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.

The infamous "loser point"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2003, 10:36 AM
  #1
semenko27
Registered User
 
semenko27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 420
vCash: 500
The infamous "loser point"

Hey all,

just wondering what you all thought about the overtime loss point. I think it's not one of the better ideas to come along as once a team gets down to the final 5 minutes of a game it then becomes "playing for a point" and not playing to win. I think the games would be alot more fun to watch when teams weren't sittin' back for the last part of the 3rd and often the OT too. At the end of the day, if you lose, you should get nothing.(thats why they call you the "loser")
I say get rid of the "loser point"!

whatya think.....

semenko27 is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 10:42 AM
  #2
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
I think Canuck fans would agree with you.

I think the "loser point" should be abolished.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 10:56 AM
  #3
AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,852
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar Send a message via MSN to AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar
I say you make it so games dont in ties or get rid of overtiem all together. Why should some teams get 65 minutes to beat someone?

AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:00 AM
  #4
Oilers Hockey
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heartland of Hockey
Posts: 1,531
vCash: 500
Don't get rid of OT, too exciting!

But get rid of the loser point.

Oilers Hockey is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:01 AM
  #5
Tucker316*
 
Tucker316*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,932
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Tucker316*
....

That rule is idiotic.

Take a look at the standings at the end of a season. Some playoff teams that have like 5 less wins then a team in 9th get in because of all the damn times they actually lost!!!! It's pathetic.

Whoever came up with this one is a complete moron.

You lose, whether it be in ot or in regulation...YOU LOSE!! You get nothing, nada, zip. That's the way it should be.
I'm glad they have the option of taking that rule off in video games.

Tucker316* is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:07 AM
  #6
Thanatos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the midst of nowhere
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by semenko27
...I think it's not one of the better ideas to come along as once a team gets down to the final 5 minutes of a game it then becomes "playing for a point" and not playing to win. I think the games would be alot more fun to watch when teams weren't sittin' back for the last part of the 3rd and often the OT too. ...
I'd say that the OTL point has little or nothing to do with how teams play in the last five minutes of the third, most teams are going to be naturally wary of risking a regulation loss regardless of the OTL point, IMO.

If anything, rather than causing teams to "play for a point", I'd say the OTL point causes most(especially the better) teams to try and win in OT.
Truthfully, now there's little reason not to go for a victory as you'll either end up with a tie point or an OTL point. For the most part, OTL points aren't any less valuable than tie points, and for every victory you ring up in OT, you'll end up with an extra point that you'll probably never have had. Eliminate the OTL point, and most teams simply sit back and play for the tie, IMO.
Having said all that, I really not a big fan of the OTL point. I think it gives too much of an advantage to the teams with the best offense. Teams with great defense who tie most often will tend to lose fewer games in total but end up with less total points in overtime than the teams who either win or lose in OT.

Thanatos is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:07 AM
  #7
AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 4,852
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar Send a message via MSN to AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker316
Take a look at the standings at the end of a season. Some playoff teams that have like 5 less wins then a team in 9th get in because of all the damn times they actually lost!!!! It's pathetic.
6 Washington 39 wins
7 Boston 36 wins
8 NY Islanders 35 wins
----
9 NY Rangers 32 wins
10 Montreal 30 wins
11 Atlanta 31 wins

6 Minnesota 42 wins
7 Anahiem 40 wins
8 Edmonton 36 wins
-----
9 Chicago 30 wins
10 Los Angeles 33 wins
11 Phoenix 31 wins

Uh..everyone that made the playoffs had more wins then the nonplayoff teams....it wasnt even close to 5 less.

AllIsFehrNLoveAndWar is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:09 AM
  #8
The Frugal Gourmet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
It's a consolation for the extremely hokey decision to have 4 vs. 4 OT in the first place.

If your team plays 60 minutes of REAL hockey and ties the game, then they deserve a tie. Just because they let in a goal in 5 minutes of purely contrived 4 vs. 4 B.S, doesn't mean at all that they are a worse team.

Yeah, my team works their butts off to get a regulation tie vs. some joker team of pansy 4 on 4 specialists, and I lose out because of some ridiculous rule. Pure bull crap.

Besides, eliminate the consolation point and you've pretty much destroyed the excitement of 4 on 4 anyway. You think teams are going to go all out when they could lose a free point in OT? Think again. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

The Frugal Gourmet is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:14 AM
  #9
Thanatos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: the midst of nowhere
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucker316
....

That rule is idiotic.

Take a look at the standings at the end of a season. Some playoff teams that have like 5 less wins then a team in 9th get in because of all the damn times they actually lost!!!! It's pathetic.

Whoever came up with this one is a complete moron.

You lose, whether it be in ot or in regulation...YOU LOSE!! You get nothing, nada, zip. That's the way it should be.
I'm glad they have the option of taking that rule off in video games.
Actually, I think if you looked closly at most of the teams like this, it's not the OT losses that push these teams past the others, it's the OT wins.

Thanatos is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:18 AM
  #10
Takkie
I Goc ya nose!
 
Takkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,099
vCash: 500
the only way to do it would be to make that a Tie gets you 0 points, and so does an OTL. because take away the OTL and they play for the Tie.

Takkie is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:22 AM
  #11
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemskyfan
Don't get rid of OT, too exciting!

But get rid of the loser point.

If you take away the loser point, then the OT will become a borefest, like it was before.

The loser point, more than the 4-on-4 is what makes it more exciting. You have nothing to lose by trying something very chancy that you would never try if there was a possibility of losing the point.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:37 AM
  #12
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,878
vCash: 500
Personally, hate it.

Lowering the standards by which we reward.

(In this case, the team on the short end of an OT game.)

Sports mirrors society.

Trottier is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 11:44 AM
  #13
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
If you get rid of the loser point, then must also go back to 5-on-5.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 12:02 PM
  #14
DarioinDenver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
If you get rid of the loser point, then must also go back to 5-on-5.
And thus the boring, conservative overtime that existed before. People are quick to point to OT loss points but don't equate that a lot of OT wins (that don't show as OT wins, just wins) do so because of the aggressive play and poorer defense in OT. It's a two way street and I personally like the play in overtime for the regular season. At times it's the most exiting hockey of the entire game. If teams battle to a tie after 60 minutes of hard fought hockey then they deserve the point in my opinion.

DarioinDenver is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 12:11 PM
  #15
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,878
vCash: 500
Four-on-four in OT is very exciting, as it opens up the ice. However, the idea of rewarding a team that losses OT is counter-intuitive, IMO.

I'd rather scrap OT altogether during the regular season, as I truly believe that mere fact that a team could go winless for the entire season, have 82 OTL, and still garner a playoff spot with 82 points is troubling.

An absurd hypothetical to be sure, but you get the point, I hope.

Prior to this change, a team was rewarded for tying a game. Now they are rewarded for ending up on the short end of the scoreboard. Kind of like the NHL's version of tee-ball, where no one strikes out and there are no losers.

Trottier is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 12:24 PM
  #16
mmbt
Cheeky Monkey
 
mmbt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,267
vCash: 500
IMO, it's really pretty simple. Dump the point system, just count the # of wins, with regulation wins as a tiebreaker, then # of ties, then # of OT losses.

Thus, the best thing is a win in regulation. Next best thing is an OT win. Next best thing is to tie. 2nd worst is to lose in OT. And the worst is to lose in regulation. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

You want to guarantee everyone plays for the win, that's the only way.

mmbt is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 12:26 PM
  #17
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Id go for 3 points for a regular time win,
2 for an OT win.
1 for a tie or OT loss
zero for a loss.

That way teams will still go for the win in the last 10 mins of the 3rd instead of settling for the OT point, you still also have the excitment of teams going for the extra point in OT as well.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 12:38 PM
  #18
DarioinDenver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Four-on-four in OT is very exciting, as it opens up the ice. However, the idea of rewarding a team that losses OT is counter-intuitive, IMO.

I'd rather scrap OT altogether during the regular season, as I truly believe that mere fact that a team could go winless for the entire season, have 82 OTL, and still garner a playoff spot with 82 points is troubling.

An absurd hypothetical to be sure, but you get the point, I hope.

Prior to this change, a team was rewarded for tying a game. Now they are rewarded for ending up on the short end of the scoreboard. Kind of like the NHL's version of tee-ball, where no one strikes out and there are no losers.
Then you have to feel the same way about those teams that get over the top and make it into the playoffs because of overtime wins. They are doing so in an altered environment that demands less attention to defense and more to offensive pressure.

DarioinDenver is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 02:38 PM
  #19
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,911
vCash: 500
Time to pop in my idea again.

The problem with OT now is this perceived "lessening" of the value of a win, a tie etc, as can be seen by "loser point" etc.

So, here's the deal. OT is not an extension of the game anymore. It's a completely separate competition for an extra bonus point. It has no connection with the real game 60 minutes before. It's two teams with an opportunity to earn a bonus point, to let the fans go home happy. Once you get your head around that, it's not so bad.

So, what we need to do to show that in the standings:

At the end of regulation, a tie has occurred. Each team should at that point GET A TIE in their T column. Regardless of any future overtime results to come.

If one team wins in overtime, they earn the extra bonus point, which goes in their BP column.

That's it. There is no W recorded, because they didn't really win the game. There is no L recorded, because nobody lost the game. Each starting goalie gets a T, as they deserve.

With this system, teams that win in regulation will naturally get higher standings than teams that don't. Say after two games, with one specific result being Colorado "beating" Minny in overtime:

Code:
Team     W  L   T  BP    Pts
Van      2  0   0   0     4
Col      1  0   1   1     4
Edm      1  0   1   0     3
Min      0  1   1   0     1
Vancouver, with two wins in regulation is on top, because one of Colorado's "wins" was in overtime. The first tie breaker is Wins. Colorado still gets credit for going for it in overtime, and thus pull ahead of Edmonton, but the main benefit is that regulation wins are valued the most.

A win in regulation is technically worth more than a win in overtime with this system, and teams would be going for it right until the ending buzzer.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 02:44 PM
  #20
Pinto
Burn Them All
 
Pinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hagersville, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,310
vCash: 500
Win or win not, there is no tie

Pinto is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 02:59 PM
  #21
lux_interior
Registered User
 
lux_interior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 8,630
vCash: 500
I love the four on four. With less space on the ice due to bigger players, the extra ref, yada yada yada, I think it's great. I've thought about maybe the NHL should try four on four in regulation, but that will never happen. It would certainly make the game more exciting. Then again, from a purist standpoint, it's a little bit too much like roller hockey. So I guess I would rather they just keep 4-4 in OT.

The so-called "loser point" doesn't bother me. It makes for better hockey. Teams take more chances in OT. Before the 4 on 4 and OTL, the extra period was sooooooo conservative and dull. The only exciting thing was thinking, "if we lose, we don't get anything." I like the current system because it encourages teams to play to win, rather than play to avoid losing.

As usual, Peca Fan's idea is a very interesting, well thought out proposal. If only you had Bettman's ear.

lux_interior is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 03:02 PM
  #22
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,652
vCash: 500
Drop the "Avs point" or "loser point" or whatever you call it and make it 10 minutes of 4 on 4.

Reign Nateo is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 03:23 PM
  #23
DaBo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Du Bois, Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Time to pop in my idea again.

The problem with OT now is this perceived "lessening" of the value of a win, a tie etc, as can be seen by "loser point" etc.

So, here's the deal. OT is not an extension of the game anymore. It's a completely separate competition for an extra bonus point. It has no connection with the real game 60 minutes before. It's two teams with an opportunity to earn a bonus point, to let the fans go home happy. Once you get your head around that, it's not so bad.

So, what we need to do to show that in the standings:

At the end of regulation, a tie has occurred. Each team should at that point GET A TIE in their T column. Regardless of any future overtime results to come.

If one team wins in overtime, they earn the extra bonus point, which goes in their BP column.

That's it. There is no W recorded, because they didn't really win the game. There is no L recorded, because nobody lost the game. Each starting goalie gets a T, as they deserve.

With this system, teams that win in regulation will naturally get higher standings than teams that don't. Say after two games, with one specific result being Colorado "beating" Minny in overtime:
Code:
Team W L T BP Pts
Van 2 0 0 0 4
Col 1 0 1 1 4
Edm 1 0 1 0 3
Min 0 1 1 0 1
Vancouver, with two wins in regulation is on top, because one of Colorado's "wins" was in overtime. The first tie breaker is Wins. Colorado still gets credit for going for it in overtime, and thus pull ahead of Edmonton, but the main benefit is that regulation wins are valued the most.

A win in regulation is technically worth more than a win in overtime with this system, and teams would be going for it right until the ending buzzer.
This is the best idea I've heard about 'changing' the system. You didn't change the way the game is played, you changed the way the point system is perceived. And it makes total sense...those who win in regulation will be rewarded in the standings.

BRAVO!!!!

DaBo is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 03:41 PM
  #24
Yayo
 
Yayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo
Drop the "Avs point" or "loser point" or whatever you call it and make it 10 minutes of 4 on 4.
"Avs point"?!? Do you not remember that the Canucks would not have made the playoffs in 2001 if not for that "Avs point"?!?

Yayo is offline  
Old
09-24-2003, 04:34 PM
  #25
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by semenko27
Hey all,

just wondering what you all thought about the overtime loss point. I think it's not one of the better ideas to come along as once a team gets down to the final 5 minutes of a game it then becomes "playing for a point" and not playing to win. I think the games would be alot more fun to watch when teams weren't sittin' back for the last part of the 3rd and often the OT too. At the end of the day, if you lose, you should get nothing.(thats why they call you the "loser")
I say get rid of the "loser point"!

whatya think.....
I like it, people like to see teams try to win the game. If they losing team gets a point, then both teams have the incentive to try and grab the extra point. Makes for exciting hockey, exciting hockey sales, and plus, a team deserves a point if they can make it to OT tied with the other team.

Enoch is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:28 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.