HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

History of the Loser Point

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 08:07 PM
  #126
Jaymond Flurrie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,049
vCash: 500
Just to state my opinion since it has been a while: I think it is totally wrong that games are not worth the same. And even worse it is if you can win by different margins (pointwise).

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?
That's why I have wished for years a direct copy from NBA standings. Let them have 2-1 wins (again, pointwise), but throw out the "most points wins" and go instead by point percentage (your points / total points shared in your games).

Jaymond Flurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 10:29 AM
  #127
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
For one soccer doesn't have OT in games that aren't for elimination. There is no OT during league seasons.

But way to completely change what I was talking about...
The NHL has already decided they don't like that system, also we were comparing the rules for OT hence I posted the similarities in the OT system that takes place when the competition states it's necessary to do so.

Wait, how does pointing out the similarities in the NHL's OT system and that of other leagues "completely change what you were talking about" when you stated that "The NHL is the only of the Big 4 leagues that COMPLETELY CHANGES THE RULES OF THE GAME for overtime"? It's not: The NFL does it (I think they're one of the Big 4 now, right?), soccer does it, CFL does it, and college football does it. Your assertion is wrong.

This isn't rocket science...

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 11:26 AM
  #128
NickyMaz
Registered User
 
NickyMaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dayton, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
I have never liked the 'loser point'. Why is the NHL the only league to give a point in the standings for making it to OT? If you force OT in the NFL and then lose you don't get any points, if you go to extra innings in MLB it doesn't count for you. Why reward losers with a point?

It should be straight win-loss, if you win in regulation or OT it's one point, if you lose (whether it regulation or OT) you get nothing.

I think the loser point is bad for competition because it gives teams the solace that they still get a point whether they win or lose in OT. If it was straight win vs loss there would be better competition because it's winner takes all with no consolation prize for losing in OT.

Now if I were running the league I would expand the regular season OT period to 10 minutes following by the shootout. I think we'd see more games finish in the 10 minutes of play than go to shootouts, which I think is a much more satisfying end. I don't have a huge issue with the shootout, it is fun, but I'd much rather see games end with real play than shootouts.

NickyMaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:28 PM
  #129
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
I despise the loser point. Bottom line is teams get a point even if they lose the game, there is no way around that.

Straight wins and losses is how I think it should be done.

2 points for a win. Zero points for a loss. Zero points for a tie. This will force teams to try and win and not play for a tie and the loser point like we see in close games. [or used to see when there was actually NHL hockey being played].

I also want to see the shootout gimmick eliminated.

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 02:42 PM
  #130
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
I despise the loser point. Bottom line is teams get a point even if they lose the game, there is no way around that.

Straight wins and losses is how I think it should be done.

2 points for a win. Zero points for a loss. Zero points for a tie. This will force teams to try and win and not play for a tie and the loser point like we see in close games. [or used to see when there was actually NHL hockey being played].

I also want to see the shootout gimmick eliminated.
Never gonna happen. Fans love the shootout (in spite of a few vocal HF posters)

Excellent! the old "force teams to try and win and not play for a tie" argument! Haven't seen that for a few pages.

... and "actual NHL hockey" keep 'em coming!

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  #131
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
aw hell, haven't posted this in a while. Here's my preferred Point System, I have two:

A
3 Pt Regulation and OT Win / 0 Pt Loss
2 Pt Shootout win / 1 pt Loss

However, if the 3 Pt system creates too much spread in the Standings for the liking of the League, then:
B
2 Pt Regulation and OT Win / 0 Pt Loss
1 Pt Shootout win / 0 pt Loss

AND, in either case, make OT 10 minutes!!! Give OT a reasonable opportunity for a resolution before resorting to a Shootout.
And with the SO offering less value for a win, there's even more incentive to go for the Win in the OT. And with the OT not offering the Tie Point, there's more incentive to go for the Win as the 3rd Period winds down.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 04:15 PM
  #132
Shinsuke Nakamura
King of Strong Style
 
Shinsuke Nakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,500
vCash: 500
People are so against "rewarding a team for losing" yet many of their solutions involve penalizing a team for winning. How is that any better?

Shinsuke Nakamura is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 04:32 PM
  #133
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,798
vCash: 500
The loser point is technically the point awarded to whichever team wins the shootout.

Before, it was always 1 point each for a tie, or 2 for the winning team in ot and 1 for the losing team.

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 05:42 PM
  #134
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyutinMyOwnHorn View Post
People are so against "rewarding a team for losing" yet many of their solutions involve penalizing a team for winning. How is that any better?
Penalyzing both teams for needing to take the game to a Shootout in order to find a victory; and I'm offering them 5 more minutes of OT to do that.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 05:45 PM
  #135
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,045
vCash: 500
Yes let's penalize extremely close games. That's good for the league. Everyone hates close games.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:10 PM
  #136
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Yes let's penalize extremely close games. That's good for the league. Everyone hates close games.
Well then! Let's coin flip and give both teams 2 Points, the winner of the coin flip gets a 3rd point.

