For as inconsistent as this team has been so far...

[deluca67]

Anything other than simple Wins and Losses is ridiculous. You don't see the NFL, MLB or NBA using some lame point system.

[tulax]

Anything other than simple Wins and Losses is ridiculous. You don't see the NFL, MLB or NBA using some lame point system.

At least the NHL doesn't use an All Star Game to decide home field advantage in the championship finals.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

I don't agree with that. In fact, I have watched some awful games where I thought the winner only deserved 1 point.

 

"Deserved" isn't the point. Do you really think that the standings are a place for such subjectivity?

 

Teams play against one another, not a nebulous standard of achievement.

[SwampD]

"Deserved" isn't the point. Do you really think that the standings are a place for such subjectivity?

 

Teams play against one another, not a nebulous standard of achievement.

Why not? Haven't we been talking since Saturday how if the sabres had only put a beat down on the Bruins we could have accepted the loss, how it might even been a good loss if Thomas was put to sleep and Lucic had a broken jaw? That should be worth something, no? Yet we beat Montreal but because Cole's life wasn't ended when he het Enroth, somehow those two points are worthless. The whole thing is subjective.

 

 

I think I need a break from this place. It's gettin' silly in here.

[X. Benedict]

Why not? Haven't we been talking since Saturday how if the sabres had only put a beat down on the Bruins we could have accepted the loss, how it might even been a good loss if Thomas was put to sleep and Lucic had a broken jaw? That should be worth something, no? Yet we beat Montreal but because Cole's life wasn't ended when he het Enroth, somehow those two points are worthless. The whole thing is subjective.

 

 

I think I need a break from this place. It's gettin' silly in here.

 

I can't imagine Cole wanted that much contact in an overtime. He wanted to buzz him a little for sure, but he didn't want 2 min.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

Why not? Haven't we been talking since Saturday how if the sabres had only put a beat down on the Bruins we could have accepted the loss, how it might even been a good loss if Thomas was put to sleep and Lucic had a broken jaw? That should be worth something, no? Yet we beat Montreal but because Cole's life wasn't ended when he het Enroth, somehow those two points are worthless. The whole thing is subjective.

 

 

I think I need a break from this place. It's gettin' silly in here.

 

Well I hope you're not trying to attribute any of that silliness to my opinion that the NHL standings ought to be boiled down equally to wins and losses.

 

Subjectivity rules in game analysis, but there's one thing that's certainly objective; which team scored more than the other.

[SwampD]

Well I hope you're not trying to attribute any of that silliness to my opinion that the NHL standings ought to be boiled down equally to wins and losses.

 

Subjectivity rules in game analysis, but there's one thing that's certainly objective; which team scored more than the other.

And yet, every Sabres fan would have accepted not getting 2 points on Saturday as long as Lucic lost teeth.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

And yet, every Sabres fan would have accepted not getting 2 points on Saturday as long as Lucic lost teeth.

 

Well in the interest of keeping the Great Sabres Toughness Debate out of at least one thread, no comment. :lol:

[SwampD]

Well in the interest of keeping the Great Sabres Toughness Debate out of at least one thread, no comment. :lol:

Nice.

 

I guess my cryptic point was that, the same people who were clamoring for blood, are the same ones that want to use only wins and losses as measuring stick for admitance into the playoffs. There is a subjective value to some wins and losses. As long as we see teams thrive in the regular season only to come up short in the post season, and as long as we use phrases like "built for the regular season", why wouldn't the NHL try to come up with a points system that more represents playoff success?

 

They have decided they if you have more pure skill or good goaltending (keys to OT and shootout victories) then you get more points in the regular season, because they want that in the playoffs.

 

With the repeal of the post lockout rules, though, I'm not sure if this philosophy applies any more (if it ever did). Maybe they should add a Beat Down Quotient instead.

[LGR4GM]

Anything other than simple Wins and Losses is ridiculous. You don't see the NFL, MLB or NBA using some lame point system.

other than the MLB yes you do... Football has a crazy point system, you can score in several different ways to achieve several different point totals. NBA same thing. Why should it count different if I shoot from further out. Now granted we are talking about points for winning but the same principle applies. Every sport does things like this. MLB continues playing until someone wins so thats why it works there. If Hockey wants to have continuous OT until someone scores than so be it until then it should eliminate loser points. 2 for a win in reg or OT and 1 for a shootout win.

