Community Forums > General Chat
Hockey Discussion: The Leafs Would Like To Borrow Taylor Hall's Horseshoe
NWR_insanolord:
What I'd personally like to see done with overtime (aside from playing continuous OT until there's a winner like in the playoffs, which I'd love but they'd never do) is to switch up the point system so that a win in regulation is 3 points instead of the 2 it currently is, an OT/shootout win is 2, and an OT/shootout loss is still 1. That way every game is worth the same amount of points, and teams are rewarded for winning without it going to overtime. In addition, they should increase the amount of overtime played from 5 minutes to at least 10.
Ian Sane:
The winter Olympics had 3 points for every game and it was such an obvious idea you really question the intelligence of the NHL management. I have never met anyone who doesn't think the current "sometimes there's 3 points" system is stupid. It is so obviously stupid you have to think that maybe it is on purpose. It adds a certain randomness to the standings which will allow the occasional undeserving team to make the playoffs, thus creating the illusion of parity which gets fans' hopes up so that they'll in theory give their team more business. A little bit of random chaos ensures that there are less lame duck teams with no chance.
I personally still get upset about a couple of years ago when the Edmonton Oilers went to the finals. They got in on the last seed in the west, beating out my Canucks, because they had more "loser points". They lost more games but tended to lose in shootouts a lot so they came out ahead. I think this was the FIRST YEAR the shootout was used and the exact worst case scenario that skeptics were worried about happened.
The 3 point system is the way to do it if you're going to give out loser points. I personally was never bothered by ties so if they just had a short overtime and it remained as a tie, so be it. I also wouldn't care if they just did wins and losses outright with no loser points and just used win/loss percentage like the other leagues do as it is easy to understand. Yeah it sucks to lose on a shootout but the playoff seeds have been decided by shootout results already. Shootouts count, even with the loser point, so if your team loses in a shootout, tough, it's their own fault for not getting the job done and the other team had the same risk of losing.
One thing that does offend me about shootouts and not allowing ties is that that seems to be designed entirely to attract attention from people that don't like hockey. It's altering the game for the benefit of the non-fans. A real hockey fan would not stop watching because of ties.
Khushrenada:
--- Quote ---They lost more games but tended to lose in shootouts a lot so they came out ahead.
--- End quote ---
Losing in a shootout is the same as having the game end in a tie or losing in overtime. Now, if they got into the playoffs because they were winning a lot of shootouts, then you have a legitimate point.
apdude:
Post-Lockout OT is definatly better than pre-lockout OT since in the pre-lockout days a winner was rarely decided in the 5min OT because everone was playing not to lose, and now they are playing for the extra point so they play with nothing to lose so to speak so you see more games get decided before the Shootout.
With that in mind do you think that if they did go to the 3 point regulation win, if a game was tied with say 5-7min left, both teams would be playing defensive and take no chances, in order to force the overtime as to not give 3pts to a rival? I'd hate to go back to the Devils style of hockey everynight.
Although it would make the last 20 games of the season very exciting since teams can make up points quickly.
Ian Sane:
--- Quote ---Losing in a shootout is the same as having the game end in a tie or losing in overtime. Now, if they got into the playoffs because they were winning a lot of shootouts, then you have a legitimate point.
--- End quote ---
No, the point is that when the shootout was introduced the loser point came with it. Now you could lose a game but still get a point out of it. Vancouver had 42 wins that year while Edmonton had only 41. But 13 of Edmonton's losses were in overtime or the shootout while only 8 of Vancouver losses received the extra point. Because of the loser point a team with LESS WINS and MORE LOSSES made it into the playoffs and in this case they even made it to the finals. This was the exact hypothetical scenario that critics of the loser point came up with to point out the serious flaw in the rule and it happened on the very first season with the loser point in place.
It's also worth nothing that two seasons after the NHL abolished ties Martin Brodeur set the record for most wins in a season. Now Brodeur is an amazing goalie and a future hall of famer and still pulled off quite a feat. But the record is somewhat tarnished because the previous record holder, Bernie Parent, did not have the luxury of shootout wins to pad his stats. The record was only broken after the rules were changed in such a way that gave present day goaltenders an advantage. That's a good knock against the shoot-out (but even then I would be fine if shoot-out wins was a seperate stat for goalies).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version