Talk:2011–12 NHL season

Thinking of adding to "Debuts" or "Last Games"???

Please see the following link to determine if your addition meets "notability" guidelines or else your edits may be reverted

Project Ice Hockey Guidelines for Notability

Atlanta Thrashers

Howdy. Do we really need to mention the Thrashers potential move to Winnipeg? isn't that merely speculation? GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is such little doubt of this move being approved, that it should be mentioned. --David7581 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta-Winnipeg move

Would it be too trivial to mention that this is the first time a team has moved to Canada, or even northward for that matter, since the Atlanta Flames (ironic, isn't it?) moved to Calgary in 1980? --David7581 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Realignment

Readers need to know that the entire league will realign next season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.178.15 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing but rumors about that. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill.oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Suspensions and Fines redirect

I wanted to create the NHL Suspensions and Fines page for this season, similar to the ones I created for the last two. Happily I saw that there already was a link in the see also section. However, that link redirects to List of NHL seasons. Can somebody fix that and create a page similar to 2010–11 NHL suspensions and fines? Chaosof99 (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit

There must be an error on the Western Conference standings. Detroit certainly cannot have played 82 games already. AmericanLeMans (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. Just an anonymous ip who felt they had to scribble... ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Ward credited with a goal

Does Carolina Hurricanes goaltender Cam Ward being credited with a goal on December 26, 2011 count as a milestone? Only 10th goalie to be credited with 12th such goal, 1st in over 5 years. 70.24.163.216 (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so because it's such a rarity Secondcube (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teams Not Making the Playoffs

Technically Anaheim isn't mathematically eliminated. They could still get 87 points. 65.39.13.192 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, they are eliminated. It is impossible for all the teams ahead of Anaheim to stay below 87 points due to play between those teams. Every game gives out either two or three points. I'm surprised that the sports networks don't keep up on this. It's a bit of original research, though, although it's true. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest sticking with the standard and generally accepted straight up magic numbers. Anything beyond that is indeed original research (yes, easy research). I've reverted it a few times and about to go to the editors talk page but since it s brought up here... TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the game that will put the playoffs out of reach for Anaheim is tonight, so tomorrow everyone will be in agreement anyway. The place to discuss this is probably at WT:HOCKEY, not here or the template page. It was inevitable that tonight's game would be played, but it has not occurred yet. The background work behind noting why Anaheim is already eliminated needs to be posted, not just assumed to be correct. A reference note at minimum, and preferably a citation. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Anaheim is indeed mathematically eliminated. Coloardo, San Jose and Phoenix all have games left against each other, and it is guaranteed that at least two of them will win a game, thus guaranteeing the minimum to make the playoffs is 88 points. There is no possible scenario in which Anaheim can qualify. Reso lute 22:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I address this in detail further down, but I will respond here by noting San Jose is in third place right now, so if they keep winning every game, it has no effect on the current 7th place (eventual forced 8th place) tie other than keeping some teams there. Colorado and Phoenix do not meet again. The games of interest are Los Angeles at Calgary (March 28 - today, that is) and Colorado at Calgary (March 30), as I outline below. San Jose games against others in the tie mean nothing if San Jose wins every game because San Jose is already ahead of all of them right now. CycloneGU (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no one disagrees, I believe Wikipedia's guidance on when to ignore existing rules is reasonable to apply in specifying that a team is mathematically unable to make the playoffs. However, if someone does contest the chain of logic, then, in my opinion, reference to a reliable source is required (following Wikipedia's guidance that contested facts should be sourced). Given that a few days lag in marking a team as eliminated is not a very big deal, I don't think it's worth a lot of back-and-forth. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has actually compiled statistics on every possible scenario for a team to make it to the playoffs at this site, and any team eliminated for sure is marked as "No", while even if a team has even a faint (but improbable) hope, it will be noted as 0% or 1% and so on. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 01:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Monte Carlo simulation though (see explanation here), so 0% / 100% isn't a theoretical mathematical certainty. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until they play that game they aren't eliminated. Technically both teams playing could end up having to forfeit the game (would never happen) but it is a possibility. We can't use crystal balls. Until the game is actually played the Ducks could be in the playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: until the NHL (being the final arbiter of who's in and who's out) says they're out, they cannot me marked as out (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think failing to assume the possibility of an absurd scenario is useful here. I also don't agree that WP:CRYSTAL applies in the way you've presented it. The games will get played, and we all know that. If you have to take an argument to an unrealistic level, I think that argues more for reality: there is no possible way Anaheim can qualify for the playoffs. Reso lute 18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how crystal works. That until something is assured to happen even if those possibilities are unlikely we don't make assumptions. We all saw the plane crash that happened at the beginning of the year. So we all know its possible some of those games might not get played. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I detail an analysis of the Ducks still being able to qualify with a 0.05% or less chance below, I wanted to respond to this.

