HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

I'm Just Sayin'

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-12-2011, 09:40 AM
  #26
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
We watched it man! I'm not talking in abstracts here, there used to be 0 pts for an OTL, and teams went into uber passive systems and just skated around for 5 minutes unless someone did something incredibly stupid... took their 1 pt, and went on to the next city.
Right, but I don't think it really artificially compresses the standings all that much even. Maybe some impact at the bottom, but the reality was that teams split the 2 pts the vast majority of the time it went to OT... even the good teams.

If anything... 4-on-4 gives an advantage to more skilled teams. SO is a different beast.
that was then this is now, much more at stake.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 09:42 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 NWO View Post
that was then this is now, much more at stake.
This statement literally makes no sense. You're talking about returning to point systems that we have already seen.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 09:47 AM
  #28
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,250
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Yeah, I am not a fan of the OTL. Never have been. You should not get a point for losing in anything. Either bring back the tie (which was fine by me) or get rid of the OTL.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 09:51 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 DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah, I am not a fan of the OTL. Never have been. You should not get a point for losing in anything. Either bring back the tie (which was fine by me) or get rid of the OTL.
How would you feel about teams getting 0 pts for a SO loss? Think that's fair, or an accurate representation of the quality of those teams? I don't. It's a nice way to add on an extra point, and provide a bit of excitement I suppose... but it tells me nothing about who the better team is at playing hockey.

Now, in an individual game... not a big deal. When you expand that over the course of an entire season... giving one team 2 pts for winning a SO and the other 0, would be a big deal.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 09:53 AM
  #30
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
This statement literally makes no sense. You're talking about returning to point systems that we have already seen.
how doesnt it make sense? You get no points for losing. You dont think the owners and coaches will have their team playing hard in ot or at the end of the game knwoign they get nothing for a loss? So if something didnt work in the past it wont work in ther future or present? Every point would be worht somethign instead of the well we got 1 for losing mentality.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 09:55 AM
  #31
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
They didn't.

The only time it happened was in the final couple weeks of the season with teams who knew their playoff point position situation. As said, this isn't some abstract thing... a decade ago we had ties, no points for OTL, and then 3 pt games. We've seen how teams in recent memory approached the game theory of that point system, and it was boring as hell.

I would much prefer they go to ties and no OT, than routinely wasting 5 minutes of everyone's lives that we can never get back.
You are also comparing two different eras. When the previous ties were in place there was much more obstruction and the ability to slow the play down, now with the interference calls up I think you would see a different outcome.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:06 AM
  #32
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
how doesnt it make sense? You get no points for losing. You dont think the owners and coaches will have their team playing hard in ot or at the end of the game knwoign they get nothing for a loss? So if something didnt work in the past it wont work in ther future or present? Every point would be worht somethign instead of the well we got 1 for losing mentality.
Owners and coaches will have their teams playing for the best possible outcome for their team with regard to the season. That means, protecting the 1 point.

The game theory, which was completely accurate then, remains the same. You see teams protect the tie at the end of regulation now (game theory), and they'll do the same thing in OT if you take away the OTL point.

Your mistake is thinking that he OTL point isn't "worth something." I don't even know where to begin with that thought process. The OTL is absolutely worth something, and you see teams make sure they get it late in regulation games when there is a tie in place. The very idea of the OTL point was that it would free teams up to try and score in OT... and it did... against opposite conference opponents. Against your own conference teams didn't want to give up the extra point in the standings to a competitor for playoff positioning.

Now OT is rather exciting because both sides know a decision is going to be reached... and for teams that suck at SOs, it's imperative that they try and end it in OT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
You are also comparing two different eras. When the previous ties were in place there was much more obstruction and the ability to slow the play down, now with the interference calls up I think you would see a different outcome.
Yeah, that explains why teams are still quite good at defending leads. Pair that with refs still not being keen on calling penalties late in games and OT, and the obstruction change (which isn't nearly as marked as it was right out of the gate, btw) and that goes up in smoke.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:06 AM
  #33
chaosof99*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 16,614
vCash: 500
I don't know why the shootout has such a bad reputation. The matter of fact is that the game has to end some time and you can not use the overtime format the playoffs have in the regular season. It is too exhausting to the players, it gives teams a big disadvantage on back-to-back games and TV companies would go berserk. Ties on the other hand are completely and absolutely unattractive. The shootout on the other hand is an exciting part of the game. It doesn't showcase all aspects of the game, but there is definitely skill and intelligence involved.

The problem I see is simply that a shootout, while being a legitimate way to decide a winner, should simply not have the same weight as a regulation win. Hence my advocacy of the 3-point regulation win.

chaosof99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:11 AM
  #34
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,425
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
In theory, yes, in actual fact, as Valhoun notes, it doesn't have a tremendous impact. If you go back and look at the standings prior to OTL with the ties, you'll see a LOT of ties.

