Neech Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 A bunch of crotchety curmudgeons trying to get the shootout off their lawn. Lovett's got the right idea. It's more fun and excitement 90% of the time than just going home without a winner. I agree that the current point system is out of whack, and that 3-point games would be optimal, but they're too 'weird' and 'mathy'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 A bunch of crotchety curmudgeons trying to get the shootout off their lawn. Lovett's got the right idea. It's more fun and excitement 90% of the time than just going home without a winner. I agree that the current point system is out of whack, and that 3-point games would be optimal, but they're too 'weird' and 'mathy'. Well, let me pitch in more time for my "zero points for a tie" option. It solves every problem in one fell swoop. Sure there'd be ties - not many, because teams would avoid them like the plague - and tie games would be unbelievably exciting because teams would be going full-bore for the win. If, however, you like the SO, then obviously there is no problem to be solved other than the loser point, so the issue becomes moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Well, let me pitch in more time for my "zero points for a tie" option. It solves every problem in one fell swoop. Sure there'd be ties - not many, because teams would avoid them like the plague - and tie games would be unbelievably exciting because teams would be going full-bore for the win. If, however, you like the SO, then obviously there is no problem to be solved other than the loser point, so the issue becomes moot. But there's the glaring unfairness of giving two teams who didn't lose the same result as a team who lost. A tie has always been worth more than a loss. Your scenarios about how it would create more excitement are reminiscent of the NHL's own when it introduced the loser point. Sure, teams would be scrambling to avoid the ignomy of a literally pointless game (wouldn't the fans just love that!), but I could see it descending to side-show levels pretty quickly. Basically, I can't see players, owners, or fans being at all pleased leaving a game that both teams effectively lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Just so people can see how the standings would change on the system I prefer Regulation Win: 3 points Overtime/Shootout Win: 2 points Overtime/Shootout Loss: 1 point Regulation Loss: 0 points 2013-2014 Boston Bruins 47-7-9-19 2013-2014 Point Totals: 117 Adjusted Point Totals: 164 Montreal Canadiens 33-13-8-28 2013-2014 Point Totals: 100 Adjusted Point Totals: 133 Tampa Bay Lightning 32-14-9-27 2013-2014 Point Totals: 101 Adjusted Point Totals: 133 Detroit Red Wings 30-9-15-28 2013-2014 Point Totals: 93 Adjusted Point Totals: 123 Ottawa Senators 27-10-14-31 2013-2014 Point Totals: 88 Adjusted Point Totals: 115 Toronto Maple Leafs 24-14-8-36 2013-2014 Point Totals: 84 Adjusted Point Totals: 108 Florida Panthers 21-8-8-45 2013-2014 Point Totals: 66 Adjusted Point Totals: 87 Buffalo Sabres 11-10-10-51 2013-2014 Point Totals: 52 Adjusted Point Totals: 63 So what changes? - Montreal and Tampa tie for points but Montreal with more regulation wins takes 2nd in the division. - In the current standings, it looks like Toronto and Detroit were only one win difference. In reality, Toronto only won 24 games in regulation to Detroit's 30. - It makes the NHL playoff balance much clearer. You need at least 30 regulation wins and to lose less than 30 regulation games to be a playoff team. - The difference between the playoff making Red Wings and the playoff missing Senators last season was five points. In this? 8. Think of how different teams would react to this sort of information at a trade deadline. You would know the likelihood of making the playoffs. - Winning in regulation and avoiding a regulation loss is much more important. Teams would be less to play defence when down by a goal in the third. Would lead to a lot more passionate games, especially against bottom seed teams. Ottawa and Detroit were separate by eight points. Had Ottawa won three more games in regulation, Detroit is on the outside looking in. - Teams that relied on getting the game to OT are not going to look as good. I know some people look at the inflated point totals and think it'll in some way ruin how we look at the standings but it's not the number that's important. It's the right teams making the playoffs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I know some people look at the inflated point totals and think it'll in some way ruin how we look at the standings but it's not the number that's important. It's the right teams making the playoffs. That's it exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Just so people can see how the standings would change on the system I prefer Regulation Win: 3 points Overtime/Shootout Win: 2 points Overtime/Shootout Loss: 1 point Regulation Loss: 0 points 2013-2014 Boston Bruins 47-7-9-19 2013-2014 Point Totals: 117 Adjusted Point Totals: 164 Montreal Canadiens 33-13-8-28 2013-2014 Point Totals: 100 Adjusted Point Totals: 133 Tampa Bay Lightning 32-14-9-27 2013-2014 Point Totals: 101 Adjusted Point Totals: 133 Detroit Red Wings 30-9-15-28 2013-2014 Point Totals: 93 Adjusted Point Totals: 123 Ottawa Senators 27-10-14-31 2013-2014 Point Totals: 88 Adjusted Point Totals: 115 Toronto Maple Leafs 24-14-8-36 2013-2014 Point Totals: 84 Adjusted Point Totals: 108 Florida Panthers 21-8-8-45 2013-2014 Point Totals: 66 Adjusted Point Totals: 87 Buffalo Sabres 11-10-10-51 2013-2014 Point Totals: 52 Adjusted Point Totals: 63 So what changes? - Montreal and Tampa tie for points but