Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs

Speculation

Why are you insisting on adding speculative material? If you don't know who's going to be in the singe cell of the ladder, don't add anything. We'll all know in less than 15 minutes so just hold off. This is against so many different Wikipedia guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IP's will do what IP's will do. Canuck^{89 (click here!)} 04:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

But you did it first ;) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And it's a moot point, until the next round starts. Let's not add two teams in second and subsequent rounds. We can look up the ladder to see who potential opponents may be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One thing further, be careful not to say that the teams have met before in the playoffs since that incorrect. The clubs have met, or possibly the franchises have met, but the teams are the current configurations of players and none of the teams entering the playoffs have entered in their current configurations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Every playoffs we go through this... Jmj713 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. People add ignorant comments every playoff series and I have to point-out how they're miguided. I haven't even started on my trivia rant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, contrary to your own misguided opinions, a team is not just its players at any given moment in history. A team is also that entire franchise and everything that came before it, because it's a continually evolving entity. It's okay to change "team" for "franchise"; to me those terms are interchangeable. But, as we've covered many times in the past, to mention previous playoff matchups is neither trivia nor misguided. It adds historical significance to the article, which otherwise will just be a collection of stats you can see on nhl.com. Jmj713 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got misguided opinions? Wow. I didn't realize trash talk was permitted. What you've said is completely misunderstanding the principles. It's an attempt to compare information such as when two tennis players meet in a final. That gives us a clear indication of who is and who is not favoured to win because of their recent history. To say that the 1972 incarnation of a team met the 1972 incarnation of a team before not only doesn't give the reader any information relevant to the current match-up, it's just a waste of space, much like most of what sports "writers" create. It may be fair to say what happened during last year's post-season. It's absolutely fair to say what happened during the season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we stop this discussion now, since it's the EXACT SAME one we go through every year? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 16:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I was only using your own words. And team sports are nothing like individual sports, such as tennis. If you don't see the major difference, I can't help you. The information about past playoff matchups between teams, yes, even as far back as 1972, or hell, even 1927, is useful not to gauge the current matchup in 2012, but to give an overall historical perspective. If the same two teams (or franchises, if you like that better) played in the playoffs in 1972 or 1927, why should that not be mentioned? We have lots of rivalry articles which list every playoff matchup and discuss it in detail, as well as listing their overall regular-season record. This, again, has nothing to do with the teams' individual players. It's the teams, period. Jmj713 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should that not be mentioned. Because it's trivial. It's a complete waste of words. It has no bearing on the current series and only indicates that at some point in the past, two clubs with the same name played against each other. If you don't see the major difference, I can't help you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, as last year and the year before, I ask, why should these facts have direct bearing on the current playoffs? Jmj713 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fines and suspensions

Since a current major headline during these playoffs is the inordinate amount of player fines and suspensions, my suggestion is to add a brief section and/or table listing them in a central location, instead of adding them each series summary.[1] Keep in mind that this should only be temporary, and we should re-evaluate the recentism of the content once the playoffs are over, and whether to merge it back into the 2011–12 NHL suspensions and fines page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good choice, but why shouldn't they be listed in each series? The only reason that I can see is if the suspension goes beyond one series. Even in that case, we should look at international association football, particularly the EUFA Champions League where suspensions are earned for receiving too many yellow cards and are applied to the next game regardless of who the opponent will be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to have a central location is the overall current headline that there seems to be an inordinate amount of player fines and suspensions during the first round. If you want to keep each individual one listed in each series instead of one table, that might be fine, but will can still include a sentence or two in the lead section or at the beginning of the conf. quarterfinals section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a separate section could be warranted. Right now we have series descriptions that mainly focus on these suspendable plays, and say almost nothing about the hockey games themselves. Jmj713 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Refs

I am extremely impressed with the quantity of refs already present in the article. Compared to the to previous years, this article is already better referenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

flags for the stat leaders

Flags. Country flags. They should be added to the stat leaders section. More comprehensive. Other non-international event sports leagues have them, example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Premier_League#Season_statistics. Consensus. I am here to change it. So on and so forth. Slaja (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, this issue comes up every year (see Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs#Flags for example, which you yourself started last year). Consensus is to not use them on the Stanley Cup playoff articles. Per MOS:FLAG - "Don't emphasize nationality without good reason." Nationality has little relevance compared to what team they play for when competing for the Cup. I should also add that most of the American and Canadian media and reliable sources covering the NHL also seem to not put too much emphasis on each player's nationality either, so why should we do it here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Consensus is relevant here because as I cited other leagues do it. MOS:FLAG does not completely rule out the possibility.

2. It does have relevance because players are products of countries, some play hockey for their countries, and it is useful information to the readers. (This roughly similar to what the wiki premiership article cites as well.)

