brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 It seems the Olympics 'get' it in terms of point structure. Really, the only reason the NHL doesn't do this is because of money. Artificial parity is better for more teams, thus more interest and ticket sales. In the Olympic hockey tournament, there are three groups of four teams. A regulation win is worth three points, overtime/shootout wins worth two points, overtime/shootout losses worth one point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 @brelic Well they may get it that way, but deciding a gold medal winner by shootout isn't "getting it" IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Great for a short tournament. I would hate it in the NHL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 @brelic Well they may get it that way, but deciding a gold medal winner by shootout isn't "getting it" IMO.Deciding who buys dinner by shoot out isn't getting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 @brelic Well they may get it that way, but deciding a gold medal winner by shootout isn't "getting it" IMO. Agreed. I meant the point structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Great for a short tournament. I would hate it in the NHL What would you hate? The point structure or Stanley Cup champion by shootout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 What would you hate? The point structure or Stanley Cup champion by shootout? Both. (I was referring to the point structure but I would hate the Stanley cup win by a shootout more). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Absolutely Rux. Should be 2 points for a win, one for a tie, and none for a loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Both. (I was referring to the point structure but I would hate the Stanley cup win by a shootout more). Is it the three point wins that you don't like? Genuinely curious... sounds like you're fine with the loser point. I just don't understand why making it to 60 minutes plus 1 second is worth more than 60 minutes. Being tied after 60 minutes is not some great and rare accomplishment. It routinely happens in the NHL. They've tried to mitigate its effect by instituting the regulation win tiebreaker, but somehow, it still rubs me the wrong way. That only comes in to play when two teams are tied in points after 82 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 Absolutely Rux. Should be 2 points for a win, one for a tie, and none for a loss. Agreed, but that's not what rux is saying (at least not how I understood him). 2, 1, 0 is the same as 3, 2, 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Agreed, but that's not what rux is saying (at least not how I understood him). 2, 1, 0 is the same as 3, 2, 1. I'm going to reply to you here because what I'm replying to might be more succinct. First, AJ's assertion is my preferred stance. (2pts win, 1 pt. tie, 0 pts. loss). Actually, if I had my ideal I'd get rid of the points altogether. Flyercanuck and a couple others and me went around and around on this, but I still insist the point system is as stupid as the American measuring system. Just like the American measuring system, it's unnecessarily complicated and outdated but, hell, it's what we're used to so alternatives seem "difficult" (metrics, to stay with the measuring analogy and PCT to go back to standings). I've seen some places talk about "percentage of available points," so I'm wondering if we're not being slowly pushed in that direction. But a 5-4-1 team's percentage would be easy enough to figure out. 5.5/10= .550 You'd end up similar to football standings with W-L-T PCT GB (games back) Hell, if baseball and football fans can figure it out, it should be a walk in the park for a hockey fan. But that's a different subject entirely. You asked about 2-1-0 being the same as 3-2-1 and why I don't like it. I guess I have two reasons that come from completely different angles. 1) If it IS the same, why bother changing it? I mean, IF it is truly the same, I don't see the need to move to it. It would be a distinction without difference, so why bother. 2) But it IS different, isn't it? I guess first of all, growing up I was largely a fan of two sports. Hockey and Baseball, pretty much in that order but baseball was a close second. I was the nerd (hi @jammer2 ) who would sit on a Sunday afternoon and watch the game WITH a scorecard and keep score. I collected baseball cards, etc. Baseball was very stats driven. And so long as you stayed in the "post division era" with 162 games, you could very quickly compare records across years. A winning percentage of .625 in 1987 was better than a .615 winning percentage in 1981 and so forth. It just was by virtue of the fact that .625 is a higher number than .615. (Admittedly, there's subjectively a little more to that if one wants to get into "how much harder was the competition in a given year, division strength, yadda yadda. But the point remains the same). I guess I'm going into all of that because I like being able to compare teams historically. It's already impossible to do that in hockey. While you have the subjective argument in any support, you can't even objectively compare point totals or percentage points in hockey. Expansion aside, we've had slightly varying numbers of games, Then you're comparing the 87 Oilers and the 2008 Penguins and you first have