Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs

The Playoff Seeds section is misleading since the Stars and the Rangers still have an opportunity to move into the Playoffs, and bump another team out. I commented out the Seeds to make it easy to put them back in once they are set. Reference: http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm?type=pla#&navid=nav-stn-plyfs

Error9900 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's supposed to represent what they'd be if the playoffs started right now. Therefore, it's slightly helpful. 24.87.40.201 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• • It should have said something along those lines then. Otherwise, it seemed like it was stating that those are definitely the playoff seeds. I just commented it out, though, since the seeds will be set soon enough.

76.125.232.5 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Team 1 vs Team 2

Look at previous seasons, I am aware how they are done on the NHL site but that is not how they are done on Wikipedia. I prefer NHL format but this has been debated almost every year and Team 1 being higher seed wins out. One95 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the higher seeded team need to be slotted in as team 1 for the template to work correctly. As it is now, with the higher seeded team in position 2, the location of the games are all wrong. Ravendrop 02:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct as well. The arenas are all wrong now because team1 is supposed to be the high seed. One95 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's just how it's usually done internationally (Home vs Away). the NHL goes by Away vs. Home. Changing team 1 or team 2 doesn't matter, as the template puts the appropriate arenas in the locations depending on what you set team 1 and team 2 as. On last year's talk page, the discussion came down to the fact that no one wanted to change the previous years formats because no one wanted to spend all that energy changing all the teams around. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, on the page, game one of NYR vs WSH currently reads Rangers @ Capitals, with the arena as Verizon Center, which is correct. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't correct earlier. Either way, last year in the playoffs you see Washington Capitals on the left for games 1 and 2 against Montreal. Caps were the high seed.One95 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've figured it out. The stadiums/teams are purposefully mismatched in the coding so as not to display the international format. So long as editors are OK with the mismatching, the teams display as away @ home (in the NHL format), with the correct arenas. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Like i mentioned, it boils down to the fact that no one wanted to waste a bunch of time and energy to change the playoffs from 2007 to 2010 to display the teams as away vs home (as they would have to change around all the goals too). As long as it is formatted in this way in the years to come, then we will be able to display the NHL format.Bcperson89 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if you look way back, such as at the 1999 Stanley Cup playoffs, the tables are in the format of away @ home. Also, articles such as the 2003 Stanley Cup playoffs mention the victorious team first for each game within the series, regardless of whether they were home or away. So, constistency in these articles seems to vary on the type of table being used. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I was, and am, a fan of having the home team on the right. I just know the debate from last year. One95 (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was in that debate last year too. But, having figured out how to code the tables properly to display away @ home with the proper arenas, I think the visual output should work here. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Example from last year using NHL (away vs home) format

Here is an example from last year. Note that Montreal is now team 1, and Washington is team 2. The only mismatching in the coding of the template is the stadiums (so that away @ home lines up with the correct stadiums), but all the goal scoring lines up correctly (ie 1-1-1 and 1-1-2 are game 1 - period 1 - team (1 or 2)), so everything can work out fine. Bcperson89 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that when noting the goals here, the lower team is number 1, and the higher team is number 2. (Note the actual game data, itself, though, is largely made up, as I didn't want to look back at last year's page to get all the scores and goal scorers) Bcperson89 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 15	Montreal Canadiens		3–2	OT	Washington Capitals	Verizon Center	Recap
2:36 - Michael Cammalleri		First period			Joe Corvo - 15:33
No scoring		Second period			No scoring
No scoring		Third period			No scoring
Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots		Goalie stats			Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots

April 16	Montreal Canadiens		1–4		Washington Capitals	Verizon Center	Recap
2:36 - Michael Cammalleri		First period			Joe Corvo - 15:33
No scoring		Second period			No scoring
No scoring		Third period			No scoring
Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots		Goalie stats			Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots

April 18	Washington Capitals		3–0		Montreal Canadiens	Bell Centre	Recap
15:33 - Joe Corvo		First period			Michael Cammalleri - 2:36
No scoring		Second period			No scoring
No scoring		Third period			No scoring
Jose Theodore 35 saves / 38 shots		Goalie stats			Jaroslav Halak 45 saves / 47 shots

More trivia

I see we're back to adding trivia about previous meetings in playoff series' again. What use is this information? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this was well-discussed here. Jmj713 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And the consensus was to avoid stats like this. So why is it back? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw no such consensus, and historical data remains. I won't go into my reasons yet again. Feel free to re-read my points on why it's important to state historical franchise matchups. Jmj713 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you did. It was specifically about edits like this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A certain amount of historical trivia is acceptable. We don't have to list the outcome of every single series that the teams ever played, but I don't see a problem with things such as the the outcome from the most recent series the team has played, and the overall record for teams in the total series played. Bcperson89 (talk)

A certain amount, but going back to the days of the Jets? Seriously? I haven't looked that the Boston Montreal series but if they list something from when Orr was playing or earlier, it's useless trivia. It has no bearing on the outcome of the game. It's just visual diarrhea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And that's what the article is currently at. We have things such as listing the total historical series between the teams (eg WSH has won 3 of its 5 total series vs NYR), and that the most recent series was won 2 years ago 4 games to 3 in favour of Washington. I don't find anything wrong with that kind of format. Bcperson89 (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Montreal has earned a record of 24–8 against Boston in the playoffs." Since the teams first met. WHO CARES? IT'S ALL CRAP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)