The 1 to 16 Format : Redesigning the Playoffs for the NHL and the NBA

If you’ve been following pro sports pretty closely this year, you probably noticed one flagrant similarity between the NHL and the NBA; in both cases, the Western conference was significantly stronger than the Eastern conference. Both the LA Kings and San Antonio Spurs cruised to a title in 5 games against Eastern conference opponents in their respective championship series.

In both leagues, the dominance came from opening night through the final buzzer. In the NHL, the Western conference was almost 6 points or 3 full wins better per team than the East was during the regular season. In the NBA, the West was nearly 8 wins better per team that the East. At 48-34, the Phoenix Suns finished 9th in the East and failed to make the playoffs; they would have been tied for 3rd in the East. Or, to flip the scenario, with the same record, the Toronto Raptors (48-34) would not have made the playoffs in the West.

And this #WestIsBest trend isn’t new – it’s been like this for quite some time now in both leagues. Since Michael Jordan left the Bulls for good in 1999, the NBA’s West teams have been, on average, more than 4 wins per season better than the East teams in the regular season (43.03 wins per season for the West, 38.86 for the East). That’s substantial.

How substantial? Using ESPN’s Estimated Wins Added metric (that measures a player’s value to his team), a difference of 4 wins per year would be like having 2013-2014 Paul George instead of 2013-2014 Rudy Gay at small forward for 15 consecutive years. Imagine that Raptors fans. Either way you look at it, it’s dominance. The East only had one season in the past 15 years with a better combined record than the West, and that was in 2009 (by a fairly small margin, 41.4 average wins to 40.6). The West has won 10 of the 15 championships.

It’s a similar picture in the NHL, where the dominance hasn’t been as imposing as the NBA, but even more consistent in the regular season. In the same 15-year span (since the loser point became a thing in 2000), the West has been better than the East in every single season. West teams have racked up, on average, about 2.5 points more per season than the East. But interestingly enough, the Stanley Cups in that stretch only slightly favour the West, 8-7.

Which brings me to my biggest issue, which is that we need to start rewarding regular season success properly : by having the 16 best teams in the playoffs, regardless of the conference, with the matchups as 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, and so on.

So many reasons to go to this format:

1. It places more importance on the regular season in its entirety. Because home ice and overall seeding are at a premium, teams can’t coast through the year in an easier conference (Pittsburgh Penguins and Miami Heat, we’re looking at you). The Pens were able to rest guys at the end of the season because they had the 2nd seeded pretty much locked in for the final month. But with 1 through 16 seeding, they would’ve had the 5th seed, which means they were only guaranteed home ice for the first round. Furthermore, all inter-conference games become more meaningful because of the playoff race. That outdoor game at Wrigley Field this year between Chicago and Pittsburgh? Could’ve been a mammoth game in the playoff race in this scenario (the Pens finished just 2 points ahead of the Hawks in league standings). Instead, it was kind of a letdown.
2. Better odds at great late-playoff matchups. You always get the chance of having the two best teams facing off in the championship series (Stanley Cup Final or NBA Finals) regardless of their conference. Looking back at this year’s Stanley Cup Playoffs, it’s clear now that the “real” championship series was Chicago-LA. Because the West was that much stronger, the winner of the conference finals was pretty much a lock to win it all. And sure, we may not have had Chicago against Los Angeles in the Cup Finals under this structure, but we probably would have had 2 West teams, which would’ve have been the better hockey matchup.
3. More parity (or at least a fairer draft structure). Here’s where things get interesting, and it’s something we almost never consider. (I’m not taking any credit for this; I heard it from San Antonio Spurs General Manager RC Buford, a man who knows a thing or two about winning in a tough conference, on Grantland’s Lowe Post Podcast). Because the West has been stronger for a while now (in both the NHL and NBA), the teams that are missing the playoffs in the West are usually stronger than those missing in the East. Let’s use the Phoenix Suns as the example again. With 48 wins, the Suns really deserved to make the playoffs, but they didn’t because of their strong conference. In finishing out the playoffs, the Suns now get to draft 14th overall. The Raptors on the other hand, who had the same number of wins as Phoenix (but who were 3rd thanks to a poor conference and division), get the 20th pick. In other words, because the West is so strong, the teams that are missing the playoffs are actually getting to pick higher (and getting better) than they should be. Conversely, the East teams are not only weaker to begin with, they are getting even weaker by drafting from a less favourable position. It’s a vicious cycle that has no end in sight. With 1 through 16 seeding, that issue won’t exist anymore.
4. The opportunity for new rivalries. Heated rivalries are spawned through playoff battles. Red Wings-Avalanche, Bulls-Knicks, Spurs-Lakers, Habs-Bruins, Red Sox-Yankees, and so on. The Leafs and Habs are one of the oldest, but nowadays the rivalry isn’t as strong because they haven’t met in the playoffs since 1979. As it stands right now, there’s a very slim chance that, let’s say, Boston-Chicago would develop a strong (modern) rivalry. But had they met 4 or 5 times in a row in the playoffs, maybe they would have. Wouldn’t you like to see it anyway? Same with guys being traded away; we probably won’t get to see much of anything develop with Jason Spezza’s new team (whenever that comes) and the Senators, but if they could meet in the playoffs, it’d be so much fun. Just look at what this year’s matchups would have been in the first round of the NHL playoffs.

