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
12-21-2012, 05:44 PM
  #201
SilverSeven
Registered User
 
SilverSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19 View Post
yeah, just look at all the fans that leave arenas after the OT. The stands are essentially empty.

And I'm sure all of those watching at home are turning off their TVs as well.

Maybe just the casual fans are leaving, huh?

I dont see how this proves that they are popular. I hate shootouts, but I want to see the end result of the game.

What a ridiculous argument.

I guess ice covered roads are popular too. I mean, people drive on them to get to work, so clearly everyone loves em!

SilverSeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 05:45 PM
  #202
SilverSeven
Registered User
 
SilverSeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Aki Berg View Post
So where were all the complaints about gimmickery when it was used in the Olympics? If it was such a gimmick, surely bitter Canadians from coast to coast would have been using it as a scapegoat in 1994 and 1998, no?
How old are you? I mean, I was a kid then but I remember people *****ing about it. People have ALWAYS hated the shootout, and certainly have always thought it was a gimmick.

SilverSeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 06:02 PM
  #203
ponder
Registered User
 
ponder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
It's a gimmick cuz it individualizes a team game. It is akin to football deciding a game by having the QBs throw the ball through a tire, or basketball deciding a game by having the first player who makes a basket from over the half court line, or baseball deciding a game by having the first player to have a pitched ball hit a target, or soccer deciding a game by.....actually who cares about soccer.
Free throws play a large role in deciding the winner of basketball games, and they're much like a shootout in that they're different from most of what happens during a game. Field goals play a large role in deciding the winner of football games, and again they're pretty different from the rest of the game. The only reason basketball and football don't need a free throw contest or field goal contest to decide games is that they tend to be decided fairly quickly on their own in regular OT, because they're high scoring spots. Same goes for baseball. Hockey is low scoring, you can't have 40+ minutes of OT on a regular basis during the regular season, so we need to either accept ties or accept shootouts. If you're so opposed to shootouts, shouldn't you also be equally opposed to penalty shots (in hockey), free throws (in basketball) and field goals (in football), since they're essentially all "skills contests" that can decide the winner of a game?

Also, loser points were not introduced because of shootouts. They were introduced a few years before shootouts (before the first lockout), when teams would tie after OT. The league wanted to encourage teams to be more aggressive during OT, so they wouldn't "play for the tie," so they made it so that you still got your "tie" point even when you lost in OT. If you want to talk about gimmicks, loser points were a gimmick introduced specifically to discourage playing for a tie, but now that ties are gone they seem pointless to me.

FWIW, I'm personally fine with shootouts. As a player, they were always super exciting to take part in. As a fan, they're very exciting to watch. You're on the edge of your seat the whole time, knowing that the game will be over soon. Sure, it's not "pure" hockey, but the sport changes, there was a time when slap shots, curved sticks and helmets didn't exist either. Sports are all about competition, one side beating the other, that's why I prefer shootouts to ties (and again, in hockey those really are the only two regular season options). It sucks when your team loses in the shootout, but at least there's a winner and a loser, one side is psyched and the other side dejected. When there were ties, it was just kind of like "huh, still no winner, that was kind of a waste of time." I know people are against shootouts for the sake of tradition, but does anyone actually have more fun watching a hockey game that ends in a tie than a hockey game that ends in a shootout?


Last edited by ponder: 12-21-2012 at 06:11 PM.
ponder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 06:11 PM
  #204
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponder View Post
Free throws play a large role in deciding the winner of basketball games, and they're much like a shootout in that they're different from most of what happens during a game. Field goals play a large role in deciding the winner of football games, and again they're pretty different than the rest of the game. The only reason basketball and football don't need a free throw contest or field goal contest to decide games is that they tend to be decided fairly quickly on their own, because they're high scoring spots. Hockey is low scoring, you can't have 40+ minutes of OT on a regular basis during the regular season, so we need to either accept ties or accept shootouts. If you're so opposed to shootouts, shouldn't you also be equally opposed to penalty shots (in hockey), free throws (in basketball) and field goals (in football), since they're essentially all "skills contests" that can decide the winner of a game?