3. On the NHL.com website itself it identifies players by nationality in the statistics section.

Slaja (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the NHL uses it the way you propose to use it here. These are just the leaders. On the NHL stats leader page, they only state the nationality of the leader. I don't see it on [2], which is more like our usage, and the NHL book Total Stanley Cup and their Media Guides don't list it. Your basic arg is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you have a better argument? Is it important to readers internationally? Something like that, explained, would go some way to changing consensus. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.nhl.com/ice/statshome.htm is what I'm referring to. my argument is outlined in my initial comment and in point 2 of my 2nd comment. Slaja (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussed and rejected last year as against WP:MOSFLAG: Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs#Flags. Since it's still against MOSFLAG I'd say no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And your example only has the nationality (and not the flag) of the single leader in each category. Flags are not supported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not against MOS:FLAG. As I have demonstrated other leagues on Wikipedia use them. It comes down to consensus, and you are not the only person involved here. 2012 is not 2011. Slaja (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Major League Soccer (a North American league) also uses flags in the statistics section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Major_League_Soccer_season#Statistical_leaders Slaja (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MOSFLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons, specifically the clarity section, which states it is okay not to have flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox, inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. Thus, your argument about other leagues having no problem with flags does not hold up with the MOS. Canuck^{89 (click here!)} 21:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I understand that. People have made it perfectly clear that my citing examples of comparable situations does not translate to a change. But to reiterate my citing these examples is part of my case which is trying to change consensus on this issue. No where in MOS:FLAG does it say that we cannot use flags in this situation, and further other leagues do it. Therefore consensus is the only issue here. Not MOS:FLAG. Slaja (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Major League Soccer are doing this because European football articles do. In both instances the number of foreign players permitted on a team is limited and so when a Dutch footballer is at or near the top of the English Premier League's scoring race, it's a big deal. Because there is no foreign content rule in the NHL, it's a non-issue.

What are you trying to show with the flags? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What? That's not true at all. There are no "foreign content" rules in MLS, and that reason is not the one cited by the wiki page. Sounds like you literally just made that up. As I said the purpose is that it is useful information to the readers to know where the player was trained and what international sides they may play on/be eligible for. Slaja (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That is what the individual player articles and the team rosters are for. Much like the WP:OVERLINK rules, we should not make it difficult for the reader and put excessive flag icons when they have less relevance here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

@Slaja You just called me a liar. I'm not. That's the way it was explained to me. See Domestic/International in http://www.mlssoccer.com/2012-mls-roster-rules : "In 2012, a total of 152 international slots are divided among the 19 clubs" and "remaining roster slots must belong to domestic players." Perhaps you were mistaken about foreign content rules. There have also been discussions about removing player's nationality flag from the MLS articles and this was the reason given to me. WP:AGF --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

'Scoring' vs 'Skaters'

I'd like some input as to titling of the Statistics section. I think that using 'Skaters' should be changed to 'Scoring'. 1) Skaters is not a statistic 2) Scoring includes assists 3) Scoring is consistent with goaltending and 4) we use scoring in the other hockey articles. I'll abide by the consensus. Have a say! ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Always has been skaters (as opposed to goaltenders) in the playoffs starting with the 2002 playoffs. Which playoff articles support #4 "we use scoring in the other hockey articles" since it doesn't seem to be the case? If you mean the regular season, that's because only scoring and not the assists are listed.

Another point, the reference we use, http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm#?navid=nav-sts-indiv , states that these are statistics for "2011-2012 - Playoffs - Skater - Summary - Points" most likely because it's not just goals scored but lists assists too. Would love to see shots blocked as a stat, with a WP:RS.

So unless you're suggesting removing assists, it should remain what the NHL uses: skaters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at all the NHL seasons articles and all the team seasons articles and the stanley cup finals articles. That's what I am referring to. Besides, scoring includes assists. Skating is not a statistic. Skater is a person (forwards and defencemen in this case). We're not including shots, time on ice, shooting percentage, takeaways, giveaways, all those other stats the NHL refers to. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Stanley Cup Finals articles don't use the term "scorer"; rather, the tables are titled "Scoring summary" and "Penalty summary", with "goal" and "player" being the primary headings. In addition, since our reference is from the NHL's website, which itself uses skater, I say stick with that. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Skater because that is how we explain what they are on the ice hockey page and that is what NHL.com uses. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for scoring. I mean, as ludicrous as it may sound, a goaltender could hypothetically earn enough points to warrant inclusion on the list, in which case saying "skaters" would be completely inaccurate. It's not just skaters that have the ability to score a point. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally goaltenders don't get included in the scoring summary though even if they do get a point. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Format for eliminated teams

