HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The everso disputed point system

View Poll Results: Now what points system would be preferable in your opinion?
The present one (W-L-OTL-SOL) 16 37.21%
The pre-lockout (W-L-OTL-T) 5 11.63%
The old classic (W-L-T) 6 13.95%
The one point system (1 win = 1 point, that's all) 1 2.33%
Same as #4, except, 2 points for wins 4 9.30%
The three points system (see present thread) 7 16.28%
The Rugby system (see 2nd page of thread) 1 2.33%
An alternative to all those 3 6.98%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2008, 12:57 PM
  #1
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
The everso disputed point system

Was over at a friend's this week-end and was reading the JDM, saw last year's standings and became somewhat curious to the teams' OT and SO records, do did some compilations on NHL.com while waiting for my friend to finish his chores.

I was interested in this because of all the whiners who come to whine about the points system of the NHL since the lockout (if you ask me, a bunch of them are probably just some Nodicks fans, because this subject always pops-up when the Habs are having a streak of points with SO or OT loses). They always say that this is the reason why the standings are so close, and I was wondering if the 10 points difference between the Habs and the 8th place would be the same in the other systems.

There were only two teams who have profited from this system in the last season, and one team which has been robbed (for a lack of a better term) because of it.

What I did is pretty simple. Translated the teams' records to the pre-lockout system by transforming all SO wins and losses into ties, substracted the SO wins from the wins collumn, and counted the OT losses as they used to.

I also did the same for the previous system of W-L-T, by counting all SO wins and loses as ties, and all OT losses have no points and added them to the Losses collumn, and substracted the SO wins from the wins.

This is what it gave me :

Pre-lockout system (with divisional winners in the top 3) :

East

1- MTL 99
2- PIT 95
3- CAR 90
4- PHI 92
5- OTT 91
6- NJ 91
7- WAS 90
8- NYR 89
9- BOS 88
10- BUF 86
11- FLO 80
12- TOR 80
13- NYI 74
14- TB 69
15- ATL 67

West

1- DET 110
2- SJ 102
3- MIN 95
4- ANA 94
5- DAL 92
6- CAL 91
7- NAS 88
8- COL 88
9- CHI 83
10- VAN 82
11- PHO 78
12- CLB 77
13- STL 76
14- EDM 73
15- LA 66



Old system (with divisional winners in the top 3) :

East

1- MTL 95
2- PIT 91
3- CAR 87
4- OTT 88
5- NJ 88
6- PHI 87
7- WAS 86
8- NYR 85
9- BUF 83
10- BOS 83
11- FLO 77
12- TOR 73
13- NYI 68
14- ATL 65
15- TB 61

West

1- DET 108
2- SJ 98
3- MIN 93
4- ANA 93
5- DAL 88
6- CAL 84
7- NAS 84
8- COL 84
9- VAN 81
10- CHI 79
11- PHO 77
12- CLB 73
13- EDM 71
14- STL 68
15- LA 62


While one of the two teams I mentioned didn't actually profit from it, as they didn't make the playoffs and in the older systems, Edmonton, would've ended-up with a higher pick at the draft, the other team, Boston, in both older systems wouldn't have made the playoffs, and instead, Carolina, in both systems, would've won their division and Washington finishing 7th in both cases. In the West, we end-up with about the same standings in all the systems, with all the same teams making the playoffs. The Habs, in all systems, finish with 10 points more than the 8th seed.

So what should the whiners take from this?

The new system doesn't change much when it comes to making the playoffs, except for 2 teams out of 30. The new system is just more exciting because there is a winner every night. So the old argument about 3 points game is not what it's made out to be.

Now as for taking away the point for OT or SO losses, in the end, the standings would still be pretty close to what they are. So the pipedreamers of 3 poitns for a win, or whatever ludicrous system they want to invent themselves, can keep on dreaming, because whatever system is in place, the results will still end-up about the same, the best teams will finish on top, and the worsts will be the worsts.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:22 PM
  #2
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
3- CAR 90
4- PHI 92
I noticed you made an error in your first set. These are supposed to be without divisional top 3's but look. Otherwise a nice effort and fun to check this out. Carolina got hosed regardless

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:31 PM
  #3
LyleOdelein
Registered User
 
LyleOdelein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renfrew
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
While one of the two teams I mentioned didn't actually profit from it, as they didn't make the playoffs and in the older systems, Edmonton, would've ended-up with a higher pick at the draft, the other team, Boston, in both older systems wouldn't have made the playoffs, and instead, Carolina, in both systems, would've won their division and Washington finishing 7th in both cases. In the West, we end-up with about the same standings in all the systems, with all the same teams making the playoffs. The Habs, in all systems, finish with 10 points more than the 8th seed.
But you're ignoring that Boston lost to the Habs 8 times. If those games didn't have the same result, Boston would have certainly made the playoffs in the old system. Plus, if Bergeron and Fernandez had played the whole season, they most certainly would have won the cup. I love Bruins revisionist logic!

