GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[Bmwolf21]

Take away an insurance goal and a team dead in the water still has life. It's a lot easier to score 1 goal in the final minute than 2. Tack on an insurance goal and perhaps the other team becomes flat. Don't tack it on and perhaps the other team plays as though their life depends on it and scores. The point is, you can't play the "what if" game.

Bingo. The only sport I know of where you play the "what if" game is baseball, WRT ERA's and earned versus unearned runs.

 

Connolly whacked Campbell's stick to make him lose control of the puck. A trick that really works in hockey, I can tell you firsthand!

Great avatar!

 

Season is way to long to have 20 minute OT............Maybe 10 min and a tie for each team.

Sounds good to me.

 

The point is, with or without the insurance goal, the game would have ended. If you are sitting 20:00 into the third with a 3-1 win, you could take away that third goal (or the second) and the outcome is the same. Sure, it gave the other team less of a chance to come back (maybe not if it was an EN at 19:59), but the game is over and they didn't get a second goal of their own. There is no more time for "what ifs". With or without the extra goal, that's it; no more time. Talking about how differently they would have played is changing time already played.

 

The same is not true for the shootout. Take away either goal and the game would not have ended where it did. Both were required to end the game after two rounds. Without Roy's goal (or Kotalik's), there's a third round. Kotalik's goal was not sufficient to end the game when it did. Period. Call it a "what if", but it's time that wasn't played and the reason it wasn't was Roy's goal (at least as much as Kotalik's) put it out of reach (which is technically not true with an insurance goal, which only makes it harder to come back, not impossible as Roy's goal does here.) Basically, the Sabres won the shootout with a score of "at least two" to "no more than one", not 2-0 because a shootout is three round, not all of which were completed.

 

It would be like saying that you can't score more than one goal per period in regulation, so if you have a two-goal lead after two, we won't bother playing the third period. Who's goal is the game winner? With just the first, they play 20 more minutes where the other team has a chance to even it up. Both goals are equally necessary to end it early and secure the win. Both players should share the game winner.

 

This may be a case where we have to agree to disagree because, to me, logically Kotalik's goal was not sufficient to win it and, therefore, Roy and Kotalik are both equally responsible for winning the game (unlike an insurance goal.)

You're still playing the "what if" and applying it to a non-traditional game situation. I also think your hypothetical situation re: scoring two in the first two periods and not playing the third is a very big stretch to say the least. Unlike a regulation NHL game, which consists of three 20-minute periods, the shootout is a "best of three" not a three-round situation.

 

You do have a point about Roy's goal being equally important, but it doesn't change the fact that Kotalik's goal is the margin of victory because the Panthers scored no goals. Whether the Panthers' third shooter may or may not have scored is irrelevant.

[deluca67]

I love the shootouts. What I hate are the loser points. Get rid of them. Get rid of the whole point system. The only thing that should count in the standings are wins. If a team doesn't have the skill players to win a shootout they will go balls to the wall for the win.

[That Aud Smell]

what is the "received wisdom" on why the league persists with the illogical 2/1/0 (or 2/0/1) tiering rather than going with the far more logical 3/0:2/1 tiering? is the leading theory that the owners like it because it keeps more teams in playoff contention for a longer stretch of the season? other theories?

 

the article that was linked on how SOL's don't actually affect the standings didn't, from what i saw, address whether and how the standings would shake out differently under a 3/0: 2/1 system. (even so, it would be a fallacy to assess that issue based on the current standings because the teams aren't playing with the requisite incentive of a 3-point game.)

[carpandean]

You do have a point about Roy's goal being equally important, but it doesn't change the fact that Kotalik's goal is the margin of victory because the Panthers scored no goals. Whether the Panthers' third shooter may or may not have scored is irrelevant.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, because whether the third shooter would or would not have scored is very relevant to determine who had the game winner. More to the point, the possibility that a third shooter could have scored means that we don't know who's goal was the real game winner. It's not so much a case of what if as it is a case of we don't need to know because the combination of Roy's and Kotalik's goals means that we don't need to know to decide which team won. The Sabres were guaranteed the best of three because they had both goals. If you win a best of seven series 4-2, do you call the third win the series winning game because the other team only won two?

