deluca67 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Only 8 teams in the league are under .500 right now, because of point inflation from the loser point? F that nonsensical mess. Do you give a full two points to a team just because they're the better team in 5 minutes of 4-on-4 or shootout? F that gimmicky ######. There's a reason the reasons the playoffs are 5-on-5. Determine the outcome of a game by continuing to play the same game game: 5-on-5 overtime. If you don't want a regular season Nashville-Columbus game going into 3OT, I get it. Go back to a 5 or 10 minute OT. Only if you confuse point percentage with winning percentage. Right now there are only 14 teams currently above .500. 16 teams are currently .500 and below.
LabattBlue Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 #1 goes hand in hand with getting rid of the zamboni before the shootout. I hate the break in action. 4. Disagree strongly. Did you like the boring, safe late 3rd period and OT periods in the bad old days? They would return if you took away the loser point. Make all games 3 point games if you want, but don't take away the loser point or the coaches will suck the fun out of the format you are proposing. Huh? Coaches play it safe now in the 3rd period BECAUSE they want the loser point they gain if they make it to OT. A 4-4 tie with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd. Where is the incentive for a team to try and win in regulation?
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 They are never going to get rid of the loser point or go with three points for a win. The system now makes it appear that more teams in the mix technically until later in the season.
korab rules Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 #1 goes hand in hand with getting rid of the zamboni before the shootout. I hate the break in action. Huh? Coaches play it safe now in the 3rd period BECAUSE they want the loser point they gain if they make it to OT. A 4-4 tie with 5 minutes to go in the 3rd. Where is the incentive for a team to try and win in regulation? You really don't remember what hockey looked like before the lockout, do you? In a tie game with five minutes left no one forechecked. Dump the puck in and stack five guys in the neutral zone. OT wasn't much better.
SwampD Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 You really don't remember what hockey looked like before the lockout, do you? In a tie game with five minutes left no one forechecked. Dump the puck in and stack five guys in the neutral zone. OT wasn't much better. So, you think the current system is better? I do. They might still play for a tie at the end of regulation, but at least they play for a win in OT.
Weave Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 They are never going to get rid of the loser point or go with three points for a win. The system now makes it appear that more teams in the mix technically until later in the season. This is key right here. More teams close = more fans watching the games later in the season.
IKnowPhysics Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Only if you confuse point percentage with winning percentage. Right now there are only 14 teams currently above .500. 16 teams are currently .500 and below. Precisely. But a byproduct of the loser's point is that the concept of winning percentage has become statistically useless in common terms. Making the playoffs isn't about winning percentage, it's about points percentage, and when some games are worth two points and some are divvied up into three points, it convolutes the rankings. If you rank all teams in the league by winning percentage, you would see a large departure from ranking them by points percentage. Currently, only 11 teams would be unaffected ranking this way and several teams would be ranked significantly differently. Florida's rank would drop seven spots (and that has nothing to with division leader), Dallas would be up five, LA Kings down six. Is is right that a team that wins more games (higher winning percentage) gets a higher standing than a team that has a higher points percentage (more games taken to OT)? Luckily and thankfully, the real result isn't often affected this way. You have to reach back to 2007-2008 to find a team that has more wins and gets edged out of the playoffs by a team that has more ties (Carolina 43-33-6 finishes 9th in the east with 92 points, 49-21-12 Boston finishes 8th with 94).
bunomatic Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I'm with you on this. The shame of tying should be enough to motivate teams to try and win the game. This whole OT/shootout thing makes the last minutes of regulation pointless. Play for the win or don't. It's up to them. If the game ends in a tie how about no one gets points. Both teams walk away with nada, zip, ziltch, zero points. This should be enough incentive not to play for the tie which imo is the absolutely worst way to end a contest-with no victor.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 If the game ends in a tie how about no one gets points. Both teams walk away with nada, zip, ziltch, zero points. This should be enough incentive not to play for the tie which imo is the absolutely worst way to end a contest-with no victor. Now that would be funny. I could never see the players union going for it though. Meaningless games? Not a chance.
LabattBlue Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Now that would be funny. I could never see the players union going for it though. Meaningless games? Not a chance. Both teams pull their goalies in an attempt to win? :lol:
bunomatic Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Now that would be funny. I could never see the players union going for it though. Meaningless games? Not a chance. But I see them as meaningless if both teams get 1 point for the tie.Don't give them any points for a tie and they'll not play for a tie. It should open things up ?
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 But I see them as meaningless if both teams get 1 point for the tie.Don't give them any points for a tie and they'll not play for a tie. It should open things up ? But playing for 1 point isn't meaningless. One point in the standings can matter. That's why the point exists. If you make both teams play for zero points they wont do it. It's not worth potential injuries or losing outright in order to gain zero points. Plus, teams would deliberately play to ties in order to prevent other teams from gaining any points in the contest. That would really mess things up.
nfreeman Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 But the same reason you detest the tie is the reason we don't like the current format. Neither encourages a competitive end to the game. Did you not think last night's game had a happy competitive ending? Determine the outcome of a game by continuing to play the same game game: 5-on-5 overtime. If you don't want a regular season Nashville-Columbus game going into 3OT, I get it. Go back to a 5 or 10 minute OT. How does making the OT period shorter solve the problem? Or are you saying you are OK with a tie after a short OT period? Only if you confuse point percentage with winning percentage. Right now there are only 14 teams currently above .500. 16 teams are currently .500 and below. Correct. They are never going to get rid of the loser point or go with three points for a win. The system now makes it appear that more teams in the mix technically until later in the season. Also correct. You really don't remember what hockey looked like before the lockout, do you? In a tie game with five minutes left no one forechecked. Dump the puck in and stack five guys in the neutral zone. OT wasn't much better. 100% agree. it was awful and IMHO the worst thing about pre-lockout hockey. So, you think the current system is better? I do. They might still play for a tie at the end of regulation, but at least they play for a win in OT. Agree, and I would just point out that at least in conference games, the incentive of a regulation win (and denying the other team the point) is enough to make the end of the 3rd period much more competitive than it was pre-lockout.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Did you not think last night's game had a happy competitive ending? I think last night's game was an outlier. Most of these OT-shootout games are not this exciting. Last night both teams really wanted it. That doesn't always happen.