Also, loser points were not introduced because of shootouts. They were introduced a few years before shootouts (before the first lockout), when teams would tie after OT. The league wanted to encourage teams to be more aggressive during OT, so they wouldn't "play for the tie," so they made it so that you still got your "tie" point even when you lost in OT. If you want to talk about gimmicks, loser points were a gimmick introduced specifically to discourage playing for a tie, but now that ties are gone they seem pointless to me.
Why would I be opposed to field goals, free throws or penalty shots? Your logic makes zero sense. All three of those are and have been a part of their respective sports for decades, basically since the invention of the games. They weren't added in later as the definitive aspect to decide a game that has been played to a draw. Horrible logic.

Loser Points are Loser Points as it is now, who cares how they evolved? [besides no one]

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 06:14 PM
  #205
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
Why would I be opposed to field goals, free throws or penalty shots? Your logic makes zero sense. All three of those are and have been a part of their respective sports for decades, basically since the invention of the games. They weren't added in later as the definitive aspect to decide a game that has been played to a draw. Horrible logic.

Loser Points are Loser Points as it is now, who cares how they evolved? [besides no one]
Well the professional leagues are changing overtime rules. NFL you can't really give away "loser points" but it's pretty fair to give each team a point if they battle through.

You can argue extending it to two overtimes before they reach a point, that's all I see there. Teams shouldn't have to fight through multiple overtimes to get the win. Shootouts are "skill contests" but provide a quick result for the most part.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2012, 06:28 PM
  #206
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
Well the professional leagues are changing overtime rules. NFL you can't really give away "loser points" but it's pretty fair to give each team a point if they battle through.

You can argue extending it to two overtimes before they reach a point, that's all I see there. Teams shouldn't have to fight through multiple overtimes to get the win. Shootouts are "skill contests" but provide a quick result for the most part.
My solution is for teams to play 10 minute 4 on 4 OT and if neither team wins and it ends in a tie neither team gets any points. In this solution I submit that teams will be forced to play to win which will result in fast paced exciting hockey. Teams will have nothing to gain by playing for the Loser Point, which both teams get.

I also suggest that there will be less games that even reach OT as team will be trying to win in regulation cuz there is no Loser Point to gain by being tied after 60 minutes.

The 10 minute OT also won't take much longer than The Gimmick does and in fact would probably resolve games even quicker in most games.

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 04:19 PM
  #207
Crabe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
Bit of a thread bump here. The way I see it, the current system achieves several desired objectives:

1) We get to keep the shootout, which is good for tv ratings and fun to watch, but it doesn't decide the outcome of the game (in the sense that it's not the difference between 2 points and 0 points). Instead the gimmicky overtime (4-on-4 and the shootout - the former is as gimmicky as the latter as far as I'm concerned) is worth a bonus point. Many people don't like the idea of the shootout deciding any point swing at all, or don't like shootouts at all. The current system is a compromise.

2) Parity in the standings is achieved making the playoff race tighter. It's harder to pull ahead from the pack and harder to fall behind. This is generally seen as desirable, especially from a business/marketing point of view.

3) Historical NHL records are preserved in the sense that a 100 point season is the same now as it has been (for as long as seasons have been 82 games, anyway).

At the end of the day each team plays 82 games. That's 164 possible points that each team has the same shot at. What does it matter if some games are worth more points than others?

Crabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 04:38 PM
  #208
LyleOdelein
Registered User
 
LyleOdelein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renfrew
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponder View Post
Also, loser points were not introduced because of shootouts. They were introduced a few years before shootouts (before the first lockout), when teams would tie after OT. The league wanted to encourage teams to be more aggressive during OT, so they wouldn't "play for the tie," so they made it so that you still got your "tie" point even when you lost in OT. If you want to talk about gimmicks, loser points were a gimmick introduced specifically to discourage playing for a tie, but now that ties are gone they seem pointless to me.
This point seems to have gradually become forgotten over time.

The loser point was brought in to liven up OT before SOs existed. Once the shootout came into being, it became the equivalent of a participant medal rewarding teams for making it through 60 minutes tied. The loser point is an anachronism that no longer serves its original purpose.

