FreakinB: Freaking Henrik. Can we go back to a time when the Rangers weren't this good?



our year, baby!

Shoot outs don't count against shut outs?

jaylectricity: Ya know, my GF asked if I wanted to watch that game and I said I could probably skip it.

I was right.

You missed a good game and I hate the Rangers.

That said, the NHL just gave a verbal thumbs up to the shootout. After biatching about it since its inception, I still hate it, but I hate the three points more.

jaylectricity: Ya know, my GF asked if I wanted to watch that game and I said I could probably skip it.

I was right.

You missed a hell of an exciting game, lots of scoring chances and hitting, and excellent goaltending.

Rev.K: A total of 3 points were awarded.

Stupid, stupid, stupid system they use. They should just make every game worth 3 pts, reward a regulation win with 3 instead of 2 and be done with it.

Rev.K: And 3 points were awarded to two teams that couldn't score a single f*cking goal in 60 minutes.

F*ck shootouts.

I saw a 0-0 tie pre-lockout once. Both teams got 1 point and nobody complained. F*ck the shootout.

jaylectricity: Ya know, my GF asked if I wanted to watch that game and I said I could probably skip it.

I was right.

It had been years since I shut a game off out of utter boredom. Until last evening.

My radical idea:

5 points for a regulation win
4 points for an ot win
3 points for a shootout win
2 points for a shootout loss
1 point for an ot loss
0 points for a regulation loss.

Every game is worth the same, winning sooner = more points.
Yes, this completely blows the current system away, and yes, playoff predictions might be a little hazy given the possible outcomes of each game, but people have dealt with worse.

A friend of mine was there. She said it was in fact the most exciting game she'd been to in years...incredible tension, a lot of great saves.

They should just make every game worth 3 pts, reward a regulation win with 3 instead of 2 and be done with it.

The only issue is before the shootout in the olde days, when teams, especially conference teams, were tied late in the 3rd, the rest of the game was played close to the vest by both teams through the end of the game and OT, because teams felt better getting the 1pt than dropping 2 to their foe.

So making it 3/0 & 2/1 could make the last 5 min of tied games very horrible to watch.

Mr Guy: Shoot outs don't count against shut outs?

No sir.

MugzyBrown: The only issue is before the shootout in the olde days, when teams, especially conference teams, were tied late in the 3rd, the rest of the game was played close to the vest by both teams through the end of the game and OT, because teams felt better getting the 1pt than dropping 2 to their foe.

So making it 3/0 & 2/1 could make the last 5 min of tied games very horrible to watch.

I'd still rather reward teams for winning in regulation more than teams who win in a shootout. From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

If memory serves, Martin Brodeur became the first goalie in history last year to post the triple shutout: no goals in regulation, overtime, or the shootout.

The Third Man: A friend of mine was there. She said it was in fact the most exciting game she'd been to in years...incredible tension, a lot of great saves.


This.

I only watched the NHL.com extended highlights this morning, and it was way more exciting than the game between the Stars and Ducks, which had 8 goals.

If anyone tries to use this game as part of a 'hockey is boring because there aren't enough goals' argument, well, they're dumb.

I was gonna blast subby for the lack of rarity, but it turns out there's not been another one this season so far. There were four last season. (all links in new window)

Then I was gonna blast subby for the obvious East Coast bias, but since I was bored enough to search through 2 seasons of scores and happy enough to see a hockey thread, I'll give that a pass. Thanks subby!

Hmm, two of my links got eaten. Oh well, you got the point. Moving on...

Yanks_RSJ: From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

Why?

I'd still rather reward teams for winning in regulation more than teams who win in a shootout. From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

I'd rather punish teams for going to a shootout.

3 for regulation or OT win
2 For OT win
1 for OT loss/shootout

Shootout winner will get a point for tiebreaking only. They're not calculated into the standings.

quokka70: Yanks_RSJ: From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

Why?

You don't see why it's a problem to have more points rewarded in some games than others? That it rewards teams for going to OT more frequently regardless of the ultimate outcome of the games?

If you're going to use a points system, the games have to be of equal total value otherwise the system is flawed.

I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

60min: 2 points
Shootout: 1 point

InfamousG: I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

10 game sample:

Team A: 5 regulation wins, 5 regulation losses = 10 points
Team B: 10 OT losses = 10 points

The system says that those two teams are equal, even though one of them has zero wins.

Yanks_RSJ: InfamousG: I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

10 game sample:

Team A: 5 regulation wins, 5 regulation losses = 10 points
Team B: 10 OT losses = 10 points

The system says that those two teams are equal, even though one of them has zero wins.

