GAME DISCUSSION THREAD

[carpandean]

If juju is right, sorry about the mis-read, carp.

Yeah, sorry, should have been more clear. I figured that we'd have an early loss in the SO, but the team was in a position (for Lalime) to win it twice (with a save.) Both times, though, he was beaten by nice shots.

 

like a carp on hot asphalt.

:cry:

[TheMadCap]

I agree with many of hte posters in this thead: This Sabres team doesn't give up. The main difference between last year and this year is that you just kind of knew they would blow leads in the third and sleepwalk through games. Miller would give up the softie somewhere. Not this year, I am truly starting to believe that this team can make some noise in the playoffs this year. I just hope we can get through this road trip without crashing and burning.

 

I am really happy with Lalime's play this season since Portland. He did give up the one bad goal (IMO) to Yipper, but other than that, he was pretty good, even though he scared me to death flopping a few times.

 

Now let's go beat on some Western Teams!

[nucci]

A couple thoughts on last night:

 

1.Props to Montador for standing up for Lydman. Which leads me to my next point.

 

2.When Kennedy was digging for the puck behind the Avs net and was crunched by two players, all his linemates did was hover over him and I assume say "Are you ok buddy?" WHEN THE H E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS ARE THESE PLAYERS GONNA GETS SOME BALLS!! For Gods sake even if you are afraid to fight at least shove the other guy or something. It may have been a legal hit but I dont care, stand up for your teammate. :angry:

 

Now I'm pissed, dont know if I can continue. OK deep breath.

 

3. Lalime was flopping around all night like a carp on hot asphalt. I did not like his play at all.

 

4. Mair in the shootoff before Kennedy!!! WTF!!!

 

I'm Done Got more but to pissed off. :censored:

I'm afraid to see how you react when they play a bad game!

[Hawk]

I'm afraid to see how you react when they play a bad game!

 

You dont wanna know.. ;)

 

It just bugs me that this team hasnt put in a full 60 minutes in I dont how long. I dont watch many of other NHL teams besides the sabres, maybe this is a trend in the league, I dont know. Mental mistakes, not standing up for each other, will not bode well for this team in the playoffs. I refuse to be satisfied because they came back last night and stole a point. The Avs are a young team with average goaltending, they should have been all over them the whole game. Last night was pitiful. If you want to give them a pat on the back for that performance then good for you. I just think they have a long way to go.

[nfreeman]

You dont wanna know.. ;)

 

It just bugs me that this team hasnt put in a full 60 minutes in I dont how long. I dont watch many of other NHL teams besides the sabres, maybe this is a trend in the league, I dont know. Mental mistakes, not standing up for each other, will not bode well for this team in the playoffs. I refuse to be satisfied because they came back last night and stole a point. The Avs are a young team with average goaltending, they should have been all over them the whole game. Last night was pitiful. If you want to give them a pat on the back for that performance then good for you. I just think they have a long way to go.

I agree that they didn't put in a full 60 minutes last night, but I think you are selling Colorado short. They played very well last night, with good goaltending, forechecking and team defense. Also, the sabres delivered a complete game effort vs the habs on January 3.

[nucci]

You dont wanna know.. ;)

 

It just bugs me that this team hasnt put in a full 60 minutes in I dont how long. I dont watch many of other NHL teams besides the sabres, maybe this is a trend in the league, I dont know. Mental mistakes, not standing up for each other, will not bode well for this team in the playoffs. I refuse to be satisfied because they came back last night and stole a point. The Avs are a young team with average goaltending, they should have been all over them the whole game. Last night was pitiful. If you want to give them a pat on the back for that performance then good for you. I just think they have a long way to go.

Just remember that there is an opponent out there playing also. They played a full 60 against Montreal recently and also won 6 in a row. No, they are not perfect but playing much better than anyone here expected.

[BuffalOhio]

I blame Tallinder for that loss.

 

First goal by Colorado, all he had to do was pass cross-ice to Myers and the puck would've been out of the zone. Instead he tried to get fancy and got his pocket picked.

 

Lydman made some dangerous passes, too.

 

Guys gotta get their heads out of their backsides.

 

GREAT move by the shootout winner. Myers almost had it won, though.

 

Dammit!

 

Very happy with where this team is right now!

 

Happy New Year!

[shrader]

That game was the perfect example of why OT needs to be longer. Who wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of that? And I know the loser point is widely hated, but that is the sole reason why that OT was so entertaining. They don't play like that if there's a chance of walking away with nothing.

[darksabre]

That game was the perfect example of why OT needs to be longer. Who wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of that? And I know the loser point is widely hated, but that is the sole reason why that OT was so entertaining. They don't play like that if there's a chance of walking away with nothing.