The fact that OT has to be defined as a separate contest from the original game in order to justify the loser point's existence is merely a reflection of how poorly thought out the sequence of rule changes was.


Last edited by LyleOdelein: 03-08-2013 at 04:39 PM. Reason: LOL: I should have read the dates of the posts... Nothing beats responding to a year old argument.
LyleOdelein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:09 PM
  #209
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
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.
This pretty much sums it up in every way. I also hate the term loser point. The game is virtually a tie.

OT in the past was unbearable to watch. If you think the trap is boring.

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:14 PM
  #210
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
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.
The NHL doesnt want ties. Ever other sport doesnt want ties either. Football is the only game for it to end that way and that is extremely rare.
As a fan ties really blow and OT would be very boring once again

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:16 PM
  #211
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacem View Post
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.
But awarding a team 3 points for a regulation win would be unfair to the point system

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:19 PM
  #212
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Im all for a 3 point system which has been discussed to death in other threads

0=loss in reg
1=loss in ot or so

3=reg or ot win
2=win in so

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:25 PM
  #213
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
My solution is for teams to play 10 minute 4 on 4 OT and if neither team wins and it ends in a tie neither team gets any points. In this solution I submit that teams will be forced to play to win which will result in fast paced exciting hockey. Teams will have nothing to gain by playing for the Loser Point, which both teams get.

I also suggest that there will be less games that even reach OT as team will be trying to win in regulation cuz there is no Loser Point to gain by being tied after 60 minutes.

The 10 minute OT also won't take much longer than The Gimmick does and in fact would probably resolve games even quicker in most games.
Not bad exect how mant oints for a win?
1or two?
And 4 on 4 isnt real hockey so i rather go back to 5 on 5

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:37 PM
  #214
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 9,334
vCash: 500
Do we really need a team to win something like only 12 games and lose 70 (all in overtime) and that still completes for the playoffs with those 94 points and wins Stanley Cup...

...before the system changes?

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:38 PM
  #215
Frenchy
Global Moderator
 
Frenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Alma, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleOdelein View Post
This point seems to have gradually become forgotten over time.

The loser point was brought in to liven up OT before SOs existed. Once the shootout came into being, it became the equivalent of a participant medal rewarding teams for making it through 60 minutes tied. The loser point is an anachronism that no longer serves its original purpose.

The fact that OT has to be defined as a separate contest from the original game in order to justify the loser point's existence is merely a reflection of how poorly thought out the sequence of rule changes was.
I agree with this , I was always in favor of giving points to the winning team and only the winning team . Hockey is the only sports where they reward the loser . It's like giving a gift to a spoiled child because you dont want him to be left appart and cry his ass off ,because he didnt get any gift on his brother's birthday .

Frenchy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:56 PM
  #216
Oilers93
Registered User
 
Oilers93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,877
vCash: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
Do we really need a team to win something like only 12 games and lose 70 (all in overtime) and that still completes for the playoffs with those 94 points and wins Stanley Cup...

...before the system changes?
dat 82 game point streak...

Oilers93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 05:58 PM
  #217
Oilers93
Registered User
 
Oilers93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,877
vCash: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchy View Post
I agree with this , I was always in favor of giving points to the winning team and only the winning team . Hockey is the only sports where they reward the loser . It's like giving a gift to a spoiled child because you dont want him to be left appart and cry his ass off ,because he didnt get any gift on his brother's birthday .
I agree with this. No matter how the game is decided, one team is going to end up with a greater amount of goals than the other, so why reward a team that lost in OT or Shootout because they "got further" than regulation. The loser point no longer serves a purpose.

Oilers93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 06:22 PM
  #218
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlottesville
Posts: 8,987
vCash: 500
A game is 60 minutes long. By definition, if the game is tied at the end of 60, you have neither won nor lost. If you need OT to win a game, it's because you weren't good enough to win in regulation. If I beat you 3-2 in OT, it is not the same as beating you 3-2 in regulation. Furthermore, if I lose to you 2-1 in regulation, who's to say I wouldn't have beaten you 3-2 with an additional five minutes of OT? Anything past 60 minutes is merely to break a tie and should be considered as such.

