HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Notices

Game #64: vs Pittsburgh, 2/29 (6:30 PM, NBC Sports Network, 1310 AM, 104.1 FM)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2012, 07:56 PM
  #451
joelnmich
Registered User
 
joelnmich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
3 pts for regulation win
2 pts for OT or Shootout Win
1 pt for OT or shootout loss.

Every game gives out three points. I think this also gets rid of the arbitrary bunching produced by the bonus points provided by going into OT.

joelnmich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 07:58 PM
  #452
Bennrocks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
The 3-2-1 systems sound good and would work, but the NHL and NHLPA would never be on board because it would get rid of alot of the hype going down the stretch

Bennrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 08:00 PM
  #453
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 10,973
vCash: 500
Same reason a straight 2-0 system wouldn't work. The NHL loves the "parity" the current system creates.

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 08:01 PM
  #454
captainmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
I will once again plug my standard spiel:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - overtime win
1 point - shootout win

No points for losing, ever. The incentive is to take risks and play to win in the allotted time.
2 points regulation win
1 point OT win
0 points for loss

have the OT last ten minutes.

4-4 for first five minutes
3-3 for last five minutes

no shootout

captainmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 02:51 AM
  #455
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 13,005
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
I've said all along that the best route is to just keep it simple.

2 points for a win.
0 for a loss.

Simple.

A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Since the NHL wanted to do away with ties, wins can happen at later stages of the game, but they're still wins.

A narrow shootout victory should hold just as much weight as a blowout win in regulation. And a loss 10 seconds into overtime shouldn't earn you a charity point when you get nothing if you lose 11 seconds earlier.
I hate the idea of a shootout resulting in a two-point swing. It's a crap shoot and is kitsch at best. I understand wanting to make it simple but I would definitely be against a system like that.

I like piqued's system. More points for a real win (regulation) than for OT or Shootout. Scoring a real goal in OT is still legit hockey and should be rewarded by the point system to show that.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 09:18 AM
  #456
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
I will once again plug my standard spiel:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - overtime win
1 point - shootout win

No points for losing, ever. The incentive is to take risks and play to win in the allotted time.
I dont like it because I dont think you should be come away empty handed for losing in a stupid shootout.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:08 PM
  #457
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 29,801
vCash: 25678
Why not? Why should you be rewarded for playing your opponent to a draw prior to the shootout? That's the same state the two teams are in before the puck drops -- theoretically even. You've proven absolutely nothing, accomplished absolutely nothing over those 65 minutes. Any point awarded to a loser is essentially a participation ribbon.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:16 PM
  #458
Ampersand
Dallas Stars Fan
 
Ampersand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
I will once again plug my standard spiel:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - overtime win
1 point - shootout win

No points for losing, ever. The incentive is to take risks and play to win in the allotted time.
Sign me up

Ampersand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:20 PM
  #459
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Why not? Why should you be rewarded for playing your opponent to a draw prior to the shootout? That's the same state the two teams are in before the puck drops -- theoretically even. You've proven absolutely nothing, accomplished absolutely nothing over those 65 minutes. Any point awarded to a loser is essentially a participation ribbon.
because the shoot out is a completely ridiculous way to determine a winner. Losing in a shootout is not a real loss and shouldnt be treated as such.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:26 PM
  #460
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 29,801
vCash: 25678
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:29 PM
  #461
CorwiN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?
See, I think a good compromise position would be no points for a shootout win, but that team's fans get a coupon for a free taco or something. Resolution to game, no silly shootout messing up the standings, everyone's happy.

CorwiN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:34 PM
  #462
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?
I'd be giving the team a point for not losing the actual game which is vastly more important than the shootout. Call it a tie with a bonus point for winning the shootout if there must be a shootout. If a shootout win isnt as positive as a regular win a shootout loss shouldnt be as negative as a regular loss.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:35 PM
  #463
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 10,973
vCash: 500
The problem with that system is you still have games that are worth varying degrees of points. You can have a 3 point game, a 2 point game, or a 1 point game. That creates variance within the system and leads to the same problem we have now, some games are 2 points into the system, others are 3. Piqued's system exasperates that with 3, 2, and 1 point games on a random given night.

There's no way to successfully balance the point system to cater to everyone's wish. Some people want to see teams that make it to OT/SO rewarded in some way. Others want to see a win be a win, no matter how it got there, even it means validating the SO the same as a regulation win. A straight 2-0 system, which is better than we have now, validates the SO/OT as a normal win and possess off the people who feel getting to OT is worth something ala an old school tie.

The Olympic system makes most sense with the 3-2-1 approach. Every games 3 points into the pool no matter what happens. You fail to win in regulation, you only get 2 points. You have enough drive to make it to OT, you get at least a point and deny the other team a point.

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:41 PM
  #464
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 29,801
vCash: 25678
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorwiN View Post
See, I think a good compromise position would be no points for a shootout win, but that team's fans get a coupon for a free taco or something. Resolution to game, no silly shootout messing up the standings, everyone's happy.
Hahaha. That was so embarrassing when they were announcing the stupid taco coupon or whatever while Letang was laying on the ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I'd be giving the team a point for not losing the actual game which is vastly more important than the shootout. Call it a tie with a bonus point for winning the shootout if there must be a shootout. If a shootout win isnt as positive as a regular win a shootout loss shouldnt be as negative as a regular loss.
We're just coming at this from different philosophies. I hate ties. I hate everything about them. I want to remove all vestiges of that kind of thinking from the sport. Playing your opponent to a standstill is not a good thing, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnholyPrince View Post
The problem with that system is you still have games that are worth varying degrees of points. You can have a 3 point game, a 2 point game, or a 1 point game. That creates variance within the system and leads to the same problem we have now, some games are 2 points into the system, others are 3.
But why is variance a problem? I don't understand. It's only a problem if it creates an imbalance toward /incentive for safe, conservative play, which is what we have now.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:45 PM
  #465
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
every game being worth 5 points would make some sense to me

regulation win 5
regulation loss 0
ot win 4
ot loss 1
shootout win 3
shootout loss 2