We do indeed know that the 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster occurred September 7, 2011 (the coincidence of this being four days before the ten year anniversary of the WTC events just hit me, though terrorism had nothing to do with this incident), literally taking an entire team out of a season and causing the single biggest tragedy in the world of ice hockey, if not all of sports. Of course, this created breaks in every team's schedule where games would not be played because of their removal. While it is indeed possible for the Detroit Red Wings to board a plane and travel to play the St. Louis Blues and crash in Nashville en route...it's unreasonable to not mark a team as eliminated as they are considered eliminated by all media outlets until such an event occurs that puts Anaheim right back in the race. CycloneGU (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for any sequence of games until the end of the season, even after a team is eliminated based on the traditional magic number calculation. I'm not strongly opinionated about including this information, so if the consensus is to wait until the season is over and the playoff teams are named (I don't believe the NHL will make any official statement prior to that regarding elimination), that's fine. However, it would seem to be overly cautious to me, particularly since if such an event came to pass, it would be sufficiently notable for new prose to be added describing the circumstances in detail. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to wait for the NHL, we just need for major newspapers to publish the standings as such. So far they haven't eliminated Anaheim in any of the papers I have seen. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standings table ought to be kept to simple magic numbers and not make assumptions because of certain matchups. With that said, I've reverted Anaheim's elimination for now and will scan the schedule personally; if I find matchups that make it conclusively impossible for Anaheim to advance to 8th or above, then I'll revert myself and add a note regarding it (which can be removed after the magic number situation resolves itself as soon as Wednesday).

My research: Los Angeles at 9th does not enter the equation at all. My second scan reveals that Colorado and Calgary DO play, where a Calgary win gives them 87 points; this is still a tie at 7th assuming everyone else loses. Calgary is thus added to my scan. This makes the Calgary-Los Angeles game on Wednesday force a Los Angeles win to give them 88 points, leaving one opening at 8th (Calgary winning both noted games shoots them above the tie). Scanning Phoenix and Dallas (the latter team being the one I'm watching this season, so I know their schedule), there are no other matchups against teams lower than them that would shoot the winners above the tie. Therefore, there would still be a tie for 8th at 87 points assuming pessemistic results with every team. With that said, some of the games these teams play are against Columbus, having a dismal season, as well as Edmonton (also eliminated). The team playing them will likely win these matchups, but I will not assume such and thus cannot eliminate Anaheim at this point. Please DO NOT place the e next to them for the time being. At this point, only an Anaheim tie or loss or other teams each making 88 points from 8th up will eliminate Anaheim. CycloneGU (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff bracket

It clearly states: "During the first three rounds home ice is determined by seeding number, not position on the bracket. In the Finals the team with the better regular season record has home ice." This also the case at 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs‎, 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs‎ and even 2010–11 NHL season. For a more complete discussion, see Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs#Playoff bracket: Conference Finals ordering of teams. In short. LA stays in the top spot in the third round not because they're the top team but because that's the side of the ladder they're coming from. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I recognize you are right and my own mistake. A more useful example, in that it shows an 8 seed on top, would be the 2006 Stanley Cup Playoffs. Ravendrop 03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011–12 NHL season. 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/20140412022418/http://www.umeatidning.se/bloggar-sm/hockeyblogg/item/raycroft-tackar-for-sig to http://www.umeatidning.se/bloggar-sm/hockeyblogg/item/raycroft-tackar-for-sig

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]