 

Agreed. I'm hooked on 10 Minute OT after seeing them use it in the world juniors.

 

Although the downside, and the reason it's probably only 5 in the NHL, is that NHL skaters probably destroy the ice surface much quicker and 10 minutes of OT on an already ruined ice surface would probably be frowned upon by most players.

[carpandean]

That game was the perfect example of why OT needs to be longer. Who wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of that? And I know the loser point is widely hated, but that is the sole reason why that OT was so entertaining. They don't play like that if there's a chance of walking away with nothing.

I definitely agree that it should be 10 minutes (at least.)

 

As for the loser point, I hate the logic of it, not that there is a point to fight for in the OT/SO. That game was a perfect example. Colorado blew a two-goal lead, being forced by the Sabres to go to the OT/SO. They end up winning it anyway, so the only thing that changed is that the Sabres got a point that they wouldn't have gotten if they hadn't forced OT. If you are going to give the Sabres a point for tying it up through regulation, then why doesn't Colorado lose a points for allowing them to do that? There would be just as much excitement in OT if they went to a 3/2/1/0 system or a 2/0 system. Even a 2/1/0 system with a 10 minute OT and no SO (2 for a win, 0 for a loss and 1 for a tie) would provide excitement in OT. They Zamboni much of the ice for the SO, anyway, so why not do the whole thing before the OT and run it 4-on-4 for 10 minutes? There's still plenty of incentive to play for the win because 2 is still better than 1. OK, OK, I'm done with my rant on this again.

[Taro T]

That game was the perfect example of why OT needs to be longer. Who wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of that? And I know the loser point is widely hated, but that is the sole reason why that OT was so entertaining. They don't play like that if there's a chance of walking away with nothing.

So knowing you're in OT and will get NOTHING, a BIG FAT GOOSE EGG, if you don't win in OT (and then you're only getting 1 point anyhow) doesn't get them to play harder?

 

While 3-2-1-0 is my preferred way to improve the problem of the "loser point." I still think teams would battle harder to win in regulation (and in the OT as well) if the system were 2 for a regulation win, 1 for an OT win, and zip for any sort of loss or reaching the shootout. The winner of the shootout could be awarded a "tie-break" point which would be the 1st seeding tiebreaker to use to set up 1-8 in the playoffs. (1. Most shootout wins, -> 2. hth, -> 3. most W's, -> etc, etc)

 

I'm pretty much in agreement w/ Carp on this one.

[shrader]

So knowing you're in OT and will get NOTHING, a BIG FAT GOOSE EGG, if you don't win in OT (and then you're only getting 1 point anyhow) doesn't get them to play harder?

 

While 3-2-1-0 is my preferred way to improve the problem of the "loser point." I still think teams would battle harder to win in regulation (and in the OT as well) if the system were 2 for a regulation win, 1 for an OT win, and zip for any sort of loss or reaching the shootout. The winner of the shootout could be awarded a "tie-break" point which would be the 1st seeding tiebreaker to use to set up 1-8 in the playoffs. (1. Most shootout wins, -> 2. hth, -> 3. most W's, -> etc, etc)

 

I'm pretty much in agreement w/ Carp on this one.

 

You remember how it was before the loser point was created. Teams never took a chance unless they absolutely had to win. That is what you would have now. Sure, it will depend on the teams, but if you have a team that is a beast in the shoot out but is shaky 4-on-4, they're going to sit back and trap their way to that shoot out.

 

Anyway, your proposed change to the point structure still results in a loser point. Like it or not, awarding a team for getting into overtime is the only way to make overtime worthwhile. At the end of the day, it's a defensive league so if it was boiled down to an all or nothing situation, the majority of teams would fall to a defense first strategy.

[korab rules]

I definitely agree that it should be 10 minutes (at least.)

 

As for the loser point, I hate the logic of it, not that there is a point to fight for in the OT/SO. That game was a perfect example. Colorado blew a two-goal lead, being forced by the Sabres to go to the OT/SO. They end up winning it anyway, so the only thing that changed is that the Sabres got a point that they wouldn't have gotten if they hadn't forced OT. If you are going to give the Sabres a point for tying it up through regulation, then why doesn't Colorado lose a points for allowing them to do that? There would be just as much excitement in OT if they went to a 3/2/1/0 system or a 2/0 system. Even a 2/1/0 system with a 10 minute OT and no SO (2 for a win, 0 for a loss and 1 for a tie) would provide excitement in OT. They Zamboni much of the ice for the SO, anyway, so why not do the whole thing before the OT and run it 4-on-4 for 10 minutes? There's still plenty of incentive to play for the win because 2 is still better than 1. OK, OK, I'm done with my rant on this again.

