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.
No it doesn't: Every game is worth two points regardless on when it is won. A GWG goal in the first or a GWG goal in the shootout, it doesn't matter as they both give your team two points
Quote:
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?
Because almost anything is better than a tie and a shootout gives a definitive answer, much like the "next person to score" contest that is overtime.
Quote:
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.
As OT is clearly here to stay, I think it should take place before every game. That would at least prevent both teams from playing for the pooper prize point so they can participate in the coin-flip that is OT.
Last edited by DyerMaker66: 12-14-2012 at 04:42 PM.
I'm personally indifferent to the shootout; although I guess it makes more sense than continuous OT throughout the regular season if you insist on ties not existing.
As others have said, 3 point system is the obvious fix for OTL, seems to work in the KHL/SEL, hope that the NHL eventually figures it out.
The whole poorly-reword-my-arguement-schtick wasn't clever the first time....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66
No it doesn't: Every game is worth two points regardless on when it is won. A GWG goal in the first or a GWG goal in the shootout, it doesn't matter as they both give your team two points
A shootout winner does not count as a GWG. A hockey game was tied, a shootout was won.
Quote:
Because almost anything is better than a tie and a shootout gives a definitive answer, much like the "next person to score" contest that is overtime.
Agree to disagree.
Quote:
As OT is clearly here to stay, I think it should take place before every game. That would at least prevent both teams from playing for the pooper prize point so they participate in the coin-flip that is OT.
That's cute.
What if a shootout was worth no points? It still took place, but it was just for bragging rights. Is the idea that your team "won" still count as winning or does winning only occur when your team earns 2 points? What's really important here?
There have been some good points (pardon the pun) on both sides of the argument. I've thought a lot about the merits of different point systems, so I've got a long, rambling and overanalytic post for all you kids!
(Apologies in advance for my potentially weird English - it's not my first language and yet I try to write it like I'm a professor )
There are (at least) three things that should be considered when designing point systems: equality, incentivizing winning, and entertainment value. I consider that order to be from the most important to the least important, but other people might have different preferences and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that the current system, in my mind, doesn't come close to passing the first two criteria, and I'm not all that convinced of the third one either.
Equality simply means that every game is worth the same amount of points. A win/loss system, the old 2-1-0 or the infamous (at least in North America, it would seem) 3-2-1-0 are good examples of this. The advantage of these systems is that it's fair to everyone; teams can not be at an advantage or disadvantage based on playing style or random chance. (If you don't understand what I'm getting at, bear with me. It'll all be clear soon - or not )
Winning, of course, is the goal in hockey and all other games. A point system should never discourage teams from trying to win, and should at least in some case give them extra incentive to do so. The 3-1-0 system in soccer is designed to reduce ties, and the 3-2-1-0 system encourages winning in regulation. The 2-0/2-1 on the other hand - wait for it...
Entertainment value is usually the thing that fans care about the most (aside from their team winning, naturally). People generally to see exciting plays, scoring, and close games. I don't mind ties, but I understand why many people prefer clear-cut wins and losses. Symmetrical point systems do not try to increase entertainment value. I'd argue the current system in the NHL does try to do that, and I'd also argue that it fails.
So now we can analyze the bizarre regulation tie/ loser point system on three levels:
Firstly, it is not equal/fair. When you give no points for a regulation loss and 1 point for a regulation tie, you effectively make overtime/shootout games more valuable than regulation decisions. Why? Let's illustrate this by taking a theoretical team wins 50% of their games, so in a (sadly, again theoretical) 82-game season they would have 41 wins and 41 losses. If 14 of those games went to OT/SO, they'd have won 7 of them and have 90 points. But let's say they played a lot of close games and had 24 regulation ties; they'd have 12 'extra' points from the OT/SO wins and end up with 95. In this scenario, more regulation decisions cost the team 5 points, which might not sound like much, but last season, it was the difference between Cup-winning Kings and out-of-the-playoffs Flames. It really does matter.
