HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

History of the Loser Point

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 07:26 PM
  #1
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,280
vCash: 3000
History of the Loser Point

Let me start off by saying I hate the loser point. What I'm wondering is whose idea was it and how did it come about? When they started it, did the NHL give a reason why?

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 07:32 PM
  #2
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999%E2...000_NHL_season

First paragraph.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 07:47 PM
  #3
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Overtime before it was beyond terrible. There was no reason for teams to try to score and potentially risk losing the point they had already earned, so teams just sat on the puck. It was a pointless 5 minutes.


I'll add that I absolutely detest the term 'loser' point. It is NOT a point for losing, rather it is a point for a TIE in regulation. Following regulation, which I'll add is the part of the game that is played 5 on 5, they way hockey is meant to be played and throughout the playoffs, a BONUS point is rewarded. Each team gets a tie point, then another gets a bonus point.

The NHL still has ties, they've just done a good job of covering them up.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 07:47 PM
  #4
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,495
vCash: 500
It started when 4 on 4 overtime was introduced. The logic behind it was to encourage teams to win in OT, rather than playing for the tie.

Also, and this is my own interpretation, they don't want to award full points out to a game that doesn't have "true" hockey. By that I mean regular 5 on 5 play. Once you start putting in gimmicks like 4 on 4 and shootouts, you can't award the points out the same as you would for a 5 on 5 game.

The term "loser point" is a misnomer though. I believe it used to be called by its correct name, "regulation tie point," but for whatever reason they renamed it to something easier to understand: "overtime loss point."

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 07:49 PM
  #5
eklunds source
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,649
vCash: 500
It's not a loser point. You don't get the point for losing.. you get the point for making it to extra time. The extra point is the one that goes to the winning team. If anything, it's a "winner" point.

eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:20 PM
  #6
islesmb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
It started when 4 on 4 overtime was introduced. The logic behind it was to encourage teams to win in OT, rather than playing for the tie.

Also, and this is my own interpretation, they don't want to award full points out to a game that doesn't have "true" hockey. By that I mean regular 5 on 5 play. Once you start putting in gimmicks like 4 on 4 and shootouts, you can't award the points out the same as you would for a 5 on 5 game.

The term "loser point" is a misnomer though. I believe it used to be called by its correct name, "regulation tie point," but for whatever reason they renamed it to something easier to understand: "overtime loss point."
I thought I was the only one who remembered that. Lol The column in the standings was labeled RT for the first year, then they changed it.

islesmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:27 PM
  #7
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,183
vCash: 500
Take a tape of 1995 SCF Game 1. Watch the last 8 minutes.

Now imagine that across nearly every regular season game for about three seasons. That's why the change was made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by islesmb View Post
I thought I was the only one who remembered that. Lol The column in the standings was labeled RT for the first year, then they changed it.
RT...that brought back some unpleasant memories right there.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:29 PM
  #8
beauchamp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laval, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Happy to see that there are people who remember that it's not a loser point.

As said previously, the third point is a bonus point given to the OT/SO winner.

beauchamp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:43 PM
  #9
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,280
vCash: 3000
Meh, I know the bonus point is given to the team who wins, but it technically still is a loser point, since the year prior, they didn't give one point to the loser. Here it sounds like they just word it so it doesn't sound like the loser point that it is, but nonetheless, thanks guys for the answers.

Screw You Rick Nash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:49 PM
  #10
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
It is a loser point untill the NHL institutes a system where all NHL games are worth the same amount of points.

The NHL created a system where there has to be a winner and a loser for every NHL game. The losers of games that go into OT or SO are rewarded with a point even tho they lost. That is why its called a loser point. NFL teams are not rewarded for getting to OT. Same with basketball. Getting to extra innings gives you no benefit in MLB. The NHL has a stupid system.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:56 PM
  #11
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
It is a loser point untill the NHL institutes a system where all NHL games are worth the same amount of points.

The NHL created a system where there has to be a winner and a loser for every NHL game. The losers of games that go into OT or SO are rewarded with a point even tho they lost.
That is why its called a loser point. NFL teams are not rewarded for getting to OT. Same with basketball. Getting to extra innings gives you no benefit in MLB. The NHL has a stupid system.
The thing is they didn't lose the hockey game. That concludes after 60 minutes. They tied that.

They lost the bonus round. But they had already earned their point.

And you can call it a stupid system, but hockey is too fundamentally different from football, baseball, and basketball, and in neither of those games do they play by completely different rules during the extra session.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 08:57 PM
  #12
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,330
vCash: 500
I got an idea: now that there's no ties, how about we say screw the points and just have wins and losses?

When you get right down to it, that's all there really is anymore: wins and losses.

Now I know people will come in and say "shootout isn't real hockey rabble rabble rabble" but fact of the matter is it's here to stay. Might as well do it properly (based on pretty much every other sport except soccer which is on its own planet really) and not award failure.

Points had a purpose with ties. With no ties I don't see what purpose they serve.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:00 PM
  #13
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
The thing is they didn't lose the hockey game. That concludes after 60 minutes. They tied that.

They lost the bonus round. But they had already earned their point.

And you can call it a stupid system, but hockey is too fundamentally different from football, baseball, and basketball, and in neither of those games do they play by completely different rules during the extra session.
No. That's not how it works. People keep separating overtime and regulation into separate entities. You can't do that. There's only one game. Overtime is an extension of the SAME game. Hence the term "overtime".

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:14 PM
  #14
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
The thing is they didn't lose the hockey game. That concludes after 60 minutes. They tied that.

They lost the bonus round. But they had already earned their point.

