Jump to content

Photo

Change point structure for W-L-T


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,880 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:05 PM

What i dont like about that system is that losers points counts no matter what and that win in SO doesnt count in tiebreakers... Its dumb you can get penalized by winning more in SO than losing if youre tie
  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#22 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:42 PM

I have been an advocate of this format for years now, and I would go a step further and say that overtime should be five on five. No need to completely change the sport being played just to artificially decide a winner by making it 4 on 4 or even worse a shootout. I can't believe how unpopular ties are, if the game ends in a tie then oh well both teams played an even game. It has nothing to do with holding onto the past, it has everything to do with making sure teams that are good at hockey are the teams that are rewarded, not just teams that have players with good shots or dekes. Shootouts are such a joke and in my opinion the integrity of the game is sacrificed when winners are decided by artificial penalty shots. The first game I went to was a tie and I still had a blast, and by making overtime ten minutes long instead of five, and making a win worth 3 points and a tie only 1, there would be less ties anyway.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#23 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,264 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:17 AM

I hate the shoot out and wish they still had ties. I'm also not a fan of the loser point.
  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#24 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,499 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 06:09 AM

What i dont like about that system is that losers points counts no matter what and that win in SO doesnt count in tiebreakers... Its dumb you can get penalized by winning more in SO than losing if youre tie


Re: the SO, well, yeah, that's kind of the point...by not counting the SO wins towards tiebreaker win totals, they're the least significant wins, which I agree with. A team that bloats its overall win total in shootouts shouldn't be treated the same as a team that won more regulation and OT games.

And as for some other ideas that have been brought up: ties aren't coming back, and shootouts aren't going away. I didn't have a problem with ties either, and I'll never be a shootout guy, but like I've said, to me it seems pointless to debate these ideas when there's no chance of ties being reinstated and shootouts getting dumped. So might as well find ways to tweak the CURRENT system to make more sense.

I'm OK with the charity loser point in a 3-2-1-0 system, because at least the charity point is now much of less of a reward in relation to a regulation win than it is in the current system. This is where the main flaw is the current system lies: regulation wins are simply not given enough importance.
  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#25 NCDevsFan

NCDevsFan

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,523 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:20 AM

No matter how the NHL decides to handle this, half the people wont be happy.
  • 0
It's the whiskey talking.

#26 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:54 AM

And as for some other ideas that have been brought up: ties aren't coming back, and shootouts aren't going away. I didn't have a problem with ties either, and I'll never be a shootout guy, but like I've said, to me it seems pointless to debate these ideas when there's no chance of ties being reinstated and shootouts getting dumped. So might as well find ways to tweak the CURRENT system to make more sense.

I know they aren't ditching the shootout anytime soon, it's just fun to think of what your most ideal format would be. It's not like we are in a boardroom meeting with league officials, we're just exchanging ideas here for fun.

I'm OK with the charity loser point in a 3-2-1-0 system, because at least the charity point is now much of less of a reward in relation to a regulation win than it is in the current system. This is where the main flaw is the current system lies: regulation wins are simply not given enough importance.

I agree this is the way to go, and maybe the 2 and 1 should only be used for shootouts with overtime wins and regulation wins counting the same (still undecided on that). A shootout win should not be as important as a real win. Basically a game that ends in a shootout is a tie so each team gets a point, and then the shootout grants one team an extra point, which is the same as it is now, except the tie plus extra point would not add up to a real win.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#27 Martyisth3b3st

Martyisth3b3st

    Darth Brodeur

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,981 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:03 PM

How the motherfvck did people "enjoy" ties!? If I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, there damn well better be a reason for me to be thrilled or a reason for me to be pissed. Honestly, even worse than a shootout loss, I hated the feeling of walking out of the building thinking "eh, we didn't lose, but we didn't win. Damn, I wish we won. But, at least we didn't lose. But.."\

Ties are emotionally confusing.

Oh, and they're fvckin' boring.

Like i said -- you want ties? Turn the damn TV off after overtime. You got yerself a tie, brah.
  • 0

2008, 2010, 2011 Pat Burns winner for 'Most emotional poster'
2011 UDX Signature award winner

Posted Image


#28 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

How the motherfvck did people "enjoy" ties!? If I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, there damn well better be a reason for me to be thrilled or a reason for me to be pissed. Honestly, even worse than a shootout loss, I hated the feeling of walking out of the building thinking "eh, we didn't lose, but we didn't win. Damn, I wish we won. But, at least we didn't lose. But.."\

Ties are emotionally confusing.

Oh, and they're fvckin' boring.

Like i said -- you want ties? Turn the damn TV off after overtime. You got yerself a tie, brah.

