HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL adopts rule change to standings tie break

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2010, 11:08 AM
  #26
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think teams should be rewarded for beating other teams in 60 minutes, over beating them in OT/SO, no argument there. However, I don't think the solution to that is making it 0 points for losing in OT or a shootout.

Give 3 points for a regulation win.

Give 1 point each for a tie after regulation, and then you're playing for the extra point in OT/SO.

While I think the current system rewards teams too much for winning in the OT format we currently have, I also think it's unfair for a team to get 0 points when they were tied after regulation... especially when you're FORCING a decision.

Editor's Note: The NHL's argument against the 3 point format that they've put forward is that they're concerned that it will spread out the standings too much, and they like having the tight standings for keeping teams in the playoff race.... even if it's inherently unfair and doesn't reward the good teams as much as they should.
I'll give the NHL that much. I like it coming down to critical games in the end rather than knowing 5 games before the playoffs that 7 of 8 seeds are already determined. Keeps it interesting and competitive.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 11:24 AM
  #27
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
I'll give the NHL that much. I like it coming down to critical games in the end rather than knowing 5 games before the playoffs that 7 of 8 seeds are already determined. Keeps it interesting and competitive.
Well, it also may mean that weaker teams get into the playoffs... and that the seeding may not accurately reflect the play of teams. We were a shootout away from missing the playoffs to a team we would have had 2 more "wins" than... and had more wins than both Boston and Montreal.

Why were we struggling to be ahead of those teams? Because we didn't play a lot of OT games last year (compared to others) and thus were getting screwed by the current format (relative to our play versus others' play).

It certainly is good for the league financially, but it isn't good if your primary concern is putting the 8 best teams in their proper seeds for the playoffs.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 11:27 AM
  #28
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, it also may mean that weaker teams get into the playoffs... and that the seeding may not accurately reflect the play of teams. We were a shootout away from missing the playoffs to a team we would have had 2 more "wins" than... and had more wins than both Boston and Montreal.

Why were we struggling to be ahead of those teams? Because we didn't play a lot of OT games last year (compared to others) and thus were getting screwed by the current format (relative to our play versus others' play).

It certainly is good for the league financially, but it isn't good if your primary concern is putting the 8 best teams in their proper seeds for the playoffs.
As much as I agree, the teams that sneak in in the end aren't necessarily a "best" team. The setup of having 1 play 8, 2 play 7 etc is intended to give the top teams and easier way through the first round, essentially the closest thing to a "bye" in the first round. So regardless, teams that sneak in in the end have their work cut out for them. I agree with your point though, just not against the NHL doing it this way to the playoffs get a monkey wrench thrown in in the end by having a team sneak in last second.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 11:47 AM
  #29
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
As much as I agree, the teams that sneak in in the end aren't necessarily a "best" team. The setup of having 1 play 8, 2 play 7 etc is intended to give the top teams and easier way through the first round, essentially the closest thing to a "bye" in the first round. So regardless, teams that sneak in in the end have their work cut out for them. I agree with your point though, just not against the NHL doing it this way to the playoffs get a monkey wrench thrown in in the end by having a team sneak in last second.
Right, but it isn't just an issue with teams sneaking in... it goes throughout the entirety of the seeding... you really think NJ was pleased they got us in the first round, as opposed to one of Montreal or Boston?

The current setup (and, as said, I do agree with giving each team at least a point in OT/SO) has ramifications not just for making the playoffs, but then for how the seeding shakes out. It is also aggravated by the fact that playoff hockey doesn't reward you for excelling in the 4-on-4 OT format, or shootouts... How teams perform in a 60 minute regulation game is far more indicative of their skill for playoff hockey.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:02 PM
  #30
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think teams should be rewarded for beating other teams in 60 minutes, over beating them in OT/SO, no argument there. However, I don't think the solution to that is making it 0 points for losing in OT or a shootout.
Understandable, but where was this outcry for attaining 0 points for losing in OT when standings were simply W-L-T? I don't remember much of a fuss about it back then (of course, I'm gettin' old, and my memory fails more often than it used to).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Give 3 points for a regulation win.
I'm mostly fine with that. But is a regulation win against the Islanders really worth more than an OT win against Detroit? I don't know...

Again, I think the whole "shootout" change is the only reason any of this discussion is even necessary, and I guess that is what irks me the most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Give 1 point each for a tie after regulation, and then you're playing for the extra point in OT/SO.
That's fine if you like the "3 points for a regulation win" strategy because we have the shootout. And, since the shootout appears to be here to stay, that's a fine compromise. I certainly don't see a better option at this time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
While I think the current system rewards teams too much for winning in the OT format we currently have, I also think it's unfair for a team to get 0 points when they were tied after regulation... especially when you're FORCING a decision.
Did you feel the same under the old W-L-T format? I could be mistaken, but a team losing in OT under that format received 0 points as well (save for the few odd years when the NHL experimented with things, making standings look more like lottery tickets). Not calling you out, just wondering if you felt the same about the old system?

