JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I think we played much better defensively. There were far fewer shots on net after the first and most were kept to the outside. It was not a shooting gallery on Ramo. He played well and his save percentage gets a break. We sure had problems entering the zone. The Preds have some tall defense with great reach. They put up a solid wall. I cannot believe that I am so happy to be at 500. I hate NHL's fake .500, we technically haven't won 50% of our games so how are we at .500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I hate NHL's fake .500, we technically haven't won 50% of our games so how are we at .500? Then you need to spin it this way: We have not lost half our games now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Then you need to spin it this way: We have not lost half our games now.... Well technically we have lost 16 games that's more than half our games. For me this all stems back to serious distaste for the loser point, I think it's an embarrassment to the greatest sport in the world. Just have wins and losses like the NFL, NBA and MLB have, they seem to have no problem in creating interest in playoff races without creating false parity. Sorry for the rant I just can't stand the point system in the NHL and I can't understand why it isn't being changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Well technically we have lost 16 games that's more than half our games. For me this all stems back to serious distaste for the loser point, I think it's an embarrassment to the greatest sport in the world. Just have wins and losses like the NFL, NBA and MLB have, they seem to have no problem in creating interest in playoff races without creating false parity. Sorry for the rant I just can't stand the point system in the NHL and I can't understand why it isn't being changed. Why? Because 16 teams are not running away with the playoff spots 1/4 of the way into the season leaving the other 14 teams in the dust. Paying fans are filling the seats league wide (excluding the few problem child teams), NHL is maximizing profits, everyone is happy (except you), that’s why. This is not false parity, every team is playing by the same rules, 8th placed teams knock off 1st place teams on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Why? Because 16 teams are not running away with the playoff spots 1/4 of the way into the season leaving the other 14 teams in the dust. Paying fans are filling the seats league wide (excluding the few problem child teams), NHL is maximizing profits, everyone is happy (except you), that’s why. This is not false parity, every team is playing by the same rules, 8th placed teams knock off 1st place teams on a regular basis. Actually there is lots of people who want the point system changed. We were only 1 point ahead of LA last year even though we had 5 more wins. Get rid of the loser point and the teams that deserve to be in the playoffs (the teams with the most wins) end up in the playoffs. Getting rid of the loser point also helps the trade market as teams will more clearly defined as buyers and sellers at the deadline. Trades create buzz and intrigue for the league. Getting rid of the loser point will actually make 3rd periods that are tied exciting, when games are tied in the 3rd the teams play it so safe because they want to make sure they get to OT so they get 1 point and then they can fight for the bonus point. Lastly it makes absolutely zero sense for some games to be worth 3 points while others are worth 2. Every game should be worth the same amount of points. I understand that every team is playing under the same rules but that doesn't mean that it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Well technically we have lost 16 games that's more than half our games. For me this all stems back to serious distaste for the loser point, I think it's an embarrassment to the greatest sport in the world. Just have wins and losses like the NFL, NBA and MLB have, they seem to have no problem in creating interest in playoff races without creating false parity. Sorry for the rant I just can't stand the point system in the NHL and I can't understand why it isn't being changed. Just to let you know, the NFL has ties as a possible result. It's rare but does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Just to let you know, the NFL has ties as a possible result. It's rare but does happen. That's true and I would almost prefer to have ties than the loser point at least every game would be worth the same amount of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Personally, in a perfect world, I like the old overtime. Same as baseball play the game until a winner is declared. I can see why the NHL would prefer to not have some possible 5+ hour games during the regular season though.. I am enjoying the 3 on 3 format too. If I have work in the morning I also like the fact a winner is determined fairly quickly with some excitement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 Personally, in a perfect world, I like the old overtime. Same as baseball play the game until a winner is declared. I can see why the NHL would prefer to not have some possible 5+ hour games during the regular season though.. I am enjoying the 3 on 3 format too. If I have work in the morning I also like the fact a winner is determined fairly quickly with some excitement. You would need to eliminate B2B games to play OT until a winner. A tie game makes sense, but teams would coast rather than try to win in the last 10 minutes. Bettman hates the idea of selling a game that has no winner. Imagine a season with 82 ties for 30 teams. I like the 3v3 OT idea. Some teams play it with the extra forward. The smart ones play 2D and a forward. Johnny can only play with 2D after a change-on-the-fly, though. The teams that have the best possession in OT also win most of the games. Johnny raely gives up the puck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 