Because if I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, I'm paying to see a hockey game, not a shootout. For some ties don't give closure because they want there to be a definite winner and a definite loser, but I care more about the integrity of the sport, you shouldn't be punished or rewarded for being good at something that is only a small piece of required skills for a good hockey team.

Turning off the TV only works if you never look at the standings and pretend that the playoff matchups are different.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#29 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:36 PM

Games decided in regulation:
3 points for the winner, none for the loser.

Games decided in OT or SO (no change here):
2 points for the winner, one for the loser. Continue to tally regulation + OT wins, so teams that bloat their win totals via the shootout could lose a tiebreaker vs. a team that has accumulated more regulation and OT wins.


This is the obvious choice. This is also how most (at least scandinavian) European leagues work.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:44 PM

you shouldn't be punished or rewarded for being good at something that is only a small piece of required skills for a good hockey team.


I don't buy this argument at all. If you're team hasn't been able to prove they are better then the opposition after 60 minutes +OT why shouldn't a skill competition decide which is the better team? Shootouts rewards good goal scorers/technically gifted players and good goalies alike, and perhaps even more importantly mental strength and composure. All important traits for hockey teams.

You could easily argue that the difference between a shot being blocked by a defender on one side of the ice, and then a similar block on the counterattack instead causing a deflection that ends up beating the goalie is MORE random then a shootout.
  • 0
Posted Image

#31 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,499 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:47 PM

I know they aren't ditching the shootout anytime soon, it's just fun to think of what your most ideal format would be. It's not like we are in a boardroom meeting with league officials, we're just exchanging ideas here for fun.


I agree this is the way to go, and maybe the 2 and 1 should only be used for shootouts with overtime wins and regulation wins counting the same (still undecided on that). A shootout win should not be as important as a real win. Basically a game that ends in a shootout is a tie so each team gets a point, and then the shootout grants one team an extra point, which is the same as it is now, except the tie plus extra point would not add up to a real win.


Interesting idea...take OT one step further and make OT the same as a regulation win (3 points to the winner, none to the loser). I'd be curious as to how coaches would play it. Teams that would need the full three points would probably be willing to take some chances in OT. In a way it represents best of old and new...back to the old days when an OT loss netted you nothing, and if you get the shootout, fine...but if you win it, you're not getting rewarded to the level you would have, had you won playing real hockey. Actually, you just sold me on this idea.

Regulation or OT win: 3 points to the winner, none to the loser
SO: 2 points to the winner, one to the loser

The above won't ever happen, but I like that there's now a clear difference between the skills competition and actual hockey, even if the extra period is only 4-on-4. At least 4-on-4 is a common enough occurance in regulation that it can't be considered gimmicky.
  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#32 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,499 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:49 PM

This is the obvious choice. This is also how most (at least scandinavian) European leagues work.


See what I just posted...I like devilsfan26's continued tweaking. I like the skills competition win leading to the lowest reward for the winner.
  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#33 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:54 PM

See what I just posted...I like devilsfan26's continued tweaking. I like the skills competition win leading to the lowest reward for the winner.


Personally I still think you should be rewarded 1 point for a draw after regulation. The flaw with the NHLs system now is that you just get 2 points for a win. Regulation wins, as has been pointed out here, needs to be more rewarding.

Edited by njdevsftw, 06 May 2012 - 04:55 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#34 Martyisth3b3st

Martyisth3b3st

    Darth Brodeur

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,981 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

Because if I'm paying $50 to see a hockey game, I'm paying to see a hockey game, not a shootout. For some ties don't give closure because they want there to be a definite winner and a definite loser, but I care more about the integrity of the sport, you shouldn't be punished or rewarded for being good at something that is only a small piece of required skills for a good hockey team.

Turning off the TV only works if you never look at the standings and pretend that the playoff matchups are different.

Honestly, if you prefer a tie game to a game with some sort of winner, I don't think there's any swaying you. But c'mon, "integrity of the sport" and "small piece of required skills"? Hockey has offense, it has defense, and it has goaltending. The shootout is offense vs. goaltending. It's not like they determine the winner of games by seeing who's best in a basketball free-throw shooting contest.

I like your point system a lot, I think 3-2-1 makes the most sense. But I can't wrap my head around the fact that you think the shootouts hurt the integrity of the sport and are better than ties. Eesh.
  • 0

2008, 2010, 2011 Pat Burns winner for 'Most emotional poster'
2011 UDX Signature award winner

Posted Image


#35 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,499 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:05 PM

Personally I still think you should be rewarded 1 point for a draw after regulation. The flaw with the NHLs system now is that you just get 2 points for a win. Regulation wins, as has been pointed out here, needs to be more rewarding.


