| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Devils Fanatic |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 18:14:17
It seems like too many games are decided by a shootout or OT and not regulation. Should a team be awarded points for losing the game? |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Antroman |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 09:30:37
Hey Andy.....I understand your points and agree for the most part. I guess I am a bit old school because I really do not see why they keep changing a game that to me was perfect before the changes were made. I can live with the overtime because I enjoy it too. My only bone of contention is that it really gives the officials an opportunity to excercise their bias. Most teams will score on a four on three. I really think that a tie at the end of overtime should be a tie.....one point each.
Scenerio.........last night of the regular season.......Two teams are tied for the final playoff spot.........Another team is two points out and in a must win situation..........Because the last team has more wins than the two teams ahead of them they would qualify for the last playoff spot if they won their game and other two teams did not play a three point game. Is this fair? My question is, why should one game be worth more points in the standings than any other game? I really do not think this is a level playing field. If you really want to promote offense then I would think that you should encourage teams to win.
Scenario Two.........One team works their butt off all night and defeats a conference rival in OT and they come away with only half a win. I just do not see the justice in this? Am I not looking outside the box or something? I just can't seem to see the logic in the current system. Any imput on this would be most welcome. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 08:25:42
Antro - I know what you are saying but keep in mind that the difference between the "three point game" of today and the way it was for decades and decades when they just had ties (with one point apiece) is simply the difference between a "three point game (2 and 1)" and a "two point game (1 and 1)". It's true that such single points can add up, but I just don't know if it really is that big a problem.
And the main point of my earlier post was that, when thinking about whether a problem needs to be fixed here, it is worth considering the history of what brought us to the "three point game". And in doing so, I can see the argument that some might still raise that the problem here is not the extra point to the "loser", but rather the extra point to the "winner". In other words, maybe we shouldn't have done away with the old tie system.
Personally, I enjoy overtimes so I'd rather not do that, but I do see the argument for it from a players point of the view. With an "all or nothing" system, the guys on the Flyers yesterday for example, would come out with aboslutely nothing for their efforts even though they were leading with 30 something seconds left in regulation time. Some might say "too bad, that's life, and that's the way it's done in the playoffs, so tough" - but I don't know, I can see the argument that says the regular season should be handled differently than the playoffs.
I do agree that they should get rid of the shootouts for determining that extra point though.
But, on the whole, I see this problem as a relatively small one compared to the ridiculous system that ranks a division leader (i.e Carolina) third no matter how many more points the teams ranked behind them have. To me, that, much more than the "three point game", is a MAJOR problem that needs to be dealt with. |
| Antroman |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 21:51:06
The problem I seem to have with the three point game is that you could be trying to catch a team or two in the standings and they play each other, the two teams ahead of you are playing for a total of three points and you, the team behind only gets two if they win the game outright. Making up ground in this sense can be almost impossible. It seems that we are rewarding mediocrity and screwing the other team? I do not see the selling point in this at all. My take on it is if you lose the game, you lose the game. Simple as that!!!! The shootout in my eyes is just a cheap carnival act and should be abolished. I know this nonsense might sell the game to some foreigners to the south of us but it really isn't our game at all. The game was never broke before so why are they trying to fix it? |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 07:54:09
LOL, nicely said Andyhack. But what I'm saying is that there is no use for the single point games. If we do the idea LRP mentioned then we would have 1 point games instead of 3 point games. That would still create uneven points and be even weirder then 3 point games.
I don't think this is about a loser point at all, its about making the point's even. Well thats my two cents (much more then Andy's two yen).
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 06:44:02
Well, I'm going to play "Devil's (Lowly Paid and Overworked) Advocate" here.
Actually, I'm not going to so much argue for the single point idea, as I am simply going to try to bring the perspective of those NHL execs who argued for the point into this conversation.
It's important to understand that these guys had just come out of decades and decades of "ties". One point each to both teams, no overtime. End of story. The execs were used to that, AND, the players of that generation were used to that too. When a team finished playing hard for a 60 minute game and were tied, they got a point. For the fans it may have been like "kissing your sister", yes, but for the players, coaches and management, the concept of that point was important (for me the thought of kissing my sister was always a lot worse than a tie, but I digress ).
So when they did away with regulation time ties and went to an "all or nothing" overtime approach, the idea of potentially coming away from a game with nothing (particularly due to a some sort of fluky goal with a few seconds left in the overtime), seemed quite unfair to some of these execs, coaches and players. I think that is what led to the push for the so-called "point to the loser".
