If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   For the love of Gordie Howe, Can we have an NHL Power Rankings Thread?   (espn.go.com) divider line 139
    More: Cool, Washington Capitals, Power Rankings, Henrik Lundqvist, away games, Roberto Luongo, skates, Alex Ovechkin, Ilya Kovalchuk  
•       •       •

2130 clicks; posted to Sports » on 09 Apr 2013 at 11:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 11:23:55 AM
How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.
 
2013-04-09 11:31:03 AM

jaylectricity: How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.


Because if we were looking for the standings we could have just gone to the NHL website.
 
2013-04-09 11:34:59 AM
Nice to see the Sabres setting us all up for the traditional Buffalo late season kick in the crotch.
 
2013-04-09 11:37:30 AM
Also posted in the Maple Lafs thread...

Daily playoff chances as of the morning of Tuesday, April 9, 2013

East/% chance of playoffs/% chance of current seed - parenthesis is the previous day
1) Pittsburgh/In/60% (63%)
2) Montreal/100% (100)/33 (38%)
3) Washington/79.8 (79.1%)/74 (74%)
4) Boston/100 (100%)/53 (60%) increased chance of #2 seed
5) Toronto/99.8 (99.2%)/73 (63%)
6) Ottawa/94.4 (94%)/45 (38%)
7) Rangers/80.9 (87.1%)/34 (32%)
8) Islanders/65.6 (63.7%)/28 (31%)
---
9) Jets/30.1 (28.6)/ 15
10) Devils/20.3 (19)/19
11) Flyers/13.5 (12.6)/17
12) Sabres/7.6 (7)/20
13) Lightning/6.5 (6.2)/23
14) Hurricanes/1.5 (3.5)/45
15) Panthers/0.0/87

West
1) Blackhawks/In/98 (99)
2) Ducks/In(100)/95 (95)
3) Canucks/99.8 (98.9)/70 (62)
4) Kings/99.7 (99.6)/ 52 (53)
5) Wild/97.9 (97.1)/16 (13)
6) Sharks/96.8 (95.6)/25 (24)
7) Blues/96.7 (95.6)/ 24 (22)
8) Red Wangs/65.3 (58.7)/ 41 (35)
---
9) Coyotes/15.9 (24.5)/23
10) Stars (11)/ 12.5 (10.6) /20
11) Oilers (10) /9.4 (14.7)/21
12) Blue Jackets/4.3 (3.4)/23
13) Predators/1.5 (1.4)/34
14) Flames/0.0/72
15) Avalanche/0.0/87


"In" =/= 100%, as it rounds up. For instance with Anaheim they have a 100% chance of making the playoffs as its 99.999999% and rounded up. Very few permutations would see them losing all but one game and the Coyotes going 10-0


The fringe teams should be rooting for the following on Tuesday night (almost universally applies): Flyers, Sabres, Habs, Kings. the rest are toss ups/irrelevant.
 
2013-04-09 11:43:32 AM
Bout damn time, but the ESPN rankings are shiat.
 
2013-04-09 11:48:25 AM
Whar graf whar?
 
2013-04-09 11:52:41 AM

RangerTaylor: Nice to see the Sabres setting us all up for the traditional Buffalo late season kick in the crotch.


Never fails.

Play themselves out of contention early, and then win a bunch of meaningless games down the stretch to wind up with a draft pick in the 10-13 range.

Every freaking year. Never fails.

This is the recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The Sabres will never be able to rebuild the way the Pens and Blackhawks did without getting the elite, franchise talent that only really comes in the top 3 of the draft.
 
2013-04-09 12:16:16 PM

Doc Daneeka: This is the recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The Sabres will never be able to rebuild the way the Pens and Blackhawks did without getting the elite, franchise talent that only really comes in the top 3 of the draft.


The Blackhawks didn't assemble their entire core at the top of the draft. Sharp and Hossa were trades. Seabrook was a mid-first rounder, Keith was a mid-second rounder. Kane and Toews were 1st and 3rd overall, respectively, but that's two out of six.