[MattPie]

That's how it used to be, 2 points to none. I believe the league reasoning in guaranteeing one point if you got to overtime was teams used to be incredibly conservative in overtime to avoid giving up the 1 point for a tie. The wanted teams to open up a bit in the extra period. Obviously that was before the shootout came into being, which I can't stand. I am a fan of the 3 point regulation win.

 

I thought for a moment I was the only one here that remembered the horrible 5-minute overtimes before the 1-point-guarenteed rule. Two teams playing in a defensive shell dumping the puck into each others end for five minutes.

 

I like the symmetry of the 3:0/2:1 system though. I don't think dinosaurs would like it, since you'd have teams with 140 points at the end of the season and "that's just not right".

[shrader]

They stick with the 2 point win simply out of tradition, which is funny since the shootout itself was a major deviation from tradition. But anyway, I say it every time this argument comes up and I'll say it again. I want continuous OT in the regular season. 4-on-4 would be fine if they want to continue to have that special feel they have now for playoff OT games.

[ROC Sabres]

Lets just change the OT period to a 1 on 1 3-bar match!!!

[Bmwolf21]

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, because whether the third shooter would or would not have scored is very relevant to determine who had the game winner. More to the point, the possibility that a third shooter could have scored means that we don't know who's goal was the real game winner. It's not so much a case of what if as it is a case of we don't need to know because the combination of Roy's and Kotalik's goals means that we don't need to know to decide which team won. The Sabres were guaranteed the best of three because they had both goals. If you win a best of seven series 4-2, do you call the third win the series winning game because the other team only won two?

We're going to have agree to disagree, because there is no way you're going to convince me that playing the "what if" game should impact who is credited with the Game Deciding Goal, especially by pulling in questionable analogies.

 

FWIW, I also think that some consideration needs to be given to the term "Game DECIDING Goal" as opposed to Game Winning Goal.

[carpandean]

We're going to have agree to disagree, because there is no way you're going to convince me that playing the "what if" game should impact who is credited with the Game Deciding Goal, especially by pulling in questionable analogies.

OK, but I will leave it at this: neither a "what if" argument nor the, admittedly questionable, analogies are necessary to make my argument. Without the third shooter taking his shot, you cannot answer the question of which goal gave them the win. Kotalik's goal is not sufficient to win a best of three after just two rounds. Plain and simple. The don't play the third round because all possible outcomes yield the same results at a team level. However, not all outcomes yield the same result at a player stat level, so you cannot say who deserves the game winner. It is as arbitrary to give it to the first shooter as it would be to give it to the second. The only fair method would be to give each a 1/2 (or I suppose 1, but that would be weird.)

[Bmwolf21]

OK, but I will leave it at this: neither a "what if" argument nor the, admittedly questionable, analogies are necessary to make my argument. Without the third shooter taking his shot, you cannot answer the question of which goal gave them the win. Kotalik's goal is not sufficient to win a best of three after just two rounds. Plain and simple. The don't play the third round because all possible outcomes yield the same results at a team level. However, not all outcomes yield the same result at a player stat level, so you cannot say who deserves the game winner. It is as arbitrary to give it to the first shooter as it would be to give it to the second. The only fair method would be to give each a 1/2 (or I suppose 1, but that would be weird.)

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the second goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT NOT score on his final attempt? Or award each player a 1/2 GDG?

 

It's not arbitrary, not matter how much you want to keep saying "but what if?"

[carpandean]

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the second goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT NOT score on his final attempt? Or award each player a 1/2 GDG?

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT NOT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the first goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT score on his final attempt?

 

Yeah, it's arbitrary.

 

Both goals decided the game, both were necessary to the win, neither was individually sufficient to end it after two rounds. Giving it to one or the other does not stand up to logic. There is an unrealized event that does affect who had the game winner. Without that realization, you can't say who won it, so it is, indeed, arbitrary, no matter how much you "what if" it. :nana:

[Bmwolf21]

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT NOT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the first goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT score on his final attempt?

 

Yeah, it's arbitrary.