LyleOdelein is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:36 PM
  #4
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,807
vCash: 500
make all the games worth the same amount of points. If you want to reward the teams for losing in the shootout, fine.... but if thats the case, make every game count for 3 points.

Why should one game be worth more points than another given game? That's bush league.

3 points for regulation win

2 points for OT win/Shootout win

1 point for OT Loss/Shootout Loss

0 points for Regulation loss.

At least this way, every nhl game is worth just as much as the next one.

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:37 PM
  #5
BadKiwi
 
BadKiwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
make all the games worth the same amount of points. If you want to reward the teams for losing in the shootout, fine.... but if thats the case, make every game count for 3 points.

Why should one game be worth more points than another given game? That's bush league.

3 points for regulation win

2 points for OT win/Shootout win

1 point for OT Loss/Shootout Loss

0 points for Regulation loss.

At least this way, every nhl game is worth just as much as the next one.
Silly you, you completely forgot moral victory points!

BadKiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:44 PM
  #6
lamp9post
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
make all the games worth the same amount of points. If you want to reward the teams for losing in the shootout, fine.... but if thats the case, make every game count for 3 points.

Why should one game be worth more points than another given game? That's bush league.

3 points for regulation win

2 points for OT win/Shootout win

1 point for OT Loss/Shootout Loss

0 points for Regulation loss.

At least this way, every nhl game is worth just as much as the next one.
I agree 100%. If the habs play Ottawa and win in RT, and the leafs play Buffalo and win in OT, what makes the leafs-sabres game so much more important that they give out an extra point? Giving out more points for closer games doesn't make sense in my books. I agree that each game should be worth 3 points and that the point breakdown should happen as you suggest above.

lamp9post is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 01:59 PM
  #7
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
I noticed you made an error in your first set. These are supposed to be without divisional top 3's but look. Otherwise a nice effort and fun to check this out. Carolina got hosed regardless


Huh? Dude.... I said the top 3 WERE divisional winners in the standings I put... go reread it... Mtl, Pit and Car in the 3 first because they are divisional winners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
make all the games worth the same amount of points. If you want to reward the teams for losing in the shootout, fine.... but if thats the case, make every game count for 3 points.

Why should one game be worth more points than another given game? That's bush league.

3 points for regulation win

2 points for OT win/Shootout win

1 point for OT Loss/Shootout Loss

0 points for Regulation loss.

At least this way, every nhl game is worth just as much as the next one.

Huh, that's also bush league imo.

Is there a rule in sports or somewhere that says that every game should be worth the same? Nah, didn't think so.

The only reason I could understand such a system is to help quantify and differentiate teams' records and to have a better ground to predict hom much points is needed for a team to be in or out of the playoff race, yet still, it won't change a thing to the end result, except to please a minority.

Give better reasons and arguments for such a system than just "every game would be worth as much", because this fact doesn't seem to be affecting teams at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle_Odelein View Post
But you're ignoring that Boston lost to the Habs 8 times. If those games didn't have the same result, Boston would have certainly made the playoffs in the old system. Plus, if Bergeron and Fernandez had played the whole season, they most certainly would have won the cup. I love Bruins revisionist logic!

yeah can't wait for the next game (saturday) against them to get some more of that... and next spring... and the year after that... and on and on and on...


Last edited by Habs10Habs: 10-07-2008 at 02:16 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 02:12 PM
  #8
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Huh? Dude.... I said the top 3 WERE divisional winners in the standings I put... go reread it... Mtl, Pit and Car in the 3 first because they are divisional winners.
Ohhh, my bad. but thing is, the old system didn't seed top 3 division teams, so what would it be with the old system in place and no top 3 seeds?

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 02:47 PM
  #9
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Ohhh, my bad. but thing is, the old system didn't seed top 3 division teams, so what would it be with the old system in place and no top 3 seeds?

