[PGT] Flames 3 Stars 1

[The Yen Man]

How can you take away the loser point? That's now how the NHL standings work. Again, I feel like people like to take it away for the sake of semantics argument. Its an OT point, not a loser point.

And no, winning in at 3 on 3 or in a shootout is not the same as winning in regulation. Hence, why its only worth 1 point.

[Roof-Daddy]

Naw, you lose and you still get a point. That's a LOSER point. You should always get 2 points for winning.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

How can you take away the loser point?

Easy. You simply say "when you lose, you no longer get a point"

It won't happen though. League loves it. Look at how it bunches up the standings right to the end.

[The Yen Man]

Agree to disagree. I don't ever look at an OT point as a loser point. It's teams being rewarded for going to into OT. I think its just as unfair to take away a point if you lose in a shinny tournament or a shootout. So unless they make it 5 on 5, a win in OT should not be the same as a win in regulation.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Agree to disagree. I don't ever look at an OT point as a loser point. It's teams being rewarded for going to into OT. I think its just as unfair to take away a point if you lose in a shinny tournament or a shootout. So unless they make it 5 on 5, a win in OT should not be the same as a win in regulation.

Fair enough. I guess it just depends on how you want to view that extra point.

[heep223]

All I know is that ties are the ####ing worst. Anything is better than ties including the current system, flawed though it may be.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Would it look better if the flames just lost/threw those deadlocked games? They're showing an ability and confidence to close out games before they reach shootout. A number of teams ive seen this season would hold out for the last half of third periods for the loser point then show little to no ability to close game out with the open ice, only to bank on a couple skilled players helping them score the shootout win. That looks worse to me than what the flames have been doing tbqh, gimmick or not. It's still winning with hockey plays rather than a breakaway competition.

Pretty sure the flames are in the positive now for regulation wins/losses,,so I don't understand the nit picking and constant gymnastics by fans and non-fans to discredit what they've done/are doing.

No of course not. What on earth would make you suggest that was point? Point is, the more games they win in regulation, the more impressed I am by those wins. I'm still more impressed with an OT or a Shoot Out win than I am by any sort of loss.

People getting their bits in a knot for no reason. Point being a team that has obtained a higher % of their points via regulation wins impresses me more than a team that gets a larger % of their points via the two gimmicks currently used to break ties in the NHL.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Inferno

By winning and getting the two points they normally would before the shootout was introduced. Look at it however you want but what's different with losing in extra time is you still get a point. That's where a team gets a point they really shouldn't. Hence bonus point.

I'll never be convinced otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before the SO there were ties. If games didn't go to shootouts, Calgary would have less points. The shootout has directly benefited Calgary in this way. The NHL has awarded an OTL point since the 1999-2000 season.

It's cool that you have chosen to ignore anything that contradicts your position. It's how great minds think.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Naw, you lose and you still get a point. That's a LOSER point. You should always get 2 points for winning.

No, you get a point for being tied after regulation. You get an additional point for winning a skills competition

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No, you get a point for being tied after regulation. You get an additional point for winning a skills competition

Again, depends on how you want to look at it.

No game has ever ended with both teams getting one point after regulation.

The way I see it is every hockey game is going to end with the winner getting 2 points. If you happen to lose after regulation then you get a LOSER point.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Again, depends on how you want to look at it.

No game has ever ended with both teams getting one point after regulation.

The way I see it is every hockey game is going to end with the winner getting 2 points. If you happen to lose after regulation then you get a LOSER point.

You've earned the point after being tied in regulation regardless of result. The next stage is another point after winning in an extra contest.

My world view is the correct one always

[driveway]

This semantic argument is pretty dumb.

I watched this game via the Stars broadcast and one thing they kept going on about was how well the Flames were taking away the neutral zone and how good a strategy that is against a tired team who'd played the night before.

[Enoch Root]

wt

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Before the SO there were ties. If games didn't go to shootouts, Calgary would have less points. The shootout has directly benefited Calgary in this way. The NHL has awarded an OTL point since the 1999-2000 season.

If games didn't go to shootouts everyone would have less points. And in the case of the Flames and Oilers nothing would change. Both have four wins so both would lose four points. Therefore the Flames have no advantage over the Oilers.

But the argument isn't on "If the shootout didn't exist". It's on whether the team winning or losing in extra time is getting a bonus point. Teams have always got two points for winning. Therefore there's nothing bonus about it. Losing a game and getting a point out of it because it happened in extra time is.

If you want to get really technical about how points are awarded the NHL even states it as awarding points after the game and not after regulation with the winning team getting an extra point. So people who call it a "loser point" aren't really incorrect.

The team scoring the greatest number of goals during the three (3)
twenty-minute periods shall be the winner and shall be credited with
two points in the League standings. In the event a winner during the
regular season is determined in the overtime period or the shootout,
the winning team shall be credited with two points in the League
standings and the losing team will be credited with one point in the
League standings.

It's cool that you have chosen to ignore anything that contradicts your position. It's how great minds think.

I'm willing to accept things that contradicts my position. But in regards to points in extra time you will never convince me that losing a game in extra time but still getting a point isn't a bonus/loser point but winning and getting the two you would anyway is.

[Yrebmi]

What's in a name? loser point, or overtime point, it's still a 3rd point in what should be a 2 point game.
Then again I imagine I am in the minority in preferring a game end even in a tie than go to the shoot out.
The 3 on 3 OT is another matter. I like it. While arguably gimicky it's still a team effort and not just a skills competition.

As many others have debated, there is reason to believe teams would be less willing to play so conservative in the dying minutes of the 3rd if they were not assured the single point. The OT point rewards overtime.