So, the "loser point" is not a loser point-- it's a tie point. You get a point because it maintains the status quo in the standings as you have neither won nor lost your game. Remember, if you get 0 points in a game, you are set back in the standings. Getting 2 points sets you forward. Getting one point maintains the status quo, as it should because you have neither won nor lost the game, and thus, deserve no penalty or reward.


Now where the current system goes wrong is awarding more points for certain games than others. This makes absolutely no sense and penalizes all teams not involved in the OT game (although, you can argue that it evens out over time, but such an argument shouldn't ever have to be made).

The solution is simple:

3 pts for a regulation win
2 pts for an OT/SO win
1 pt for an OT/SO loss
0 points for a regulation loss

The people who claim that an OT win should be worth 3 points (or the same as a regulation win) forget that it required extra time, meaning neither team won or lost the actual regulation game. Thus, it is technically unfair for teams losing in regulation to not be granted extra time to win their games, right? I understand this is a difficult argument to wrap your mind around because we generally accept OT hockey with no second thought, and perhaps I have not explained myself well enough-- it's just always bugged me that we consider an OT win and a regulation win as the same thing. They are not.




And before somebody gives me the whole "overtime in the playoffs" argument, remember that that occurs within a vacuum-- a direct comparison of two teams with no implications on the standings or other teams.

hockeyfreak7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 06:51 PM
  #219
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
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.
this is what I have been arguing all along. The game in the regular season is 60min 5 on 5 hockey. If its tied the game ends in a tie with each team getting a point.

After that they play 4 on 4 and then even a shoot out for the bonus point. You are quite right. The way they 'frame' it now its hard to tell .

Announcers do give it away. After the game ends they always say...........each team now gets a point, and now will play overtime for the 'extra' point.

So in my opinion , the Hawks are undefeated.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:11 PM
  #220
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 139
They should just move to the following 4 columns just to confuse and shut up the 'loser point' crowd..

Reg Wins (2pts) - Tie after regulation (1pt) - OT/SO wins (1pt) - Loss (0pts)

Chicago's 21-0-3 would then be:

14-10-7-0, 45 pts

You eliminate the perception that teams are rewarded with pts for losing.
The 'Loser point' crowd would be so confused without an OTL column to moan about.
The fact they would have to do math to figure out the number of 'loser points' should eliminate 99% of them from posting about it.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:18 PM
  #221
BROOKLYnKNIGHTS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Schenn Bros View Post
I agree with this. No matter how the game is decided, one team is going to end up with a greater amount of goals than the other, so why reward a team that lost in OT or Shootout because they "got further" than regulation. The loser point no longer serves a purpose.
So we can go back to five minutes of awful hockey

BROOKLYnKNIGHTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:21 PM
  #222
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,417
vCash: 500
1 point for a win. 0 points for any loss.

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:21 PM
  #223
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 6,265
vCash: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
Do we really need a team to win something like only 12 games and lose 70 (all in overtime) and that still completes for the playoffs with those 94 points and wins Stanley Cup...

...before the system changes?
That team is AWESOME.. a team that NO OTHER could defeat during regular playoff style 5-on-5 during an 82 game schedule is awesome..

I would take that team over some bum 40-45 win team that got beat 20-some times in regulation!

(see.. it goes both ways)

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:27 PM
  #224
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleOdelein View Post
This point seems to have gradually become forgotten over time.

The loser point was brought in to liven up OT before SOs existed. Once the shootout came into being, it became the equivalent of a participant medal rewarding teams for making it through 60 minutes tied. The loser point is an anachronism that no longer serves its original purpose.

The fact that OT has to be defined as a separate contest from the original game in order to justify the loser point's existence is merely a reflection of how poorly thought out the sequence of rule changes was.
This is as good a reason as any to drop the point system altogether.

No ties = no need for points

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2013, 07:35 PM
  #225
Shinsuke Nakamura
King of Strong Style
 
Shinsuke Nakamura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,771
vCash: 500
They're regulation tie points, but that little fact tends to fall on deaf ears, so I'll go with something else.

Ditch points entirely, go to a win percentage system.

A win's a win. A loss is a loss. Doesn't matter if it's regulation, OT, or shootout.

Shinsuke Nakamura 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 12:45 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.