Montreal with more regulation wins takes 2nd in the division. - In the current standings, it looks like Toronto and Detroit were only one win difference. In reality, Toronto only won 24 games in regulation to Detroit's 30. - It makes the NHL playoff balance much clearer. You need at least 30 regulation wins and to lose less than 30 regulation games to be a playoff team. - The difference between the playoff making Red Wings and the playoff missing Senators last season was five points. In this? 8. Think of how different teams would react to this sort of information at a trade deadline. You would know the likelihood of making the playoffs. - Winning in regulation and avoiding a regulation loss is much more important. Teams would be less to play defence when down by a goal in the third. Would lead to a lot more passionate games, especially against bottom seed teams. Ottawa and Detroit were separate by eight points. Had Ottawa won three more games in regulation, Detroit is on the outside looking in. - Teams that relied on getting the game to OT are not going to look as good. I know some people look at the inflated point totals and think it'll in some way ruin how we look at the standings but it's not the number that's important. It's the right teams making the playoffs. Would be curious to see how it goes down with the system : Regulation/Overtime Win : 2 pts Shootout Win : 1pt Any loss : 0pt I'm at work, paid by Canadian citizens' money (right now on lunch break). Don't have time to do the work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Would be curious to see how it goes down with the system : Regulation/Overtime Win : 2 pts Shootout Win : 1pt Any loss : 0pt I'm at work, paid by Canadian citizens' money (right now on lunch break). Don't have time to do the work... You must be busy taking lunch that late. I had to take lunch at 1:45 today and I almost threw a temper tantrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 ok since so many of our government employees have the time how about when it is a simple 2 for a win o for a loss stats. . I hope you realize that as a small business owner , I think I have the right to cast stones (all be it small ones) at OUR government employees. Ok don't take it so seriously. 2 for a win Zip for a loss. Do I hear an amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 You must be busy taking lunch that late. I had to take lunch at 1:45 today and I almost threw a temper tantrum. well, I work at Employment Insurance, in a call centre, helping citizens with their EI claims. My schedule is 10am to 6pm, so a lunch at 2pm is not that late for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Was noted; 21 NHL extended games 14 going to shootout 9 AHL extended games and only 1 going to shootout (and most are ending in new fun wide open 3-on-3, if not in the 4-on-4) Seems the way to go is obvious already and I hope shootouts become less a factor in deciding a teams' game. Sure the new format is bit gimmicky but 3 on 3 is a common game among non organized hockey players in Canada would be very entertaining rule to adopt anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 3-2-1 still gives a point for losing. Makes no sense. 2 for a win as a team. regulation or OT its still as a team. 1 point for skills contest. devalues the shootout. 0 points for loss, no matter how you lose. This would keep stat tracking much easier and just makes more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 There should be no shoot out, it's horsesh!t. 2 pts for winning, a 7 min overtime, 3 mins 4 on 4, and 4 mins 3 on 3, if no winner, 1 point each for the tie.... Just my opinion, but there it is.... shootout sucks.... When you need to inspire a player making as much money as these guys do, to win to get that extra point by making silly rules, then there is something wrong, the extra point to earn should be inspiration enough with the parity in the standings these days. As a team, you work hard for 60 minutes of hockey, and it's tied, you shouldn't be screwed out of a point that was handed out for the first 100 years that hockey was a sport for the tie, just because the other team has a shootout specialist, or is better 3 on 3... imho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I find it hilarious when someone thinks the shootout is just a skills competition but playing three on three? That's natural. The shootout is going nowhere. Don't like it? Skip hockey until the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 There should be no shoot out, it's horsesh!t. 2 pts for winning, a 7 min overtime, 3 mins 4 on 4, and 4 mins 3 on 3, if no winner, 1 point each for the tie.... Just my opinion, but there it is.... shootout sucks.... When you need to inspire a player making as much money as these guys do, to win to get that extra point by making silly rules, then there is something wrong, the extra point to earn should be inspiration enough with the parity in the standings these days. As a team, you work hard for 60 minutes of hockey, and it's tied, you shouldn't be screwed out of a point that was handed out for the first 100 years that hockey was a sport for the tie, just because the other team has a shootout specialist, or is better 3 on 3... imho No. I refuse to bring back tie games into hockey. Must. Boring. Outcome. Eva. Shootouts >>>>> Ties I'd bee 100% with longer overtimes though. As long as 10 minutes 4vs4 would be fine with me. And then, shootouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICEWATER77 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 maybe just take the loser point out? regulation, overtime (as is), then shootout..losing team gets squat. this will certainly up the intensity of the last 8-10 minutes of third pd and throughout the ot. teams tend to "play for the tie" to assure themselves of the loser point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 OK all together NO MORE FORKING TIES. I have said it a bunch of times in this thread. 