Saturday, April 22, 2017


A Most Interesting Observation.

Not sure if you have read the book by Stephen Cole "The Last Hurrah' of the final pre-expansion season of 1966-67 but anyway within it many members of those great Hawk teams of the 60s (Hull, Hall, etc) lament how they were often the best team in the league but failed to 'prove it' in the playoffs. Particularly in 66-67 when they dominated but lost to the Leafs in round 1. Which brings up another 'thing' of mine that has developed as I age, the thought that playoffs themselves are arguably BS that they do not crown a real champion that has had to prove itself over the long haul of a regular season only to lose in a crapshoot of 4-of-7 series or sudden-death games depending on sport. Euro soccer has never to my knowledge had playoffs, you win the league you are are the champ and though that is foreign to North America (even in modern day soccer the MLS) it is arguably more pure. I just again as I age dislike how the regular season in any sport is treated as some sort of prelim. Look at baseball - nowadays you can have a World Series champ that won a one-shot wild card playoff game then a 3-of-5 series then two 4-of-7 series with an overall record of 12-8 and be World Series champions? well yes, champs but are they the best team? doubtful. you have maybe 2 solid good pitchers and you can win it all. seems unfair somehow compared to a team that wins 100 games due to depth everywhere over long haul. For me, I look at it that way; there's a playoff champ and a reg. season champ and if they are both, like last year's Cubs, more power to them and good for them. For teams that scrape into titles well good for you, you're champs of a 20 or so game season but I'll also recognize the champ of the 162-game or 82-game or whatever season.
 Karlo Berkovitch

Points well taken; however, there is money to be made in all playoff series. The nature of the beast.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?