Secondly, it incentivizes teams to play for a regulation tie instead of to win, which makes no sense from an athletic point of view. Look at the previous example again. It is more beneficial to play not-to-lose than is is to win, since the expected point value of a game jumps from 1 to 1.5 when the OT starts. Why? Because 5 minutes of (4-4) overtime and 3 shooters in the shootout is such a short time to decide a winner that it's almost as random as a coin flip. Especially the weaker and the more defensive teams can benefit from this by adopting a more conservative game, as defensive tactics -> less scoring chances on both sides -> increased chance of tie game -> more opportunities for bonus points in the 4-on-4 rodeo and the skills competition.
Lastly, the entertainment value question. By my reasoning, the current system increases ties and decreases offense and excitement in regulation play. It certainly gives us more eye candy and dramatic endings in the OT and SO, though, so I guess it could swing either way. I myself prefer 5-on-5 hockey.
So what would be better? Ideally it would be a simple win/loss system, but only with sudden death OT (otherwise randomness would dictate a lot of the OT/SO results, which I don't think anyone desires). This would be problematic for scheduling and pretty inhumane for the players, so let's move on. The old 2-1-0 would work for me, but I don't think many people want ties back. I have to come to the logical conclusion that the 3-2-1-0 would the best compromise: it's fair, it rewards clear victories, it doesn't slow down regulation play and it still has the entertaining overtime and shootout. (Alan Ryder of Hockey Analytics has proposed a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system which would differentiate between overtime and shootout decisions. I like it even more, but I think people intuitively don't like the idea of so many points.)
In a nutshell: The current point system is unfair, discourages winning in regulation and doesn't add a whole lot entertainment value. A symmetrical system, such as the 3-2-1-0, would be superior on many levels.
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.
If the league was just going to go straight to a shootout and a 2-0 point system, I'd argue they'd be better off doing away with points, go to a winning percentage and straight W-L. Although I'd hate that, and always hold out hope they just go back to W-L-T system with no regulation overtime. You have 60 minutes to beat the other team. Can't do it in that time? Tough ****.
I would agree with the suggestion that the loser point was introduced partly with the idea to make crappy teams appear better than they actually were.
I mean, every time I would look at Dallas's record, and see, for example, 30-27-9, I would know that they're under .500.
They're 30-36. 30 wins in 66 games is NOT .500-calibre hockey. The fact that the new scoring system lists them as having more wins than "losses", doesn't fool me in the slightest and never has. I don't care when they lost, they LOST. That's all that matters, and frankly if they had made the playoffs in all these years, ahead of a team with more wins but less loser points, I would have been embarrassed.
It's happened before, and it will continue to happen until a better system is introduced. Wins should be all that matters in the NHL. It's all that matters in baseball, all that matters in football, and all that matters in basketball*.
*Sure, there are end-of-the-year tiebreakers like head-to-head record, but that's besides the point
__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
I would agree with the suggestion that the loser point was introduced partly with the idea to make crappy teams appear better than they actually were.
I mean, every time I would look at Dallas's record, and see, for example, 30-27-9, I would know that they're under .500.
They're 30-36. 30 wins in 66 games is NOT .500-calibre hockey. The fact that the new scoring system lists them as having more wins than "losses", doesn't fool me in the slightest and never has. I don't care when they lost, they LOST. That's all that matters, and frankly if they had made the playoffs in all these years, ahead of a team with more wins but less loser points, I would have been embarrassed.
It's happened before, and it will continue to happen until a better system is introduced. Wins should be all that matters in the NHL. It's all that matters in baseball, all that matters in football, and all that matters in basketball*.
*Sure, there are end-of-the-year tiebreakers like head-to-head record, but that's besides the point
So the difference between a good team and a crappy team is how good they are in the shootout?
Maybe it's just me, but I think 5v5 play is a better measure.
I'm in the 3-2-1 camp. It will make teams play to win in regulation and recognizes that the shootout/gimmick win is not as valuable as a 5on5 hockey regulation win.
It's not ideal, an overtime that lasts until someone scores would be best but its just not possible with how infrequently goals are scored. Going to 10 minute overtimes might be doable however to at least slightly decrease games going to shootouts.
The whole poorly-reword-my-arguement-schtick wasn't clever the first time....