Granted, Toews is the real keystone to the team, so you're technically correct. But teams can contend without drafting high, ever. Look at the Red Wings. Haven't drafted in the top 10 for decades, and they're still winning.
 
2013-04-09 12:22:02 PM
Caps are on a 4 game streak, should be ranked higher, imo.
 
2013-04-09 12:23:06 PM

fatalvenom: Bout damn time, but the ESPN rankings are shiat.


I'll take it. Let the B's slip to 7. Let them be under the radar. They play better as un-hyped underdogs.

When they're #1, they're dropping games 5-3 to the likes of NYI and blowing three goal third-period leads. When they're under the radar, they're holding top-scoring teams to one goal against and putting up touchdowns on the Maple Leafs.
 
2013-04-09 12:36:22 PM

Jubeebee: Doc Daneeka: This is the recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The Sabres will never be able to rebuild the way the Pens and Blackhawks did without getting the elite, franchise talent that only really comes in the top 3 of the draft.

The Blackhawks didn't assemble their entire core at the top of the draft. Sharp and Hossa were trades. Seabrook was a mid-first rounder, Keith was a mid-second rounder. Kane and Toews were 1st and 3rd overall, respectively, but that's two out of six.

Granted, Toews is the real keystone to the team, so you're technically correct. But teams can contend without drafting high, ever. Look at the Red Wings. Haven't drafted in the top 10 for decades, and they're still winning.


And that's the point.  Obviously no team is assembled entirely out of top draft picks.

But you need at least one or two of those top picks as the core to assemble the rest of your team around (through free agency, trades, and other player development).  Top picks alone aren't sufficient, but I think they are necessary to really build a winner.  Would the Hawks have won the Cup without Toews and Kane?  I'd bet no.

The Hawks built around Toews (#3 overall) and Kane (#1 overall).

The Pens built around Crosby (#1) and Malkin (#2) and Fleury (#1) and Jordan Staal (#2).

The Bruins Cup team had Tyler Seguin (whom they selected #2 overall), the Kings Cup team had Drew Doughty (#2 overall).

The Sabres haven't drafted anyone that high in years.  The last time Buffalo had a top 3 pick was 1987 when they selected Pierre Turgeon.  In the 25 years since then, they've had only two picks in the top ten (Erik Rasmussen 7th overall in 1996 and Thomas Vanek 5th overall in 2003).  That's it.

Top picks aren't everything, but it's really hard to build a Cup contender without them.  The Red Wings are possibly the only exception, and even their good fortune in finding gems in the lower rounds can't last forever.
 
2013-04-09 12:40:16 PM
The Wings just pluck players from the wilds of Russia.  I think they may even have a selective breeding system in place.
 
2013-04-09 12:47:29 PM
Tampa Bay almost a top 25 team.
 
2013-04-09 12:50:02 PM

WhiskeySticks: The Wings just pluck players from the wilds of Russia.  I think they may even have a selective breeding system in place.


Russia "We're the Dominican Republic of hockey"


/or something like that...
 
2013-04-09 01:02:55 PM

Doc Daneeka: Obviously no team is assembled entirely out of top draft picks.


Except the Oilers. ZING

Anyway, my point was that there are multiple paths to a championship. The Penguins had four top picks and won the Cup, the Red Wings had none and won. In the middle ground you have the Hawks and the Kings, who won with just one or two top picks. Tyler Seguin as a rookie didn't have a whole lot to do with the Bruins Cup run.

Obviously you'd want to pick up a Toews or a Tavares at the top of the draft and let them carry your franchise up from the dregs. But picking high is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of success. Look at the Blue Jackets. They've been picking high since they became a team, haven't won shiat.
 
2013-04-09 01:03:07 PM
Oh hi, playoff race. So nice to see you, it's been a while.

/LET'S GO ISLANDERS
 
2013-04-09 01:07:56 PM

WhiskeySticks: The Wings just pluck players from the wilds of Russia.  I think they may even have a selective breeding system in place.


Like the Ducks do with the Finns?
 
