completePointLeadersList&page=statshome&service=direct to http://www.nhl.com/ice/app?component=completePointLeadersList&page=statshome&service=direct

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)