SDS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Keep everything the same, just get rid of the loser point. That is the only issue I have, Play the 5 minutes, go to a shootout and give the winner two points. Loser gets nothing, as it should be. This isn't NASCAR. No OT. No SO. No points for a tie. Play 60 minutes and if no one wins, no one wins. If you want 2 points, play like you want 2 points.
TheChimp Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 1 - PRIOR to the game coaches submit a list of all 18 skaters for the shootout. 2 - OT is changed to 3-3 for 5 minutes(maybe even make it 6 or 7 minutes). Guaranteed there will be a dramatic decrease in number of shootouts, and one heck of an exciting OT. 3 - NO zamboni between OT & the SO. This "stop in play" zaps all life out of the crowd. The ice is the same for both teams. Deal with it. 4 - Get rid of the "loser" point. If you lose in regulation, OT or SO you get NOTHING! FIRE AWAY! Yes please.
SDS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 But playing for 1 point isn't meaningless. One point in the standings can matter. That's why the point exists. If you make both teams play for zero points they wont do it. It's not worth potential injuries or losing outright in order to gain zero points. Plus, teams would deliberately play to ties in order to prevent other teams from gaining any points in the contest. That would really mess things up. I don't think so. Sure it would happen occasionally, but that strategy only gets you so far. Every team needs points, most games will be played as such.
X. Benedict Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I seem to be in the minority on this one. I don't think it is broken. The system has led to more meaningful games in the Spring. The problem in my mind is too many games a season. 15 less games a year would make for much better on-ice product.
bunomatic Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I don't think so. Sure it would happen occasionally, but that strategy only gets you so far. Every team needs points, most games will be played as such. In a game thats tied with regulation winding down, i.e. with 10 minutes left in the game give 3 points to the winner instead of the usual 2 points they might get if they won 2-1 as they do now. This guarantees both teams go for it in the last 10 minutes to try and get 3 points instead of 2 if they win normally or 0 if they lose.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 In a game thats tied with regulation winding down, i.e. with 10 minutes left in the game give 3 points to the winner instead of the usual 2 points they might get if they won 2-1 as they do now. This guarantees both teams go for it in the last 10 minutes to try and get 3 points instead of 2 if they win normally or 0 if they lose. I don't follow. I don't think so. Sure it would happen occasionally, but that strategy only gets you so far. Every team needs points, most games will be played as such. Yes, but it's not about getting your own team very far. It's about screwing the other guy. Picture the playoff race where your team is out and trying to play spoiler. Maybe you're more prone to playing to a tie in games against teams you are rivals with in order to mess with their playoff chances. It's too risky to be a good idea, because it'd get abused.
SDS Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, but it's not about getting your own team very far. It's about screwing the other guy. Picture the playoff race where your team is out and trying to play spoiler. Maybe you're more prone to playing to a tie in games against teams you are rivals with in order to mess with their playoff chances. It's too risky to be a good idea, because it'd get abused. Don't buy into conspiracy theories. The Colts weren't purposely losing to get Luck and no NHL team is going to go for a tie instead of a win just because they ewant to play spoiler.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Don't buy into conspiracy theories. The Colts weren't purposely losing to get Luck and no NHL team is going to go for a tie instead of a win just because they ewant to play spoiler. Conspiracy theories? So you admit it would happen once in a while but not that it has a potential to be abused?
bunomatic Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I don't follow. Yes, but it's not about getting your own team very far. It's about screwing the other guy. Picture the playoff race where your team is out and trying to play spoiler. Maybe you're more prone to playing to a tie in games against teams you are rivals with in order to mess with their playoff chances. It's too risky to be a good idea, because it'd get abused. It is confusing even to me but what I'm saying is if a game is tied with say 10 minutes to go during that window make the win worth 3 points instead of the regular 2 to give both teams an incentive to go for it on the chance they can win 3 points instead of the usual 2. Only if the game is tied with 10 minutes to go though. No one will sit back hoping for a tie and 1 point when they can get 3. O.K. now I'm really confused. But thats the idea.
darksabre Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 It is confusing even to me but what I'm saying is if a game is tied with say 10 minutes to go during that window make the win worth 3 points instead of the regular 2 to give both teams an incentive to go for it on the chance they can win 3 points instead of the usual 2. Only if the game is tied with 10 minutes to go though. No one will sit back hoping for a tie and 1 point when they can get 3. O.K. now I'm really confused. But thats the idea. I see where your heart is, but boy is that weird. :D Incentive based points systems?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 It's simple. 3 points available each game. 3 for a regulation win. If OT, 2 to winner 1 to loser. It will encourage good teams to keep the foot on the gas in the last 10 minutes because it will "cost" them a point if it goes to OT instead of "rewarding" them with one.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.