Oh sorry, I didn't remember that and got it all wrong. Anyway, I still think we should apply the three divisional winners because there are three divisions. Anyway, the standings wouldn't change much.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:06 PM
  #10
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Oh sorry, I didn't remember that and got it all wrong. Anyway, I still think we should apply the three divisional winners because there are three divisions. Anyway, the standings wouldn't change much.
Yeah I only said it because technically a 3rd place team can be less points than a 9th place team

That would be a serious cop out!

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:10 PM
  #11
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 719
vCash: 500
on a related Subject, Martin Brodeur got 26 shootout wins since the lockout, all going in the win column for his goalie with the most wins record. In the old system, he would still be 40 wins away from the record.

As for the suggested 3 points system, I don't see why someone wouldn't see it's better. Sure, the post-lockout system doesn't have much influence on the standings, but not much is not equal to not at all. It screwed a team last year and it's not fair. The 3 points system where all games have the same value is better. And saying it's bush league is not an effective argument

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:13 PM
  #12
lamp9post
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Huh, that's also bush league imo.

Is there a rule in sports or somewhere that says that every game should be worth the same? Nah, didn't think so.

The only reason I could understand such a system is to help quantify and differentiate teams' records and to have a better ground to predict hom much points is needed for a team to be in or out of the playoff race, yet still, it won't change a thing to the end result, except to please a minority.

Give better reasons and arguments for such a system than just "every game would be worth as much", because this fact doesn't seem to be affecting teams at all.
Well, obviously there is no rule in sport that every game must be worth the same - nobody said there was. But can you name me a sport other than hockey that weighs games differently depending entirely upon how close the score was?

It may not affect the teams overall standings *that much* in the end, however what it does is confuse new fans of the sport who are used to a win being a win and a loss being a loss.

Another reason in favour of the 3 point regulation win would be more excitement in the last 5 minutes of a tied hockey game, for one. I just feel that if there is incentive for making it to overtime, there should also be incentive for winning in regulation time.

lamp9post is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:19 PM
  #13
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post

So what should the whiners take from this?
I wouldn't call myself a whiner, the Canadiens got hosed because of this point system two years ago...Montreal had more wins than the New York Islanders that year and in the old system would have made the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
on a related Subject, Martin Brodeur got 26 shootout wins since the lockout, all going in the win column for his goalie with the most wins record. In the old system, he would still be 40 wins away from the record.

As for the suggested 3 points system, I don't see why someone wouldn't see it's better. Sure, the post-lockout system doesn't have much influence on the standings, but not much is not equal to not at all. It screwed a team last year and it's not fair. The 3 points system where all games have the same value is better. And saying it's bush league is not an effective argument
Hit Nail on the Head, this system skews the Record Book for Goalies.

The otherside of the coin is simple, No Points for a Loss...regardless if its a shootout loss. No other league rewards losers like the NHL!


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:14 PM.
Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:35 PM
  #14
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
The system is fine because it's the same one for everyone... It's as simple as that.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:41 PM
  #15
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by franchise player View Post
The system is fine because it's the same one for everyone... It's as simple as that.
Except its not.

2 examples why:

1- If one team plays in a low scoring division with defensive minded coaches, the chance that it will play more SO (and hence have more 3 points games in that division) is bigger, and thus, that division has an advantage over another one in the same conference. So its not faire to teams in high scoring free wheeling divisions.

2- If you look at this from a historical perspective, the record books are skewed because teams from the 20s to 90s and until 2004 had statistics that are now uncomparable.



I don't think there's a hig problem with the system, but I had to argue those two points.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:43 PM
  #16
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastroLeRobot View Post
on a related Subject, Martin Brodeur got 26 shootout wins since the lockout, all going in the win column for his goalie with the most wins record. In the old system, he would still be 40 wins away from the record.

As for the suggested 3 points system, I don't see why someone wouldn't see it's better. Sure, the post-lockout system doesn't have much influence on the standings, but not much is not equal to not at all. It screwed a team last year and it's not fair. The 3 points system where all games have the same value is better. And saying it's bush league is not an effective argument
I agree for Brodeur, and also this will make him closer to total wins (season + playoffs) held by Roy (702).

Well, saying the present system is bushleague because games have a different amount of alloted points depending on the situation is also not an effective argument. I was reversing that poor argument to show how little weight it had.