2013-04-09 01:12:12 PM
Our point is that the Sabres are doing the same thing the Bills always do.  Suck, but win just enough to get a crappy draft pick.  Perpetually stuck in the lower middle.
 
2013-04-09 01:12:42 PM
The alternate NHL standings through Monday's games.

If you saw them last week, I did have a "magic number" formula in there that followed baseball's commonly used model but using points. However, with the different number of games played between teams; things got farked up in a hurry so I had to kill it. The final straw was that in one of the system;, I had Pittsburgh out of reach of the 9th place team (so the magic number was 0 or less) but when I applied the formula to the 10th and 11th place teams in the East, the number went positive meaning they hadn't clinched. So fark that.

Playoff teams- of the current 16 playoff teams:
International rules- all of them still make it and all but 2 in the same position
Revised 3 pt system- 15 of the 16 get in (Winnipeg gets in, Islanders drop out)
Old NHL w/ties- see previous line

5 teams have made the projected minimum points needed to make the playoffs. Boston made it Monday joining Montreal, Anaheim and the only 2 to actually clinch a spot: Chicago and Pittsburgh.

4 teams can not make the minimum: Florida in the East, Colorado, Calgary and Nashville in the west.

Random facts:

2 teams have failed to win in OT this year: LA (0-1 with 4 shootouts) and San Jose (0-3 with a league high 10 shootouts)

3 teams have failed to win a SO this year: Toronto (0-4), Carolina (0-1) and Calgary (0-3)

Undefeated SO teams: Pittsburgh and Washington (both 3-0, but the Caps took forever to even get their 1st SO)

Undefeated OT teams: Chicago in the West (4), Pittsburgh (2), Toronto (2), Rangers (2), Winnipeg (3) and Tampa (1)
 
2013-04-09 01:17:31 PM
Rumor mill indicates that Carl Soderberg signed a 3 year deal with the Bruins.
 
2013-04-09 01:18:56 PM
 
2013-04-09 01:21:00 PM

RangerTaylor: Our point is that the Sabres are doing the same thing the Bills always do.  Suck, but win just enough to get a crappy draft pick.  Perpetually stuck in the lower middle.


I'm hesitant about making cross-sport comparisons, but it's even worse in the Sabres case because the NHL draft is much more of a crapshoot than than the NFL draft.

A first round pick in the NFL is almost certain to play in the NFL and likely to at least have a solid career.

Once you get past the top 3-5 players in the NHL draft, it's a major crapshoot. A lot of those players never even play a game in the NHL.

The relative value of being at the top of the draft board is higher in hockey, because if your picking in the middle or lower, you have no clue if you're even getting an NHLer, much less a great player.
 
2013-04-09 01:27:42 PM

soopey: Rumor mill indicates that Carl Soderberg signed a 3 year deal with the Bruins.


Well, that would be cool, especially with Bergeron out.
 
2013-04-09 01:44:22 PM
FTA:

Meanwhile, the Avs' season of shame continues unabated as Colorado has won twice in its past 14 outings. If there are hockey gods, neither the Avs nor the Flames will end up with the coveted first-overall draft pick in June.

Eat my ass, f*ck face.

Tanking for a pick ain't a new concept and by the way, we traded JAROME F*CKING IGINLA away at the deadline.

He was kind of a big deal here.
 
2013-04-09 01:45:55 PM

CastorPimp: Caps are on a 4 game streak, should be ranked higher, imo.


Four whole games? How cute.
 
2013-04-09 01:47:45 PM

I_Love_Cheesecake: soopey: Rumor mill indicates that Carl Soderberg signed a 3 year deal with the Bruins.

Well, that would be cool, especially with Bergeron out.


Is there any word of Bergy's possible return?
 
2013-04-09 01:50:46 PM

jaylectricity: How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.


As I was pointing out to a hockey fan co-worker this morning, there's a very good example today of why shootout losses and overtime losses are f*cking retarded.
 New Jersey - 39GP, 15W, 14L, 10OTL, 40 points

Calgary - 38GP, 14W, 20L, 4OTL, 32 points

Thanks to losing 10 games in overtime or a shootout, New Jersey is only 2 points out of a playoff spot in the East and could certainly make it. Meanwhile, in the West, the Flames are out and have only 32 points.

