Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

You compete to win not take a point away.

Ties are dumb.

Soccer is the hardest sport to score in. At least with hockey you can toss it at the net and it can bounce off someone’s ass and go in. You never know a guy like Nurse loves blocks shots with his ass.

You should, but the incentive to win is diminished if the loser gets a portion of the spoils. Why doesn't the winner get 12 points, loser get 0, and overtime loser get 1? Why doesn't the winner get 13 points, loser get 0, and overtime loser get 12?

Because some NHL Board of Governors decided so? It's not some analysis-based choice.

A lot of chess matches end up at ½-½ because both players are incredibly good. There's no foolish rule to re-add captured pieces to the board and make a mockery of the game if it's a fully played draw.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Weird double post.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don’t care for the shootout, but I think it is here to stay. As such, the 3 point game makes the most intuitive sense: 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an extra time win, 1 for the extra time loss. Count the ROW for a tie breaker, if you must.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

If they don't change the standings by much, why not get rid of them?

Why get rid of something nobody actually has an issue with and has no real impact on the overall results?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why get rid of something nobody actually has an issue with and has no real impact on the overall results?

Why implement it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Why implement it?

Implement what? Aren’t we talking about things that are already in place?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Implement what? Aren’t we talking about things that are already in place?

What was the name of the person complaining about not being rewarded for losing in overtime when it wasn't in place?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I don’t care for the shootout, but I think it is here to stay.

I think when we get a forward-thinking commissioner, all bets are off. Until then, I agree. Shirley Jackson utopia for all.

We've always done it this way.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm just going to toss out a silly idea, because I haven't seen this suggested before:

5-on-5 overtime with no substitutions. Whoever starts in OT remains on the ice for the duration.

Play continues until somebody makes a bad play from sheer fatigue and the puck goes in.

The problem with that is that the longer a regular OT goes, the longer it seems to go because players get fatigue. It ends quickly or starts to drag on.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

What was the name of the person complaining about not being rewarded for losing in overtime when it wasn't in place?

Gary Bettman, I guess, but nobody is rewarded for losing in overtime, you’re just looking at it wrong.

When the current situation was introduced, the majority of games that went to overtime were ending in ties because teams were playing too conservatively (wanting at least a point instead of nothing). To fix this, the point for a tie was moved to the end of regulation, meaning there would be no reason to play conservatively in overtime. It isn’t a “loser point,” it’s a point awarded at the end of regulation in the case of a tie, before any team wins or loses.

And, again, this is a point that exists in most major and junior leagues across the world. You’re the one who takes issue with it, so actually show why it shouldn’t exist instead of just complaining. Because there doesn’t seem to be any reason to actually change it.

There’s an argument for incentivizing winning in regulation by making those wins worth 3 points, but that’s the only benefit it would have. It wouldn’t really change the standings and would screw up all the records, so there’d have to be some significant reason to change it outside of random complaining.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Cappy

The Calgary Flames have never been able to re-sign their own players. They have never been able to sign UFAs.

Markstrom and Bouwmeester are definitely in the Top 60 UFAs (probably more like top 30) to change teams in the last ~20 years. More than our 'fair share'.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Markstrom and Bouwmeester are definitely in the Top 60 UFAs (probably more like top 30) to change teams in the last ~20 years. More than our 'fair share'.

Bouwmeester was very much sought after.

Markstrom certainly had his share of teams wanting him, although the goalie market is usually quite tight.

Kadri was a premium UFA I would say.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It wouldn’t really change the standings and would screw up all the records, so there’d have to be some significant reason to change it outside of random complaining.

Screw up the records? The NHL was under the 2 point per game system for the majority of its existence.

The additional point screwed up the records.

I think everyone agrees that the 3-2-1 system is fairest.

But the desire to have teams appear to be closer to .500 obviously trumps that.

[Paulie Walnuts]

They don't have ties in the playoffs, so why would you have it in the regular season?

Changing the point system makes the most sense. Punish teams like the Oilers who want to play in a skills competition with lesser points.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Screw up the records? The NHL was under the 2 point per game system for the majority of its existence.

The additional point screwed up the records.

I think everyone agrees that the 3-2-1 system is fairest.

But the desire to have teams appear to be closer to .500 obviously trumps that.

They’re still under the two point system, as that’s the maximum number of points a team can walk away with.

The single point replaces the point awarded for ties and is not meaningfully different. That’s why half the top ten all-time teams (and three of the top five) are pre-OTL point. Hell, two of the top five teams all-time for points in a single season only played 80 games.

So no, the “additional” point didn’t screw up the records.

[Sylvanfan]

They really should try the 3-2-1 system in the AHL and that will give them a better idea of what a 10 point gap with 10 games to play is like vs say a 6 in the current system.

The current one gives the illusion that teams are close. But making up ground has shown more difficult. If fans were used to seeing a system where a team that reels off 5 straight wins in regulation could make up 7 points on a team that goes 3-1-1 with two OT wins instead of 3 in the current system, than a team that's 14 points out at the deadline in that system likely has a better chance to gain that than a team that's 7 points out in this system.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They’re still under the two point system, as that’s the maximum number of points a team can walk away with.

The single point replaces the point awarded for ties and is not meaningfully different. That’s why half the top ten all-time teams (and three of the top five) are pre-OTL point. Hell, two of the top five teams all-time for points in a single season only played 80 games.

So no, the “additional” point didn’t screw up the records.

Yeah, it doesn't matter if the loser gets 0, 0.163, or 1.8. As long as the winner gets 2 it's a two point system.

Thanks for the laugh.

[SuperMatt18]

If you get rid of 3v3 and shootout and move to continuous OT then you could have a W-L system of 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss.

But I don't see either of those things going anywhere because for the most part casual fans (and the leagues television partners) like 3v3 OT and the shootout.

However in the current system with 3v3 overtime and a shootout then moving to a W-L system would be the worst possible outcome. Getting 2 points for a 3v3 or SO win and the other team getting nothing would be ridiculous. And I guarantee you'd have even more teams just play boring hockey for 60 minutes to then try to win in 3v3 or a shootout.

In the current system with 3v3 and a shootout it's very clear a 3-2-1 points system would be the best solution, and it should have been done already.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They’re still under the two point system, as that’s the maximum number of points a team can walk away with.

The single point replaces the point awarded for ties and is not meaningfully different. That’s why half the top ten all-time teams (and three of the top five) are pre-OTL point. Hell, two of the top five teams all-time for points in a single season only played 80 games.

So no, the “additional” point didn’t screw up the records.

For most of hockey's history, there were 2 points awarded for each game. There are now sometimes 3.

Teams average about an additional 10 points person due to the loser point. Or better yet, teams are now winning games they used to tie, and get an additional point. Ties are now becoming wins.

Before the 3 point game, teams were better because there was no salary cap. The best teams then were generally better than the best teams today.

[Ba'alzamon]

We're talking about screwing up the records now? really? The absolute worst argument ever?

Y'all realize the NHL didn't always play 82 game seasons, right? I wonder how many of the top teams in those supposedly sacrosanct records are from the era where teams played only 50 games. It's strange that no one apparently cared about those hallowed records back then.