SwampD Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 Your work is missing one vital component. Teams adjusting how they play with the "loser point" already accounted for. If teams went into OT with the guarantee of the one point it changes their strategy. Especially at the end of the year when teams are trying to make up as much ground as possible. I agree with this. If I would change anything about the current system, it would be that an OTL would be worth 0 points. Make it all the way to a SO, and you get a point. Yes, exactly. It makes no sense ... none ... at all. Whoever suggested it should have been laughed out of the room. With 82 games and eight slots, any of the systems would guarantee that the best teams make it, as well as some of the middle-of-the-road teams. But, the fact that the NHL has what is commonly referred to as a "bonus point" is a joke. Hockey has enough trouble being taken seriously as a professional sport, as it is. I just don't have a problem with bonus points. A perfect example this year is the Islanders. They are better than Ottawa and Florida. Without the "bonus points" they wouldn't be in the standings.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 I just don't have a problem with bonus points. A perfect example this year is the Islanders. They are better than Ottawa and Florida. Without the "bonus points" they wouldn't be in the standings. The Islanders should learn how to close out games better if they want to be respected as a good team.
carpandean Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 I just don't have a problem with bonus points. A perfect example this year is the Islanders. They are better than Ottawa and Florida. Without the "bonus points" they wouldn't be in the standings. I don't have a problem with giving a point to a team losing in OT/SO. What I have a problem with is that the increase in points for losing in OT/SO is not accompanied by a corresponding decrease for winning in OT/SO. So, you did more than a team that would have lost in regulation, but somehow that doesn't mean that the winning team did less than a team that would have won in regulation?! Nonsense, pure nonsense. I had an interesting thought in the shower (strangely, I do most of my best thinking in there): how about this system ... 2 points for a regulation win, 1 for an OT/SO win and 0 for any loss. Logically, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as the bonus point, but provides incentive for teams to play for a win in regulation. Works for me!
deluca67 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 I don't have a problem with giving a point to a team losing in OT/SO. What I have a problem with is that the increase in points for losing in OT/SO is not accompanied by a corresponding decrease for winning in OT/SO. So, you did more than a team that would have lost in regulation, but somehow that doesn't mean that the winning team did less than a team that would have won in regulation?! Nonsense, pure nonsense. I had an interesting thought in the shower (strangely, I do most of my best thinking in there): how about this system ... 2 points for a regulation win, 1 for an OT/SO win and 0 for any loss. Logically, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as the bonus point, but provides incentive for teams to play for a win in regulation. Works for me! Here's a radical idea. Let's throwout the entire point system. This isn't NASCAR. Determine games with the shootout in need be. These are the real standing if the NHL dumped the assinine point system. Team GP Wins --------------------------- *NJ 20 14 *Buf 17 12 *Wash 20 12 Pitt 20 13 NYR 20 11 Phi 16 10 Atl 16 9 Mtl 20 9 * Division Leader
Taro T Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 I don't have a problem with giving a point to a team losing in OT/SO. What I have a problem with is that the increase in points for losing in OT/SO is not accompanied by a corresponding decrease for winning in OT/SO. So, you did more than a team that would have lost in regulation, but somehow that doesn't mean that the winning team did less than a team that would have won in regulation?! Nonsense, pure nonsense. I had an interesting thought in the shower (strangely, I do most of my best thinking in there): how about this system ... 2 points for a regulation win, 1 for an OT/SO win and 0 for any loss. Logically, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as the bonus point, but provides incentive for teams to play for a win in regulation. Works for me! I've been advocating for a regulation win being 2, an OT win being 1, and a loss being a loss being 0 for a long time. Actually, it makes even more sense than the bonus point because there is incentive to win in regulation. The bonus point puts the incentive on not losing in regulation. It also makes games like last night's Bruins-Pens game truly demoralizing as the Bruins would have been less than 1 second away from 2 points and would have ended up with 0, and Pittsburgh would still have their winless streak extended to 5 games. I would even take it a step further and not give a point for a shootout win, but I would allow shootout wins to be the 1st or 2nd tie-breaker between teams. (2nd if they've played an equal # of games at each team's home rink; 1st if they haven't.)