If you look at only regulation and OT victories, the Flames actually have more (all 14) whereas New Jersey only has 13.

So two teams that look far apart, one with a shot at making the playoffs and one mathematically eliminated, don't actually have that many differences in their records.

But Rev.K! What if you took away the OTL points?

Well, the Flames would still be f*cked, no question, but New Jersey's chances drop off significantly.

But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.

/drops mic
 
2013-04-09 01:53:09 PM
/chant

Still not last!
Still not last!
 
2013-04-09 02:00:22 PM

Rev.K: But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.


The OTL is kind of stupid, but the bigger problem is lack of consistency (some games being worth 3 points in the standings and others only worth 2).

Personally I'd be fine to go back to the old days of 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.  I never had a problem with ties.  Some of the best games I went to as a kid ended as ties, and shouldn't have ended any other way.

But it doesn't look like we'll be bringing back ties anytime soon.  So I suggest:
3 points for a regulation or OT win.
2 points for a shootout win.
1 point for a shootout loss.
0 points for a regulation or OT loss.

I think that's the best solution.  And every game distributes three points in the standings, so no one gains a benefit (as the Devils in your example) simple for taking a bunch of games to overtime).
 
2013-04-09 02:01:38 PM

Rev.K: jaylectricity: How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.

As I was pointing out to a hockey fan co-worker this morning, there's a very good example today of why shootout losses and overtime losses are f*cking retarded.
 New Jersey - 39GP, 15W, 14L, 10OTL, 40 points

Calgary - 38GP, 14W, 20L, 4OTL, 32 points

Thanks to losing 10 games in overtime or a shootout, New Jersey is only 2 points out of a playoff spot in the East and could certainly make it. Meanwhile, in the West, the Flames are out and have only 32 points.

If you look at only regulation and OT victories, the Flames actually have more (all 14) whereas New Jersey only has 13.

So two teams that look far apart, one with a shot at making the playoffs and one mathematically eliminated, don't actually have that many differences in their records.

But Rev.K! What if you took away the OTL points?

Well, the Flames would still be f*cked, no question, but New Jersey's chances drop off significantly.

But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.

/drops mic


You must be a real blast at work.
 
2013-04-09 02:03:57 PM

Doc Daneeka: Once you get past the top 3-5 players in the NHL draft, it's a major crapshoot. A lot of those players never even play a game in the NHL.

The relative value of being at the top of the draft board is higher in hockey, because if your picking in the middle or lower, you have no clue if you're even getting an NHLer, much less a great player.


This I'll agree with. Bombing on a 1st rounder in the NFL is a big deal. Whereas in the NHL, nobody knows what the hell is going on beyond the top 5. The Hawks haven't had a 1st rounder stick on the roster since Patrick Kane, and they still have one of the best prospect lists in hockey.

In football, having a 6-7th rounder become a superstar is a story for the ages (Tom Brady). In hockey, it just means you're the Red Wings.
 
2013-04-09 02:04:50 PM

Doc Daneeka: Personally I'd be fine to go back to the old days of 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. I never had a problem with ties. Some of the best games I went to as a kid ended as ties, and shouldn't have ended any other way.


I completely support this 100%.

All games are equal, all points accounted for. What the hell is so wrong with that?


change1211: You must be a real blast at work.


Everyone loves my PowerPoints on this topic which are now a fixture of our weekly meeting.
 
2013-04-09 02:06:58 PM

Doc Daneeka: But it doesn't look like we'll be bringing back ties anytime soon. So I suggest:
3 points for a regulation or OT win.
2 points for a shootout win.
1 point for a shootout loss.
0 points for a regulation or OT loss.


I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing, while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.
 
2013-04-09 02:07:51 PM

change1211: Rev.K: jaylectricity: How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.