I guess my biggest gripe at this point is the fact that any of this is even necessary. I found the old system of W-L-T to be perfectly fine. It was fine for decades (my opinion, of course). A gimmick to bring in more casual fans should not be a reason to bring about changes to a point system that didn't appear to be majorly flawed. To me, that's simply not in the best interests of the game, or at least in the best interests of standings integrity.

Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:07 PM
  #31
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
If they had kept ties in the whole scheme, then there isn't much of an issue with 2-1/1-0. The problem, however, was that overtime was *ing boring when they did that. So, I liked the 1 point for OTL addition, simply because it gave teams a safety net, and OT was more fun.

However, you then have the issue that regulation games are "2 point" games, and games that go to OT are "3 point" games. This factors into the standings in important ways (look at how OTLs impact the standings).

As to the question of whether a "But is a regulation win against the Islanders really worth more than an OT win against Detroit? I don't know..." You can't play that game... it's an abstract system, it cannot be a specific one. Certainly beating a good team is more difficult than beating a crappy one. However, should a team that plays in a tougher division be given help getting into the playoffs as opposed to a team that plays in a weaker division?

You have to just construct an abstract system that is as fair as possible... the current one isn't really fair to good teams that win games without having to go into OT to get it done.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:21 PM
  #32
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If they had kept ties in the whole scheme, then there isn't much of an issue with 2-1/1-0. The problem, however, was that overtime was *ing boring when they did that. So, I liked the 1 point for OTL addition, simply because it gave teams a safety net, and OT was more fun.
We are pretty much in agreement here. But, instead of the 1 point for OTL addition, I simply would have made OT 3-on-3. That takes care of the "boring" aspect, because goals will almost certainly be scored. Of course, the argument against that is that it's no less of a gimmick than a shootout. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
However, you then have the issue that regulation games are "2 point" games, and games that go to OT are "3 point" games. This factors into the standings in important ways (look at how OTLs impact the standings).
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
As to the question of whether a "But is a regulation win against the Islanders really worth more than an OT win against Detroit? I don't know..." You can't play that game... it's an abstract system, it cannot be a specific one. Certainly beating a good team is more difficult than beating a crappy one. However, should a team that plays in a tougher division be given help getting into the playoffs as opposed to a team that plays in a weaker division?
Valid points. I think it just shows that there's no "perfect" system with which to gauge standings, no matter the system of preference. This is true in all of sports, where strength of division (or strength of schedule) will always skew the standings to a certain degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You have to just construct an abstract system that is as fair as possible... the current one isn't really fair to good teams that win games without having to go into OT to get it done.
Agreed.

Don't take this as an argument against you (or anyone) on how to best award points in the "shootout" system that is currently in place. The points system that you laid out is mostly fine by me, given the fact that the shootout isn't going anywhere.


Last edited by Shadow Flyer: 08-22-2010 at 12:30 PM.
Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 12:49 PM
  #33
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 51,050
vCash: 500
Jester needs to crash the next GM's meeting and refuse to let any of them use the restroom until they discuss and implement a 3 point system.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 01:15 PM
  #34
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Jester needs to crash the next GM's meeting and refuse to let any of them use the restroom until they discuss and implement a 3 point system.
It's all about the money. Bettman and co. are quite correct that the current system is better if your primary concern is butts in seats for the final couple weeks of the season.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 01:52 PM
  #35
RoDu
Registered User
 
RoDu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,607
vCash: 500
2 points regulation/OT win
1 point shoot out win
0 points regulation/OT loss
0 points shootout loss

RoDu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 01:59 PM
  #36
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoDu View Post
2 points regulation/OT win
1 point shoot out win
0 points regulation/OT loss
0 points shootout loss
See, the reason I don't like this solution is that it doesn't solve the fact that games have varying point totals... and, also, I don't like giving a team nothing for losing a stupid skills competition.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 02:47 PM
  #37
mdm815
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: pa
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soda Popinski View Post
2 points reg win
1 point OT/shootout win

0 points OT loss/shootout loss.


simple. clean. done.

why are we rewarding a loss?
I've talked to friends about this for awhile. However, I would do 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, 1 pt for a SO win, and no points for a loss. This way teams play all out for 65 minutes to get those two points, and don't pursue the SO b.c. you lose out on that extra point. And you should never be rewarded for a loss.


edit: should've read the whole thing to the end. Didin't realize this had been posted