SwampD Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 I don't have a problem with giving a point to a team losing in OT/SO. What I have a problem with is that the increase in points for losing in OT/SO is not accompanied by a corresponding decrease for winning in OT/SO. So, you did more than a team that would have lost in regulation, but somehow that doesn't mean that the winning team did less than a team that would have won in regulation?! Nonsense, pure nonsense. I had an interesting thought in the shower (strangely, I do most of my best thinking in there): how about this system ... 2 points for a regulation win, 1 for an OT/SO win and 0 for any loss. Logically, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as the bonus point, but provides incentive for teams to play for a win in regulation. Works for me! What's the point of playing past 60 mins then. All you are risking is injury. EDIT:oops. I misread what you said. Please move along. Thank you. EDIT AGAIN: Like I said, the current system is about rewarding skill, not just winning and losing. With 4 on 4 and the shootout, the team with more skill usually wins. The 2 points only system doesn't do this. Look at the current system this way. You get 2 points for a 60 minute game - win, lose, tie, it equals 2 points. Whoever wins the "Bonus time" gets the "Bonus point". I still don't have a problem with it.
rickshaw Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 No, I have a problem with the fact that some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3 points. I'm fine with an OT/SO loss being worth more than a regulation loss, but if it is, then an OT/SO win must be worth less. I don't like that teams play for the OT. I'd be fine with any of these following: 1) Wins = 2, Losses = 0. 2) Wins = 2, Losses = 0, Ties = 1. 3) Regulation Wins = 2, Regulation Losses = 0, All OT/SO = 1 but with a standings tie-breaker point for the winner. 4) Regulation Wins = 3, OT/SO Wins = 2, OT/SO Losses = 1, Regulation Losses = 0. #4 is the format that should be used. I hate when my team plays in a 2 pt game while all their division rivals are playing 3 pt games? Huh? The reason the NHL won't use #4 format is because a team can be buried very early in the season if they start poorly, and then fans lose interest and don't go to games.
Bmwolf21 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 Your work is missing one vital component. Teams adjusting how they play with the "loser point" already accounted for. If teams went into OT with the guarantee of the one point it changes their strategy. Especially at the end of the year when teams are trying to make up as much ground as possible. Agreed, just like teams used to play for the tie. The Islanders should learn how to close out games better if they want to be respected as a good team. Bingo.
carpandean Posted November 15, 2009 Report Posted November 15, 2009 Look at the current system this way. You get 2 points for a 60 minute game - win, lose, tie, it equals 2 points. Whoever wins the "Bonus time" gets the "Bonus point". I still don't have a problem with it. Yeah, but to me, if you win the sixty minute game, then you should earn the point for any bonus time by default. Thus, #4 above. Regulation is worth two and OT is worth one. If you win regulation, you automatically win OT, too.
SwampD Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Yeah, but to me, if you win the sixty minute game, then you should earn the point for any bonus time by default. Thus, #4 above. Regulation is worth two and OT is worth one. If you win regulation, you automatically win OT, too. The points aren't about winning and losing (that's what the W and L columns are for). The points are about selecting teams to play in the playoffs. The league has decided that it wants skilled teams in the playoffs. The team with more skill will more often that not win in OT or the SO and I'm cool with that tack. I don't care what's fair. I want (and the league wants) a more entertaining playoffs and rewarding more skilled teams gives me that.
carpandean Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The points aren't about winning and losing (that's what the W and L columns are for). The points are about selecting teams to play in the playoffs. The league has decided that it wants skilled teams in the playoffs. The team with more skill will more often that not win in OT or the SO and I'm cool with that tack. I don't care what's fair. I want (and the league wants) a more entertaining playoffs and rewarding more skilled teams gives me that. The W and L columns mean nothing, except for the wins tie-breaker; points are the only things that matter. Wouldn't the more skilled teams win in regulation rather than being taken to an OT/SO, especially if the incentives are switched to give a benefit for doing so? Yes, once it gets to an OT/SO, the team with more raw skill probably wins more often, but that will still happen under any of the other systems when two evenly matched teams can't settle it in regulation.