look up "what the hell was the point structure like? Were there ties? Overtime plus ties? Shootouts? Hoveround races? And now you have 3 points, 2 points and 1 point. It's point inflation that's unnecessary if we just quit rewarding losers for showing up. Adding more and more points just makes my skin crawl over my basic aversion to points to begin with (despite being "used to them" for 40+ years). It does admittedly cure some problems while, for me, creating others. (Just a random seemingly unrelated comparison, I got a 1360 on my SATs back in 1986. This was when they only had two 800 pt. "sides" --math and verbal--and had analogies and you actually had to know something. The point to this is not to brag about a decent but not great score--I had several friends much higher than that including two who got a perfect 1600. The point, though, is that at some point they got rid of analogies, made it easier, and added another 800 pt. part so that now there is very little real way to compare eras. So that when my daughter gets a 1400-something on it and I tell her to retake it, I immediately get the brain dead, "but you only got a 1360 on yours!" ) Going to the 3-2-1 just has that feel to me. I dislike it. Viscerally On a less existential level, the loser is still going home with a point. I can't tell you how much that bothers me. I think I dislike that fact more than I dislike the shootout. You lose, you go home with nothing and you like it. You want something? Then win and earn it. The 3-2-1 doesn't change that for me. Instead we're just giving the winner more points for doing nothing more than what should be the required: winning. So, people seem to dislike the idea of the tie. I don't dislike the tie. I realize you didn't win so you should go home with nothing, but you also didn't lose. So, a point each for the stale mate. However, if people really have an aversion to ties (and in defense of those people, the comparison to football is weak given the difference in frequency of the ties) and if PCT is not an option, then go with this: 1 period of 4 x 4 OT lasting 10 minutes.If at the end of the OT period there is no winner, then a shoot out as the rules currently exist (no repeating shooters, for example)2 points for a win no matter when it happens.No points for a loss no matter when it happens. People who don't like ties are happy.People who actually like the skills competition (hi @hf101) are happy.People who can't stand losers getting a door price (hi @ruxpin) are happy.And it prevents the games from going all night. I realize it's yet again another structure change that makes my comparing across areas impossible, but that horse has already left the barn. Plus, what would happen to message boards if we couldn't argue who's better? But that's why I don't like 3-2-1:I guess it doesn't address my root problem with the current system (losers still get a door prize) while further inflating points (another of my root problems). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 @ruxpin Ok, reading your post, I think we're on the same page. I would much prefer 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a tie. Period. No loser point, no shootout. IF they absolutely cannot live without a shootout, we still agree.... no loser point. To me, a 60:00 minute game being worth 2 points and a 60:01 game being worth 3 points makes no sense. You should not be rewarded for losing. So bottom line, I think we agree. The only reason I pointed out the Olympics is that if the NHL insists on keeping this asinine points structure that rewards losers and throws off standings by awarding extra points, then at least make regulation wins worth 3 points. But I fully understand that the NHL is trying to artificially create parity and will not move away from it. Even though the NHL is generating more revenue than ever, to me as a life long fan, it appears like a sport that lost its way amid gimmicks, expansion, and excessive pomp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 @ruxpinOk, reading your post, I think we're on the same page. I would much prefer 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a tie. Period. No loser point, no shootout. IF they absolutely cannot live without a shootout, we still agree.... no loser point. To me, a 60:00 minute game being worth 2 points and a 60:01 game being worth 3 points makes no sense. You should not be rewarded for losing. So bottom line, I think we agree.The only reason I pointed out the Olympics is that if the NHL insists on keeping this asinine points structure that rewards losers and throws off standings by awarding extra points, then at least make regulation wins worth 3 points. But I fully understand that the NHL is trying to artificially create parity and will not move away from it. Even though the NHL is generating more revenue than ever, to me as a life long fan, it appears like a sport that lost its way amid gimmicks, expansion, and excessive pomp.Agree with every word of that. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Very simple, 2 for a win zero for a loss. That is it. Case closed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Very simple, 2 for a win zero for a loss. That is it. Case closed. That's what it boils down to for me. How we get there is open to debate for me, but that's what I want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.