Rangerland Forum Information

[jburns]

I'm saying that the same thing happened on the Rangers - a player hit a career milestone and then returned to his carer average. It happens and it shouldn't be surprising.

Ah, but Cheechoo's average was so far below and consistently below his high season, that it really is more of an anomaly. I'm not saying the 30 goal guy won't score 50 one year. I'm saying it was CHEECHOO. The same CHeechoo that played for your rec league in Queens a few years later.

[Hockey101]

18 loser points. I stand by my statement.

That doesn't factor in. They sucked in SOs, big effing deal. You can look at it as they were not beaten in regulation as many times as the Sens. They stuck in more and competed harder to gain at least a point rather than no points at all.

[Alitaki]

18 loser points. I stand by my statement.

That doesn't factor in. They sucked in SOs, big effing deal. You can look at it as they were not beaten in regulation as many times as the Sens. They stuck in more and competed harder to gain at least a point rather than no points at all.

What do you mean it doesn't factor in? They lost 18 games that they got a point for. Without those 18 points they're not even in the playoff picture.

[Hockey101]

I disagree. You win the division it means you beat out your division rivals. Two points better? Well...two points can make the playoffs or not. So, it's a difference factor nonetheless. Sens had Spezza...Alffy. Karlsson, Gonchar. An all-star core. And, already a core that bonded over the years. The Panthers had no core. When you get 10-12 new faces it becomes one of the biggest challenges for a coach to bring them together, get chemistry, get them to bond, and get them to buy into the system that they are on the same page. Not to mention some lengthy injuries as well.

At the end of the day, he did better than MacLean and had a bigger challenge.

Loser points. Take away the loser points and Florida isn't even in the playoffs. Ottawa still is.

That's not a factor. According to the NHL and how the standings play out, points are points. You win them. It's idiotic to say "loser points". I think these "loser points" show that a team competed harder to not lose the game. The Sens lost too many regulation time games. Tough shit. They should have played better to get the extra points.

[Alitaki]

I disagree. You win the division it means you beat out your division rivals. Two points better? Well...two points can make the playoffs or not. So, it's a difference factor nonetheless. Sens had Spezza...Alffy. Karlsson, Gonchar. An all-star core. And, already a core that bonded over the years. The Panthers had no core. When you get 10-12 new faces it becomes one of the biggest challenges for a coach to bring them together, get chemistry, get them to bond, and get them to buy into the system that they are on the same page. Not to mention some lengthy injuries as well.

At the end of the day, he did better than MacLean and had a bigger challenge.

Loser points. Take away the loser points and Florida isn't even in the playoffs. Ottawa still is.

That's not a factor. According to the NHL and how the standings play out, points are points. You win them. It's idiotic to say "loser points". I think these "loser points" show that a team competed harder to not lose the game. The Sens lost too many regulation time games. Tough shit. They should have played better to get the extra points.

Ottawa won 42 games. Florida won 38. Florida ended up with 2 more points than Ottawa to win the division. Explain to me again how the loser point doesn't factor in?

This post has been edited by Alitaki: Apr 30 2012, 02:40 PM

[Hockey101]

18 loser points. I stand by my statement.

That doesn't factor in. They sucked in SOs, big effing deal. You can look at it as they were not beaten in regulation as many times as the Sens. They stuck in more and competed harder to gain at least a point rather than no points at all.

What do you mean it doesn't factor in? They lost 18 games that they got a point for. Without those 18 points they're not even in the playoff picture.

What does that matter? They got the points, period. They did not lose in regulation time. You play to win in regulation and not to lose in regulation. Sens lost more in regulation. If they played better in regulation they would have received more points. That's part of the game. They were not good enough to get the extra points.

[Hockey101]

I disagree. You win the division it means you beat out your division rivals. Two points better? Well...two points can make the playoffs or not. So, it's a difference factor nonetheless. Sens had Spezza...Alffy. Karlsson, Gonchar. An all-star core. And, already a core that bonded over the years. The Panthers had no core. When you get 10-12 new faces it becomes one of the biggest challenges for a coach to bring them together, get chemistry, get them to bond, and get them to buy into the system that they are on the same page. Not to mention some lengthy injuries as well.

