Talk:2009 Stanley Cup playoffs

Playoff seedings as of friday afternoon
These link details what is set right now (3pm US EDT). It also details what can be decided with tonight games: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=417579 ccwaters (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun Facts
I have added a fun facts section to state any record breacking or unique facts bout this playoff series.--74.237.54.62 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts... – Nurmsook!  talk...  00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? --74.237.54.62 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any records broken will be covered; however, random "fun facts" go against the policy I pointed out, and believe me, I don't kid when it comes to policy ;-) – Nurmsook!  talk...  01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ok now montral record has been borken, can we write bout it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea....trivia sections are not allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.175.70 (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Game Summaries
Is there any particular reason that the home teams are listed first in the game summaries? I've noticed that this is also the case in previous seasons but I haven't come across a rationale for it. The league itself lists the away team first in box scores and game summaries. Shamedog18 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the rest but I would preserve the current practice. The notion (in all sports) of listing home teams second or on the bottom is a throwback to baseball's practice of having the home team bat second, and thus appear on the bottom line of a box score. It has no relevance in hockey. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what does have relevance is that the actual league lists the away team first. Are you saying that just because in baseball the away team is listed first means that we should list it second in every other sport? I'm not going to attempt to change it if this is the way everyone wants it, but I don't understand it. Shamedog18 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * iirc, one reason is that NHLPlayoffs was modeled after Hockeybox2, the standard hockey box score template used in a variety of other hockey articles. And thus it keeps the international practice of listing the home team first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the international practice, but this is an article about the NHL and the NHL uses the away team first in its boxscores. A long discussion about an almost identical issue went on concerning Major League Soccer on the 2008 MLS season talk page and it was determined that scores should be listed in the away-home format. Shamedog18 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it matters either way. A box score is not "graphical," in the sense that the visual presentation of the information especially matters. So long as it is readable and clear, the text communicates the information. MrArticleOne (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I say order it the way the NHL orders it. But that'll be a wasteful amount of work and I suggest to do it once the playoffs are over. – Howard  the   Duck  17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if any one has the time and the patience (which I don't), there are all these pages that use the template, including a bunch of Stanley Cup Finals articles too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a big deal. -Djsasso (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends if there's someone willing to do all of that. – Howard  the   Duck  01:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it depends on if someone is willing to switch all of these parameters around. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to leave it as is, but if someone wants to do the work, by all means. -Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will make a start on reformatting the NHL pages to conform with the visitor@home norm that people see on TV and game tickets. It will also help avoid confusion of listing the arena name next to the visiting team. If anyone objects to this please bring it up here or direct me to any more in-depth discussions of the NHL formatting so I can avoid ploughing through this only to have a 10 month discussion on reverting it for the next playoffs. (Miguel Wonham (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Remember the previous seasons have to be changed as well, and the code in the templates. :) -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Visitor@Home format makes most sense to me. Good luck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you do not break the template (and be careful because it is an intricate one), and all the articles using it are consistent, I won't complain. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Visitor--Home is a better convention, not because of the baseball rule as to who bats last, but rather because of the implied "at" between the names when listed in order.WHPratt (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Away @ Home convention is only practised in North America. In the rest of the World the home team is always listed first; Home – Away. But since this is the NHL, I have no problem with it being changed. But I think it's best to wait until the playoffs are over, and I hope the editors realise the amount of work they are putting on their shoulders. It cannot be left half-finished, so please finish all the pages at your own user space before publishing it. If you're still going ahead with this change, then good luck. lil2mas (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As several of the parameters of the template, currently as entered, work quite specifically to how the template is laid out, such as the score, and all the scoring summaries, it would be quite apparent to me that changing the template to just switch the places of the