Teams got into OT and played extremely cautious in order to protect their point. Then they want to the 3 point OT with the OTL (no shootout) and games between conference opponents remained tremendously boring because they didn't want to give an extra point in the standings to their opposition... and OT with the other conference were wide open, because who cared?

That being said... I don't see the travesty in 4 OTLs (given the current format of OT) being the same as a 2-2-0 record. Come playoff team, the 4 OTL team is harder to beat in regulation apparently.
Come playoff time though, you don't get points for losing in overtime.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:14 AM
  #35
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Owners and coaches will have their teams playing for the best possible outcome for their team with regard to the season. That means, protecting the 1 point.

The game theory, which was completely accurate then, remains the same. You see teams protect the tie at the end of regulation now (game theory), and they'll do the same thing in OT if you take away the OTL point.

Your mistake is thinking that he OTL point isn't "worth something." I don't even know where to begin with that thought process. The OTL is absolutely worth something, and you see teams make sure they get it late in regulation games when there is a tie in place. The very idea of the OTL point was that it would free teams up to try and score in OT... and it did... against opposite conference opponents. Against your own conference teams didn't want to give up the extra point in the standings to a competitor for playoff positioning.

Now OT is rather exciting because both sides know a decision is going to be reached... and for teams that suck at SOs, it's imperative that they try and end it in OT.

.
your over analayzing it, bottom line is if you get no points for losing, teams are not going to sit back. would love to see what the standings would look like if you remove the 1 point teams that lose recieve. you can doi t just in ot, by shootout to compare, and combined. i have no time nor the energy to do it myself.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:15 AM
  #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 go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Come playoff time though, you don't get points for losing in overtime.
You don't get 'em for 4-on-4 and SOs either.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:16 AM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
your over analayzing it, bottom line is if you get no points for losing, teams are not going to sit back.
Yes, they will. We have seen it. You are being completely ahistorical.

You literally have every reason to sit back... it's the rational best choice.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:17 AM
  #38
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Owners and coaches will have their teams playing for the best possible outcome for their team with regard to the season. That means, protecting the 1 point.

The game theory, which was completely accurate then, remains the same. You see teams protect the tie at the end of regulation now (game theory), and they'll do the same thing in OT if you take away the OTL point.

Your mistake is thinking that he OTL point isn't "worth something." I don't even know where to begin with that thought process. The OTL is absolutely worth something, and you see teams make sure they get it late in regulation games when there is a tie in place. The very idea of the OTL point was that it would free teams up to try and score in OT... and it did... against opposite conference opponents. Against your own conference teams didn't want to give up the extra point in the standings to a competitor for playoff positioning.

Now OT is rather exciting because both sides know a decision is going to be reached... and for teams that suck at SOs, it's imperative that they try and end it in OT.



Yeah, that explains why teams are still quite good at defending leads. Pair that with refs still not being keen on calling penalties late in games and OT, and the obstruction change (which isn't nearly as marked as it was right out of the gate, btw) and that goes up in smoke.

Over the last two night you have seen teams come back from 0-2 to win 4-2 and 5-2(Bruins and Flyers).

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:18 AM
  #39
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosof99 View Post
I don't know why the shootout has such a bad reputation. The matter of fact is that the game has to end some time and you can not use the overtime format the playoffs have in the regular season. It is too exhausting to the players, it gives teams a big disadvantage on back-to-back games and TV companies would go berserk. Ties on the other hand are completely and absolutely unattractive. The shootout on the other hand is an exciting part of the game. It doesn't showcase all aspects of the game, but there is definitely skill and intelligence involved.

The problem I see is simply that a shootout, while being a legitimate way to decide a winner, should simply not have the same weight as a regulation win. Hence my advocacy of the 3-point regulation win.
Agreed. If they are dead set on assigning a "winner" and "loser" to each game, then the SO is a good solution. However, it is completely unfair to give a team 0 pts for losing a stupid SO.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:21 AM
  #40
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yes, they will. We have seen it. You are being completely ahistorical.

You literally have every reason to sit back... it's the rational best choice.
why would you sit back knowing if you lost you get nothing? not buying it. When the stakes change so will the play.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:21 AM
  #41
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
Over the last two night you have seen teams come back from 0-2 to win 4-2 and 5-2(Bruins and Flyers).
Yeah, you know what that's called? Cherry picking to support your point. Teams remain extremely good at defending leads, and you see that every time they put up the lead after 2 periods stat.

If it happened all the time, then it wouldn't be all that special. Meltzer has it on his blog. The Flyers and Caps are the ONLY teams in the NHL with better than .500 records after allowing the first goal.

Moreover, the Flyers and Sabres were tied after 2.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:22 AM
  #42
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,250
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
How would you feel about teams getting 0 pts for a SO loss? Think that's fair, or an accurate representation of the quality of those teams? I don't. It's a nice way to add on an extra point, and provide a bit of excitement I suppose... but it tells me nothing about who the better team is at playing hockey.

