Pet Peeve -- NHL standings de-emphasize total losses

[golfball323]

"In the last 10 games we're 6-2-2!!"

No, it's 6-4 guys. Those "OT losses" ARE LOSSES. If you want to talk about the points, then just say we've taken 14 out of a possible 20 points in the last ten games.

It makes everybody think we're better than we are. Honestly we're a borderline wild card team that I don't see making the playoffs this year. We're not setting the world on fire...

 

[Hoss]

Ok

[darksabre]

Hi Deluca 

[GASabresIUFAN]

No 6-2-2 is not 6-4 in the NHL.

6-2-2 over a course of a season is a 112 pt season. That translates to 48-16-16 with 2 games left over. 

Any questions?

PS welcome to the board and keep posting. ?

Edited November 13, 2018 by GASabresIUFAN

[TrueBlueGED]

Informative thread titles are a value to the Sabrespace community, etc etc etc. 

[inkman]

20 minutes ago, golfball323 said:

"In the last 10 games we're 6-2-2!!"

No, it's 6-4 guys. Those "OT losses" ARE LOSSES. If you want to talk about the points, then just say we've taken 14 out of a possible 20 points in the last ten games.

It makes everybody think we're better than we are. Honestly we're a borderline wild card team that I don't see making the playoffs this year. We're not setting the world on fire...

 

Ye ol deluca .500 Conundrum 

[spndnchz]

[This is an automated response]

The topic title needs some TLC... It is too generic. The topic starter can edit the topic title line to make it more appropriate.

Thank you.

[sabills]

27 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

[This is an automated response]

[Sabres Fan in NS]

45 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

[This is an automated response]

The topic title needs some TLC... It is too generic. The topic starter can edit the topic title line to make it more appropriate.

Thank you.

Maybe you should just delete it.  That will get his / her attention.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, golfball323 said:

"In the last 10 games we're 6-2-2!!"

No, it's 6-4 guys. Those "OT losses" ARE LOSSES. If you want to talk about the points, then just say we've taken 14 out of a possible 20 points in the last ten games.

It makes everybody think we're better than we are. Honestly we're a borderline wild card team that I don't see making the playoffs this year. We're not setting the world on fire...

 

1st off, welcome.

2nd, a few Q's if I might.  Did you get your peeve at the pet store or catch it wild & train it yourself?  If you did train it yourself, how long does it take to housebreak them?  Was thinking about getting one for the kids for X-mas, but not sure I want to work that hard to train it. Thanks. ;)

:beer:

[sabills]

To really address this thread, I disagree. While yes they are losses, 2 OTL count the same points-wise as a win. A point is a huge deal. One point was the difference between playoffs and not last year for the Devils and the Panthers:


Florida had the tiebreaker (ROW) over the Devils. If they turned one Regulation loss into an Overtime Loss, they make the playoffs.

Same was true in the Western Conference:


Colorado makes it in over the Blues by 1 point. They were tied in ROW, but STL had the next tie breaker: head to head games (3-2). One more point, and they're in over the Aves.

Obviously the best outcome is a regulation/OT win. But in a year where the Sabres are looking to sneak into the playoffs, every single point matters.

Edited November 13, 2018 by sabills

[josie]

We ain't settin' the world on fire but boy I'm sure gonna take my kicks where I can get 'em.

 

If this is how it feels to finally be borderline average, I can't wait to be good again. 

[shrader]

While we're just making up fake standings and ignoring how the league actually works, I hate shoot outs so we should probably count that win as a loss too.

[sodbuster]

Yeah, why would anybody be crazy enough to write the Sabres record exactly the same way the official standings present it? That's just absurd.

[MattPie]

27-10-45 is a solid playoff season.

[darksabre]

12 minutes ago, MattPie said:

27-10-45 is a solid playoff season.

Could you imagine! 

[MattPie]

21 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Could you imagine! 

The dinosaurs would flip out.

I can't remember, did people call ties losses before Lockout I?

[shrader]

12 minutes ago, MattPie said:

The dinosaurs would flip out.

I can't remember, did people call ties losses before Lockout I?