two teams would be very problematic across many articles considering the widespread usage of this template. There would have to be some intermediate phase by which new parameters are put in place that function much like the tv and recap parameters, but in the case of the score. Then, all of the places where the template is currently being used would have to updated to reflect such a change. Finally, given that the new parameter provides the needed flexibility, only then could the needed changes be implemented to the template to reflect the switched order. Thus, this is a very complicated and tedious project by any means. &mdash; Sukh17 Talk 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Very minor point here. Most box scores and recaps that I've read abbreviate power play goals as PPG and empty net goals as ENG. Should the summaries here do the same? "If I'm the only one, I'll shut up."Khan_singh (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Goaltending
That is completely stupid how it's based on GAA and SV%. I guess we should have the skaters based on goals and points. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand how you're relating one to the other. Skaters are ranked by points and always are.  Grsz 11  01:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is how can it be based on GAA and SV%. They're clearly based on GAA yet it says it's based on both. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. That I do not know.  Grsz 11  01:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was debated last year, its on both. Its the top 5 in GAA and the top 5 in Save %. Two of the goalies wouldn't be in the top 5 in both. The reason for doing it this way was that last year there was a much greater difference for awhile in who the top 5 in each were, and no one could decide which was the more appropriate stat to go by. So basically we went by both. For awhile last year I think the top 5 in each totaled 9 goalies this year it just happens that the top 5 in each totals 6. I think what you might be confusing you is that the sorted order on the table is by GAA, but the goalies chosen to be on the list are selected by both. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should say players ranked on GAA since that's the first stat and if not, it should say players ranked by GAA, SV%, SO, MIN, GP... It's kinda saying they're the only two stats used. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I am trying to explain to you, they are the only two stats used to choose who is on the list. The sorting order is irrelevant, what the table is trying to get across is that the people in the table are choosen by being the top 5 in either GAA or Save%. If we choose one or the other as the only stat then either Brodeur or Osgood has to be removed from the list, and the problem with that is that choosing which is the more important stat is POV. Unlike skaters where Points is what the NHL uses to rank, the NHL does not rank goalies by either stat. -Djsasso (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The sorting order is not irrelevant, it's sorted on GAA. Might as well used alphabetical order if it's supposed to be irrelevant. And HockeyDB uses GAA first, see 2008–09 Montreal Canadiens season, Halak has the better SV% but Price is listed first since he has the better GAA. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are quite getting the point behind this table. Think of it as a top-5 GAA table morphed with a top-5 SV% table. The top 5 in one of these fields may not be identical to the top 5 in the other, so by only having one table, we can show the top 5 in both of these categories. How you sort the single table doesn't matter, so long as you have the top-5 from both of these categories. – Nurmsook!  talk...  02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that table isn't trying to show the same thing this table is. This table is trying to show who the top 5 in either GAA or Save% is. Hockeydb is also not an official listing so they can sort by whatever order they want. The only reason they are sorted by GAA is that the table requires you to have a sort order when using the sort parameter. Yes, we could do it alphabetically if you think that would be better. But we can not choose to only rank by GAA as that would be a POV decision that the better GAA is the more important stat. As nurmsock mentioned I don't think you get the point of this table. The table allows you personally to sort whichever stat you personally prefer to see by. -Djsasso (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I just changed it to alphabetical order to avoid confusion then. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no point to an alphabetical listing. We should put all goaltenders that are in the top 5 in either GAA or SV%, but pick one of the two to rank the table by, since it ought to be ranked by something. MrArticleOne (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My only concern with that selection criteria is that you might end up with, hypothetically, a goaltender who is 5th in SV% but 7th in GAA and one who is 6th in each. The former will be in the table, but not the latter. When the reader sorts by GAA, it appears that the former goaltender is 6th in GAA, which is incorrect. Just a possibility to be aware of. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ranked on GAA and SV% can't be there unless it's alphabetical order. It's a contradiction. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The solution to Jonel's issue is to just include any extraneous goaltenders that are caught in that situation, with their statistics. It's unlikely that there will be an unwieldy number of them. I'm not sure what RandySavageFTW means. We ought to list them and rank them by either GAA or SV%. The argument that that is POV is overrated; it's obviously useful and relevant information, and if the only purportedly non-POV solution is to list them in an uninformative fashion, the purportedly non-POV solution is no solution at all. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your solution to Jonel's issue seems reasonable to me. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I said POV, I wasn't referring to sort order. I was referring to only having top 5 GAA in the table or top 5 Sav%. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If not 5, then what would be a good arbitrary number? I mean if you want to be really fair, you could list all 16 playoff starters. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nono, I didn't mean the number 5....I meant only having the top 5 from one category or the other. Unlike skaters which are officially ranked by points, goalies are not officially ranked by one or the other. So if we only had the top 5 from one of the two categories it would be arbitrary. -Djsasso (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "These are the top 10 skaters based on points" - OK, we order them by points. "These are the top ten skaters based on GAA and SV%" - we can't order them by both, so it should be in alphabetical order. You thinking POV is "overrated" doesn't matter, either. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say POV was overrated; I said the POV concern here is overrated. The encyclopedia is supposed to present useful information. An alphabetized list of goaltenders is not especially useful. To the extent that concerns about POV interfere with the actual goal of the encyclopedia, which is to present useful information, it seems clear enough to me that the POV concerns are not a problem at all (virtually all information in the encyclopedia is based on some point of view). Not to be a Wikilawyer (which I detest) but the actual NPOV policy acknowledges that there are circumstances where controversial assumptions must be made in order to write something useful. In this case, there isn't even a controversial assumption: it is sensible that the table be ordered by some useful statistic, and not alphabetically, since that's what any reasonable reader would expect. The only controversy is over what to order it by. The NPOV policy is satisfied if all viewpoints are expressed, which we can easily do by simply saying something like "This is a table of the top 5 goaltenders by GAA and SV%. Although this table is initially sorted by SV%, many feel that GAA is a superior statistic; it can be re-sorted to reflect that order." Or something to that effect. NPOV in that case would be satisfied. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort it by GAA since that's what most other sources sort by default. But keep the top 5 for both stats. If we add the extra goalies that might fall in between, as MrArticleOne suggests to solve Jonel's problem, we will also need to reword the criteria. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think that Jonel raises a legitimate problem. I don't know why the criteria need be re-worded. If the editors understand what ought to go in the table, is the technicality of the situation that Jonel mentions important enough to explain to the casual reader? I mean, if you're reading it close enough to notice, you'll figure out what we've chosen to do, and if you aren't, the distinction is immaterial to you anyway and need not be explained. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If there is repeated confusion, we ought to just point people to this discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was mildly confused as to how the goaltenders were sorted, there was in fact no reason for them being sorted as they were. I added a message explaining the alphabetical nature of the sorting and corrected an out of order entry. Of course as a Vancouver fan sorting by either GAA or save would be better than alphabetical... but I will play the game.Pissedpat (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why change it back to alphabetically? This must be a precedent. (Did RandySavageFTW strongarm you into it?) I think most editors would prefer to see it sorted by GAA or Sv%, and most sources sort by GAA by default. Also, why has Brodeur been removed when this discussion indicates he should be included? Sheez, talk about ignoring discussions. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed Brodeur, as there really hasn't been a solid consensus on Jonel's issue. I've seen arguments pro and contra adding the extra goalies. Believe me, I haven't been "ignoring discussions"...it just hasn't been discussed thouroughly enough to be considered decided. If you want to talk about ignoring discussions, why the heck was every 6-point scorer added to the top 10 scorers list the other day; not only expanding the list to much more that just a top-10, but also doing so unordered (the NHL tiebrakes scoring according to most goals ahead of fewer GP, BTW). – Nurmsook!  talk...  17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how it's been done every year—if several players are tied at the tenth position, then you add them all. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Five players recorded 15 points in last years playoffs, yet only one is listed to complete the "Top 10". A top 10 should only include 10 players, no? Especially when there exists a defined tiebreaking criteria. – Nurmsook!  talk...  19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're really hooked on the number 10. You know, we can change that number to whatever we please. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not hooked on it by any means, it's just the number that has been decided upon in years past. Can we change it? Sure. Does it need changing? Well...If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Anyways this has all been a total aside. Back to the goalie stats point, I'm of course for sorting by GAA as opposed to alphabetically. Do I think we need to include the goalies that fall in-between the GAA and SV% leaders? I don't really think so, but goalie stats cause so many problems as is that I guess we might as well prevent another one. I'm torn on it...but I'll put Brodeur back in since I took him out. Seems to be the consensus so far at least. – Nurmsook!  