All my stats comparisons considered only the last 4 seasons for both Toews and Richards. It would be unfair to add Richie's 1st two seasons.

So far this season here are some more numbers to compare from this season, although they further evidence how close these two really are. The only big discrepancies are faceoff%, hits, blocks, and takeaways and even then, each player leads the other in 2 of those 4.

Faceoff %:
Toews 58.7
Richards 49.2

Blocks:
Toews 16
Richards 45

Hits:
Toews 48
Richards 65

Giveaways:
Toews 18
Richards 26

Takeaways:
Toews 61
Richards 38

Team Goals Scored:
Toews 62 (27PP)
Richards 59 (19PP)

Team Goals Against:
Toews 37 (10PP)
Richards 43 (15PP)

Team +/- (Team GF-PPGF  - Team GA-PPGA):
Toews +8
Richards +12

TOI PP:
Toews 3:08 (20:20 total)
Richards 3:08 (19:08 total)

TOI SH:
Toews 2:04 (20:20 total)
Richards 2:13 (19:08 total)

I agree on Stamkos. He's a special player. He reminds me of a cross between Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman, although he's not as aware defensively as those two were. That being said, he has loads of time to develop that part of his game.

NOTE: Updated...I had put the wrong stats (from last season) for Richie for blocks hits, giveaways and takeaways.

You know, reading over what I just posted, it really is staggering how similar they are, right down to the exact same ice time on the PP.

Getting  back to the Blackhawks playoff chances, I was reminded of this yesterday: the Flyers didn't qualify for the playoffs until the last game of the season and needed a shoot-out at that and then went on a run to make the Stanley Cup finals.  Just goes to show you that anything can happen in the playoffs, it's mostly a crapshoot.

At this point of the season, the Blackhawks are very much alive, the games played advantage has disappeared and there is 2+ months of hockey left, maybe you idiots should shut the **** up until/if the Blackhawks are eliminated.

Posted by jiml60 on 1/24/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Getting  back to the Blackhawks playoff chances, I was reminded of this yesterday: the Flyers didn't qualify for the playoffs until the last game of the season and needed a shoot-out at that and then went on a run to make the Stanley Cup finals.  Just goes to show you that anything can happen in the playoffs, it's mostly a crapshoot.

At this point of the season, the Blackhawks are very much alive, the games played advantage has disappeared and there is 2+ months of hockey left, maybe you idiots should shut the **** up until/if the Blackhawks are eliminated.

And i'll remind you that in the last 16 years (the most recent playoff format) the lowest seeds to hoist the cup were a 5 seed once and a 4 seed twice. Every other season the Stanley cup was won by a division champ (seeds 1-3). Still think its a crap shoot?

flyers have made the playoffs some 14 of the last 15 seasons and have nothing to show for it. To me it's not about how far you got but rather did you win the cup or not?

I agree with moy on this one...that being said, if you look at those teams that won from the 4th and 5th seed (twice the Red Wings and the Devils), they played a very strong team game and had the same core of players and leaders for a decade. They also dealt with injuries (Fedorov played 21 games the year the Wings repeated and multiple other players in all three cases missed more than 10 games) which otherwise might have vaulted them into the division lead.

When you look at the Hawks and the turnover they've had player-wise, the odds are definitely against them, but they are still a quality team that, if they get hot and gel at the perfect time, they can beat anyone in the league. One thing is for sure, if they are at the top of their game come April, I don't anyone in the top 4 of the West would want to play them in the 1st round.

But, like I said...the odds are definitely against them. I'll be rooting for them to win, but not expecting them to like I did last season, which might make it a more fun playoff run as a fan.

Posted by moy23 on 1/25/2011 12:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jiml60 on 1/24/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Getting  back to the Blackhawks playoff chances, I was reminded of this yesterday: the Flyers didn't qualify for the playoffs until the last game of the season and needed a shoot-out at that and then went on a run to make the Stanley Cup finals.  Just goes to show you that anything can happen in the playoffs, it's mostly a crapshoot.

At this point of the season, the Blackhawks are very much alive, the games played advantage has disappeared and there is 2+ months of hockey left, maybe you idiots should shut the **** up until/if the Blackhawks are eliminated.

And i'll remind you that in the last 16 years (the most recent playoff format) the lowest seeds to hoist the cup were a 5 seed once and a 4 seed twice. Every other season the Stanley cup was won by a division champ (seeds 1-3). Still think its a crap shoot?

flyers have made the playoffs some 14 of the last 15 seasons and have nothing to show for it. To me it's not about how far you got but rather did you win the cup or not?

If the #1 & 2 seeds are not meeting in the conference finals each year, yes, it's a crapshoot.  Doesn't necessarily mean a lower seed wins it all every year but has a chance of advancing farther than their seed would indicate.

Posted by jiml60 on 1/25/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 1/25/2011 12:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jiml60 on 1/24/2011 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Getting  back to the Blackhawks playoff chances, I was reminded of this yesterday: the Flyers didn't qualify for the playoffs until the last game of the season and needed a shoot-out at that and then went on a run to make the Stanley Cup finals.  Just goes to show you that anything can happen in the playoffs, it's mostly a crapshoot.