2 point s for a win FFORK ALL FOR A LOSS. I DO NOT CARE HOW YOU WIN O/T S/O. A WIN IS A WIN. A LOSER POINT IS BULLSHITE. HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Whatevs brothers, but there is no loser point in a tie.... but I kinda get the feel of what Joe is saying on further thought.... that last 5 mins of nothing in a tie game did nothing for the game with both teams looking to snooze to the one point, I getcha... you're right. Nuff said. MoLG, the shootout sucks bud.... 3 on 3 isn't natural, but it's more like hockey than a shootout is.... and I'm not about to skip hockey man, are ya nuts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The shootout is big ratings. USA/Russia got an added two million people when they went to shootout. The NHL sees increased ratings in the USA and Canada at the moment of a shootout. People on the Internet and in the local bar love to whine about it but nobody leaves the room when it's on, and people flip to the end of a game going to shootout if their team ain't playing. That's the facts. It ain't like hockey? I've had to sit through years and years of bar fighting being called part of hockey but when three forwards line up to take shots at a goalie to break a tie, suddenly that's "just a skills competition" while fighting is "just a part of the game". Sorry, I'll take the shootout over fighting 10/10. At least a goal can be scored in a shootout. Let me know when a goal gets scored in a fight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The shootout is big ratings. USA/Russia got an added two million people when they went to shootout. The NHL sees increased ratings in the USA and Canada at the moment of a shootout. People on the Internet and in the local bar love to whine about it but nobody leaves the room when it's on, and people flip to the end of a game going to shootout if their team ain't playing. That's the facts. It ain't like hockey? I've had to sit through years and years of bar fighting being called part of hockey but when three forwards line up to take shots at a goalie to break a tie, suddenly that's "just a skills competition" while fighting is "just a part of the game". Sorry, I'll take the shootout over fighting 10/10. At least a goal can be scored in a shootout. Let me know when a goal gets scored in a fight. Komisarek vs Dubinsky, 19-02-2008. 5 goals were scored during that fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I don't think I mentioned fighting, ratings or anything like that, it's just an opinion, I don't like the shootout stuff dude.... that's all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The shootout is big ratings. USA/Russia got an added two million people when they went to shootout. The NHL sees increased ratings in the USA and Canada at the moment of a shootout. People on the Internet and in the local bar love to whine about it but nobody leaves the room when it's on, and people flip to the end of a game going to shootout if their team ain't playing. That's the facts. It ain't like hockey? I've had to sit through years and years of bar fighting being called part of hockey but when three forwards line up to take shots at a goalie to break a tie, suddenly that's "just a skills competition" while fighting is "just a part of the game". Sorry, I'll take the shootout over fighting 10/10. At least a goal can be scored in a shootout. Let me know when a goal gets scored in a fight. Completely irrelevant to compare a shoot out to a fight. The only reason the shootout is in the game is exactly as you said, it brings in viewers. What does that have to do with hockey? You don't think it kills a guy like Subban to have WATCH the game fall out of reach because he doesn't get chosen to take part in a shootout. Its all a money grab and will be out of the game soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Its all a money grab and will be out of the game soon enough. If you truly, 100% believe that, you do not understand that hockey is a business then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The shootout is big ratings. USA/Russia got an added two million people when they went to shootout. The NHL sees increased ratings in the USA and Canada at the moment of a shootout. People on the Internet and in the local bar love to whine about it but nobody leaves the room when it's on, and people flip to the end of a game going to shootout if their team ain't playing. That's the facts. It ain't like hockey? I've had to sit through years and years of bar fighting being called part of hockey but when three forwards line up to take shots at a goalie to break a tie, suddenly that's "just a skills competition" while fighting is "just a part of the game". Sorry, I'll take the shootout over fighting 10/10. At least a goal can be scored in a shootout. Let me know when a goal gets scored in a fight. Well said. Admit it people, shootouts aren't so bad now that the Habs can sometimes win them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Yes they are lame. 3 on 3 is more entertaining and actually involves some teamwork/passing/defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 If you truly, 100% believe that, you do not understand that hockey is business then. I know what I said sounds like a contradiction.... but its highly unlikely that the shoot out sticks around. 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.