It wasn't "poorly-reworded", it's simply a poor argument.
Quote:
A shootout winner does not count as a GWG. A hockey game was tied, a shootout was won.
It doesn't count as one, but it certainly is one.
Quote:
What if a shootout was worth no points? It still took place, but it was just for bragging rights. Is the idea that your team "won" still count as winning or does winning only occur when your team earns 2 points? What's really important here?
That's cute: How many events take place in hockey because of bragging rights? The All-star game and mabe the awards?
Why would you have a shootout other than to decide the end of a game? Do soccer or NFL simply say "hey, today we're going to throw out all the rules and only follow the few that are meant to end the game as a result of a tie"?
The important thing is that a game has a definitive ending and rewards winners.
I still don't get the point of your question: So we just have shootouts for kicks and giggles? And we just have games for kicks and giggles? And we just hand out the Stanley Cup for kicks and giggles?
There have been some good points (pardon the pun) on both sides of the argument. I've thought a lot about the merits of different point systems, so I've got a long, rambling and overanalytic post for all you kids!
(Apologies in advance for my potentially weird English - it's not my first language and yet I try to write it like I'm a professor )
There are (at least) three things that should be considered when designing point systems: equality, incentivizing winning, and entertainment value. I consider that order to be from the most important to the least important, but other people might have different preferences and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that the current system, in my mind, doesn't come close to passing the first two criteria, and I'm not all that convinced of the third one either.
Equality simply means that every game is worth the same amount of points. A win/loss system, the old 2-1-0 or the infamous (at least in North America, it would seem) 3-2-1-0 are good examples of this. The advantage of these systems is that it's fair to everyone; teams can not be at an advantage or disadvantage based on playing style or random chance. (If you don't understand what I'm getting at, bear with me. It'll all be clear soon - or not )
Winning, of course, is the goal in hockey and all other games. A point system should never discourage teams from trying to win, and should at least in some case give them extra incentive to do so. The 3-1-0 system in soccer is designed to reduce ties, and the 3-2-1-0 system encourages winning in regulation. The 2-0/2-1 on the other hand - wait for it...
Entertainment value is usually the thing that fans care about the most (aside from their team winning, naturally). People generally to see exciting plays, scoring, and close games. I don't mind ties, but I understand why many people prefer clear-cut wins and losses. Symmetrical point systems do not try to increase entertainment value. I'd argue the current system in the NHL does try to do that, and I'd also argue that it fails.
So now we can analyze the bizarre regulation tie/ loser point system on three levels:
Firstly, it is not equal/fair. When you give no points for a regulation loss and 1 point for a regulation tie, you effectively make overtime/shootout games more valuable than regulation decisions. Why? Let's illustrate this by taking a theoretical team wins 50% of their games, so in a (sadly, again theoretical) 82-game season they would have 41 wins and 41 losses. If 14 of those games went to OT/SO, they'd have won 7 of them and have 90 points. But let's say they played a lot of close games and had 24 regulation ties; they'd have 12 'extra' points from the OT/SO wins and end up with 95. In this scenario, more regulation decisions cost the team 5 points, which might not sound like much, but last season, it was the difference between Cup-winning Kings and out-of-the-playoffs Flames. It really does matter.
Secondly, it incentivizes teams to play for a regulation tie instead of to win, which makes no sense from an athletic point of view. Look at the previous example again. It is more beneficial to play not-to-lose than is is to win, since the expected point value of a game jumps from 1 to 1.5 when the OT starts. Why? Because 5 minutes of (4-4) overtime and 3 shooters in the shootout is such a short time to decide a winner that it's almost as random as a coin flip. Especially the weaker and the more defensive teams can benefit from this by adopting a more conservative game, as defensive tactics -> less scoring chances on both sides -> increased chance of tie game -> more opportunities for bonus points in the 4-on-4 rodeo and the skills competition.
Lastly, the entertainment value question. By my reasoning, the current system increases ties and decreases offense and excitement in regulation play. It certainly gives us more eye candy and dramatic endings in the OT and SO, though, so I guess it could swing either way. I myself prefer 5-on-5 hockey.