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:46 PM
  #466
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 10,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
But why is variance a problem? I don't understand. It's only a problem if it creates an incentive for safe, conservative play, which is what we have now.
It creates an unpredictable and unbalanced # of points in the system. When scoreboard watching you'll just hope every game goes to OT/SO. Its the reverse of what we have now, and you'll hear opinions that it invalidates a win. Or that the team that gets to OT still deserves something. I think it just takes one problem and flips it, creating new ones to solve the motivation issue.

I agree it creates incentive to finish in regulation or OT, but so does the Olympic system, without the random variance of what a game is "worth."

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:50 PM
  #467
Modo
Global Moderator
Mo'Benn
 
Modo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,025
vCash: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
every game being worth 5 points would make some sense to me

regulation win 5
regulation loss 0
ot win 4
ot loss 1
shootout win 3
shootout loss 2
Do you really want teams with 200-point seasons?

__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Modo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:52 PM
  #468
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
We're just coming at this from different philosophies. I hate ties. I hate everything about them. I want to remove all vestiges of that kind of thinking from the sport. Playing your opponent to a standstill is not a good thing, to me.
I don't like ties but for me radically changing the way a game is played to get a result is way worse than ties are. I suspect I hate the idea of too much importance being put on a shootout as much as you hate ties. I also really hate the idea of 3 on 3 hockey that alot of people propose.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:53 PM
  #469
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 29,801
vCash: 25678
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnholyPrince View Post
It creates an unpredictable and unbalanced # of points in the system. When scoreboard watching you'll just hope every game goes to OT/SO. Its the reverse of what we have now, and you'll hear opinions that it invalidates a win. Or that the team that gets to OT still deserves something. I think it just takes one problem and flips it, creating new ones to solve the motivation issue.

I agree it creates incentive to finish in regulation or OT, but so does the Olympic system, without the random variance of what a game is "worth."
I'm just not seeing where you say why the imbalance is a bad thing. Shouldn't teams that are good enough to win in regulation get the lion's share of the points? Middling teams will be left in the dust. If your argument is that artificially-induced (via manipulation of the standings/point system) parity is good for the sport, then I can understand, although I would disagree.

I feel the Olympic system only gets half of the incentive issue correct. What's the more powerful motivator? The promise of an extra point or the fear of getting nothing? I would argue the fear.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:54 PM
  #470
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
Do you really want teams with 200-point seasons?
Sure, why not? Its just a number.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 01:24 PM
  #471
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 10,973
vCash: 500
Lebrun weighs in on the debate:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...-the-standings

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 01:43 PM
  #472
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 29,801
vCash: 25678
The only GM that makes any sort of intelligent point is Stevie Y.

The anonymous one is wrong, teams aren't going to pull their goalie with 5 minutes left. I find it highly questionable that teams would pull their goalie at all during a tied game, 3 points or not. There isn't a whole lot of evidence to support the idea that pulling the goalie even works. There's still the chance to win 2 points in OT.

Holland is wrong also, especially about the quote about going to 3v3 and calling that "playing hockey". How is 3v3 any more "playing hockey" than 1v1 (a shootout) ? What percentage of the total games of an NHL season is played at 3v3? They're both gimmicks. At least the shootout has a history to it at many different levels of the sport.

Furthermore, I reject the entire idea that races are what sustain fan interest. An exciting product is what makes people want to come back and see more. Fans are smart. They don't think their team is good because they're mired in the morass with god knows how many other teams fighting for 8th. At any rate, there will still be races - they''ll just have much more clarity to them and less gridlock.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 04:39 PM
  #473
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
Milana <3
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 17,667
vCash: 157
Some of the points a lot of people are hinting on only seem applicable in the very late stages (last few games) of the season.

Piqued's idea would make those games so impossibly frantic and good it would be amazing to watch. But there probably wouldn't be as tight of a race at the end of the season as there is now.

I'm for the Olympic system as well. Just seems the most fair.

LatvianTwist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 04:55 PM
  #474
aisforaaron83
Registered User
 
aisforaaron83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 539
vCash: 1075
someone may have already put this, but I am far too lazy to go through other pages.

3 pts for a reg win
3 pts for OT win, 0 for OT loss
2 pts for SO win, 1 for SO loss

I think that the 'first to score wins' in OT is enough of a change and does not require the loser to get a point. Both teams would be pushing for the full 3 in OT. Shootout is a skills comp, although very enjoyable, so loser gets a point. Just my $0.02.

eat **** and die

aisforaaron83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 08:02 PM
  #475
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 13,005
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
Furthermore, I reject the entire idea that races are what sustain fan interest. An exciting product is what makes people want to come back and see more. Fans are smart. They don't think their team is good because they're mired in the morass with god knows how many other teams fighting for 8th. At any rate, there will still be races - they''ll just have much more clarity to them and less gridlock.
The last time this topic came up I posted an extremely wordy opinion which you just said more succinctly. Fans know there aren't 20 "good" teams.

If I were a GM I'm pretty sure I would assess my team against the league with my own standings whereby SO points are not part of the equation. Obviously, that comes with the caveat that the teams played those games under a system with the SO winner point, thus affecting outcomes, etc. But if you're not one of the top 3-4 teams in your conference you're probably some level of mediocre. The rest is all window-dressing.

glovesave_35 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 10:48 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.