Personally I'd rather see the league change something with the loser point, but I think they might just screw it up more.
The loser point is doing exactly what Bettman and the league tops wanted. There are still 13 teams in the fight for top 8 in the West. Minnesota is fading fast but still 13 teams in basically March. That's ridiculous, but it's exactly what the league wanted coming out of the lock out.
Even in the East, you could realistically claim that all 15 teams are still in the hunt with only 10 points separating 8th and 15th.
__________________
★ #14 - #19 - #56 ★
Dallas Stars - Arsenal FC - FC Dallas - Alabama Crimson Tide - Kentucky Wildcats - SMU Mustangs Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs - 1997 to 2011 - WPHL Champions 1998, 1999, 2000 - CHL Champions 2011
I think that if this team can stop losing cleanly in regulation the chances of us seeing playoff hockey in Dallas are pretty good. If we were looking at as many OT/SO points as the rest of the division up until this point, making the playoffs would be a certainty for this team already.
The lack of SO/OT losses this season has made me want to put my fist through the TV.
Playing devil's advocate here for a sec regarding all the talk of "if only they had more OT/SO losses instead of regulation losses." Maybe if we did have more OT/SO losses(and maybe part of the reason other teams have more) is because they would have lost some of the OT/SO games that they won. So we'd have more one pointers earned but less wins and two pointers..which would be worse.
So if Dallas does not make the playoffs does GMJN still have a job with Dallas next season? I pray that Dallas makes the playoffs but its not an easy road.
Who knows maybe not, but it's not like he hasn't been severely hamstrung until a couple months ago. And given that he's kept the team competitive.
I just don't want us to make the playoffs based solely on loser points. If the 9th place team has more wins than we do, but we make the playoffs because of 6 extra loser points.....then that to me makes us undeserving of a playoff spot.
Wins are all that should matter.
__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Playing devil's advocate here for a sec regarding all the talk of "if only they had more OT/SO losses instead of regulation losses." Maybe if we did have more OT/SO losses(and maybe part of the reason other teams have more) is because they would have lost some of the OT/SO games that they won. So we'd have more one pointers earned but less wins and two pointers..which would be worse.
Teams with a negative GF/GA generally don't make the playoffs. In the case of a team like the Stars, one that is managing to get more wins than losses, that means that the team's losses are more lopsided than its wins. Poor losing efforts are a huge problem with this team, no matter how you look at it.
Even discounting the actual impact on the standings, can you honestly say that poor efforts in losses haven't been a problem for this team?
edit: Not sure why the idea of making the playoffs based purely on loser points is being brought up. The odds are really good at this point that we'll miss seeing playoff hockey in Dallas in favor of teams with more loser points.
Teams with a negative GF/GA generally don't make the playoffs. In the case of a team like the Stars, one that is managing to get more wins than losses, that means that the team's losses are more lopsided than its wins. Poor losing efforts are a huge problem with this team, no matter how you look at it.
Even discounting the actual impact on the standings, can you honestly say that poor efforts in losses haven't been a problem for this team?
edit: Not sure why the idea of making the playoffs based purely on loser points is being brought up. The odds are really good at this point that we'll miss seeing playoff hockey in Dallas in favor of teams with more loser points.
I realize that, and it sucks. That's my whole problem with the loser point system.
Kari v pittsburgh (h), edmonton (a) and calgary (a)
Bachman vs Vancouver (a)
kari vs San Jose (h) and Anaheim (h)
The way i view Kari obviously goes v pitt on 2 days rest, then with 1 day between each of the next few games we put kari in for the game we must accumulate pts in, play Bachs vs vancouver which will be good for him and if we lose..its probably one of the games we can afford to lose. But the way Bachs has played big games on the road (chicago, NY) maybe he sneaks a point for us.
Kari gets 3 days rest and back home for San Jose then the the ducks in two must win home games..
PIT: Kari
EDM: Kari
CGY: Kari
VAN: Bachs
SJS: Kari
ANA: Kari
MIN: Bachs
WPG: Kari
CHI: Kari
PHX: Bachs
VAN: Kari
CGY: Kari
CGY: Kari
EDM: Kari
VAN: Bachs
SJS: Kari
PIT: Kari
EDM: Kari
CGY: Kari
VAN: Bachs
SJS: Kari
ANA: Kari
MIN: Bachs
WPG: Kari
CHI: Kari
PHX: Bachs
VAN: Kari
CGY: Kari
CGY: Kari
EDM: Kari
VAN: Bachs
SJS: Kari
I like it except Bachs should play in the next Calgary game and Kari should stick it out with Van.
Give Bachs EDM with a short leash. He should get in a game he can win pretty handily to build up his confidence, but if he lets in 2-3+, pull him unless we have a big lead. I'd be fine with the same kind of thing in Vancouver, especially if he plays well.
Also, depending on how he plays against Vancouver, I'd debate switching him and Kari in the Vancouver game. I think we'd have a better shot at winning both of them that way.
I know you want Kari starting as much as possible, but he could use the rest, especially if we make the playoffs, and it's not like Bachs can't steal a game or two for us.
Hard to believe they can keep up their February play. They would have to go on a run similar to watch the Bruins did earlier this season (though Boston's was much more dominant). They'll lose a couple here soon.
disregarding what happens the rest of the way for a minute, if we beat them in regulation we only have to make up 3 more pts on them the rest of the way, if we lose in regulation its 7 to make up.
Teams with a negative GF/GA generally don't make the playoffs. In the case of a team like the Stars, one that is managing to get more wins than losses, that means that the team's losses are more lopsided than its wins. Poor losing efforts are a huge problem with this team, no matter how you look at it.
Even discounting the actual impact on the standings, can you honestly say that poor efforts in losses haven't been a problem for this team?
edit: Not sure why the idea of making the playoffs based purely on loser points is being brought up. The odds are really good at this point that we'll miss seeing playoff hockey in Dallas in favor of teams with more loser points.
Definitely has been a problem with bad losses vs close wins! In our case I'd say lack of loser points is due to being blown out in losses rather than poor showings post-regulation.
And it sucked staying up till midnight watching SJ win. Dern.