Saying that the 3 points system is better is only an opinion and not based on empirical data. I don't see it better because it's about the same as the present one, with the difference that new fans will be even more confused with the standings. The present system is very simple and effective. If both teams are still tied after the regulation they both get a point, and the team who wins the OT or shootout gets an extra-point. Now some may imagine this as a way to get more points, but it isn't so, because most games are played against conference rivals and you don't want your rivals to get those extra point. Also, imagine how unfair this system will be when some divisions end-up like the central and south-east were in the last few years. Detroit didn't have a hard time winning in regulation against their divisional rivals as did the best team in the south-east. There are many reasons why this system won't get adopted. The main one being the record book. Also, an OT win at 2 points compared to 3 points for a regulation win is as faulty as having an extra point for an OT-SO loss.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lamp9post View Post
Well, obviously there is no rule in sport that every game must be worth the same - nobody said there was. But can you name me a sport other than hockey that weighs games differently depending entirely upon how close the score was?
Well, is there another sport where you can score 2 points for stalling the opposing teams in their end-zone, and 6 points for a touchdown compared to 1 points for a transformation and 3 points for a field goal??? Each sport as its differences. And it is not those differences like point calculation (I see this argument coming a mile away) that make hockey a smaller market on the sports scene. If ever there is anyone wanting to put that argument forward again, then answer this, can anyone name another winter sport that has a bigger share of revenues in North America than hockey?

Why does hockey have to be like other sports? It is much harder to score a goal in hockey than it is in Basketball, that is why basketball can have OTs until there's a difference in the score, so they only have wins and losses. Football is totally different. Most soccer leagues work like old hockey used to do, win, loss and tie, yet there are some soccer leagues that do give points for SO loss. Tell me, what succesfull league has ever implemented the kind of system you are talking about for points related to wins and losses??

Quote:
It may not affect the teams overall standings *that much* in the end, however what it does is confuse new fans of the sport who are used to a win being a win and a loss being a loss.
And you think 3 points for a regulation time win and 2 points for an OT/SO win won't confuse them? Please, it will be even more confusing for them.

Quote:
Another reason in favour of the 3 point regulation win would be more excitement in the last 5 minutes of a tied hockey game, for one. I just feel that if there is incentive for making it to overtime, there should also be incentive for winning in regulation time.
There is an incentive to win in regulation. The other team doesn't get a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Yeah I only said it because technically a 3rd place team can be less points than a 9th place team

That would be a serious cop out!

Dude, you posted the same message three times... WTH is happening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
The otherside of the coin is simple, No Points for a Loss...regardless if its a shootout loss. No other league rewards losers like the NHL!
Why does the NHL have to be like other leagues?

Do you see basketball awarding 7 points basket because it was made from the defensive zone, just so they can score 7 points just like in football???

The bolded part of your text, is exactly the kind of argument that make me cringe when I argue about the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
Except its not.

2 examples why:

1- If one team plays in a low scoring division with defensive minded coaches, the chance that it will play more SO (and hence have more 3 points games in that division) is bigger, and thus, that division has an advantage over another one in the same conference. So its not faire to teams in high scoring free wheeling divisions.

2- If you look at this from a historical perspective, the record books are skewed because teams from the 20s to 90s and until 2004 had statistics that are now uncomparable.



I don't think there's a hig problem with the system, but I had to argue those two points.

1 and 2 would also apply to a system of 3 points as it was mentioned.
Good teams that are in weak divisions will get even more points, and this difference compared to other teams will be an advantage, a bigger one at that. And for the points and historical perspective, I think its quite obvious.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:15 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:49 PM
  #17
jacklours
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Magog
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamp9post View Post
Well, obviously there is no rule in sport that every game must be worth the same - nobody said there was. But can you name me a sport other than hockey that weighs games differently depending entirely upon how close the score was?
I might be wrond but doesn't soccer give 3 points for a win a 1 point each team for a tie(making it a 2 point game when there is a draw).

I know that probably doesn't count because it's only soccer and soccer is stupid, but it apprears that the most popular sport on earth doesn't value games equally either. Now as I said I am no expert and excuse my arrogance if there is a subtilty (is that a word?) that I didn't get.

jacklours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:50 PM
  #18
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
I wouldn't call myself a whiner, the Canadiens got hosed because of this point system two years ago...Montreal had more wins than the New York Islanders that year and in the old system would have made the playoffs.
I'll have to rethink this, I'm not sure how I came to this conclusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Why does the NHL have to be like other leagues?

