View Single Post
Old
02-01-2013, 01:11 PM
  #36
Killemdeader
Registered User
 
Killemdeader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Everett, WA
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Which all fine and dandy... and in theory sounds great.

All i'm talking about is accounting for the flip side of the coin... it makes players and coaches play to NOT LOSE 3 points in regulation.

and as history has shown... that just may take precedent over teams playing high risk hockey to go for it.

Remember.. not only is the win devalued - but so is the amount of separation from your opposition in case you lose. ie. losing 3 pts to the team vs just 1 pt to the team and gaining one yourself.

so just as you LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET FULL POINTS AS SOON AS REGULATION ENDS..
you also Lose the opportunity to lose full points as soon as regulation ends... (sorry for the caps.. i cut n pasted from your post)

Don't get me wrong... i'm not saying i favor this train of thought... but its the more likely response from coaches who are fighting to keep their careers.
Uhh... ok. So what happens when you lose in regulation now? YOU COME OUT WITH 0 POINTS. EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN A 3-2-1-0. Except, in the current system, if you hold out for overtime and don't take risks, you get significantly more points in OT than in a 3-2-1-0. In the current system, you automatically come away with 50% of the points of a win. If you look at the probability, if you throw in 50% extra points in a game that goes to OT (2 points and the 1 for the loser rather than just 2 points), both teams come away with significantly better odds of improving their standing if they are involved in a game that goes to OT. The overall combined win percentage of every OT game is .750, why is that less incentivizing than changing to a 3-2-1-0 where the combined win % of every OT game is the same as a regulation game, .500

Killemdeader is offline   Reply With Quote