 

 

They just dry scrape the center of the ice. A 10 minute OT would require a normal ice flood, which would take at least 10-15 minutes to freeze (ie, a normal intermission).

[Taro T]

You remember how it was before the loser point was created. Teams never took a chance unless they absolutely had to win. That is what you would have now. Sure, it will depend on the teams, but if you have a team that is a beast in the shoot out but is shaky 4-on-4, they're going to sit back and trap their way to that shoot out.

 

Anyway, your proposed change to the point structure still results in a loser point. Like it or not, awarding a team for getting into overtime is the only way to make overtime worthwhile. At the end of the day, it's a defensive league so if it was boiled down to an all or nothing situation, the majority of teams would fall to a defense first strategy.

My proposal most certainly does not result in a loser point. If you win the game in RT you get 2. If you win in OT you get 1. If you lose or you end up in a shootout you get 0. The shootout becomes the sideshow that it is, and much like the MLB all-star game only counts in VERY limited circumstances.

 

A team is FAR better off getting an OT win than winning a shootout as it falls 1 point behind a team that won in regulation by winning the OT and it falls 2 points back by winning the shootout. A team that won 82 games in a shootout ends the year w 0-82-0 (82) for a grand total of 0 points. Those 82 shootout wins only help it out against teams that didn't win any games either.

 

The only reason teams sat back in OT in the past is that bad teams had something they probably would lose by trying to hard to score (that 1 point for the tie). A weaker team knew it had to bar the door to steal the point against a stronger team and hope for a break to steal a 2nd point; in my system there is no point for that weaker team to steal for themselves (although by pushing it another round they could steal a point from the other stronger team). In my system, a team loses a point each level further they go. They lose 1 potential point by not winning in regulation. They lose another by not winning outright. And then they lose an imaginary point that only is used in breaking ties by losing the skills competition. So there is actually a real tangible reason to win in regulation: you go from the case you have now where you MIGHT lose a point if you lose a 1 goal lead late to you WILL lose a point and MAYBE a 2nd one by losing a late 1 goal lead.

 

Also, in my system a team has an incentive to try to convert a 1 or 2 goal lead into a 2 or 3 goal lead; 1 bad goal doesn't automatically cost you 1-2 points in the standings.

 

The reason we won't go to such as system is because there would be too much pushback by the coaches. (My team EARNED a point, it's not fair that we get nothing by losing. Wah.)

[shrader]

... your preferred system of 3-2-1-0.

[Taro T]

... your preferred system of 3-2-1-0.

Yes, it does have the loser point, but that has the benefit of all games being equal (I hate that some games are worth 3 points and ones where you win in regulation are worth less; IF there has to be some games worth more than others, shouldn't it be the ones where someone excelled (they actually beat the opponent) rather than where teams backed into a point (we're not good enough to win, but gosh darn it the league likes us)?

 

The 3-2-1-0 also has the benefit of giving more value to beating an opponent outright rather than edging them in a skills competition.

 

None of the systems are perfect, but the present one seems to take the worst of all proposals and throw 'em together. I guess the league has to find some way to make the Loafs appear to be competitive.

[nucci]

My thoughts....OT goes to 10 minutes with 4-on-4. 2 points for a win, o for a loss and 1 each for a tie. I know the other night's shootout was exciting but I would eliminate it. I just think if there is no loser point teams would make a bigger effort to win in regulation and more so in OT.

[LabattBlue]

My thoughts....OT goes to 10 minutes with 4-on-4. 2 points for a win, o for a loss and 1 each for a tie.

I would have no problem with this system. My biggest pet peeve about the shootout is the LONG delay between the time the OT ends and the SO begins.

[FogBat]

Colorado has a very good team and Sabres will not win every game. Just relax a bit.

I was thinking the same thing. Given that the Sabres had won 6 in a row, I thought that they were actually due for a loss.

 

I didn't catch the whole game, but I saw that first goal where Tallinder had that giveaway in his own end. I couldn't fault Lalime for not stopping that goal. Hank obviously had a brain fart on that one.

 

I just hope that he has those giveaways only during the Olympics and no other time during the regular season and playoffs (because I want Team Sweden to lose).

[MattPie]

My thoughts....OT goes to 10 minutes with 4-on-4. 2 points for a win, o for a loss and 1 each for a tie. I know the other night's shootout was exciting but I would eliminate it. I just think if there is no loser point teams would make a bigger effort to win in regulation and more so in OT.