Whether you agree or disgree with that reasoning, I think it does raise a slightly different light to this thread. What I mean is that the question itself is a bit off in my opinion. You call the loser of an overtime game the "loser", but for years and years that team was not the "loser", but rather were, for lack of a better word, the "Tier". Looking at it in that light, it certainly can be said that teams are not being awarded anything they didn't get before, AND, the point arguably is not a "point for losing a game".
Having said all that, there is an argument that the generation of players, coaches and execs who were used to the old system have now passed on by, and that the players etc of today wouldn't mind the "all or nothing approach" as much.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two yen (which is what I received from the Devil for my advocacy). |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 18:47:21
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
How does this solve anything? I still adds the extra point, but instead of adding a point to the loser it subtracts a point from the winner. It still leaves a team with one single point. Isn't that what''s trying to be corrected?
This whole topic is about getting rid of the loser point. The way i see it is that this is a compromise.
The loser is not being rewarded for a job "not" well done. This reason the you are giving is ludacris. You are still not explaining why this will not work in a game situation.
I think that you are thinking a bit to much LF_101.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
|
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 18:43:28
How does this solve anything? I still adds the extra point, but instead of adding a point to the loser it subtracts a point from the winner. It still leaves a team with one single point. Isn't that what''s trying to be corrected?
|
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 18:36:54
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs Rock Planet
Yes get rid of the loser points. There is no room in the league for teams that lose.....but yet still get points.
Maybe a better solution is that if a team loses in an overtime or a shootout, the winning team is only awareded one point and the losing team none.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
That wouldn't work. You wouldn't be solving the problem by making a win a point.
I think the league should just get rid of that 1 points all together. # point games screw up the league as it is.
I see no reason as in why it couldnt work.
It would be solving the problem of the loser point.
Im just throwing ideas out there. I think its a bit to early for this one to be shot down.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
|
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 18:30:05
quote:
Originally posted by Leafs Rock Planet
Yes get rid of the loser points. There is no room in the league for teams that lose.....but yet still get points.
Maybe a better solution is that if a team loses in an overtime or a shootout, the winning team is only awareded one point and the losing team none.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
That wouldn't work. You wouldn't be solving the problem by making a win a point.
I think the league should just get rid of that 1 points all together. # point games screw up the league as it is.
|
| Alex |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 14:32:46
quote:
Originally posted by Antroman
You can go by all the statistics you want but the fact of the matter is the teams play differently when there is a single point to be had. The end results because of the shootout are also a contributing factor because some teams are simply better equiped than others to handle them. This is one of the reasons I hate the shootout. Hockey is supposed to be a team sport and not a one on one confrontation after the fact. As well, I have to add you can actually see some teams change their checking patterns late in the game in order to preserve the single point and take there chances four on four and in the shootout. It is especially noticable with road teams who are more than happy to get at least a point in some other cities. So Alex, your standings really do not tell the complete story. Good try though.
Fine, this is a different story. You did not mention it in your post and therefore I thought what you were getting at is that teams that should make the playoffs aren't at the expense of teams with more OT wins.
Sure, I see what you are saying about loser points and in this light, I agree.
What could be done to change it?
Personally, I say, leave the shootout, for the entertainment value, but don't award points; only use it as a tie breaker. As well, give 2 points for a reg/ win, 1 for an OT win, and none for an OT loss. Yes?
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 10:32:41
Yes get rid of the loser points. There is no room in the league for teams that lose.....but yet still get points.
Maybe a better solution is that if a team loses in an overtime or a shootout, the winning team is only awareded one point and the losing team none.
___________________
Let the Stamkos sweepstakes begin!
|
| Guest5723 |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 08:12:19
3 points for a win in regulation......regulation wins to be first tiebreaker
2 points for a win in o/t/ or shootout
1 point for o/t or shootout loss
This could put an end to defensive hockey......3 point wins would be prized at this time of the year, go on a 5 game+ win streak....move way up in the standings
|
| Devils Fanatic |
Posted - 03/13/2008 : 00:51:25
I really find that certain teams get rather lazy knowing that if they can drag a game into OT, they will get that point. The point of a game is to win in regulation, and only go to OT or shootout as the final tiebreaker. Look at teams like Edmonton this year. They have an enormous amount of shootout wins, and not so impressive regulation record.
Devils fan for life |
| Antroman |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 20:57:16
You can go by all the statistics you want but the fact of the matter is the teams play differently when there is a single point to be had. The end results because of the shootout are also a contributing factor because some teams are simply better equiped than others to handle them. This is one of the reasons I hate the shootout. Hockey is supposed to be a team sport and not a one on one confrontation after the fact. As well, I have to add you can actually see some teams change their checking patterns late in the game in order to preserve the single point and take there chances four on four and in the shootout. It is especially noticable with road teams who are more than happy to get at least a point in some other cities. So Alex, your standings really do not tell the complete story. Good try though. |
| Alex |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 17:17:30
Honestly, I do not see what we are trying to accomplish. I mean, who are the top teams in the NHL do you think? Are the standings that far off?