So what would be better? Ideally it would be a simple win/loss system, but only with sudden death OT (otherwise randomness would dictate a lot of the OT/SO results, which I don't think anyone desires). This would be problematic for scheduling and pretty inhumane for the players, so let's move on. The old 2-1-0 would work for me, but I don't think many people want ties back. I have to come to the logical conclusion that the 3-2-1-0 would the best compromise: it's fair, it rewards clear victories, it doesn't slow down regulation play and it still has the entertaining overtime and shootout. (Alan Ryder of Hockey Analytics has proposed a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system which would differentiate between overtime and shootout decisions. I like it even more, but I think people intuitively don't like the idea of so many points.)
In a nutshell: The current point system is unfair, discourages winning in regulation and doesn't add a whole lot entertainment value. A symmetrical system, such as the 3-2-1-0, would be superior on many levels.
I agree, the opportunity to win 3 points rather than 2 would give teams more incentive to win a game in regulation time.
What if a shootout was worth no points? It still took place, but it was just for bragging rights. Is the idea that your team "won" still count as winning or does winning only occur when your team earns 2 points? What's really important here?
I think this would be the best solution; the majority of people who like the shootout have very limited hockey knowledge and so the fans in all Bettmans favourite markets and people whom supposedly are only attending the games due to shootouts would likely have no clue that the shootout they are experiencing is meaningless. The true hockey fans who realize how ludicrous it is to decide a hockey game in such a fashion would sleep well knowing that playoff positioning is not being affected by a method not used in the playoffs.
It's happened before, and it will continue to happen until a better system is introduced. Wins should be all that matters in the NHL. It's all that matters in baseball, all that matters in football, and all that matters in basketball*.
The difference is the "rules" of the game change in the NHL. They go 4-on-4 and then the ridiculous shoot out. The rules in the other NA leagues dont change, so a W or L in OT / extra innings is fully valid.
So they need to go back to 5-on-5 OT, set a time limit, and declare it a tie after 5 or 10 mins. Otherwise, this unbalanced point system will stay.
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.
You were complaining about how it's a stupid system and then pointed out how Florida "took advantage" of it. I pointed out that without said system, Edmonton doesn't even make the playoffs in 2006, as the Oilers had more "loser points" than any other playoff team that year, thus my saying that you shouldn't be complaining about it given those circumstances.
There have been some good points (pardon the pun) on both sides of the argument. I've thought a lot about the merits of different point systems, so I've got a long, rambling and overanalytic post for all you kids!
(Apologies in advance for my potentially weird English - it's not my first language and yet I try to write it like I'm a professor )
There are (at least) three things that should be considered when designing point systems: equality, incentivizing winning, and entertainment value. I consider that order to be from the most important to the least important, but other people might have different preferences and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that the current system, in my mind, doesn't come close to passing the first two criteria, and I'm not all that convinced of the third one either.
Equality simply means that every game is worth the same amount of points. A win/loss system, the old 2-1-0 or the infamous (at least in North America, it would seem) 3-2-1-0 are good examples of this. The advantage of these systems is that it's fair to everyone; teams can not be at an advantage or disadvantage based on playing style or random chance. (If you don't understand what I'm getting at, bear with me. It'll all be clear soon - or not )
Winning, of course, is the goal in hockey and all other games. A point system should never discourage teams from trying to win, and should at least in some case give them extra incentive to do so. The 3-1-0 system in soccer is designed to reduce ties, and the 3-2-1-0 system encourages winning in regulation. The 2-0/2-1 on the other hand - wait for it...
Entertainment value is usually the thing that fans care about the most (aside from their team winning, naturally). People generally to see exciting plays, scoring, and close games. I don't mind ties, but I understand why many people prefer clear-cut wins and losses. Symmetrical point systems do not try to increase entertainment value. I'd argue the current system in the NHL does try to do that, and I'd also argue that it fails.