As I was pointing out to a hockey fan co-worker this morning, there's a very good example today of why shootout losses and overtime losses are f*cking retarded.
 New Jersey - 39GP, 15W, 14L, 10OTL, 40 points

Calgary - 38GP, 14W, 20L, 4OTL, 32 points

Thanks to losing 10 games in overtime or a shootout, New Jersey is only 2 points out of a playoff spot in the East and could certainly make it. Meanwhile, in the West, the Flames are out and have only 32 points.

If you look at only regulation and OT victories, the Flames actually have more (all 14) whereas New Jersey only has 13.

So two teams that look far apart, one with a shot at making the playoffs and one mathematically eliminated, don't actually have that many differences in their records.

But Rev.K! What if you took away the OTL points?

Well, the Flames would still be f*cked, no question, but New Jersey's chances drop off significantly.

But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.

/drops mic

You must be a real blast at work.


First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado.
Second prize is a set of steak knives.
Third prize is, YOU'RE FIRED!
 
2013-04-09 02:08:38 PM

Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing, while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.


Eliminate OT.
 
2013-04-09 02:12:11 PM
Do you people actually enjoy watching shootouts?

Do you like it when clearly inferior teams climb the standings thanks to a system that hands out points like candy?

Is it fun to watch playoff spots determined by some dangling European asshole pulling a YouTube move?
 
2013-04-09 02:14:48 PM

Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing


A team that loses playing actual hockey (in OT) deserves and should get nothing.  Didn't you say so yourself?

Rev.K: while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.


If the skills competition is here to stay, you have to award the winner of it more than the loser, otherwise what's the point?  Granted, it's not real hockey, so the SO winner shouldn't be awarded as much as a "real" win (ergo, 2 points instead of 3), and the SO loser shouldn't be penalized as much as a "real" loss (ergo, 1 point instead of 0).

Rev.K: That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.


I disagree.  The incentive would be to go all-out for the win in OT, since a win in OT would give you 3 points, which is a higher payoff than you can possibly get in the SO under my system (where you would get either 1 or 2 points).
 
2013-04-09 02:17:04 PM

IAmRight: Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing, while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.

Eliminate OT.


Right. Straight to the shootout. Make it best of 7 rounds instead of 3.
 
2013-04-09 02:17:17 PM

Rev.K: Do you people actually enjoy watching shootouts?

Do you like it when clearly inferior teams climb the standings thanks to a system that hands out points like candy?

Is it fun to watch playoff spots determined by some dangling European asshole pulling a YouTube move?


Only if it's Frans Nielsen dropping the Danish Backhand of Judgment.

In all seriousness, I'm 100% in favor of going back to having ties.
 
2013-04-09 02:20:12 PM

Primitive Screwhead: change1211: Rev.K: jaylectricity: How the hell are Vancouver and San Jose higher than the B's with a few less wins and a few more regulation losses? OT losses are LOSSES.

As I was pointing out to a hockey fan co-worker this morning, there's a very good example today of why shootout losses and overtime losses are f*cking retarded.
 New Jersey - 39GP, 15W, 14L, 10OTL, 40 points

Calgary - 38GP, 14W, 20L, 4OTL, 32 points

Thanks to losing 10 games in overtime or a shootout, New Jersey is only 2 points out of a playoff spot in the East and could certainly make it. Meanwhile, in the West, the Flames are out and have only 32 points.

If you look at only regulation and OT victories, the Flames actually have more (all 14) whereas New Jersey only has 13.

So two teams that look far apart, one with a shot at making the playoffs and one mathematically eliminated, don't actually have that many differences in their records.

But Rev.K! What if you took away the OTL points?

Well, the Flames would still be f*cked, no question, but New Jersey's chances drop off significantly.

But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.

/drops mic

You must be a real blast at work.

First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado.
Second prize is a set of steak knives.
Third prize is, YOU'RE FIRED!


Jesus, what kind of city did I move to.
 
2013-04-09 02:21:27 PM

Doc Daneeka: Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing

A team that loses playing actual hockey (in OT) deserves and should get nothing.  Didn't you say so yourself?