At the end of the day, he did better than MacLean and had a bigger challenge.

Loser points. Take away the loser points and Florida isn't even in the playoffs. Ottawa still is.

That's not a factor. According to the NHL and how the standings play out, points are points. You win them. It's idiotic to say "loser points". I think these "loser points" show that a team competed harder to not lose the game. The Sens lost too many regulation time games. Tough shit. They should have played better to get the extra points.

Ottawa won 42 games. Florida won 38. Florida ended up with 2 more points than Ottawa to win the division. Explain to me again how the loser point doesn't factor in?

They factor in the standings, but to decide on the coach of the year? No. You can't coach shootouts either, which Ottawa won plenty of.

[Nilan 666]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

[Kusand]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/20...nn-smythe-watch

1 Mike Smith Phoenix Coyotes
The Coyotes were massively outshot 241-159 in their first-round series yet escaped with a win in six games. Smith single-handedly allowed his team to win by stopping 95 percent of those shots.
2 Claude Giroux Philadelphia Flyers
The Devils will have to do a better job of stopping Giroux than the Penguins did or risk sharing their fate. Even being on the power play isn't a guarantee of safety: Giroux had three points short-handed in the first round.

Again, I'm asking you why he's "arguably a top 5 goaltender" based on his stats, but now that his stats aren't "the best" you want to ignore those and say he's the best goaltender. He's been excellent, but Quick and Lundqvist have done just as well.

This post has been edited by Kusand: Apr 30 2012, 02:54 PM

[Hockey101]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

[Alitaki]

I disagree. You win the division it means you beat out your division rivals. Two points better? Well...two points can make the playoffs or not. So, it's a difference factor nonetheless. Sens had Spezza...Alffy. Karlsson, Gonchar. An all-star core. And, already a core that bonded over the years. The Panthers had no core. When you get 10-12 new faces it becomes one of the biggest challenges for a coach to bring them together, get chemistry, get them to bond, and get them to buy into the system that they are on the same page. Not to mention some lengthy injuries as well.

At the end of the day, he did better than MacLean and had a bigger challenge.

Loser points. Take away the loser points and Florida isn't even in the playoffs. Ottawa still is.

That's not a factor. According to the NHL and how the standings play out, points are points. You win them. It's idiotic to say "loser points". I think these "loser points" show that a team competed harder to not lose the game. The Sens lost too many regulation time games. Tough shit. They should have played better to get the extra points.

Ottawa won 42 games. Florida won 38. Florida ended up with 2 more points than Ottawa to win the division. Explain to me again how the loser point doesn't factor in?

They factor in the standings, but to decide on the coach of the year? No. You can't coach shootouts either, which Ottawa won plenty of.

Ottawa wins: 42
Florida wins: 38

Ottawa wins, corrected for SO (also known as ROW): 38
Florida wins, corrected for SO (also knows as ROW): 32

So shootout has been taken out of the consideration. Ottawa STILL has more wins than Florida. MacLean got his team to perform at a better win % than Florida.


The final thing I'll say on the loser point - Florida won their division with a -24 Goal differential. They allowed 24 goals more than what they scored. If you count OTL as losses (which they are - it's there in the name OVER TIME LOSS) then Florida has a sub-.500 record. In other words, they lost more games than they won. I'm not giving an award to a guy who lost more games than he's won.

In my opinion, your argument is invalid because of the simple fact that this joke of a league rewards failure. Lose the game in overtime? That's OK, have a point. That a team can take 18 loss points (and yes, they ARE points for losing) and win its division and make the playoffs as the #3 seed is an embarrassment and a joke. The NHL should be ashamed of itself for allowing this, but these morons in the Board of Governors will pat themselves on the back and shout "PARITY!"

Is this the current rule structure of the NHL? Yes. Should Florida be punished for playing within the rules? Absolutely not.
But please don't expect everyone else to sit back and reward them for what is basically a half-step above failure.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: Apr 30 2012, 03:00 PM

[Nilan 666]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

[ak996]

Again, I'm asking you why he's "arguably a top 5 goaltender" based on his stats, but now that his stats aren't "the best" you want to ignore those and say he's the best goaltender. He's been excellent, but Quick and Lundqvist have done just as well.

