carpandean Posted August 22, 2010 Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 Shootouts victories are still worth two points, but now if two teams are tied, then shootout victories won't count in the tie-breaker. Right idea, but too minor of a change. Hopefully, though, it's a baby step in that direction. http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=331308 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted August 22, 2010 Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 Shootouts victories are still are worth two points, but now if two teams are tied, then shootout victories won't count in the tie-breaker. Right idea, but too minor of a change. Hopefully, though, it's a baby step in that direction. http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=331308 The change seems to be backwards to me, especially if the goal is to "reward team play." My reading of the article says that the shootout win does add the extra point to the winner of a game, just like before, but if that team ends up tied with another in total points, the shootout win doesn't count. Unfortunately, w/ that system, they are still rewarding the individual skills more than team play; as that extra shootout point will probably propel the good shootout teams above a poor shootout team in the standings and the tie breaker won't come into effect. i.e. if one team that wins in regulation/OT regularly, but stinks in the shootout goes 40-22-20 w/ all 20 OT/shootout losses in the shootout, they'll end up w/ 100 points. But another team that is great at getting to the shootout and winning the shootout but can't win in regulation (think a roster w/ a solid D, a great goalie, and a bunch of Kotalik's) goes 50-20-12 w/ 20 of the wins coming in the shootout, they end up w/ 112 points. They were rewarded for their "individual skills." Now if the league made the change to where a SO win is the same as an OT loss, or the old tie (but it is kept as a tie breaker where 2 teams w/ the same # of points get separated by who had the most SO wins) then that 1st team that lost a lot of shootouts still ends up w/ 100 points, but the other team now drops to 30-20-32 and only has 82 points. The better team now looks better in the standings and a proficiency in the SO wasn't rewarded heavily. I still would prefer to see the SO and the 3 pt game scrapped (unless ALL games are worth 3 pts), but see this rule change as having very negligible effect on the value of a SO. Their tweaking it so negligibly, I don't see the point to it. Maybe my opinion will change to at least they are finally realizing that a SO win shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win, but for now my opinion is why bother if this is the full extent of the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 22, 2010 Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 I just wish they got rid of the point system all together. It is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresneedaCup Posted August 22, 2010 Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 I just wish they got rid of the point system all together. It is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. <_< that might not be a bad idea, how bout just wins and losses. shootout win counts as a regular win, and ot and shootout loss is a regular loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 22, 2010 Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 I just wish they got rid of the point system all together. It is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. <_< How do you have any fun watching hockey if you hate everything about your favorite team and the league they play in? :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2010 I just wish they got rid of the point system all together. It is one of the dumbest things in all of sports. <_< Every other sport uses percent, which I prefer because it is easier to compare teams with differing games played, but that doesn't inherently fix any of the other problems. Look at the AHL; they rank based on percent despite the fact that they actually use points, too, and have both 2 and 3 point games. The fact that the NHL calls them points, which are really just a scaled version of percent (for equal GP, anyway) really isn't the root of the real problems with their system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 Make each game worth 5 points. A regulation win is 5 pts, losing team 0. OT win 4 pts, losing team 1. Shootout win 3 pts, losing team 2. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 Thats a whole lotta points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I like points. Sure it's archaic but that's hockey. I like that it's confusing to outsiders. Makes me feel special. Personally I would like a Win in regulation or 4 on 4 OT to be 3 points, if at the end of regulation and OT it's tied then there's 1 point to each team with an extra point going to the shootout winners. SO each game has a max value of 3 points per game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I like points. Sure it's archaic but that's hockey. I like that it's confusing to outsiders. Makes me feel special. Personally I would like a Win in regulation or 4 on 4 OT to be 3 points, if at the end of regulation and OT it's tied then there's 1 point to each team with an extra point going to the shootout winners. SO each game has a max value of 3 points per game. I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 5 points, 3 points, 2 points, the loser point, no points, I just don't care as long as at the end of the season, the Sabres are in the top eight of the standings using whatever method they choose to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 5 points, 3 points, 2 points, the loser point, no points, I just don't care as long as at the end of the season, the Sabres are in the top eight of the standings using whatever method they choose to use. THIS :worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm still puzzled by the fact that the league (and many fans) are enamored of the whole overtime thing in the regular season... The league did just fine for a loonnngg time with wins, losses and ties all in regulation. If you need the two points bad enough and the score is tied near the end of the game, you pull your goalie. Or you put your high-scoring line on the ice. Having to go through a (mostly uneventful) overtime and a bogus penalty shot competition just to award one extra point....well, it seems just too artificial to me. Regular season games should be 60 minutes; if they result in a tie, each team takes a point and on to the next game. Sorry if that is too "old-school" for some, but it does make it easier to track standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm still puzzled by the fact that the league (and many fans) are enamored of the whole overtime thing in the regular season... The league did just fine for a loonnngg time with wins, losses and ties all in regulation. If you need the two points bad enough and the score is tied near the end of the game, you pull your goalie. Or you put your high-scoring line on the ice. Having to go through a (mostly uneventful) overtime and a bogus penalty shot competition just to award one extra point....well, it seems just too artificial to me. Regular season games should be 60 minutes; if they result in a tie, each team takes a point and on to the next game. Sorry if that is too "old-school" for some, but it does make it easier to track standings. The problem is that most of the time, you wind up with a boring last 10-20 minutes, with or without overtime. They're never going to get rid of it though. Get rid of the glorified slam dunk contest and call it a day at 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I'm still puzzled by the fact that the league (and many fans) are enamored of the whole overtime thing in the regular season... The league did just fine for a loonnngg time with wins, losses and ties all in regulation. If you need the two points bad enough and the score is tied near the end of the game, you pull your goalie. Or you put your high-scoring line on the ice. Having to go through a (mostly uneventful) overtime and a bogus penalty shot competition just to award one extra point....well, it seems just too artificial to me. Regular season games should be 60 minutes; if they result in a tie, each team takes a point and on to the next game. Sorry if that is too "old-school" for some, but it does make it easier to track standings. It's generally said by everyone in America that having a tie is like kissing your mother. I like the shootout, I don't like that winning a shootout and winning a game in regulation or OT are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VansTheMans Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I still don't understand how you can be against shootouts in any way shape or form. It's easily the most exciting thing in all of professional sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted August 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 It's easily the most exciting thing in all of professional sports. It's kinda like deciding a basketball game with a slam dunk competition or a game of horse; like deciding a football game with a punt-pass-and-kick competition; or like deciding a baseball game with a home run competition (if the pitchers are from these opposing team and can really pitch, then this is probably the closest.) It's cool to have the rare penalty shot come up in a game, but not to have a series of them to determine who wins a tie game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 I still don't understand how you can be against shootouts in any way shape or form. It's easily the most exciting thing in all of professional sports. Have you been to one in person? The long awkward pause between the end of OT and every single shot is incredibly boring. You're coming off this usually action packed 4-on-4 OT and you have to sit around and wait for the coaches to fill out their sheet of paper. Thrilling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 Have you been to one in person? The long awkward pause between the end of OT and every single shot is incredibly boring. You're coming off this usually action packed 4-on-4 OT and you have to sit around and wait for the coaches to fill out their sheet of paper. Thrilling! Wonder what one on one hockey would look like -- and would it be a better version of the shootout? How would changes be handled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 How do you have any fun watching hockey if you hate everything about your favorite team and the league they play in? :blush: How can you say "everything" when we have yet to discuss "everything" on the board. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henysgol Posted August 23, 2010 Report Share Posted August 23, 2010 How can you say "everything" when we have yet to discuss "everything" on the board. :D I hate EVERYTHING. Except the Sabres. And everything else I don't hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 Wonder what one on one hockey would look like -- and would it be a better version of the shootout? How would changes be handled? An interesting thought. Add it to the skills competition so we can see what it's like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoner Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 An interesting thought. Add it to the skills competition so we can see what it's like. I think it would be hilariously entertaining. Vanek gets stoned on a breakaway and the long rebound goes to Pat Kane. Miller stops Kane at the other end -- and on the rebound. Vanek gets back and hacks the puck inside his own line. Both players are gassed and change. Goalies can't play the puck outside the crease, so the puck has to just sit there. It's a race to the loose puck by the two players off the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 I still don't understand how you can be against shootouts in any way shape or form. It's easily the most exciting thing in all of professional sports. There's no denying that it's exciting. I've been to two in person: a prolonged one against NJ where Tallinder scored the shootout winner against Brodeur, and then an even longer one against Colorado this past season. I was on my feet the whole time, it's a great way to end a game if you're a fan. But on the flip side, how can you really justify three shooters going one on one with the goaltender determining the winner of the game? No defense.. no team work.. no hitting.. it eliminates every aspect of the game besides shooting, stickhandling, and goaltending if you consider a series of penalty shots an effective way of judging your goaltender. To be fair, the penalty kick shootout in soccer isn't any better... but as we all know Soccer games can go a lot longer without a goal being scored. I think a 10 minute overtime period and THEN a shootout would be a fair compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 Playing a game for 60 minutes and not having a decisive outcome is asinine. There has to be a winner and a loser. Call the game in overtime as the rules are written and one teams powerplay will decide the game. I do enjoy the shootout for its entertainment value though. I like the creativity and display of skill by both the shooter and the goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.