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
12-14-2012, 01:59 AM
  #51
Seth Rollins
Mr Money In The Bank
 
Seth Rollins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashy View Post
the fact that some games are worth 3 points and others are worth 2 points make the whole system stupid.

Florida took advantage of this last year.
I wouldn't be complaining considering Edmonton's 2006 cup run doesn't happen without the Oilers stockpiling all those "loser points".

For the record, the system works like this.

Tie after 60 minutes:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 1 point

Say Team A wins in OT/SO:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 0 points

You don't get a point for losing. Deal with it.

Seth Rollins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:23 AM
  #52
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyutinMyOwnHorn View Post
I wouldn't be complaining considering Edmonton's 2006 cup run doesn't happen without the Oilers stockpiling all those "loser points".

For the record, the system works like this.

Tie after 60 minutes:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 1 point

Say Team A wins in OT/SO:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 0 points

You don't get a point for losing. Deal with it.
That's a point for losing. They just word it so that it doesn't sound as stupid as it is. If you look at the year before, it was:

Tie after 60 minutes:
Team A - 0 points
Team B - 0 points

Say team A wins in OT:
Team A - 2 points
Team B - 0 points

No point for losing there.

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

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:22 AM
  #53
flashy
Fire Tambellini.
 
flashy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyutinMyOwnHorn View Post
I wouldn't be complaining considering Edmonton's 2006 cup run doesn't happen without the Oilers stockpiling all those "loser points".

For the record, the system works like this.

Tie after 60 minutes:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 1 point

Say Team A wins in OT/SO:
Team A - 1 point
Team B - 0 points

You don't get a point for losing. Deal with it.
I'm not sure what the 2006 run has do with anything other then me being an Oiler fan, and on that note Vancouver had more to do with us making the playoffs then anything.

Secondly, yes you do get a point for losing. What other North American leagues give a point out to the team that loses in overtime? It doesn't make any sense other then to artificially inflate the point totals to make the standings look a lot closer then they are.

We have games that are 3 points and games that are 2 points.

Back when all games we're 2 points it made total sense, if you lost in o/t got 0, and if you tied you got 1 point. You know a system that actually reflects a teams ability and doesn't give false win streaks (ala detriot)

/rant

flashy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 05:16 AM
  #54
NJDevils7
Registered User
 
NJDevils7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,404
vCash: 500
Should be...

Regulation Win = 3 pts
Regulation Loss = 0 pts

OT/Shootout Win = 2 pts
OT Shootout Loss = 1 pt

NJDevils7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 05:35 AM
  #55
Modo
Global Moderator
Mo'Benn
 
Modo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,140
vCash: 50
Two points for a win, zero for a loss.

It's so simple. Why can't we just have that?

__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Modo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:03 AM
  #56
islesmb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 123
vCash: 500
With a point in the bank teams take chances in OT that they never would during regulation. How many times in OT have you seen a d-man down low trying to create offense and then getting caught leading to an odd man rush the other way. Prior to the OT point being implemented it was teams playing for the tie IOW boring hockey. The NHL tried to create excitement and teams playing to win. I agree with the other posters who want a 3 point system, it should reward teams for winning in regulation more than "winning" in the current OT system.


Last edited by islesmb: 12-14-2012 at 06:10 AM.
islesmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 07:20 AM
  #57
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,117
vCash: 50
Because ties sucked, and were a waste of time.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 08:33 AM
  #58
MoreGore
Registered User
 
MoreGore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,076
vCash: 500
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.
It is only called a 'loser' point by people who do not understand why it exists.

NFL gives one team offense, one team defense. There is no incentive for the offensive team to play good defense.

NBA scoring is quite common as well it is not sudden death.

MLB is a game that can be played and played and played without too much effort on the behalf of players. Also, the same thing applies here as the NFL. The offensive team is not required to play good defense.

Thus, it is because the games are fundamentally different.

MoreGore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 09:58 AM
  #59
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
At the end of the day, one team is walking away with more points than when they started, despite the fact that they lost the game.

So it'll always be a loser point in my books.
...but before the day ended, they earned 1 point for a tie game.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 10:29 AM
  #60
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
Two points for a win, zero for a loss.

It's so simple. Why can't we just have that?
Because that makes the actual hockey game that was played before the shootout redundant. If all that's needed to determine which team is better is a shootout, why even play the game?

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 10:41 AM
  #61
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,816
vCash: 500
You don't get a point for losing. You get a point despite losing.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 10:45 AM
  #62
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,878
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
i actually think the 'loser' point pre-shootout caused more ties than it avoided; it opened things up in OT but also caused more games to go to OT. Ties only went down marginally and that was concurrently with 4 on 4 being brought in.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 01:25 PM
  #63
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
Two points for a win, zero for a loss.

It's so simple. Why can't we just have that?
I agree, but I think the NHL would just get rid of points if they went to that system.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 01:30 PM
  #64
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,237
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
Because that makes the actual hockey game that was played before the shootout redundant. If all that's needed to determine which team is better is a shootout, why even play the game?
If all that's needed to win in OT is one goal, why don't we just play "first team to score in regulation wins"?

It's not "all that's needed": They played 60+ minutes of hockey before the shootout to get to that point and it solved nothing.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 01:31 PM
  #65
Pilky01
@JamesD_TO
 
Pilky01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,320
vCash: 500
The loser point was an idea created by loser owners who run loser franchises with fairweather loser fans who will only support their team if they are winning.

The loser point is for people who don't actually like hockey and can't accept the fact that life has winners and losers.

