Jun 18, 2018
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>EvanW</b></div><div>I don’t have an issue with the list. It is natural and just for people to evaluate talent on paper before there is any data.
After 7/8 of a season, and a bubble situation in which every single team was subject to the same conditions, I would argue there is plenty of data to analyze.
When you are attempting to evaluate two different teams is it more efficient to do so “on paper,” or based on the data that was provided over multiple matchups between the two subject teams being compared?
If you ask any GM or player, is the team that is “better on paper” or the team that wins the head to head matchups over the course of 12 months the better team, what would the answer be?
If a team has (some) talent, great team chemistry, and plays well together, would that not be the definition of a good team? One that people strive to build and be apart of? If you have a good team on paper but have unfavorable matchups, are you really an elite team? If you are on paper, superior to an opponent but they dictate the entire way a game is played and beat you because of it, are you an elite team? A complete team is one that can play anyone, at any style, and come out on top.
This isn’t football, you have multiple times to demonstrate your ability against other teams of ability. At the end of the season, no matter how it gets done, the better team presents itself.
It is amazing that when presented a complete set of data, anyone can come to a conclusion that Dallas and Tampa are not the two “best teams” in hockey this season.</div></div>
Honestly "Best" team seems to be very subjective. In sports when you have to deal with unplanned things, such as, 'weird' bounces, injuries, illness, mental state. There are so many factors when it comes to actually winning games.