[matter2003]

Why not? Haven't we been talking since Saturday how if the sabres had only put a beat down on the Bruins we could have accepted the loss, how it might even been a good loss if Thomas was put to sleep and Lucic had a broken jaw? That should be worth something, no? Yet we beat Montreal but because Cole's life wasn't ended when he het Enroth, somehow those two points are worthless. The whole thing is subjective.

 

 

I think I need a break from this place. It's gettin' silly in here.

 

The Sabres owned the Bruins last year and what did it get them?

[matter2003]

other than the MLB yes you do... Football has a crazy point system, you can score in several different ways to achieve several different point totals. NBA same thing. Why should it count different if I shoot from further out. Now granted we are talking about points for winning but the same principle applies. Every sport does things like this. MLB continues playing until someone wins so thats why it works there. If Hockey wants to have continuous OT until someone scores than so be it until then it should eliminate loser points. 2 for a win in reg or OT and 1 for a shootout win.

 

Lets not forget that we are not that far removed from when hockey also thought it was a good idea to play games where noone wins, although to be honest soccer does too and hockey is basically soccer on ice with a bunch of equipment and guys skating really fast on a much smaller playing surface...

[NowDoYouBelieve]

Nice.

 

I guess my cryptic point was that, the same people who were clamoring for blood, are the same ones that want to use only wins and losses as measuring stick for admitance into the playoffs. There is a subjective value to some wins and losses. As long as we see teams thrive in the regular season only to come up short in the post season, and as long as we use phrases like "built for the regular season", why wouldn't the NHL try to come up with a points system that more represents playoff success?

 

They have decided they if you have more pure skill or good goaltending (keys to OT and shootout victories) then you get more points in the regular season, because they want that in the playoffs.

 

With the repeal of the post lockout rules, though, I'm not sure if this philosophy applies any more (if it ever did). Maybe they should add a Beat Down Quotient instead.

 

Admittedly some interesting points, but I shudder at the logistical nightmare of assigning differing values to wins. As is, the system requires more simplicity. There's no perfect method (ie. one that nullifies the chance of flukes) but over the course of an 82 game season, I do believe that the cream rises to the top. Large sample sizes like that usually don't sustain the success of inadequate teams (keep in mind, I'll always think that only the top 4 teams from each conference should make the post season).

 

I also believe that there is a difference between regular season success and playoff success, but that difference may not be as chasmic as we assume.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

other than the MLB yes you do... Football has a crazy point system, you can score in several different ways to achieve several different point totals. NBA same thing. Why should it count different if I shoot from further out. Now granted we are talking about points for winning but the same principle applies. Every sport does things like this. MLB continues playing until someone wins so thats why it works there. If Hockey wants to have continuous OT until someone scores than so be it until then it should eliminate loser points. 2 for a win in reg or OT and 1 for a shootout win.

 

Sorry to sound like a broken record here. I'm the biggest fan of eliminating loser points, but I don't see how you can advocate for a system where both teams are ostensibly punished for being evenly matched. That's no better than the current method of doing just the opposite, rewarding teams for being evenly matched.

 

Why not just make it simple and say keep the game as is (5 minute OT, then SO) and winner gets 2 points no matter what?

[LGR4GM]

Sorry to sound like a broken record here. I'm the biggest fan of eliminating loser points, but I don't see how you can advocate for a system where both teams are ostensibly punished for being evenly matched. That's no better than the current method of doing just the opposite, rewarding teams for being evenly matched.

 

Why not just make it simple and say keep the current the game as is (5 minute OT, then SO) and winner gets 2 points no matter what?

My reasoning would be that a shootout is not a team effort really. Its at the least 3 players. (Your goalie and your 2 best shooters could win you a shootout) So any shootout is always a crap shoot so it should be rewarded as such.

 

Also by making it worth less it would give teams more incentive to play those final 30 seconds of the third period hard and it would make OT more important. Now you could skip OT because you will get rewarded the same if you win or lose anyways. By making the shootout worth less you make it more about winning the game and less about winning the so.

 

I Understand the point about evenly matched teams but someone has to win because TIES are bs.

[SwampD]

Admittedly some interesting points, but I shudder at the logistical nightmare of assigning differing values to wins. As is, the system requires more simplicity. There's no perfect method (ie. one that nullifies the chance of flukes) but over the course of an 82 game season, I do believe that the cream rises to the top. Large sample sizes like that usually don't sustain the success of inadequate teams (keep in mind, I'll always think that only the top 4 teams from each conference should make the post season).

 

I also believe that there is a difference between regular season success and playoff success, but that difference may not be as chasmic as we assume.