One could say that awarding the Tie Point after Regulation is in fact a way of awarding both teams for a close game. So I assume you're an advocate of the TIE Point and not one of those who mistakenly call it a Loser Point. If so, Ok.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:28 PM
  #137
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Well then! Let's coin flip and give both teams 2 Points, the winner of the coin flip gets a 3rd point.

One could say that awarding the Tie Point after Regulation is in fact a way of awarding both teams for a close game. So I assume you're an advocate of the TIE Point and not one of those who mistakenly call it a Loser Point. If so, Ok.
I'm an advocate of not penalizing wins and not rewarding losses.

I want a 10 minute OT followed by a shootout. Most importantly no points. You play one game and you either win or you lose. I don't care if it's regulation, OT, shootout, all wins and losses are equal value. None of this you tied the game but lost the shootout crap, I don't buy it.

That's my ideal system. My point was that your win shouldn't be lessened because it took 65-70 minutes and then some. There's close games in this league and they come down to lots of extra time sometimes. But I still think there's a winner and a loser no matter how little the separation was on the ice.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 06:58 PM
  #138
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I'm an advocate of not penalizing wins and not rewarding losses.

I want a 10 minute OT followed by a shootout. Most importantly no points. You play one game and you either win or you lose. I don't care if it's regulation, OT, shootout, all wins and losses are equal value. None of this you tied the game but lost the shootout crap, I don't buy it.

That's my ideal system. My point was that your win shouldn't be lessened because it took 65-70 minutes and then some. There's close games in this league and they come down to lots of extra time sometimes. But I still think there's a winner and a loser no matter how little the separation was on the ice.
I'm sorry, but until Shootouts are part of the Playoffs they are currently only a way of resolving a Tie. A Shootout win doesn't equate to a game timed win, and thus the maintaining of the Tie Point in the current point system. Can't remove it in OT because that would make OT virtually a useless waste of time. The only other option, in "my" preferred point system is to reduce the value of the Shootout win, and then you can throw out the Tie Point, no longer necessary.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 07:27 PM
  #139
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'm sorry, but until Shootouts are part of the Playoffs they are currently only a way of resolving a Tie. A Shootout win doesn't equate to a game timed win, and thus the maintaining of the Tie Point in the current point system. Can't remove it in OT because that would make OT virtually a useless waste of time. The only other option, in "my" preferred point system is to reduce the value of the Shootout win, and then you can throw out the Tie Point, no longer necessary.
I don't understand why the playoffs can't just be different and leave it at that. Why does that have to affect the way points are distributed in the regular season?

People probably said the same thing right after they first started regular season OT. That it's only a way of resolving a tie. Now it's so much part of the game that most wouldn't think twice about it. I think if people give the shootout time it will turn into the same thing.

For the next generation of fans it's going to be so widely accepted that nobody will question it. What they will question if something of a 3-2-1-0 system is implemented is why it's not as much of a win as other wins. Tell you what, since you don't think it equates to a game-time win, you can explain it to little Machinehead Jr. I'll be in touch in about 14 years.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 07:38 PM
  #140
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I don't understand why the playoffs can't just be different and leave it at that. Why does that have to affect the way points are distributed in the regular season?
The last I heard, it's Regular Season points that count towards which teams make the Playoffs. But yet, the Point System in the Regular Season awards points in a way that has nothing to do with the Playoffs. So simply, it's like winning at Blackjack gets you into a Poker final.

I've accepted that the Shootout entertains a large number of people and that it gives many fans the feeling that there was a winner of sorts. But the Points System as it is recognizes that losing a SO isn't the same as losing in game-timed action, and thus the maintenance of the Tie Point. And again, I'd be even more content if it were the other way around, a Point System that recognized that a SO win isn't the equivalent of a game-timed win.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 07:52 PM
  #141
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
But the Points System as it is recognizes that losing a SO isn't the same as losing in game-timed action, and thus the maintenance of the Tie Point. And again, I'd be even more content if it were the other way around, a Point System that recognized that a SO win isn't the equivalent of a game-timed win.
OK I'll give you that: the current system recognizes (whether I agree with it or not) that losing after 60 is not the same as losing before 60, and therefore, should recognize the other way around.

Either that, or everything is the same.

But I think we can all agree it shouldn't be a little of both. It's either equal or not equal for both wins a losses and the NHL should pick one.

I would me more content than where I am now, if the NHL just said once and for all, that a shootout isn't equal to a timed-game for both wins and losses.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2012, 08:37 PM
  #142
bruinsfan46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,330
vCash: 500
With the addition of shootouts I'd get rid of the point system personally and just go wins-losses. If you're gonna have shootouts, make them count. By awarding points to the losing team you're kind of defeating the legitimacy of the shootout, no? The three point system would also be much, much better than the current one. Basically anything but the current system.