Sure, maybe including 16 teams in to a two month post season is slightly over the top. But the point system isn't that bad.
I agree that shootout should only be used as a tiebreaker between two teams with even amounts of points. However, do not get rid of it, if not purely for entertainment value.
Honestly, the teams are more or less where they should be under this system.
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
| Guest4735 |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 17:10:34
Well they could ressurect the thoguht of the 3 point game,
3 for a regulation win
2 for an overtime win
1 for an OT loss
0 for a regulation lost
|
| Alex |
Posted - 03/12/2008 : 15:01:46
Antroman, I am debating your point, on the basis that every team currently in the playoff picture would still be in it if the one point was removed. Look at your top 8 in every division, if the loser point was removed.
Devils
Montreal
Carolina
Pittsburgh
Ottawa
New York
Boston
Philadelphia
Red Wings
Stars
Flames
Sharks
Ducks
Avalance
Wild
Canucks
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
| Antroman |
Posted - 03/11/2008 : 20:04:07
The single point creates mediocrity. Instead of having a whole raft of fair teams jockying for eight spots we would have, without the singles a few very good teams. I know Bettman wanted parody but all he has created is mediocrity. He isn't going to hockey heaven for sure!!!!!! |
| n/a |
Posted - 03/11/2008 : 10:46:58
Definitely, absolutely, NO POINTS FOR LOSING!
As for the shootout - not a big fan. Keep it in the pre-allstar game skills competition or whatever, but keep it out of the real games . . . (even though I know in my heart they won't get rid of it now)
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| ThorntonisTHEMAN |
Posted - 03/11/2008 : 04:38:28
I completely agree with Beans on this one. Hockey is the only sport in which you can still get a point if you lose. To me, a loss is a loss, no matter if you lose in 60 minutes or 65 minutes. Now, i'm not a big fan of the shootout so i really like Beans idea of keeping track but they are only effective for standing position tie breakers.
"I'm not dumb enough to be a goalie."
Brett Hull. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/11/2008 : 03:26:28
Here's my take:
1) Completely do away with point for losing. Period. End of story.
2) If the game ends in a tie after overtime, each team get's one point. Period
3) Shoot outs continue, but the only time they come into effect is in tiebreakers. So if a team ends the season tied in with another in points, the first tie breaker is wins. If they are tied in wins and points, then the tiebreaker goes to the team with the most shoot out wins.
This way, it will make overtime more important and it will not take all the value away from the shoot out, but enough. I just hate seeing a team play an amazing game and lose in a shoot out and see the other team leave the ice with an extra point just because their players were better on breakaways that night. |
| Alex |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 19:14:17
Is there possibly an issue of consistency?
Think about it. If a team manages to get the same amount of points, in fewer games won, chances are they had more games decided by a narrower margin. So while a team may have divisional wins, like Detroit, say (poor example but for argument's sake) wins all its divisional games, but can not win against any other Western team, more or less. With the new NHL schedule, they could still be one of the best teams, standings wise. I mean, is it not like 32 divisional games a year, 8 per team? That is a potential of 64 points off the bat in a weak division, not saying any team will ever win ALL divisional games.
Now, assuming this plays in to effect in a moderate way, which team is better? The team that shows up every night, or the team that is there in spurts? Look at Ottawa and look at the Flames. Which team has been more consistent? Flames. Which means, which would do better in a playoff series, all things remaining equal? Flames.
This is why the OT point is added into the standings, or, rather, why it is so important, in my opinion.
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
| Devils Fanatic |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 18:57:36
I wouldn't say get rid of the OTL completely, just the point. The standings would still show an OTL instead of L. Come playoff time if there was a tie between two teams, the team with the most wins would get in etc.
As it stands teams with like 14+OTL and a couple more points because of that could make it into the post season when a team with more wins doesn't. Why punish teams who win more?
Devils fan for life |
| Alex |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 18:50:24
This is a tough one.
From the one hand, imagine a team that outplayed an opponent the whole game but couldnt score and got a bad bounce in OT. Imagine if they are fighting for a playoff spot, and they lose it on that.
Then again, look at the Rangers Habs game. Did the Rangers deserve a point for letting in that many unanswered goals? Debatable...
From the one hand, you came really close, you shouldn't get the same reward as a team that gets blown out 6-0, let's say. But on the other hand, hey, you lost. If you were better you would have won.
I think that the way it is now, at least the best teams are more likely to make the post season. It would be interesting to do a study on this
All aboard the Price bandwagon |
|
|