That's because the whole scenario unfolds as follows: make statement; get called out on statement; use stats to back up statement; get called out on stats; ambiguously point to media saying things supporting statement; get called out on ambiguous reference to media support; find article by media member that says statement.

[jkman61494]

Again, I'm asking you why he's "arguably a top 5 goaltender" based on his stats, but now that his stats aren't "the best" you want to ignore those and say he's the best goaltender. He's been excellent, but Quick and Lundqvist have done just as well.

That's because the whole scenario unfolds as follows: make statement; get called out on statement; use stats to back up statement; get called out on stats; ambiguously point to media saying things supporting statement; get called out on ambiguous reference to media support; find article by media member that says statement.

So basically.....Make statement, and back it up with stats and sources every time one is called out on it? Gotcha.

I don't really understand the need some of you have just to try and prove someone wrong. And then when you find out there's actually credible sources and stats? Well, umm, well, it's STILL wrong!

First, I'm told to go get stats. Great I did. Better regular season stats than almost every goalie not named Quick or Hank (including better than Rinne). Additionally has a 94% save percentage vs. Blachawks, and currently helped his team to a 2-0 lead over the Preds.

Then, I get ripped on saying he and Giroux are the top two guys for the Conn Smythe. So, let's see. Ah, more stats and articles by professional sources saying the same exact thing.

Now it's getting to the point we have to argue what is "ambiguous"?

It's like having to go and make sure everything is styled perfectly for a term paper in here. Really getting ridiculous. Let's see.... 1) Form an opinion. Check. 2) Find sources because we can't just have opinions here. Check. 3) Additionally, find stats because opinions and stats aren't enough. Check. 4) Ensure that all things to back up opinion make everyone happy and are not "ambiguous" Check?


I'm really done talking about this so I hope we can move on. Try to make a comment complimenting a player and it turns into a day long debate about absolutely stupid stuff. To me, Smith has been a top 5 goalie this year and has the stats to back it up. I think he got jobbed out of a Vezina nomination and he's been one of the best players in the playoffs and should be at the top of any Conn Smythe leader board, (which he's #1 on ESPN's). There's really nothing else to be said on the matter. I'm done jumping through hoops for you and others on an issue that doesn't even involve the Rangers.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: Apr 30 2012, 03:33 PM

[Alitaki]

jk,

can I get the link to that espn insider quote you posted earlier?


EDIT: NEver mind, I doublechecked and saw that you did.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: Apr 30 2012, 03:33 PM

[Alitaki]

The point is you can't be all that surprised when the same thing happened on our own team.

It is absolutely not the same thing.

Graves, goal scoring in mostly full seasons: 26, 36, 56, 17 (strike year, 47 games), 22, 33, 23, 38, 23, 10, 17, 9, retire
Cheechoo: 28, 56, 37, 23, 12, 5, AHL

Graves had 9 seasons of at least productive work, a few great seasons, and only retired because all of his limbs were falling off. Cheechoo was in the AHL at age 28 five years after scoring 50. Graves had double Cheechoo's goals in his career. Graves declined, for sure, but not as precipitously as Cheechoo, and certainly not in his prime.

Was Graves' 50 goal season not a statistical fluke? Just like Cheechoo's. I agree that Graves is the better player - that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the same thing happened on the Rangers - a player hit a career milestone and then returned to his carer average. It happens and it shouldn't be surprising.

Graves reverted to his career average, and maintained that or close to it for another 5 years. Cheechoo fell out of the league completely within three years. He didn't even have time to establish a career average. Cheechoo is a lot closer to Petr Prucha than he is Graves.

OK, I can live with that.

[Hockey101]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

A team keeps it a close game 18 times. The other team can't and loses more. That's what it comes down to. You can bitch and moan about loser points all you want, but GMs okayed that anyway, so it does not factor into their decision. Disingenuous my ass.... you're giving thumbs up to regulation losses over OT/SO losses. Taki, same with you.

[Charlie]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

A team keeps it a close game 18 times. The other team can't and loses more. That's what it comes down to. You can bitch and moan about loser points all you want, but GMs okayed that anyway, so it does not factor into their decision. Disingenuous my ass.... you're giving thumbs up to regulation losses over OT/SO losses. Taki, same with you.