talk...  20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I'm beginning to think it's better to just have goalies sorted by one stat to avoid this mess altogether. And I'm the one who pushed for including both stats last year. Oy vey. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would vote to have it ordered by either GAA or SV%, but it doesn't matter to me which one. None of this is official, any more than ordering skaters by points as opposed to goals or +/-. I don't know how to change it so I haven't personally. I do think that Jonel's point is a legitimate one, though; a table that didn't include people like Jonel describes would be highly misleading. Philosophy students learn about conversational implicature, and I think that a table similarly amounts to an implied statement that it is a complete table, as far out as it goes. If it was going to be excessive work I would think about other solutions, but how many extra entries are we talking here? I'm figuring the top 5 in SV% and top 5 in GAA have to be pretty similar. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This year its pretty similar, last year at one point there were 9 goalies as the two top fives were almost totally different, which is why this came up and became the solution. -Djsasso (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's so bad about that? We list that many skaters without blinking. I was thinking if it was going to amount to, like, 15-20 people, maybe that's excessive and we need something else. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well once you get to 16 there probably aren't any more goalies that meet the minimum 4 game rule. But I wasn't saying it was a problem. :) -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We list that many skaters because 10 out of 320 skaters represents only the top 3.125%. Even if we limited the goalie list to five, that represents 25 PERCENT of goalies who have played in the playoffs so far. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I tried to keep myself from engaging in this discussion ...again, but I had to give up! To sort the goalies alphabetically makes no sense... All ranking-tables out there are sorted by a stat, we just have to agree which to choose as the default; GAA it was last year, and I find this the right choice. But from what I can see from this discussion, there have been an issue with who/how many to include. My opinion is the top 5 or all of them, and we should maybe bold the stat that the goalie gets included for, like this:

What do you think? ...or else we could increase the GP-limit to 8, which we started with last year. It would've made it easier if we had stayed with that limit last year, as Lundqvist would've replaced Ellis & Thomas, and made up the top 5 in both categories. If you think about it, a goalie should at least lead his team to the Conference Semifinals in order to be remembered as one of the top goalies. That's my opinion though! lil2mas (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The table looks good. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: When it comes to the skaters, we should agree on either to show the tied skaters or hide them. Because cutting it at 10 because, someone has a goal instead of an assist, feels wrong. The reason why Kronwall is listed as #10 last year is surely because Detroit was in the final, unlike the other tied skaters. In last years case I would say drop Kronwall out of the table! But the case as of now, where 7 skaters are tied for 5th, I'd say keep them all, or we would end up with only the top 4! Any thoughts? lil2mas (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should show all tied skaters. What if the top 11 skaters all had the exact same number of points? We wouldn't show any of them if we exclude all tied players. Kind of absurd. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a fan of simply keeping a top ten, as we have a defined tie-breaking critera (ie: most goals, fewer games played, fewer PIMs, higher +/-). While it may be "wrong" to rank someone higher because they have one more goal instead of one more assist, that's what the NHL would do to tiebreak the Art Ross, so frankly I don't see the harm. However, as long as we don't have a list that ends up with 15-20 players, I think I'd be fine with including all tied players. – Nurmsook!  talk...  00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just one question, how is it that Luongo has roughly 20 more minutes played than both Thomas and Osgood when all three won in 4 game sweeps? MaxMillions (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Overtime. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense, thanks. That was actually beginning to bother me. lol MaxMillions (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yo
|NHL|Home New schedules are up, the template is quite complicated these days so I'm not even gonna bother. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Conference Semifinals boxes are up now. &mdash; Sukh17 Talk 04:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Convention for Capitalization of page title
I was just curious as to what is the convention for the capitalization of the page title. Some of the Stanley Cup articles have "playoffs" capitalized, while others do not. Thus, the current inconsistent conventions provide for some confusion, so I would appreciate if anyone could shed some light, and whatever conclusion is reached, there will be some consistent convention used across all of these articles. Thanks! &mdash; Sukh17 Talk 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot remember where the exact discussions are archived, but there have been debates over whether "playoffs" should be capitalized or not under WP:NAME: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Letter "P" in "playoffs" in the logo is lower case anyway so...