Do you see basketball awarding 7 points basket because it was made from the defensive zone, just so they can score 7 points just like in football???

The bolded part of your text, is exactly the kind of argument that make me cringe when I argue about the subject.
Now your going off topic, I didn't say anything about Goals being 2 pts and assists being 1 point. That is the logic your using, we're discussing game results not goals, nor baskets nor touchdowns.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:17 PM.
Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:54 PM
  #19
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacklours View Post
I might be wrond but doesn't soccer give 3 points for a win a 1 point each team for a tie(making it a 2 point game when there is a draw).

I know that probably doesn't count because it's only soccer and soccer is stupid, but it apprears that the most popular sport on earth doesn't value games equally either. Now as I said I am no expert and excuse my arrogance if there is a subtilty (is that a word?) that I didn't get.
Hey man, hockey HAS to be like basketball, baseball and football!!! It has TO!!!

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:57 PM
  #20
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
1 and 2 would also apply to a system of 3 points as it was mentioned.
Good teams that are in weak divisions will get even more points, and this difference compared to other teams will be an advantage, a bigger one at that. And for the points and historical perspective, I think its quite obvious.
3 points for regular win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for overtime loss
0 points for regular loss



This means every game is equal the same. So no.. no team currently in the league is disadvantaged.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:57 PM
  #21
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 859
vCash: 500
I argue that point because in above posts, this skews the goalie record books (and lose in OT mentality or a team can garner a win, again skewing old records)...call me old fashion.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:58 PM
  #22
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
3 points for regular win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for overtime loss
0 points for regular loss



This means every game is equal the same. So no.. no team currently in the league is disadvantaged.
I like this system too. But it also messes with the point total if you want to compare with the old systems.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:59 PM
  #23
CastroLeRobot
Hab-a-bouille
 
CastroLeRobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
...Saying that the 3 points system is better is only an opinion and not based on empirical data...
It is better in the sens that teams with the most wins will be ahead in the standings, it prevents things like having the number 8 seed with 2 less wins than the ninth seed

Although I must say I don't find the current system that awful.

CastroLeRobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 03:59 PM
  #24
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
Now your going off topic, I didn't say anything about Goals being 2 pts and assists being 1 point. That is the logic your using, we're discussing game results not goals, nor baskets nor touchdowns.
I am not going off topic, I am refuting your argument.

""No other league rewards losers like the NHL""

You did use the argument that no other league/sport did what the NHL does. What I am demonstrating to you is that hockey is not like the other sports and doesn't need to abide to similar rules as the other sports to be succesful.

Soccer does it BTW. And do you actually understand why soccer and hockey do it??

Because it is much harder to score in those sports, hence the chances to getting a tie is higher, and you want to reward the teams that get to a tie. That is the logic. And the inception of the SO to get a win in every game, made the use of the extra point even more useable.

And also, just the fact you say they reward "losers" proves how much you got the concept all wrong. They reward both teams for tying in regulation. The rest of the game decides the winner and gets an extra point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
3 points for regular win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for overtime loss
0 points for regular loss



This means every game is equal the same. So no.. no team currently in the league is disadvantaged.
Yes... Did you actually read my argument????

Case in point : Detroit, 2 years ago. Central division was awfully weak and regulation wins for Detroit, in 32 games, were often, more than any other team in the league. This means the advantage they already have of playing in a weak division would be extrapolated because of the three points system.

I thought you of all people would have the brains to understand my argument without me having to reexplain it. It seems, I might have been too subtle for you.

Same case with Carolina in 2005-2006.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:19 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 04:06 PM
  #25
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamp9post View Post
Well, obviously there is no rule in sport that every game must be worth the same - nobody said there was. But can you name me a sport other than hockey that weighs games differently depending entirely upon how close the score was?

It may not affect the teams overall standings *that much* in the end, however what it does is confuse new fans of the sport who are used to a win being a win and a loss being a loss.

Another reason in favour of the 3 point regulation win would be more excitement in the last 5 minutes of a tied hockey game, for one. I just feel that if there is incentive for making it to overtime, there should also be incentive for winning in regulation time.
Getting 2 points rather then getting 1 point over your opponent isn't motivation enough? If professional athletes can't motivate themselves to win games then what are we doing here.


Last edited by Avim86: 10-07-2008 at 04:14 PM.
Avim86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.