I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Team B has fought to a tie in regulation for ten games. Not too bad. They are probably an average team.
Team A has lost 5 games out of ten. Also an average team.

Why shouldn't they be ties in the standings?

Same thing happened to me in a beer league game last week...our stupid league doesn't have shoot outs. Felt more like a loss putting in all that effort. Good for the goalies/defense though, showing smaller equipment doesn't mean more goals.

Decillion: I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Yes, I am. Team B won zero games.

Decillion: Team B has fought to a tie in regulation for ten games. Not too bad. They are probably an average team.

The rationale is partly from the fans' standpoint. If a game is tied, say, 2-2 with about ten minutes left in the third, would you rather watch the two teams play with the same urgency and come out with a regulation win, or coast to a tie and secure at least a point? There was an article written somewhere about 2 years ago more or less blasting (but also praising the intelligence behind it) Dave Tippet's teams for seemingly always "settling" for just pushing past regulation and securing at least a point. It can be boring hockey, but f*ck it, it does often lead to very average teams accumulating enough points to qualify for the postseason.

/never watched many Stars and Coyotes games, so I'm not positive on the veracity of the claim that Dave Tippet literally preaches to his guys "hey, let's go all out in this third period to tie the game then simply hold on for dear life".

Decillion: Yanks_RSJ: InfamousG: I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

10 game sample:

Team A: 5 regulation wins, 5 regulation losses = 10 points
Team B: 10 OT losses = 10 points

The system says that those two teams are equal, even though one of them has zero wins.

I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Team B has fought to a tie in regulation for ten games. Not too bad. They are probably an average team.
Team A has lost 5 games out of ten. Also an average team.

Why shouldn't they be ties in the standings?

Because Team B might be the Jaques Lemaire Minnesota Wild, who played for the OT point every game instead of the win.

I have a better plan. Get rid of the farking shootout and lynch the Basketball Lawyer and his bright ideas.

Yanks_RSJ: Decillion: I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Yes, I am. Team B won zero games.

The problem is, not all wins are equal. In the standings yes, but when comparing how worthy a team is, no.

If they lost in OT to ten great teams I would have to say they were a better team than the one that barely won 5 games against the league bottom feeders and were blown out by great teams in the 5 losses.

But they are tied in the standings. I say Team A is unworthy. they are only tied with team B because of a favorable schedule.

Decillion: Yanks_RSJ: InfamousG: I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

10 game sample:

Team A: 5 regulation wins, 5 regulation losses = 10 points
Team B: 10 OT losses = 10 points

The system says that those two teams are equal, even though one of them has zero wins.

I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Team B has fought to a tie in regulation for ten games. Not too bad. They are probably an average team.
Team A has lost 5 games out of ten. Also an average team.

Why shouldn't they be ties in the standings?

Also, the system does NOT say they are equal. The system says the team with 5 wins gets the tiebreaker over the team that had 10 OT losses. In other words, the team that never won a tiebreaker all season doesn't win one at the end either.

Miller hasn't had a great year, and then when he does pitch a shutout, his team can't score one measly goal?

quokka70: Yanks_RSJ: From a pure mathematical standpoint, you can't have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

Why?

Honestly, it's just a biatch when two teams in your division are tied in the third and they sit back in the last five minutes and both gain ground on you. Teams that go to OT, whether they win or lose, tend to gain ground on teams that win or lose in 60 minutes, even if they have the same win percentage.

pelzo63: Decillion: Yanks_RSJ: InfamousG: I don't understand the anger at some games being worth 3. The game is worth 2. Win all, Lose all, or Tie for 1 each. Ties are then decided in a shootout, worth 1 point to the winner.

10 game sample:

Team A: 5 regulation wins, 5 regulation losses = 10 points
Team B: 10 OT losses = 10 points

The system says that those two teams are equal, even though one of them has zero wins.

I don't like the 3 points but... are you trying to say Team B is undeserving?

Team B has fought to a tie in regulation for ten games. Not too bad. They are probably an average team.
Team A has lost 5 games out of ten. Also an average team.

Why shouldn't they be ties in the standings?

Also, the system does NOT say they are equal. The system says the team with 5 wins gets the tiebreaker over the team that had 10 OT losses. In other words, the team that never won a tiebreaker all season doesn't win one at the end either.

Sure, but what about Team C that goes 4-6 but is still behind B?

Decillion: The problem is, not all wins are equal.