 

Both goals decided the game, both were necessary to the win, neither was individually sufficient to end it after two rounds. Giving it to one or the other does not stand up to logic. There is an unrealized event that does affect who had the game winner. Without that realization, you can't say who won it, so it is, indeed, arbitrary, no matter how much you "what if" it. :nana:

Guess it's time to move on. Neither of us is going to convince the other, no matter how wrong you are. :nana:

[carpandean]

Guess it's time to move on. Neither of us is going to convince the other, no matter how wrong you are. :nana:

Oh no you di'n't!! :angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;)

[Bmwolf21]

Oh no you di'n't!! :angry:

;)

:lol:

 

:chris:

 

 

:thumbsup:

[wjag]

We're going to have agree to disagree, because there is no way you're going to convince me that playing the "what if" game should impact who is credited with the Game Deciding Goal, especially by pulling in questionable analogies.

 

FWIW, I also think that some consideration needs to be given to the term "Game DECIDING Goal" as opposed to Game Winning Goal.

 

 

OK, but I will leave it at this: neither a "what if" argument nor the, admittedly questionable, analogies are necessary to make my argument. Without the third shooter taking his shot, you cannot answer the question of which goal gave them the win. Kotalik's goal is not sufficient to win a best of three after just two rounds. Plain and simple. The don't play the third round because all possible outcomes yield the same results at a team level. However, not all outcomes yield the same result at a player stat level, so you cannot say who deserves the game winner. It is as arbitrary to give it to the first shooter as it would be to give it to the second. The only fair method would be to give each a 1/2 (or I suppose 1, but that would be weird.)

 

 

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the second goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT NOT score on his final attempt? Or award each player a 1/2 GDG?

 

It's not arbitrary, not matter how much you want to keep saying "but what if?"

 

 

So you want to take the GDG away from the player who scores the deciding goal based on the idea that the losing team's third shooter MIGHT NOT score on their final attempt, and give to it a player who scores the first goal despite the fact that the losing team's final shooter MIGHT score on his final attempt?

 

Yeah, it's arbitrary.

 

Both goals decided the game, both were necessary to the win, neither was individually sufficient to end it after two rounds. Giving it to one or the other does not stand up to logic. There is an unrealized event that does affect who had the game winner. Without that realization, you can't say who won it, so it is, indeed, arbitrary, no matter how much you "what if" it. :nana:

 

 

Guess it's time to move on. Neither of us is going to convince the other, no matter how wrong you are. :nana:

 

 

Oh no you di'n't!! :angry:

;)

 

 

:lol:

 

:chris:

:thumbsup:

Bored gentlemen? Or is this just an attempt to puff up your post counts?

[carpandean]

Bored gentlemen? Or is this just an attempt to puff up your post counts?

Well, I keep trying to gain on him, but he keeps responding one-for-one. How will I ever make up that 2,700?! :(

[Bmwolf21]

Bored gentlemen? Or is this just an attempt to puff up your post counts?

Can't it be both? :thumbsup:

 

Well, I keep trying to gain on him, but he keeps responding one-for-one. How will I ever make up that 2,700?! :(

Gotcha again.

[carpandean]

Gotcha again.

Damn you!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your turn. :thumbsup:

[Bmwolf21]

Damn you!

Your turn. :thumbsup:

Done.

 

The ball is back in your court. :beer:

[shrader]

:lol:

 

:chris:

:thumbsup:

 

:death:

[carpandean]

The ball is back in your court. :beer:

[Bmwolf21]

Well played. You'll go one up after this one, since I have to get going in a few minutes.

[Eleven]

No, carp was referring to a different 10 goals. He was referring to Kotalik's newly set NHL record of 10 shootout deciding goal. It's just a coincidence that he currently has 9 regular goals this season.

 

Now I see what's going on. Well, congrats to Ales for a record that probably doesn't mean a lot to a lot of people, but I guess it's something. I'll join with those folks above who want to abandon the shootout altogether. 3 for a win and 1 for a tie does it for me, and the game can be over in 60 mins.

[carpandean]

Well played. You'll go one up after this one, since I have to get going in a few minutes.

 

I...AM...THE...GREATEST!

[wonderbread]

Learn how to follow your team. KNOW WHEN THEY PLAY. Reading a schedule isn't that hard, you know.

 

 

I "KNOW WHEN THEY PLAY" by coming here my authority on Sabres news. So don't you yell at me young man. Otherwise I am booking a flight to Texas.