What's so great about ties? It feels really cheap to watch a game that doesn't have a winner.
because sometimes ties are what the result should be , sure it's not fun that the result is a tie , but it's still better than FORCING A WINNER.A team is playing 5 vs 5 hockey for 60 minutes and then they ridiculously put them 4 vs 4 than the shootout.A team winning that way doesn't really deserve to win , they forced it , that's why regular OT of 5 or 10 minutes 5 vs 5 is the best way to go , with a tie if nobody is capable of closing the deal.The result is speaking more clearly about the game , instead of making it like a casino gambling game.
because sometimes ties are what the result should be , sure it's not fun that the result is a tie , but it's still better than FORCING A WINNER.A team is playing 5 vs 5 hockey for 60 minutes and then they ridiculously put them 4 vs 4 than the shootout.A team winning that way doesn't really deserve to win , they forced it , that's why regular OT of 5 or 10 minutes 5 vs 5 is the best way to go , with a tie if nobody is capable of closing the deal.The result is speaking more clearly about the game , instead of making it like a casino gambling game.
I definitely feel like shootouts are not the proper way to end a game, but I also hate ties. There is no other sport that I know of that actually allows ties at the end of the game. My preference would be 4 on 4 overtime for 10 minutes, and then have it end in a shootout. The majority of hockey games would end before the shootout.
If we REALLY want to bring back ties.. then NEITHER team should get a point in a tie. Neither team won, so why do they deserve anything at all? Not rewarding points in the event of a tie will encourage teams to win.
I could get behind unlimited OT that eliminates ties and shootouts. But, it has to be 4-on-4. And probably change to 3-on-3 after 10 minutes, too. You would rarely see an OT go a full extra period, and it would be exponentially rarer to see "9 periods in 2 days", i.e. 3 periods worth of OT over back-to-back games. Probably would happen less than once per season.
But the possibility of it happening would be enough to scare teams and players. My guess is injuries would go up greatly too. Fatigue is ******.
3-on-3 would get crazy. I'd rather have refs just call penalties if they need to end the game rather than put away whistles like they often do.
I definitely feel like shootouts are not the proper way to end a game, but I also hate ties. There is no other sport that I know of that actually allows ties at the end of the game. My preference would be 4 on 4 overtime for 10 minutes, and then have it end in a shootout. The majority of hockey games would end before the shootout.
If we REALLY want to bring back ties.. then NEITHER team should get a point in a tie. Neither team won, so why do they deserve anything at all? Not rewarding points in the event of a tie will encourage teams to win.
Are you serious? I thought ties in the NFL are settled by field goals or w/e. Regardless, I just looked it up, and there have been 17 ties in NFL history.. 256 games are played in an NFL regular season alone, with those 17 ties constituting 6.6% of those 256 games.. so, I would wager that the total number of ties in NFL history amounts to far less than 1% of the total games ever played.. meaning that ties in the NFL are probably fine, since they barely ever happen.
Are you serious? I thought ties in the NFL are settled by field goals or w/e. Regardless, I just looked it up, and there have been 17 ties in NFL history.. 256 games are played in an NFL regular season alone, with those 17 ties constituting 6.6% of those 256 games.. so, I would wager that the total number of ties in NFL history amounts to far less than 1% of the total games ever played.. meaning that ties in the NFL are probably fine, since they barely ever happen.
By the way, food for thought:
Jaroslav Halak, his stats circa Nov. 1:
1.57 GAA, .939 S%. Un, ****ing, real.
I'm dead serious, why?
I corrected your statement. You said you don't know of any other sports that allow ties and I corrected you and told you the NFL does.
I don't care how many there were, they still allow for it. Not sure what you're argueing about.
Also how are they "probably fine" Obviously they are "fine" they do happen. The fact that they are rare has nothing to do with your incorrect statement.
I corrected your statement. You said you don't know of any other sports that allow ties and I corrected you and told you the NFL does.
I don't care how many there were, they still allow for it. Not sure what you're argueing about.
Also how are they "probably fine" Obviously they are "fine" they do happen. The fact that they are rare has nothing to do with your incorrect statement.
Um.. when I said "are you serious?", I didn't mean it in the sense of arguing with you. It was a shocked sort of "are you serious?". Everything that followed was my way of trying to justify it to myself. You're reading way too much into this.
But the possibility of it happening would be enough to scare teams and players. My guess is injuries would go up greatly too. Fatigue is ******.
You are overestimating how big an issue this would be. Games would typically be over fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek
Are you serious? I thought ties in the NFL are settled by field goals or w/e. Regardless, I just looked it up, and there have been 17 ties in NFL history.. 256 games are played in an NFL regular season alone, with those 17 ties constituting 6.6% of those 256 games.. so, I would wager that the total number of ties in NFL history amounts to far less than 1% of the total games ever played.. meaning that ties in the NFL are probably fine, since they barely ever happen.
By the way, food for thought:
Jaroslav Halak, his stats circa Nov. 1:
1.57 GAA, .939 S%. Un, ****ing, real.
"circa" ≠ "since"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek
In other news, here are the points of the top-8 teams in the west, in order of playoff seeding:
93, 92, 79, 89, 85, 79, 76, 75.
Anyone else see anything absurdly wrong about this? :/
yes, obviously.
the sad thing is, as little sense as this system makes on the surface, it makes even less sense as you dig further.
