Wyldnwoody44 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The shootout is meh to me.... What's annoying is the scraping of the ice before The shootout, just get out there and friggin play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 We have discussed this at great lenght in the past. Unfortunately, I see no way they change this idiotic system anytime in the foreseeable future. The current system takes the worst of all proposals and cobs them together (games having different values on any given night, loser points, a skills competition determining the winner, a DeLuca 500 entering our lexicon, & little incentive to press for a goal at the end of regulation lest a team lose its participation point; that should be enough for starters) into a system that would be a joke if it weren't reality. The system they currently use is something The Onion should have dreamt up. But we can't just wake up and have it simply be a bad dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaught Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 For example a team could lose every game in the shootout and gain 82 points and be even in the standings with a team that wins 41 games and loses the other 41 in regulation. That's my beef. I see what you're getting at, so I started looking at old standings. The most loser points a team has gotten is 18 and it does appear to have affected playoff positions in the past. Teams with more regulation wins have missed the playoffs because a team with more OT losses got in. For example, 2011-2012 LA: 40 - 27 - 15 Dallas: 42 - 35 - 5 If there was no loser point, LA wouldn't have made the playoffs and would not have won the Stanley Cup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 With MLB approving expanded instant replay today 25 years after the NFL despite years of protests from the purists, anything is possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 3-2-1-0 is good. Not awarding an overtime loss seems cheap since it creates an even larger disparity between good teams and bad teams, the last second run to tie for a bad team would become for naught against any good team. Why bother tie Chicago or Anaheim when they'll eventually beat you anyway. 3-0 Win-Loss in regulation 2-1 Win-Loss OT (Rewards the loser for holding out against a superior team, and penalizes the winner for letting it slide into OT) Plus to be honest, and OT loss shouldn't = a regulation loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gramps Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Plus to be honest, and OT loss shouldn't = a regulation loss. Why not ? An OT loss equals a regulation loss in football, baseball and basketball ... why not hockey ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Next time a game goes to a shootout, check the stands to see how many fans are left up there. When OT ends, many fans head for the exits. Part of that is the looooong time it takes to pick shooters and scrape the ice. Part of it is....well, is it that exciting to watch six guys shoot just to gain that one point in the standings? Maybe yes, but mostly no. 86 the shootout. That leaves OT. If both teams get a point anyway, they're not so likely to take chances to score the winner. So, you get five minutes of 4-on-4 where no one really wants to give up an easy goal. That leaves it as a tie with a point going to each team. Skip the 5 minute OT and just let the game end as a tie in regulation. Oh, remember the other night? When Buffalo scored to tie Philly near the end of the third period? And The Sabres kind of sat back, waiting to get to OT? And then the Flyers made a push and scored with seconds left on the clock? Remember that? Apparently, the Flyers don't care much for OT, either. Old school.... 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, nothing for a loss, no OT, no shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Why do so many people get their panties in a bunch over games having a different number of points. I really don't care and quite frankly, some games are worth more points. 3-2-1-0 is awful. There will be teams that are uncatchable, and uncatch-upable by mid December. The points system is about assigning a value to teams and their wins in order to get the best matchups for the playoffs. While I'm not a big fan of the shootout, I still think this current system does a pretty good job placing the best teams in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Why do so many people get their panties in a bunch over games having a different number of points. I really don't care and quite frankly, some games are worth more points. 3-2-1-0 is awful. There will be teams that are uncatchable, and uncatch-upable by mid December. The points system is about assigning a value to teams and their wins in order to get the best matchups for the playoffs. While I'm not a big fan of the shootout, I still think this current system does a pretty good job placing the best teams in the playoffs. You seem to be arguing both sides. If you want to do a good job putting the best teams in the playoffs, you want some teams uncatchable by mid December. Different games worth different points is terrible because teams around mine playing each other can gain 3 points between them while my team can only gain 2 by winning their game. Yes this is countered by loser points I may have gained in the past, it doesn't feel right in the final weeks of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 You seem to be arguing both sides. If you want to do a good job putting the best teams in the playoffs, you want some teams uncatchable by mid December. Different games worth different points is terrible because teams around mine playing each other can gain 3 points between them while my team can only gain 2 by winning their game. Yes this is countered by loser points I may have gained in the past, it doesn't feel right in the final weeks of the season. I guess my point is,... who cares? Has the current point scheme so egregiously left a team out of that coveted eight spot only to put in an undeserving wretched ninth seed into the playoffs, that we have to change the whole thing? That's basically what we're talking about, swapping out eighth seeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I don't really have a problem with the current system, but I'm sure there could be some tweaks. Everything Taro says makes sense when you break it down and look at it in that light, but while the premise of handing out a "loser point" is a little quirky, I just don't really care that some games hand out two points while others hand out three. It is a non-issue to me. A win is two points, a loss is zero points, so it makes logical sense than the "in-between" result should be worth one point. I guess the problem is that the "in-between" result is still a loss, rather than a tie, which puts the shootout in question... I want each game to have a winner. Heck, I want each overtime game to be decided in overtime. My favorite part about hockey growing up, other than watching the Sabres, was sudden death OT. Watching teams battle into one, two, three overtimes in the playoffs. Game winning OT goals are exciting, and the stakes make for exciting hockey. I think that's part of what made me such a big hockey fan -- prior to watching the 05-06 Sabres team, I almost preferred watching really tight 1-0, 2-1 games because you knew that 1 goal could be the winner. Obviously, you can't go into multiple 20 minute OT sessions in a regular season game, so I guess that's where my feelings on it hit a snag. We need a winner, so no ties. Overtime is preferred, but has to be limited. I can't dream up anything better than the shootout -- no matter how you adjust overtime, there will still come a point where you have to decide between a tie and a shootout. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of the shootout, but it is better than a tie, and the NHL has done a good job of limiting the importance of shootout wins by not counting them towards the tie breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Ick. But I'm likely to say that about anything that includes the shootout. But the shootout win is not a standings win. It's still a 1-point tie. All it is now is a playoff tiebreaker. The shootout is meh to me.... What's annoying is the scraping of the ice before The shootout, just get out there and friggin play. Send the guys with shovels to do one quick sweep. No zambonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I hate it for the fact that the last couple minutes in a tied game are almost blown off by the teams. They ease up and accept overtime. By phoning in those last 30 seconds or more, they rest up for the instant death contest rather than battling for that guaranteed 2 points. If only http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzFzjYcJ9w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 As I have said many times, the NHL needs to get rid of the point system all together. It is possibly one of the dumbest things in all of the major professional sports. Any new variations of a point system only makes it worse. Take a look at today's standings. If you go solely by wins only two teams in the east and two in the west would have to switched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 As I have said many times, the NHL needs to get rid of the point system all together. It is possibly one of the dumbest things in all of the major professional sports. Any new variations of a point system only makes it worse. Take a look at today's standings. If you go solely by wins only two teams in the east and two in the west would have to switched. Point systems are very, very common outside of northern North America. This particular system is faulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Point systems are very, very common outside of northern North America. This particular system is faulty. It's faulty and simply not needed. The NHL is the only one of the four major sports that feels the need for a point system. There is no reason to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Just for the record, does anyone really care what the difference is between a team that is 41-41 and a team that loses 82 shootouts? They're both bad and not making the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Just for the record, does anyone really care what the difference is between a team that is 41-41 and a team that loses 82 shootouts? They're both bad and not making the playoffs. Yes. I can pull for a team that's 41-41. 0-0-82? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Yes. I can pull for a team that's 41-41. 0-0-82? Not so much. And if their conference was so bad that either could make the playoffs, the 41-41 team would be in. See, the system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 And if their conference was so bad that either could make the playoffs, the 41-41 team would be in. See, the system works. I'm not sure I get it, but ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 I'm not sure I get it, but ok. Both have 82 points, but # of wins is the first tie-breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Why not ? An OT loss equals a regulation loss in football, baseball and basketball ... why not hockey ? None of them have a point system..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 h When OT ends, many fans head for the exits. Part of that is the looooong time it takes to pick shooters and scrape the ice. Part of it is....well, is it that exciting to watch six guys shoot just to gain that one point in the standings? Maybe yes, but mostly no. 86 the shootout. That leaves OT. If both teams get a point anyway, they're not so likely to take chances to score the winner. So, you get five minutes of 4-on-4 where no one really wants to give up an easy goal. That leaves it as a tie with a point going to each team. Skip the 5 minute OT and just let the game end as a tie in regulation. Oh, remember the other night? When Buffalo scored to tie Philly near the end of the third period? And The Sabres kind of sat back, waiting to get to OT? And then the Flyers made a push and scored with seconds left on the clock? Remember that? Apparently, the Flyers don't care much for OT, either. Old school.... 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, nothing for a loss, no OT, no shootout. Bold one: I don't get fans that leave before the end of the game. Beat traffic? Really? Just hang out in the seats for a bit and talk to your friends, take a leak, walk around the concourse a couple times to stretch the legs, and go out to the car. Bold two: Really? Most of the time 4-on-4 OT looks like two teams going balls-out to me. the only time you don't see that is when one team seems to think they stand a better chance in the shootout (which is pretty rare). Bold three: I don't really remember when games didn't go to overtime. My guess would be the last few minutes would look like the double-trap that the old 5-on-5 OT was. Can anyone confirm? I really need to dig up some video of an old overtime period, just terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 <snip> Bold three: I don't really remember when games didn't go to overtime. My guess would be the last few minutes would look like the double-trap that the old 5-on-5 OT was. Can anyone confirm? I really need to dig up some video of an old overtime period, just terrible. I want to say it was either the 82-83 or 83-84 season. And what I recall happening more often than not was just what you described: boring hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 If you got rid of the loser point then we are one extra point down in last place, but if you get rid of the loser point and then switch from shootouts to one point each for ties then we go from three points down to eight points down. The shootout is keeping us close enough to make a run out of the bottom three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.