At this point of the season, the Blackhawks are very much alive, the games played advantage has disappeared and there is 2+ months of hockey left, maybe you idiots should shut the **** up until/if the Blackhawks are eliminated.

And i'll remind you that in the last 16 years (the most recent playoff format) the lowest seeds to hoist the cup were a 5 seed once and a 4 seed twice. Every other season the Stanley cup was won by a division champ (seeds 1-3). Still think its a crap shoot?

flyers have made the playoffs some 14 of the last 15 seasons and have nothing to show for it. To me it's not about how far you got but rather did you win the cup or not?

If the #1 & 2 seeds are not meeting in the conference finals each year, yes, it's a crapshoot.  Doesn't necessarily mean a lower seed wins it all every year but has a chance of advancing farther than their seed would indicate.

really - cause the point difference between a #1 and a #2 seed is generally minute. you are digging a deeper hole. Careful with your response.

Actually, upon further inspection, in the last 16 years there were actually 5 non-division champs that won. The Penguins in 08-09 with 99 points finished 4th in the East (tied in points with #5 Philly), the 99-00 Devils finished 4th with 103 pts, the 97-98 Red Wings finished with 103 points and were 2nd in the West, but also in their division, the 96-97 Wings were also 2nd in their division and 3rd in the West, but with just 94 points, and the 94-95 Devils were 5th with 52 pts (tied in pts with #6 Washington).

Now all that being said, the Flames, Oilers, Ducks, Hurricanes, Capitals and Panthers were all heavy underdog teams that all came within 4 wins or less from a Cup, whereas the Presidents' Trophy winners have won exactly 3 Cups in the same timeframe.

So much has to go right for a team to even reach the Finals, let alone win, that I'd say it's more of a weighted crapshoot with the top 3 teams in each conference having more "lottery balls in the barrell" so to speak.

http://www.puckreport.com/2009/04/playoff-seeding-and-stanley-cup-wins.html

Am I reading something incorrectly?

Revisions to the playoff seeding system in 1993-94 awarded division winners with the top spots in each conference. In the 15 seasons since, a division champ has made the Stanley Cup Finals every year, winning it 12 of the 15 times.

Year: Stanley Cup Finalists
2009: (4) PIT over (2) DET
2008: (1) DET over (2) PIT
2007: (2) ANA over (4) OTT
2006: (2) CAR over (8) EDM
2004: (1) TBL over (6) CGY
2003: (2) NJD over (7) ANA
2002: (1) DET over (3) CAR
2001: (1) COL over (1) NJD
2000: (4) NJD over (2) DAL
1999: (1) DAL over (7) BUF
1998: (2) DET over (4) WAS
1997: (3) DET over (2) PHI
1996: (2) COL over (4) FLA
1995: (5) NJD over (1) DET
1994: (1) NYR over (7) VAN

The only non-division winners to hoist the hardware since the new seeding scenario are New Jersey (5th seed in 1995, 4th seed in 2000) and Pittsburgh (4th seed in 2009). Interestingly, both failed to win as division champions (NJD 2001, PIT 2008).

The Presidents' Trophy winner has made it to the Finals six times in this span (NYR 1994, DET 1995, DAL 1999, COL 2001, DET 2002, DET 2008), claiming the Cup in each appearance. Amazingly, only once have the top seeded teams in each conference met in the Finals (2001). At the other end of the spectrum, Cinderellas' seeded 6th or worse have found themselves there five times (VAN 1994, BUF 1999, ANA 2003, CGY 2004, EDM 2006). None have won.

In short, unless you're the Devils or Penguins, your best bet to sip from Lord Stanley's mug begins with clinching your division. That way, at least, you have history on your side.

There are some errors on that site moy...Firstly, the Devils won the Cup in 95, not the Presidents' Trophy winning Red Wings. Secondly, the Wings were second to the Dallas Stars in their division both times they won the Cup in 97 and 98. Thirdly, the Devils in 99-00 won after finishing 2nd in the division to your Flyers. Add those 4 teams to the Penguins in 08 and that makes 5 teams that were not division champs who won the Cup.

FYI, I used hockey-reference.com to look up anything I wasn't sure on.

I'm not sure what the seedings winning the Cup have to do with any argument here.  The bottom line is the Hawks are going to make the playoffs, barring 2 or 3 catastrophic injuries.  Period.

Christ, you win the Stanley Cup and you still can't get any credit for, you know, actually being good.

good catch - so the article should have read... ." top 3 seeds" instead of "division champs" (especially since it was only 4 divisons in the 90s).

The article would still hold true then, yes?

Posted by mudbone1969 on 1/25/2011 5:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure what the seedings winning the Cup have to do with any argument here.  The bottom line is the Hawks are going to make the playoffs, barring 2 or 3 catastrophic injuries.  Period.

Christ, you win the Stanley Cup and you still can't get any credit for, you know, actually being good.

of course they will - more than half the teams in the conf will make the playoffs.