And you can call it a stupid system, but hockey is too fundamentally different from football, baseball, and basketball, and in neither of those games do they play by completely different rules during the extra session.
No. Hockey is not so fundamentally different from all sports that they have to have a stupid system. Its not the game its the system they use.

Hockey had a system in place where it was win lose or tie. Every game was worth 2 points total. They can deal with it a number of ways. They could stop at regulation and give each team a point and have no OT or SO. They could give the OT/SO winner 1.5 pts and the loser .5 pts. Or they could go to a system where every game is worth 3 points. 3 pts for regulation win and keep current OT/SO point rules.

The NHL does not change the current situation because all these added loser points into the point totals make playoff battles tighter.

No NA sport but the NHL awards a teams for losing.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:18 PM
  #15
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
No. That's not how it works. People keep separating overtime and regulation into separate entities. You can't do that. There's only one game. Overtime is an extension of the SAME game. Hence the term "overtime".
Why in the hell can't you? They aren't played by the same rules.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:20 PM
  #16
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Now I know people will come in and say "shootout isn't real hockey rabble rabble rabble" but fact of the matter is it's here to stay. Might as well do it properly (based on pretty much every other sport except soccer which is on its own planet really) and not award failure.

Points had a purpose with ties. With no ties I don't see what purpose they serve.
Hockey is waaaaay closer to soccer's planet than it is to baseball, football, or basketball. That isn't even a debate.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:21 PM
  #17
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I got an idea: now that there's no ties, how about we say screw the points and just have wins and losses?

When you get right down to it, that's all there really is anymore: wins and losses.

Now I know people will come in and say "shootout isn't real hockey rabble rabble rabble" but fact of the matter is it's here to stay. Might as well do it properly (based on pretty much every other sport except soccer which is on its own planet really) and not award failure.

Points had a purpose with ties. With no ties I don't see what purpose they serve.
Like it or not, there are different types of "wins" and different types of "losses." You can't ignore it. It's a fact.

Yeah, it's a convoluted system, but so is the sport.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:25 PM
  #18
Pacem
Registered User
 
Pacem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Langley
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Hockey is waaaaay closer to soccer's planet than it is to baseball, football, or basketball. That isn't even a debate.
And yet they use a system where every game is worth the same amount of points. Id the NHL did that then the loser point term goes away.

Pacem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:35 PM
  #19
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
Like it or not, there are different types of "wins" and different types of "losses."
That's only because of the points system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Why in the hell can't you? They aren't played by the same rules.
Because you can't make up separate games to fit your argument. When teams show up to the arena they play one game.

Yeah OT has slightly different rules, but sudden death in itself is a different rule. Should we ban OT altogether then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Hockey is waaaaay closer to soccer's planet than it is to baseball, football, or basketball. That isn't even a debate.
It shouldn't be. Soccer does everything backwards. It's popular because of the aesthetic of the game. It's a wonderful sport at its core. They call it "the beautiful game" for a reason.

That being said, the systems used in soccer are generally god awful and shouldn't be a model for the NHL. Unless of course you'd like to see aggregate scoring used in the NHL playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
And yet they use a system where every game is worth the same amount of points. Id the NHL did that then the loser point term goes away.
No in soccer a win is 3 points and a tie is 1 each. So just like in Hockey some games are 3 some games are 2. Same ****.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:41 PM
  #20
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
That's only because of the points system.
No it isn't... it's because of actual hockey. The points system was created because there are different types of wins and losses.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:47 PM
  #21
Suntouchable13
Registered User
 
Suntouchable13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Thornhill, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Overtime before it was beyond terrible. There was no reason for teams to try to score and potentially risk losing the point they had already earned, so teams just sat on the puck. It was a pointless 5 minutes.


I'll add that I absolutely detest the term 'loser' point. It is NOT a point for losing, rather it is a point for a TIE in regulation. Following regulation, which I'll add is the part of the game that is played 5 on 5, they way hockey is meant to be played and throughout the playoffs, a BONUS point is rewarded. Each team gets a tie point, then another gets a bonus point.

The NHL still has ties, they've just done a good job of covering them up.
I agree with this. As soon as the game goes into OT, both teams have a point each automatically. The team that wins the game in OT/SO gets the extra point. It's not a loser point.

Suntouchable13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:50 PM
  #22
Machinehead
Brauch und Stolz
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: Germany
Posts: 33,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
No it isn't... it's because of actual hockey. The points system was created because there are different types of wins and losses.
The points system was created because there were wins, losses, and ties. It's outdated.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:54 PM
  #23
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
And yet they use a system where every game is worth the same amount of points. Id the NHL did that then the loser point term goes away.
Are you talking about soccer?

Because not every game is worth the same amount of points in that. Wins are 3 and draws are 1.

EDIT: I now see that's been covered.


Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 12-13-2012 at 10:01 PM.
IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:56 PM
  #24
Paranoid Android
ERMAHGERD
 
Paranoid Android's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 11,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
The points system was created because there were wins, losses, and ties. It's outdated.
I didn't mean created as in created in 1917. I meant the current system.

The current points system exists because there are different types of wins and losses. Not the other way around.

Paranoid Android is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 09:58 PM
  #25
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,270
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post

It shouldn't be. Soccer does everything backwards. It's popular because of the aesthetic of the game. It's a wonderful sport at its core. They call it "the beautiful game" for a reason.

That being said, the systems used in soccer are generally god awful and shouldn't be a model for the NHL. Unless of course you'd like to see aggregate scoring used in the NHL playoffs.
I agree that a lot of the ways soccer does things are ass backwards. But hockey is still more similar to soccer than any other sport, simply based on the fact they are based around getting the item in play into a goal behind a goalkeeper. And that it's really hard to do.

IU Hawks fan 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 09:27 PM.

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.