BlueKross Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 In most sports when we talk of a record of .500 we believe if we get a point for every game we play we are playing average. In hockey with the loser points the average hockey success is higher. This year the eigth place teams, which mean you have seven teams ahead and seven team behind, both finished 5 and 6.5 games respectively over .500. This means the median team in the league (middle success) was something north of 5 games+. In the NHL, if you are talking about a team or a coach that has a .500 record you are talking about something that is under performing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Well, thanks Blue Kross. But this seems a little bit a propos of nothing. What point are you trying to make here, exactly - ? Perhaps this is as good a place as any to bring up Hal Gill's remarks that Cunneyworth was a total failure: http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?14812 Interesting to note, as well, that he clearly regrets no longer being in Montreal. I love that guy and hope Nashville goes deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 Well, thanks Blue Kross. But this seems a little bit a propos of nothing. What point are you trying to make here, exactly - ? Perhaps this is as good a place as any to bring up Hal Gill's remarks that Cunneyworth was a total failure: http://www.cyberpres...n-na-change.php Interesting to note, as well, that he clearly regrets no longer being in Montreal. I love that guy and hope Nashville goes deep. I am just saying that the preception of .500 should be different in hockey than other sports. Typically .500 is a buzz phrase and as I have stated not so good in hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Its cause if you lose all your games in a shootout and go 0-0-82, you are considered 500. Even though you are a bunch of giant losers, and your opponent is getting 2 pts every night. 500 changed when there became loser points instead of ties. In ties every game was worth 2pts so a tie was a true 50/50 split or 500. A loser point is not a true split, you've allowed your opponent to gain an extra point against you in the standings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I am just saying that the preception of .500 should be different in hockey than other sports. Typically .500 is a buzz phrase and as I have stated not so good in hockey. I agree. When PG was talking about being a team in top tier of the league I am sure he wasn`t talking about being a .500 team. Seems to me that a team playing for .500 is more like a bottom tier team in the NHL. Speaking of looser points..... I still am dead set against 3pts regulation time win if anything I would rather the league take away the looser point for an OT lose. Shootout winner gets 2 and only in a shootout lose would the loosing team get a point. what do ya`ll think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I agree. When PG was talking about being a team in top tier of the league I am sure he wasn`t talking about being a .500 team. Seems to me that a team playing for .500 is more like a bottom tier team in the NHL. Speaking of looser points..... I still am dead set against 3pts regulation time win if anything I would rather the league take away the looser point for an OT lose. Shootout winner gets 2 and only in a shootout lose would the loosing team get a point. what do ya`ll think? I prefer either NBA style or Olympic style. NBA style has every game having a decisive finish and there is no points deciding. Either you win or lose and your win percentage decides your placement. Olympic style is 3 point wins, 2 point shootout win, 1 point shootout loss and zero points for a regulation loss. Likely where the league will go with and it's basically what you suggested. People can whine, cry, bitch and moan but shootout is here to stay. Learn to enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 I prefer either NBA style or Olympic style. NBA style has every game having a decisive finish and there is no points deciding. Either you win or lose and your win percentage decides your placement. Olympic style is 3 point wins, 2 point shootout win, 1 point shootout loss and zero points for a regulation loss. Likely where the league will go with and it's basically what you suggested. People can whine, cry, bitch and moan but shootout is here to stay. Learn to enjoy it. I realy don`t mind the shootout, it`s kinda fun to watch what I don`t like is the point given to the OT looser. If the league wants to give loser points then they should keep them for loosers in shootout and I only say that bcuz not the whole team can do something for the outcome. again this is just a thought and a rant all in one 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 I realy don`t mind the shootout, it`s kinda fun to watch what I don`t like is the point given to the OT looser. If the league wants to give loser points then they should keep them for loosers in shootout and I only say that bcuz not the whole team can do something for the outcome. again this is just a thought and a rant all in one My biggest grievance is rewarding different number of points for different games. You are in essence rewarding someone for failing. My personel preference would be play the over time and if not decided leave it as a tie. Two points awarded for every game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 My biggest grievance is rewarding different number of points for different games. You are in essence rewarding someone for failing. My personel preference would be play the over time and if not decided leave it as a tie. Two points awarded for every game. I agree 100%. Maybe even go to five minutes of 3-on-3 if the 4-on-4 OT doesn't break the logjam. The shootout is fun, but it also has nothing to do with the game of hockey, which is a team sport not a breakway skills competition. Sadly, the NHL decided at some point in the 1980s that ties were evil, mostly because of a belief that American audiences - whose favoured sports generally don't end in ties - didn't like them. That is the origin of the current absurdity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 My biggest grievance is rewarding different number of points for different games. You are in essence rewarding someone for failing. My personel preference would be play the over time and if not decided leave it as a tie. Two points awarded for every game. This is why Olympic scoring works, though. Games are worth three points. If you win, you get three points. If you lose, you get zero points. If the game goes to shootout, meaning the game needs a forced conclusion, it's still worth three points: two for the winner, one for the team that took it to 65 minutes. In the current system, a game is worth two points*. The * for the magical loser point that gets created. My personal preference is overtime until a winner. Ensure every NHL game from pre-season to season to playoffs ends the same way. There would be more incentive to finish the games in regulation due to wear and tear. Currently there's little