There are at least two points given out in every game, so even if you have a weak division, they will still earn points because so many of their games are against eachother. But not all of them are. So they start to lag behind as a division because they play teams from stronger divisions and tend to lose more of them.
What I’ve found is, if you look at the teams in a weak division, and compare their divisional records to their out-of-division records, you’ll see that the standings flatter them, and if schedules were perfectly balanced they would be even further behind their counterparts from better divisions.
This affects the top team of that weak division just as much. Typically this 3rd place team would only be 6th-7th based on their actual point totals, but when you break it down even 6th-7th is flattering because they are the team that had the highest proportion of their games against their 4 weak sisters.
So, you are rewarding them extra, when being in 6th-7th would already be a reward!
Yeah, I'm looking at Halak's game log and there's no way he had a .939 sv% "circa" November 1st. he actually didn't even have one game with that sv% or higher - or even close!
"since" is what you meant to say, jarek. As I suspected.
Last edited by seventieslord: 03-09-2012 at 12:41 PM.
Yeah, I'm lloking at Halak's game log and there's no way he had a .939 sv% "circa" November 1st. he actually didn't even have one game with that sv% or higher - or even close!
"since" is what you meant to say, jarek. As I suspected.
Yeah, Halak was not good in the beginning of the season...that's part of the reason why Elliot was getting so many starts (the other being that Elliot was actually playing very well).
Yeah, I'm looking at Halak's game log and there's no way he had a .939 sv% "circa" November 1st. he actually didn't even have one game with that sv% or higher - or even close!
"since" is what you meant to say, jarek. As I suspected.
I thought that's what circa meant.. whatever. Stupid ****ing latin **** garbage.
Do you guys tell anybody about participation in the ATD? I told my girlfriend once and she got mad that I spend so much time at it, but of all the people I've ever told that are hockey fans, they've been so fascinated by the idea.
I went out to lunch with an family friend today, and the main point of our discussion was the All Time Draft. I showed him the roster page and told him the process, he knew a lot of the players. He knows quite a bit about hockey, and he's a Canadian politician. He told me that he used to receive a magazine in the paper back in the 60's, and it used to be a full-colored picture of an NHL hockey player. He recalls Leo Labine, Jerry Toppazzini and Leo Boivin being on the cover, with a short blurb included. He lived in Southern Ontario and used to watch the Sabres in their first few seasons, it was a great discussion with someone with appreciation for the draft and knowledge of most of the players.
I talk to my dad about the draft sometimes who has been a Sabres fan since their inaugural season, he doesn't know much about the league before the mid-60's, but I'll sometimes consult him on players I'm about to select and he'll tell me what he thought of them. As well as my uncle who is on a similar basis of knowledge with my dad, they always ask about players and where they usually get selected. My dad believes Perreault at 91 is blasphemous
It's different with most of my friends who know of the obvious best players of all time and everything from the last 15 years or so, but when it's someone who has lived through most of it, I think it's awesome to have a conversation with people who can appreciate the same passion I have for the draft. Do you guys ever explain the ATD to others?
I've never explained it to anyone, but I find myself talking about old players a lot more in general conversations about hockey and sound much more knowledgeable when talking about older players.
I definitely feel like shootouts are not the proper way to end a game, but I also hate ties. There is no other sport that I know of that actually allows ties at the end of the game. My preference would be 4 on 4 overtime for 10 minutes, and then have it end in a shootout. The majority of hockey games would end before the shootout.
If we REALLY want to bring back ties.. then NEITHER team should get a point in a tie. Neither team won, so why do they deserve anything at all? Not rewarding points in the event of a tie will encourage teams to win.
you guys are just wrong...3 on 3??? what the hell? why not playing a OT of hockey cosom while we're at it?
3 pts for regular win? jesus christ that is horrifying.
ALWEZZZZ MOAR PTSSS !11!!
2 PTS for a victory is fine , unlimited OT is not doable for a lot of reasons , mainly tv scheduled and the fact there's too much games in a NHl schedule and players are tired.That's why ties were always great , what's the point of declaring a cheap winner like with the shootout? It happens that both team dont deserve to win or lose , therefore a tie is appropriate.
What exactly is the problem with the 3-2-1 point system? What's so horrifying about it?
Hey, all the guys from the leafs board – and I don’t mean leafscentral, I mean chat.mapleleafs.com, the original board where we all met before it turned into fans.mapleleafs.nhl.com, which was terrible – I have an excellent little tidbit for you.
Remember Carmissimo? The world’s biggest and blindest leafs apologist? He would never agree to do anything except strive for that 8th playoff spot year after year and make trades that help the team now as opposed to later. He would applaud (and never question) any move made by the Leafs’ GM or coach.
Well, there’s a thread on that site, started by Carmissimo, titled “OK, Tank Nation. I’m in.”
It is in the “All Things Leafs” section and I replied today, so it will be fairly high up there. Sorry I don’t have the exact link as I can’t access it on my work PC.
You should all go there and gloat just a little. After all, we were right all along and we’re still right.
Thank you to Lafleur’s Fries (now known on this site as Lafleur’s Guy) for sending me the link.
Someone be sure to quote this, or dreakmur - who has me on ignore - will never see it.
Obviously they are "fine" they do happen. The fact that they are rare has nothing to do with your incorrect statement.
It was a shocked sort of "are you serious?". Everything that followed was my way of trying to justify it to myself. You're reading way too much into this.