Pilky01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:18 PM
  #66
Riddum
Registered User
 
Riddum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,060
vCash: 500
They should have a 3-2-1-0 system

Win: 3points
OT/Shootout win: 2points
OT/Shoutout loss:1Points
Loss: 0 Point

Riddum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:20 PM
  #67
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 620
vCash: 500
4 on 4 OT is the most exciting part of hockey games.
eliminate the extra point and those 5 minutes become mundane, dull, dump and chase.
All the extra points floating around because of this system keep more teams involved in the playoff race longer. I think that is a good thing.

This whole way of settling ties now is better than how it was done in the past and better than any ideas I have seen anywhere.
Arguing about it is like arguing about the wild card in baseball. It was clearly an excellent idea, but some traditionalists just don't like to see things change.

Cliffy1814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:53 PM
  #68
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 Cliffy1814 View Post
4 on 4 OT is the most exciting part of hockey games.
eliminate the extra point and those 5 minutes become mundane, dull, dump and chase.
All the extra points floating around because of this system keep more teams involved in the playoff race longer. I think that is a good thing.

This whole way of settling ties now is better than how it was done in the past and better than any ideas I have seen anywhere.
Arguing about it is like arguing about the wild card in baseball. It was clearly an excellent idea, but some traditionalists just don't like to see things change.
Yeah, I often get the feeling that people who don't like the extra point are ones who weren't watching the boring ass hockey that was being played in the late 90s before it was added.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:56 PM
  #69
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
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?
The history of the "loser point" is that it was never a "loser point". If you start off with the premise that it's a loser point, then you've already got the history wrong!

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:58 PM
  #70
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
If all that's needed to win in OT is one goal, why don't we just play "first team to score in regulation wins"?

It's not "all that's needed": They played 60+ minutes of hockey before the shootout to get to that point and it solved nothing.
That was sarcasm. My point is, the 2-0 system rewards a team solely for their shootout win, not for playing 60 minutes of hockey. (if the game goes to a shooutout, of course). That's asinine.

The shootout is a tie-breaker, not a tie-replacer. Beating a team at the sport of hockey isn't the same as beating them in a shootout, so why should they be worth the same amount of points?

As the shootout is clearly here to stay, I think they should take place before every game. That would at least prevent both teams from sitting back at the end of the 3rd period and/or OT so they can participate in the coin-flip that is the shootout.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:04 PM
  #71
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 Stansfield View Post
As the shootout is clearly here to stay, I think they should take place before every game. That would at least prevent both teams from sitting back at the end of the 3rd period and/or OT so they can participate in the coin-flip that is the shootout.
Then the team that won it would just sit back. Pretty counterproductive.

IU Hawks fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:18 PM
  #72
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Then the team that won it would just sit back. Pretty counterproductive.
Better than both teams sitting back.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:24 PM
  #73
Bouncing Bettys
Registered User
 
Bouncing Bettys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 185
vCash: 500
I seem to recall some pretty exciting games that ended up tied. I wish they would eliminate the gimmick shootout and go back to having tie games.

Bouncing Bettys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:28 PM
  #74
eklunds source
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ed Snider's basement
Posts: 7,649
vCash: 500
Should be:

Each game is worth 3 points.
Regulation Win - 3pts
Overtime Win - 2pts
Overtime Tie - 1pt
Overtime Loss - 1pt
Regulation Loss - 0pts

Overtime: 10 minutes of 4v4.

While still not zero-sum, because tie games give 2 points and games that end with a winner give 3... Ties are the same as overtime losses.

a) It's not deciding standings on an element of chance. Shootouts might be "exciting" but...

b) With no difference between a tie and a loss, and an extra point available for the winner, I would think coaches would be more desperate to pick up the win. More pinching the d-man, more odd man rushes, and 4-on-4 hockey that flies back and forth is 10x more exciting than a shootout.

c) Ten minutes of overtime means we'll find a winner a lot more often, both with more time on the clock, and because in a 10 minute period you have to give some icetime to 3rd lines, bottom pairing guys, who are probably more likely to be scored on.

Standings last year based on that would have been roughly (I eliminated shootout games all together, calculated points/games, and multiplied to 82 games):

East
1NY Rangers152
2Pittsburgh149
3Philadelphia144
4Boston139
5New Jersey132
6Florida129
7Washington123
8Ottawa121
   
9Buffalo115
10Carolina113
11Winnipeg110
12Tampa Bay108
13Toronto104
14Montreal101
15NY Islanders98

West
1St. Louis160
2Vancouver152
3Nashville147
4Chicago137
5Detroit137
6Phoenix134
7Los Angeles129
8San Jose125
   
9Calgary125
10Dallas118
11Anaheim109
12Colorado107
13Edmonton96
14Minnesota95
15Columbus84

Not very much movement in the standings... I think people overestimate how much the points system actually skews the standings. The same 8 teams make the playoffs in both conferences, although seeding is a little different..

Calgary/San Jose both had a "125 point pace", although going to decimals (because it's a ratio) San Jose squeaks by by 0.07%... Again, this is just roughly because the more games a team took to a shootout (Minnesota led at 20, Carolina had the fewest at 7), the less accurate it is, but I wouldn't expect many teams to move more than 5 or so points.


Last edited by eklunds source: 12-14-2012 at 03:33 PM.
eklunds source is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:48 PM
  #75
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 Modo View Post
Two points for a win, zero for a loss.

It's so simple. Why can't we just have that?
Because apparently the shootout is its own separate game. This is news to me

Machinehead 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 06:17 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.