You would need to eliminate B2B games to play OT until a winner. A tie game makes sense, but teams would coast rather than try to win in the last 10 minutes. Bettman hates the idea of selling a game that has no winner. Imagine a season with 82 ties for 30 teams. I like the 3v3 OT idea. Some teams play it with the extra forward. The smart ones play 2D and a forward. Johnny can only play with 2D after a change-on-the-fly, though. The teams that have the best possession in OT also win most of the games. Johnny raely gives up the puck. The regular season is too long anyway. Eliminating a few back to back games from each team would improve the quality of hockey a tad. We both know that the teams would hate to give up the revenue those games bring in. If a team is tied and going into an overtime play until a winner is declared there won't be coasting going on. Win it before it gets to sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I enjoy 3vs3 and even the shootout, I just don't like the loser point. The loser point reminds me of the participation ribbons they hand out at elementary schools nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I enjoy 3vs3 and even the shootout, I just don't like the loser point. The loser point reminds me of the participation ribbons they hand out at elementary schools nowadays. I agree about the loser point. Make it all or nothing. Bettman likes it because it artificially inflates teams and makes the league look like there is parity. Vancouver would have 8 less points. Philly, Toronto, Minny, Detroit and Nashville would 6 less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 That's true and I would almost prefer to have ties than the loser point at least every game would be worth the same amount of points. I enjoy 3vs3 and even the shootout, I just don't like the loser point. The loser point reminds me of the participation ribbons they hand out at elementary schools nowadays. One point for a tie during the regular season has never determined a SC champion. It has however created excitement in the league with tighter standings and exciting season long races. If I had to sit at a live game and watch it conclude at a 0-0 or 1-1 tie, I doubt that I would ever return. The NHL is a business, as any business it aims to maximize profits. You don’t maximize profits with dull products that end in ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travel_dude Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 One point for a tie during the regular season has never determined a SC champion. It has however created excitement in the league with tighter standings and exciting season long races. If I had to sit at a live game and watch it conclude at a 0-0 or 1-1 tie, I doubt that I would ever return. The NHL is a business, as any business it aims to maximize profits. You don’t maximize profits with dull products that end in ties. So a 0-0 tie resulting in a shootout win is somehow worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 One point for a tie during the regular season has never determined a SC champion. It has however created excitement in the league with tighter standings and exciting season long races. If I had to sit at a live game and watch it conclude at a 0-0 or 1-1 tie, I doubt that I would ever return. The NHL is a business, as any business it aims to maximize profits. You don’t maximize profits with dull products that end in ties. I would prefer the game to end with one team winning and the other team losing. If it meant getting rid of the loser point I would welcome back ties with open arms. The loser point has determined a Stanley Cup Champ, back in 2011/2012 the LA Kings landed the 8th seed with a record of 40-27-15 for 95 points meanwhile Dallas and Colorado ended up outside the playoffs even though they had more wins than LA (Dallas had 42 and Colorado had 41). Those teams basically got punished because they weren't as good at losing as LA, LA went on to win the cup that year, even though they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs. They got in fair and square and played by the rules that everyone else did, but isn't this game about winning? Shouldn't we be rewarding the teams that won the most games with playoffs spots? Yes the bottom line is that because it creates this false drama that playoff races are closer, they won't change the rule, even if it hurts the integrity of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 I would prefer the game to end with one team winning and the other team losing. If it meant getting rid of the loser point I would welcome back ties with open arms. The loser point has determined a Stanley Cup Champ, back in 2011/2012 the LA Kings landed the 8th seed with a record of 40-27-15 for 95 points meanwhile Dallas and Colorado ended up outside the playoffs even though they had more wins than LA (Dallas had 42 and Colorado had 41). Those teams basically got punished because they weren't as good at losing as LA, LA went on to win the cup that year, even though they didn't even deserve to be in the playoffs. They got in fair and square and played by the rules that everyone else did, but isn't this game about winning? Shouldn't we be rewarding the teams that won the most games with playoffs spots? Yes the bottom line is that because it creates this false drama that playoff races are closer, they won't change the rule, even if it hurts the integrity of the game. LA entered the 16 team SC tournament base on points earned in regular season, yes they had more ties than other teams but they also had 8 fewer losses as well. The ROW was introduced into the standing column to break ties and reward winning. LA was awarded the SC because they were the best team in the tournament winning 16 games (no ties). This reinforces why it doesn’t matter how you qualify for the playoffs, just qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 LA entered the 16 team SC tournament base on points