HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Pittsburgh with 8 OT games so far, Phoenix with 0

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2008, 01:53 PM
  #26
cjod86
Registered User
 
cjod86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblegerman View Post
I completely agree .. back in the day, teams played a conservative game for the point. It was better to sit back and keep the one point for a tie than to risk going for two points and making a blunder and costing you the point you had.

Now it seems like a lot of teams play to keep the other team from getting the point (especially since the schedule heavily favours intra-conference play). With today's parity, giving a conference opponent the extra point can bump them up a few spots in the standings, and you down a few spots, so there's still motivation to play a conservative defensive game.

I'd ditch the shootout and make overtime longer (10 minutes - maybe 20), with the results final at the end of the extra frame. Two points for a win, zero for a loss, zero for a tie. Then and only then will it be detrimental to play a conservative game in the final few minutes of regulation in a close/tied game, and in overtime.
So neither team gets a point if it ends in a tie? I would say just one point for a win if this was the case.

But I like the shootout, I think it's entertaining. I'd rather restructure our point system around that.

Or just figure out a way for there to be more penalty shots.

cjod86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 02:50 PM
  #27
AK
Registered User
 
AK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 15,538
vCash: 500
I like the extra point, actually.

It is the only way to even remotely fairly provide variation in the standings.

AK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 02:54 PM
  #28
estevao
Human Person
 
estevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letang58 View Post
I like the extra point, actually.

It is the only way to even remotely fairly provide variation in the standings.
It's not fair (3 points given out for mediocrity, only 2 for excellence).
It's not remote (over 25% of games are going into OT).
And it's certainly not even ("1" is not an even number).
It's not the only way (after all, we had ties for 85 years).

But it does provide variation in the standings, I will give you that!

Having it, as well as having the shootout, makes the league look bush. Wins, Losses, and fairly rare Ties would make the league look more proper and serious.

estevao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 03:19 PM
  #29
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjod86 View Post
So neither team gets a point if it ends in a tie? I would say just one point for a win if this was the case.
I suppose you don't need two points if that was the case (you wouldn't even need points, just go with wins)

Quote:
Originally Posted by estevao View Post
I've been pushing this same basic idea for the last eight months! A partner in crime! (see my posts in the Points system thread for more details, etc etc)

BTW there's a required rule change involved - you have to make goals scored with the empty net not count. See the rulebook for the current lame rule they use.
Are you talking about the if-you-pull-the-goalie-in-OT-and-get-scored-on-you-forfeit-the-point rule? Yeah, that is lame.

I'm not sure why EN goals would have to be discounted tho, but I'm intrigued. Explain..

Buck Aki Berg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 03:40 PM
  #30
Sadekuuro
Registered User
 
Sadekuuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letang58 View Post
I like the extra point, actually.

It is the only way to even remotely fairly provide variation in the standings.
Variation? There will always be variation in the standings. All it does is artificially shrink the standard deviation so that more teams clump together.

Sadekuuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 03:41 PM
  #31
estevao
Human Person
 
estevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblegerman View Post
Are you talking about the if-you-pull-the-goalie-in-OT-and-get-scored-on-you-forfeit-the-point rule? Yeah, that is lame.

I'm not sure why EN goals would have to be discounted tho, but I'm intrigued. Explain..
Go back to 1999.

The OT loss point has been instituted as a means of getting teams to play more offensively in the 5 minute overtime, and while the number of overtimes is increasing, the number of ties is decreasing (both overall and out of OT).

Hypothetical Situation:
There is 1:30 left in overtime between Colorado and Boston. Both teams have secured one point but have been overall unsuccessful taking shots in overtime. The coaches both know that a Tie is the equivalent of an OT Loss, and they're itching to get that extra point. They also know that giving a point to the other team isn't going to matter because they are in different conferences.

At the next stoppage, both teams pull their goalies and start playing 6-on-6 in order to ensure that ONE team will win the game and make sure that they screw the rest of their conference. This is hardly hockey, just an exercise in collusion. The NHL understood at least this part and created the rule the way it is now: if you have an empty net goal scored against you in overtime (except for delayed penalties), you lose the OT loss point.

It has no real active use when the shootout exists.

SO...