Ottawa won more. In regulation and in overtime. They are giving thumbs up to winning, you are giving thumbs up to "competing" aka losing, but waiting longer to do it.

[Hockey101]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

A team keeps it a close game 18 times. The other team can't and loses more. That's what it comes down to. You can bitch and moan about loser points all you want, but GMs okayed that anyway, so it does not factor into their decision. Disingenuous my ass.... you're giving thumbs up to regulation losses over OT/SO losses. Taki, same with you.

Ottawa won more. In regulation and in overtime. They are giving thumbs up to winning, you are giving thumbs up to "competing" aka losing, but waiting longer to do it.

And they lost more. Couldn't compete to either keep leads or tie games. But that's okay because they have a few more regulation wins. Riiiight....

Oh, and let me mention this again. MacLean already had a team in place that has played with each other already. Dineen had 10 new faces that never played with each other.... and the Panthers were more consistent throughout the year in the standings. The Senators were in the top four places for a while and then finished 8th.

But, they had FOUR more regulation wins!

This post has been edited by Hockey101: Apr 30 2012, 04:41 PM

[Charlie]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

A team keeps it a close game 18 times. The other team can't and loses more. That's what it comes down to. You can bitch and moan about loser points all you want, but GMs okayed that anyway, so it does not factor into their decision. Disingenuous my ass.... you're giving thumbs up to regulation losses over OT/SO losses. Taki, same with you.

Ottawa won more. In regulation and in overtime. They are giving thumbs up to winning, you are giving thumbs up to "competing" aka losing, but waiting longer to do it.

And they lost more. Couldn't compete to either keep leads or tie games. But that's okay because they have a few more regulation wins. Riiiight....

I know you are a Florida fan, but do you realize how insane this argument is?

Ottawa had more wins. They had fewer losses. However since the NHL thinks some losses are better than others Florida had more points. So, Florida is better? You honestly think that is a reasonable argument?

So, by your logic, winning a game by 3 goals should be worth more points than winning by 1? I mean, they clearly competed harder and didn't let the other team keep it close.

Edit: Just saw your point about "having a core." Having a core doesn't mean shit if that core sucks. Ask the Islanders. The Senators sucked last year. Their core sucked. This year they were pretty good. That has a whole lot to do with coaching.

This post has been edited by Charlie: Apr 30 2012, 04:44 PM

[Nilan 666]

You're arguing that the Rangers didn't compete as hard but somehow won 50+ games while the Panthers won 38. You may have also broken the word silly.

[Hockey101]

Sorry but I can't give coach of the year to a guy who's team took longer than 60 minutes to lose. Ten more OT losses than the Caps who they beat by two points. No effect here.

So you'd rather give it to a coach whose team could not compete for 60 minutes? Got it.

If I were advocating Scott Arniel for the trophy yes but I'm not. Congratulations on breaking the word disingenuous.

A team keeps it a close game 18 times. The other team can't and loses more. That's what it comes down to. You can bitch and moan about loser points all you want, but GMs okayed that anyway, so it does not factor into their decision. Disingenuous my ass.... you're giving thumbs up to regulation losses over OT/SO losses. Taki, same with you.

Ottawa won more. In regulation and in overtime. They are giving thumbs up to winning, you are giving thumbs up to "competing" aka losing, but waiting longer to do it.

And they lost more. Couldn't compete to either keep leads or tie games. But that's okay because they have a few more regulation wins. Riiiight....

I know you are a Florida fan, but do you realize how insane this argument is?

Ottawa had more wins. They had fewer losses. However since the NHL thinks some losses are better than others Florida had more points. So, Florida is better? You honestly think that is a reasonable argument?

So, by your logic, winning a game by 3 goals should be worth more points than winning by 1? I mean, they clearly competed harder and didn't let the other team keep it close.

Edit: Just saw your point about "having a core." Having a core doesn't mean shit if that core sucks. Ask the Islanders. The Senators sucked last year. Their core sucked. This year they were pretty good. That has a whole lot to do with coaching.

They lost more in regulation time than the Panthers, though.

You're still avoiding this point and saying it's insane. It's not.