What are peoples feelings about adding the <del></del> format for eliminated teams? I wanted to get oppinions if it would make things look clearer on who advanced rather than just bolding the winner.--♣ B2project ♣^(Talk) 03:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for this. I think the current presentation does the job just fine to show who has been eliminated. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think bolding the winner is simple and clear enough to indicate who moves on. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen a sport that uses strike-through to indicate eliminated teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stats formatting

Bold the players who are still in the competition as we did last year? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but wait until the first round is totally complete. That way it doesn't given the impression that players on teams still active in the first round (and thus possible to be eliminated) have made it to the second round. Ravendrop 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Goalie ice time threshold

Canuckian: Contrary to your claim edit comments, the NHL does have a threshold for its Goalie leader board and currently its less than 104 minutes, because Halak is included. Maybe you're looking at something different. Check nhl.com off of STATS -> League Leaders -> ALL STATS (below each goalie stat). You may notice Bobrovsky, Hedberg, and Johnson are missing. If you look at the "REPORT" pulldown menus there, most options are all inclusive except "GAA Leaders" and "SV% Leaders", which we are concerned with for our leader table. So yes, the NHL does have an unknown TOI threshold. While its been hypothesized here that its 420 minutes throughout the playoff in past years, I think its actually 360 or 90 minutes per round (See Quick in 2010-11 with 380 min). Your arbitrary 240 min through round 1 is extreme. Thanks TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong section. It's not League Leaders, but rather the section "Individuals" that we use as our reference. And we use 420 minutes, as that means a goalie would have played seven games. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 22:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is we?. You argued that the nhl doesn't have any threshold. I showed that they did, yet, you that you insist on using your own arbitrary qualifications? Even if we go by the eventual 420 min guess/consensus that was agreed upon a few years ago and that you reference, your 240 would be proportionate to mid 3rd round. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason 420 minutes is picked at the end of the playoffs is because that represents a goalie playing one full series (seven games). 240 minutes represents the minimum 4 games a goalie would have to play to make it to the second round. Thus, upon the conclusion of the second round, we can set the threshold to 420, as two rounds gives a minimum of eight games. Plus, notice that in our reference, the likes of Allen and Hedberg occupy spots 1 and 4, yet Allen only spent 1 minute on ice. That this is why we have to use a minimum threshold, because the NHL doesn't on that page.Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

we have to use a minimum threshold, because the NHL doesn't on that page. Then why are you using that page?????????? Your argument just changed from "The NHL doesn't have a threshold" to "I'm going to make up my own qualifications, because I'm ignoring that other NHL page that gives me the info." Look, the threshold thing is a subjective matter. Where did you come up with the 240 minutes? We can use a threshold more in line with the NHL, TSN, The Hockey News (yeah theirs is actually slightly higher: Halak is out at 104, but Loungo is in at 117, but its close), or we can use whatever you arbitrarily decide. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I told you in my comment above where we got our minute thresholds. 240 min = 4 games, 420 min = 7 games. Also, since every team still in the playoffs has played at least 7 games by now, we can bump the threshold up to 420 minutes, like in this edit. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 23:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Canucks haven't played seven and so this arbitrarily removes Schneider. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask what YOUR reasoning was behind the 240 minutes, I asked where did you get it? Or is it your own methodology? I demonstrated where mine came from, just asking for reciprocation. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If I don't get a response soon, I'm going to edit the table to be in line with [3]. thanks TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so troubled by the 420 minute threshold? It's the threshold we've been using for years, and is the one listed for the goalie stats on all previous Stanley Cup playoff pages. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 13:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. The 420 number is what we guessed the nhl was using a few seasons ago. I think we may want to tweak it to something lower (see Quick, Fluery, and Miller last year [4]). It never came into play before, but this year it could with Anderson at 418 (7 full games, minus being pulled for an extra attacker). But that's not my contention with your edits. The 420 (or whatever) is the eventual threshold at the end of the playoffs. I've demonstrated that its common practice to have a rolling threshold that proportionate to the completed round of play at somewhere around 90-100min per round. Your rolling threshold of 240 after 1 round and now suddenly the entire 420 minutes roughly 2 games later is disproportionate and is misleading. Furthermore, you have yet to offer any evidence that your methodology is based on anything other than your own arbitrary rationale. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: the origin of the 420 number Talk:2010_Stanley_Cup_playoffs#Goalie_minimum_minutes. Also note the agreement to following along with the nhl as the playoffs progress. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited the goalie leaders to a minimun of 420 minutes before reading this discussion. Feel free to revert my edit if you feel the matter hasn't been resolved at this point. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