My proposal includes a change to this rule, because I agree that making a loss relatively equivalent to a tie is a good way to get the teams to play attacking hockey, but I also agree that preventing 6-on-6 hockey in overtime is critical (it's not the way the game should be played).

I would disallow any goal scored while the goalie is removed from the ice (except in delayed penalties, of course). This obviously makes it pointless to remove the goalie, but it's a change that needs to happen based on the possible situation above.

estevao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 03:45 PM
  #32
estevao
Human Person
 
estevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
Ooops sorry...it was Boston that had 30 OT games in 2003-04 (8w 7l 15t)

estevao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 03:50 PM
  #33
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,013
vCash: 500
Although I doubt we'd ever see a 6-on-6 scenario play out, I can see why it'd be useful to have that rule, just to preserve the integrity of the game.

But does your proposal just apply to EN goals scored in a tie game, or will EN goals still count in circumstances where a team has pulled its goalie in an effort to tie the game?

Buck Aki Berg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:19 PM
  #34
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblegerman View Post
I completely agree .. back in the day, teams played a conservative game for the point. It was better to sit back and keep the one point for a tie than to risk going for two points and making a blunder and costing you the point you had.

Now it seems like a lot of teams play to keep the other team from getting the point (especially since the schedule heavily favours intra-conference play). With today's parity, giving a conference opponent the extra point can bump them up a few spots in the standings, and you down a few spots, so there's still motivation to play a conservative defensive game.

I'd ditch the shootout and make overtime longer (10 minutes - maybe 20), with the results final at the end of the extra frame. Two points for a win, zero for a loss, zero for a tie. Then and only then will it be detrimental to play a conservative game in the final few minutes of regulation in a close/tied game, and in overtime.
that's not exactly a bad idea. . . keep ties but make them equal to losses.


SkullSplitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:24 PM
  #35
Blackfader*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadekuuro View Post
Variation? There will always be variation in the standings. All it does is artificially shrink the standard deviation so that more teams clump together.
Isn't it obvious why? It increases revenue by bringing in the average fan thinking their below average team(lets say Florida) actually has a chance to make the playoffs in the final 20 games. And while they do have a chance odds are they still wont make the playoffs barring a miracle run. But it does give those 10-13 teams a glimmer of hope and keeps their attendance high. THATS why there is shootouts. Sticky this so people start to understand. The actual shootout is just a gimmick to get ordinary fans interested as well.

Blackfader* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:30 PM
  #36
Merc29
Sid ney Cr os by
 
Merc29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minot, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectraljulian View Post
that's not exactly a bad idea. . . keep ties but make them equal to losses.

are you joking, thats absolutely retarded...Think about what your agreeing on:

bring back ties (meaning there wont be a winner at the end of the contest)
dont give either team a point (basically 65+ mins of playing time waisted completely for nothing, if i were a fan at one of the games it would have been a waist of 80+ dollars and thats what ties basically were.)
Atleast with the point given it could help your team in the standings.

the current system isnt perfect but it'll still do until the current CBA expires. Even then little needs to be changed

Merc29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:36 PM
  #37
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 25,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc29 View Post
are you joking, thats absolutely retarded...Think about what your agreeing on:

bring back ties (meaning there wont be a winner at the end of the contest)
dont give either team a point (basically 65+ mins of playing time waisted completely for nothing, if i were a fan at one of the games it would have been a waist of 80+ dollars and thats what ties basically were.)
Atleast with the point given it could help your team in the standings.

the current system isnt perfect but it'll still do until the current CBA expires. Even then little needs to be changed
What do you mean 65 minutes of time wasted? If it is a regulation loss then according to you it is 60 minutes of time wasted. And any time a team doesn't get points it is a waste of 80 dollars for a fan? What kind of twisted logic is that where a fan can only enjoy the game if their team gets a point?

If I am misunderstanding you please tell me...

ArGarBarGar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:39 PM
  #38
freakin
Registered User
 
freakin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: behind enemy lines
Posts: 9,617
vCash: 500
Any team that can get-it-done in regulation to that frequency is a team to be feared. I've wat myself.

freakin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:39 PM
  #39
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,674
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
No ties, no overtime loss point, no shootouts, no mercy!



Actually, screw it, yes shootouts. Damn Minnesota-Vancouver game has to end some time.

