These 3 point games...

[aziz]

@ruxpin

If I'm doing my job then that one point the loser earned by forcing a shutout is of no concern until I fail to win. Then isn't that challenge what I deserve for not winning?

No, it doesn't break down that cleanly. Detroit right now holds a wildcard spot over Columbus due to OTLs. Columbus has won more games outright than Detroit, but Detroit has taken an extra point from losses 10 times. Someone else collected two points from those games, Detroit one, so there's 30 points in the standings Columbus has to overcome. From 10 games.

With this system, the better winning percentage can be seeded below a team that has managed to lose the right way. And that's wrong.

Edited January 14, 2014 by aziz

[murraycraven]

@ruxpin

You may feel its obtuse all you like. It's my opinion of the issue. For the record I didn't call anyone's comments "whining" either, so though I get your passion for the topic, there's no grounds for it.

I just don't see adding two teams' point totals from the game and saying its a three point game as a relevant complaint. If you take your scenario and repeat it ten times you have Anaheim with 110, LA with 110 and San Jose at 100. LA wins the tie breaker over Anaheim as they have more games won excluding shootouts. That's why that's the first tie breaker at the end if the regular season. It excludes shoot out wins.

Either way teams reap what they sow. I don't want to see teams go back to playing not to lose. That was some if the most boring, God awful hockey ever seen. Like watching the Devils play the Devils.

You like to view it as three points because of the total points given to two teams. I see it as how far one team can move up the standings that is relevant. If I'm tied with the two teams playing as they start the game, the worst that can happen is one team ends up two points ahead of me at the end. So it's up to me to win my next game to stay even. If I'm doing my job then that one point the loser earned by forcing a shutout is of no concern until I fail to win. Then isn't that challenge what I deserve for not winning?

 

 

In the end does it not come down to EARNING the points?  No matter what took place if you win in regulation you get 2 pts.  If you lose in regulation you get 0 pts.  If you lose in OT you get 1 pt.   If you win in OT you get 2 pts... yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Every team needs to earn as many points as possible (2) every night they hit the ice.   That is the name of the game.   The SO is stupid but no matter what everyone plays by the same rules.   The job of every team in the NHL is to earn those 2 pts each night.   It seriously is crying over spilled milk IMO.  Every Team has the same potential to earn points every night.   No matter how the points are earned should not make much of a difference - you simply earned more available points than the other team.

 

It is a points based system... not winning percentage.   Everyone is in the same system.

Edited January 14, 2014 by murraycraven

[icehole]

You would think so,'t you?

 

I don't think it would work this way, though.  I bet you a ham sandwich that instead you have teams being extra cautious in the 5 minute overtime so they don't lose the point they would get by ending overtime with the status quo (a tie forcing the shootout).  Because if they go all out for that extra point, they risk the possibility of losing their point they get for doing nothing.

 

Sounds crazy and in opposition to what you would hope to call "sportsmanship," but this game is full of examples where rules are put in seemingly to help either competition or safety and players/teams game it opposite to the intent  (weak example but it came to mind quickly:  you put in a rule that you can't hit from behind near the boards.   So what do players do?  They begin standing right in front of the boards with their head down as if Mecca is on the other side).

 

In general, I like your idea (except that its intent seems to be to work with the shootout, which I hate--but that's just personal preference).  I just wonder if it wouldn't end up having the opposite effect.   Plus, it actually seems to have the effect of increasing the importance of the shootout (versus the overtime) rather than lessening it.  A point for a shootout loss but nothing for an OT loss.

Teams hold on for that one point now as it is.  At least they would have to get to a shootout to earn it and wouldnt be able to get another in the shootout.  To me, there has to be a winner and loser and they can't play 80-90 minute games 10-15 times a year.  Shootout makes sense but it can't be as important as it is.

[ruxpin]

Teams hold on for that one point now as it is.

 

I'm not sure, since they have that point no matter what they do.  So on 4x4 they can take some risks because there's nothing to lose other than an additional point they do not yet have. 

 

I agree about the 80-90 minute games.  I wonder if, in reality, this would actually happen.   Baseball could go on for hours but typically doesn't (obviously exceptions).  I just wonder if most games (again, obviously with exceptions) would be decided upon fairly quickly if there's no middle-ground point involved.  But your point on this seems to be the common wisdom, so it's likely there is something to it.

 

That, and the issues involved with keeping the ice surface in good condition.

 

And you're certainly not the only one (and I don't think you're even in the minority) who wants a clear-cut winner/loser.  That doesn't really bother me at all until the playoffs, but I do completely understand the desire.