 * Or it can also mean that the word "PLAYOFFS" is in smaller font and are in all caps. – Howard  the   Duck  12:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe in a previous discussion it was determined to use the lowercase because its not an official name whereas Stanley Cup Finals is. I know someone recently went through all the playoff articles moving them to the lowercase. -Djsasso (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The NHL seems to capitalize "playoffs" when used in conjunction with "Stanley Cup"—i.e. "Stanley Cup Playoffs" not "Stanley Cup playoffs". For example:, , and . This is also the way that seems normal to me (I was also wondering why it was in lower case). When the NHL just refers to "the playoffs" in the general sense, they use lowercase. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that I thought they should be capitalized as well, but Alaney2k had more links without the capital than people had with the capital...though mostly I think it was just a case of him going and being bold and no one really challenging him. -Djsasso (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards capitalizing it simply based on the logo and the NHL's reference. It seems to me that being a specific branded event, playoffs becomes a proper noun. But like Djsasso mentioned, Alaney2k found a majority without. – Nurmsook!  talk...  03:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Series recap tables
Is there any way for the venue space to be stretched laterally on the series recap tables? On my screen most of them go over onto a 2nd line, which I think looks ugly, and it looks like there is plenty of space to stretch it out a bit for at least a few more of the venues to fit on one line. If not, no big deal, but I don't know how it works so I can't fiddle with it myself. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the table is set to stretch to screen width and the collums to adjust so I am not sure why it would do that for you. That being said I don't really know how its coded so I probably shouldn't fiddle with it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that issue! Make a proposal here: Template talk:NHLPlayoffs and/or notify User:Sukh17... If he says it isn't possible, you could insert "&nbsp" (with a semicolon at the end of it) instead of the spaces, which would prevent it from wrapping ;o) lil2mas (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the next round, why is the home team listed first? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read up a few sections, this was just discussed. -Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, frankly, it's a dumb way to do it, because the natural way to read it is "Team A at Team B". But once the games are played, it won't matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty off topic, but I've always wondered why Americans would think that "Team A at Team B" (sounding very strange to the rest of the world) sounds natural; I'd like to thank MrArticleOne (above) for supplying the interesting answer. Now, if I could only understand why Americans feel that "wins–losses–ties" is a more natural table order than the obvious choice of going from best to worst result... (Certainly agree that we should follow North American conventions in articles about North American sports though, even when they're hard to understand.) — JAO • T • C 10:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding this issue, I suspect that it is because (at least in the United States) it was originally the practice, at least in the NFL and college football, (a "purer" practice in many respects) that a tie simply didn't count at all, as opposed to the modern practice of having it count as a half-win and half-loss. So, for example, the winning percentage of a team that went 10-1-1 would be .909 (10/11), as opposed to .875 (10.5/12). As a result, a column for ties was only there to reconcile the number of games played with the number of total games that were scheduled; only the wins and losses were compared to calculate a team's standing. (I suspect that this, also, is derived from baseball's practice of saying that a Pitcher gets a "No Decision" in games where he either (a) comes out of the game with the game tied, or (b) comes out of the game with his team trailing and they go on to tie it, or (c) comes out of the team with his team leading and they go on to give up the lead and allow the game to be at least tied. There isn't a column for "No Decisions," but they don't factor into a Pitcher's record on the season.) MrArticleOne (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for not seeing this earlier, and thanks for another very enlightening answer. You are truly the man. — JAO • T • C 07:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Zones
I might have misread this, but I can't seem to find anywhere where the time zones are given at which the teams play. I live in South Africa but I like to follow the NHL. Is there maybe someone who can add or correct the timezones that the time is given in? It would be appreciated. --KapteinBene (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009_Stanley_Cup_playoffs: "All times listed are Eastern Daylight Time (UTC−4)" ccwaters (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Goaltending explosion