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:44 PM
  #40
Darth Sidious*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,524
vCash: 500
If the shootout isn't good enough for the playoffs, then it shouldn't be a good way to (potentially) decide which teams make the playoffs.

That being said, I have always been a fan of the 3-2-1 point system I also want to see the division leaders as the top three seeds in a conference ditched in favor of total points deciding the seeding.

Sorry if this is just a re-hash of what others have said.

Darth Sidious* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 04:45 PM
  #41
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,674
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holiday View Post
What do you mean 65 minutes of time wasted? If it is a regulation loss then according to you it is 60 minutes of time wasted. And any time a team doesn't get points it is a waste of 80 dollars for a fan? What kind of twisted logic is that where a fan can only enjoy the game if their team gets a point?
Personally, I've heard that I'm an idiot for enjoying my team's run to the Final because they ended up losing to Detroit. I should not have enjoyed that year, because it was a failure, because they didn't win the Cup. If this is twisted logic, there needs to be great committees held and resolutions passed.

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 05:06 PM
  #42
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc29 View Post
are you joking, thats absolutely retarded...Think about what your agreeing on:

bring back ties (meaning there wont be a winner at the end of the contest)
dont give either team a point (basically 65+ mins of playing time waisted completely for nothing, if i were a fan at one of the games it would have been a waist of 80+ dollars and thats what ties basically were.)
Atleast with the point given it could help your team in the standings.

the current system isnt perfect but it'll still do until the current CBA expires. Even then little needs to be changed
If you take away points for ties, and you only get points for wins, then I guarantee that the number of ties will decrease. A lot. Also, if you can ignore the hockey that was played, and justify how enjoyable the game was be what the scoreboard says as you're leaving, then why go to the game in the first place? Just pay me $80 and I'll take a picture of the scoreboard for you.

Wanna know a secret? Some of the most entertaining games I've been to have ended in ties.

Wanna know another secret? Some of the most entertaining games I've been to have ended in losses for my team.

Shocking, no?

Buck Aki Berg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 07:21 PM
  #43
Sadekuuro
Registered User
 
Sadekuuro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
Isn't it obvious why?
Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Artificial parity sucks

Sadekuuro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2008, 07:27 PM
  #44
estevao
Human Person
 
estevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invisiblegerman View Post
Although I doubt we'd ever see a 6-on-6 scenario play out, I can see why it'd be useful to have that rule, just to preserve the integrity of the game.

But does your proposal just apply to EN goals scored in a tie game, or will EN goals still count in circumstances where a team has pulled its goalie in an effort to tie the game?
Just in overtime - the text would not be as pervasive as the current rule (Rule 84.2)...simply if you pull your goalie for an extra attacker (not on the delayed penalty), then any goal you score like that is disallowed. It makes it stupid to go 6-on-6 because it's all risk and no reward - we don't want no-goalie play to decide a game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc29 View Post
are you joking, thats absolutely retarded...Think about what your agreeing on:

bring back ties (meaning there wont be a winner at the end of the contest)
dont give either team a point (basically 65+ mins of playing time waisted completely for nothing, if i were a fan at one of the games it would have been a waist of 80+ dollars and thats what ties basically were.)
Atleast with the point given it could help your team in the standings.

the current system isnt perfect but it'll still do until the current CBA expires. Even then little needs to be changed
Ooo I can make a list too!

Understand this:

20 minutes of 5-on-5 - more time, and replicating playoff overtime.
Fresh Sheet of Ice - instead of that crap they have OT on regularly (trust me it makes a difference).
Attacking line changes - your bench is on your opponent's blue line.

And most of all, no point for ties: Ties would be the first tiebreaker, which means that ONE tie isn't a bad result, but you're not going to want to let games go 80 minutes undecided. Few games would. I would guess that the average record would include 3 ties over the course of a season. Ties are not a GOAL like they used to be. They are the end result of a tough battle, but are very very rarely a positive result...and that's really what we want.

I don't see a team tying 10 games like this...and if they did they would be hurting themselves. But that's the goal - lower the number of ties significantly...for some reason the NHL thought that ties were the problem (erroneously, but look at how they screwed up the 2003-2004 season with the OTL point).

estevao 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 08:31 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.