 

Where I'll certainly agree is that the shootout--somehow--shouldn't be as important as it is.

[JackStraw]

There remains no such thing as a three point game

 

2pts (OT W) + 1pt (OT L) = 3 pts. But you already knew that.

[murraycraven]

2pts (OT W) + 1pt (OT L) = 3 pts. But you already knew that.

 

 

LOL!!!

 

I will stick up for our resident Pens fan and think Polaris was talking about one Team.  Yes, there is a 3 point swing but only one team can acquire 2 points out of a game.

[aziz]

LOL!!!

I will stick up for our resident Pens fan and think Polaris was talking about one Team. Yes, there is a 3 point swing but only one team can acquire 2 points out of a game.

And obviously everyone understands that. To the team that is chasing multiple other teams in the standings, having the potential for three points to be awarded, total, for one game makes things tough. That's the other side of the artificial parity blade : while a system like this tends to clump everyone up and keep more teams in the running, it makes actually climbing more difficult. It gives the illusion of increased drama while limiting actual mobility.

[Polaris922]

@aziz

Did you just say "lose the right way"? I'm sorry but Detroit also only lost 16 games in regulation to Columbus' 20. So we do away with the shoot out and those 10 OTL's Detroit has end in tie games, they still got ten points for them and Columbus is still down 2 points in the standings. Maybe Columbus shouldn't lose so much if they want in the playoffs?

[aziz]

@aziz

Did you just say "lose the right way"? I'm sorry but Detroit also only lost 16 games in regulation to Columbus' 20. So we do away with the shoot out and those 10 OTL's Detroit has end in tie games, they still got ten points for them and Columbus is still down 2 points in the standings. Maybe Columbus shouldn't lose so much if they want in the playoffs?

Three of those OTLs were in overtime proper, actual goal-against losses. So, Columbus back to being up by a point.

[Polaris922]

@JackStraw

Two different teams though. So one team got 1 point for an OTL... It's up to you to win to pass them. Or take an OTL yourself ... Anything but a flat out loss. And isn't that on you to win? Or have we decided its best to go back to playing for a tie? But if you lose you're still a point behind.

It's up to your team to not lose in regulation just like it used to be. Better yet, push hard in overtime for the two points then it doesn't matter what anyone else does.

Yes I see the math you're doing to get three points, but it's irrelevant to your cause. If I lose less of my games in regulation then I'm ahead of you. Period. It's up to each team to win.

Nobody has to like it, but it's fair to all of the teams because they all have to compete with it. It doesn't favor any one team over any others. So what's the difference?

The shoot out isn't going anywhere, so why try to argue right and wrong when it's 100% about preference and 0% about fair?

[Polaris922]

Three of those OTLs were in overtime proper, actual goal-against losses. So, Columbus back to being up by a point.

And if four of Columbus' regulation losses were OT losses they'd be up TWO points.

[JackStraw]

@Polaris922 - I'm not arguing that it's not fair, I'm arguing that it makes no sense. If you reward a team with a point for "losing well" (i.e., in overtime) shouldn't you reward a team (with an extra point) for "winning well" (i.e., winning in regulation)?

 

Does the fact that some games for whatever reason require OT and maybe a skills competition make them 1 point more valuable than a game that's decided in 60 minutes? There's no logical reasoning there. Other than to drum up some excitement I guess, which of course always matters most these days in the NHL.

[murraycraven]

It's up to you to win to pass them.

 

EARNING THE WIN!!!  

 

I agree that it makes things more difficult but I cant say this enough :  Every team plays under the same points based system.  The end result is to rack up as many points as possible regardless of how those points are earned.  

[murraycraven]

Other than to drum up some excitement I guess, which of course always matters most these days in the NHL.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head Jack - this is nothing more than trying to get the casual hockey fan excited.  I played and I hate the SO but it is what it is...

[JackStraw]

I think you hit the nail on the head Jack - this is nothing more than trying to get the casual hockey fan excited.  I played and I hate the SO but it is what it is...

 

Yeah. It doesn't cause me to lose any sleep but I still can think the whole thing is stupid.

[murraycraven]

Yeah. It doesn't cause me to lose any sleep but I still can think the whole thing is stupid.

I agree it is stupid no doubt...

 

I still think it is fair under the current system.  The current system is the only thing we can abide by now. Question: So by most everyones logic Team 1 in the below example should be "better" than Team 2 b/c they won more games while Team 2 has the same amount of points correct?   In a points based system it is only about how many points you earned - not winning percentage or any other metric.   To me Team 2 has the same amount of points but accrued those points in a different manner (ties mostly).  In a points based system both teams are even in the standings correct?