What is up with the explosion of goaltenders appearing on the statistical table? I confess that I am totally baffled. I know that on Wikipedia, editors oftentimes declare that something is "confusing" even though they understand it perfectly well, in an effort at appealing at some sort of median perception of the item in question to justify changing it to what the editor wants it to look like. This is not one of those cases; I have no clue what's the deal with the goaltending table. Is it now inclusive of all "in between" goaltenders (who aren't in the top 5 of either statistic, but ahead of a goaltender who is in the top 5 in one or another)? Is it just inaccurate? MrArticleOne (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I expanded the section was with regards to Jonel's issue of having someone who is 5th in GAA theoretically being 7th in SV%, and to solve this we must include the 6th place SV% goalie. How it broke down was that Osgood, who is in the top 5 for GAA, is actually 7th in SV%. To fix this, we add Brodeur, who is 6th in SV%. However, Brodeur is only 8th in GAA, so you have to include 7th place Mason. However, Mason is 9th in SV%, so you have to include 8th placed Biron. But, Biron is 10th in GAA, so you need 9th placed Fleury, who is also 10th in SV% to finish the table. If we need to solve the problem Jonel addressed, you can't just do half the job and only add Brodeur. – Nurmsook!  talk...  20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed it, because it nullifies the point of the table if you have to have that many "in betweeners". -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, after a suggestion by User:Theilert aka lil2mas, I think we favored just the top 5 in each statistic, and bolding which stat they are included for. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with that. The reason I added it was simply due to the consensus that stated to add any extraneous goaltenders that are caught in that situation. It's sort of like the other day when we had 22 skaters in the top 10 points table. As nice as it is to be inclusive, sometimes you just have to be exclusive. – Nurmsook!  talk...  20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the Jonel/Nurmsook approach to the table; as I noted above, I think that it is implied that the table is "complete" when you sort by one statistic or the other, when in fact it is not; if you sort by SV%, you are led to believe that Osgood is 6th (or at least may be sixth, which is at least as frustrating) when he is not. I really don't think we need to concern ourselves with only presenting an appropriately small fraction of goaltenders; I think so long as the total size of the list does not become unwieldy, just present useful information. Unfortunately, judging what is an unwieldy size is ultimately an editorial decision that may demand something akin to POV (something that provokes strong emotions on Wikipedia). However, since I don't care to do anything in the least to actually maintain the table, I won't strenuously interject. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If you go to NHL.com and sort by GAA or Sv% now, only goaltenders with at least 420 minutes show up. This makes it less convenient to find the top goalies who meet the current minimum of 4 games. I am guessing it's 420 minutes, because this is precisely 7 games—a "full" series. Both Lundqvist and Brodeur have 7 credited games, but Brodeur has 426:41 TOI and shows up, but Lundqvist only has 379:44 TOI and doesn't show up. Now that the playoffs are in the later rounds, should we also set the minimum to 420 minutes? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on bracket placements
As it seems to happen each year, there has been a bit of confusion surrounding the placement of seeds in the playoff bracket now that we have our first conference finals team. Please note that in what is an annual debate, the consensus has been that once we reach the conference finals and Stanley Cup finals, higher seeds are not placed on top. Rather, teams are placed in accordance with following the black lines. As a result, regardless of the outcome of the Detroit-Anaheim series, Chicago will be on the bottom of that series. If you refer to every other playoff bracket in every other playoff article, this is how things are done. Refer to the discussion at the template's talk page, as well as Talk:2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs/Archive 2 and Talk:2008 Stanley Cup playoffs/Archive 1 (and for that matter, some of the previous years also feature this debate). One of the main points for this has been that if we keep the top seed on top, you will often have a Western Conference team on top of the bracket for the Stanley Cup Finals, which completely confuses the whole bracket. Remember, once teams have been re-seeded in the second round, NHL playoffs essentially become a true bracket. For the time being, I have once again placed Chicago in the bracket for the third round where the consensus has argued they should be, and if there are any concerns regarding this, I guess we'll be getting into round 5 or so of this discussion. – Nurmsook!  