I shudder at the thought, as well. That's why I got a little squirrelly when a thread got started saying,"As bad as it looks, we're in first place", and people responded by saying,"but look how we got there". Those same people then say that wins and losses is all that matters. shrader nailed it five posts in.

 

On another note, I never minded that games ended in ties. Given the situation, some of those ties felt like losses, while others felt like wins. I don't need every game to feel like game seven of the SCFs. Sometimes it really is just another game on a Tuesday in November.

[NowDoYouBelieve]

My reasoning would be that a shootout is not a team effort really. Its at the least 3 players. (Your goalie and your 2 best shooters could win you a shootout) So any shootout is always a crap shoot so it should be rewarded as such.

 

Also by making it worth less it would give teams more incentive to play those final 30 seconds of the third period hard and it would make OT more important. Now you could skip OT because you will get rewarded the same if you win or lose anyways. By making the shootout worth less you make it more about winning the game and less about winning the so.

 

I Understand the point about evenly matched teams but someone has to win because TIES are bs.

 

That's certainly a solvent explanation, even though I disagree with the premise. And keep in mind, the NHL brain trust currently uses a methodology that is considerably worse than yours so I won't stand here and call you ridiculous. :)

 

I'll keep coming back to this point though; If the context of the NHL standings are points, the points yield from each individual game must be consistent and equitable. It's the reason I despise the current system. A "normal game" yields 2 points total, but anything that heads to OT suddenly merits a 3-point yield? It's terrible. Whenever two teams from the same conference go to Overtime, it negatively affects every other team in that conference. There's no logic to it.

 

Maybe it's just my nature as a statistics oriented person, but I can't wrap my mind around a major professional sports league creating and sanctioning a system wherein variable contexts provide for different and values to winning and losing, in such a way that the 28 teams NOT involved are also affected.

 

/rant

[matter2003]

That's certainly a solvent explanation, even though I disagree with the premise. And keep in mind, the NHL brain trust currently uses a methodology that is considerably worse than yours so I won't stand here and call you ridiculous. :)

 

I'll keep coming back to this point though; If the context of the NHL standings are points, the points yield from each individual game must be consistent and equitable. It's the reason I despise the current system. A "normal game" yields 2 points total, but anything that heads to OT suddenly merits a 3-point yield? It's terrible. Whenever two teams from the same conference go to Overtime, it negatively affects every other team in that conference. There's no logic to it.

 

Maybe it's just my nature as a statistics oriented person, but I can't wrap my mind around a major professional sports league creating and sanctioning a system wherein variable contexts provide for different and values to winning and losing, in such a way that the 28 teams NOT involved are also affected.

 

/rant

 

I guess assigning 3 points for a win in regulation, and 2 points for an OT win with 1 point to the OT loser would semi fix the system then?

[NowDoYouBelieve]

I guess assigning 3 points for a win in regulation, and 2 points for an OT win with 1 point to the OT loser would semi fix the system then?

 

Absolutely. My ideal scenario is the traditional W-L, but 3-2-1-0 is an excellent compromise.

[Derrico]

Absolutely. My ideal scenario is the traditional W-L, but 3-2-1-0 is an excellent compromise.

 

A major reason the current system exists is because the league wants parity. By giving the winner only one more point than the loser it may keep teams in the running for a playoff spot later into the season. This, in turn, will sell more tickets as fans will keep going if their team has a reasonable shot at the playoffs.

 

I had to skim through the discussion as I'm at work, sorry if this has been discussed. I think the league ran with this system for that reason and like someone above said, the cream will still rise to the top, it will just take a bit longer.

[apuszczalowski]

The point of the "loser/OT" Point is that it is rewarding a team for not losing in regulation. Its saying that although you lost the game eventually (becuase we don't allow ties), you are given a point because in the time frame of a standard game, you didn't lose, you were just as good as the team that won.

 

Removing the point for OT, or giving less for the shootout would force teams to play harder near the end of a game or OT to try and get the win instead of hoping for a shootout.

[Derrico]

The point of the "loser/OT" Point is that it is rewarding a team for not losing in regulation. Its saying that although you lost the game eventually (becuase we don't allow ties), you are given a point because in the time frame of a standard game, you didn't lose, you were just as good as the team that won.

 

Removing the point for OT, or giving less for the shootout would force teams to play harder near the end of a game or OT to try and get the win instead of hoping for a shootout.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the loser point. I just remember hearing the theory I explained when the rule was introduced and it makes perfect sense if you are trying to sell tickets in Tampa Bay in late March.