SwampD Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The W and L columns mean nothing, except for the wins tie-breaker; points are the only things that matter. Wouldn't the more skilled teams win in regulation rather than being taken to an OT/SO, especially if the incentives are switched to give a benefit for doing so? Yes, once it gets to an OT/SO, the team with more raw skill probably wins more often, but that will still happen under any of the other systems when two evenly matched teams can't settle it in regulation. Not necessarily. A well rounded, more fundamentally sound team can compete with a team with stars on it. But once it goes to 4 on 4 or the SO, it's no longer team against team. It's talent against talent. I don't know why we are arguing because we agree. With the current points system, the NHL has decided that it would rather have a team with talent (i.e. stars) in the playoffs than a well rounded, more fundamentally sound one. I think the example I gave bares this out. Carolina played a better team game, but Pitt and Philly had the stars. Florida played a better team game but the Habs and Rags had the stars. Pitt, Philly, Rags, and Montreal all benefited from the extra point and I think that's good. I'm fine with the loser point.
Sabre Dance Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The points aren't about winning and losing (that's what the W and L columns are for). The points are about selecting teams to play in the playoffs. The league has decided that it wants skilled teams in the playoffs. The team with more skill will more often that not win in OT or the SO and I'm cool with that tack. I don't care what's fair. I want (and the league wants) a more entertaining playoffs and rewarding more skilled teams gives me that. Overtime was brought in for one reason - to determine a winner. As teams played more defensively, ties were becoming more commonplace. The league wanted "closure" so they brought in the five minute overtime period with teams playing 4 a side. The problem was that even in overtime, teams were reluctant to play wide open and try to score the "winning" goal. Hence, the shootout was brought in to finally determine a winner. I had no problem with the point system that was used in the NHL for years. Wins count for two, ties for one, losses get zip. If you need the two points badly enough and you have more skill on your team, you play for the win. You don't play for the tie, play kitty-bar-the-door in OT and then bet all of your chips on the shootout. (Ask Team Canada how they feel about losing to the Czechs in the1998 Olympics in a shootout). Even though penalty shots are fun to watch, they shouldn't be used to break the tie. In baseball, you don't play an extra two innings and then determine the winner by a home-run contest. Oh, and the league could care less about having "skilled" teams in the playoffs - they want the big-market teams to make it so they get more viewers, more revenue, etc. The NHL's worst nightmare would be a Buffalo/Columbus Stanley Cup Finals. No one in New York City, Chicago, LA or Canada would give a crap and they would have to give advertisers a break on rates. Dump OT and the shootout - go back to the 2-1-0 system.
SwampD Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I almost forgot. The extra point isn't garaunteed in OT (maybe I should put this in PA's rulebook thread). If a team pulls their goalie in OT to get the extra point, then loses, they get zero points.
shrader Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Dump OT and the shootout - go back to the 2-1-0 system. I'd go with one of two options, either bring back the tie, or go to continuous overtime. People always shoot down the second one saying that teams have to travel and they don't want to play all night. I'm sorry, but if those weakling baseball players can play long extra inning games and still travel, hockey players can do the same. If they don't want to get stuck in a long game, take the chances it would take to end the game earlier. I almost forgot. The extra point isn't garaunteed in OT (maybe I should put this in PA's rulebook thread). If a team pulls their goalie in OT to get the extra point, then loses, they get zero points. I've always wondered what would happen if a team pulled their goalie on a delayed penalty and then accidentally put the puck in their own net.
