Why Goal Differential Should Matter In Playoff Seeding

Right now there's a three way race for the bottom two seeds in the Eastern Conference between the New York Rangers, Carolina Hurricanes, and Buffalo Sabres. The Sabres hold the seventh seed with 90 points, 79 GP, and a +12 goal differential. Behind them are the Rangers, who hold the eighth seed with 89 points, 79 GP, and a +33 goal differential. Lastly, there are the Hurricans who stand in ninth with 87 points, 79 GP, and a -7 goal differential. Now you may be asking yourselves, why are the Rangers, who have clearly done a better job of, y'know...playing hockey, stuck in a fight for their playoff lives with a former eleventh seed, and the -7 Carolina Hurricanes. A better question is this: Why is there ever a reason that the Sabres should be ahead of the Rangers when the Rangers have won 2 more games.... Alas, you're probably questioning whether this article is wee bit biased. I'll be the first to tell you- it's biased. But with that being said, that doesn't change the validity of the argument. The Rangers have clearly been the best hockey team. They've won more games, but more importantly, they've clearly tried harder for every minute of play. Some may argue that goal differential isn't a good way of measuring quality because some teams either win by a goal or get blown out. Well guess what, if your team is having a season where that's happening consistently, then your team isn't good at hockey. It's not just about wins, it's about overall quality. Wins are a measurement of overall quality, the idea being that if a team is consistently good, it will win games. If a team wins 40 games, but gets thrashed for the other 42, that doesn't indicate skill. All it indicates is that your team has gotten lucky by winning some close ones.

Even look at a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning They have a +2 goal aggregate. You may remember that they were once leading the division with a negative goal differential. You may also remember how that lead didn't last. A team can't truly be good if it's getting pounded every time it loses, and if it only wins 6-5. That's unsustainable. That's why the Dallas Stars and Minnesota Wild are no longer in the playoffs. That's why Tampa lost the division lead. Most importantly, that's why teams like the Sabres, Canes, and Lightning are more likely to crumble in the playoffs then a team like the Rangers, the Blackhawks, or the Kings. At the end of the day, you can tell if a team can play defense by its goal differential. It's all well and good if it can score plenty (like the Lightning), but if it can't keep the puck out of the net, then what's the use. Defense and depth win Stanely Cups. And if your team is winning while letting in more pucks than it's scoring, than your team is going to be in trouble. At a certain point, it becomes tough to tell how reflective goal differential is in demonstrating a team's ability. Phoenix is only +7, but everyone knows they can play defense and win games. At the end of the day, Goal Differential isn't an absolutely perfect stat with which to measure quality. Regardless, things like overall wins should be taken into account, even if goal differential can't be. If it really is about measuring who the best team is, give it to the team that has won the most games, even if you're going to ignore how many times they've been scored on.