talk...  02:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems people are intent on removing it anyway. I suggest we just ignore it for now, because casual drive-by readers aren't going to check this talk page before changing it. Everything will be settled by tomorrow night. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think insisting on placing Chicago where they belong(ed) is important, though. A key aspect of the redesign of the bracket was the way it visually communicates the concept of re-seeding, and it does that by treating the transition from the 1st to the 2nd round differently from the 2nd to the 3rd. A central aspect of that difference is advancing a team like Chicago directly and immediately to the line they belong on, as opposed to waiting it out to see where they'll end up, as we would have to in the shift from the 1st to 2nd round. If we don't move them immediately to the line, we are not communicating the re-seeding principle in the optimal fashion. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the rush? The article will be here tomorrow and next week and next year. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The rush is to educate visual learners. The sort of person who tries to develop an understanding of how the Stanley Cup Playoffs work via induction from working off of our visual representation. Such a person needs us to manage its appearance with consistency. MrArticleOne (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that it doesn't matter if we do it right after the first team is decided or if we wait until both teams are clinched. There is no deadline! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That both teams are clinched does not guarantee that people will stop changing it though; there has been at least one instance of switching the order between Carolina and Pittsburgh based on seeding. Anyway it's up to each editor to decide whether reverting a couple of such changes per day is worth their time or not (you might be right that there are more important things to do for now). By the way, I added an HTML comment per Howard below (feel free to improve it!). — JAO • T • C 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I meant we shouldn't keep reverting when people remove from the bracket the first team to clinch a spot. But if they place the team in the wrong slot, fix it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say something about this, so I'd just say to add an invisible HTML comment on the bracket. – Howard  the   Duck  06:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This debate happens every year, and this year's approach to the graphic, as of this moment and the way it's been during most of the playoffs, is the best approach I've seen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sectioning"
...since I can't think of a better section title for this. Does anyone think the following section headers is better: Instead of the current convention: – Howard  the   Duck  12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conference Semifinals
 * East
 * CSF 1
 * CSF 2
 * West
 * CSF 1
 * CSF 2
 * Conference Finals
 * East CSF 1 vs. East CSF 2
 * West CSF 1 vs. West CSF 2
 * Stanley Cup Finals: ECF vs. WCF.
 * Conference Semifinals
 * East
 * CSF 1
 * CSF 2
 * West
 * CSF 1
 * CSF 2
 * Conference Finals
 * East
 * CSF 1 vs. East CSF 2
 * West
 * CSF 1 vs. West CSF 2
 * Stanley Cup Finals
 * ECF vs. WCF.


 * I like the current format. It's a lot more consistent, as it follows the same pattern for each round. – Nurmsook!  talk...  19:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is better in this respect: the level 3 and 4 headings in the Semifinals section, and the level 3 header in the Finals section are a bit redundant (under the current format).... — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley cup schedule
So the NHL has a press release officially stating the start dates for the Cup finals (I'm not sure where this came from but CBC seems to know the entire schedule . Has the games 3-7 been predetermined already?). Anyway... then ESPN publishes a story citing UNNAMED SOURCES that the league might change the schedule. I skimmed through TSN.ca and The Hockey News: neither carry any mention of this apparent change. I would say a league press release trumps a solitary news outlet's speculation. ccwaters (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I have heard it'll only change if the Pens sweep and Detroit wins in five. So according to the CBC article it would start earlier if they ended on or before the 26th, it seems they're just pushing that back a day to the 27th.  black ngold29  13:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand the ramifications of the ESPN article, I'm just find it odd (suspect?) that no other news source carries this story. ccwaters (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Probaby because up here in Canada that is a no brainer move...happens every year so not really newsworthy. I am surprised ESPN would actually report on it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Apparently a few users on here have been taking part in vandalism of legitimate edits of additional details. I don't feel that the edits I'm doing are disruptive and are meant to add to the quality of an article. I won't name names, but I feel this should be known. Alex9234 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)