Mbossy Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I've always wondered what would happen if a team pulled their goalie on a delayed penalty and then accidentally put the puck in their own net. One minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z1u6d4WWgo
shrader Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 One minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z1u6d4WWgo Yeah, but that was a regulation goal. I was talking about that OT rule where if you pull your goalie and give up a goal, you don't get the OTL point.
SwampD Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I'd go with one of two options, either bring back the tie, or go to continuous overtime. People always shoot down the second one saying that teams have to travel and they don't want to play all night. I'm sorry, but if those weakling baseball players can play long extra inning games and still travel, hockey players can do the same. If they don't want to get stuck in a long game, take the chances it would take to end the game earlier. I've always wondered what would happen if a team pulled their goalie on a delayed penalty and then accidentally put the puck in their own net. The "rigors" of baseball in now way compare to the rigors of hockey,...at all. That's a good question. I guess they wouldn't get the point. That would really suck.
shrader Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The "rigors" of baseball in now way compare to the rigors of hockey,...at all. Like I said, if you don't want to play a long overtime game, do what it takes to win in regulation. Deluca hinted at it earlier, the way the game is played would change quite a bit if the teams didn't know that they get a free point if they just get to overtime.
gregkash Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I would much rather the loser point only be given out if it goes to the shoot out.
SwampD Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Like I said, if you don't want to play a long overtime game, do what it takes to win in regulation. Deluca hinted at it earlier, the way the game is played would change quite a bit if the teams didn't know that they get a free point if they just get to overtime. I'm not sure what that means. Don't you think teams are already doing that. I thought this was silly when someone said this earlier and I still think it's silly. Sometimes you do absolutely everything you can and still come up with only a tie. With the amount of injuries that there already are, I'm not really interested in seeing guys have to play a third overtime in their third game in four nights.
shrader Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 I'm not sure what that means. Don't you think teams are already doing that. I thought this was silly when someone said this earlier and I still think it's silly. Sometimes you do absolutely everything you can and still come up with only a tie. With the amount of injuries that there already are, I'm not really interested in seeing guys have to play a third overtime in their third game in four nights. The next time you're watching a tied game, pay close attention late. Teams will sit back a bit and not take chances, thanks to that free point. There's no real great solution though, since this happened back when they still had ties.
Taro T Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 The next time you're watching a tied game, pay close attention late. Teams will sit back a bit and not take chances, thanks to that free point. There's no real great solution though, since this happened back when they still had ties. Actually, the solution to the teams sitting back IS easy. Don't give either team a point at the end of a tied regulation, and only give 1 point to the winner of OT. If it goes to a shootout, give that team a "tie-break" point, but don't give either team 1 that counts in the standings for anything but breaking ties at the end of the season. You think those 2 Bruins that had the puck tied up behind the Pens net w/ 12 seconds left might actually have kept the puck there if they knew for certain that getting scored on would cost them a minimum of a point and very likely 2? If a team knew they absolutely would lose 1 point and had at least a 50% chance of losing the other 1 by getting tied, they also would in all likelihood have to wait longer to going to a shutdown game and actually try to get to the safer 2 goal lead.
carpandean Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Actually, the solution to the teams sitting back IS easy. Don't give either team a point at the end of a tied regulation, and only give 1 point to the winner of OT. If it goes to a shootout, give that team a "tie-break" point, but don't give either team 1 that counts in the standings for anything but breaking ties at the end of the season. Same basic idea: I had an interesting thought in the shower (strangely, I do most of my best thinking in there): how about this system ... 2 points for a regulation win, 1 for an OT/SO win and 0 for any loss. Logically, it makes exactly the same amount of sense as the bonus point, but provides incentive for teams to play for a win in regulation. Works for me!
shrader Posted November 16, 2009 Report Posted November 16, 2009 Same basic idea: Sorry, I missed that one earlier. If going that route, I wouldn't lump the OT and shoot out losses together. Group the OT win in with the regulation win instead since it is still actual hockey as opposed to the crapfest known as a shootout.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.