incentive unless you're a team with injury prone players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This is why Olympic scoring works, though. Games are worth three points. If you win, you get three points. If you lose, you get zero points. If the game goes to shootout, meaning the game needs a forced conclusion, it's still worth three points: two for the winner, one for the team that took it to 65 minutes. In the current system, a game is worth two points*. The * for the magical loser point that gets created. My personal preference is overtime until a winner. Ensure every NHL game from pre-season to season to playoffs ends the same way. There would be more incentive to finish the games in regulation due to wear and tear. Currently there's little incentive unless you're a team with injury prone players. First, I must say that I like shootouts. But, I don't think OT are long enough. Should be 10 minutes of 4 on 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 This is why Olympic scoring works, though. Games are worth three points. If you win, you get three points. If you lose, you get zero points. If the game goes to shootout, meaning the game needs a forced conclusion, it's still worth three points: two for the winner, one for the team that took it to 65 minutes. In the current system, a game is worth two points*. The * for the magical loser point that gets created. My personal preference is overtime until a winner. Ensure every NHL game from pre-season to season to playoffs ends the same way. There would be more incentive to finish the games in regulation due to wear and tear. Currently there's little incentive unless you're a team with injury prone players. I can live with the three points for every game. The shoot-out not so much, you might as well throw darts to decide it. Even the bush league, start a runner at second base, has more to do with the game deciding the outcome, than the shoot-out in hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I can live with the three points for every game. The shoot-out not so much, you might as well throw darts to decide it. Even the bush league, start a runner at second base, has more to do with the game deciding the outcome, than the shoot-out in hockey. Again, you're going to have to live with it. This is a world game, not a Canadian game and around the world they finish games by shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 First, I must say that I like shootouts. But, I don't think OT are long enough. Should be 10 minutes of 4 on 4. I completely agree, shootouts are fun and i like that their wins don't count now in the tiebreakers, but overtime is to short, its like 3 shifts or so? Not enough time to decide a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 M preference would be 2 points for a win - regardless of how it was achieved and zero points for a loss. Like the old saying goes - keep it simple stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 M preference would be 2 points for a win - regardless of how it was achieved and zero points for a loss. Like the old saying goes - keep it simple stupid. If you do this, it will take about 2 minutes and the US media will be printing the NHL standings the same way they do baseball... Wins - Losses - Games Behind. There is no need for a point system if all games are a simple 2 or nothing proposition. Not saying its the wrong approach, just saying that you should realize it will be a very non-traditional standings, if you take out the one point option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 My biggest grievance is rewarding different number of points for different games. You are in essence rewarding someone for failing. My personel preference would be play the over time and if not decided leave it as a tie. Two points awarded for every game. well you see I am kinda line with CC. If get what he is saing. I liked the `old` way of counting game points. but doesn`t change that I like the shootout. It`s fun I like the tie. No for sure 2 pts to one team. Call me ol(d)skool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 If you do this, it will take about 2 minutes and the US media will be printing the NHL standings the same way they do baseball... Wins - Losses - Games Behind. There is no need for a point system if all games are a simple 2 or nothing proposition. Not saying its the wrong approach, just saying that you should realize it will be a very non-traditional standings, if you take out the one point option. I'd rather have just a win or loss. This way you avoid the whole issue of teams playing for a tie to get at least the loser point in regulation or OT. In my mind the game should be played to win, not to avoid a loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 M preference would be 2 points for a win - regardless of how it was achieved and zero points for a loss. Like the old saying goes - keep it simple stupid. Agreed. anyway to get this thread back were it started___ A team would have to amass 123 pts to be .500 in a 3 pt. per game scenario but the reference to .500 record would have a traditional meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehjay Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Agreed. anyway to get this thread back were it started___ A team would have to amass 123 pts to be .500 in a 3 pt. per game scenario but the reference to .500 record would have a traditional meaning. see that sound crazy to me!!! 123 pts and your not in playoffs? Maybe in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronthab Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Well, thanks Blue Kross. But this seems a little bit a propos of nothing. What point are you trying to make here, exactly - ? Perhaps this is as good a place as any to bring up Hal Gill's remarks that Cunneyworth was a total failure: http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?14812 Interesting to note, as well, that he clearly regrets no longer being in Montreal. I love that guy and hope Nashville goes deep. Yup, what a great guy CC. I don't know enough about the whole thing to know if Martin was just sacrificed or whether this was a good move, but it's hard to make sense of it all other than the desperate moves to plug the gap .. rather gap.ing hole left by the Markov faulty prognosis. Thanks for the post Booins out. Dat's OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Well, thanks Blue Kross. But this seems a little bit a propos of nothing. What point are you trying to make here, exactly - ? Perhaps this is as good a place as any to bring up Hal Gill's remarks that Cunneyworth was a total failure: http://www.habsworld.net/out.php?14812 Interesting to note, as well, that he clearly regrets no longer being in Montreal. I love that guy and hope Nashville goes deep. I love him, would love to have him in the organization in some capacity when he retires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I love him, would love to have him in the organization in some capacity when he retires. BIG TIME! Director of player attitude. 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.