So now we can analyze the bizarre regulation tie/ loser point system on three levels:
Firstly, it is not equal/fair. When you give no points for a regulation loss and 1 point for a regulation tie, you effectively make overtime/shootout games more valuable than regulation decisions. Why? Let's illustrate this by taking a theoretical team wins 50% of their games, so in a (sadly, again theoretical) 82-game season they would have 41 wins and 41 losses. If 14 of those games went to OT/SO, they'd have won 7 of them and have 90 points. But let's say they played a lot of close games and had 24 regulation ties; they'd have 12 'extra' points from the OT/SO wins and end up with 95. In this scenario, more regulation decisions cost the team 5 points, which might not sound like much, but last season, it was the difference between Cup-winning Kings and out-of-the-playoffs Flames. It really does matter.
Secondly, it incentivizes teams to play for a regulation tie instead of to win, which makes no sense from an athletic point of view. Look at the previous example again. It is more beneficial to play not-to-lose than is is to win, since the expected point value of a game jumps from 1 to 1.5 when the OT starts. Why? Because 5 minutes of (4-4) overtime and 3 shooters in the shootout is such a short time to decide a winner that it's almost as random as a coin flip. Especially the weaker and the more defensive teams can benefit from this by adopting a more conservative game, as defensive tactics -> less scoring chances on both sides -> increased chance of tie game -> more opportunities for bonus points in the 4-on-4 rodeo and the skills competition.
Lastly, the entertainment value question. By my reasoning, the current system increases ties and decreases offense and excitement in regulation play. It certainly gives us more eye candy and dramatic endings in the OT and SO, though, so I guess it could swing either way. I myself prefer 5-on-5 hockey.
So what would be better? Ideally it would be a simple win/loss system, but only with sudden death OT (otherwise randomness would dictate a lot of the OT/SO results, which I don't think anyone desires). This would be problematic for scheduling and pretty inhumane for the players, so let's move on. The old 2-1-0 would work for me, but I don't think many people want ties back. I have to come to the logical conclusion that the 3-2-1-0 would the best compromise: it's fair, it rewards clear victories, it doesn't slow down regulation play and it still has the entertaining overtime and shootout. (Alan Ryder of Hockey Analytics has proposed a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system which would differentiate between overtime and shootout decisions. I like it even more, but I think people intuitively don't like the idea of so many points.)
In a nutshell: The current point system is unfair, discourages winning in regulation and doesn't add a whole lot entertainment value. A symmetrical system, such as the 3-2-1-0, would be superior on many levels.
Nailed it, as far as I'm concerned. I would fully support a 3-2-1-0 system. It'd incentivize winning in regulation, make the games more exciting (since the athletes would have better reason to legitimately compete rather than play for the tie), and would stop the NHL from rewarding winning a skills competition the same amount as actually winning a game. Win-win-win.
You were complaining about how it's a stupid system and then pointed out how Florida "took advantage" of it. I pointed out that without said system, Edmonton doesn't even make the playoffs in 2006, as the Oilers had more "loser points" than any other playoff team that year, thus my saying that you shouldn't be complaining about it given those circumstances.
It is a stupid system. I'm sorry but did you find me saying how much I loved it in 2006 or something? I'm still not sure how Edmonton making the playoffs in 2006 still has any bearing on my argument.
It's a regulation tie point no matter how you try to describe it. The team that completes 60 minutes without a decision is awarded a point.
No team has lost at time the point is awarded.
It's just worded that way so it doesn't sound like they are giving the loser a point.
The year before, they didn't give teams a point to make overtime.
What's the difference between giving the OT loser a point, and giving each team a point if they make OT and then the winner an extra point? Nothing; no difference.
The loser is getting a point.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
It's just worded that way so it doesn't sound like they are giving the loser a point.
The year before, they didn't give teams a point to make overtime.
What's the difference between giving the OT loser a point, and giving each team a point if they make OT and then the winner an extra point? Nothing; no difference.
The loser is getting a point.
Its completely unrelated. The point is given to the team for making it to overtime. Anything that happens after the start of overtime, win or lose, does not change the point being awarded.
Its completely unrelated. The point is given to the team for making it to overtime. Anything that happens after the start of overtime, win or lose, does not change the point being awarded.
The team who lost the game got a point. Is that not true?
)