Last edited by mdm815: 08-22-2010 at 02:49 PM. Reason: needed to add
mdm815 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:16 PM
  #38
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 42,894
vCash: 2563
It is a statistical impurity if true, but post-lockout a writer referenced that the NHL sent an external memo specifying that shootout losses ended winning streaks but not unbeaten streaks. An example was that if a team won 10 straight games in regulation, then lost in a shootout, the "winning" streak turned into an eleven- game unbeaten streak. If true, the NHL is saying that a shootout loss is equal to a tie.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:21 PM
  #39
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
It is a statistical impurity if true, but post-lockout a writer referenced that the NHL sent an external memo specifying that shootout losses ended winning streaks but not unbeaten streaks. An example was that if a team won 10 straight games in regulation, then lost in a shootout, the "winning" streak turned into an eleven- game unbeaten streak. If true, the NHL is saying that a shootout loss is equal to a tie.
I've read that as well, and if it is true, I again must question why they don't just go back to the W-L-T format. The only thing this "shootout" system truly does, is give an extra point to the team that wins a skills competition.

But, as Jester stated, the NHL has a primary goal of putting buts in the seats, or so it seems. Hence, we have the shootout.

Shadow Flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:31 PM
  #40
MiamiScreamingEagles
Global Moderator
A Fistful of Dollars
 
MiamiScreamingEagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 42,894
vCash: 2563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Flyer View Post
I've read that as well, and if it is true, I again must question why they don't just go back to the W-L-T format. The only thing this "shootout" system truly does, is give an extra point to the team that wins a skills competition.

But, as Jester stated, the NHL has a primary goal of putting buts in the seats, or so it seems. Hence, we have the shootout.
Someone on the inside made a point directly related to the following season's ticket sales for some franchises. I think it was the 2006-07 season that had just six teams with a losing regular season record (24 had more wins than losses -- numbers might be slightly off). The theory is that it is easier to convince a potential customer by saying "Sure, we finished in last place in our division but we had more wins than losses and we are ready to take the next step..."

The superficial reasons for liking the shootout is something different. Some fans enjoy it and I have expressed my opinion on the event many times. I prefer a simple 5-minute expansion to the OT round and would like to see how much it cuts down on the 3-round shootout and how coaches would alter their strategies to either avoid or advance to the shootout. I don't necessarily think it has to be removed, for the sole reason that it appeals to many paying customers, but I do have an issue with the amount of games which are decided by that route.

MiamiScreamingEagles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:39 PM
  #41
MountainHawk
Registered User
 
MountainHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem, MA
Country: Vanuatu
Posts: 12,771
vCash: 500
Because of non-die-hard fans that don't post on message boards, I suspect the NHL's market research shows the shootout is incredibly popular.

I've yet to be to a game that ended in a shootout that ended with the fans sitting down bored.

MountainHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2010, 04:48 PM
  #42
Shadow Flyer
Why So Serious?
 
Shadow Flyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Interwebs
Country: United States
Posts: 3,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
Someone on the inside made a point directly related to the following season's ticket sales for some franchises. I think it was the 2006-07 season that had just six teams with a losing regular season record (24 had more wins than losses -- numbers might be slightly off). The theory is that it is easier to convince a potential customer by saying "Sure, we finished in last place in our division but we had more wins than losses and we are ready to take the next step..."
Ahh, yes. The old "we still had a winning record" bonus. It's smart from a business standpoint, as far as selling hope, which in turns sells tickets. I can certainly see the logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiScreamingEagles View Post
The superficial reasons for liking the shootout is something different. Some fans enjoy it and I have expressed my opinion on the event many times. I prefer a simple 5-minute expansion to the OT round and would like to see how much it cuts down on the 3-round shootout and how coaches would alter their strategies to either avoid or advance to the shootout. I don't necessarily think it has to be removed, for the sole reason that it appeals to many paying customers, but I do have an issue with the amount of games which are decided by that route.
I'm kinda with you on this one.

Even though I really dislike the shootout, I can tolerate it if certain changes are made. If there has to be a shootout system in the NHL then, much like you alluded to, I'd like to find a way where we can cut down on the amount of games that make it to that point. The less games decided by a shootout, the better, as far as integrity of the game and standings is concerned (my opinion, obviously).

Though I am not a huge fan of this scenario (at least as the lone option), I would endorse 3-on-3 overtime (for up to 10 minutes). Yes, it's still "gimmicky" in a sense, but still much more closely related to actual hockey than a skills competition. My contention is that the majority of games would be decided long before the shootout (the ice would be wide open), which I believe is for the best (I know some of these things that we're discussing have recently been looked at).

I can live with the shootout, I'd just rather have the majority of games never have to come to that. Whichever direction needs to be taken to achieve that goal, I'm all for it.

Shadow Flyer 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 04:57 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.