Rev.K: while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

If the skills competition is here to stay, you have to award the winner of it more than the loser, otherwise what's the point?  Granted, it's not real hockey, so the SO winner shouldn't be awarded as much as a "real" win (ergo, 2 points instead of 3), and the SO loser shouldn't be penalized as much as a "real" loss (ergo, 1 point instead of 0).

Rev.K: That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.

I disagree.  The incentive would be to go all-out for the win in OT, since a win in OT would give you 3 points, which is a higher payoff than you can possibly get in the SO under my system (where you would get either 1 or 2 points).



I see what you're saying, but here's my basic premise.

The shootout is not hockey. The shootout is not a team sport. The shootout is not only a crappy way to lose, it's a crappy way to win and the NHL's own current rule system recognizes this by looking only at regulation and OT wins in the case of a tie in the standings.

So with it firmly established that the shootout is inferior hockey and an inferior win, if it absolutely MUST stay, everything should be done to minimize the number of shootouts that occur. And the point system should be structured to reflect as such.

Shootout wins = 1 point
ANY loss = 0 points

You want incentive to win in regulation or OT? That's how. Instead of adding all these superfluous points, lets strip them away and see what happens.
 
2013-04-09 02:22:46 PM

Rev.K: Do you people actually enjoy watching shootouts?

Do you like it when clearly inferior teams climb the standings thanks to a system that hands out points like candy?

Is it fun to watch playoff spots determined by some dangling European asshole pulling a YouTube move?


Shootouts can be fun to watch but should they decide the games? Personally, I don't think so but what is the alternative?  I was always a fan of the idea that you play OT until you have a winner but in the regular season you add the twist of removing a player every 5 minutes.  OT starts 5 on 5.  At the first game break after 5 minutes have past you play 4 on 4 for the next 5 minutes until a break, then 3 on 3 and so forth.  Not many games would go past 3 on 3 and eventually you would get the occasional 1 on 1 game to decide the extra point.

//this idea is not valid in the playoffs
//I love the 5 OT game in the playoffs..nothing is more stressful
 
2013-04-09 02:26:30 PM
my caps may rally in the playoffs only to fail in the first round to a lower seeded team...again.
 
2013-04-09 02:28:58 PM

bluenote13: Not many games would go past 3 on 3 and eventually you would get the occasional 1 on 1 game to decide the extra point.


I think when you get past 3 on 3, you might as well just have a shootout, since that would be just as BS and require a lot more effort.
 
2013-04-09 02:51:21 PM

Tanukis_Parachute: my caps may rally in the playoffs only to fail in the first round to a lower seeded team...again.


In fairness, they're not a three-seed.  I mean, they would be, but they'd realistically have no business being such.
 
2013-04-09 02:57:32 PM

Rev.K: Shootout wins = 1 point
ANY loss = 0 points


That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of different games being worth different amounts of points in the standings.

You'd have some games worth 2 points and other games worth only 1 point.
 
2013-04-09 02:58:28 PM
Only thing I care about is the "X" next to the Penguins in the conference standings.

/hope they get the "Y" and "Z", but the "Z" might be a bit hard
 
2013-04-09 03:06:39 PM

Doc Daneeka: That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of different games being worth different amounts of points in the standings.

You'd have some games worth 2 points and other games worth only 1 point.


Which is no different than what we have now.

Remember, I said if the shootout has to stay, this is what I would do.

The best way to eliminate 3pt games would be to do away with the shootout entirely.
 
2013-04-09 03:14:19 PM
If we're going with skills competitions to determine points, it should be three rounds, best of two wins:

1.) Shootout
2.) Hardest Shot
3.) Fight.

This wouldn't at all favor the Bruins.
 
2013-04-09 03:23:25 PM

Doc Daneeka: But it doesn't look like we'll be bringing back ties anytime soon.  So I suggest:
3 points for a regulation or OT win.
2 points for a shootout win.
1 point for a shootout loss.
0 points for a regulation or OT loss.


Hey, quit stealing my ideas!

/kidding
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report