My ideal system is the one that hockey used for decades before the late '90s, two points for a win, one point for a tie, zero for a loss whether it came in overtime or not. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and the percentage of ties in that sport is nuts, why is hockey not okay with ties?

bruinsfan46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 08:52 AM
  #143
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
cutchemist42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,067
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."
As a soccer fan, I don't mind the point because yeah, I see it as earning a tie in regulation. The OT is just extra entertainment from there.

cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 09:35 AM
  #144
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,107
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruinsfan46 View Post
With the addition of shootouts I'd get rid of the point system personally and just go wins-losses. If you're gonna have shootouts, make them count. By awarding points to the losing team you're kind of defeating the legitimacy of the shootout, no? The three point system would also be much, much better than the current one. Basically anything but the current system.

My ideal system is the one that hockey used for decades before the late '90s, two points for a win, one point for a tie, zero for a loss whether it came in overtime or not. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and the percentage of ties in that sport is nuts, why is hockey not okay with ties?
Clearly the league DOESN'T want an SO win to be seen as 'as legitimate' as a normal win. That's why they introduced ROW as the #1 tiebreak.

And for the 2nd point, it's because Americans like there to be a winner and a loser. To people a tie is just a waste of everyone's time. I personally don't see it that way, and would rather have ties than a shootout. But I know I'm in the minority in that department, maybe not among HFers but of fans nationwide, a bulk of who are casual fans that want to watch a game knowing they either won or lost.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:28 AM
  #145
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. suburb
Country: United States
Posts: 8,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Clearly the league DOESN'T want an SO win to be seen as 'as legitimate' as a normal win. That's why they introduced ROW as the #1 tiebreak.

And for the 2nd point, it's because Americans like there to be a winner and a loser. To people a tie is just a waste of everyone's time. I personally don't see it that way, and would rather have ties than a shootout. But I know I'm in the minority in that department, maybe not among HFers but of fans nationwide, a bulk of who are casual fans that want to watch a game knowing they either won or lost.
link?

This discussion always gets reduced down the to "casual fan" backhand. "Gee, they don't agree with my hockey mind - they must be casual fans."

Is anyone on HF a casual fan? Every shootout poll I've seen of HF the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of the shootout.

I saw many ties in my younger days. They all sucked - and most fans agree with that.

Butch 19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:37 AM
  #146
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,883
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
The NHL has already decided they don't like that system, also we were comparing the rules for OT hence I posted the similarities in the OT system that takes place when the competition states it's necessary to do so.

Wait, how does pointing out the similarities in the NHL's OT system and that of other leagues "completely change what you were talking about" when you stated that "The NHL is the only of the Big 4 leagues that COMPLETELY CHANGES THE RULES OF THE GAME for overtime"? It's not: The NFL does it (I think they're one of the Big 4 now, right?), soccer does it, CFL does it, and college football does it. Your assertion is wrong.

This isn't rocket science...

Actually the only NFL rule which is different in OT than regulation is that all replay challenges come from the booth instead of the sideline.


I hated the loser point from 1999-2004 but since the shootout I have less contempt; it wouldn't be fair for a team to tie the game and lose the skills competition to get the same amount of points as a team which loses 6-0 (nothing)... now it would be nice if the NHL also acknowledged that winning a shootout should not be the same as winning the actual game (and no the ROW is not enough).

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-17-2012, 10:42 AM
  #147
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
link?

This discussion always gets reduced down the to "casual fan" backhand. "Gee, they don't agree with my hockey mind - they must be casual fans."

Is anyone on HF a casual fan? Every shootout poll I've seen of HF the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of the shootout.

I saw many ties in my younger days. They all sucked - and most fans agree with that.
Yep, I can vouch for that.

I've watched hockey religiously for 17 years and seen hundreds of ties. They all sucked. All of them.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 03:42 AM
  #148
Fanned On It
Registered User
 
Fanned On It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,871
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.
So because none of the other leagues do it makes it stupid? Sheep mentality right here. I personally feel like the extra point makes complete sense... I also hate ties.

Fanned On It is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 03:43 AM
  #149
Fanned On It
Registered User
 
Fanned On It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Clearly the league DOESN'T want an SO win to be seen as 'as legitimate' as a normal win. That's why they introduced ROW as the #1 tiebreak.

And for the 2nd point, it's because Americans like there to be a winner and a loser. To people a tie is just a waste of everyone's time. I personally don't see it that way, and would rather have ties than a shootout. But I know I'm in the minority in that department, maybe not among HFers but of fans nationwide, a bulk of who are casual fans that want to watch a game knowing they either won or lost.
Only Americans, right? What the hell does nationality have to do with whether someone enjoys watching a game end in a tie or not? Where do people come up with this crap?

Fanned On It is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 07:31 AM
  #150
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,107
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanned On It View Post
Only Americans, right? What the hell does nationality have to do with whether someone enjoys watching a game end in a tie or not? Where do people come up with this crap?
I mean, I'm an American, and it's just my perspection of sports fans, not of hockey fans, in this country. Look at how many people piss and moan when an NFL game ends in a tie. Many hockey fans can appreciate ties, as can a majority of soccer fans. But the average American isn't either of those.

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 03:18 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.