earned in regular season, yes they had more ties than other teams but they also had 8 fewer losses as well. The ROW was introduced into the standing column to break ties and reward winning. LA was awarded the SC because they were the best team in the tournament winning 16 games (no ties). This reinforces why it doesn’t matter how you qualify for the playoffs, just qualify. They didn't have any ties, they had 15 overtime loses. They did have more loses than the other teams the just lost in OT more than the other teams did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted December 16, 2015 Report Share Posted December 16, 2015 LA entered the 16 team SC tournament base on points earned in regular season The issue is how they accumulated the points... No "loser points", no playoffs for LA that season... This reinforces why it doesn’t matter how you qualify for the playoffs, just qualify. If that was true, then it would also reinforce the conclusion that the regular season was a waste of time if the object of having one was to ensure that the best teams made it into the playoffs... An accumulation of "participation ribbon" points for having made it far enough in a game prior to losing the game is not an accurate indicator of which teams are more deserving of being awarded a playoff spot... I also think that if the league shortened the number of games to eliminate the back to back games, and then played 20 minute OT periods until a winner was declared with no "loser point" being awarded would be a better way of determining which teams were most deserving to be in the playoffs... But that is not going to happen... and the shootout :"sklls competition" is also a poor way of determining who is the "better team"... So then what?... It's far from perfect, but I would rather see them extend the 3 on 3 to 20 minutes... I think that more often than not, someone will score long before a full period was over... Just look at how many times it happens within 5 minutes.. Either way, they should get rid of the "loser point"... All it does is create a false sense of parity in the league and skew the results by using a system that fails to award the best 16 teams a spot in the playoffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 They didn't have any ties, they had 15 overtime loses. They did have more loses than the other teams the just lost in OT more than the other teams did. The issue is how they accumulated the points... No "loser points", no playoffs for LA that season... If that was true, then it would also reinforce the conclusion that the regular season was a waste of time if the object of having one was to ensure that the best teams made it into the playoffs... An accumulation of "participation ribbon" points for having made it far enough in a game prior to losing the game is not an accurate indicator of which teams are more deserving of being awarded a playoff spot... I also think that if the league shortened the number of games to eliminate the back to back games, and then played 20 minute OT periods until a winner was declared with no "loser point" being awarded would be a better way of determining which teams were most deserving to be in the playoffs... But that is not going to happen... and the shootout :"sklls competition" is also a poor way of determining who is the "better team"... So then what?... It's far from perfect, but I would rather see them extend the 3 on 3 to 20 minutes... I think that more often than not, someone will score long before a full period was over... Just look at how many times it happens within 5 minutes.. Either way, they should get rid of the "loser point"... All it does is create a false sense of parity in the league and skew the results by using a system that fails to award the best 16 teams a spot in the playoffs... I understand the issue and support the present method of point accumulation. Some refer to them as “loser points”, the NHL refers to them as a “point awarded for being undefeated in regulation time, played in the traditional way, 5 vs 5”. Overtime has recently been geared towards the entertainment value (4 vs 4, 3 vs 3, SO) in an attempt to conclude a game, rather than winner take all, hence an additional point for winner. With LA winning the SC in 2012, its hard to argue the NHL let an undeserving team into the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carty Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I understand the issue and support the present method of point accumulation. Some refer to them as “loser points”, the NHL refers to them as a “point awarded for being undefeated in regulation time, played in the traditional way, 5 vs 5”. If it's such a great idea, then why dosen't the league award “loser points” or as you prefer, “point awarded for being undefeated in regulation time, played in the traditional way, 5 vs 5” during the playoffs?... Because it won't work as it does not determine one team as being a winner, which is the whole point in playing a game, seeing who can win... Awarding a point to the losing team creates two winners, not one... Overtime has recently been geared towards the entertainment value (4 vs 4, 3 vs 3, SO) in an attempt to conclude a game, rather than winner take all, hence an additional point for winner. With LA winning the SC in 2012, its hard to argue the NHL let an undeserving team into the tournament. It is not hard to disagree with the bolded at all... The fact LA won that year could easily be attributed to the Kings peaking at the right time while they were lucky enough to have the right players also being healthy... But it is hard to argue in support of the opinion that teams that had more actual wins and were left out of the playoffs are somehow less deserving than them to be in the playoffs because they had less "loser points"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xstrike Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I understand the issue and support the present method of point accumulation. Some refer to them as “loser points”, the NHL refers to them as a “point awarded for being undefeated in regulation time, played in the traditional way, 5 vs 5”. Overtime has recently been geared towards the entertainment value (4 vs 4, 3 vs 3, SO) in an attempt to conclude a game, rather than winner take all, hence an additional point for winner. With LA winning the SC in 2012, its hard to argue the NHL let an undeserving team into the tournament. I'm fine with OT but would change the point system up. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT or shootout win, 1 point for an OT or shootout loss, 0 points for a regulation loss. Gives teams a reason to try and win a game in regulation, all games are worth the same number of points, but the losing team still gets something. Look at Vancouver, they are tied for 2nd in the Pacific but are tied for the 2nd worst # of ROW wins. They just lost in OT more than any other team. Surely they aren't all that good eh? They'd still have 8 points in my format, but the other teams would be further out of reach. I know it would set us back too but I'd rather improve the whole league than root for the Flames... wait.... JK, you get what I mean though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheersMan Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 The current point system is geared towards points accumulated in the traditional way of 5 vs 5 at the end of regulation time. The SC is also awarded to the team that plays best at 5 vs 5. I don’t fault the NHL for favoring those teams who qualify based primarily on 5 vs 5 play. The 3 point system as xstrike mentioned rewards teams who excel in the current 3 on 3 OT format, which is a method never played in the tournament, unless it is a penalty filled game. Although 3 on 3 is entertaining it is not how the game in intended to be played. All things being equal, does the NHL want separation in the standing or do you want tighter races keeping the majority of fans interested longer? The NHL chooses the latter because it fills their pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTech780 Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 The current point system is geared towards points accumulated in the traditional way of 5 vs 5 at the end of regulation time. The SC is also awarded to the team that plays best at 5 vs 5. I don’t fault the NHL for favoring those teams who qualify based primarily on 5 vs 5 play. The 3 point system as xstrike mentioned rewards teams who excel in the current 3 on 3 OT format, which is a method never played in the tournament, unless it is a penalty filled game. Although 3 on 3 is entertaining it is not how the game in intended to be played. All things being equal, does the NHL want separation in the standing or do you want tighter races keeping the majority of fans interested longer? The NHL chooses the latter because it fills their pockets. If the current point system is geared towards points accumulated the "traditional way" LA wouldn't have made the playoffs in 2011/2012 as Dallas had more ROW than LA did. The 3 point system rewards teams who win in regulation, if you win in OT or SO you only get 2 points. It's not my favorite idea as it still awards a point to a team that lost, but it is better than the current system as every game is worth the same amount of points. I get why the NHL wants it the way it is, it still doesn't make it right. Having some games worth 3 points and some games worth 2 points, and having teams make the playoffs with less wins than teams outside the playoffs calls into question the integrity of the game I love. I am of the believe that if they changed to just straight wins or even the 3 point system that the interest in the game and in playoff races wouldn't decrease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastleMania Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 If the current point system is geared towards points accumulated the "traditional way" LA wouldn't have made the playoffs in 2011/2012 as Dallas had more ROW than LA did. The 3 point system rewards teams who win in regulation, if you win in OT or SO you only get 2 points. It's not my favorite idea as it still awards a point to a team that lost, but it is better than the current system as every game is worth the same amount of points. I get why the NHL wants it the way it is, it still doesn't make it right. Having some games worth 3 points and some games worth 2 points, and having teams make the playoffs with less wins than teams outside the playoffs calls into question the integrity of the game I love. I am of the believe that if they changed to just straight wins or even the 3 point system that the interest in the game and in playoff races wouldn't decrease. I completely disagree with you. I believe that the current point system is largely responsible for the parity in the league. It allows teams that are struggling to stay in the hunt. Sure, that might mean that there aren't as many teams running away with leads in the standings. Sure, that might mean that teams play for a tie towards the end of games. But overall, it makes hockey much more exciting. The current race in the Pacific Division is almost solely due to the current point system. Without it, I don't think the Flames would be where they are, as they would have thrown in the towel a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL44 Posted December 22, 2015 Report Share Posted December 22, 2015 The only mistake the NHL made with the new points system was trying to be economical with the number of columns. If they went with 4 columns instead of 3, you wouldn't see threads like the OP started. 99.9% who think of it as a 'loser pt' wouldn't be able to do the math to determine the number of 'loser pts' actually dished out... Current pt system relabelled: 2 pts : Regulation Win 0 pts : Losses 1 pt : Regulation Tie 1 pt : OT/SO win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.