 

See attached...

Book1.xlsx

Edited January 14, 2014 by murraycraven

[aziz]

@JackStraw

I lose less of my games in regulation then I'm ahead of you. Period. It's up to each team to win.

And there is where it all goes wrong. Even for you. You begin the thought accurately: lose less games in regulation is the key. Then you get twisted up and say it's up to each team to win... But, as you said initially, that isn't the point at all. Columbus has won more games, but that is trumped by Detroit losing in a fashion that still rewards them : outside of regulation.

It isn't about winning, it's about managing your losses. That'd be fine if it were the only way things could be done, the results are *close* to what they'd be otherwise... But it isn't the only way. There are alternatives. They won't be considered, though. For the sake of quixotic late season drama.

Edited January 14, 2014 by aziz

[B21]

This topic seems to rise from the dead once a year...rightfully so.

 

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the shootout (it's rocks for now since the Pens are just about unbeatable in a SO) and I don't hate ties.  I do hate lots of ties.

 

In 1998-99, the last season before some form of an OT loss would get you a point, 21 of 27 teams had double digit ties including 4 teams with at least eighteen ties. That's almost a quarter of a season for those teams....that went undecided.  That's insanity.

 

That's 162 games of a possible 1,107 that year ending in a tie.  15%.  Way too many.

 

It also means that you are rewarding teams for not winning. For playing not to lose.  For packing it in - NJ Devils-style.  10 of 16 playoff teams that year actually won less than 50% of their games including Carolina (34 W / 42%), Anaheim (35 W / 43%) and St. Louis (37 W / 45%). 

 

The shootout may not be perfect and it does - somewhat - inflate win totals but at least it decides something and it does incorporate basic hockey skills like skaters scoring goals and goalies stopping pucks.  Until the NHL can come up with a better solution to keep teams from playing dump and chase for the last half of a 3rd period in a tie game I'd much rather a shootout than a tie.

 

I'd go 10 minutes of 4 on 4...then call it a tie.  I think you'd see a lot more games actually won.  And yes - that will benefit the better teams with more skilled players.  So what.  That's why they are the better teams. 

[Polaris922]

If we're degrading this conversation into a discussion of shoot outs I'm done. We've beaten that horse repeatedly and it's not going anywhere. Lol

[JackStraw]

@B21 - you're still rewarding teams for not winning by giving them a point for getting to OT. In many cases that's enough for teams to play for. So give 3 points for a regulation win. That would be more incentive to play to win rather than not to lose.

[peter puck]

Two points for a win and none for a loss. All or nothing and you will see teams going for the win and not playing for the one point.A game can still have ot and shoot out but no point for losing.

[JackStraw]

Two points for a win and none for a loss. All or nothing and you will see teams going for the win and not playing for the one point.A game can still have ot and shoot out but no point for losing.

 

That would also work for me.

[Philly29]

This may seem stupid... but how is this proposal to at least eliminate the shootout "which we well at least most of us do not like" but not the three point games.

 

I was thinking about if the league had two five minute OTs. Let's say if the game only goes to one OT the winning team gets two points and the loser gets a goose egg.

 

Now lets say if it goes into double OT the winning team gets two points and the loser only gets 1 pt.

 

Now if it is a tie in at the end of the second OT both teams get a point each.

 

I know it doesn't get rid of the 3pt system but at least some fat ass like me can't get called up because he's a beast at shootouts and maybe will make teams want to win more because they do not want to wear themselves out playing an extra ten minutes every other night...

[B21]

@B21 - you're still rewarding teams for not winning by giving them a point for getting to OT. In many cases that's enough for teams to play for. So give 3 points for a regulation win. That would be more incentive to play to win rather than not to lose.

 

If you lose in OT, no point.  If the game remains a tie after my 10 minutes of 4 on 4, 1 point each.  My goal would be to eliminate the shootout as well as so many ties. 

 

It's a lot harder to play not to lose when skating 4 on 4 for 10 minutes (verus 5 on 5 for 5).

[JackStraw]

If you lose in OT, no point.  If the game remains a tie after my 10 minutes of 4 on 4, 1 point each.  My goal would be to eliminate the shootout as well as so many ties. 

 

It's a lot harder to play not to lose when skating 4 on 4 for 10 minutes (verus 5 on 5 for 5).

 

I could live with that.