I think it would create a little more urgency with regards to the OT period...with OT and SO being the same in most proposed 3-2-1-0 formats, the only real advantage to winning in OT is that the OT win gets added to the win tiebreaker total, where SO wins do not. Having three points available for an OT win, but not a SO win, might give the teams more incentive to try to win before the game reaches the SO stage. Now if the game gets to a SO, the team that felt like it had a shot to win in OT feels more disappointment...they've already lost at least one point by not getting it done in OT.
  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#36 Guest_BelieveinBrodeur_*

Guest_BelieveinBrodeur_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:57 PM

Ties-No and won't
  • 0

#37 Neb00rs

Neb00rs

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,399 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:01 PM

I agree that the current system is flawed. A 3-2-1-0 system would be a better way to award points than the 2-2-1-0 system we have now. I just can't seem to care as much as I used to, since we see that the standings rarely change under different point systems.


These are my feelings exactly. Our last thread on this was a few years back and a lot of us agreed it should be a 3-2-1-0 system. But like 731 said, it doesn't bother me much anymore.
  • 0

gallery_47_36_882.png of No One
Proud to be King of the Kovalnuts (Est. June 2010 by MantaRay)


#38 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:04 AM

I don't buy this argument at all. If you're team hasn't been able to prove they are better then the opposition after 60 minutes +OT why shouldn't a skill competition decide which is the better team? Shootouts rewards good goal scorers/technically gifted players and good goalies alike, and perhaps even more importantly mental strength and composure. All important traits for hockey teams.

You could easily argue that the difference between a shot being blocked by a defender on one side of the ice, and then a similar block on the counterattack instead causing a deflection that ends up beating the goalie is MORE random then a shootout.

I could spend the rest of the night listing important hockey team traits and the ones you listed would just be a small portion of them, not enough to be the sole deciding factors in a hockey game in my opinion. I don't really understand your blocked shot example. Shots get blocked in the normal course of action in hockey, it's part of the sport. A shootout is a series of artificial penalty shots.

Interesting idea...take OT one step further and make OT the same as a regulation win (3 points to the winner, none to the loser). I'd be curious as to how coaches would play it. Teams that would need the full three points would probably be willing to take some chances in OT. In a way it represents best of old and new...back to the old days when an OT loss netted you nothing, and if you get the shootout, fine...but if you win it, you're not getting rewarded to the level you would have, had you won playing real hockey. Actually, you just sold me on this idea.

Regulation or OT win: 3 points to the winner, none to the loser
SO: 2 points to the winner, one to the loser

The above won't ever happen, but I like that there's now a clear difference between the skills competition and actual hockey, even if the extra period is only 4-on-4. At least 4-on-4 is a common enough occurance in regulation that it can't be considered gimmicky.

Well I was actually unsure about where I stood on having overtime and regulation wins be on the same level, but yeah I guess you did the thinking for me and actually it is you who sold me on the idea haha.

Honestly, if you prefer a tie game to a game with some sort of winner, I don't think there's any swaying you. But c'mon, "integrity of the sport" and "small piece of required skills"? Hockey has offense, it has defense, and it has goaltending. The shootout is offense vs. goaltending. It's not like they determine the winner of games by seeing who's best in a basketball free-throw shooting contest.

I like your point system a lot, I think 3-2-1 makes the most sense. But I can't wrap my head around the fact that you think the shootouts hurt the integrity of the sport and are better than ties. Eesh.

You are oversimplifying things by saying hockey has offense, defense, and goaltending and the shootout includes two of them. Penalty shots include a very small portion of what is required for a good offense and a very small portion of what is required for good goaltending. It is an arbitrary way to decide a hockey game...why is a shootout better than taking turns on powerplays for example?
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#39 Martyisth3b3st

Martyisth3b3st

    Darth Brodeur

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,981 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:11 AM

You are oversimplifying things by saying hockey has offense, defense, and goaltending and the shootout includes two of them. Penalty shots include a very small portion of what is required for a good offense and a very small portion of what is required for good goaltending. It is an arbitrary way to decide a hockey game...why is a shootout better than taking turns on powerplays for example?

You are overcomplicating the game by saying shooting the puck, scoring goals, and stopping the puck aren't three major aspects to the game.
  • 0

2008, 2010, 2011 Pat Burns winner for 'Most emotional poster'
2011 UDX Signature award winner

Posted Image


#40 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,797 posts

Posted 07 May 2012 - 12:23 AM

You are overcomplicating the game by saying shooting the puck, scoring goals, and stopping the puck aren't three major aspects to the game.

I didn't say they aren't the three major aspects, how is someone going to argue against that? My point is there is much more to being a successful hockey team than penalty shots.

Edited by devilsfan26, 07 May 2012 - 12:24 AM.

  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users