• 1. Boston Bruins vs. 16. Dallas Stars
• 2. Anaheim Ducks vs. 15. Detroit Red Wings
• 3. Colorado Avalanche vs. 14. Columbus Blue Jackets
• 4. St. Louis Blues vs. 13. Philadelphia Flyers
• 5. San Jose Sharks vs. 12. New York Rangers
• 6. Pittsburgh Penguins vs. 11. Minnesota Wild
• 7. Chicago Blackhawks vs. 10. Los Angeles Kings
• 8. Tampa Bay Lightning vs. 9. Montreal Canadiens

Some pretty cool stuff there, including the Tyler Seguin dynamic between the Bruins and Stars, the Tomas Hertl – Joe Thornton – 4 goals thing between the Sharks and Rangers, and of course the Hawks and Kings series (that would’ve come too soon in this case). And I want to think that St. Louis-Philadelphia could be a great matchup, with lots of bad blood, but we may never get to see it under the current format.

In the NBA, it looks like this

• 1. San Antonio Spurs vs. 16. Charlotte Bobcats
• 2. Oklahoma City Thunder vs. 15. Brooklyn Nets
• 3. Los Angeles Clippers vs. 14. Washington Wizards
• 4. Indiana Pacers vs. 13. Phoenix Suns
• 5. Miami Heat vs. 12. Chicago Bulls
• 6. Houston Rockets vs. 11. Toronto Raptors
• 7. Portland Trail Blazers vs. 10. Dallas Mavericks
• 8. Golden State Warriors vs. 9. Memphis Grizzlies

There may not be as many juicy matchups in the first round, but how about LeBron James and the Miami Heat needing to go through (potentially) the Bulls, Pacers, Thunder and Spurs to have a chance at a 3rd straight title (instead of the Bobcats and Nets in the first two rounds)? All the great matchups. What you lose in the first round, you gain in the next three.

It’s not perfect. Nothing is. This format is used in the QMJHL, and generally speaking, the first two rounds are a joke. Lots of sweeps. And although I can imagine the first rounds being less anticlimactic under this format as opposed to what they are now, I don’t think we’d see that level of unbalanced play at the pro level. The difference between best and worst playoff teams in the pros, especially the NHL (cough LA Kings 2012 coiugh) isn’t as significant as it is in junior. You’d still have competitive series.

And some people will point out that it would be unfair if we went to that current format with the current scheduling because you’d play some teams more than others, but I think it’s the opposite. The Phoenix Suns played the Western conference more than the teams in the East did, and they still wound up with as good of a record (or better) than all but 2 teams in the East. If anything, the unbalanced schedule makes it even more obvious that we need to go to this format. I’m way more impressed by the Suns 48-34 record than the Raptors or Bulls 48-34 record.

Again, it’s all about rewarding success and putting a better premium on the regular season. And as it stands right now, we’re not doing it properly.