No, they just said it was like kissing your sister.  But why were they even able to make that comparison, why did they know what kissing their sister was like?

And then there are the people like me who don't have a sister.  Was a tie always perfectly acceptable for us?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

I get the sense that the OP's "pet-peeve" really stems back to the old arguments of....

Society getting soft and "rewarding" losers.

Like not keeping score and everyone has to get a trophy or you"ll hurt someone's feelings.

Just my opinion of where he might have been going with that post.....could be wrong though (wouldn't be a 1st, lol).

[shrader]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I get the sense that the OP's "pet-peeve" really stems back to the old arguments of....

Society getting soft and "rewarding" losers.

Like not keeping score and everyone has to get a trophy or you"ll hurt someone's feelings.

Just my opinion of where he might have been going with that post.....could be wrong though (wouldn't be a 1st, lol).

The bonus point doesn’t go to the team that loses. It goes to the team that wins. So are we getting soft by rewarding winning?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

The bonus point doesn’t go to the team that loses. It goes to the team that wins. So are we getting soft by rewarding winning?

Not really arguing the OP point. It was just my read into what he was getting at and like I said I could be wrong.

With that said....how did they award points prior to the current system?

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Not really arguing the OP point. It was just my read into what he was getting at and like I said I could be wrong.

With that said....how did they award points prior to the current system?

2pts for a win 1pt for a tie and zero for a loss. So basically by playing OT/SO a team that used to only get a pt for a tie gets a bonus pt for winning the OT/SO

Edited November 14, 2018 by GASabresIUFAN

[MattPie]

15 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

2pts for a win 1pt for a tie and zero for a loss. So basically by playing OT/SO a team that used to only get a pt for a tie gets a bonus pt for winning the OT/SO

To expand this out a little:

- Win in regulation: 2, loss in regulation: 0 (same as now)

- 5 minute 5-v-5 OT: Win: 2, Loss: 0 (changed 2005)

- Tied after OT: both teams: 1 (changed 2005)

Net result: both teams alternated dumping the puck into the opposing zone and playing the trap to "preserve" their one point. It was terrible.

"Loser Point" effect: teams having nothing to lose in OT, so they go nuts. Better hockey.

Edited November 14, 2018 by MattPie

[Taro T]

16 minutes ago, MattPie said:

To expand this out a little:

- Win in regulation: 2, loss in regulation: 0 (same as now)

- 5 minute 5-v-5 OT: Win: 2, Loss: 0 (changed 2005)

- Tied after OT: both teams: 1 (changed 2005)

Net result: both teams alternated dumping the puck into the opposing zone and playing the trap to "preserve" their one point. It was terrible.

"Loser Point" effect: teams having nothing to lose in OT, so they go nuts. Better hockey.

IF one is ok w/ not all games being worth the same # of points & the NHL clearly is (most are worth 2, but many are worth 3 with the current system).  AND IF one wants to keep with a max of 2 points being awarded for a win, which the league also wants to keep consistent with historical standards.  AND you want teams expending the most effort towards winning, particularly in regulation; then make a regulation win worth 2, an OT win worth 1, and a loss or a tie worth nada.

The league will never make that change because it will spread the standings from top to bottom & bad teams will look REALLY bad & multiple teams will find themselves essentially eliminated by Christmas.  But that would make guys play for the W always.

[In The Buff]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

IF one is ok w/ not all games being worth the same # of points & the NHL clearly is (most are worth 2, but many are worth 3 with the current system).  AND IF one wants to keep with a max of 2 points being awarded for a win, which the league also wants to keep consistent with historical standards.  AND you want teams expending the most effort towards winning, particularly in regulation; then make a regulation win worth 2, an OT win worth 1, and a loss or a tie worth nada.

The league will never make that change because it will spread the standings from top to bottom & bad teams will look REALLY bad & multiple teams will find themselves essentially eliminated by Christmas.  But that would make guys play for the W always.

Nor would teams want to get a tie in a game & end up with no points out of it. The only thing i could see as a solution would be to eliminate ties all together & have it be a continuous overtime until a winner is decided or have it be like now but with a shootout forever until someone wins.