You are admitting, like the other two, that losing in regulation time more than losing in OT/SO is okay. That's the bottom line of the argument here by you. So...if Ottawa lost a 3-2 game in the third period as they were winning 2-1, it's still better than the Panthers losing a 3-2 game in OT/SO as they were tied in the 3rd. Yes, it's a loser point. But, it's a point that they earned. Not lost.

Ottawa had more regulation losses than the Panthers.

And the core did not suck. It was poorly coached last year. You got Michalek, Alffredsson, Spezza, Karlsson, and a solid goalie this year. Not a bad core to work with for any good coach. MacLean did a superb job.

A coach getting a 10 new players who never played together before has a tougher challenge. Not to mention having more injuries to deal with than Ottawa as well.

[Hockey101]

You're arguing that the Rangers didn't compete as hard but somehow won 50+ games while the Panthers won 38. You may have also broken the word silly.

That is not even close to the point i made.

[ak996]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

[Hockey101]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

[toph]

Getting to overtime does not signify a good team, in my opinion. Remember when Tom Renney coached the Rangers?

[Sed]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

[Hockey101]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

But they didn't. They almost missed the playoffs after spending most of the season in the top half of the Eastern playoff berths. In other words, they sucked in the second half. Inconsistency.

[jkman61494]

I said this before the playoffs and it just continues to ring true. L.A. is the best #8 seed ever. They aren't just getting by like the Caps and eeking out 1 goal wins. They're flat out man handling Vancouver and now St. Louis. 5-1 in the 2nd period.

If their offense can continue to get 3 goals per game, you could argue this team should be considered the favorite to win it all. Obviously I want the Rangers to win but.....

Mike Richards and Jeff Carter vs. the Flyers in the Finals? If we don't make it, sign me up for that one.

This post has been edited by jkman61494: Apr 30 2012, 09:29 PM

[Alitaki]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

But they didn't. They almost missed the playoffs after spending most of the season in the top half of the Eastern playoff berths. In other words, they sucked in the second half. Inconsistency.

You completely missed Sed's point.

[Hockey101]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

But they didn't. They almost missed the playoffs after spending most of the season in the top half of the Eastern playoff berths. In other words, they sucked in the second half. Inconsistency.

You completely missed Sed's point.

No, i got his point. But it doesn't matter. The NHL works this way now and that's that.

[jburns]

Kovy out tonight (at least) with undisclosed injury.

[Sed]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

But they didn't. They almost missed the playoffs after spending most of the season in the top half of the Eastern playoff berths. In other words, they sucked in the second half. Inconsistency.

You completely missed Sed's point.

No, i got his point. But it doesn't matter. The NHL works this way now and that's that.

Which, ultimately, is the case. Sucks for Ottawa, demonstrates what I consider to be a flaw in the point system, but yeah - this is how it is now.

[Alitaki]

So fine, why can't this just be as simple as, Ottawa won more games (41 as compared to Florida's 38) and lost less games (41 as compared to Florida's 44) while not giving up more goals than they scored.

Forget about when they won and when they lost; Ottawa flat out won more, and lost less, than Florida.

......... So if the won more, and lost a lot less, they should have more points.................

You're right. They should.

But they didn't. They almost missed the playoffs after spending most of the season in the top half of the Eastern playoff berths. In other words, they sucked in the second half. Inconsistency.

You completely missed Sed's point.

No, i got his point. But it doesn't matter. The NHL works this way now and that's that.

Which, ultimately, is the case. Sucks for Ottawa, demonstrates what I consider to be a flaw in the point system, but yeah - this is how it is now.

Agreed, but that's where the corrective balance of the awards voting system comes into play and why MacLean is rewarded and Dineen isn't. It's what 101 doesn't seem to get. Yes, the league rules gave Florida a chance to capture their division but professional broadcasters who vote for the award saw through that nonsense and made the smart votes to reward the coaches that actually deserved it.

[Eric]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

[Alitaki]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

Much simpler to just give 2 points for a win in regulation and overtime, 1 point for a shootout win and zero points for a loss at any stage. THAT is a truer reflection of the value of a win. Win at any point in the 60/65 minutes and earn two points. Dick around to get to a shootout and you only deserve one point. It will devalue the shootout and marginalize it as a "skill competition" even more but whatever. I'd rather that than continue to hand out the loser point.