Now, in an individual game... not a big deal. When you expand that over the course of an entire season... giving one team 2 pts for winning a SO and the other 0, would be a big deal.
Yes I do think that would be fair to give one team 2 points for winning and one team 0 points for losing. And if it isn't, then get rid of the shootout altogether and go back to ties. The shootout is fun, but it isn't a great way to call a game. Think of last season, the Flyers entire season came down to 3 players vs. Boucher and 3 players vs. Lundqvist. Is that a fair way to end a season? Sure, it ended up great for us, but if we would have lost I'm sure there would have been outrage that an entire season of work came down to a couple penalty shots.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:23 AM
  #43
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
why would you sit back knowing if you lost you get nothing?
Because you defend the tie and the 1 point you have in pocket. This really isn't that complicated.

Quote:
not buying it. When the stakes change so will the play.
Dude... we have SEEN THIS. You aren't describing some new concept that has never been tried in the NHL. The system was CHANGED from what you're describing for the very reasons I am citing.

Just because you don't remember the NHL in the 1990s doesn't mean it didn't take place.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:24 AM
  #44
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosof99 View Post
I don't know why the shootout has such a bad reputation. The matter of fact is that the game has to end some time and you can not use the overtime format the playoffs have in the regular season. It is too exhausting to the players, it gives teams a big disadvantage on back-to-back games and TV companies would go berserk. Ties on the other hand are completely and absolutely unattractive. The shootout on the other hand is an exciting part of the game. It doesn't showcase all aspects of the game, but there is definitely skill and intelligence involved.

The problem I see is simply that a shootout, while being a legitimate way to decide a winner, should simply not have the same weight as a regulation win. Hence my advocacy of the 3-point regulation win.
Because shootouts are for the wussification and Bettmanization of the NHL. There is ZERO reason why a shootout should have an imapct on the standings. It is a skills competition. Regular season game, OT ends, I leave. Zero interest, watch it on the highlites later.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:26 AM
  #45
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yes I do think that would be fair to give one team 2 points for winning and one team 0 points for losing. And if it isn't, then get rid of the shootout altogether and go back to ties. The shootout is fun, but it isn't a great way to call a game. Think of last season, the Flyers entire season came down to 3 players vs. Boucher and 3 players vs. Lundqvist. Is that a fair way to end a season? Sure, it ended up great for us, but if we would have lost I'm sure there would have been outrage that an entire season of work came down to a couple penalty shots.
Absolutely, but if it had ended in a tie, we would have been in.

You will never have no OTL as long as the SO is in place, and the shootout isn't going anywhere. The NHL likes it, and casual fans like it... which is why the NHL likes it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:34 AM
  #46
jb**
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Planet Lovetron
Country: Italy
Posts: 8,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Because you defend the tie and the 1 point you have in pocket. This really isn't that complicated.



Dude... we have SEEN THIS. You aren't describing some new concept that has never been tried in the NHL. The system was CHANGED from what you're describing for the very reasons I am citing.

Just because you don't remember the NHL in the 1990s doesn't mean it didn't take place.
You dont get 1 point for a tie, as you said it isnt that complicated. Not sure what part you are not grasping. You win you get 2 points, you lose you get nothing.

jb** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:37 AM
  #47
chaosof99*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 16,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
You dont get 1 point for a tie, as you said it isnt that complicated. Not sure what part you are not grasping. You win you get 2 points, you lose you get nothing.
What He's saying is that Overtime is boring and uninteresting because both teams would go with the bird in the hand rather than try to go after the two in the bush. That is the part you're not getting.

That circumstance is of course unless they're in a playoff race. Problem is, with a guaranteed point there wouldn't be any difference when a team is in the playoff race as they're still dependent on the 2nd point.

chaosof99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:43 AM
  #48
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
You dont get 1 point for a tie, as you said it isnt that complicated. Not sure what part you are not grasping. You win you get 2 points, you lose you get nothing.
So, you want to have no OTL and the shootout remain in place?

Fine. I think that's even more ridiculous than the current setup (which I'm not a fan of).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:47 AM
  #49
chaosof99*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 16,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWO View Post
why would you sit back knowing if you lost you get nothing? not buying it. When the stakes change so will the play.
To paraphrase the above sentence:
"Why would you be happy with one bird in hand when there's two, TWO (2!) in the bush?!"

chaosof99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-12-2011, 10:51 AM
  #50
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosof99 View Post
To paraphrase the above sentence:
"Why would you be happy with one bird in hand when there's two, TWO (2!) in the bush?!"
This is without addressing the non-metaphorical reality that OT is extremely exciting right now entirely because they get the 1 point for sure. Outside of keeping the SO and taking away that point (which I would view as a complete travesty to the game), we have seen the permutations that are being offered as "solutions," and there was a reason the NHL felt the need to make alterations.

Jester 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 02:21 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.