 

As someone else said to another poster, you must not have watched much hockey before the 'loser point'. OT was two teams playing the trap and trying their best to not get caught in the other teams' zone. Awful hockey.

 

I'd be fine with the 3-point available system. I'm not sure I get Taro's 'if you get to a shootout no one wins' system. Seems like playing another team to a standstill for 65 minutes (perhaps making a big comeback or whatnot) should count more than getting beat 10-1. I understand the motivation, but it works both ways. There has to be a scenario where one team would rather have both teams get no points than risk giving up a goal in OT. Tight division and playoff races, I would think.

[nucci]

As someone else said to another poster, you must not have watched much hockey before the 'loser point'. OT was two teams playing the trap and trying their best to not get caught in the other teams' zone. Awful hockey.

 

I'd be fine with the 3-point available system. I'm not sure I get Taro's 'if you get to a shootout no one wins' system. Seems like playing another team to a standstill for 65 minutes (perhaps making a big comeback or whatnot) should count more than getting beat 10-1. I understand the motivation, but it works both ways. There has to be a scenario where one team would rather have both teams get no points than risk giving up a goal in OT. Tight division and playoff races, I would think.

Been watching hockey since 1970. That OT was 5-on-5. I think a 10 minute 4-on-4 would create more chances and knowing you have a chance of not getting point would make a difference in the play. Again, just my thoughts. You don't have to agree.

[Eleven]

Been watching hockey since 1970. That OT was 5-on-5. I think a 10 minute 4-on-4 would create more chances and knowing you have a chance of not getting point would make a difference in the play. Again, just my thoughts. You don't have to agree just don't reply with a smart ass comment.

 

For a long time, there was no OT at all, there just were ties. I was kind of fine with that, but in the last five minutes of the game, teams didn't play to win. Then the five minute OT. Then the 4-on-4 and loser point. Then the loser point with the shootout.

 

In North America, I don't think we like defensive play, or the fact that salvaging a draw is sometimes a positive result. I guess I just don't think there's a solution that's going to produce really exciting OTs except for the loser point solution, as much as I hate it. The potential uncertainty of a shootout has made some teams step it up in OT, I have noticed.

 

It has produced better hockey at the expense of consistent statistics (teams with 114 points, etc.) and at the much larger expense of a consistency in the amount of points available per game for each team.

[carpandean]

I guess I just don't think there's a solution that's going to produce really exciting OTs except for the loser point solution, as much as I hate it.

Here's the thing: once you reach OT, the 3-2-1-0 system is identical to the loser-point system (2 if you win, 1 if you lose.) The difference is that at the end of regulation, there is some additional incentive to play for the win. Currently, the thought is "we'll sit back, preserve the tie, and then try to get two points in OT/SO." A team gets the same points for a win and more points for a loss, so why take any chances. With the three point regulation win, if you go to OT, you can't get all of those three points any more. The cost of losing in regulation is the same as under the current system, but the benefit of winning is higher. Also, since a win is three points, then that one point for an OT loss is worth less (1/3 of a regulation win, rather than 1/2.)

[wjag]

Here's the thing: once you reach OT, the 3-2-1-0 system is identical to the loser-point system (2 if you win, 1 if you lose.) The difference is that at the end of regulation, there is some additional incentive to play for the win. Currently, the thought is "we'll sit back, preserve the tie, and then try to get two points in OT/SO." A team gets the same points for a win and more points for a loss, so why take any chances. With the three point regulation win, if you go to OT, you can't get all of those three points any more. The cost of losing in regulation is the same as under the current system, but the benefit of winning is higher. Also, since a win is three points, then that one point for an OT loss is worth less (1/3 of a regulation win, rather than 1/2.)

I'm sold, but you're going to need a new Maginot line for the playoffs. 93 points won't work. Get right on that..

[Eleven]

Here's the thing: once you reach OT, the 3-2-1-0 system is identical to the loser-point system (2 if you win, 1 if you lose.) The difference is that at the end of regulation, there is some additional incentive to play for the win. Currently, the thought is "we'll sit back, preserve the tie, and then try to get two points in OT/SO." A team gets the same points for a win and more points for a loss, so why take any chances. With the three point regulation win, if you go to OT, you can't get all of those three points any more. The cost of losing in regulation is the same as under the current system, but the benefit of winning is higher. Also, since a win is three points, then that one point for an OT loss is worth less (1/3 of a regulation win, rather than 1/2.)

 

If we're going to do something like this, I'd greatly prefer no OT or SO, and 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, 0 pts for a loss. Teams will work for that win.