We agree, they're not. However, at present, two OT losses = 1 regulation win. If you're happy with that, good for you. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see a team that actually WINS games rewarded.

Decillion: If they lost in OT to ten great teams I would have to say they were a better team than the one that barely won 5 games against the league bottom feeders and were blown out by great teams in the 5 losses.

What if Team A won their 5 games by a combined score of 25-5, and lost 5 by a combined score of 15-10?

We can go back and forth on this, but I happen to believe that actually winning a game is important.

Loomy: The Third Man: A friend of mine was there. She said it was in fact the most exciting game she'd been to in years...incredible tension, a lot of great saves.


This.

It was an awesome game. The teams were flying, Miller and Lundqvist were spectacular. Too bad it's to late for the Sabres to finally start playing good hockey this season.

I'm just glad to see Ryan Miller getting back to form

Yes. The system says 5-5-0 > 0-0-10 > 4-6-0

Yanks_RSJ: Decillion: The problem is, not all wins are equal.

We agree, they're not. However, at present, two OT losses = 1 regulation win. If you're happy with that, good for you. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see a team that actually WINS games rewarded.

Decillion: If they lost in OT to ten great teams I would have to say they were a better team than the one that barely won 5 games against the league bottom feeders and were blown out by great teams in the 5 losses.

What if Team A won their 5 games by a combined score of 25-5, and lost 5 by a combined score of 15-10?

We can go back and forth on this, but I happen to believe that actually winning a game is important.

I agree, wins should feel more important.

Yes, this was boring, but the Alabama-LSU field goal kicking contest was "an exciting defensive struggle."

What should happen:

3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for a loss, ever.

The problem I suspect is that it would probably widen the playoff chase gap to the point where the last bunch of games of the season simply didn't matter for some teams... that were either way ahead, or just too far behind.. the current point system makes every game leading up to the playoffs pretty critical for a high number of teams.

I haven't done the math on it yet, because NHL stats don't seem to show total number of OT games played, only OT losses.

While you're at it, stop automatically granting home ice to division leaders. Florida, for example, should be vying for 8th, not 3rd.

How about not caring about the fact that teams go into OT? All games are worth 2 points that go to the victor. If you feel hockey teams can't stand playing OT until the tie is broken, feel free to keep the shootout. The 1 point for an OT loss is a holdover from ties being worth a point. You lose, you get nothing. Baseball teams don't get a point for going into extra innings. Basketball teams don't get a point for going to OT. Why reward "almost winning"?

DaJesus: All games are worth 2 points that go to the victor.

Well actually, without OT points, you don't need points at all, just W-L record. Correcting myself here.

DaJesus: How about not caring about the fact that teams go into OT? All games are worth 2 points that go to the victor. If you feel hockey teams can't stand playing OT until the tie is broken, feel free to keep the shootout. The 1 point for an OT loss is a holdover from ties being worth a point. You lose, you get nothing. Baseball teams don't get a point for going into extra innings. Basketball teams don't get a point for going to OT. Why reward "almost winning"?

Well because the shootout is seen as an obvious farse, they don't want to penalize a team for losing in a shootout by giving them 0 points.

I don't mind the shootout, but think it should only be used for tie breakers.

Eh, they do show it, but in a separate chart.

0 pts. - regulation loss
1 pt. - played a really good game against a superior team, but lost anyway (c.f., moral victory)
2 pts. - rallied from 2 goals down behind to tie it in the last 2 minutes, only to lose it by a blue-line slapshot off the face-off while your goalie was adjusting his pads
3 pts. - shoot-out loss
4 pts. - shoot-out win
5 pts - OT loss
6 pts. - shoot out win where the winning goal makes the ESPN top ten for the night
7 pts. - losing in regulation, but winning the 2nd period brawl by knock-out
8 pts. - OT win
9 pts. - OT win within the first 3 minutes, thus allowing the fans to still catch their regular train home
10 pts. - Regulation win

It's not terribly rare. In 2011, it happened three times in two months (Sens over Leafs, Pens over Devils, Wild over Kings).

P0e: My radical idea:

5 points for a regulation win
4 points for an ot win
3 points for a shootout win
2 points for a shootout loss
1 point for an ot loss
0 points for a regulation loss.

Every game is worth the same, winning sooner = more points.
Yes, this completely blows the current system away, and yes, playoff predictions might be a little hazy given the possible outcomes of each game, but people have dealt with worse.

then you can even just normalize it (multiply by 2/5) in order to compare with point totals of the teams of the past (shootout era excepted)