EDIT: Plus it eliminates the need for the ROW tie breaker since the WINS column is now exactly that.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: May 1 2012, 11:37 AM

[toph]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

Much simpler to just give 2 points for a win in regulation and overtime, 1 point for a shootout win and zero points for a loss at any stage. THAT is a truer reflection of the value of a win. Win at any point in the 60/65 minutes and earn two points. Dick around to get to a shootout and you only deserve one point. It will devalue the shootout and marginalize it as a "skill competition" even more but whatever. I'd rather that than continue to hand out the loser point.

I think that would punish teams for losing in the shootout too much. You play even for 65 minutes and get nothing for it?

[Tex]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

this assumes that under that system the games would have been played at the exact same intensity level and had the same results. I think changing win and loss values would change the intensity and the playing styles. Under 2-1-0, you might not find people willing to play anything in OT, but a 3-2-1 would still offer late 3rd period lolligaggin' for loser points.


plus what Taki said.

This post has been edited by Tex: May 1 2012, 11:39 AM

[Alitaki]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

Much simpler to just give 2 points for a win in regulation and overtime, 1 point for a shootout win and zero points for a loss at any stage. THAT is a truer reflection of the value of a win. Win at any point in the 60/65 minutes and earn two points. Dick around to get to a shootout and you only deserve one point. It will devalue the shootout and marginalize it as a "skill competition" even more but whatever. I'd rather that than continue to hand out the loser point.

I think that would punish teams for losing in the shootout too much. You play even for 65 minutes and get nothing for it?

Well I guess they should get something for competing really really hard. Discounts at the concession stands? Two free cases of beer? I dunno, what do you think is fair?


EDIT: Seriously though, if you give out two points for a shootout win, you're going to get back to the way it was with ties - not a whole lot of pressing during the final minutes or in OT. That's what got us the loser point to begin with. Teams will take their chances with the SO to steal the two points. If it's only worth one point, there's more incentive to go for the win in regulation and OT. Either way the safety net of the loser point needs to go away.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: May 1 2012, 11:44 AM

[toph]

I think the fairest method is to just get rid of the shootout and reinstate ties, but that will never happen because people hate ties.

I think it should be 3 for a regulation or OT win, two for a SO win, and 1 for a SO loss or OT loss.

[Alitaki]

I think the fairest method is to just get rid of the shootout and reinstate ties, but that will never happen because people hate ties.

I think it should be 3 for a regulation or OT win, two for a SO win, and 1 for a SO loss or OT loss.

So now an OT game is worth 4 points (3 for the winner, 1 for the loser) while a regulation win is worth 3 (3 for the winner, zero for the loser)? Makes no sense. Why even play 60 minutes? Just agree to make it to overtime and then fight it out for five minutes for the 2 extra points.

EDIT: This system is worse than the current system because at least OT & SO's are worth the same thing now - 3 points. In this system you have regulation worth 3 points, OT worth 4 points and then the SO drops back to 3 points. It's even more convoluted because you're adding yet another stat catagory to the standings - ROW, RL, SOW, OTSOL. Too much.

EDIT: for the record I have no problem with going back to the old system of ties. Every game is worth the same exact amount - 2 points.

This post has been edited by Alitaki: May 1 2012, 11:55 AM

[Knight of Dight]

Shootouts are exciting, though. Ties are boring and leave fans feeling unfulfilled after a game.

[Greatone]

Exciting NHL playoff talk this morning.

[Eric]

Psh, it's after noon.

[Eric]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

Much simpler to just give 2 points for a win in regulation and overtime, 1 point for a shootout win and zero points for a loss at any stage. THAT is a truer reflection of the value of a win. Win at any point in the 60/65 minutes and earn two points. Dick around to get to a shootout and you only deserve one point. It will devalue the shootout and marginalize it as a "skill competition" even more but whatever. I'd rather that than continue to hand out the loser point.

EDIT: Plus it eliminates the need for the ROW tie breaker since the WINS column is now exactly that.

I have that one set up too!



Florida comes in 11th! Rangers win the President's trophy! Tampa Bay squeaks in!

[toph]

I think the fairest method is to just get rid of the shootout and reinstate ties, but that will never happen because people hate ties.

I think it should be 3 for a regulation or OT win, two for a SO win, and 1 for a SO loss or OT loss.

So now an OT game is worth 4 points (3 for the winner, 1 for the loser) while a regulation win is worth 3 (3 for the winner, zero for the loser)? Makes no sense. Why even play 60 minutes? Just agree to make it to overtime and then fight it out for five minutes for the 2 extra points.

EDIT: This system is worse than the current system because at least OT & SO's are worth the same thing now - 3 points. In this system you have regulation worth 3 points, OT worth 4 points and then the SO drops back to 3 points. It's even more convoluted because you're adding yet another stat catagory to the standings - ROW, RL, SOW, OTSOL. Too much.

EDIT: for the record I have no problem with going back to the old system of ties. Every game is worth the same exact amount - 2 points.

Yeah, I donno, I was just thinking about that off the top of my head. Didn't consider the valuation of OT as 4 points rather than 3 or whatever.

My goal is to value a regulation win and an OT win as the same and devalue the shootout as a means to get points. But you can't really do that fairly while still having the SO. I don't like Eric's method that diminishes an overtime win, I think a team should be rewarded for scoring a goal to end the game. Maybe the only way to get rid of loser points like you said. Two for any win in regulation/OT, 1 for a SO and nothing for any loss. I just don't like a team losing out on getting any points because the other team held out for a SO (which happens a lot).

Maybe shorten the regular season by 6-10 games and play 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT w/ ties.

[Alitaki]

If the NHL used the three point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) then the Rangers would have finished in 4th place. Tied in points with the Pens but with one fewer regulation win. Everything else in the east would have stayed the same. In the west, Vancouver and St. Louis would be switched around.

Much simpler to just give 2 points for a win in regulation and overtime, 1 point for a shootout win and zero points for a loss at any stage. THAT is a truer reflection of the value of a win. Win at any point in the 60/65 minutes and earn two points. Dick around to get to a shootout and you only deserve one point. It will devalue the shootout and marginalize it as a "skill competition" even more but whatever. I'd rather that than continue to hand out the loser point.

EDIT: Plus it eliminates the need for the ROW tie breaker since the WINS column is now exactly that.

I have that one set up too!

<iframe width='600' height='375' frameborder='0' src='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Auh7ie0gtt1CdGxrd2dBRS1CbDVVN0NDcHo5SjJQOEE&single=true&gid=5&output=html&widget=true'></iframe>

Florida comes in 11th! Rangers win the President's trophy! Tampa Bay squeaks in!

And that's why you're Rangerland's Jayson Stark.

[Sed]

Maybe shorten the regular season by 6-10 games and play 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT w/ ties.

Just make sure that you cut out the games that nobody wants anyway - SAVINGS!

[toph]

Maybe shorten the regular season by 6-10 games and play 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT w/ ties.

Just make sure that you cut out the games that nobody wants anyway - SAVINGS!

Haha, yeah I bet they'd go for that one. "Oh, 5 less gates a season? But some extra handful games will be decided with a goal? Sign me up!"

[Alitaki]

Yeah, I donno, I was just thinking about that off the top of my head. Didn't consider the valuation of OT as 4 points rather than 3 or whatever.

My goal is to value a regulation win and an OT win as the same and devalue the shootout as a means to get points. But you can't really do that fairly while still having the SO. I don't like Eric's method that diminishes an overtime win, I think a team should be rewarded for scoring a goal to end the game. Maybe the only way to get rid of loser points like you said. Two for any win in regulation/OT, 1 for a SO and nothing for any loss. I just don't like a team losing out on getting any points because the other team held out for a SO (which happens a lot).

I don't think you're ever going to get rid of this. The hope is that the threat of not getting any points regardless of the situtation will force teams to go for broke. On the flip side, the risk of a team with great goaltending but shitty offense playing for the shootout is high but that's why you devalue it. If you need two points to secure a playoff berth you're not going to settle for a shootout. The idea is to get rid of the safety net. Then you can start weeding out all the shit teams like Florida from the playoff berths.