100 minutes (1.5 games) is a really low number when we are on the cusp of beginning the third round, as teams will have played 10-14 games, so we need a somewhat high number so the stats aren't skewed toward goalies who haven't played a lot of games. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 06:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the NHL will bump their threshold up at the conclusion of this round. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously: You've dodged all my questions, threw some at me (which I responded to promptly). I gave you days to explain before I set it back in line to NHL.com, yet as soon I do you revert back. Just demonstrate where reliable sources use the same methodology as you while the playoffs are in progress and this is a dead issue. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, there is no need to demonstrate a WP:RS that shows the 420 minute threshold. If the Wikipedia community decides to leave it at 420 minutes, then that is where it will be left at. At this stage in the playoffs, it is inconceivable as to why we would include goaltenders who have played any number of minutes. By your point, we should be including Jake Allen and his impeccable 0.00 GAA from his 1 minute and 7 seconds of playoff minutes. You keep arguing this NHL website point, but the simple fact is, every year this discussion comes up. Honestly, go back every Stanley Cup playoffs article over the last 5 years and its there. The idea for the 420 number came from the NHL, however, that idea became a consensus to just do it regardless of what the NHL is doing. In the past, they've cut off goalies as the playoffs progressed. For some reason, they haven't done that this year. That doesn't change the consensus that has been discussed over the last 5 years of these articles. FYI, the origin for the 420 number does not come from the 2010 article. It predates that (was discussed in 2009, a different threshold was discussed in 2008). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 14:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No, i don't want Allen on the table and I agree with a number close to 420 as the EVENTUAL THRESHOLD. Contrary to what you claim, The NHL is indeed cutting off as they progress [5]: no Bob, Johnson, Hedberg, or Allen. I stated multiple times in this thread, as of right now mid way through the 2nd round, we should have a proportional rolling threshold as does the NHL and most media outlets. If we just hid the table until the end of the playoffs, I won't care. By updating this table every night, we make this table a source of the current goalie situation, and right now Schnieder, Halak, and even Anderson have been among the top performers. A month from now? Probably not, but that's not what we choose to report. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I was a hold-out but it's time to go to 420 minutes now that we've got two second round series' in the can. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting this: So the NHL has upped its threshold to something close to 420 minutes and my main issue with the table is no longer relevant [6]. As mentioned before the 420 minutes has been the consensus number here based off of guessing as to what the NHL unpublished threshold is. I have been in those discussions over the years and am in agreement with the consensus threshold: for the past 4-5 years or so our number has produced results that reflected the NHL's final table. This year however, Craig Anderson is on the NHL's leaderboard with 418 minutes. Corey Crawford gets cut off 395 min. If Anderson stays in the top 5 in the NHL's table, I propose we discuss tweaking the 420 number. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

schedule?

What is the schedule of each round? The starting day of playoffs is in the header, but I'd like to see the latest possible Stanley Cup finals date there also. 85.217.23.162 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Schedule for the Stanley Cup Finals won't be released until Conference Finals are complete and we know which teams will be competing in the Stanley Cup Finals. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand that idea a bit further, since the teams don't know if they'll be playing in the next round they cannot reserve their home arenas and as multi-use facilities, they may encounter conflicts in scheduling. Each round lasts approximately two weeks but can be shorter if there are concurrent sweeps or short series'. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Could not have known that. Back here we have ice hockey-specific arenas and even the playoff dates are announced at the beginning of the regular season. The dates may change later, but that is quite rare. 85.217.20.25 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the arenas here in North America are multipurpose. They may also be the home arenas for other teams, or may also host numerous concerts and other events. The owners of these arenas would prefer to book as many events as possible in advance rather than risk having their buildings be unused for more than a month. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Playoff bracket width

Could the width of the area for each team be widened so that teams with longer names (e.g., Washington Capitals) can still fit on one line? Or is this something that cannot be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgchase (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The width of the field is dependant on the width of your browser. I just ran a quick test. Using the default skin, known as Vector, the first column doesn't wrap until the width of my browser reached 923 pixels wide. Most web sites aim for a standard rendering at 1024 pixels wide. I suppose we could use a {{nowarap}} template, but what if they make it to the finals? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Swept a 2 game series?

The wording just looks funny to me. I am referring to the 2 times that Jersey and LA met in the regular season. I don't really care how it is worded, but does it look ok to you people?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110424114128/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/2011/hockey/nhl/04/19/tv-contract.ap/index.html?eref=sihp to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/hockey/nhl/04/19/tv-contract.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Kings first round

A number 8 seed creamed a number one seed. The reason had a lot to do with the fact that the team's record was not reflective of actual capability and post Sutter record was reflective. Therefore relevant to this section. Will replace and please create constructive edits to these constructive edits. 70.187.192.243 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This has no relevance to this article. It does have some relevance in this article though. Deadman137 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Clear relevance but you could make a different claim such as "no place" is that what you mean?70.187.192.243 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)