The coaches.

they are not. Even though the Bruins currently have more points with less games played, I feel as though you're not grasping what Dan and I are saying about the relative weakness of the Canadian division.
When crappy teams play each other over and over someone will be bound to have a winning record. This should not be confused with being a good team.
Bruins have won the President's trophy and made it to game 7 of the Cup Finals over the past 2 seasons while Montreal has finished 5th and 4th within their division the past two seasons.

 

My high school football team went 32-0 during my four years. In my last season, only one team scored on us - and they scored twice to make the final 51-14; thank God I was not on the field for those aberrant scores.

Should I compare that team to an NFL team?

Obviously not. I use this extreme (extremely ridiculous) example to highlight Matty’s point - you cannot make a valid comparison between teams that have zero common opponents.

Stop even trying to compare the North division to the East. We can look to other factors to help define the relative quality of teams. (Just like it’s possible to contrast H.S. football to the NFL.) But things such a Pts. total are misleading, to understate this point. If several of your divisional foes are weak, and if the defensive prowess is deficient, then a few of the teams will rack up points galore. And players will score more than they would if they faced true defenses.

 

Mercy killing in Buffalo. No word on who Kim Pegula’s next victim - err, coach - will be.