View Single Post
Old
02-04-2013, 07:02 PM
  #54
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,863
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnrefinedCrude View Post
But the system was introduced with the purpose of eliminating ties.

There is no column for ties. It is the point a team gets for "losing in overtime" It is a loser point.

if it was a point for tying then the game would end in a tie.

The flaw in the system is because the NHL never implemented a standard for what a game is worth. The league used to value every game at 2 points. When they changed the system they made some games worth more than others.

They did this on purpose to create parity. But I don't like how it affect competitive balance.

If you are going to add extra value to a game in the form of an extra point it should be awarded for winning.
Consider the fact they change the rules of the game as soon as 60 minutes ends. They add the gimmick of OT by dropping a player and then the gimmick of the SO.


- The teams have proven after 60 minutes of play that they are equals on that particular night... congrats! point for each!
- Now let's change the rules... Now go fight for the extra point!
= bonus point to me.



Can you please explain how the system messes with competitive balance? How so?

The argument people sometimes use - Team with less wins sometimes get in over a team with more wins...
Well if that's the case it's because that team that made it also lost a lot less in regulation that the team that failed.... So that's non-starter as an argument for me..

The system is in place and everyone knows it... No one gets screwed by being surprised by it at the end of the season.
The failing team, at the end of the day, failed to 'not lose' enough.. Or not win enough to make for all the losing they were doing in regulation relative to the team good enough to get it over them.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote