HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lest we forget MacT's 90 point seasons....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2003, 07:30 AM
  #1
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Lest we forget MacT's 90 point seasons....

Yes everyone LOVES to mention the 90 point seasons.

What they always forget to mention is the OTL "free point" that's been in effect since MacT's arrival.

The Oilers had 9 overtime LOSSES last season. That's 9 free points. So in the recent past that would have ACTUALLY been a 83 point season.

To reinforce........I am NOT a big Ron Low fan.........but didn't he have 81 points in the 1997 campaign? (80 points in the 98 campaign) That would be only 2 (and 3) points less the Oilers got last season.

Now I just know people will say, "Oh, but we had Doug Weight then".

Well we had an injured Weight in one of those 80 point seasons. The 1997 Oilers top 4 that season had a combined 259 points (Weight played 80 games), while last years top 4 had a combined total of 223. A difference of 36 points.

Like I said, I'm not a big Ron Low fan, but it just bugs me when people boast about the MacTs 90 point seasons. One of those seasons we missed the playoffs, meaning BOTTOM LINE.........8 other teams in our conference got MORE points. And THAT matters more than A 90 point season.


Last edited by gretzky2kurri: 12-04-2003 at 07:33 AM.
gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 07:55 AM
  #2
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretzky2kurri
Yes everyone LOVES to mention the 90 point seasons.

What they always forget to mention is the OTL "free point" that's been in effect since MacT's arrival.

The Oilers had 9 overtime LOSSES last season. That's 9 free points. So in the recent past that would have ACTUALLY been a 83 point season.

To reinforce........I am NOT a big Ron Low fan.........but didn't he have 81 points in the 1997 campaign? (80 points in the 98 campaign) That would be only 2 (and 3) points less the Oilers got last season.

Now I just know people will say, "Oh, but we had Doug Weight then".

Well we had an injured Weight in one of those 80 point seasons. The 1997 Oilers top 4 that season had a combined 259 points (Weight played 80 games), while last years top 4 had a combined total of 223. A difference of 36 points.

Like I said, I'm not a big Ron Low fan, but it just bugs me when people boast about the MacTs 90 point seasons. One of those seasons we missed the playoffs, meaning BOTTOM LINE.........8 other teams in our conference got MORE points. And THAT matters more than A 90 point season.
Now, assuming that if there was no OT point last year and we still lost 9 OT games (which I doubt, because I would tend to beleive a lot of those losses involved the Oilers trying for a win as opposed to a tie). The team would have finished with 83 points, 8 points up on it's closest pursuer.

The year before that, the Oilers would have finished with 88 points, just one point back of a playoff spot.

In 00-01, The Oilers finish with 90 points, still 7th in the conference.

The OTL point hasn't helped Edmonton make or miss the playoffs anymore than it has helped anyone else.

And are you blaming Mac-T for the oilers missing the playoffs 2 years ago? Because that is what it sounds like. But if you are, you are ignoring the fact that our best player was gone and replaced by a 21 year old kid, and our 2nd best player missed a good portion of the year with a broken ankle.

And it was the 98-99 team that made the playoffs despite Weight only playing 43 games. That was also back when teams like Vancouver were still bad, and there wasn't a whole lot of competition in the Western conference.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 09:24 AM
  #3
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
And are you blaming Mac-T for the oilers missing the playoffs 2 years ago? Because that is what it sounds like.
I'm sorry if I made it sound that way.......because I SURE tried not to.

Once.....again.............I'm just bothered how people are so quick to point out that MacT has posted 90 point seasons.......yet never include the free point for a losses in OT. 9 last season.

If the OTL point never came about. People here wouldn't be bragging about MacT's 80 point seasons. (that's what they would be) But that 90+ number just seems to make so many people feel good.

Total points don't mean squat to me if your scraping into the show (or not at all) I would be prouder of a 80 point season and a 6th place seed.

If they get 99 points this year and come in 9th........it means squat to me. And I would never use it as a good reason to keep MacT around. Yet alot of others seem to think different.

gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 11:00 AM
  #4
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretzky2kurri
I'm sorry if I made it sound that way.......because I SURE tried not to.

Once.....again.............I'm just bothered how people are so quick to point out that MacT has posted 90 point seasons.......yet never include the free point for a losses in OT. 9 last season.

If the OTL point never came about. People here wouldn't be bragging about MacT's 80 point seasons. (that's what they would be) But that 90+ number just seems to make so many people feel good.

Total points don't mean squat to me if your scraping into the show (or not at all) I would be prouder of a 80 point season and a 6th place seed.

If they get 99 points this year and come in 9th........it means squat to me. And I would never use it as a good reason to keep MacT around. Yet alot of others seem to think different.
Well I am sure most of us would love an 80 point season and a high seed, but that isn't going to happen.

No, the OTL aren't pointed out, and it is for good reason. It is impossible to tell whether or not they would have made a difference if no point was awarded for a tie.

Teams play differently in OT, especially against the other conference. Before the OTL rule came out, at least 80% of games that went into OT ended in a tie. 5 OT losses in a season was considered horrible, and 5 now is an average number.

Who is to say what the standings would be if there was no OTL. There would be a lot fewer games that didn't end in a tie, that's for sure. I don't know OT win-loss records since this came out, but I am certain that none of them would be the same if there was no OTL.

Yeah, it might have given us 92 points the year we missed the playoffs, but maybe if there was no OT point, and the same rate of ties existed as before, the Oilers might have made the playoffs, so using it as an argument against Mac-T isn't really fair, because there is no real basis for it.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 11:27 AM
  #5
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Yeah, it might have given us 92 points the year we missed the playoffs, but maybe if there was no OT point, and the same rate of ties existed as before, the Oilers might have made the playoffs, so using it as an argument against Mac-T isn't really fair, because there is no real basis for it.
There is no real basis using the 90+ points as an argument that he must be a good coach either. (getting back to the jist of my original post)

But getting to what your saying now. There was a thread on here a while back. (before the big crash) were posters were pointing out that if the NHL didn't have the OTL point Phoenix(?) would have gotten in before the Oilers the year before they missed with 92 points. (I believe)

So as you can see your "observation" would have worked against the Oilers 3 seasons ago.

The only thing I was trying to get across (in this thread) is that alot of people are putting too much emphasis on the fact that MacT has accomplished 90+ point seasons. No it's not poor. But I think it gets brought up too often as one af the few positives during his tenure.

That's all.

gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 12:10 PM
  #6
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
No, phoenix wouldn't have gotten in:

2000-01 Final standings

Edmonton had 93 points, and L.A. had 92, Vancouver and Phoenix had 90.

All 3 teams except Vancouver had 3 OTL (Van had 7, they got in because of the OTL rule).

Anyways, a better way of putting it, Mac-T is 31 games above .500 as head coach of the Oilers. Points aside, that is a pretty good indication that he has been fairly successful.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 12:32 PM
  #7
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Yeah, it might have given us 92 points the year we missed the playoffs, but maybe if there was no OT point, and the same rate of ties existed as before, the Oilers might have made the playoffs
The year we missed the playoffs, Phoenix had 95 points with 6 OTL and we had 92 points with 4 OTL. We'd still miss the playoffs, but only by a point (which would be even more frustrating).

This year, on the other hand, Anaheim, Phoenix and Calgary would all drop below us without those points (how embarassing. We shouldnt be anywhere near those teams anyways).

Cawz is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 12:37 PM
  #8
Walsher
Registered User
 
Walsher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,339
vCash: 500
Look at the personnell those teams had other than Weight. Guerin, a productive Smyth, Marchant, Grier, Murray, Buchberger, Niniimaa, Cujo, older experienced defensmen like Musil, Lowe. To me those players have much more experience and savy than the large majority of the players on the team now. BUT, the one factor is that they had not 1 but 2 superstars in Weight and Guerin - three if you count the productive Ryan Smyth. Cujo was arguably the best tender in the league and stole everygame the Oilers needed him too. An 80 point season with those people isn't that impressive. However last season, with key injuries to York, Comrie, Smyth etc. IMO was much more impressive. To me Ken Low was about the worst motivator in the league. You talk about a complacent team - his was the definition of that term. This team has and will accomplish far more under MacT than that team ever did under Low.

Walsher is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 01:11 PM
  #9
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walsher
Look at the personnell those teams had other than Weight. Guerin, a productive Smyth, Marchant, Grier, Murray, Buchberger, Niniimaa, Cujo, older experienced defensmen like Musil, Lowe. To me those players have much more experience and savy than the large majority of the players on the team now. BUT, the one factor is that they had not 1 but 2 superstars in Weight and Guerin - three if you count the productive Ryan Smyth. Cujo was arguably the best tender in the league and stole everygame the Oilers needed him too. An 80 point season with those people isn't that impressive. However last season, with key injuries to York, Comrie, Smyth etc. IMO was much more impressive. To me Ken Low was about the worst motivator in the league. You talk about a complacent team - his was the definition of that term. This team has and will accomplish far more under MacT than that team ever did under Low.
Buchberger? Murray? Grier? Okay......?

We had Niinimaa most of last year.

Ken Lowe is the Trainer.

gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 02:20 PM
  #10
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
We all know he means Ron Low. Bucky, Grier, and Rem were all integral parts of that team. I'll bet if we still had all 3 today our PK would be just a tad better.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 02:31 PM
  #11
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
We all know he means Ron Low. Bucky, Grier, and Rem were all integral parts of that team. I'll bet if we still had all 3 today our PK would be just a tad better.
I would rather a season with Reasoner and Marchant (like last season on the PK) than Bucky, Grier AND Gem.

gretzky2kurri is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 03:29 PM
  #12
Walsher
Registered User
 
Walsher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretzky2kurri
Buchberger? Murray? Grier? Okay......?

We had Niinimaa most of last year.

Ken Lowe is the Trainer.
Whoops - Ronny Lowe - I guess subconsciously I felt Ken did more than Ron ever did.

Walsher is offline  
Old
12-04-2003, 04:16 PM
  #13
gretzky2kurri
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walsher
Whoops - Ronny Lowe - I guess subconsciously I felt Ken did more than Ron ever did.
I could see that happening

gretzky2kurri 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 04:07 PM.

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.